<
 
 
 
 
×
>
You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using Archive-It. This page was captured on 06:08:40 Mar 30, 2023, and is part of the UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page.
Loading media information hide

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Champaner-Pavagadh ... 2013
Print
Share on social media
Facebook Twitter
UNESCO social media
Facebook Youtube Twitter
RSS World Heritage
Terms / Policies Syndication

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

India
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Lack of management structure and management plan (issue resolved) 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

On 31 January 2013, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report which provides information on progress made in the implementation of Decision 35 COM 7B.68 made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011). The State Party reports on conservation activities carried out at the property and its immediate surroundings from December 2011 to January 2013, as well as on the process of developing an Integrated Management Plan for the property. The State Party has also submitted the completed and adopted Management Plan containing an overall diagnosis of the conservation issues and details of a comprehensive management system, as well as the related legal and institutional tools for its implementation. The Management Plan has been transmitted to ICOMOS for review.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the concerns of the World Heritage Committee in relation to management have been addressed by the State Party. They therefore consider that no further reporting to the World Heritage Committee is currently required. However, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the State Party monitor periodically the state of conservation of the property, by assessing the implementation of the new legal and institutional tools, as well as the implementation of the Management Plan.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

Read more
Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·  Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·  Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·  San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·  Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·  Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·  Taj Mahal (India)

·  Agra Fort (India)

·  Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·  Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·  Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·  Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·  Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·  Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·  Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·  Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·  Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·  City of Cuzco (Peru)

·  Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·  Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·  Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·  Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

 

Previous 2011
Report year: 2013
India
Date of Inscription: 2004
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(iv)(v)(vi)
Documents examined by the Committee
WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports
Previous 2011

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top