TODAYS TEXT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR DEVOTEES .. TEXT OF WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 2011 ... READ AND JUDGE WHO ARE CULPRITS OF MAHABODHI TEMPLE .... IT IS A VERY BIG REPORT SO PART BY PART MAIN IMPORTANT TEXT I WILL PRODUCE .. ( PART - 6 ) ... FULL REPORT AT swamiji1.wordpress REPORT 2011 whc.unesco.org/en/list/1056 24 June – 6 July 2012 Concluding Recommendation concerning a strategic vision 5.1 A shared, balanced vision is required, which integrates heritage conservation and community development needs for the short and longer term. Considering the future extension of the World Heritage property to include other component parts in the Cultural Landscape, a co-ordinated long term vision for the conservation and management of Bogh Gaya as a living heritage site needs to be elaborated through meaningful stakeholder consultation, where a holistic values-based approach on urban and rural development and World Heritage protection and management is adopted by all concerned, especially the citizens and religious communities of Bodh Gaya. Concluding Recommendation on property boundary and Buffer Zone 5.2. As discussed and agreed by the Chief Secretary and his staff during the discussions, a new holistic approach with planning authorities and relevant stakeholders are required to commence work who will initially work with existing Boundaries of the property and define a Buffer Zone for the property. The overall management of the World Heritage property will be integrated into the planning process. This should therefore address some of the following issues with regard to boundaries and Buffer Zone: a) Redefinition of boundaries with stakeholder consultations for greater understanding and participation for all parties to jointly determine all requirements within Buffer Zone; b) to reverse the misconception that World Heritage is restrictive, introduce a proactive vision of World Heritage and c) Necessary regulatory measures for the Buffer Zone should be established and implemented as a matter of priority. Based on the new Buffer Zone and considering the existing boundaries, Management Plan should be revised. If necessary, as stated by the Chief Secretary, action can be taken to strengthen the provisions of the BTMC Act to provide more power. Regional planning authorities should revisit their plans based on the new boundaries and the Management plan with a view to help maintain the Outstanding Universal Value, to reduce any future pressures, to facilitate the pilgrims and to bring benefits of the place to the local community. It was agreed that Buffer Zone planning will be undertaken under the lead of the Bihar State Development Commissioner’s Office who will conduct consultations with all stakeholders to achieve a shared sense of strategic direction among all parties. The revised plan is to be submitted by November 2011 to ASI in the framework ofthe on-going second cycle of Periodic Reporting for Asia and the Pacific region. Concluding Recommendation on Management Planning 5.3 Based on the Management Plan and also the revised regional development plan, establish more amenities, introduce other attractions within the Buffer Zone to diffuse heavy pilgrim load on Mahabodhi Temple, especially during festival periods. Also measures need to be taken to improve facilities and amenities (lodging, food, transportation, etc) for pilgrims at all levels. 5.4 As part of the Management planning process, conduct a year long study of the patterns of pilgrimages to understand pressures, if any, at any given time that can affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and to develop strategies to mitigate them Re-nominating the property as a Cultural Landscape 5.5 In fact, the present urban congestion prevent the consolidation of the large area around Mahabodhi Temple as a Buddhist Cultural Landscape to be nominated for World Heritage listing. However, a serial nomination where a number of sites associated with the Lord Buddha is a more feasible approach. Moreover, the Cultural Landscape nomination is not in the priorities of the State Government of Bihar authorities whose focus is to improve infrastructure in Bodh Gaya and to complete the planning of the Buffer Zone. Therefore, the proposal of re-nominating the property as a Cultural Landscape could be left to the national authorities for further studies and future actions. 5.6 It appears that greater emphasis on coordination and communication between amongst different stakeholders, including the religious community is lacking. A clearer understanding on the requirements for World Heritage protection and management should be ensured while putting forward management structure for the property. Strengthening the BTMC expertise on the understanding of the OUV and the means and ways to maintain it would be essential. At the same time, ASI could have a regular liaising with the BTMC and its Expert Committee on Conservation. BTMC can be encouraged to apply for International assistance through the World Heritage Fund. 5.7 Enhance, particularly at municipal/Panchayat level in Bodh Gaya, awareness building in relation to World Heritage conservation processes, internationally recognized conservation standards and procedures, as well as timely information dissemination to the general public and citizens. There is a need to improve ways of information sharing and communication on conservation programmes and the World Heritage property through better publicity and other promotional activities on the importance of this sacred World Heritage site Enhancing the Management system, public communication and outreach 5.8 The BTMC deserves commendation for the good overall state of conservation of Mahabodhi Temple that is under its direction by virtue of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. ASI has likewise done well in maintaining the temple. Although adequate measures have been taken by BTMC to decongest pilgrim traffic centered at the main Temple and Bodhi Tree by providing dispersal areas within the limited area of the complex, management of the extreme number of pilgrim arrivals during festivals held at special times of the year is difficult. Providing secondary pilgrimage destinations located in the Buffer Zone will help to further disperse pilgrims and to ease heavy visitor pressure on Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree. The ex-officio appointment of the District Magistrate of Bodh Gaya as Member of the Expert Advisory Committee and BTMC Chairman establishes close links with the State Government of Bihar whose Chief Secretary pledged his full support to maintain the property’s OUV through establishing a unified approach in aligning all State programs, budgets, and projects with the needs of Mahabodhi Temple, pilgrims, and the Bodh Gaya stakeholder community Concluding recommendation on legal provision for the protection of the site 5.9 In consultation with BTMC, the State Government of Bihar, and ASI led to the commitment by the State Government of Bihar to act on the requests of BTMC and Bodh Gaya authorities, to provide all conservation and maintenance measures for the property. The State of Bihar has the necessary legal instruments to intervene and assist Mahabodhi Temple exists through the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. This is currently running well. The declaration of Mahabodhi Temple as a National Monument required the establishment of a new set of legal framework that transfers authority to the national government. However, should Mahabodhi Temple be transferred to National Monument status, the mandate transfers all management to ASI, a responsibility that ASI officials indicated they are significantly under resourced to assume a leading role. ASI suggested that it would be best to continue the present arrangement of BTMC contracting ASI for specific conservation services on an “as and when required” basis. Under such an arrangement, BTMC, as a paying client of ASI, does not fall into the national budget queue for ASI services. Furthermore ASI pointed out that it has no expertise in maintaining the living heritage aspect of Mahabodhi Temple. In regard, to the improvement of the existing Site Management procedures, the pragmatic approach was taken to strengthen and build up existing mechanisms and work within the legal framework already put into place through the State of Bihar. To ensure more satisfactory results rather than going through the time-consuming process of introducing new management mechanisms and legal framework required by the change of status to National Monument listing. Concluding Recommendations for capacity-building and training 5.10 UNESCO Office in New Delhi, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and, ICCROM will fully support the relevant Indian authorities and BTMC for the organization of training activities to upgrade and enhance capacity of the professionals and policy makers responsible for the protection of the World Heritage property and its surrounding area. Such training could include urban planning issues for living World Heritage sites, a refresher course on international conservation norms could possibly take place at national level with the support of UNESCO New Delhi or ICOMOS India. General concluding recommendations 5.11 In general terms, and despite some negative incidents and development pressures, the World Heritage property of Mahabodhi Temple at Godh Gaya has remained itsauthenticity and integrity. It may therefore be concluded that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is still being maintained by the State Party of India. The property should remain on the World Heritage List, while the State Party is strongly urged to take effective steps to enhance co-ordination through existing institutional frameworks in the national and State Governments to mitigate any future threats which may arise through urban and rural development planned and implemented without consideration of the living heritage site’s needs. Information awareness raising, capacity building, outreach in the decision making process are also strongly recommended as present insufficient levels of these three issues have resulted in unfortunate misunderstanding between stakeholders and the general public, including local citizens, loss of financial resources, as well as negative impact on the World Heritage property
Posted on: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:51:10 +0000