jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Kizhi Pogost (1992)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1992-1992)
Total Amount Ap proved: 9,000USD

1992   Mission of 3 experts to define the state of conservation of the ...   9,000  USD
Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat] 

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

16COMVIII
Link to the decision

Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)

With the help of slide illustrations, the ICOMOS Representative introduced the status of the site of Kizhi Pogost, explaining the nature of the problems and the manner in which urgent problems were determined. This presentation was followed by a discussion during which several technical questions were raised. The Committee decided to support the coordination effort undertaken by ICOMOS for this site, and requested that a report be provided during the next meeting of the Bureau in view of implementing an assistance project. The Committee adopted the recommendation formulated in the ICOMOS report.

 

No draft Decision

Kizhi Pogost
State Party:
Russian Federation
Date of Inscription: 1990
Nomination records (Year): 1989
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)(v)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2012
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
1994
1993
1992
Threats*
  • Legal framework
  • Governance
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Financial resources
  • Other Threats:
    Lack of fire /lightning protection; Deformation and deterioration of the structures
Documents
WHC.92/CONF.002/05
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1671

* : 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.