Decision 43 COM 7A.44

Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) (C 885)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.2,
2. Recalling Decisions 39 COM 7B.74, 40 COM 7B.48,41 COM 7A.57, and 42 COM 7A.4, adopted at its 39th (Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017) and 42nd (Bahrain, 2018) sessions respectively;
3. Welcomes the Presidential Decree of June 2018 to protect all World Heritage properties in Uzbekistan;
4. Notes that the 2014 Decree for rebuilding the historic centre of the property has been withdrawn;
5. Also notes that the State Party has provided some general documentation in response to the request by the Committee, but that this does not allow a full comparison of what exists now with what existed before the recent demolitions;
6. Further notes that although the State Party was requested to halt all further work at the property until the 43rd session, it has provided details of planned interventions relating to proposals for removing structures around monuments, creating a tourist complex in the ‘spirit of Eastern architecture’, reconstructing one-storey houses along streets, as well as new residential streets for the local population that are in contradiction to the State Party’s two Presidential Decrees of 2018;
7. Recalls the December 2016 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission’s conclusion that “recovering sufficient attributes to justify the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) identified at the time of inscription seems impossible at this stage” (Decision 41 COM 7A.57);
8. Notes furthermore that as recommended in Decision 42 COM 7A.4, the State Party invited a High-Level Reactive Monitoring mission to explore “options for the potential recovery of attributes” and “whether a significant boundary modification based on some of the monuments and the remaining urban areas might have the potential to justify OUV”;
9. Notes moreover that the 2019 High-Level Reactive Monitoring mission suggested that the State Party might wish to explore two options for a significant boundary modification, based on either a selection of Temurid monuments or on key elements of Temurid urbanism, including the urban fabric of the mahalla that might have the potential to be recovered, but that the mission did not have the necessary documentation to allow it to explore in detail either of these proposals or how OUV might be justified;
10. Recommends that, if the State Party wishes to explore either option, it should undertake further research and documentation and develop a restoration plan, in order to provide sufficient details to allow assessment of the potential for each option to justify OUV, before any work is undertaken on a significant boundary modification in compliance with Paragraphs 165 and 166 of the Operational Guidelines or on a new nomination;
11. Also recommends the State Party to consider the following options as the outcome of the 2019 mission:
    1. The first option would entail focusing on the monuments representing the Temurid period. The State Party presented the mission with 13 such monuments from the previous total of 18. The Mission considered that the two most significant issues to be considered with regard to a selection of monuments in their current conditions are their authenticity and their disengagement from their urban surroundings. Hence, actions would be necessary to reconnect them to the urban fabric and to improve or reverse recent conservation work in order to meet conditions of authenticity and integrity,
    2. The second option the Mission proposed was to explore the key elements of the Temurid urbanism within the Historic Centre. The mission explored in a preliminary way the scope of these elements. They might include the main north-south and east-west axes intersecting in the Historic Centre with its the main market, residential quarters representing a spatial and social hierarchy, city walls and gates, the main mosques, and madrassas along with the key monuments. The Mission considered that there might be potential to recover the urban street patterns in several parts of the property and to re-vitalize traditional building technologies. This option would need to be based on detailed research of the urban grain, the specificities of vernacular building traditions, and what has survived, and would need to be supported by measures to upgrade infrastructure and living conditions in order to ensure a living city, and the development of new protection, conservation and management systems;
12. Encourages the State Party to request upstream support in relation to the potential for a significant boundary modification or a new nomination to justify OUV;
13. Decides to allow the State Party two years to explore possible options for a significant boundary modification or a new nomination, and at the end of this period, to consider once again whether the property should be retained on the World Heritage List for a further period to allow time, if by then a clear direction of travel has been articulated, or to delete the property altogether;
14. Requests the State Party to retain a complete building moratorium in the property until any significant boundary modification or a new nomination has been considered by the Committee and a Management Plan for heritage conservation integrated with a city Master Plan in line with the approach of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) has been prepared and adopted;
15. Urges the State Party to implement the recommendations of the 2019 mission, whether or not the options proposed in Paragraph 11 above are progressed after further research;
16. Also urges the State Party to progress in the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations for the conservation of the Ak-Saray Palace tiles and to develop a conservation strategy and submit it to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies before any work is undertaken;
17. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property including a report on the progress in the exploration of options and the implementation of the above, for examination by the Committee at its 44th session in 2020;
18. Also decides to retain Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.