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

Administration
Budget
Capacity Building
Communication
Community
Conservation
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Partnerships
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Reports
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention








Decision 44 COM 7A.31
Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) (C 885)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7B.48, 41 COM 7A.57, and 42 COM 7A.4, adopted at its 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), and 42nd (Manama, 2018) sessions respectively, and Decision 43 COM 7A.44 adopted at its 43rd session (Baku, 2019), in which the Committee decided “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”, and that in exploring options, the State Party “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 [Outstanding Universal Value], 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”, and further stated that the State Party is encouraged to “request upstream support in relation to the potential for a significant boundary modification or a new nomination to justify OUV”;
  3. Notes that the State Party has created a Working Group, is drafting an Action Plan to implement the Committee’s past decisions and, in particular, is exploring the possibility of two options for a potential Significant Boundary Modification, as suggested by the Committee, with a preference for the option related to key elements of Timurid urbanism including the urban fabric of the mahallas, and that international professionals have been invited to assist in developing a draft outline of the preferred option for the way forward, based on detailed research and assessment, and that the Working Group will not complete its work until 31 December 2021;
  4. Expresses its concern that the State Party could not submit, by the deadline of 1 February 2021, an outline option proposal for a significant boundary modification that might have the potential to justify OUV, and also notes that the State Party has explained this delay in relation to the global situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic;
  5. Agrees to extend the deadline by one year, and requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2022, details of a proposal for the preferred option and its potential to justify OUV, together with its implications in terms of restoration and conservation, for review by the Advisory Bodies and consideration at its 45th session;
  6. Reiterates its intention to decide at its 45th session, in line with Decision 43 COM 7A.44 and following consideration of a submitted option proposal, whether:
    1. The option proposal has adequately indicated the potential to justify OUV, and the State Party should thus be encouraged to submit a detailed proposal for a Significant Boundary Modification, in line with Paragraphs 165-166 of the Operational Guidelines, or a new Nomination, or
    2. The details and assessment provided for the option selected do not adequately indicate the potential to justify OUV, and the property should thus be removed from the World Heritage List;
  7. Also reiterates its request to the State Party to ensure that the outline proposal of the selected option is fully supported by adequate documentation and analysis of the urban form, its history and evolution, on the detailed form and characteristic of traditional houses, and on the comparison between what exists now and what existed before the recent demolitions;
  8. Further notes that, as the State Party’s report and the additional map submitted on 17 February 2020 indicate, possibilities are being explored that include the ‘restoration of the traditional setting of the streets in the historic period’, the restoration of traditional houses and the development of new (restored) traditional houses in the empty space created by recent demolition, and considering that these could have an impact on the property’s authenticity and integrity, reiterates its encouragement to the State Party to request upstream advice in the assessment of the options and development of the restoration plan, to be submitted to the Committee;
  9. Welcomes the ban on any new construction at the property, but notes with concern that, after re-housing residents, three locally protected, 19th-century traditional houses were torn down after ‘measuring, study and preparation of the passports’ with the apparent intention of building new ‘traditional houses’ to a similar design, and therefore further reiterates its request to retain a complete building moratorium in the property, including for construction and restoration projects, until the outline proposal for the selected option for Significant Boundary Modification has been considered by the Committee;
  10. Encourages the State Party to ensure that the proposed Restoration Plan encompasses the mahallas, conservation works and new building, but strongly discourages an approach that relies on rebuilding copies of demolished buildings;
  11. Reiterates furthermore its request to the State Party to implement its recommendations for the conservation of the Ak-Saray Palace tiles, develop a conservation strategy and submit it to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies before any work is undertaken;
  12. Reiterates moreover its request to the State Party to implement the recommendations of the December 2016 and January 2019 Reactive Monitoring missions to the property;
  13. Also encourages the State Party to pursue the establishment and operation of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) for all cultural World Heritage properties in Uzbekistan, which can advise on the conservation of the property and implementation of Committee decisions and previous missions recommendations;
  14. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2022, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 45th session;
  15. Decides to retain Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Decision Code
44 COM 7A.31
Themes
Conservation
States Parties 1
Year
2021
State of conservation reports
2021 Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz
Documents
WHC/21/44.COM/18
Decisions adopted at the 44th extended session of the World Heritage Committee
Context of Decision
WHC-21/44.COM/7A.Add
top