Factors affecting the property in 1992*
- Financial resources
- Legal framework
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Lack of fire /lightning protection; Deformation and deterioration of the structures
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1992
Total amount approved : 9,000 USD
|1992||Mission of 3 experts to define the state of ... (Approved)||9,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 1992**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1992
[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat]
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1992
16 BUR VI.59
State of conservation
The representative of ICOMOS reported to the Bureau on the cultural sites he had monitored. A more detailed report accompanied by slide projections will be made during the Santa Fe session in December 1992 for all the cases mentioned. The properties in question are: Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation), Monastery of Rila (Bulgaria), Budapest (Hungary) and Stonehenge (United Kingdom). With regard to the site of Stonehenge, the ICOMOS Representative mentioned the problem of tourist pressure and the deviation of the road A-344. A more detailed report will be submitted at the next session of the Committee at Santa Fe.
16 COM VIII
SOC: Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
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
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”).