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


Kizhi Pogost

Russian Federation
Factors affecting the property in 1992*
  • Financial resources
  • Governance
  • 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
Requests approved: 1 (from 1992-1992)
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.

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

Report year: 1992
Russian Federation
Date of Inscription: 1990
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)(v)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 16COM (1992)

* : 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.