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

Kizhi Pogost

Russian Federation
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Housing
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Land conversion
  • Management activities
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Marine transport infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Structural integrity of the Church of the Transfiguration;
  • Lack of an integrated management plan addressing the overall management of the World Heritage property;
  • Tourism development pressures.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 2 (from 1992-2001)
Total amount approved : 38,540 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

1992, 1993, 1994, 2011: ICOMOS mission; 2002: UNESCO/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission and on-site workshop; 2007, 2010 et 2013: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

A state of conservation report was submitted by the State Party on 18 February 2013. A joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was undertaken from 1 to 6 April 2013. Link to the mission report: https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/documents

a) Site Management

The State Party reports that the site is being managed in accordance with the legislative arrangements in place and with the strategic planning of the Kizhi Federal Museum of Architecture and Cultural History. The Management plan for the property was finalised in 2012. The planning process included the participation of different parties and sets out goals to ensure the efficient protection, preservation and development of the property. It includes criteria for conservation methods and integrates concerns for the preservation of the historical landscape and the development of the cultural destination through a tourism strategy.

The mission noted that the property continues to be managed under the Technical and Economic Development Plan approved by the Government of Karelia on 1 March 2002. The draft Management Plan of the World Heritage Site “Kizhi Pogost 2012 – 2022 was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in late March 2013 and only portions of it were presented to the mission. Notwithstanding, the mission noted that the draft is a comprehensive and detailed document about site management and includes a list of planned and ongoing projects but does not make clear the importance of sustaining the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property as a priority in all management decisions. The presented draft plan is also weak in terms of integrated management, of the regulation of the buffer zones and new development, and of a tourism strategy, all pressing concerns that need to be comprehensively and sustainably addressed. The participatory process in developing the Management Plan includes a function of a Public Council, which is foreseen to be established in 2013. 

b) Buffer zone

The State Party submitted to the World Heritage Centre geographical and cartographical information on the clarification of the boundary of the property, which will be examined by the World Heritage Committee under Item 8 of the Agenda (Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D). In addition, it reports that specifications for land use and town planning within these buffer zones have also been developed and the information on protected areas boundaries has been submitted to the Karelia Republic to be entered on the state cadastre of immovable property. The Management Plan includes a programme for the landscape and there is a decision to maintain visual links between the different monuments on Kizhi Island. An environmental monitoring programme has also been implemented that, in tandem with work on waste management, should improve conditions.

The mission could only do a preliminary review of the land use plan as it has not yet been translated. It noted that it includes a visual corridor analysis of the landscape, based on the visual and aesthetic perception of Kizhi Pogost. However, it considered that it needed to be revised in order to not only consider aesthetics and views but also include historical land-use, environmental and overall sustainability factors. The mission further noted that proposed development on Kizhi Island and the surrounding areas are excluded from the overall regulations of the buffer zones. Land use regulations and design guidelines for the setting of the property should include the provisions for new development including visibility analysis, functions, massing, materials, volume and location, etc. It also pointed out the need to prepare detailed Heritage and Environmental Impact Assessments (HIAs and EIAs) on all new proposed development.

The mission noted that the new pier for tourist boats and the load terminal at the north end of Kizhi Island have been completed and that a new road from Velikaya Guba to Oyativshena Village is under construction. No HIAs were undertaken prior to these new developments nor were they submitted for review prior to implementation so as to assess their potential impacts on the property. It was also presented with the project proposal for the new administrative and visitor centre which needs to be thoroughly reviewed, including considerations to use existing buildings, in terms of architectural quality, function, design and environmental compatibility and subject to EIA and HIA prior to approving its construction. 

c) Conservation, protection and monitoring 

The State Party reports on protection measures that have been implemented to enhance the security of the property. These include fire alarms and outdoor and indoor fire fighting equipment and close circuit televisions. Security officers have been appointed to monitor compliance with regulations for the property and museum employees have received technical capacity building to address emergencies. As for conservation interventions, the State Party provided a detailed report on the complex interventions that have been carried out to date both at the Church of the Transfiguration and at the Church of the Intercession. In 2012 the 1st stage of restoration of the Church of the Transfiguration was completed and the 2nd stage started which is expected to be finalised in 2016. The second state will follow the methods and approaches that have been tested and proven effective as part of the 1st stage, which effectively constitute guidelines for future interventions. The three year period that was planned for the Church of Intercession was finished in 2012. Monitoring actions have been implemented to assess the rate and extent of potential deformations and bio- deterioration. Regular inspections have continued for structural elements. Monitoring results have been used to identify a series of preventive measures to address the sources of decay and mitigate deterioration effects.

 

The mission noted that at present the fabric and structure of the Church of Transfiguration is in an advanced state of deterioration but not in danger of imminent collapse or loss. Conservation work is progressing well and the approach undertaken is consistent. The mission noted that continuity and progress of the project are critical to maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, therefore funding needs to be secured to sustain interventions. It also noted that the preventive maintenance programme is currently underway at the Church of the Intercession.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the progress that has been made by the State Party in addressing the recommendations of the reactive monitoring and advisory missions to the property, as well as Decisions of the World Heritage Committee. They also consider that the development of the management plan is essential, in addition to the definition of the buffer zone, in ensuring the conservation, protection and management of the inscribed property and its landscape setting. They are also of the view that conservation works at the Church of Transfiguration and the Church of the Intercession have progressed positively but need to be sustained in order to ensure that no further loss of fabric and design features occurs.

 

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note with concern that pressures derived from the increase of tourism and the development of infrastructure, as well as continuing changes to land use (from agricultural land to land for new construction) and the unplanned constructions of various facilities and housing. The cumulative impacts and effects of these facts could represent a potential threat to the protection of the setting and OUV of the property. They highlight that the need for a sustainable tourism strategy remains and that the management plan needs to be revised to include stringent regulations and design guidelines for new development within the setting of the property. They further note that detailed heritage and EIAs need to be carried out for all new proposed developments and that these need to be submitted, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, for review prior to approving their implementation at the Federal level. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.80
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation) (C 544)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.83 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Notes the progress made by the State Party in the conservation and protection of the Church of the Transfiguration and on the Church of the Intercession and urges it to sustain these efforts in timely manner and secure the necessary resources to ensure that no further loss of fabric and design features, which could constitute a threat to the property, occurs;

4.  Takes note of the steps the State Party is making towards developing legal measures for the protection of World Heritage cultural properties;

5.  Also takes note of the recommendations made by the April 2013 reactive monitoring mission to the property and also urges the State Party to implement its recommendations, in particular:

a)  Revise the management plan to ensure that the conservation and protection of attributes that convey the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property drive decision-making ; the revised Management Plan should include regulations for land use and for new developments, provisions for the management of the agricultural landscape, a sustainable tourism strategy, risk preparedness measures and measures for monitoring the state of archaeological resources,

b)  Halt all proposed new developments in the buffer zone and setting of the property, including visitor and administration facilities, until the Management Plan has been revised and until Heritage and Environmental Impact Assessments have been undertaken to take into account the expected impacts and compatibility of development with the OUV of the property,

c)  Enhance the implementation of the fire protection and security plans to improve the level of protection and quality of the environment at the property,

d)  Finalise the development of Guiding Principles for the restoration projects that relate the conservation work to the key attributes of the property ;

6.  Requests , in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines , the State Party to submit the project proposal, technical specifications and heritage and environmental impact assessments, for the Office and Public Centre of the Kizhi Museum and for any other planned development projects, for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to committing to its implementation;

7.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies the draft Management Plan in three printed and electronic copies;

8.  Further requests   the State Party to invite an ICOMOS advisory  mission in early 2014 to assess the progress made in the restoration works and on the implementation of the above;

9.  Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014 , 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 38th session in 2014.

37 COM 8D
Clarifications of property boundaries and areas by States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 8D, adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012),

3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annexes of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D:

  • Algeria: Kasbah of Algiers;
  • Brazil: Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas; Brasilia; Historic Centre of São Luís;
  • Cuba: San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba;
  • Dominican Republic: Colonial City of Santo Domingo;
  • Germany: Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Völklingen Ironworks;
  • Jordan: Petra;
  • Mexico: Sian Ka’an; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Historic Centre of Morelia; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan;
  • Panama: Darien National Park;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu; Chavin (Archaeological Property); Chan Chan Archaeological Zone; Historic Centre of Lima; Río Abiseo National Park; Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana;
  • Russian Federation: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments; Kizhi Pogost;
  • Spain: Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Historic City of Toledo; Historic Walled Town of Cuenca; Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona;
  • Viet Nam: Complex of Hué Monuments;

6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2013 at the latest.

Draft Decision:    37 COM 7B.80

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.83, adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Notes the progress made by the State Party in the conservation and protection of the Church of the Transfiguration and on the Church of the Intercession and urges it to sustain these efforts in timely manner and secure the necessary resources to ensure that no further loss of fabric and design features, which could constitute a threat to the property, occurs;

4.  Takes note of the steps the State Party is making towards developing legal measures for the protection of World Heritage cultural properties;

5.  Also takes note of the recommendations made by the April 2013 reactive monitoring mission to the property and also urges the State Party to implement its recommendations, in particular:

a)  Revise the management plan to ensure that the conservation and protection of attributes that convey the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property drive decision-making ; the revised Management Plan should include regulations for land use and for new developments, provisions for the management of the agricultural landscape, a sustainable tourism strategy, risk preparedness measures and measures for monitoring the state of archaeological resources,

b)  Halt all proposed new developments in the buffer zone and setting of the property, including visitor and administration facilities, until the Management Plan has been revised and until Heritage and Environmental Impact Assessments have been undertaken to take into account the expected impacts and compatibility of development with the OUV of the property,

c)  Enhance the implementation of the fire protection and security plans to improve the level of protection and quality of the environment at the property,

d)  Finalise the development of Guiding Principles for the restoration projects that relate the conservation work to the key attributes of the property ;

6.  Requests, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, the State Party to submit the project proposal, technical specifications and heritage and environmental impact assessments, for the Office and Public Centre of the Kizhi Museum and for any other planned development projects, for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to committing to its implementation;

7.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies the draft Management Plan in three printed and electronic copies;

8.  Further requests the State Party to invite an ICOMOS advisory  mission in early 2014 to assess the progress made in the restoration works and on the implementation of the above;

9.  Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, 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 38th session in 2014.

 

Report year: 2013
Russian Federation
Date of Inscription: 1990
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)(v)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports

* : 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.


top