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

Churches of Moldavia

Romania
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Water penetration and associated increased humidity levels
  • Structural problems and deterioration of the mural paintings 
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

On 31 January 2013, the State Party submitted a detailed state of conservation report that addresses the progress made in the implementation of the Committee Decision adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), including information on the progress in the implementation of the conservation programme, on the measures taken to address the threats to the wall paintings, on the architectural projects and consolidation works, and on the management of tourists and visitors. A Protection and Management Programme for historical monuments has been approved and an Organizing Committee has been created for each church.  General Town Plans and Urban Plans for protected areas have been developed and implemented in order to enhance the control of all works within the property and its buffer zone.

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

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the state of conservation of the property is being adequately addressed by the State Party. The State Party is encouraged to implement all relevant measures in order to prevent any threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·  Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·  Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·  San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·  Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·  Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·  Taj Mahal (India)

·  Agra Fort (India)

·  Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·  Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·  Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·  Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·  Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·  Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·  Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·  Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·  Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·  City of Cuzco (Peru)

·  Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·  Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·  Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·  Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

Report year: 2013
Romania
Date of Inscription: 1993
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
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