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


Vilnius Historic Centre

Factors affecting the property in 1998*
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Limited financial resources (issue resolved);
  • Need for a comprehensive rehabilitation programme (issue resolved)


International Assistance: requests for the property until 1998
Requests approved: 6 (from 1995-1998)
Total amount approved : 103,180 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1998

The Bureau recalled that considerable assistance had been provided since 1995 for the revitalisation of Vilnius Old Town, not only from the World Heritage Fund, but also from others such as the Canadian Urban Institute, Edinburgh, the Nordic World Heritage Office, ICCROM, UNDP etc. With this assistance, meetings and a donors’ conference were organised, training and expert advice has been provided as well as consultant services.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a major achievement had been obtained by the creation of the Old Town Revitalisation Agency (OTRA), a joint agency between the Ministry for Culture and the Municipality of Vilnius. An Old Town Revitalisation Fund would be established shortly. Both OTRA and the Fund will concentrate on the development of specific projects and programmes. To this effect, a technical assistance programme will be drafted by UNESCO and UNDP.

A request for international assistance for US$ 20,000 was received for consideration by the Chairperson, to support this programme.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1998

The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the considerable progress made in setting up the institutional framework for the revitalisation of the Vilnius Historic Centre. The Bureau commended in particular the Government of Lithuania and the Municipality of Vilnius on the creation of the Old Town Revitalisation Agency (OTRA). It encouraged the authorities to continue its efforts to develop and implement policies, programmes and projects for the revitalisation of the city.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1998
22 COM VII.43
Reports on the State of Conservation of Cultural Properties Noted by the Committee

VII.43 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV of this report on the following properties:

Rapa Nui National Park (Chile)

The Mountain Resort and Its Outlying Temples in Chengde (China)

The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu (China)

Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains (China)

City of Quito (Ecuador)

Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur (Egypt)

Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis (Egypt)

Islamic Cairo (Egypt)

Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn (Estonia)

Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town in Quedlinburg (Germany)

Historic Centre of Florence (Italy)

Quseir Amra (Jordan)

Luang Prabang (Laos)

Baalbek (Lebanon)

Tyre (Lebanon)

Vilnius Historic Centre (Lithuania)

Old Towns of Djenné (Mali)

City of Cusco (Peru)

Archaeological site of Chavin (Peru)

Historic Centre of Lima (Peru)

The Baroque Churches of the Philippines (The Philippines)

Historic Centre of Porto (Portugal)

Island of Gorée (Senegal)

Sacred City of Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka)

Ancient City of Polonnaruva (Sri Lanka)

Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)

Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)

Kiev: Saint Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings (Ukraine)

Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)

Old City of Sana'a (Yemen)

No draft Decision

Report year: 1998
Date of Inscription: 1994
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 22COM (1998)

* : 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.