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

Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor

Montenegro
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Housing
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Earthquake damage (issue resolved)
  • Lack of Management Planning/system
  • Inadequate legal system
  • Accelerated urban development and urban pressure
  • Proposed major bridge at Verige
  • Lack of buffer zone – requested since 2003
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2014
Requests approved: 2 (from 1979-1982)
Total amount approved : 70,000 USD
1982 Equipment for the Institute for the Protection of ... (Approved)   50,000 USD
1979 Emergency assistance for the natural and ... (Approved)   20,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2014**

2003: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS mission; January 2006: Management Planning Course; February 2008: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS mission; March 2013: ICOMOS Advisory Mission 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014

The State Party invited, in March 2013, an ICOMOS advisory mission to assist the national and local authorities in finding appropriate solutions to improve the transport system in the area. The mission report is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/125/documents/. On 31 January 2014, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/125/documents/. The State Party reported on the progress in adoption in 2013 of relevant legal instruments, including a specific law on the Protection of Natural and Cultural Historical Heritage of the Kotor region. The latter regulates the protection and management of the area and formally establishes the Management Council of the Kotor Region.

The State Party informed that the newly created Directorate for Conservation of cultural property and the Centre for Conservation of archaeology of Montenegro will ensure the enforcement of legislative and regulatory measures.

The State Party confirmed that the Management Plan adopted in 2011 is currently being implemented. Additional studies are being undertaken for the protection of cultural properties within the Spatial Urban Plan of the Municipality of Kotor. This study will also include a specific transportation study to be concluded in June 2014. The State Party noted that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) will be needed to inform decision making and that assistance will be required in this matter. The State Party also noted that other planning tools are being revised to ensure consistency in provisions and guarantee the protection of the property.

The State Party informed that regarding alternative solutions to the Verige Bridge these are being explored based on the results from the Visual Impact Study, including a conceptual design of the tunnel. The State Party informed that based on the results of feasibility studies and heritage impact assessments, the final alternative will be identified. No timeframe for this decision is mentioned.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2014

The State Party has made significant efforts in addressing the current conservation issues at the property and in the establishment of an efficient management system supported by adequate legislative and regulatory provisions. Harmonising all planning tools is an important factor to ensure that no contradictions occur in terms of what will be acceptable for future development. Urban and development pressures need to be reconciled with the preservation of the attributes that warranted inscription on the World Heritage List and that this will entail a strong heritage policy imbedded in all planning tools for the territory of the property and its buffer zone. It will also need to consider the identification of different zones susceptible for new development and areas for strict protection should be clearly identified. This zoning should be integrated into a territorial management plan that integrates the three municipalities involved.

The review of planning tools should lead to the enforcement of a system of measures and detailed provisions that will protect the characteristics of the cultural landscape and that will provide precise parameters for future development. In this respect, finalising the transportation strategy, adequately informed by HIAs, will be a crucial measure. Upon finalisation of the diverse planning tools, mechanisms should be explored to ensure the binding nature of the decisions made by Management Council.

However, the information included in the advisory mission report about a number of on-going building and infrastructure projects and the mission’s recommendation that these should be halted, pending the finalization and implementation of the necessary planning and management tools.

Finally, the direct link to Verige is seen as essential for the transportation strategy, and the State Party has made efforts to explore alterative solutions to the originally proposed bridge. However, all options for this transportation link must be accompanied by specific HIAs in relation to the Outstanding Universal Value, to ensure that the selected option will not have a negative impact on the World Heritage property.  

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7B.29
Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor (Montenegro) (C 125)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.79 adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),
  3. Welcomes the actions undertaken by the State Party for improving the legal and management arrangements for the property and for the implementation of the recommendations from the 2013 advisory mission;
  4. Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts with particular attention to the following;
    1. Ensure the sustained operation and resourcing of the management system, particularly by formally designating the newly created Management Council of the Kotor Region as a coordinating entity between different management levels,
    2. Continue with the harmonisation of planning tools to establish a clear policy framework for heritage decision-making to ensure that urbanisation and development are adequately planned for and controlled, particularly in consideration of the landscape qualities of the property;
    3. Consider the establishment of a zoning system for protection of the property, based on the Special Purpose Spatial Plan for the Coastal Area (SPSPCA), with adequate regulatory regimes that include detailed provisions regarding the acceptable limits and rate for change, particularly in terms of specific urban development parameters in consideration to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property,
    4. Conclude the Spatial Urban Plan, including the Regional Transport Strategy, and integrate its provisions in the planning tools of all three neighbouring municipalities,
  5. Encourages controlled implementation of developments in Morinj, Kostanjica and Glavati and requests the State Party to undertake Heritage Impact Assessment to ensure that no impact occurs on Outstanding Universal Value. The State Party is invited to submit a Heritage Impact Assessment for the Kotor Region, which is underway, to the World Heritage Centre for review prior to undertaking any further commitments;
  6. Requests that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) be undertaken for all options for the transportation connection at Verige, including the by-pass road around Kotor, and that project proposals under consideration, with corresponding HIAs, be submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review prior to making commitments to their implementation;
  7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2015, an updated report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session in 2016.
38 COM 8E
Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E,
  2. Congratulates the States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;
  3. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC:
  • China: Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area;
  • Japan: Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of the Kingdom of Ryukyu; Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara; Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama; The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome);
  • Sri Lanka: Sinharaja Forest;
  • Vietnam: Hoi An Ancient Town; Complex of Hué Monuments;

    EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA:

    • Albania: Butrint;
    • Armenia: Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley;
    • Austria: Semmering Railway; Wachau Cultural Landscape;
    • Azerbaijan: Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower;
    • Belarus / Estonia / Finland / Latvia / Lithuania / Moldova / Norway / Russian Federation / Sweden / Ukraine: Struve Geodetic Arc;
    • Belgium: Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels); Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons); Notre-Dame Cathedral in Tournai; Plantin-Moretus House-Workshops-Museum Complex;
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar;
    • Cyprus: Paphos;
    • Denmark: Ilulissat Icefjord;
    • Finland: Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki; Fortress of Suomenlinna; Old Rauma; Petäjävesi Old Church; Verla Groundwood and Board Mill;
    • Georgia: Historical Monuments of Mtskheta; Upper Svaneti;
    • Germany / Poland: Muskauer Park / Park Mużakowski;
    • Germany: Abbey and Altenmünster of Lorsch; Bauhaus and its Sites in Weimar and Dessau; Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl; Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of Quedlinburg; Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz; Luther Memorials in Eisleben and Wittenberg; Monastic Island of Reichenau; Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin; Pilgrimage Church of Wies; St Mary's Cathedral and St Michael's Church at Hildesheim; Völklingen Ironworks; Wartburg Castle; Würzburg Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Square; Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen;
    • Holy See / Italy: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura;
    • Holy See: Vatican City;
    • Iceland: Þingvellir National Park;
    • Italy: Botanical Garden (Orto Botanico), Padua; Ferrara, City of the Renaissance, and its Po Delta; Historic Centre of Florence; Historic Centre of Naples;
    • Lithuania / Russian Federation: Curonian Spit;
    • Lithuania: Kernavė Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernavė);
    • Malta: City of Valletta; Hal Saflieni Hypogeum; Megalithic Temples of Malta;
    • Mongolia / Russian Federation: Uvs Nuur Basin;
    • Montenegro: Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor;
    • Netherlands: Historic Area of Willemstad, Inner City and Harbour, Curaçao;
    • Norway: Vegaøyan -- The Vega Archipelago; West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord;
    • Poland: Centennial Hall in Wrocław; Historic Centre of Warsaw;
    • Portugal: Historic Centre of Évora; Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture; Monastery of Alcobaça; Monastery of the Hieronymites and Tower of Belém in Lisbon;
    • Russian Federation: Church of the Ascension, Kolomenskoye; Historical Centre of the City of Yaroslavl; Kizhi Pogost;
    • Slovakia: Bardejov Town Conservation Reserve; Vlkolínec;
    • Slovenia: Škocjan Caves;
    • Spain: Archaeological Ensemble of Mérida; Burgos Cathedral; Historic Centre of Cordoba; Monastery and Site of the Escurial, Madrid; Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of the Asturias; Mudejar Architecture of Aragon; Old City of Salamanca; Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Old Town of Cáceres; Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct; Poblet Monastery; Route of Santiago de Compostela; Royal Monastery of Santa María de Guadalupe; San Cristóbal de La Laguna; Santiago de Compostela (Old Town); Works of Antoni Gaudí;
    • Turkey: Archaeological Site of Troy; City of Safranbolu; Hattusha: the Hittite Capital; Xanthos-Letoon;
    • Ukraine: Kiev: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra;
    • United Kingdom: Gough and Inaccessible Islands; Henderson Island; Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda;
    • United States of America: Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site; Chaco Culture; Independence Hall; Mesa Verde National Park; Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville; Statue of Liberty;

    LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBBEANS:

    • Argentina: Ischigualasto / Talampaya Natural Parks; Los Glaciares; Península Valdés;
    • Belize: Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System;
    • Bolivia: City of Potosí;
    • Brazil: Brasilia; Historic Centre of Salvador de Bahia; Historic Centre of São Luís; Historic Centre of the Town of Diamantina; Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás; Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda; Historic Town of Ouro Preto; Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas;
    • Colombia: Los Katíos National Park;
    • Costa Rica / Panama: Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park;
    • Cuba: Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the South-East of Cuba; San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba; Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos; Viñales Valley;
    • Dominican Republic: Colonial City of Santo Domingo;
    • Guatemala: Tikal National Park;
    • Panama: Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection; Fortifications on the Caribbean Side, Portobelo and San Lorenzo;
    • Suriname: Central Suriname Nature Reserve; Historic Inner City of Paramaribo;

    4.  Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;
    5.  Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

    • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
    • World Heritage properties in Africa;
    • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
    • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
    • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;

    6.  Takes note that the World Heritage Centre is in the process of harmonising all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value and, as appropriate, reflects name changes of World Heritage properties throughout the text of the Statements as requested by the Committee at its 37th session, and requests the World Heritage Centre to also update the size of the property and/or its buffer zone, as appropriate, following subsequent Decisions of the World Heritage Committee concerning Minor Boundary Modifications.
    7.  Requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload the two language versions on its website.

    Draft Decision:   38 COM 7B.29

    The World Heritage Committee,

    1.  Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B,

    2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.79 adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

    3.  Welcomes the actions undertaken by the State Party for improving the legal and management arrangements for the property and for the implementation of the recommendations from the 2013 advisory mission;

    4.  Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts with particular attention to the following;

    a)  Ensure the sustained operation and resourcing of the management system, in particular of the Management Council of the Kotor Region, as a coordinating entity between different management levels,

    b)  Continue with the harmonisation of planning tools to establish a clear policy framework for heritage decision-making to ensure that urbanisation and development are adequately planned for,

    c)  Consider the establishment of a legal system of zones for protection with adequate regulatory regimes that include detailed provisions on the acceptable limits and rate for change, particularly in terms of specific urban development parameters in consideration to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property,

    d)  Conclude the Spatial Urban Plan, including the Regional Transport Strategy, and to integrate its provisions in the planning tools of all three neighbouring municipalities,

    e)  Halt any building or infrastructure development projects within the property until such time as the necessary planning and management tools have been finalized and put into practice;

    5.  Requests that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) be undertaken for all options for the transportation connection at Verige and that project proposals under consideration, with corresponding HIAs, be submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review prior to making commitments to their implementation;

    6.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2016, an updated report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session in 2016.

    Report year: 2014
    Montenegro
    Date of Inscription: 1979
    Category: Cultural
    Criteria: (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
    Danger List (dates): 1979-2003
    Documents examined by the Committee
    SOC Report by the State Party
    Report (2014) .pdf
    arrow_circle_right 38COM (2014)
    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