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

Kizhi Pogost

Russian Federation
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
  • 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 issues at 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 2014
Requests approved: 2 (from 1992-2001)
Total amount approved : 38,540 USD
Missions to the property until 2014**

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

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014

On 31 January 2014, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/544/documents/. Progress is reported on the following:

  • Management plan: the plan was revised in 2013. It considers projects aimed at protection and conservation of the property and its environment, and provisions for sustainable development, a management scheme, and monitoring.
  • New development in the buffer zone and setting: the proposal for an administration and visitor centre has been suspended. Heritage and Environmental Impact assessments will be carried out and submitted for review. The management plan foresees the undertaking of heritage impact assessments prior to authorizing projects.
  • Fire protection and security measures: overall plans have been revised and a site security system is operational. Emergency measures identified in a document “Overhaul of the outdoor fire-fighting system of the Kizhi Pogost” are being reviewed to improve risk preparedness.
  • Restoration projects: Guiding principles for interventions are included in the management plan. Funding has been allocated to continue without interruptions, interventions at the Church of Transfiguration.
  • Legal protection: new legislation has come into force that increases administrative penalties for violation of the requirements of conservation, use and protection of cultural heritage or for failure to observe restrictions in buffer zone.
  • Protection and buffer zone: a request for a minor boundary modification was submitted in November 2013 and will be examined by the Committee under the corresponding item. The report indicates that agricultural lands and woodlands are to be granted the status of specially protected territories to address inconsistencies in projected use. Monitoring is also being carried out to identify illegal construction in the buffer zone. Information on regulations in the buffer zone is also being provided to residents and visitors. The requirements for the protection of the property have also been included in the development of the Velikaya Guba settlement master plan. A Geographic Information System (GIS) has been developed to guide actions for the preservation of the landscape and assess impacts on the visual qualities of the setting.

Other actions have been implemented including continued research, and a promotion programme. Power infrastructure will be improved through underground cabling systems.

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

The commitment of the State Party in sustaining actions to improve conservation and management conditions of the property is acknowledged. The recently approved legislation will be highly beneficial in effectively controlling unplanned and/or illegal construction. Informing residents and visitors about regulatory measures is also an important measure. Concerning the proposed minor boundary modification to increase the area of the buffer zone, this will be examined by the World Heritage Committee under Item 8 of the Agenda.

The management plan has been reviewed by ICOMOS. In general, it considers that the submitted document has addressed some of the recommendations made on the 2012 draft. It positively notes the addition of the requirement for Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) to better inform decision-making and recommends that the ICOMOS HIA guidance be used to identify criteria for their undertaking. ICOMOS considers however that the Action Plan does not yet address the tourism strategy (including strict regulation of river based tourism), which should be developed before any tourism infrastructure, and facilities are studied in relation to their compatibility with the character of the property and its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).

In relation to the conservation guidelines, ICOMOS notes that although general principles are set, they still need to refer specifically to the application of conservation guidelines for the structures of the property and its setting. Further clarity is also needed in terms of landscape protection and management, particularly considering the approved legislative measures. A more detailed technical review will be exchanged with the State Party to support further evaluation.

In respect to restoration interventions, resources were positively allocated in a timely manner therefore allowing the interventions to proceed without interruption. Further information on the progress made in interventions will be available upon the undertaking of the Advisory Mission scheduled in 2014.

Land use, control of development and fluvial regulation will remain a substantial challenge to maintain the integrity of the unique landscape of the property particularly in light of tourism pressures. This will entail the strong commitment of the State Party and sustained enforcement of different legal and planning tools that have been formulated and adopted to date. The Committee may reiterate its concern regarding proposals for new development and tourism infrastructure which can potentially alter the historical and visual characteristics of the property and its setting and request that the authorities concerned to maintain the present balance between the natural and built environment by regulating tourism development and restricting any extension of development within the protected areas of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve and Kizhi Island.

It is also recommended that the Committee reiterate its requests to implement all correctives measures identified in 2010, and to submit the revised and approved Master Plan for Kizhi Island, including strict land-use regulations for all protected areas, an Integrated Management Plan with appropriate tourism strategy and guidelines for the re-use of the existing numerous historic buildings and monuments comprising the Open Air Museum for visitor facilities and exhibitions, as well as a Conservation Master Plan for all components of the World Heritage property and its setting.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7B.30
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation) (C 544)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 7B.80 adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3. Commends the State Party for its sustained actions in the implementation of recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee and the monitoring missions to the property;
  4. Takes note of the submission of the request for minor boundary modification for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session under Item 8 of the Agenda;
  5. Reiterates its concern that the introduction of any new developments or tourism infrastructure will alter the historical and visual characteristics of the property and its setting, and highlights that the present balance between the natural and built environment at Kizhi Island should be maintained;
  6. Urges the State Party to regulate tourism pressure (including river based tourism) and to prohibit the extension of developments within the protected areas of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve and Kizhi Island;
  7. Also urges the State Party to continue its efforts with particular attention to the finalisation of the review process of the Management Plan considering the recommendations made by the ICOMOS technical review and to further clarify provisions for landscape management;
  8. Reiterates its request that the State Party implement all correctives measures identified in 2010, and submit the revised and approved Master Plan for Kizhi Island, including strict land-use regulations for all protected areas, an Integrated Management Plan with appropriate tourism strategy and guidelines for the re-use of numerous existing historic buildings and monuments comprising the Open Air Museum for visitor facilities and exhibitions; as well as a Conservation Master Plan for all components of the World Heritage property and its setting;
  9. Also reiterates its request that the State Party halts all proposed new developments in the buffer zone and the settings of the property, including visitor and administration facilities until these are reviewed, and requests the State Party, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines , to submit, upon completion, the project proposal, technical specifications and heritage and environmental impact assessments, for the Office and Visitor Centre of the Kizhi Museum and for any other planned development projects based on the re-use of existing historic buildings and monuments, for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to committing to their implementation;
  10. 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 8B.55
Examination of minor boundary modifications : Kizhi Pogos (Russian Federation)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Documents WHC-14/38.COM/8B.Add, and WHC-14/38.COM/INF.8B1.Add,
  2. Refers the examination of the proposed minor modification to the buffer zone of Kizhi Pogost, Russian Federation, back to the State Party in order to allow it to:
    1. Submit a complete set of maps, either cadastral or topographical, that also identify the additional 590 ha of proposed extension to the buffer zone and which are presented at a scale which is appropriate to the size in hectares of the property and sufficient to show clearly the detail of the current boundaries and the proposed changes;
    2. Explain the reasons for the inclusion of the plots of land on Bolshoy Klimenetskiy Island in the buffer zone, in relation to its protective function for the inscribed property;
    3. Clarify and explain in detail through which legal and planning regulatory measures the proposed extended buffer zone will guarantee the effective protection of the property and how these would prevent deforestation and other possibly harmful activities;
    4. Amend the above mentioned WHP Protected Zone Kizhi Pogost as approved by the Order of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation
      1268 – 29 December 2011 in order to make it correspond to the proposed extended buffer zone;
    5. Elaborate measures to ensure the protection of the visual qualities of the landscape setting of the property and the views that can be enjoyed from and towards it;
    6. Ensure that the perimeter of the newly proposed boundaries of the buffer zone be incorporated into the 2013 Management Plan.
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.30

    The World Heritage Committee,

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

    2.  Recalling Decision 37 COM 7B.80 adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),

    3.  Commends the State Party for its sustained actions in the implementation of recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee and the monitoring missions to the property;

    4.  Takes note of the submission of the request for minor boundary modification for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session under Item 8 of the Agenda;

    5.  Reiterates its concern that the introduction of any new developments or tourism infrastructure will alter the historical and visual characteristics of the property and its setting, and highlights that the present balance between the natural and built environment at Kizhi Island should be maintained;

    6.  Urges the State Party to regulate tourism pressure (including river based tourism) and to prohibit the extension of developments within the protected areas of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve and Kizhi Island;

    7.  Also urges the State Party to continue its efforts with particular attention to the finalisation of the review process of the Management Plan considering the recommendations made by the ICOMOS technical review and to further clarify provisions for landscape management;

    8.  Reiterates its request that the State Party implement all correctives measures identified in 2010, and submit the revised and approved Master Plan for Kizhi Island, including strict land-use regulations for all protected areas, an Integrated Management Plan with appropriate tourism strategy and guidelines for the re-use of numerous existing historic buildings and monuments comprising the Open Air Museum for visitor facilities and exhibitions; as well as a Conservation Master Plan for all components of the World Heritage property and its setting;

    9.  Also reiterates its request that the State Party halts all proposed new developments in the buffer zone and the settings of the property, including visitor and administration facilities until these are reviewed, and requests the State Party, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, to submit, upon completion, the project proposal, technical specifications and heritage and environmental impact assessments, for the Office and Visitor Centre of the Kizhi Museum and for any other planned development projects based on the re-use of existing historic buildings and monuments, for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to committing to their implementation;

    10.  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
    Russian Federation
    Date of Inscription: 1990
    Category: Cultural
    Criteria: (i)(iv)(v)
    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