Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz

• Management systems/management plan (Lack of a comprehensive conservation and management plan)
• Management activities
• Housing; Commercial development (Major interventions carried out, including demolition and re-building activities)
• Legal framework (Need to reinforce the national legal framework)
• Human resources (inadequate)
• Financial resources (inadequate)

• Large-scale urban development projects carried out without informing the Committee or commissioning the necessary heritage impact assessments
• Demolition and rebuilding of traditional housing areas
• Irreversible changes to the original appearance of a large area within the historic centre
• Significant alteration of the setting of monuments and the overall historical town planning structure and its archaeological layers
• Absence of conservation and Management Plan

Not yet identified

Not yet identified

On 1 December 2017, the State Party submitted details and documentation of the work carried out at Shakhrisyabz as requested by the Committee in Decision 41 COM 7A.57, and a further state of conservation report on 1 February 2018, available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/885/documents. The report and documentation provide the following details in response to requests of the Committee:

• A series of plans of the historic centre before and after the recent destruction, and of the remaining mahalla districts;
• Assessment of the changes to houses and streets since inscription and inventories of remaining traditional houses based on a field study carried out in 2017;
• Documentation on the monuments and the ‘beautification’ of their setting;
• The Master Plan for the overall city of Shakhrisyabz, which sets the recent development of the historic centre into a wider context;
• Plans for further proposed projects to widen roads and upgrade houses in the historic centre in 2020.

The programme of demolition work and new landscaping in the heart of the historic centre was approved by the Cabinet of the Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on 20 February 2014, as part of a ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’. The aim was to promote tourism and the economic potential of the historic part of the city by displaying the main cultural heritage monuments in a landscaped setting. Following the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission in December 2016, all further work has been stopped at the property.

The State Party indicates that the urban planning scheme of Shakhrisyabz will be reviewed in cooperation with national and international organisations in order to ‘ensure the harmonization of cultural heritage sites’:

• Lighting devices incompatible with the historic appearance of the city will be dismantled,
• Playgrounds and attractions will be moved beyond the historic centre,
• Recently-constructed walls that separate the centre from dwellings will be removed.

In relation to the relocation of around 2,000 residents, the State Party indicates that they were all provided alternative accommodation outside the city. A project is being prepared for the reconstruction of three traditional houses in the area where the most houses were demolished.

The State Party confirms that, in future, details of all major projects will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review before decisions are made, in line with the Operational Guidelines. This process has already commenced for projects in Samarkand and Bukhara.

Concerning the decaying mural tiles on the Ak-Saray Palace, it is reported that special methods of conservation have been developed by the museum in Shakhrisyabz to re-affix them to the walls. This method will be trialled on a third of the total tiled area and, if it is successful, will be used to affix the remainder of the tiles. The State Party did not provide any details on this method.

In response to the Committee’s request concerning the Periodic Reporting and Reactive Monitoring processes for this property (see Decision 41 COM 7A.57), the World Heritage Centre would like to provide the following clarifications:

• The ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’ was not mentioned in the Periodic Reporting questionnaire submitted by the State Party in 2011-2012 (see https://whc.unesco.org/document/164767). The State Party indicated that ‘the management system is being fully implemented and monitored’ (Question 4.3.5), and that ‘major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure’ and ‘interpretative and visitation facilities’ were having a positive impact on the property at the time (Question 3.15.1). Nor was information provided to the World Heritage Centre on the Programme, despite the provisions of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
• In the summer of 2014, the World Heritage Centre received a mission report from the UNESCO Office in Tashkent, providing information on renovation and construction works occurring within the Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz. In line with Paragraph 174 of the Operational Guidelines, the World Heritage Centre requested further information from the Permanent Delegation of Uzbekistan to UNESCO in a letter dated 1 October 2014.
• On 24 November 2014, the National Commission of the Republic of Uzbekistan for UNESCO responded by sending to the World Heritage Centre a 4-page report (plus annexes) on the state of conservation of the property. After reviewing the information provided, the then-Director of the World Heritage Centre expressed concern, in his letter to the Permanent Delegation of 25 February 2015, that restoration and development works had been carried out since 2014, but that no details had been provided to the World Heritage Centre. He further informed the State Party that the state of conservation of the property would be examined at the upcoming session of the World Heritage Committee in July 2015.
• At its 39th session (Bonn, 2015), the Committee expressed ‘its concern about the overall impact of the projects on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property and the extent of urban transformation which could undermine the integrity and authenticity of Shakhrisyabz’, urged the State Party ‘not to commence or to halt any works until the [Heritage Impact] assessments and reviews have been carried out’, and requested that it invite a Reactive Monitoring mission to the property (Decision 39 COM 7B.74). The mission took place in March 2016.
• At its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), the Committee took note with deep concern of the outcomes of the March 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission, expressed its deep concern that the State Party had not complied with its previous requests, urged the State Party to immediately suspend all tourism development and reconstruction projects within the property and in the adjacent areas and halt all demolition of traditional housing, and decided to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger (Decision 40 COM 7B.48). The Committee further requested that the State Party invite another Reactive Monitoring mission to identify the precise threats to the OUV of the property and determine whether corrective measures and a Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) could be defined, or whether the works undertaken so far had so irreversibly damaged the attributes that sustain the OUV that the property could no longer convey the OUV for which it was inscribed and should therefore be considered for possible deletion from the World Heritage List at a later session. The requested mission took place in December 2016.
• At its 41st session (Krakow, 2017), the Committee noted with extreme concern the conclusions of the December 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission, which confirmed that the monumental buildings had been disengaged from their urban surroundings, so the heart of the Temurid town planning had been lost and traditional dwelling houses in the core of the medieval town had been destroyed, with the result that key attributes of the OUV had been damaged to such an extent, and for the most part irreversibly, that the property could no longer convey the OUV for which it was inscribed. The Committee nevertheless invited the State Party to explore all possible options for the recovery of attributes and to examine whether a significant boundary modification could be envisaged, based on any recoverable attributes, and to provide further details and documentation to allow an assessment of what, if anything, could be recovered. The Committee also indicated that, on the basis of this documentation, a decision would be made at its 42nd session whether there is potential for a re-nomination of the property, including only some of the monuments and the remaining urban areas, or whether it should be deleted from the World Heritage List, in accordance with Paragraph 192 of the Operational Guidelines (Decision 41 COM 7A.57).

In view of the information provided since the last session, it is noted that the State Party is ready to collaborate with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in order to keep the property on the World Heritage List. However, the State Party has not been able to define the possible recovery of attributes, or a significant boundary modification based on recoverable attributes, in response to the Committee’s invitation to explore these options.

The plans and other details provided clearly demonstrate the extensive impact on the fabric of the historic centre of the recent major demolition and restoration work undertaken as part of the ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’. They also show how the main cultural monuments are now separated from their urban context and sit in a modern park landscape. Although work has stopped on the major reconstruction project, further work is proposed in the ‘State Programme’ to widen roads and upgrade houses in the historic centre in 2020. The plans proposed for 2020 envisage an increase in service buildings, a large increase in open green spaces, further development of roads, squares and parking lots and an expansion of preservation zones, although the latter are not defined.

The possibility of mitigation measures is mentioned but not defined, and the only changes suggested are cosmetic, relating to street lights and the removal of the children’s playground (neither of which was recommended by the December 2016 mission). The removal of the high wall built to shield the remaining houses would however be a welcome improvement.

The recent survey carried out on the residential buildings (similar to what has been done in Bukhara and Samarkand) provides a good overview of what remains of the mahallas. It highlights the fact that, although a fairly high percentage of buildings retain their traditional layout, traditional architectural details and fabric have been eroded. The number of dwellings constructed in the 19th century and early 20th century is now only 3%, and in most of these houses, only the mehmkhonwas block is preserved, with the rest of the complex having been rebuilt or reconstructed. This study highlights the need for better policies and strategies to save the essence of this now scarce architecture while efforts are made to improve the surrounding services, but it does not suggest that the remaining mahallas reflect in an exceptional way Temurid planning or construction. 

The analysis provided confirms the conclusions of the December 2016 mission that drastic and irreversible damage was caused to the remnants of Temurid urban planning and to traditional dwelling houses at the core of the medieval town. It also confirms that this loss, combined with the extensive conservation work undertaken on the main cultural monuments, has damaged the attributes to such a degree that the property can no longer justify its OUV, and that this damage cannot be reversed.

The December 2016 mission could not envisage a way to recommend mitigation measures or to suggest a boundary modification that might save either part or all of the property, and the State Party made no such suggestion in its report. Regrettably, the destruction that occurred during the development works has altered the morphology of the city to such a degree that even reclaiming the street patterns would be impossible, as the ground levels have been altered significantly, and re-instating the relationship between the monuments and the city is similarly not an attainable goal. In terms of individual monuments, all have been subject to extensive restoration that has impacted adversely on their authenticity. Only the fragmentary remains of the Ak-Saray palace might have had the capacity to stand alone, but the work carried out recently on its structures and surroundings, along with the state of conservation of the remaining tilework, would not allow it to satisfy the conditions of authenticity and integrity.

In conclusion, it is recommended that the Committee express its deep regret at the situation but consider that, since the property has lost the attributes which conveyed its OUV as defined at the time of inscription, in accordance with Paragraph 192 of the Operational Guidelines, it should be deleted from the World Heritage List.

Nonetheless, it is further recommended that the State Party be encouraged to put in place sensitive restoration and conservation policies for the remaining traditional buildings to maintain local characteristics and improve their services. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies stand ready to provide capacity-building assistance to the State Party at the national level, notably regarding the implementation of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, the process for Heritage Impact Assessments, in line with the ICOMOS Guidelines, and other heritage management and conservation tools.