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

Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz

Uzbekistan
Factors affecting the property in 2018*
  • Financial resources
  • Housing
  • Human resources
  • Legal framework
  • Management activities
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Demolition and re-building of traditional housing areas

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • 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)
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • 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
Corrective Measures for the property

Not yet identified

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

Not yet identified

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2018
Requests approved: 1 (from 1999-2018)
Total amount approved : 15,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2018**

October 2002: Monitoring mission by an international expert; March 2006: UNESCO Tashkent/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; June 2014: UNESCO Tashkent fact-finding mission; March 2016: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; December 2016: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2018

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.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2018

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.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2018
42 COM 7A.4
Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) (C 885)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decisions 39 COM 7B.74, 40 COM 7B.48 and 41 COM 7A.57, adopted at its 39th (Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) and 41st (Krakow, 2017) sessions respectively, and, in particular, its Decision 41 COM 7A.57 paragraph 11, requesting the World Heritage Committee to consider whether the property had “deteriorated to such an extent that it has lost the attributes of the OUV defined at the time of inscription and should therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 192 of the Operational Guidelines, be deleted from the World Heritage List”; and noting the concern that the reconstruction project ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’ represented a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, in accordance with Paragraph 179 (b) of the Operational Guidelines,
  3. Also recalling that the March 2016 and December 2016 Reactive Monitoring missions to the property confirmed that “the heart of the Temurid town planning has been lost, that traditional dwelling houses in the core of the medieval town have been destroyed” (Decision 41 COM 7A.57), and that the key attributes of the OUV have been damaged,
  4. Further recalling that States Parties have an obligation under the Convention to protect and conserve the World Cultural and Natural Heritage situated on their territory, notably to ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection and conservation of such heritage,
  5. Recalling furthermore that, according to Article 6.1 of the Convention, properties inscribed on the World Heritage List constitute ‘a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate’, and recalling furthermore the duty of the international community to assist and cooperate with States Parties in their endeavour to conserve such heritage,
  6. Regrets that no information was provided on the reconstruction and development scheme to the World Heritage Centre in due time, and before any irreversible decision was taken, despite the provisions of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  7. Notes that the State Party has not defined any possible mitigation measures to recover lost attributes or proposed a significant boundary modification based on any recoverable attributes, in response to the Committee’s request to explore these options;
  8. Also notes that the work is currently suspended on the ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’ and requests the State Party to halt any further work at the Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz until the World Heritage Committee reconsiders this matter at its 43rd session in 2019, with the exception of possible emergency recommendations from the high-level World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission referred to in paragraph 18 below;
  9. Considers that the State Party’s 2017 report has not questioned the conclusions of the December 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission;
  10. Also regrets that the requests of the World Heritage Committee at its 39th, 40th, and 41st sessions were not properly addressed to protect key attributes of the OUV of the property;
  11. Takes note of the Decree of the Government of the State Party and its annex that includes a road map on the protection of the Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz;
  12. Bearing in mind the Reactive Monitoring mission’s conclusion that “recovering sufficient attributes to justify the OUV identified at the time of inscription seems impossible at this stage” (41 COM.7A.57), recommends that the State Party should further explore options for the potential recovery of attributes and, if needed, consider, in consultation with ICOMOS, whether a significant boundary modification based on some of the monuments and the remaining urban areas might have the potential to justify OUV;
  13. Reiterates its request to the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2018, further details and documentation to allow an assessment of what, if anything, could be recovered, for review by ICOMOS, including:
    1. Detailed plans of the town centre showing the layout and buildings before and after demolition,
    2. Detailed plans of the remaining mahalla areas and descriptions of their characteristics,
    3. Inventories of remaining traditional houses,
    4. Assessment of changes to houses and streets since inscription, including comparisons with the 1983 drawings of selected houses,
    5. Current plans for further improvements and upgrade work on houses and access routes,
    6. Documentation on work carried out on the monuments and their settings since inscription,
    7. A report on the current Master Plan for the city;
  14. Also requests that the State Party develop, in consultation with ICOMOS, detailed and specific indicators for the attributes of OUV for the entire property in order to assess the impact on authenticity and integrity in relation to these indicators, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session in 2019;
  15. Also recommends the State Party to develop a holistic interpretation strategy for the property in order to communicate the historic development of the urban fabric and allow residents and visitors to establish a connection between the preserved elements of the property and its original structure and appearance;
  16. Urges the State Party to address recommendations of the World Heritage Committee as well as those of the December 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission, notably regarding protection, management and tile decay on the façade of Ak-Saray Palace;
  17. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2019, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session in 2019, with a view to considering retaining the property on the World Heritage List;
  18. Requests furthermore the State Party to invite as soon as possible a high-level World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission to discuss with the relevant Uzbek authorities and stakeholders possible mitigation of the impacts to the attributes that convey the property’s OUV and/or possible major boundary modification to the property;
  19. Decides to retain the Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
  20. Finally notes that 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 important aspects of heritage management and conservation, and strongly encourages the State Party to use this opportunity as a means of strengthening management and conservation at other urban World Heritage properties in Uzbekistan.
42 COM 8C.2
Update of the List of World Heritage in Danger (Retained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/18/42.COM/7A, WHC/18/42.COM/7A.Add and WHC/18/42.COM/7A.Add.2),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 42 COM 7A.1)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 42 COM 7A.2)
  • Austria, Historic Centre of Vienna (Decision 42 COM 7A.5)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 42 COM 7A.8)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.45)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 42 COM 7A.9)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.46)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.47)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.48)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.49)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.50)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.51)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 42 COM 7A.17)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.44)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 42 COM 7A.40)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 42 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 42 COM 7A.19)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 42 COM 7A.20)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 42 COM 7A.21)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Cyrene (Decision 42 COM 7A.22)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (Decision 42 COM 7A.23)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Sabratha (Decision 42 COM 7A.24)
  • Libya, Old Town of Ghadamès (Decision 42 COM 7A.25)
  • Libya, Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (Decision 42 COM 7A.26)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 42 COM 7A.53)
  • Mali, Old Towns of Djenné (Decision 42 COM 7A.13)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 42 COM 7A.14)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 42 COM 7A.15)
  • Micronesia (Federated States of), Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia (Decision 42 COM 7A.3)
  • Niger, Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 42 COM 7A.54)
  • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 42 COM 7A.27)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 42 COM 7A.29)
  • Palestine, Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town (Decision 42 COM 7A.28)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 42 COM 7A.10)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 42 COM 7A.11)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.55)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 42 COM 7A.6)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 42 COM 7A.41)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 42 COM 7A.30)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 42 COM 7A.31)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 42 COM 7A.32)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 42 COM 7A.33)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 42 COM 7A.34)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 42 COM 7A.35)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 42 COM 7A.16)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 42 COM 7A.7)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.56)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.42)
  • Uzbekistan, Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Decision 42 COM 7A.4)
  • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Coro and its Port (Decision 42 COM 7A.12)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 42 COM 7A.37)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 42 COM 7A.38)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 42 COM 7A.39)
Draft Decision: 42 COM 7A.4

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decisions 39 COM 7B.74, 40 COM 7B.48 and 41 COM 7A.57, adopted at its 39th (Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) and 41st (Krakow, 2017) sessions respectively, and in particular the concern that the reconstruction project ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’ represented a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, in accordance with Paragraph 179 (b) of the Operational Guidelines,
  3. Also recalling that the March 2016 and December 2016 Reactive Monitoring missions to the property confirmed that the heart of the Temurid town planning has been lost, that traditional dwelling houses in the core of the medieval town have been destroyed, and that the key attributes of the OUV have been damaged to such an extent (irreversibly, for the most part) that the property could no longer convey the OUV for which it was inscribed,
  4. Regrets that no information was provided on the reconstruction and development scheme to the World Heritage Centre in due time, and before any irreversible decision was taken, despite the provisions of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  5. Notes that the State Party has not been able to define any possible mitigation measures to recover lost attributes, or to propose a significant boundary modification based on any recoverable attributes, in response to the Committee’s request to explore these options;
  6. Also notes that, although work is currently suspended on the ‘State Programme for complex measures for the building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’, further work is planned from 2020 onwards;
  7. Considers that the State Party’s 2017 report has confirmed the conclusions of the December 2016 mission that the attributes have been destroyed to such an extent that the property can no longer justify its OUV;
  8. Greatly regrets this situation and the fact that this damage cannot be reversed or attributes recovered, and further notes that a major boundary modification would not be feasible;
  9. Further recalling that, according to Article 6.1 of the Convention, properties inscribed on the World Heritage List constitute ‘a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate’, and recalling furthermore the duty of the international community to assist and cooperate with States Parties in their endeavour to conserve such heritage,
  10. Recalling moreover that States Parties have an obligation under the Convention to protect and conserve the World Cultural and Natural Heritage situated on their territory, notably to ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection and conservation of such heritage,
  11. Notes with deep regret that the State Party was unable to fulfil its obligations defined in the Convention, in particular the obligation to protect and conserve the OUV of the World Heritage property, as defined at the time of inscription;
  12. Deeply regrets that the entreaties of the World Heritage Committee at its 39th, 40th, and 41st sessions failed to protect the property;
  13. Decides to delete the Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) from the World Heritage List;
  14. Notes furthermore that 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 important aspects of heritage management and conservation, and encourages the State Party to use this opportunity as a means of strengthening management and conservation at other urban World Heritage properties in Uzbekistan.
Report year: 2018
Uzbekistan
Date of Inscription: 2000
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(iv)
Danger List (dates): 2016-present
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2018) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 42COM (2018)
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