Administration
Budget
Capacity Building
Communication
Community
Conservation
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Partnerships
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Reports
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention








2029 27 GA
2027 26 GA
2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 41 COM 7A.57
Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) (C 885)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 40 COM 7B.48, adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
  3. Welcomes the Action Plan submitted by the State Party, which reflects an acknowledgement of the need to transform the protection, management and decision making not only for Shakhrisyabz but also for other World Heritage properties in Uzbekistan;
  4. Notes with extreme concern the findings of the 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission concerning the drastic and irreversible damage to the Temurid urban planning and to traditional dwelling houses in the core of the medieval town resulting from works undertaken under the ‘State Programme for complex measures for building and reconstruction of Shakhrisyabz city’;
  5. Also notes with extreme concern the relocation of some 2,000 residents and the extensive conservation work at and around a number of cultural heritage monuments, including the Ak-Saray Palace, the Dorus-Saodat Complex, the Chor-su Bazaar and the Medieval Baths, partly carried out using inappropriate materials and irreversible techniques, including some reconstruction, which caused significant damage to the authenticity of the property;
  6. Greatly regrets that no information was provided to the World Heritage Centre on this major project before irreversible decisions were taken and work commenced, and understands that, had the project not been halted as requested by the Committee in 2016, the demolition would have been extended to other mahalla districts;
  7. Notes that no Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), no detailed systematic documentation, and no rescue archaeology was carried out before the major interventions began;
  8. Takes note with concern of the Reactive Monitoring mission’s conclusion that, as the monumental buildings have now been disengaged from their urban surroundings, the heart of the Temurid town planning has been lost and, as the traditional dwelling houses in the core of the medieval town have been destroyed, the key attributes of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) have been damaged to such an extent, and for the most part irreversibly, that the property can no longer convey the OUV for which it was inscribed;
  9. Also takes note with concern of 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, but considers nevertheless that the State Party should explore all possible options for the recovery of attributes and examine whether a significant boundary modification could be envisaged based on any recoverable attributes, in line with Paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines;
  10. Requests therefore that the State Party halt any further work at Shakhrisyabz and provide to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2017, 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, such as the widening and re-paving of roads,
    6. Documentation on work carried out on the monuments and their settings since inscription,
    7. A current Master Plan for the city;
  11. Decides that on the basis of this documentation, a decision will be made at its 42nd session in 2018 on whether there is potential for a re-nomination of the property including only some of the monuments and the remaining urban areas, or whether the property has 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;
  12. Urges the State Party to address all other recommendations of the December 2016 Reactive Monitoring mission, notably regarding protection, management and tile decay on the façade of Ak-Saray Palace;
  13. Requests the World Heritage Centre to provide to the Committee at its 42nd session a report concerning the clarification of the processes associated with the Periodic Reporting and Reactive Monitoring system with regard to this property;
  14. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2018, 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 42nd session in 2018;
  15. Also decides to retain Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Decision Code
41 COM 7A.57
Themes
Conservation, List of World Heritage in Danger
States Parties 1
Year
2017
State of conservation reports
2017 Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz
Documents
WHC/17/41.COM/18
Decisions adopted during the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee (Krakow, 2017)
Context of Decision
WHC-17/41.COM/7A.Add