X hits on this document





163 / 206

While the boundaries for the protected zones of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve have been identified, the mission noted that the boundaries of the World Heritage property and its buffer zone are still unclear. The mission recommends that the State Party clarifies this boundary issue by 1 February 2011 in a way that protects the property and its setting and relates to the protection of the whole island as a Heritage site, as is proposed. The mission also noted concern at development proposals within certain areas of the Kizhi Museum Reserve and considered that these should be immediately halted.

d) Co-ordination and management

The initiative of Kizhi Museum Reserve to establish a Special State Board to coordinate the implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions has been stopped despite the World Heritage Committee’s request to the State Party to establish this Board. The mission recommends implementing this Committee’s decision as a matter of urgency.

The mission noted documents (in Russian) presented by the Kizhi Museum (Master Plan of the Kizhi Museum Reserve and its protected area) that had not been submitted for review and that they did not indicate the boundaries of the World Heritage property and its buffer zone. The mission expresses its concern that all protected areas regulations established within this Master Plan have been adapted to development activities and that the Kizhi Museum Reserve has the intention to develop new visitor facilities and to build a new visitor centre, in conformity with regulations of this Master Plan.

The mission recommends to halt any inappropriate development and new constructions within the property, its buffer zone and protected areas of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve, and submit to the World Heritage Centre, in conformity with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, all projects for review and comments prior to any approval.

The mission noted delays in State Party efforts to respond to the Committee’s request to develop a fully integrated management plan for the site, largely as a result of different interpretations by the national authorities of the intent of this request. The mission report notes in detail the issues to be addressed in the integrated management plan (including using Outstanding Universal Value as the core focus of all decision making for the site; formal inclusion of new partners and stakeholders such as the Church; the need to reference the overall context for decision-making, ensuring management and provision of facilities for dramatically increasing tourism numbers, respecting the setting of the property, balancing natural and built environment concerns, integrating provisions for risk preparedness and security, and clarifying boundary issues and protection, etc.).

The mission noted in the State Party report that the management plan and a tourism development programme will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies for review and comments.

In follow-up to the above recommendations, the mission proposed a set of corrective measures to be addressed by the State Party and a timeframe for their implementation. The mission report is available on-line at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/34COM/.

The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS consider that the State Party should implement the defined corrective measures as a matter of urgency.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that the most critical issue at Kizhi Pogost is the seriously threatened state of the Church of the Transfiguration. In considering Sections 177-191 of the Operational Guidelines, it can be concluded that if the current loss of fabric and design features is not halted immediately the Outstanding Universal Value of the

State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add, p. 163

Document info
Document views512
Page views512
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 12:31:01 UTC 2016