X hits on this document





169 / 206

  • 3.

    Notes the multi-year programme proposal submitted by the State Party to address on going needs for improved property management;

  • 4.

    Congratulates the State Party for its decision to suspend work on the construction of the “Okhta Centre”;

  • 5.

    Requests the State Party to develop significantly modified design proposals subject to an independent heritage impact assessment, including an assessment of the impacts of the proposal on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and submit it to the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies for review, before any commitment is made, in line with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;

  • 6.

    Acknowledges the recommendations of the World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property;

  • 7.

    Regrets that the State Party’s report did not address the World Heritage Committee’s requests for an extended buffer zone;

  • 8.

    Also requests the State Party to explore the two following options to boundary modification/clarification:

    • a)

      reduce the boundary limits of the 1990 inscription and re-nominate the property, or

    • b)

      modify the national legal status of the property to allow the serial site, as inscribed in 1990, to be recognized as a single entity (this option would not need a re-nomination);

  • 9.

    Further requests the State Party to define appropriate buffer zones for the property, including, for the Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg, the surrounding landscape, in particular the panorama along the Neva River;

  • 10.

    Suggests that the State Party organise an international expert forum in Saint Petersburg in order to evaluate various proposals concerning the boundaries of the property and its buffer zones, in relation to the finalisation of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

  • 11.

    Requests furthermore the State Party to revise the draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

  • 12.

    Also requests the State Party to address the need to provide an over-arching management framework for the property through:

    • a)

      designation of a principal management authority with sufficient authority to control the authenticity and integrity of the inscribed property,

    • b)

      development of an overall Management Plan for the property, including a Plan for Environmental Design and Urbanism for the entire territory, as well as a Safeguarding Plan which would define appropriate degrees of intervention for each element of the property, which would permit co-ordination among all stakeholders concerned;

  • 13.

    Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a state of conservation report for the property that addresses the above points for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

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

WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add, p. 169

Document info
Document views812
Page views812
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 22:19:21 UTC 2017