L'viv – the Ensemble of the Historic Centre

• New constructions within the historic centre;
• Lack of valid detailed planning documents;
• Inadequate infrastructure including the sewage system

On 31 January 2012 and 31 January 2013, the State Party submitted state of conservation reports, in response to Decision 35 COM 7B.113. A reactive monitoring mission to the property took place from 7 to 15 May 2012 and the mission report is available online at the following Web address: https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/.

The two State Party reports largely consist of lists of conservation projects. The 2012 report mentions the adoption of “Integrated Concept of the Development of the Centre of L’viv” (a document for the planning in the historic centre), “Rules regarding placement of outside advertisements in L’viv”, and the “Guide to the city”, providing guidance about the historical architecture and methods of reconstruction and repair. It confirms that new constructions which could have adversely impacted on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property were stopped, specifically the proposed new hotel on the Citadel and of the Franciscan monastery. The 2013 report confirms the completion of the digitised mapping of the property. Neither report addresses the development of the Strategic Management Plan, the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board, the development of a plan for traffic and parking nor other problems of management and statutory development control raised by the 2010 mission.

The 2012 ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission raised significant concerns in all areas and noted the following:

a)  Legislation: recent modifications have resulted in some laws being contradictory and overly complicated and the legal powers of the Minister of Culture have weakened. Regulation for protection is over-centralised and guidance for developers, where it exists, is generalised, subjective, and not specifically geared to historic repair or appropriate regeneration. The legal protection of Ukraine’s World Heritage properties in general, and that of L’viv and its buffer zone in particular, is inadequate.

b)  Management systems: the powers of the Minister of Culture are weak in relation to redevelopment issues. No independent advisory board has been set up and there has been no progress with the formulation of the Management Plan. With no Site Manager and gaps in the legal framework, there is no clear system to ensure the effective management of the property.

c)  Plans, systems and mechanisms: The General Plan for L’viv, adopted in 2010, is an adequate tool to address some issues regarding management and protection. However, issues such as development potential and traffic congestion continue to be serious. The Mayor has attempted to address these problems by decentralising offices and banning traffic from the historic centre, but the General Plan lacks precision in the historic zoning of the city, in the identification of heritage buildings and ensembles and in their regulation. The requirement for the “Historic and Architectural Justification”, subject to approval from the Minister of Culture is in effect the only procedure for restricting development but it is largely unsystematic and lacks precise criteria or guidance.

d)  State of conservation: Funding for restoration projects is insufficient, though jointly funded projects with international cooperation (Germany, Poland and Norway), have led to adequate interventions such as those at the Jesuit and Armenian Cathedrals, the monasteries of Saint Yura and Saint Onufre, and a programme of repair of windows, doors, staircases and balconies. However, the mission noted examples of buildings in a very poor state of repair and of poor conservation practice – lack of pre-development research, inaccurate or fanciful reconstruction - and a lack of awareness of the need for archaeological excavation. The future of the Citadel and the Bernadine Monastery, despite a stop to construction works to the new controversial building, remains uncertain as do other potential or actual development sites, such as a hotel at Krakovska. It is often public pressure, rather than formal regulation, that prevents inappropriate development. The mission noted three projects that potentially affected OUV, which should be halted to allow further scrutiny.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that the report of the 2012 ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission raises significant concerns with the legal protection, management systems and protective mechanisms, and the state of conservation of the property and its buffer zone.

While progress has been recognised in a few areas - namely the conservation of several important monuments, the digitised mapping of the World Heritage property, and the production of the Integrated Concept for the Historic Centre of L’viv - the strength of legislative and management powers for protection has lessened and no progress has been reported in the production of Management, or area plans. In addition, pressures from development projects continue to grow and proposals that could potentially impact the Outstanding Universal Value of the property have been underscored.