Historical Centre of the City of Yaroslavl
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Housing
- Legal framework
- Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Gradual changes to the urban fabric: construction and restoration projects;
- Inappropriate urban development;
- Major changes to the property’s skyline through the construction of the new Cathedral of the Assumption;
- High rise projects;
- Lack of appropriate management system.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2014
Total amount approved : 9,348 USD
| 2002 | Preparatory assistance for two nominations "Historical ... (Approved) | 9,348 USD |
Missions to the property until 2014**
May 2009, 2012: joint World Heritage Centre/ ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014
On 20 January 2014, The State Party submitted a state of conservation report. An executive summary of this report is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1170/documents/. It responds to the concerns expressed in Decisions 36 COM 7B.84 and 37 COM 7B.81 and the report of the 2012 reactive monitoring mission.
The State Party provided updated information regarding legislative and regulatory protection for the property and its buffer zone at national and regional level, such as approval of the 2012 Federal Government order designating the property as a ‘remarkable site’ of federal importance, preparation of new legislation which will restrict land use and developments within the property, approval of the boundaries of the property and buffer zone and definition of the City of Yaroslavl’s World Heritage property Protection Zone regulations.
The State Party highlighted that the management and planning systems for the property, divided between three separate federal and regional Ministries, should be improved. It recognized that this system has led to weaknesses in control over large-scale development projects, and that a management plan and conservation strategy, as well as a management structure need to be established. In preparation for this, the State Party organized seminars on World Heritage Management systems and requested the assistance of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for the compilation of the management plan.
The State Party indicated that the planned bell tower of the newly reconstructed Cathedral of the Assumption has not been constructed yet, and that its archaeological remains have been conserved. The State Party confirmed that a proposed hotel development on the Volga embankment, which was judged as inappropriate in height and design, is the subject of a current appeal.
The State Party provided information that, in addition to two new bridges constructed in 2010 over the Volga and the Kotorosl, further infrastructure developments are planned for completion by 2026 as outlined in the Urban Master Plan. These developments include a by-pass, two bridges and a traffic interchange.
The State Party confirmed that all relevant information on any new construction within the property and its buffer zone will be transmitted to the World Heritage Centre for review.The State Party reported on status of recently undertaken conservation projects within the property and its buffer zone.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2014
The State Party has made some progress in strengthening the legislative control over the property and preparation of a new legislation. However, both legislative and management control still require urgent improvement. It is recommended that the World Heritage Committee urge the State Party to adopt, as a matter of urgency, a legal document which should take into consideration the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property inscribed for its importance in architecture, town planning and spatial relationships between buildings, its specific landscape setting, as well as important views and lines of inter-visibility. This document should restrict land use and developments within the property, with particular emphasis on the establishment of no-construction zones and strict limits to development rights. This legal instrument should be operational including for projects which were already approved within the existing Urban Master Plan and without any consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies.
While the plans for further major infrastructure interventions in the landscape of the property could represent a potential threat to the OUV of the property, no proposals with accompanying heritage impact assessments have been submitted to the World Heritage Centre for any of the developments listed in the report as still awaiting implementation.
It is also recommended that the Committee strongly reiterate its request to the State Party to submit, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, details of any proposed developments, including those listed in the report but not yet implemented, that may have an adverse impact on the OUV of the property, accompanied by Heritage Impact Assessments.
Conservation projects are still undertaken without an appropriate Conservation Strategy for the property, but that the development of this is planned to be undertaken during the preparation of the property’s management plan.
It is further recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to improve the management structure of the property and its buffer zone and produce a management plan.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7B.31
Historic Centre of the City of Yaroslavl (Russian Federation) (C 1170)
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B,
- Recalling Decisions 36 COM 7B.84 and 37 COM 7B.81 adopted at its 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) and 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013) sessions respectively,
- Notes the progress made by the State Party in strengthening legislative and regulatory control to improve the protection of the property;
- Reiterates its concerns that inappropriate construction and/or infrastructure developments with inappropriate scale, height and mass, or incorporating non-traditional materials, impose a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property inscribed for its importance in architecture, town planning and spatial relationships between buildings and urges the State Party to:
- to finalize and adopt an appropriate legal instrument which should take into consideration the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) to restrict land use and developments within the property, with particular emphasis on the establishment of no-construction zones, and strict limits to development rights,
- to ensure that this legal instrument be applicable even for the projects which were already approved within the existing Urban Master Plan,
- to ensure that heritage impact assessments become a mandatory prior to any development;
- Also urges the State Party to improve the management structure of the property and to submit to the World Heritage Centre, a Management Plan along with a Conservation strategy for the property, for review by the Advisory Bodies;
- Strongly reiterates its request to the State Party to submit, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines , details of any proposed developments, including those reported as still awaiting implementation, such as the new bypass road, bridges and traffic interchange around the property, that may have an adverse impact on the OUV of the property, accompanied by heritage impact assessments;
- Also notes that the excavated remains of the original bell tower of the Cathedral of the Assumption are being conserved and requests the State Party to confirm that the proposed reconstruction of the bell tower has been cancelled;
- Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2015, a report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above points, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session in 2016.
38 COM 8E
Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E,
- Congratulates the States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;
- Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:
- China: Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area;
- Japan: Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of the Kingdom of Ryukyu; Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara; Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama; The Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome);
- Sri Lanka: Sinharaja Forest;
- Vietnam: Hoi An Ancient Town; Complex of Hué Monuments;
EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA:
- Albania: Butrint;
- Armenia: Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley;
- Austria: Semmering Railway; Wachau Cultural Landscape;
- Azerbaijan: Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower;
- Belarus / Estonia / Finland / Latvia / Lithuania / Moldova / Norway / Russian Federation / Sweden / Ukraine: Struve Geodetic Arc;
- Belgium: Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels); Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons); Notre-Dame Cathedral in Tournai; Plantin-Moretus House-Workshops-Museum Complex;
- Bosnia and Herzegovina: Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar;
- Cyprus: Paphos;
- Denmark: Ilulissat Icefjord;
- Finland: Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki; Fortress of Suomenlinna; Old Rauma; Petäjävesi Old Church; Verla Groundwood and Board Mill;
- Georgia: Historical Monuments of Mtskheta; Upper Svaneti;
- Germany / Poland: Muskauer Park / Park Mużakowski;
- Germany: Abbey and Altenmünster of Lorsch; Bauhaus and its Sites in Weimar and Dessau; Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl; Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of Quedlinburg; Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz; Luther Memorials in Eisleben and Wittenberg; Monastic Island of Reichenau; Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin; Pilgrimage Church of Wies; St Mary's Cathedral and St Michael's Church at Hildesheim; Völklingen Ironworks; Wartburg Castle; Würzburg Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Square; Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen;
- Holy See / Italy: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City Enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura;
- Holy See: Vatican City;
- Iceland: Þingvellir National Park;
- Italy: Botanical Garden (Orto Botanico), Padua; Ferrara, City of the Renaissance, and its Po Delta; Historic Centre of Florence; Historic Centre of Naples;
- Lithuania / Russian Federation: Curonian Spit;
- Lithuania: Kernavė Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernavė);
- Malta: City of Valletta; Hal Saflieni Hypogeum; Megalithic Temples of Malta;
- Mongolia / Russian Federation: Uvs Nuur Basin;
- Montenegro: Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor;
- Netherlands: Historic Area of Willemstad, Inner City and Harbour, Curaçao;
- Norway: Vegaøyan -- The Vega Archipelago; West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord;
- Poland: Centennial Hall in Wrocław; Historic Centre of Warsaw;
- Portugal: Historic Centre of Évora; Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture; Monastery of Alcobaça; Monastery of the Hieronymites and Tower of Belém in Lisbon;
- Russian Federation: Church of the Ascension, Kolomenskoye; Historical Centre of the City of Yaroslavl; Kizhi Pogost;
- Slovakia: Bardejov Town Conservation Reserve; Vlkolínec;
- Slovenia: Škocjan Caves;
- Spain: Archaeological Ensemble of Mérida; Burgos Cathedral; Historic Centre of Cordoba; Monastery and Site of the Escurial, Madrid; Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of the Asturias; Mudejar Architecture of Aragon; Old City of Salamanca; Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Old Town of Cáceres; Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct; Poblet Monastery; Route of Santiago de Compostela; Royal Monastery of Santa María de Guadalupe; San Cristóbal de La Laguna; Santiago de Compostela (Old Town); Works of Antoni Gaudí;
- Turkey: Archaeological Site of Troy; City of Safranbolu; Hattusha: the Hittite Capital; Xanthos-Letoon;
- Ukraine: Kiev: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra;
- United Kingdom: Gough and Inaccessible Islands; Henderson Island; Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda;
- United States of America: Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site; Chaco Culture; Independence Hall; Mesa Verde National Park; Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville; Statue of Liberty;
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBBEANS:
- Argentina: Ischigualasto / Talampaya Natural Parks; Los Glaciares; Península Valdés;
- Belize: Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System;
- Bolivia: City of Potosí;
- Brazil: Brasilia; Historic Centre of Salvador de Bahia; Historic Centre of São Luís; Historic Centre of the Town of Diamantina; Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás; Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda; Historic Town of Ouro Preto; Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas;
- Colombia: Los Katíos National Park;
- Costa Rica / Panama: Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park;
- Cuba: Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the South-East of Cuba; San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba; Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos; Viñales Valley;
- Dominican Republic: Colonial City of Santo Domingo;
- Guatemala: Tikal National Park;
- Panama: Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection; Fortifications on the Caribbean Side, Portobelo and San Lorenzo;
- Suriname: Central Suriname Nature Reserve; Historic Inner City of Paramaribo;
4. Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;
5. Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:
- World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
- World Heritage properties in Africa;
- World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
- World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
- World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;
6. Takes note that the World Heritage Centre is in the process of harmonising all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value and, as appropriate, reflects name changes of World Heritage properties throughout the text of the Statements as requested by the Committee at its 37th session, and requests the World Heritage Centre to also update the size of the property and/or its buffer zone, as appropriate, following subsequent Decisions of the World Heritage Committee concerning Minor Boundary Modifications.
7. Requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload the two language versions on its website.
Draft Decision: 38COM 7B.31
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decisions 36 COM 7B.84 and 37 COM 7B.81 adopted at its 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) and 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013) sessions respectively,
3. Notes the progress made by the State Party in strengthening legislative and regulatory control to improve the protection of the property;
4. Reiterates its concerns that inappropriate construction and/or infrastructure developments with inappropriate scale, height and mass, or incorporating non-traditional materials, impose a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property inscribed for its importance in architecture, town planning and spatial relationships between buildings and urges the State Party to:
a) to finalize and adopt an appropriate legal instrument which should take into consideration the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) to restrict land use and developments within the property, with particular emphasis on the establishment of no-construction zones, and strict limits to development rights,
b) to ensure that this legal instrument be applicable even for the projects which were already approved within the existing Urban Master Plan,
c) to ensure that heritage impact assessments become a mandatory prior to any development;
5. Also urges the State Party to improve the management structure of the property and to submit to the World Heritage Centre, a Management Plan along with a Conservation strategy for the property, for review by the Advisory Bodies;
6. Strongly reiterates its request to the State Party to submit, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, details of any proposed developments, including those reported as still awaiting implementation, such as the new bypass road, bridges and traffic interchange around the property, that may have an adverse impact on the OUV of the property, accompanied by heritage impact assessments;
7. Also notes that the excavated remains of the original bell tower of the Cathedral of the Assumption are being conserved and requests the State Party to confirm that the proposed reconstruction of the bell tower has been cancelled;
8. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2016, a report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above points, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session in 2016.
Russian FederationDocuments examined by the Committee
38COM (2014)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.
