Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands
Factors affecting the property in 2019*
- Air transport infrastructure
- Interpretative and visitation facilities
- Legal framework
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Poor state of conservation of the monastic irrigation system
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Inadequate coordinated management between national, local and religious authorities
- Lack of appropriate legal measures and rules for conservation, restoration, management and use of World Heritage properties of religious interest
- Poor state of conservation of the monastic irrigation system
- Inappropriate location of the planned Museum Complex
- Construction of an airport building
- Lack of adequate development control processes and Master Plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2019
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2019**
August 2013: joint UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; July 2015: ICOMOS Advisory mission; April 2018: joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2019
A joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission visited the property in April 2018 (mission report available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/632/documents). The Committee agreed that mission report would be examined at the 43rd session.
The State Party submitted a state of conservation report on 31 January 2019, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/632/documents, and responds to the recommendations of the Committee and of the mission.
The 2018 mission welcomed the proposal to develop a Master Plan for the property and considered that it was essential that this Plan be underpinned by adequate data on the clearly-defined attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and their inter-relationship which include both sacred and secular landscapes, monastic settlements, roads, water management systems, forests meadows, building typologies and craft skills. The Master Plan needs to define, amongst other aspects, a tourism strategy to allow the property to be visited as a sacred place, and how new buildings can support its distinctiveness.
In its report, the State Party acknowledges that the main problem is a lack of a comprehensive approach to preservation and development of the cultural, spiritual, and natural heritage of the property, and in order to address this problem it has taken the following actions:
- Amendments to the existing Federal Law “On the Cultural Heritage (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Nations of the Russian Federation” are being drafted to bring Russian legislation on cultural heritage into conformity with international norms;
- The Fund for the Conservation and Development of the Solovetsky Archipelago, created by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on 6 April 2018, will become operational in 2019, and will offer support for the following:
- Conservation and restoration of cultural heritage, preservation of land, water and natural properties, and reconstruction and maintenance of historic infrastructure,
- Science, culture, art, and academia,
- Spiritual and educational activities;
- A ‘comprehensive Concept of development of the Solovetsky archipelago and an instrument to assign a status of religious and historical site of federal significance to the Solovetsky archipelago’ are being developed, as a basis for new legal regulation and for the development of a Master Plan and the revision of the Management Plan;
- Geodetic and cadastral surveys have been undertaken on the historical road network and the lake and canal systems;
- The restoration approach for the boulder masonry defensive walls was deemed to be incorrect and has been stopped.
- The report also included details of five projects for a sewage treatment plant, district hospital, multi-apartment residential block, waste disposal complex and airport passenger terminal which ICOMOS assessed in its March 2019 technical review.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2019
The 2018 mission noted that important changes have been introduced, such as designation of the archipelago as a Heritage Religious Zone, had been made to the overall governance of the islands through the creation of the Fund for the Conservation and Development of the Solovetsky Archipelago, and an agreement had been made to produce a Master Plan for the property that will in effect set out a new ‘concept’ for the property and how it moves forward. All of these changes are to be welcomed.
In spite of its apparently robust monumental buildings, the mission noted that the property is in many ways exceedingly fragile. Insensitive restoration or development could quickly compromise its strong sense of place. The Master Plan needs to be underpinned by adequate data on the clearly-defined attributes of OUV and their inter-relationship, arising from a unique combination of a highly prosperous monastic buildings, remote landscapes of both spiritual and natural value, sophisticated water management systems and vernacular timber buildings that taken together are a microcosm of the history of Northern Russia.
Currently, projects are developed on a one-by-one basis. The Master Plan should provide a comprehensive framework for development proposals, based on the identification and value of resources and the needs of those who live with and use those resources.
The 2018 mission considered that modest improvements to the current airport could be supported given the lack of acceptable alternative locations and given the importance of reliable air transport to the local and monastic communities, but further work is needed on the design and materials of the proposed passenger reception building, and other necessary technical equipment. A welcome decision has already been made by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia that the small airport runway will not be enlarged as such an extension ‘would adversely affect OUV’ and lead to an influx of tourists that could contribute to “the destruction of the common cultural and spiritual space of Solovki”.
In the last few years, conservation of the main monastic building has not always been implemented in ways that are either appropriate or sympathetic in terms of material and approaches, due, in part, to the lack of appropriate management. The new management structure envisages a single authority for the Archipelago, which should be a very positive change. Meanwhile work has been stopped on what is recognised as inappropriate restoration of the boulder walls. This prompt reaction of the State Party following the mission is to be commended. The Master Plan should be used to reinforce the need for on-going maintenance in order to try and avoid the need for regular major interventions. The supervision of major restoration and conservation projects should be undertaken by a conservation architect.
The possible reconstruction of the Church of St Onufrievskaya, destroyed during the Gulag period, was discussed during the 2018 mission. The 2013 mission already considered that creation of identical copies of the lost buildings and religious monuments could create an unbalanced perception of the history of this site. Therefore, on a general basis, the Master Plan should be used to define approaches to reconstruction bearing in mind the requirements of Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines and ICOMOS Guidance on Post Trauma Recovery and Reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties. For any proposed projects, a detailed documentation should be submitted for review in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
The latest plans for the new Museum could be supported, subject to further work on the overall scope of the wider museum project.
The State Party’s request for joint UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies assistance for the elaboration of the plans is welcomed.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2019
43 COM 7B.88
Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands (Russian Federation) (C 632)
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7B,
- Recalling Decision 42 COM 7B.29, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
- Welcomes the specialist research work now being undertaken to define the spiritual, historical, cultural and natural values of the property, and that this work will encompass the morphology of the landscape, its vegetation, and the history of the civilian settlements, as well as the precise details of the historic roads and the engineering of the water management system that feeds the Sacred Lake and provides essential drinking water;
- Underscores the need for this work to give particular consideration to the important ensemble of timber service buildings, the Soviet-era and later architect domestic buildings, and the important collection of vernacular buildings, all of which contribute to Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, and also underlines the need for a coherent approach to the protection of Gulag buildings, which are part of the history of the property;
- Also welcomes this research work as the basis for defining a new ‘Concept’ to over-arch the development of the Master Plan and the revision of the Management Plan, and to guide new regulatory systems;
- Notes that the draft ‘Concept’ will be prepared by May 2019 and draft regulatory systems by the end of 2019;
- Also notes that the Master Plan should provide an opportunity to reflect on what needs renovation, where development might be appropriate, what type of tourism is desired, ways in which the local economy might be invigorated, and how all these might be addressed in tandem with development in the buffer zone and the wider hinterland;
- Further welcomes the firm commitment already given by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia that the small airport runway will not been enlarged as, in line with the 2018 Mission recommendations, such an extension ‘would adversely affect OUV’ by leading to an influx of tourists that could contribute to “the destruction of the common cultural and spiritual space of Solovki”;
- Notes with concern that over the last few years, conservation of the main monastic buildings has not always been implemented in ways that are either appropriate in terms of material and approaches, but welcomes furthermore the fact that the inappropriate restoration work of the boulder walls has been stopped;
- Further notes that the planned all-encompassing management system for the Archipelago should allow for local control of conservation projects, and stresses the necessity for supervision of major restoration and conservation projects to be undertaken by a conservation architect as well as regular maintenance to help avoid major interventions;
- Welcomes moreover the establishment of the multi-disciplinary Expert Council as part of the Fund for the Conservation and Development of the Solovetsky Archipelago to provide independent expert advice during the development of the Master Plan and Management Plan, and the requested UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies advisory assistance for the elaboration of these plans;
- Supports the latest plans for the reconstruction of the partly built new museum subject to further reflection on the facing material, but considers that more work is needed on the overall scope of the wider museum project (encompassing the diesel power station, Gulag barracks and possibly the Soviet era barn);
- Notes furthermore the discussion on the possible reconstruction of the Church of St. Onufrievskaya, destroyed during the Gulag period; also considers that the Master Plan should be used to define practice of reconstruction bearing in mind the requirements of Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines and ICOMOS Guidance on Post Trauma Recovery and Reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties, and requests the State Party to submit, for any proposed reconstruction projects, a detailed concept for review specifying how the original buildings contributed to the overall monastic settlement, full details of the evidence that is available, and how reconstruction might be seen to support the OUV of the property, before any approvals are given;
- Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2020, 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 45th session in 2021.
elaboration of the plans is welcomed.
Draft Decision: 43 COM 7B.88
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7B,
- Recalling Decision 42 COM 7B.29, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
- Welcomes the specialist research work now being undertaken to define the spiritual, historical, cultural and natural values of the property, and that this work will encompass the morphology of the landscape, its vegetation, and the history of the civilian settlements, as well as the precise details of the historic roads and the engineering of the water management system that feeds the Sacred Lake and provides essential drinking water;
- Underscores the need for this work to give particular consideration to the important ensemble of timber service buildings, the Soviet-era and later architect domestic buildings, and the important collection of vernacular buildings, all of which contribute to Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, and also underscores the need for a coherent approach to the protection of Gulag buildings, which are part of the history of the property;
- Also welcomes this research work as the basis for defining a new ‘Concept’ to over-arch the development of the Master Plan and the revision of the Management Plan, and to guide new regulatory systems;
- Notes that the draft ‘Concept’ will be prepared by May 2019 and draft regulatory systems by the end of 2019;
- Also notes that the Master Plan should provide an opportunity to reflect on what needs renovation, where development might be appropriate, what type of tourism is desired, ways in which the local economy might be invigorated, and how all these might be addressed in tandem with development in the buffer zone and the wider hinterland;
- Further welcomes the firm commitment already given by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia that the small airport runway will not been enlarged as, in line with the 2018 Mission recommendations, such an extension ‘would adversely affect OUV’ by leading to an influx of tourists that could contribute to “the destruction of the common cultural and spiritual space of Solovki”;
- Notes with concern that over the last few years, conservation of the main monastic buildings has not always been implemented in ways that are either appropriate in terms of material and approaches, but welcomes furthermore the fact that the inappropriate restoration work of the boulder walls has been stopped;
- Further notes that the planned all-encompassing management system for the Archipelago should allow for local control of conservation projects, and stresses the necessity for supervision of major restoration and conservation projects to be undertaken by a conservation architect as well as regular maintenance to help avoid major interventions;
- Welcomes moreover the establishment of the multi-disciplinary Expert Council as part of the Fund for the Conservation and Development of the Solovetsky Archipelago to provide independent expert advice during the development of the Master Plan and Management Plan, and the requested UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies advisory assistance for the elaboration of these plans;
- Supports the latest plans for the reconstruction of the partly built new museum subject to further reflection on the facing material, but considers that more work is needed on the overall scope of the wider museum project (encompassing the diesel power station, Gulag barracks and possibly the Soviet era barn);
- Notes furthermore the discussion on the possible reconstruction of the Church of St. Onufrievskaya, destroyed during the Gulag period; also considers that the Master Plan should be used to define practice of reconstruction bearing in mind the requirements of Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines and ICOMOS Guidance on Post Trauma Recovery and Reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties, and requests the State Party to submit, for any proposed reconstruction projects, a detailed concept for review specifying how the original buildings contributed to the overall monastic settlement, full details of the evidence that is available, and how reconstruction might be seen to support the OUV of the property, before any approvals are given;
- Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2020, 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 45th session in 2021.
Russian FederationDocuments examined by the Committee
43COM (2019)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.
