<
 
 
 
 
×
>
You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using Archive-It. This page was captured on 16:26:58 Apr 03, 2023, and is part of the UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page.
Loading media information hide

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Historical Centre of the City of Yaroslavl

Russian Federation
Factors affecting the property in 2018*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Gradual changes to the urban fabric: construction and restoration projects (issue resolved)
  • Inappropriate urban development (issue resolved)
  • Major changes to the property’s skyline through the construction of the new Cathedral of the Assumption (issue resolved)
  • High rise projects (issue resolved)
  • Lack of appropriate management system (issue resolved)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2018
Requests approved: 1 (from 2002-2002)
Total amount approved : 9,348 USD
Missions to the property until 2018**

May 2009, February 2012: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring missions; October 2014: ICOMOS Advisory mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2018

On 15 January 2018, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1170, and which provides information on measures implemented by the State Party in response to the decision adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), as follows:

  • Revision of the Urban Master Plan and formulating measures for a consistent urban planning and maintenance approach to all historic monuments within the property through development and adoption of relevant regulations and rules that take into consideration the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property and its buffer zone, including establishment of restricted land use and no-construction zones;
  • Finalization of the Management Plan, including Conservation Strategy and regulations concerning ruinous monuments, planned by the end of 2018.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2018

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the state of conservation of the property is being adequately addressed by the State Party. The State Party is encouraged to continue with the implementation of all relevant measures and plans, defining appropriate degrees of intervention for each element of the property, in order to prevent any threats to its OUV.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2018
42 COM 7B.101
Omnibus

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties:
    • The Grand Canal (China) (C 1443bis)
    • Carolingian Westwork and Civitas Corvey (Germany) (C 1447)
    • Historic Centre of the City of Yaroslavl (Russian Federation) (C 1170)
  3. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  4. Recalling the benefits to States Parties of systematically utilizing Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in the review of development projects, encourages States Parties to integrate the EIA/HIA processes into legislation, planning mechanisms and management plans, and reiterates its recommendation to States Parties to use these tools in assessing projects, including assessment of cumulative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, as early as possible and before any final decision is taken;
  5. Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
Draft Decision: 42 COM 7B.101

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties:
    • The Grand Canal (China) (C 1443bis)
    • Carolingian Westwork and Civitas Corvey (Germany) (C 1447)
    • Historic Centre of the City of Yaroslavl (Russian Federation) (C 1170)
  3. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  4. Recalling the benefits to States Parties of systematically utilizing Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in the review of development projects, encourages States Parties to integrate the EIA/HIA processes into legislation, planning mechanisms and management plans, and reiterates its recommendation to States Parties to use these tools in assessing projects, including assessment of cumulative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, as early as possible and before any final decision is taken;
  5. Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
Report year: 2018
Russian Federation
Date of Inscription: 2005
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2017) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 42COM (2018)
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.


top