Our Ref. GB/AA/1654_Add. Info Charenton-le-Pont, 6 October 2020 H. E. Mr Alexander Kouznetsov Permanent Delegation of the Russian Federation to UNESCO 8, rue de Prony 75017 Paris World Heritage List 2021 Petroglyphs of the Lake Onega and the White Sea (Russian Federation) Dear Ambassador, ICOMOS is currently assessing the nomination of “Petroglyphs of the Lake Onega and the White Sea” as a World Heritage site and an ICOMOS evaluation mission shall visit the property, if current sanitary conditions allow it, to consider matters related to protection, management and conservation, as well as issues related to integrity and authenticity. In order to help with our overall evaluation process, we would be grateful to receive further information to augment what has already been submitted in the nomination dossier. Therefore, we would be pleased if the State Party could consider the following points and kindly provide additional information: Description of the nominated property ICOMOS notes that, in the history and development section of the nomination dossier, mention is made of how sites were documented and researched but there is no information on the history of the petroglyphs themselves. Brief information is included in the management plan (p. 23 and 25), however, a detailed history depicting how the cultural groups settled, evolved and migrated, including a description of the context in which the petroglyphs were created as at the current state of research, would be beneficial to the understanding of the nominated property. It would be important to provide a history of the development including settlements and migrations of the Neolithic cultures at the Lake Onega and the White Sea as well as in the wider region (evolution, settlement, trade routes and communication, migration, believes and traditions etc. of the Pit-Comb Ware & Rhomb-Pit Ware cultures for example). It would also be appreciated if the relation existing between the Neolithic cultural groups and the peoples of Finno-Ugric origin (described as their descendants on page 63 of the nomination dossier) could be further explained. Further information would also be welcome regarding the physical immovable remains retrieved from the archaeological campaigns in various sites of the Lake Onega and the White Sea, which testify to the rituals, spiritual beliefs and oral traditions held. ICOMOS 11 rue du Séminaire de Conflans - 94220 Charenton-le-Pont - France Tel. + 33 (0) 1 41 94 17 59 - [email protected] - www.icomos.org Boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zones ICOMOS notes that the management plan of the nominated property mentions that 49 archaeological ‘monuments’ are located in the immediate vicinity of the rock carvings of the Lake Onega as well as the 42 camp sites associated with the petroglyphs of the White Sea. It would be useful for ICOMOS to understand whether these additional sites are located within the buffer zones of the nominated components, and if not, what are their protective designations. Regarding the delineation of the buffer zone of component 1 of the Lake Onega, ICOMOS notes that there is an overlap of the delineation of the nominated component part in the sea with the one of the buffer zone. ICOMOS would be pleased if the State Party could explain how an additional layer of protection could be considered, taking into account this configuration. It would also be useful if the State Party could clarify whether a buffer zone delineation in the sea beyond the proposed nominated area was considered. ICOMOS would be pleased if the State Party could clarify the rationale followed for the delineation of the buffer zones, in relation to existing protective designations. Integrity ICOMOS notes that the component parts selected by the State Party contain archaeological settlements, but that other archaeological elements, such as burial grounds, have not be included into the component parts of the series. ICOMOS would be pleased if the State Party could further explain the reasons why the other archaeological elements have not been included in the nominated areas. Comparative analysis ICOMOS notes that, in the comparative analysis section, detailed comparisons are undertaken with rock art sites of the Tentative List of Russian Federation, and with rock art sites inscribed on the World Heritage List located in the same geo-cultural region, in Northern Fennoscandia. ICOMOS notes that the polar petroglyphs of the Lake Kanozero on the Umba River are considered as being potentially added in the future to the nominated property as an extension. ICOMOS understands that this site benefitted from recent research and conservation works. Could the State Party provide further information on the current state of research of this site and how it compares with the nominated property? In addition, in relation to the selection of the component parts of the series, could the State Party provide further information as regards the rationale that has been followed for the selection of the components? In particular, ICOMOS would be interested in understanding whether they can be said to reflect different facets of the same culture, and how they complement or reinforce each other. Conservation In 2016, the State Committee of the Republic of Karelia for the protection of cultural heritage objects was established. ICOMOS would be pleased if the State Party could provide information on the role it plays within the management of the property, and especially its prerogatives as regards the conservation of the nominated series. ICOMOS would also be interested to understand how the institutions of State Committee, State public institution and the Belomorsk Municipal Museum operate and collaborate for the purpose of conservation of the nominated property. On page 95 of the management plan, mention is made that “for the time being, the condition of the monuments is not regularly monitored; there is no system governing monitoring activities or appointed responsible persons; the existing number of available officers is insufficient to perform full monitoring.” It would be highly appreciated if the State Party could indicate if the preparation of a conservation plan is being considered. Has a short, medium and long-term conservation programme been set up beside the project of “a regular comprehensive preventive maintenance system”? As far as scientific research is concerned, is there a research plan providing a policy, framework, guidelines and an action plan for future research at the nominated property? Protection Could the State Party provide a detailed map, in English, of existing protection designations in relation to the boundaries of the nominated property and of the buffer zones? It would be useful if this map could include existing natural reserve(s) and other protected areas. Could the State Party clarify whether all the places and sites identified within the nominated property and buffer zones are also included on the National Heritage Register or equivalent protection when mention is made of federal listing? The nomination dossier indicates that there is a project to list the petroglyphs of the Lake Onega of the White Sea as cultural heritage site of federal significance (“considered for protection under the State Code of Especially Valuable Properties of Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation”). Could the State Party indicate the implications of their current status and what benefits would the petroglyphs of the Lake Onega and the White Sea gain with this listing? What is the timetable in place to complete this designation? Management As the nominated property is presented as a series, management for individual component parts is necessary, but also an overall management system for the series as a whole. Therefore, ICOMOS would be pleased if the State Party could provide information as to whether an overall coordination management body has been established. ICOMOS understands that there will be a Coordination Council comprising a number of private and public stakeholders meeting at least once every 6 months. However, further information would be appreciated so as to understand how the various public bodies involved in the management of the nominated property (Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Karelia, the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Karelian Research Centre, the Forest Institute of the Karelian Centre, the State of information centre, le Belomorsky and the Pudozhsky Municipal districts) will interact with the Coordination Council and the Reserve Museum. It would be much appreciated if the State party could specify who will be directly responsible for the conservation, protection and management of the nominated property and provide further details on this matter. With regards to the management plan, could the State Party provide additional information on the implementation time scale concerning the formal approval and implementation of the management plan? Tourism and development projects ICOMOS would welcome further information on the type of foreseen industrial and tourism development projects – in particular their location in respect to the nominated property - as well as on any consequence over the existing road network and the traffic in the vicinity or within the nominated property. Could the State Party indicate what is the status of the tourism development plan announced in the Management Plan? ICOMOS appreciates that the timeframe for providing this additional information is short. Brief responses are required at this stage, and can be discussed further with the State Party if needed during the ICOMOS World Heritage Panel process. We look forward to your responses to these points, which will be of great help in our evaluation process. We would be grateful if you could provide ICOMOS and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with the above information by Monday 16 November 2020 at the latest. Please note that the State Party shall submit two copies of the additional information to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre so that it can be formally registered as part of the Nomination Dossier.