arning in regard to the site’s future development: ‘In the opinion of ICOMOS it would be premature for the entire Reserve to be inscribed, since it is a new creation and its policies are still being formulated. The technical condition of Zhibiani village is, according to the “passport”, “in a grave condition”, which would seem to disqualify it for inscription until action has been taken to remedy that situation. The Ushguli-Chazhashi Museum-Reserve, on the other hand, is clearly defined and has been in operation for several years.’ (ICOMOS 1996, p. 101). The village of Zhibiani saw the greatest impact from substantial architectural change in the Soviet period, receiving elements reminiscent of typical Soviet dacha architecture, elegant and generously proportioned, with protruding, closed balconies in the Georgian style providing access to the series of rooms within. The dictum issued by ICOMOS (1996) excludes this style of building – the only type to provide enough space to accommodate reasonable numbers of tourists – from any and all protected status; indeed, it deems it deleterious to the site’s medieval architecture and its overall impression as per criterion V.
Photo: Reproduction of an undated Photo of the 1960s showing Chwibiani and Zhibiani and taken from a room of the Solomon guest house in Chwibiani, which captures the principal phase of reconstruction during the Soviet period, during which following the elder interlocutors over half of the uninhabited towers were demolished for building materials.
Photo: The same view, taken today; a check at the site confirms that since the previous Photo was taken, only one further tower has been lost, to collapse.
Methods of construction, though, are changing profoundly, with the introduction of building materials such as concrete, limestone composites, plastics and sheet metals and of styles of building modelled on hotels and other types of tourist-oriented structures typical of the European Alps. Further, seasonal returners to Ushguli, who cannot do the work of mountain farmers, do not meet UNESCO stipulations as regards contributing to the preservation of the local cultural landscape (cf. criterion V, ICOMOS 1996).
The ICOMOS assessors took the view in 1996 that no management plan was necessary, possibly because they assumed that the region would remain isolated for the foreseeable future.
Tourism sustains and threatens in Ushguli
The ‘Caucasus Barometer’ for 2017 reported that 22% of the population in Georgia found themselves with insufficient funds to feed themselves and their families daily in the course of a month, while 30 %, although they had enough money for food, could not afford clothing. 24 % were dependent on the proceeds from selling the produce of small-scale subsistence farming and only 40 % received a regular wage. A total of 33 % reported needing a minimum of 250 to 400 US dollars per month to cover necessary household expenses for themselves and their families to live normal lives; however, a total of 58 % reported having less than 250 US dollars per month to cover necessary household expenses; a level of 101 to 250 US dollars do only 14 % of the population reach and the average old-age pension amounts to only 50 US dollars per month (cf. Caucasus Barometer 2017).
This is a context in which tourism attains great potential significance as a way of defusing conflict by advancing economic development. The three- to six-month tourist season in the summer, and the region’s admittedly limited access to skiing-based tourism in the winter, enable many families to return at least temporarily to Mestia, the regional administrative centre (1500m altitude, population: 2600), or to higher-altitude villages such as Ushguli.
Summarising, we can identify the need for a long-term management plan for Ushguli with active local participation in its implementation and monitoring and having regard to both architectural preservation and ‘gentle tourism’, to enable the community to maintain its authenticity in line with UNESCO criteria. A further issue consists in the ever-incre