Clause 12

Clause 12. Monitoring of implementation

Full text of the clause of the draft standard.

Draft national standard “Sustainable development of historic settlements. General requirements”, edition v7 of 2 October 2026. Until it is published by Rosstandart this is not an approved GOST R. The text is a guide to the draft, not a legal opinion and not a substitute for Federal Law No. 73-FZ or the state historical and cultural expert review. This English text is a translation of the Russian draft, not an adopted ISO standard.

12 Monitoring of implementation

This Clause provides for the assessment of the achievement of the sustainable development objectives and of the effect of the measures on the target states of the territory. The composition of the indicators is established in accordance with Annex B. Operational monitoring of the progress of the work is carried out under 10.4.8.

In mode A, monitoring in respect of the territory of the historic settlement is carried out as part of the monitoring of the implementation of the master plan or in conjunction with it. The requirements of this Clause are requirements for the content of such monitoring and do not establish a separate monitoring procedure.

This Clause does not replace the management system of Clause 11. The detail of monitoring is determined under 5.1.6, and the periodicity under 12.3.2.

12.1 General requirements for monitoring

12.1.1 Purpose and tasks of monitoring

The purpose of monitoring is to assess the achievement of the sustainable development objectives (5.4.2–5.4.4), and not only the degree of fulfilment of the measures (4.5.7). Monitoring shall demonstrate a contribution to the objectives refined on the basis of the analysis results, without reproducing the system of objective-setting.

The tasks of monitoring are:

a) assessment of the effect of the measures being implemented on the target states of the territory and on the systems (4.5.7);

b) formation of an evidence base for management decisions (4.5.6);

c) identification of deviations from the targets and of their causes;

d) securing of feedback for the updating of the implementation plan (10.9), of the project solution (9.14), of the vision (8.10), of the management system (11.9) and of the objectives (5.7.2);

e) securing of transparency and accountability to interested parties (4.5.10);

f) monitoring of trends, tendencies and the key factors of the scenarios, and not only of the degree of implementation of the measures that have been laid down (4.5.3; 8.5).

Monitoring indicators shall assess the effect on the required systems and states and shall illustrate the cross-sectoral effect (4.5.7, 4.5.5).

12.1.2 Distinction between operational and strategic monitoring

Operational monitoring by the coordinating body (10.4.8) provides for the management of the current progress of the work: fulfilment of the schedule, conformity of the measures with the quality requirements, fulfilment of decisions and instructions.

The strategic monitoring of this Clause assesses the achievement of the sustainable development objectives, the effectiveness of the measures by the criterion of effect on the target states of the territory, and the dynamics of the indicators relative to the baseline.

Both kinds use a single information system (11.6) and differ in subject, periodicity and the addressees of the results. Monitoring covers the measures of the coordinating body and the measures implemented by public and professional initiatives (10.4.9, 11.2.5).

12.1.3 Dual model of monitoring

The monitoring system includes two complementary forms:

a) periodic monitoring — a regular assessment of the achievement of the targets with an established periodicity (12.3.2);

b) reactive monitoring — an extraordinary assessment when threats, unforeseen effects, critical deviations from the targets or emergency situations are identified, including threats to cultural heritage objects and to the subject of protection (12.4.4).

Reactive monitoring is activated by a decision of the coordinating body (11.2.1) when the grounds indicated in this clause arise.

12.1.4 Link with the baseline

Monitoring is carried out relative to the baseline formed in the collection of source data (6.1.2) and recorded on the basis of the results of the analysis (7.1.6). The baseline includes the values of the indicators by the fields of Clause 4 and the indicators of the authenticity and integrity of the historic environment (6.2.4, 7.3.2). Without a recorded baseline, an assessment of the dynamics is impossible. When the baseline is updated, the preservation of the original values is ensured for the comparability of the time series.

12.1.5 Link with the information system and the digital twin

Monitoring rests on the information system for implementation management (11.6). The monitoring data are integrated into the information system. Where a digital twin exists (11.6.5), it is recommended that the data be visualized in its interface.

The information system provides for the storage and systematization of the monitoring data, the automated calculation of indicators, the geoinformation referencing of the data (11.6.3), and modelling and forecasting (11.6.6). The digital tools for heritage monitoring (11.6.7) are used to track the condition of cultural heritage objects. The composition of the digital twin of 11.6.5, items a)–j), is not reproduced by this clause. The absence of a digital twin does not release the organization from the requirements for the information system in 11.6.1–11.6.3.

12.1.6 Multiple levels of monitoring

Monitoring is carried out at several spatial levels: a block or a district, the historic settlement as a whole, a functional territory or an agglomeration (5.3.1). Targets are cascaded to different spatial levels through the spatial instruments of the territorial model (4.5.1; 9.7.2). Monitoring makes it possible to carry out an operational urban-planning and economic analysis of a territory or of a sectoral system (4.5.2).

12.1.7 Configuration and the staged development of the monitoring system

The configuration of the monitoring system is determined by the results of the analysis of the management system (7.7.3), by the degree of formalization of the status of the historic settlement (5.1.2) and by the availability of data and of competence. This clause does not establish a maturity scale for the monitoring system.

A minimum composition of indicators and simplified procedures for the collection of data may be used, provided that the linkage to the objectives refined on the basis of the analysis results (5.7.3), the monitoring of heritage (12.4), the participation of interested parties (12.3.6) and traceability (12.8.2) are preserved. As institutional and digital capacity is built up, the full configuration of the monitoring system is ensured, including all the elements of this Clause. The staged development of the monitoring system is included in the implementation plan as an organizational measure (9.3.1, item c).

12.2 System of sustainable development indicators

The indicator system secures management on the basis of impact indicators (4.5.7). It is formed in accordance with the measurability of objectives (5.5.1, item b) and with the linkage of measures to indicators (9.1.6, 10.1.2, item e). The composition of the indicators is given in accordance with Annex B.

12.2.1 Three levels of indicators

The system of monitoring indicators includes three levels:

a) output indicators — they reflect the degree of fulfilment of the measures of the implementation plan: the volume of work completed, the use of financing, compliance with time frames;

b) outcome indicators — they reflect the achievement of the target states of the territory by the fields of Clause 4: a change in the provision of infrastructure, in the accessibility of services, in the condition of the historic environment;

c) impact indicators — they reflect a change in the quality of life, in the state of heritage, in the parameters of the environment and in social cohesion.

In strategic monitoring, priority is given to outcome and impact indicators, and not only to output indicators (4.5.7). Output indicators are the subject of operational monitoring (10.4.8).

12.2.2 Fields of indicators and the link with objectives

Indicators are formed by the four fields of Clause 4: people and community; environment and heritage; heritage economy; governance. The indicators are linked to the objectives refined on the basis of the analysis results (5.4.2–5.4.4), including the conditions of the active role of heritage (5.4.4). The list of groups of objectives is not reproduced by this clause.

The indicators are related to the fields of iterative analysis (5.4.5) in order to check the completeness of coverage and the balance of the monitoring system. Where the coverage of individual fields or groups of objectives is insufficient, the indicator system is supplemented.

12.2.3 Cross-sectoral indicators

The indicator system includes indicators that illustrate the cross-sectoral effect of the measures (4.5.7, 4.5.5). Cross-sectoral indicators reflect effects that arise at the intersection of the fields of Clause 4. When urban tasks and processes are decomposed into components, the cultural aspect is integrated into the indicators of each element of the functional urban model.

12.2.4 Indicators of the preservation and integration of heritage

The indicator system includes indicators specific to the field "environment and heritage":

a) the condition of cultural heritage objects — the technical condition, the existence and completeness of the record documentation, the existence of protection obligations (6.2.7);

b) the authenticity and integrity of the historic environment — the dynamics relative to the baseline (6.2.4, 7.3.2);

c) the condition of the elements of the subject of protection of the historic settlement according to the composition of 6.2.3; for the calculation of indicators, the analytical grouping of Annex B, B.1.3, may be used, and it does not replace the composition of paragraph 2 of Article 59 of Federal Law No. 73-FZ [1];

d) the condition of intangible cultural heritage — the number of active practices, the number of bearers, the spatial conditions of the transmission of practices, integration into educational and cultural programmes (4.3.5; 5.4.4, item e);

e) the investment readiness of heritage objects — the completeness of investment passports, the currency of protection documents (4.4.5);

f) the integration of heritage into functional processes — the share of heritage objects brought into economic use while social conditions are observed (4.4.4; 5.4.4, item h, 5.4.4, item i);

g) the building up of historical and cultural potential — the number of identified value attributes, the volume of advance studies (4.3.10; 5.4.4, item a).

Object indicators, including hotel lots, do not replace the sustainable development indicators (9.5.3).

12.2.5 Compatibility with standardized indicators

It is recommended that the indicators be related to the standardized indicators indicated in 5.7.3.

12.2.6 Indicators of the participation of interested parties

The indicator system includes indicators that reflect the quality and intensity of the participation of interested parties in the processes of implementation (4.2.4): the number and coverage of the formats of participation, the number and content of communications and proposals, the satisfaction of participants with the processes of implementation. Indicators of the development of the competence of interested parties in the field of sustainable development and the preservation of heritage are included (4.2.1; 5.2.3).

12.2.7 Indicators of the quality of governance

The indicator system includes indicators of the effectiveness of the implementation management system (Clause 11): the functioning of the coordinating body, the fulfilment of decisions, the keeping of minutes, cross-sector coordination (11.4), budget control (11.3.4), support for implementer initiatives (11.2.5), the satisfaction of interested parties with the activity of the management system. The indicators of the quality of governance are linked to the formalized assessments of the activity of governing bodies that are in force on the date of development of the documentation (4.5.9).

12.2.8 Requirements for indicators

Monitoring indicators shall be limited in number, clear and informative; measurable, accurate and verifiable; reproducible and objective; economically reasonable to calculate; linked to available data sources (6.9.2).

For each indicator the following are determined:

a) the baseline value from the baseline (12.1.4);

b) the target value by time horizons: short-term, medium-term, long-term (5.5.1, item d);

c) the periodicity of measurement;

d) the data source;

e) the method of calculation;

f) the person responsible for the collection of data.

The indicator system is formed in accordance with Annex B. Special calculation formulae are given in accordance with B.3.2; other methods are given in the indicator passport under B.3.1.2. Quantitative indicators are applied alongside historical and cultural analysis and expert assessment and do not replace the state historical and cultural expert review (4.3.6).

12.3 Collection of data and analysis of indicators

The collection of data and the analysis secure basing on factual data (4.5.6) and the monitoring of trends (4.5.3). The data format of 6.9, the information system of 11.6 and the recommended digital twin of 11.6.5 are used. The credibility, currency and completeness of the monitoring data are ensured (6.1.1).

12.3.1 Sources of monitoring data

The data for the calculation of monitoring indicators are obtained from the following sources:

a) official statistical data;

b) data of information systems, including GISOGD, FGIS TP and FGIS EDPP NSPD (11.6.2);

c) data of geographic information layers (11.6.3);

d) where a territorial digital twin exists — the data of the digital twin (11.6.5);

e) data of the monitoring of the condition of cultural heritage objects, including digital passports (11.6.7, item a) and the record documentation;

f) data of surveys, consultations and feedback from interested parties, including through the service for collecting opinions and proposals (11.6.5, item f);

g) data of expert surveys and of an independent assessment of the implementation of measures (12.5.3);

h) data of environmental monitoring as a factor of the condition of the historic environment (7.6.3).

For each indicator a specific data source is indicated. Climatic parameters are not singled out as a separate mandatory group of indicators.

12.3.2 Periodicity of the collection of data

The periodicity of the collection of data is determined for each indicator and is recorded in the regulation on the collection of data (12.8.1, item b). The recommended periodicity is: output indicators — quarterly; outcome indicators — annually; impact indicators — once every 3–5 years. Strategic outcome indicators are assessed annually. For indicators the data for which are formed in an automated mode through the information system (11.6), continuous or more frequent collection is ensured. The periodicity of the integrated assessment of the achievement of the sustainable development objectives is linked to the horizons of the documents of strategic planning (10.2.6).

12.3.3 Digital tools for the collection and processing of data

The information system for implementation management (11.6) is used for the automated collection, storage, processing and provision of monitoring data. Where a territorial digital twin exists (11.6.5), it is used for the same purposes. Monitoring data that admit spatial localization are referenced to a single spatial model of the territory in accordance with 11.6.3. Where a digital twin exists, tools for the loading, updating and quality control of data are applied, including automated checks for duplication and outliers (11.6.5, item i). Where a digital twin exists, the monitoring data are published in its interface with a differentiation of access rights (11.6.5, item g).

12.3.4 Monitoring of trends and of the key factors of the scenarios

In addition to the monitoring of the achievement of the targets, monitoring of the trends, tendencies and key factors used in forming the scenarios is ensured (4.5.3; 8.5): technological (7.8.1), social and demographic (7.8.2), economic (7.8.3), and environmental as a factor of the condition of the historic environment (7.6.3). The monitoring of trends secures feedback with a changing reality and the adaptability of the documentation to a change of priorities (4.1.3). The making of changes shall imply not only the adjustment of existing instruments, but also the development of new ones. The monitoring system provides for the modelling of the reaction of territorial and sectoral systems to new trends (4.5.3) through the capabilities of the information system (11.6.6).

At least once a year, formats of participation of interested parties aimed at identifying new key factors are ensured (12.3.6). The specific form of participation is not prescribed by this clause.

12.3.5 Analysis of dynamics and identification of deviations

The analysis of the monitoring data includes:

a) comparison of the actual values of the indicators with the target values and the baseline values;

b) assessment of the dynamics of the indicators over time;

c) identification of deviations from the target values;

d) identification of the causes of deviations, using two levels of diagnostics (7.1.3): a description of the state and the identification of the causes of the state;

e) analysis of the variability of the indicators in order to identify systemic problems;

f) formation of recommendations on corrective and preventive actions.

Where targets are systematically not achieved, the analysis is aimed at establishing whether the cause is the ineffectiveness of the measures, the insufficiency of resources, the inadequacy of the target values or a change in external conditions. The method of analysis of Clause 7 is not reproduced by this clause.

12.3.6 Participation of interested parties in monitoring

Interested parties are engaged in the processes of monitoring (4.2.4). The groups of interested parties identified under 5.2.1 participate, including the bearers of intangible cultural heritage. Feedback is collected through the service for collecting opinions and proposals (11.6.5, item f), surveys, consultations and other formats. The collection of data on residents' perception of the quality of the living environment, on satisfaction with the progress of implementation and on the perception of the authenticity of the historic environment is ensured (6.4.5). The results of the participation of interested parties are part of the monitoring data and of the evidence base. The development of the competence of interested parties (4.2.1) is regarded as a condition of the quality of their participation in monitoring. In mode A, civic monitoring should be included in the procedure for monitoring the implementation of the master plan.

12.4 Monitoring of the preservation of cultural heritage

The requirements of this subclause are applied at the stage of monitoring and secure continual control of the condition of the historic settlement (4.3.1, 4.3.2). The protocols for the protection of heritage during implementation (10.5), the iterative assessment under 7.12 (10.5.2), the quality matrix (10.5.3) and the requirements of the management system for heritage (11.7) are used.

12.4.1 Monitoring of the condition of cultural heritage objects

Regular monitoring of the technical condition of cultural heritage objects and of the elements of the subject of protection of the historic settlement is ensured. Monitoring is carried out using the digital passports of cultural heritage objects (11.6.7, item a) and geographic information layers (11.6.7, item c). The sources of data are the record documentation and the results of the monitoring of the technical condition of cultural heritage objects.

The indicators of condition monitoring include the technical condition of structures and materials, the preservation of the subject of protection of the object, the identified threats and factors of adverse effect, and the fulfilment and currency of protection obligations. The periodicity of condition monitoring is determined for each object, taking into account the degree of vulnerability and the presence of active threats. For objects located in the zone of implementation of the measures of the plan, monitoring is carried out with an increased periodicity.

12.4.2 Monitoring of the authenticity and integrity of the historic environment

Tracking of the dynamics of the authenticity and integrity of the historic environment relative to the baseline is ensured (6.2.4, 7.3.2). The assessment is carried out by the parameters of 6.2.4. The monitoring of authenticity covers all the items of the subject of protection of the historic settlement according to the composition of 6.2.3. The results are a mandatory part of the integrated monitoring reports (12.5.4, item b). The assessment procedure of 7.3.2 is not reproduced by this clause.

12.4.3 Iterative assessment of effects and of impact during monitoring

The assessment under 7.12 is carried out iteratively at the stage of monitoring (7.12.1, 7.12.2, 10.5.2, 11.7.4).

At the stage of monitoring the following are ensured:

a) tracking of the condition of the elements of the subject of protection and of the indirect conditions affecting the subject of protection and the historic environment;

b) control of compliance with the mitigation measures established on the basis of the results of the assessment under 7.12;

c) comparison of the actual effects with the forecast of the assessment;

d) formation of a management response in the event of deviations.

Where unforeseen adverse effects are identified, the mitigation hierarchy is applied (4.3.6). The results of the iterative assessment under 7.12 are the source data for reactive monitoring (12.4.4) and a ground for updating the implementation plan (10.9.2).

12.4.4 Reactive monitoring of heritage

Where threats to cultural heritage objects or to the subject of protection of the historic settlement are identified, reactive monitoring is activated. The grounds are emergency situations, unforeseen effects of construction work, a critical deterioration of the technical condition, a breach of the protection regimes, and finds during earthworks (10.5.1, 11.7.3).

Reactive monitoring includes:

a) an extraordinary assessment of the condition of the object or of the element of the subject of protection;

b) formation of a report for the coordinating body (11.2.1), with a description of the threat, of the scale of the effect and of the recommendations;

c) involvement of an independent assessment under 7.12;

d) formation of corrective actions, including the suspension of measures with a critical effect (10.5.2);

e) activation, where necessary, of the plan of response to a substantial adverse change in external conditions (10.7.2).

Reactive monitoring is activated by a decision of the coordinating body when the grounds indicated in this clause arise.

12.4.5 Monitoring of intangible cultural heritage

Tracking of the viability of the intangible cultural heritage of the territory is ensured: practices, ways of life, crafts, traditions, the historical experience of the development of the territory (4.3.5; 5.4.4, item e). The effectiveness of the measures for preserving the spatial conditions of the transmission of practices is assessed (9.5.5).

The monitoring indicators include the number of active practices and of their bearers, the preservation of the places, routes and public spaces of occurrence, the integration of intangible heritage into educational, cultural and economic programmes, and the use of historical experience in forming the brand of the territory (4.4.3). Monitoring is carried out with the participation of the communities, groups and individuals who are bearers of the corresponding practices, including when threats to the viability of the practices are identified. Intangible heritage is not reduced exclusively to tourism and to other kinds of activity oriented towards the extraction of income.

12.4.6 Monitoring of the load and of the social conditions of bringing objects into use

Monitoring of the effect of tourism activity on cultural heritage objects and on the historic environment is ensured. The risks of exceeding the load under 4.3.11 and the indicators of Annex B (B.2.1.6, B.2.2.2; 7.5.3; 5.4.4, item h) are tracked. The monitoring indicators include the volume and seasonality of tourist flows, the effect on the technical condition of objects, the effect on the everyday life of the local community, and the condition of tourist infrastructure.

The bringing of objects into economic use is checked under 5.4.4, item i), and 11.7.5. Where the permissible load is exceeded or an adverse effect on heritage and the community is identified, corrective actions are formed. The results are taken into account in the updating of the implementation plan (10.9) and of the project solution (9.14).

12.5 Assessment of the effectiveness of measures and reporting

The assessment of effectiveness secures basing on factual data (4.5.6), continual improvement (4.5.8) and management on the basis of impact indicators (4.5.7). The quality matrix is used (9.12.1). Formats of feedback to the implementation plan (10.9), the management system (11.9), the project solution (9.14), the vision (8.10) and the objectives (5.7.2) are ensured.

12.5.1 Assessment of effectiveness by levels of indicators

The assessment of the effectiveness of the measures implemented is carried out by the three levels of indicators (12.2.1):

a) the degree of implementation of the measures — fulfilment of the schedule, the use of financing, the number of measures implemented;

b) the achievement of the target states of the territory — a change in the provision of service facilities, in accessibility, in connectivity and in the condition of the historic environment;

c) the effect on the quality of life and on the state of heritage — the dynamics of residents' satisfaction, of social cohesion, of the authenticity and integrity of the environment, and of the parameters of the environment.

Priority is given to the assessment of the effect on systems and states, and not to the degree of fulfilment of the measures that have been laid down. The assessment is formed relative to the baseline (12.1.4) and to the target values of the indicators. Comparison of the actual and target values is carried out for each time horizon (5.5.1, item d).

12.5.2 Assessment against the quality matrix

The quality matrix of the project solution (9.12.1) is applied at the stage of operation of the measures implemented. The quality indicators include the preservation of the value characteristics of heritage and of the historic environment, the accessibility of cultural heritage objects, the participation of communities, and environmental and social indicators (10.5.3). Control of the conformity of the measures implemented with the quality indicators is ensured by the coordinating body (11.2.1) with the involvement of the expert council (11.2.2). The assessment against the quality matrix is carried out for measures that have passed the acceptance stage.

It is recommended that the quality of interventions in the historic environment be checked against the criteria of the quality of the built environment (9.5.7). The assessment under 7.12 is not replaced by the quality matrix (12.4.3).

12.5.3 Independent assessment of the implementation of measures

At the key stages of monitoring, an independent assessment of the implementation of measures may be carried out if this is provided for in the assignment for monitoring:

a) an assessment of the conformity of the measures implemented with the sustainable development objectives and with the quality requirements;

b) for measures on historic territories — an assessment of the conformity of the measures with the principles and requirements for the preservation of heritage (4.3.6, 10.5), taking into account the results of the assessment under 7.12 (12.4.3);

c) an assessment by cultural, technical, social, economic and environmental aspects.

The independent assessment is documented and is part of the evidence base for the quality of implementation. It is recommended that an independent assessment of the implementation of measures for the integrated assessment be engaged with a periodicity of once every 3–5 years, coinciding with the periodicity of the integrated reports (12.5.4, item b). For measures of a smaller scale, a simplified assessment may be used, while the independence of the assessment is preserved.

12.5.4 Periodic reporting

Regular monitoring reports are formed:

a) an annual report — output and outcome indicators, the status of measures, the use of financing, the deviations identified, the corrective actions taken, the results of the monitoring of trends and of key factors;

b) an integrated report on the achievement of the sustainable development objectives — formed once every 3–5 years, and including impact indicators, an assessment of the authenticity and integrity of the historic environment, the results of the independent assessment of the implementation of measures, an assessment of the effectiveness of the management system, the results of the monitoring of trends, and recommendations on the updating of objectives and measures;

c) thematic reports — on individual fields of Clause 4, territories or groups of measures, formed by a decision of the coordinating body.

The reports are addressed to the coordinating body (11.2.1), the expert council (11.2.2), the authorized body and interested parties (11.5). The annual report is considered at the strategic level of the management of implementation (11.2.1). The specific form of the report is not prescribed by this clause. The data are presented, among other forms, as digital tables and visualizations of the information system. In mode A the time frames of the reports coincide with the time frames of reporting on the implementation of the master plan.

12.5.5 Public reporting

A public version of the monitoring reports is formed — an accessible presentation of the results for the target groups (4.4.2, 4.5.10; 8.9.2). The public version is updated with the periodicity of the annual report. Where a digital twin exists, it is recommended that the public version be accompanied by a visualization in its interface (11.6.5). The monitoring data are published in open access in machine-readable formats (11.6.8).

12.5.6 Feedback from monitoring to management

The results of monitoring are mandatory source data for:

a) the updating of the implementation plan (10.9);

b) the adjustment of the management system (11.9);

c) the review of the sustainable development objectives (5.7.2);

d) the review of the vision of territorial development (8.10);

e) the review of the project solution (9.14);

f) the updating of the master plan (mode A) or of the documents of territorial planning (mode B) in the procedure of 10.6, while the key indicators of those documents are preserved;

g) the updating of the documentation of the historic settlement (Annex D, D.9.6).

Closure of the cycle is ensured: plan, do, check, act (11.1.3). The results of the check form the grounds for action. The systematic failure to achieve the targets, confirmed by the monitoring data, is an unconditional ground for updating the corresponding measures. Achievement of the targets earlier than the planned time, or systematic over-fulfilment, is a ground for raising the ambition of the objectives (5.7.2).

12.6 Data-based management and forecasting

Data-based management secures basing on factual data (4.5.6), the integrated assessment and the inertial forecast (4.5.2), the continuity of the process (4.1.3) and the taking into account of technological changes and trends (4.5.3). The capabilities of the information system (11.6.6) and of the digital twin (11.6.5) are used.

12.6.1 Data-based management

The monitoring data are used for the taking of management decisions by the coordinating body (11.2.1). The information system (11.6) provides for the presentation of the data in formats convenient for decision-making: visualizations of the key indicators, visualizations of the dynamics, analytical reports, cartographic presentations. Where targets are systematically not achieved, corrective actions are formed, with an indication of the time frames and of those responsible. Where the targets are achieved, the possibility of redistributing resources to fields with insufficient dynamics is assessed.

12.6.2 Modelling, forecasting and comparison of the forecast with the fact

The information system (11.6.6) and the territorial digital twin (11.6.5) provide for the possibility of:

a) modelling the reaction of the territory to alternative management decisions;

b) forecasting the dynamics of the indicators if current tendencies continue, by analogy with the inertial forecast of 7.9;

c) modelling the consequences of a change in trends (4.5.3);

d) modelling urban-planning decisions by volumes, types of investment and sources of financing (4.4.7);

e) forming a forecast of a change in the assessments of the provision of the population with service facilities under scenarios of a change in the composition of infrastructure facilities, of the population or of accessibility parameters (11.6.5, item e).

Expected values and actual values are stored separately; the fact does not replace the forecast. At the end of a phase or at a control point, the forecast of the effect of the measures is compared with the actual changes. The results of the comparison are the source data for the assessment of implementation and the ground for retaining or adjusting the measures. The normative constraints of heritage protection are not lowered on the basis of the results of the comparison.

12.7 Continual improvement and adjustment of objectives

Continual improvement secures the implementation of principles 4.5.8 and 4.1.3. Monitoring is an element of the cycle: plan, do, check, act (11.1.3). The link with the mechanisms of adaptability of the vision (8.10), of the project solution (9.14), of the implementation plan (10.9) and of the management system (11.9) is ensured.

12.7.1 Cycle of continual improvement

The results of monitoring secure the check phase and form the grounds for the act phase. Continual improvement includes:

a) adjustment of the measures of the implementation plan where deviations have been identified;

b) review of the target values of the indicators in the event of achievement, of systematic non-achievement or of systematic over-fulfilment;

c) development of the monitoring system: extension of the composition of indicators, an increase in periodicity, the introduction of new instruments;

d) development of the competence of the participants in monitoring.

Updating implies not only the adjustment of existing instruments, but also the development of new ones (4.1.3).

12.7.2 Grounds for the adjustment of objectives and measures

The grounds for adjustment are:

a) the systematic non-achievement of targets according to the results of periodic monitoring;

b) the achievement of targets earlier than the planned time, or systematic over-fulfilment, as a ground for raising ambition (5.7.2);

c) the results of the monitoring of trends that have revealed new challenges or opportunities (4.5.3);

d) the results of the reactive monitoring of heritage (12.4.4) that have revealed unforeseen threats;

e) feedback from interested parties (12.3.6);

f) the results of the implementation of pilot projects (9.9.3, 10.2.5);

g) a substantial change in the key factors of the scenarios, making the target scenario and the vision no longer current.

The grounds for adjustment are linked to the grounds for updating the implementation plan (10.9.2), the management system (11.9.2), the project solution (9.14.2), the objectives (5.7.2) and the vision (8.10.2). Where the key factors change substantially, a new cycle of documentation is formed, and not only a cosmetic amendment of the documents in force. In mode A the adjustment is drawn up as an amendment of the master plan or of the list of measures for its implementation.

12.7.3 Check of the configuration of the monitoring system

A periodic check of the configuration of the monitoring system under 12.1.7 is ensured. The check covers the completeness of the composition of the indicators relative to the objectives refined on the basis of the analysis results, the sufficiency of the periodicity, the quality of the data, the operability of the information system and the participation of interested parties. This clause does not establish a maturity scale. The results of the check form a plan for the development of the monitoring system, which is included in the implementation plan (10.9).

12.8 Requirements for the documentation of monitoring

The documentation of monitoring secures transparency (4.5.10), reproducibility, the continuity of the time series and the source data for the updating of Clauses 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The documentation of monitoring is drawn up by analogy with the documentation of 8.9, 9.13, 10.8 and 11.8.

12.8.1 Composition of the documentation of monitoring

The monitoring system is documented as comprising:

a) a description of the indicator system, with the methods of calculation in accordance with Annex B;

b) the regulation on the collection of data: periodicity, sources, those responsible, quality-control procedures;

c) report templates: annual, integrated, thematic;

d) the results of the monitoring of trends and of key factors;

e) the annual and integrated monitoring reports;

f) the data of the reactive monitoring of heritage;

g) the results of the check of the configuration of the monitoring system (12.7.3);

h) the results of the comparison of the forecast with the fact (12.6.2).

The documentation is stored in the information system (11.6) and makes it possible to analyse time series.

12.8.2 Traceability of the results of monitoring

Each monitoring indicator is traced to a measure of the implementation plan (Clause 10), a measure of the project solution (Clause 9), a sustainable development objective (5.4.2–5.4.4), a problem field (7.13) and a principle (Clause 4). The chain of traceability is ensured: "monitoring indicator — measure of the plan — measure of the project solution — objective — problem field — principle" (10.8.3). The results of monitoring are documented as part of the evidence base (7.13.3) and are used in the updating of the documentation.

12.8.3 Structured results

The results of this Clause that are included in its documentation are presented as structured data in a machine-readable form (8.9.5).

12.9 Adaptability of the monitoring system

The adaptability of the monitoring system is secured by the mechanism of review and updating of objectives under 5.7 (the PDCA cycle, the grounds for review), with the particulars established in 12.9.1–12.9.3.

12.9.1 Cycle of review of the monitoring system

It is recommended that the review of the configuration of the monitoring system be carried out with a periodicity of once every 3–5 years, coinciding with the periodicity of the integrated assessment (12.5.4, item b). Updating may include a review of the composition of the indicators, a change in the periodicity of the collection of data, the introduction of new digital tools, an extension of the coverage of monitoring and a change in the formats of reporting. Updating implies not only the adjustment of existing procedures, but also the development of new ones.

12.9.2 Grounds for updating the monitoring system

The grounds for updating the monitoring system are the events indicated in 5.7.2 for the review of objectives, and also a change in the configuration of the monitoring system under 12.1.7, the appearance of new data sources or digital tools, the results of the check of the configuration (12.7.3), a change in the reporting requirements, and the updating of the documentation of the historic settlement on the basis of the results of monitoring (Annex D, D.9.6).

12.9.3 Securing continuity

When the monitoring system is updated, the continuity of the time series of data is ensured in order to preserve the possibility of assessing the dynamics. The loss of previously accumulated monitoring data shall not be permitted. When the methods of calculation of indicators are changed, the historical values are recalculated by the new method where this is technically possible, or a parallel calculation by the old and the new methods is carried out during the transition period. When the composition of the indicators is reviewed, the indicators that are excluded are retained in the archive of the information system. The results of the updating are documented, with an indication of the grounds for the changes made. When a review is carried out, the engagement of interested parties is ensured (12.3.6).

Bibliography

[1] Federal Law No. 73-FZ of 25 June 2002 "On cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation"

[2] Land Code of the Russian Federation

[3] Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation

[4] Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 530 of 25 April 2024 "On approval of the Regulations on the state historical and cultural expert review"

[5] Federal Law No. 172-FZ of 28 June 2014 "On strategic planning in the Russian Federation"

[6] GOST R ISO 37120-2020 Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for city services and quality of life (ISO 37120:2018, IDT)

[7] Order of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation No. 1604 of 12 July 2016 "On approval of the procedure for including an inhabited locality in the list of historic settlements of federal significance, and for approving its subject of protection, the boundaries of its territory and the requirements for urban-planning regulations within those boundaries"

[8] Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1095 of 28 November 2013 "On approval of requirements for determining the boundaries of the territory of a historic settlement"

[9] Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 972 of 12 September 2015 "On approval of the Regulations on protection zones of cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation and on recognition of certain provisions of regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation as no longer in force"

UDC ICS 97.195

Keywords: sustainable development, historic settlements, cultural heritage objects, subject of protection, urban-planning regulations

DEVELOPED BY: Non-profit partnership "Russian Association of Restorers"