WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /

2012 WHC

Page  Page 3 of 7:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#31 | Posted: 8 Jul 2011 15:12 
Germany (2)
Spain (2)
Russia (2) Interesting natural site.
China (2)
Iran (2)
Italy (1) Another Vineyard!
France (1)
Mexico (1) Mixed site, somewhat interesting, and there is mention of some underwater archeology.
UK (1)
Portugal (1) Another fortification, this time IN Portugal!
Beligium (1)

Overall, same old, same old...

It is nice to see the Bali nomination finally ready. Also Palue is attempting to have their first site inscribed, and happily it is not a colonial site. The 2010 WHC gave me reason to hope for a decline in European sites, however it seems Germany, Italy, Spain, and France have no reservations in nominating every farm community, small town, fortification, aristicratic home, or mining site in the country. I am somewhat exagerating here, but it is not far from the truth.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#32 | Posted: 8 Jul 2011 16:18 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A few more observations
a. Masjed-e Jāmé of Isfahan . If this is inscribed it would be an inscription in consecutive years for the city of Isfahan (after the 2011 "Persian Garden"). With the Meidan Emam it would also be that city's 3rd separate site.
b. Russian Kremlins - Is this an amalgamation of the 2 separate T List sites of the Rostov and Astrakhan Kremlins – there seems nothing else on the T List which this could be? Quite apart from the excessive number of forts inscribed around the world this site nomination would seem to support the clichéd view of Russia as country of "Kremlins"
c. Slovenia / Spain Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija . Referred in 2009 and deferred in 2010 but now the Mexican element of this nomination (San Luis Potosi) has been discarded. Perhaps the other 2 saw it as a bit of an albatross around their necks - but Mexico got an inscription for SLP in 2010 anyway with the Camino Real so perhaps it wasn't particularly bothered.
d. Neolithic Site of Çatalhöyük – the one cultural site of unarguable "World" significance.
e. Including the Slovenia/Spain nomination above there are 9 sites trying again after earlier deferrals/referrals/withdrawals – Schwetzingen, Kyev extension, Bali, Hälsingland, Lena Pillars, Walloon mines, Banco Chinchorro and Rio (albeit with a revamp and name change!!). Also of course some of this year's referrals could come back. This leaves relatively few (fewer than usual??) completely NEW nominations.
f. The Hill forts of Rajastan has been fast tracked indeed –it was only put on the T List in 2011 having been submitted 31/12/10. Hardly time to get the nomination file to UNESCO by end Jan! See http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-30/jaipur/28213200_1_forts-cultur al-nomination-category-topographical-base
g. The Rabat site seems to include French "Colonial" architecture alongside earlier (and later) indigenous buildings.
h. Just 4 Natural nominations - Lacs d'Ounianga, Chengjiang Fossil Site, Palau Rock Islands, Lena Pillars
i. Tanzania is continuing with its decision NOT to nominate the Eastern Arc Mountains – note the heavy "deletion" line on the document for next year to show how late it was despite being a "complete" nomination –UNESCO is making a point I feel as the document could easily have been revamped to remove it. I don't think we have heard the last of the Serengeti highway and Tanzania is wanting to remove "1%" of Selous NP from that site for uranium mining! Tanzania seems determined to take the lead in saying that African countries have the right to develop and will not be stopped by Western conservationists. Trouble ahead??
j. New countries in with a chance are Chad, Palau and Qatar – plus any of this year's carry forwards of course
k. Senegal seems very active with another nomination. With a population of around 14 million it might well be the African country with the greatest number of sites per capita (other than micro and desert countries). Perhaps is is being "tutored" by its previous colonial master France!!!
l. Russia is in line for 2 "presents" for hosting the WHC in St Petersburg!! (Kremlins and Lena Pillars)

Author Durian
Registered
#33 | Posted: 8 Jul 2011 21:27 
My observation;
- Turkey seem to be very active in WHS in recent year, after long time pause.
-
Solivagant:
Russian Kremlins - Is this an amalgamation of the 2 separate T List sites of the Rostov and Astrakhan Kremlins

No, it is not, the nominated Kremlins are from Astrakhan, Uglich and Pskov. The Russian did not include the Rostov Veliky Kremlin, which in my opinion one of the most outstanding old kremlin in Russia, maybe it is their plan for future extension, but want to see comparative study first.
- No site from Cambodia!, maybe Siam Reap bid to host WHC meeting is just maybe a rumour?
- Bali, I'm not sure as Bali is very famous and well study intenationally, they may get another defer/refer again if they not cleverly choose the really well sites to become WHS.
- For Vineyard, Piedmont for 2012 and Champange for 2013, is this Italian and French co-planned strategy?
- Note that Xanadu is "Shangdu", official Chinese name

Author Solivagant
Registered
#34 | Posted: 9 Jul 2011 02:27 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Durian:
Solivagant:
Russian Kremlins - Is this an amalgamation of the 2 separate T List sites of the Rostov and Astrakhan Kremlins

No, it is not, the nominated Kremlins are from Astrakhan, Uglich and Pskov.


I note that the T List entry for Astrkahan makes absolutely no mention of it including other Kremlins - interesting that, although it is necessary to have a site on the T List before it can be nominated
a. Quite major changes can be made to the scope of that T List entry before nomination without notifying/registering those changes - even to the extent of adding Kremlins in towns 100s of kms away from Astrakhan
b. The T list "entry" can be made as late as only a few days before the nomination file itself is submitted - as in the case of the Indian Hill forts of Rajastan. In which case the idea of sites having to already be on the T List before nomination loses its purpose somewhat (which is presumably to demonstrate that the State Party has engaged in a proper evaluation of its "heritage stock" and in thinking through what is required for nomination/inscription?)

I will try and do a review of the Astrakhan Kremlin as we were there around 3 years ago. In all honesty it didn't seem to add much beyond what is already inscribed in the Kazan Kremlin, the Yaroslavl Kremlin.... and of course The Kremlin (Moscow). No doubt each possesses its unique historic and architectural aspects. Presumably any Kremlins linked together in a single nomination ought to be telling a single story - otherwise it just becomes a representative list of "Kremlins", of which there are already inscribed examples?

Author Assif
Registered
#35 | Posted: 9 Jul 2011 04:02 
Israel's proposed Caves Stream is the T list entry 'prehistoric sites' in a diminished form. At the beginning it included the Bnoth Yaakov site which was deleted quite early on. Now the Yarmukan culture site and Ubadiyya have been deleted too. Two options seem logical as to why only the Carmel site made it to the bid: either Israel wishes a more solid and consistent nomination file which is easier with one site only rather than three sites of completely different periods. A different possibility is that Tel Dan experience made Israel cautious in proposing sites near its disputed borders. This could certainly inculde the Yarmukan Culture near the Golan Heights (although not Ubadiyya).

Author Solivagant
Registered
#36 | Posted: 9 Jul 2011 15:09 
Solivagant:
Tanzania is continuing with its decision NOT to nominate the Eastern Arc Mountains – note the heavy "deletion" line on the document for next year to show how late it was despite being a "complete" nomination –UNESCO is making a point I feel as the document could easily have been revamped to remove it. I don't think we have heard the last of the Serengeti highway and Tanzania is wanting to remove "1%" of Selous NP from that site for uranium mining! Tanzania seems determined to take the lead in saying that African countries have the right to develop and will not be stopped by Western conservationists. Trouble ahead??


Regarding the above. I note this minute in the decisions from 2011. It related to Tanzania's request for a minor boundary change to Selous.

"Draft Decision: 35 COM 8B.46
The World Heritage Committee ...... Acknowledges the State Party's legitimate need to ensure the well-being of its population, fight against poverty and diversify its economy while continuing to protect its natural environment under the framework of and in compliance with domestic provisions"


All very well and good - but Tanzania hasn't yet been given its minor boundary change!!!

Author Khuft
Registered
#37 | Posted: 9 Jul 2011 17:15 
Solivagant:
I note that the T List entry for Astrkahan makes absolutely no mention of it including other Kremlins - interesting that, although it is necessary to have a site on the T List before it can be nominated


Actually Russia has a second site on the Tentative List called "Russian Kremlins" since early 2010, which includes Astrakhan, Uglich and Pskov. They probably just forgot to delete the single Astrakhan site (just as Pskov is also still on the TL as an separate site).

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5517/

Author Solivagant
Registered
#38 | Posted: 9 Jul 2011 17:34 
Hi Els,
I was working from the T List on worldheritagesite.org rather than from whc.unesco.org - the "double entry" by Russia has got missed out!! 26 sites on the former list and 27 on the latter!!

Author Solivagant
Registered
#39 | Posted: 16 Sep 2011 16:23 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I gather from a few "alerts" that the ICOMOS and IUCN evaluation "teams" have recently been doing the rounds of the various sites nominated for 2012.

The arrival of the expert to look at UK's Monkwearmouth and Jarrow has been reported locally and he appears to have been given the "red carpet" treatment for 3 days!!
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/lifestyle/entertainment/inspector_assesses_world_herita ge_site_bid_1_3778472

In my, less than enthusiastic, review of the site earlier this year, I commented "I presume that ICOMOS will be sending mediaeval experts to evaluate the nomination. They may well be ardent in their desire properly to represent the period and its contribution on the List and even orgasmic at the sight of the few original stones left in place!! "

Well the Evaluator (apparently only 1), a Dr Adriano Boscetti, is indeed a "Mediaevalist". Herewith is a resumee of his current responsibilities as Associate Professor for Medieval Archaeology at the University of Zurich, together with a resumee of his CV and publications.
http://www.khist.uzh.ch/Titularprofessuren-Privatdozierende/Boschetti.html

Certainly, if anyone is going to see "merit" in the nomination, he should - even if he doesn't look exactly "orgasmic" alongside the Bishop !!! He should however have been impressed by the "quality" of his guides - the lady with them is the 82 year old ex Professor of Archaeology Emeritus at Durham University and a "Dame" to boot!! http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/c/7314/Rosemary+Jean.aspx

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#40 | Posted: 16 Sep 2011 19:38 
I must admit I am not convinced on the Wearmouth Jarrow nomination either.

I did have a little chuckle when I saw that his guide has a Debretts reference, we are pulling out all the stops it seems.

3 Days to get around Jarrow and Roker! seems like a good bit of eeking out is going on for that trip.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#41 | Posted: 17 Sep 2011 03:07 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I suppose all sites try to ensure that the evaluators are well looked after and "buttered up". Let's just hope the process to award WH status doesn't finish up like that to award the Olympic Games and Soccer World Cup!!

But, if this year's WHC is anything to go by, the Committee often doesn't follow the conclusions of the ABs anyway. I was interested to note this piece of research which Think Heritage! is trying to get off the ground
http://www.thinkheritage.com/research_production.html

I particularly look forward to seeing the results of using "multi-disciplinary paradigms and a triangulation of qualitative research methods," on this matter! Nevertheless, the way in which the Brazil/ Mexico/Barbados bloc argued for the Columbian Coffee Landscape and Mali/Nigeria/S Africa/Egypt for Konso does make one realise how much depends on having some "good allies" in the WHC in order to get a site inscribed - and vice versa no doubt.

On which subject - Of the current WHC members (Australia , Bahrain , Barbados , Brazil , Cambodia , China , Egypt , Estonia , Ethiopia , France , Iraq , Jordan , Mali , Mexico , Nigeria, Russian Federation , South Africa , Sweden , Switzerland , Thailand , UAE) 9 are leaving this year (Australia , Bahrain , Barbados , Brazil , China , Egypt , Jordan , Nigeria, Sweden) and their replacements will be elected at this year's "General Assembly" between Nov 7 to 9. It will be interesting to see who gets in.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#42 | Posted: 9 Nov 2011 16:26 
Looks like Shantiniketan in India will try again in 2012, a carry over from last year.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/another-bid-for-declaring-shantiniketan-wo rld-heritage-site/893076.html

Author Solivagant
Registered
#43 | Posted: 9 Nov 2011 17:47 
I suspect that this is another typically muddled Indian report. Note that it says "if all goes well, the university will be declared a World Heritage Site in July, 2012 when the UNESCO meets in Paris." Well of course the WHC isn't meeting in Paris but in St Petersburg.

We discussed the failure of Santinikaten to even be considered in 2011 here on 7 May
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=1503&p age=1#msg3747

At Brasilia in 2010 both Western Ghats and Santinikaten were reported as having submitted "complete" nomination files for consideration in 2011. Yet the minutes of 2011 seem to show that it wasn't even discussed and must have been withdrawn -presumably when it got "bad vibes" from the ICOMOS evaluation.

The 2011 papers show India proposing 3 sites for consideration in 2012
a. Hyderabad - Golkonda etc
b. Great Himalayan NP
c. Hill Forts of Rajastan
Of these only the latter was regarded as "complete" and will presumably be India's sole nomination for 2012? I don't see that Santinkaten could be brought forward for 2012 - it wasn't de/referred and therefore doesn't gain the "rights" for early reconsideration which that might have brought. Surely it would have to take its place in the queue using the normal rules - i.e its Nomination file would have to have been received as "complete" by Feb 2011 in order for it to be properly evaluated by ICOMOS this autumn in readiness for next year's WHC??

I suspect the report's reference to "the Culture Ministry in coordination with the West Bengal Government has been working on strengthening of the system to look after the sprawling university as mandated by the UNESCO." refers to the work it has been doing to improve the nomination ready for resubmission by end Jan 2012 for consideration at the July 2013 WHC.

I think there will be a bit of a fight between the various Indian states for that 2013 slot - Majuli is still hoping to get in and there will be the "incompletes from this year as well. Coincidentally we have been planning a trip to NE India in Feb 2012 and I had arranged a day trip from Kolkata and back by train to Santinikaten. As a result I have been taking a particular interest in Santinikaten's progress (or lack of!!). Unfortunately other priorities have meant that we are going elsewhere next spring - and it will now have to be Feb 2013. I suspect I will still be there before its inscription!

Author winterkjm
Registered
#44 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 00:25 
First news on Canada's Grande Pre Nomination chances. Personally, I feel Canada's 2013 nomination is far better, but that's just me.

http://www.novanewsnow.com/section/2012-01-18/article-2866780/Committee-pleased-with- UNESCO-application/1

Author alexlove74
Registered
#45 | Posted: 3 Feb 2012 00:48 
Hi everybody!!! Unesco is probably evaluating Al Zubarah archaeological city (Qatar) in these days (February 2nd, 2012). In fact I am going there in 2 weeks, and that's what the travel agency quoted: "I will let you know the possibilities for the entrance to Al Zubarah. Since it is under researching by UNESCO geophysics team in these days." Anyway.. I've been given the entry permit, so I'll let you know how is it Al Zubarah compared to the other old WHS sites i've seen in the area, like Al Ain (meaningless), Dilnum remains in Bahrain (poor), Bat (average) or old remains from Frankincense Trail in Oman (nice) (I don't mention the 2 WHS visited in Saudi, since Old Diryah is not old enough, and Madain Saleh is just too magic place, for being compared to any of the above!!!) Any chance for seeing the updated list of 2012 nominations directly from Unesco? I can't find anything yet on their website. Any help??

Page  Page 3 of 7:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions / 2012 WHC Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®