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

2015 WHC

Page  Page 16 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  14  15  16  17  Next »  
Author nfmungard
Registered
#226 | Posted: 28 May 2015 16:58 
Haven't seen a comment on Naumburg here. Icomos apparently with a reject recommendation:

Icomos sagt nein

The original idea was to submit only the cathedral. The cathedral certainly is unique and interesting, but stems from a well covered time period and region. Also, the uniqueness is more a quirk than a feature: Somehow they merged two churches. Very interesting to look at, but not influential in a cultural or architectural way. Indeed, if you visit the exhibition in Naumburg you will find loads of references to other churches of the time that influenced this church, e.g. Reims.

In my opinion they should have made an honest argument why the cathedral should be inscribed. Their chances might have been slim. But it would have been honest and I could have taken this seriously. Instead they tried to game the system by submitted a cultural landscape and including vineyards. I think this debases the overall value of the site and I am happy that ICOMOS saw through this.

Author nfmungard
Registered
#227 | Posted: 28 May 2015 17:02 
kkanekahn:
Reason for withdrawal of Delhi
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-government-doesnt-want-delhi-to-be-a-world-heritag e-city-anymore-765310


I would have liked to see ICOMOS feedback on the nomination. Having been to Delhi I saw very little reason to inscribe Delhi in the first place. So not sure if a) Indians are really this confident on their chances at inscription or b) they bowed out preemptively before getting feedback on the hell hole Delhi truly is.

Author nfmungard
Registered
#228 | Posted: 28 May 2015 17:08 
pikkle:
It is indeed a depressing event, because despite being a UN organization, there's nothing that UNESCO can do except issue statements. They can add more sites, and I'll be interested in that, but have we not lost or in the process of losing/suffering destruction to a whole convention worth of sites, as it is? Aleppo, Krak de Chevaliers, Hatra, Palmyra, Kathmandu, Bosra, Damascus, Sana'a.... And those are only the UNESCO sites that have suffered damage. Countless other important sites have been damaged or destroyed.


I think being aware of what we are losing is a huge contribution in and of itself. In previous times historic places were lost, too. Nineveh was razed to the ground... in 612 BC. Or more recently, the Mostar bridge was destroyed during the War in Bosnia. But as this was such a great site, money was found to rebuilt it brick by brick.

I would only be worried, if it's because a site is designated a WHS that it gets destroyed by these vandals.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#229 | Posted: 28 May 2015 23:39 
Nearly 10% of ALL Arab world heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed during the last 12 months.

Add Ashur (Iraq) to the list. Blown up...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-blows-unesco-world-heritage-assyrian-site-ashur-near-ti krit-1503367

Author Khuft
Registered
#230 | Posted: 29 May 2015 06:09 
Assif:
Maymand Icomos evaluation is mentioned as appearing in an addendum, but the addendum has not been added to the Unesco website yet.


The addendum is out now. Maymand is recommended for Inscription.

URL

Author winterkjm
Registered
#231 | Posted: 31 May 2015 01:20 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Recommendations: 2015

Inscribe: 22
Blue and John Crow Mts (Jamaica)
Tusi (China)
Susa (Iran)
Maymand (Iran)
Meiji (Japan)
Baekje (South Korea)
Singapore Botanic Garden (Singapore)
Christiansfeld (Denmark)
Par force (Denmark)
Champagne (France)
Hamburg port (Germany)
Beth Shearim (Israel)
Palermo (Italy)
Rjukan-Notodden (Norway)
Forth Bridge (UK)
San Antonio Missions (USA)
Ephesus (Turkey)
Fray Bentos (Uruguay)
Padre Tembleque (Mexico) *without Tepeapulco and Xihuingo
Route of Santiago - Extension (Spain)
Cape Floral - Extension (South Africa)
Phong Nha - Ke Bang - Extension (Vietnam)

Refer: 7
Bethany (Jordan)
Hail (Saudi Arabia)
Great Burkhan Khaldun (Mongolia)
Nuits et Beaune (France)
Diyarbakir (Turkey)
Kaeng Krachan (Thailand)
Bagrati and Gelati - reduction (Georgia)

Defer: 6
Thimlich Ohinga (Kenya)
Nyero (Uganda)
La Rioja (Spain)
Sanganeb (Sudan)
Vikings Sites (transnational)
Dauria (Mongolia/Russia)

Reject: 3
Hall (Austria)
Naumburg (Germany)
Targu Jiu (Romania)

*Norway's 1st WHS in 10 years
*Korea has successfully inscribed a representative site covering each dynastic era (Goguryeo, Silla, Baekje, Goryeo, Joseon)
*Texas, which is a bit larger than Ukraine will receive its 1st WHS
*In 2 years Denmark managed to double its WHS count (4 to 8)
*1st WHS for Singapore & Jamaica (great news!)
*If Scotland had become an Independent nation it would have 6 WHS!
*China adds a WHS for the 13th consecutive year/Iran adds a WHS for the 8th consecutive year (most for any state parties)
*40 WHS for both France and Germany!

Author Solivagant
Registered
#232 | Posted: 15 Jun 2015 08:56 | Edited by: Solivagant 
This link provides a slightly different "take" on this year's nominations and on the ICOMOS assessment of them -
from a Web site which specialises in Medieval History (From "About" it appears to be Danish publishing company. See CV of the Director here - http://karenschousboe.com/about-karen-schousboe/ )

It identifies 5 of this year's nominations which have a significant "Medieval" aspect - certainly something I hadn't really noted
a. Hall in Tyrol
b. Burgundy Climats
c. Naumburg etc
d. Viking Sites
e. Palermo etc

It reviews the ICOMOS assessment and draws conclusions - adding a few interesting comments and pieces of background, usually in support of the ICOMOS conclusion, as to where the Nomination was lacking. It concludes that really only the Palermo nomination was top rate.
See http://www.medievalhistories.com/medieval-world-heritage-2015/

Author Durian
Registered
#233 | Posted: 23 Jun 2015 02:37 
Thailand is ready to change Refer to Inscribe for Kreang Krachan.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/centerweb/newsen/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNEVN5806220010004

Author elsslots
Admin
#234 | Posted: 5 Jul 2015 02:44 
I am trying to categorize Blue and John Crow Mountains, but both its natural and cultural values do not fit easily
Any ideas?

- Natural: add a 'Biodiversity' category?
- Cultural: add a category 'Archeological Site - North American/Caribbean'?

Here's the current list of categories to choose from: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/categories.html

Author Durian
Registered
#235 | Posted: 5 Jul 2015 23:57 | Edited by: Durian 
Els,

the name of Meiji Site is changed to "Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining"

Mexico is shorten to "Aqueduct of Padre Tembleque Hydraulic System"

and Spanish Route of Santiago now are longer with "Routes of Santiago de Compostela: Camino Francés and Routes of Northern Spain"

Author Assif
Registered
#236 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 10:02 
Padre Tembleque - was the shortening of the name related to a reduction of the site as Icomos wanted?

Author elsslots
Admin
#237 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 14:41 
Popularity of the new WHS, one day after the inscriptions ended (per the subscribers to this website, at least the ones quick off the mark):

1. Ephesus Turkey - 23
The Speicherstadt and Kontorhaus District with Chilehaus Germany - 23
3. Singapore Botanic Gardens Singapore -20
4. Champagne Hillsides, Houses and Cellars France - 17
5. Arab-Norman Palermo and the Cathedral Churches of Cefalú and Monreale Italy - 15
Climats, terroirs of Burgundy France - 15
7. The Forth Bridge UK - 14
8. Baptism Site "Bethany Beyond the Jordan" (Al-Maghtas) Jordan - 11
9. "Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining Japan - 7
The Necropolis of Bet She'arim - A Landmark of Jewish Renewal Israel – 7
Christiansfeld a Moravian Settlement Denmark - 7
The par force hunting landscape in northern Zealand Denmark - 7
13. San Antonio Missions USA - 6
14. Diyarbakir Fortress and Hevsel Gardens Cultural Landscape Turkey - 5
Rjukan / Notodden Industrial Heritage Site Norway - 5
Baekje Historic Areas Republic of Korea - 5
17. Fray Bentos Cultural-Industrial Landscape Uruguay - 3
Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park Jamaica - 3
19. Susa Iran - 2
20. Tusi Sites China - 1
21. The Cultural Landscape of Maymand Iran - 0
Aqueduct of Padre Tembleque Hydraulic System Mexico - 0
Great Burkhan Khaldun Mountain and its surrounding sacred landscape Mongolia - 0
Rock Art in the Hail Region of Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia - 0

Author elsslots
Admin
#238 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 14:48 
P.S.: I had 9 new ones, possibly my best year ever (and a few easy new European sites within reach)

Author Solivagant
Registered
#239 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 03:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I believe that the correct inscribed name of the "Blue and Jim Crow Mountains National Park" is simply "Blue and Jim Crow Mountains".
This is not a simple "pedantic" matter but hides "real" issues about the site and its nomination history! The original name was appropriate for what was nominated back in 2011 but, in order to get it inscribed, Jamaica had to "sacrifice" large areas of the National Park and put them in the buffer zone and the name of the site was changed accordingly in the re-nomination.
There is a lot of interesting "meat" in what happened to this site in the years between its deferral and inscription - in particular what happens in a "Mixed site" when there is a conflict between the areas required for the Cultural OUV and those required for the Natural OUV - the former (in the form of ICOMOS) need some "cultural" aspects. whilst the latter (in the form of IUCN) want pristine forest etc etc. IUCN "won out" on this one and ICOMOS accepted that there was enough tangible (and intangible) cultural value in what remained - Jamaica probably didn't care as long as it got an inscription!!!
This reduction appears to have been demanded by IUCN for it to give support when it had previuosly been unwilling to recognise any OUV in the site and proposed a straight rejection on Natural grounds but was landed with a deferral by the 2011 WHC. It might have been better if that WHC had accepted that ICOMOS did find OUV and proposed deferral solely on its issues and given up on the Natural aspects but it didn't! I guess that Jamaica too could have accepted this in the subsequent discussions but seems to have accepted what was required to get an inscription as a Mixed Site.
Thus, following the reduction in size in order to meet IUCN requirements, the AB evaluation introduces
a. The fact that there is cultural value in the Buffer Zone
b. That there are "satellite" sites relating to the Maroons which are even outside the Buffer zone but which need to be preserved etc etc!
All very strange and unsatisfactory.

Author elsslots
Admin
#240 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 07:59 
Yes you are right. Remarkable history, I'll change it on the website

(it's John Crow Mountains instead of Jim Crow by the way, Jim was a different character altogether)

Page  Page 16 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  14  15  16  17  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions / 2015 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 ®