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

2013 WHC - Livestream

Page  Page 4 of 13:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11  12  13  Next »  
Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#46 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 08:06 
The Tsverkas inclusion was tweeted by the official UNESCO account, the Hill Forts of Rajastan have just come from other none official accounts. So there is scope for people just getting a little over excited.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#47 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 08:08 | Edited by: Solivagant 
meltwaterfalls:
The Tsverkas inclusion was tweeted by the official UNESCO account, the Hill Forts of Rajastan have just come from other none official accounts. So there is scope for people just getting a little over excited.



See my post on the previous page!!

Author kintante
Registered
#48 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 08:15 
Thanks Solivagant. So I guess I missed quite some action during lunch :) And I should spend some time on twitter.

Author kkanekahn
Registered
#49 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 08:42 
Solivagant:
The Hill Forts were "used" as an example of just how much "good" can be done to a nomination from an extra year's work. But ICOMOS had to give on their suggestion about an extension to a privately owned Fort -the (ex-)Maharajah doesn't want his site to be inscribed - Shock, horror!! How can anyone NOT want their site inscribed!!


(ex-)Maharajahs don't want to give their palace and fort to India or State govt.
Icmos want every component should be owned by Govt of India.(so it is told in evaluation report that amber and gagron fort should be protected by Govt of India).

The palaces and forts belong to them from many generations.They fought many wars to protect and claim their ownership.They committed Jauhar and shaka(see evaluation report) so that nobody else will own the fort.It is more than a fort or palace to them . It is the symbol of their pride.So,they don't want to submit their ownership (even to Govt of India) just for a WHS tag.

Author kkanekahn
Registered
#50 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 08:45 
If you watch whc 2012(available in youtube) it is clearly said that the properties owned by erstwhile maharajs can't be granted for OUV. Therefore these sites are not included in whs nom of hill forts of rajasthan

Author elsslots
Admin
#51 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 09:26 
meltwaterfalls:
Hill Forts of Rajasthan seem to have made it on as well.

My 500th visited WHS! (sorry for the late reaction, busy at work)

Author winterkjm
Registered
#52 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 09:38 
jonathanfr:
El Pinacate, another volcano ?! :)


El Pinicate is the largest desert ecosystem in the America's. It is part of the Sonoran Desert, and is one of the most critically important biodiversity desert hotspots in the world. Very high number of threatened and endemic species. El Pinicate includes Volcanic formations, craters, sand dunes, and typical Sonoran desert landscapes.

A very interesting nomination for me, because I only live 6-8hr away in Los Angeles. There should be an extension eventually with the US, but who knows if and when that will happen.

Author jonathanfr
Registered
#53 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 09:44 
Yes I think an extension with Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (once on the U.S. Tentative List) would be a good idea.

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#54 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 10:11 
winterkjm:
My 500th visited WHS!

Congratulations!

kkanekahn:
it is clearly said that the properties owned by erstwhile maharajs can't be granted for OUV

I know UNESCO endeavour for WHS to not be in private hands, but I'm sure there are some that are. The Swedish farmhouses, Palace Stoclet, Blenheim Palace .... but perhaps I have missed the nuance.

Author kkanekahn
Registered
#55 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 10:31 

Author Solivagant
Registered
#56 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 11:35 | Edited by: Solivagant 
meltwaterfalls:
I know UNESCO endeavour for WHS to not be in private hands, but I'm sure there are some that are. The Swedish farmhouses, Palace Stoclet, Blenheim Palace .... but perhaps I have missed the nuance.


Quite right - and there are of course many WHS which contain private property mixed with government owned property. There is absolutely no reason why a privately owned property can't be inscribed - BUT the owners have to accept the limitations which thereby arise regarding what they can do with the property. Whether these are that much more onerous after inscription than before depends very much on the legal framework operated within the country. I can't imagine that the 11th Duke of Marlborough faces much greater hassle if he wants to build a hotel in the grounds of Blenheim Palace because his building is inscribed than he would if it wasn't as UK laws controling what can be done with listed buildings is very strict! The same may not be true for an erstwhile Maharajah in India of course. I suspect that ICOMOS want to see government owned buildings in countries where the general legal framework controlling what owners of private property can do with it is rather weak - as may be the case in India

kkanekahn:
If you watch whc 2012(available in youtube) it is clearly said that the properties owned by erstwhile maharajs can't be granted for OUV. Therefore these sites are not included in whs nom of hill forts of rajasthan

Actually the ICOMOS representative this year came back on this issue and emphasised that, in making the suggestion for a future extension to the property in the form of a fort belonging to an ex-maharajah, there was absolutely NO implication that the property should be taken away from him and "nationalised"!! Indeed in reaching the agreement that the draft WHC decision on this matter should be changed to remove this aspect the comment was made along the lines that "maybe at some future time he may change his mind" - so it would appear that ICOMOS/UNESCO don't see "nationalisation" as a prerequisite for inscription - even in India!!

Author Solivagant
Registered
#57 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 13:17 | Edited by: Solivagant 
kkanekahn:
If you watch whc 2012(available in youtube)


There is no need to use YouTube - the 2012 WHC Livecast is on the UNESCO Website split by Agenda Item under the tab "Records" (which appeared for the first time in the records of last year's WHC.). Presumably this will be the case from now on.

See http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/36COM

Author vantcj1
Registered
#58 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 13:42 | Edited by: vantcj1 
Thankfully, at least until now no site which got a deferral or referral by the advisory body has been inscribed, just in Hamiguitan and Great Himalayan NP did at some point an overrule of the evaluation take place. But I suspect tomorrow we are going to see some of that, when other cultural sites are reviewed. I think at least Golestan Palace and Coimbra are going to leak into the list, after receiving a referral.

Author hubert
Registered
#59 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 16:21 | Edited by: hubert 
Many thanks to Durian and others for their detailed summaries. I wasn't able to follow the session so far. But It seems that I am back in time for the discussions on the cultural nominations.

vantcj1:
But I suspect tomorrow we are going to see some of that, when other cultural sites are reviewed.

I guess (hope), that this year the debates on the deferred/referred sites will be less extensive than last year - I remember the endless and exhausting discussion on an insignificant mosque in Schwetzingen.
I suppose the most controversial discussion will be on the Canadian nomination of Pimachiowin Aki?

elsslots:
My 500th visited WHS!

Congratulations for this impressive number - and also many thanks you for this great website and all the work to maintain it.

Author Durian
Registered
#60 | Posted: 21 Jun 2013 21:23 | Edited by: Durian 
The problem of private ownership of Hill Forts in Rajasthan, in 1998 I went to Amber Fort and found many new holes in the beautiful walls, so I asked my guide, and she said the jewel and colour stones were in the holes before until recently! after there was a news of nationalize properties, Maharaja family decided to take out those jewel and colour stones from the wall to prevent future problem with government of India! If what she said was true, a very sad thing for cultural preservation.

Page  Page 4 of 13:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11  12  13  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions / 2013 WHC - Livestream 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 ®