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

2014 WHC - Livestream

Page  Page 1 of 18:  1  2  3  4  5  ...  14  15  16  17  18  Next »  
Author Solivagant
#1 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 03:22 | Edited by: Solivagant 
As last year it seems worthwhile opening a new "topic" for WHC events as they occur!

The early transmissions using the "Livestream" service have had a few problems - first the English translations were not working and there was poor volume but these seem to have been sorted as of "now".

"Livestream" provides a "chat" facility this year but I have already discovered that these seem to be removed after a while so if anyone wants to make a comment which "remains" for further discussion and "record" it would be better to continue to use this Forum!

Author Solivagant
#2 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 03:46 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Agenda Item - Reports of Advisory Bodies

It is "Kick ICOMOS" time!!
Iraq raises why isn't ICOMOS more "transparent"? Who are the experts?
An interesting answer from the ICOMOS guy which might be worth considering later-
He says that ICOMOS can't be totally transparent because some people might not give a true response on matters such as OUV if their names were to become known!!

Indonesia is concerned that the interpetation of "OUV" works against economic development - ICOMOS answers that the Convention ONLY allows ICOMOS to measure OUV against the situation as at the time of inscription.

Nothing really gets developed/resolved

IUCN asks that the WHC should only meet every 2 years as per many other such bodies. Its workload is too great and time is too short to properly evaluate and discuss.

Algeria returns to subject of ABs working more closely with State Parties (SPs) - wants the SP to have a chance to see recommendations before publication. Once they are published it is very difficult for changes to be made.

Interesting point from Mongolia -need for better integration between tangible and intangible heritage. As a nomadic people Mongolians link the 2 together very closely - interaction of natural and cultural. ICCROM says it tries to - points out the a large %qe of CLs are also naturally protected areas . But has to point out that the final evaluation has to be ICOMOS as CLs are "Cultural" not "Natural". No answer from ICOMOS or IUCN

Author Solivagant
#3 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 04:38 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Agenda Item - "The World Heritage Convention - Thinking Ahead"

"Objective - to reduce the occurrence of divergence between the recommendations of ABs and the decisions of the WHC"

Development of "Upstream processes" to assist this is generally regarded as going well - pilots have been extended in both Africa and Caribbean (we have recently discussed the African workshops to develop Nominations on this Forum)

Agenda Item -"World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development" (SD)
WIP - a series of "Key dimensions" against which SD is to be measured/achieved has been developed in draft
Jamaica - A "key dimension" proposed has been involvement of "Indigenous peoples" but no mention of non indigenous "local communities"!! ICOMOS - they are assumed to be generally covered but extra mention will be made,

Author Solivagant
#4 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 06:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I see that Livestream archives the complete videos of the sessions - so if there is a particular agenda item you want to catch up on then it is there - if you can find it!!

The French version has more "archive" than the English forthis morning as they seemed to have problems with the English at the start!!

Here is the incomplete English archive

Author elsslots
#5 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 09:12 
Just had a look at the livestream: 88 people watching live...

And are they already ahead of the agenda? They just started with item 7, the State of Conservation of various WHS. Additions and Deletions to/from the Danger list will follow.

Author Solivagant
#6 | Posted: 16 Jun 2014 09:42 | Edited by: Solivagant 
And are they already ahead of the agenda

The Chair "person" did say they were ahead of schedule on Item 5 etc in the morning.

As I implied there wasn't a lot of discussion - the Item lead made his/her presentation, a few countries made some desultory comments. Next a draft decision was tabled with perhaps 1 of the comments included and everything was agreed pdq. No heated arguments , nothing which really got to the heart of the issue - just a lot of bonhomie and diplomatic nicety!!

Perhaps things will heat up later! Either that or they have all been told that the "objective" is to agree everything.

I haven't been looking this afternoon after i discovered that the sessions were on archive

Author elsslots
#7 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 02:27 | Edited by: elsslots 
Catching up this morning. First thing noteworthy is the removal from the Danger List of Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani.

Author elsslots
#8 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 03:34 | Edited by: elsslots 
Sad words for Manovo-Gounda St. Floris: is there any OUV left? Nobody knows, difficult to get in. Reactive (or reinforced?) monitoring mission to be sent, possible delisting in the future

Author winterkjm
#9 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 05:19 | Edited by: winterkjm 
From what I listened to over the 2 days, there are certain committee members that participate far more actively than others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Involved in many or most discussions: Algeria, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Jamaica, Japan, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Turkey

Occasionally participates: Croatia, India, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, , Peru, Philippines, Poland, Serbia, Republic of Korea

Yet to speak: Viet Nam

Author elsslots
#10 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 09:43 | Edited by: elsslots 
It is "Kick ICOMOS" time!! Iraq raises why isn't ICOMOS more "transparent"? Who are the experts?

Croatia kicks a little more, in this case on Dubrovnik. Developments are outside of the core and buffer zones, and ICOMOS shouldn't listen to anyone who sends a concerned letter. Also a bit mad about the use of the word "under threat", as they've just recovered from the situation in the 1990s that the city really was under threat.

Author Solivagant
#11 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 11:35 
Well, UK avoided having the 2 sites of Cornwall/S Devon and Westminster added to the "Danger List"!

As part of this, the combined might and talents of the WHC wrestled with the planned construction of a supermarket at Hayle for some 30 minutes. The UK characterised this as a "miniscule" matter and it is difficult to take the amount of time and effort spent on it seriously given all the other destruction of WHS ongoing around the World. What on earth is ICOMOS and the WHC doing frittering away its time and resources on such a matter!!

I show below a link to what the harbour of Hayle looks like at the moment. It is difficult to conceive of how the development of this area with a supermarket could actually look WORSE than this tatty agglomeration of buildings!!

http://www.cornishman.co.uk/United-Nations-halt-Hayle-supermarket/story-19341745-deta il/story.html

Author meltwaterfalls
#12 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 11:51 
It is difficult to conceive of how the development of this area with a supermarket could actually look WORSE than this tatty agglomeration of buildings!!
My thoughts exactly. I was there a couple of weeks ago and it was an exceptionally grim vista, we were planning on stopping but decided to just drive past.

I'm glad Westminster hasn't been added to the list in danger, I still stand by what I said when it first came up:
My own personal opinion is that this development has very limited/ no impact on the Westminster WHS. The taller of the proposed buildings will be roughly the same as the already existing Shell Centre and would mostly be tucked behind it. It would perhaps be in the background of views of Big Ben from one corner of Parliament Square when the trees don't have leaves on them.

The positives will be that it redevelops a rather ugly stretch of buildings, will open up access to the London's busiest rail terminus and add an impressive piece of architecture that compliments the buildings around it on the south bank. Actually I rather like this building and in comparison to many that are being built further east around the Tower of London it is actually very much in tune with the local built environment.

But what do I know, I'm only a World Heritage enthusiast with a particular fondness for Westminster who happens to use the proposed site on a weekly basis and can see it from my office window, so I'm probably not well placed to judge.

Author elsslots
#13 | Posted: 17 Jun 2014 23:05 
Potosí declared In Danger

Author winterkjm
#14 | Posted: 18 Jun 2014 02:24 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Looking at the document 7B State of Conservation. As of this morning there are about 55 State of Conservation Reports to process and discuss, before we arrive to the more interesting part of the convention.

I am particularly curious about these two, which should be analyzed today.

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)

Ha Long Bay (Viet Nam)

Author Solivagant
#15 | Posted: 18 Jun 2014 03:03 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I am particularly curious about this two, which should be analyzed today.

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)

Have you picked up on the campaign "Fight for the Reef" whose "Social Media Storm" is going to be live streamed into the WHC -


All the press assessment is that the decision will be postponed for another 12 months -we must presume that the Australian government has done its networking with WHC members beforehand!

Page  Page 1 of 18:  1  2  3  4  5  ...  14  15  16  17  18  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions / 2014 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 ®