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

2015 WHC - Livestream

Page  Page 22 of 22:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#316 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 12:40 
So am I correct in assuming that the goal for the working group will be to sort out everything between now and the WHC session in Turkey, with the goal to implement the new Operational Guidelines in 2019? Still slightly confused.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#317 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 14:39 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
o am I correct in assuming that the goal for the working group will be to sort out everything between now and the WHC session in Turkey, with the goal to implement the new Operational Guidelines in 2019

I didn't pick up on the new implementation date but the aim is certainly for the 2016 WHC to agree whatever the WG comes up with - whether that is any more likely to achieve a majority in favour than the output of the previous WG is another matter. I didn't really get a picture of what would] be acceptable to a large majority (anything less can't go ahead because of the reluctance to push close run matters to a formal vote).
The WG is to be chaired by Turkey which was (with India) the prime opposition to the previous recommendation (but supported by a fair number of others

Author Khuft
Registered
#318 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 16:50 
winterkjm:
it really is only about a dozen countries who routinely produce 2 nominations per year anyway, and it is clear these countries are already well-represented. Therefore the other 175 state parties are not really affected by the caps.

All of this eludes the actual problem: that smaller countries have massive difficulties in creating 1000 page dossiers which compellingly prove OUV. Take this year, for example: the new African nominations (i.e. those that even made it to ICOMOS, as some were deemly incomplete beforehand) all got a de- or referral. Jamaica had to go back to the drawing board for a few years with the Blue & John Crow mountains before being sucessful this year. Romania gets a "Not Inscribe" even though part of the site was deemed to have OUV (the Endless Column itself) - while Spain manages to inscribe hundreds of kilometers of Routes of Santiago again without anyone bothering to have a deeper look. Mongolia almost got referred back, because of a boundaries issues (in a virtually non-inhabited area).

All of these problems will not go away by reducing the number of nominations. Rather, we will have the 25 slots filled most of the time by the the usual suspects, with more spurious transnational nominations to help avoid the quota (such as the Viking nomination, or the upcoming Spa, Le Corbusier or Ore Mountains nominations). And we will have the African nations again failing already at the very first threshold of actually filing a complete nomination.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#319 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 17:57 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I agree, lowering the number does not help the under-represented state parties that struggle to draft nominations, it only (slows) the imbalance in the list. Capping the number at 25 though however, would have some benefit for less represented countries because they would have a safe spot annually if they submitted a nomination. Like you, I would also be concerned by loopholes that over-represented continue to pursue.
winterkjm:
I like the proposals to select priority candidates when the limit of nominations surpasses the cap of 25 nominations. This might indeed help the equity of the list.

i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the List;
ii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having up to 3 properties inscribed on the List,
iii) nominations of properties that have been previously excluded due to the annual limit of 25 nominations and the application of these priorities,
iv) nominations of properties for natural heritage,
v) nominations of properties for mixed heritage,
vi) nominations of transboundary/transnational properties,
vii) nominations from States Parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean,
viii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having ratified the World Heritage Convention over during the last twenty years,
ix) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties that have not submitted nominations over the last five years or more


Author jonathanfr
Registered
#320 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 05:49 
Hi, could someone summarize the list of deferred and returned sites? Thanks

Author elsslots
Admin
#321 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 08:15 
jonathanfr
You can find it here:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/pending.html

Author jonathanfr
Registered
#322 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 11:27 
I had to miss a step: why Kathmandu and Libyan sites haven't been included in the list of Heritage in Danger?

Author winterkjm
Registered
#323 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 13:16 | Edited by: winterkjm 
clyde:
We'll see. I'm still hoping for an inscription this year

Clyde you still have some hope! I do not know how reliable this article is (or realistic), but it claims Germany could be ready to submit a new revised nomination for Naumburg by Feb. 2016, in time for the 2017 WHC. At this point, I think its more hope than fact, particularly fresh off its relative strong Deferral this year; and lest we forget the Caves with the oldest Ice Age art is the likely German candidate for 2017 already.

http://www.mdr.de/sachsen-anhalt/naumburg-welterebe-neuer-anlauf100_zc-a2551f81_zs-ae 30b3e4.html

Author jonathanfr
Registered
#324 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 17:22 
Some criticize the addition of two more vineyards in France, which are over-represented on the list, but the Champagne is really not like any other wine, the underground part makes different from many other vineyards (except Tokaj) and hospice de Beaune alone are enough to qualify for exceptional universal value.

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#325 | Posted: 7 Jul 2015 18:39 
I think Champagne and Burgundy are great sites, even being definitive vineyard landscapes. But it is quite something to get two examples of an over represented site inscribed within a few hours of each other, when there is supposedly a limit of one cultural proposal per state party per year. So it isn't so much the sites lacking quality, it is more the way they were inscribed.

I am looking forward to visiting them though, and I will have a nice glass of Nuits Saint George to wash down my tinned Fray Bentos Pie, in a most unexpected WHS feast.

Page  Page 22 of 22:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  20  21  22 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions / 2015 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 ®