Over the past weekend, we gained 26 new sites on the World Heritage List, and 2 sites were extended. You can find all decisions here, on our fancy new session page. Find below some aspects that warrant a closer look.

A turning point has crossed

Possibly, we have witnessed the final tipping point, where no member dared or wanted to express opposing views against other member states anymore. As Durian stated at the Forum, the WHC lacked a "strong rule keeper". The delegates of Lebanon (he must have been present 20 times already) and India do have the knowledge and experience to be one, but they choose to use their arrows selectively. So Lebanon applauds the UAE and scolds poor Nepal.

Rejection advice overturned

We saw the rare occurrence of a site, that had been advised to Not to be Inscribed by ICOMOS, to be overturned by full consensus to be Inscribed: Faya Palaeolandscape (UAE). This, despite a gentleman’s agreement a few years ago that those would be withdrawn by the State Party before the session. It was accompanied by a nasty rant by Qatar towards ICOMOS, which came down to “you don’t understand anything about our region”.

A shift so large has happened only 5 times before in the history of the World Heritage List:

• 1996: W-Arly-Pendjari Complex
• 2012: Bethlehem
• 2018: Naumburg Cathedral (ICOMOS just gave up in the end, but they were against inscription)
• 2018: Al Ahsa
• 2019: Sheki

A high inscription percentage

Last year, 24 new WHS got inscribed, with only 1 Referral. This year, with 2 Deferrals and 2 Referrals, the inscription percentage was still high. Some European countries made a statement by accepting the Referral for Gdynia (an inscription next year suited them better anyway, as the city then celebrates an anniversary) and Deferral for Portugal’s Siza works, which seems to have been a coordinated action. The principles did not extend so far to accept the referrals for the Minoan Palaces, Mons Klint and the Domus de janas as well.

Our Missing List got shorter again

“Timeless classics” (to use a phrase from the WHC vocabulary) that were inscribed are Neuschwanstein Castle, the Palace of Knossos and Carnac.

Two countries got their first WHS

Sierra Leone made it in with Gola-Tiwai, while Guinea-Bissau had its Bijagos Archipelago listed.

The best acceptance speech came from Jamaica

Well, it wasn't a speech but an upbeat video shot at Port Royal, narrated by the responsible minister. You can rewatch it on YouTube, almost at the end of Saturday's session, after 3:09 have passed.

The Panama saga finally came to a (temporary?) end

I am not going to repeat the whole history of how the Colonial Transisthmian Route WHS came about, read the Panama topic for that, but it ended with a reformulation where Panama got a new WHS inscribed and its similar, old WHS was dissolved/merged into the new one.

No State got 2 new WHS

This was the first session in years that no country gained more than one new WHS, as the number of serial transnational sites nominated was zero.

TWHS Gremlins at work

The chance of getting ‘Near Misses’ from this year’s batch, where you were Maddeningly Close, is quite high, since several WHS had a number of its locations removed from the inscribed site. This is the case for Sardinia’s Domus de janas, Yen Tu and the Caves of Khorramabad. The list of components of the Maratha Military Landscapes was already cut a bit earlier. Also, the core zone of the Bijagos Archipel has a limited scope. Please look again closely at the official maps to see whether you have visited the "right" place.

Updated Buzzword Bingo card

I could add some new terms to my WHC Buzzword Bingo Card. The most frequently uttered phrase was “<country> would like to have its name added to the amendment”. Members always want time to speak to say this, where they never speak out on any other issue that is being discussed. Another one is "we studied the dossier carefully".

What’s your view on this year’s batch? Any sites you look forward to visit?