adds a bit more detail about the candidature an aims for world heritage status by 2026.
Actually only Tentative List "status"??? "The project is seeking $500,000 from the state government to help shortlist potential World Heritage sites within the area, which comprises 17 per cent of the state."
"If the funding is secured the project will seek federal government support to place the Goldfields on its tentative World Heritage list. The campaign is hopeful the status will be granted in time for the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Victoria
2026 would seem very ambitious for inscription anyway - would require submission of a Nomination by Feb 2025... and they don't even have it on the T List yet. I do get the impression that Australia doesn't operate a "periodic review" system for its T List - the most recent additions were in 2020 (Murujuga CL) and 2021 (Flinders Ranges). This
would seem to indicate that sites can "apply" for T Listing at any time - "Updating Australia's World Heritage Tentative List is an ongoing process where the Australian Government seeks submissions from the state and territory governments which are encouraged to consult with community and stakeholder groups as well as the Australian committees of the relevant advisory bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN). The state and territory governments are responsible for submitting proposals for the Tentative List to the Australian Government and undertaking the necessary research and consultation to support the case for tentative listing. The Australian Government is responsible for submitting updates to its Tentative List to the World Heritage Centre."
So, at least they wouldn't have to wait for such a periodic review - but it would have to have been on the T List for a year so it would need to be there by Feb 24 to even stand a chance of a 2026 WHC. On the other hand..... 2026 IS "available" if Murujuga and Flinders make 2024 and 2025!
Am I alone in finding the entire tenor of the "economic" document disturbing? It seems to epitomise what "World Heritage" has become - a tool for economic development. The report waxes lyrical - "It's a compelling report," Mr Brumby said. "It shows nearly 2,000 new jobs are generated, hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in accommodation and tens of thousands of tourists from overseas"
I know that it is an "economic report" but I look in vain for anything suggesting that there are things worth preserving which WH status would assist. "World Heritage" has morphed from being a means of preserving valuable heritage into one for creating "visitor experiences". The question is no longer "do we have something worth preserving which WH status will assist
"... rather... "do we have something which can be marketed using its World Heritage status
". Of course the eye-watering amounts of money required both to get a site onto a T List and then through to inscription have played a large part in this as have the convolutions needed to create a case that there is "OUV"..... I am not suggesting that Australia is either unique or the worst in this respect.... just more open perhaps??