World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2015 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 14 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  13  14  15  16  17  Next »

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#196 | Posted: 10 May 2015 00:56 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Current ICOMOS Recommendations (9 Inscriptions)

Ephesus (Turkey) I
Baekje Historic Areas (Republic of Korea) I
Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution (Japan) I
Arab-Norman Palermo and the cathedral churches of Cefalù’ and Monreale (Italy) I
San Antonio Missions (USA) I
Fray Bentos (Uruguay) I
Christiansfeld, the Town (Denmark) I
The Par Force Hunting Landscape (Denmark) I
Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (Jamaica) I

Viking Monuments and Sites (Denmark, Germany, Norway, Latvia, Iceland) D
La Rioja and Rioja Alavesa Vine and Wine CL (Spain) D

Great news for Jamaica (1st WHS), and note this is the first mixed site in the Caribbean. Denmark, obviously is already having a great year, despite the Viking Sites (probably) not being inscribed. South Korea has now become the 2nd most inscribed small country in the world, only trailing Portugal. Moreover, the "Three Kingdoms" connection now will include Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekje sites; the world heritage list now will include sites from ALL Korean dynastic kingdoms. (Silla, Goguryeo, Baekje, Goryeo, and Joseon) Still waiting on news from 23 nominations.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#197 | Posted: 11 May 2015 05:46 
nfmungard:
Have to say I am a bit surprised about the Viking sites being deferred. Generally, I don't think Viking sites are overrepresented.

I wonder if the Swedish withdrawal from the process has led to a re-evaluation of the whole thing. Personally I have a fair bit of sympathy with the Swedish stance, "The sites are unique but together they do not give a representative picture of Viking Age culture, either geographically, socially, culturally or economically."


Hooray for the Parforce Hunting Landscape! It looks like replacing the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne as the the least inspiring site I have seen but not visited. As Nan has pointed out the train from Copenhagen to Kronberg goes through it, so there could be a fair few of us in the same boat.
I knew it was a T-list site when I went through, but couldn't muster the energy to get off and go for a stroll around on a very cold New Years Eve.

But there is also Stevn's Klint inscribed there now, so more reason to return. A weekend visit to a barren hunting landscape and a layer of sediment could be in order, Mrs Meltwaterfalls will be delighted.

Author Durian
Partaker
#198 | Posted: 13 May 2015 21:03 
While IUCN's official outcome will be released on 18 May, from this news ICOMOS's recommendation will be published on this Friday!

Champagne result on this Friday

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#199 | Posted: 14 May 2015 01:03 
Coteaux, Maisons et Caves de Champagne (France)

Seemingly, inscribe recommendation by ICOMOS.

http://www.francebleu.fr/infos/champagne/exclu-tres-probable-classement-de-la-champag ne-au-patrimoine-mondial-de-l-unesco-2352281

Author Khuft
Partaker
#200 | Posted: 15 May 2015 12:01 
The documents for the 2015 session are now live, incl. ICOMOS and IUCN docs:

URL

Author pikkle
Partaker
#201 | Posted: 15 May 2015 14:11 
Going through the documents now. These people have my dream job. :)

Anyway, I am so happy for Jamaica. The Blue Mountains & John Crow Mountains are some of the most beautiful places I have ever been. I believe that Reach Falls is in the inscribed zone (John Crow zone) and has ties to the cultural side of the mixed property as it was discovered by the "Maroons." It really is a beautiful and magical place. Truly OUV. Some of the roads along the V that the two mountains form provide the most inspired panoramic views.

Author Assif
Partaker
#202 | Posted: 15 May 2015 18:07 | Edited by: Assif 
Recommendations:

Inscribe:

Blue and John Crow Mts (Jamaica)
Tusi (China)
Susa (Iran)
Meiji (Japan)!
Baekje (South Korea)
Singapore Botanic Garden (Singapore)
Christiansfeld (Denmark)
Par force (Denmark)
Champagne (France)
Hamburg port (Germany)
Beth Shearim (Israel)
Palermo (Italy)
Rjukan-Notodden (Norway)
Forth Bridge (UK)
San Antonio Missions (USA)
Route of Santiago - extension (Spain)
Ephesus (Turkey)
Padre Tembleque (Mexico) without Tepeapulco and Xihuingo
Fray Bentos (Uruguay)
Cape Floral - extension (South Africa)
Phong Nha - Ke Bang - Extension (Vietnam)


Refer:

Bethany (Jordan)
Hail (Saudi Arabia)
Great Burkhan Khaldun (Mongolia)
Nuits et Beaune (France)
Diyarbakir (Turkey)
Bagrati and Gelati - reduction (Georgia)
Kaeng Krachan (Thailand)


Defer:

Thimlich Ohinga (Kenya)
Nyero (Uganda)
Vikings sites (transnational)
La Rioja (Spain)
Sanganeb (Sudan)
Dauria (Mongolia/Russia)


Reject:

Hall (Austria)
Naumburg (Germany)
Targu Jiu (Romania) - Icomos recommends to reduce the nomination to one sculpture only!

Author Khuft
Partaker
#203 | Posted: 15 May 2015 19:29 | Edited by: Khuft 
Assif:
Targu Jiu (Romania) - Icomos recommends to reduce the nomination to one sculpture only!


This is an astonishing recommendation when at the same time the extension of the Route of Santiago de Compostella, which already contains thousands of components (in addition ot the route itself) to its Northern component around the coast is approved.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#204 | Posted: 15 May 2015 19:37 
Thanks for posting the assessments.

Aside from the ones that add to my personal count Targu Jiu was the one I was most interested in. A quick skim reading seems to show ICOMOS's assessment was more related to the argument in the dossier rather than the actual sculptural ensemble, which they seem to be fairly positive about.

There is precedent for just inscribing one aspect from a larger sculptural grouping. the Holy Trinity Coloumn in Olomouc was put forward as a baroque group with the fountains around the city, but was eventually inscribed just as a single monument. ICOMOS doesn't seem convinced on the comparison with Olomouc, it seems a pretty good comparison to me.

Hopefully it can be turned around, for me this is the most interesting one this year, really unique, but then I am rather a fan of Brancusi.

Author Durian
Partaker
#205 | Posted: 15 May 2015 23:27 
The refer case of Krang Krachan is very interesting as IUCN seem to agee with the OUV, but decided to refer by the request from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning Karen communities within the Kaeng Krachan National Park. If WHC adopted this decision then this maybe the first time that other UN-body influences the role with WHC!

Author Assif
Partaker
#206 | Posted: 16 May 2015 01:52 | Edited by: Assif 
Holasovice (Czech Rep.) was confirmed a name change: the omission of the word Reserve.

Author Assif
Partaker
#207 | Posted: 16 May 2015 01:58 
Maymand Icomos evaluation is mentioned as appearing in an addendum, but the addendum has not been added to the Unesco website yet.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#208 | Posted: 16 May 2015 14:58 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Secret Ballot is all but guaranteed for the Meiji Nomination. I am actually fairly certain Japan will NOT be successful if there is no compromise made to the current nomination. Korea is basically calling for 2 options: 1) a Deferral and re-nomination of the site in the order of Auschwitz 2) Korea would support the nomination if 7/23 properties that included forced labor be cut from the nomination. China essentially supports Korea 100%, which adds plenty of clout to not simply inscribing the Meiji nomination.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/16/national/history/japan-boosting-efforts-t o-win-support-for-world-heritage-drive/#.VVeSx-sk_dk

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#209 | Posted: 17 May 2015 04:42 
The addendum will be added to the Unesco website after 2 weeks. (as mentioned in IUCN website). I can not find the link now.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#210 | Posted: 17 May 2015 04:56 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Changes to the operational guidelines to be disused this June.

2 important proposals
- Limit of Nominations to 25 Total
- Limiting State parties to 1 new nomination


"Reducing the annual limit on the number of nominations examined by the Committee from 45 to 25 appears the most realistic and practical solution to face the heavy budget constraints and the likely continued decline in financial resources for the next biennium."

"Allowing the examination of two nominations per State Party at each session (together with the possibility to increase them to three taking into account the exemption for transboundary or serial transnational nominations that count only under one State Party’s quota) increases the gap between most and less represented States Parties on the World Heritage List and thus, does not allow any improvement of the geographical distribution of new nominations. States Parties that submit nominations regularly (especially those that are in position to submit more than one nomination per year) are also those which have the highest numbers of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List."

Page  Page 14 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  13  14  15  16  17  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2015 WHC

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 ®
 ⇑