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 9 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  8  9  10  ...  16  17  Next »

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#121 | Posted: 6 Sep 2014 22:33 | Edited by: winterkjm 
With the significant Arab voting block and continued crisis in Iraq. Is it more or less guranteed The Ahwar of Southern Iraq: refuge of biodiversity and the relict landscape of the Mesopotamian Cities will be inscribed in 2015? Moreover, the key word "Mesopotamia" might be able to persuade committee members in itself. Not to mention the fact its a mixed nomination, which was a sour point with ICOMOS & IUCN this year.

Then there comes Turkey and Saudi Arabia with:
Ephesus
Diyarbakır Fortress

Rock Art in the Hail Region of Saudi Arabia

Who wants to bet against any of these (4) nominations being inscribed with or without a fair wind from ICOMOS?

After the 2015 WHC - Qatar, Algeria, and India will give up their committee seats. It's unfortunate that Egypt didn't or couldn't take advantage of a potentially beneficial committee to inscribe more sites.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#122 | Posted: 26 Sep 2014 10:07 

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#123 | Posted: 27 Sep 2014 20:20 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Korea's Nomination (apparently the evaluator is from China)
(in Korean) http://news1.kr/articles/?1868886

Japan's nomination is being evaluated by an Australian expert over 10 days.
http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2014&no=1249132

Author Assif
Partaker
#124 | Posted: 9 Oct 2014 16:56 | Edited by: Assif 
Does anyone know what is on with Hyderabad? It was submitted for 2014, but had no vacant spot and was postponed to 2015. Could it be it is India's second nomination for 2015 and that it was omitted from the list for 2015 because it had been already found complete in 2013?

Author Khuft
Partaker
#125 | Posted: 9 Oct 2014 19:04 | Edited by: Khuft 
Well, true, but the mysterious thing is that India added "Monuments and Sites of the Deccan Sultanate" to its TL in early 2014 - with "the Qutb Shahi Monuments at Hyderabad" as one of its 4 components.

At the same time, Hyderabad itself also remains on the TL, having been included in late 2010 (under the name "The Qutb Shahi Monuments of Hyderabad Golconda Fort, Qutb Shahi Tombs, Charminar").

To me it looks like India is pursuing Hyderabad as part of a larger serial site at some later stage...

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#126 | Posted: 14 Oct 2014 03:06 

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#127 | Posted: 14 Oct 2014 06:55 
winterkjm:
San Antonio Missions have been evaluated. "cautiously optimistic"

If no one tells Alex Jones it may have a chance :)

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#128 | Posted: 21 Oct 2014 10:49 

Author david
Partaker
#129 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 12:10 | Edited by: david 
I have completely by chance stumbled upon this page containing nomination files of all candidate cultural and mixed sites for 2015. I must admit it was a huge surprise to find a page like this many months before next WHC.
http://documentation.icomos.org/whu/panel2014/nomination/documents/

Author elsslots
Admin
#130 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 12:32 
david:
have completely by chance stumbled upon this page

Oh, Wow!
Someone has messed up I am afraid

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#131 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 12:48 
elsslots:
Someone has messed up I am afraid

Grab them while they are there! I have done around 8 to date. But San Antonio etc seems to be missing?

Author elsslots
Admin
#132 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 12:53 | Edited by: elsslots 
I immediately got an idea for a new "project" that we at this Forum could carry out.
Question to our regular members: would you be interested to participate in a "Mock AB evaluation of the 2015 WHS"?

- Choose 1 of the list of 2015 nominations (you can choose only 1, not from your own country, and not one that has already chosen by someone else)
- Read the Nom dossier closely
- Find out as much as you can about the site via other sources
- Visit the site if you can, or ask someone else to visit it, or look for recent trip reports
- Follow the news about that nomination
- Report back regularly on the Forum (I will set up a specific corner)
- Advise on Rejection / Deferral / inscription etc before a specific date (at least before ICOMOS does so)

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#133 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 14:01 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I just clocked one of Denmarks (3!) propossals, The Parforce Hunting landscape in North Zealand. I think that may have beaten the Hoge Kempen Rural - Industrial Transition Landscape in terms of the one I am most dreading becoming a WHS.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#134 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 16:01 
meltwaterfalls:
The Parforce Hunting landscape in North Zealand. I think that may have beaten the Hoge Kempen Rural - Industrial Transition Landscape in terms of the one I am most dreading becoming a WHS.


I can't believe they're actually nominating it without Frederiksborg and Fredensborg castles! Ok, one may discuss whether the list needs more European castles and palaces, but this just verges on the ridiculous...

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#135 | Posted: 28 Oct 2014 03:46 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I gather that, if the Viking sites nomination gets inscribed, it will encompass Thingvellir and Jellings as well as adding sites from other countries as in e.g Hedeby in Germany. Thus there would be a net reduction of 1 in the number of separate WHS. I think this to be the case rather than that, e.g Thingvellir, would be inscribed twice on different criteria?

As far as I am aware (does anyone know of any others??) this has only happened once before - in 1990 when the previous separately inscribed sites of Mt Cook and Fjordland were merged whilst further areas were added to create a single site of Te Wahipounamu - also therefore a net reduction of 1 site - in this case, however, involving just 1 country.

There are of course a fair number of existing WHS which could usefully be merged if national pride would allow but most countries only seem prepared to work together on totally new inscriptions rather than in helping other countires by subsuming an existing inscription within a wider site. UK "gave up" its 1987 inscription Hadrian's Wall to allow the Roman Frontier in 2005 - did it do it to be "communautaire" or because it wanted to add the Antonine Wall and had been told that it needed to work on a wider definition than Hadrian's wall in order to do so?

It looks as if UK is also going to "give up" its separate inscription of Bath which may well get subsumed within the "Spas of Europe"

Page  Page 9 of 17:  « Previous  1  ...  8  9  10  ...  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 ®
 ⇑