World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /  

2012 WHC - Livestream

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

Author elsslots
#211 | Posted: 1 Jul 2012 23:26 
Is the Christ the Redeemer statue actually part of the site?

the Corcovado is, so the statue is also

Author winterkjm
#212 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 02:37 
Concerning Lena Pillars:

Russia is being very vague about the reason why they removed a seemingly very important section of the park?

Author winterkjm
#213 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 02:58 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Senegal is obviously not understanding IUCN's idea of NOT INSCRIBE.

Author Solivagant
#214 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:17 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Lena Pillars Resume of discussion
Time spent working out is it a "Nature Park" or a "National Park"!!

Alg/Ser/Sen in favour of insc.
Mex prefer def .
Sen raises issue of repeat sites re Karst which IUCN has raised (i.e there are a lot already and this one isn't THAT special). Points out that "repeats" don't lose their OUV just because they are "repeats"!).
Switz supports IUCN but is almost a "lone voice"!!
Sen says that IUCN can work in future to strengthen the OUV but Switz says such future work may not actually permit OUV to be identified and they therefore can't assume it!
Mali supports Sen/Alg etc.
Ger would support insc on viii which appears to be slightly stronger in IUCN comments about what might yet be shown (but IUCN has just said that it can't really say which is stronger since it doesn't yet think that either has been demonstrated).
Mex supports this too (Now!!!) .
Chair - would Sen support insc just on viii?
Sen - says it would!!
Ind supports Ger too.
Iraq supports just viii.
Qatar – also!!!

Almost "agreed" but Switz says the decision about to be taken goes against Art 11 para 2 of the Convention which require that OUV has been properly identified.
Legal Advisor is asked but throws it back to WHC as a matter of interpretation!
Sen – the Switz point has a "lot of wisdom" but doesn't agree that possibilities for "interp" are very wide.

So it will be inscribed on Crit viii only!!!! There are just a number of "clear up" points since other paras read wrongly if the site is inscribed - Switz quite enjoys pointing this inconsistency out!!

It is quite clear that Switzerland is logically correct in relation to what IUCN has said but there was clearly a groundswell in favour of giving Russia the benefit of the doubt. Interesting that Germany actually provided the means by which the log jam could quickly be cleared (ie. Just viii) -though there didn't seem to be enough others anyway who would support Switz in opposing it right through to a vote!

Switz "grumbles on" about all the outstanding matters and is IUCN really going to spend its valuable resources on all these (unstated but implied "after the WHC has gone against its recommendation"!!)

Author winterkjm
#215 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:17 
Lena Pillars has been inscribed.

Author paul
#216 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:24 
Els, did you not visit the Western Ghats (Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve), when you were in Ooty?

Author Solivagant
#217 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Cynical interpetation of events??

Russian Chair ensures that Bethlehem will get inscribed by insisting that a separate vote shouldn't taken solely on the issue of whether the situation is an "Emergency" - only on a single vote on all issues - thus permitting Algeria's proposal to get though (just!)

Algeria "repays" this favour by leading the charge in favour of Lena Pillars thus ensuring that the Russian "host" gets its inscription.

By the way - which countries led the decision to get the Kremlins "referred" rather than "not inscribed"??

Author winterkjm
#218 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:45 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Ironic that they are now discussing the dilemma of making premature inscription of sites that are recommended for deferral!

All nominations recommended for referral were inscribed

- Elvas and its Fortifications (Portugal) Ref
- Neolithic Site of Çatalhöyük (Turkey) Ref
- Decorated Farmhouses of Hälsingland (Sweden) Ref
- Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Ref
- Historic town of Grand-Bassam (Côte d'Ivoire) Ref

4/8 nominations recommended for deferral were inscribed

- Lena Pillars Nature Park (Russia) Def
- Western Ghats (India) Def
- Masjed-e Jāme' of Isfahan (Iran) Def
- Lenggong Valley (Malaysia) Def

None of the sites recommended for Not Inscribe received thus by the WHC

- Hill Forts of Rajasthan (India) received referral
- Russian Kremlins (Russian Federation) received referral
- Schwetzingen (Germany) received deferral
- Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Palestine) inscribed

Author winterkjm
#219 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 03:57 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Excluding sites recommended for inscription, the WHC only sided with IUCN or ICOMOS on 1 evaluation of a nomination!

- The Vineyard Landscape of Langhe-Roero and Monferrato (Italy) Deferral

(It should be noted this site was only briefly discussed because of time constraints)

Author winterkjm
#220 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 04:15 | Edited by: winterkjm 
A conflict of interest about nominations being evaluated when the state party is a committee member was discussed.

I am sure the whole notion of "conflict of interest" is absurb in the view of Malaysia, Russia, India, Germany, France, Qatar, and Senegal!

Author hubert
#221 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 04:16 
It is not surprising that Switzerland supported the recommendation of the AB evaluation in most cases. They plan no further nominations in the next years.
Conversely, countries such as Germany and France will nominate new sites every year, and many of them will certainly be controversial. So, much is just policy.

Author Solivagant
#222 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 04:16 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Unfortunately I was away over the weekend and only managed intermittently to keep in touch with discussions.

Could those Forum members who were able to follow the discussions put together a summary picture across the 13 occasions as listed above where the AB evaluations were altered
a. Which countries led the revision and with what general "argument"
b. Which countries tried most publicly to uphold the AB recommendation -with what arguments
c. How close the decision was.

I have already done 2 of them
a. Algeria led case for change on the basis that the site fully justified urgent inscription - supported publicly by most African and Asian members
b. Switz led opposition
c. By vote 13/6/2 - just the required 2/3rds of those voting (excl Absts)

Lena PIllars
a. Alg/Serb/Sen later supported by Mali. The OUV case has just about been made and only needs a bit more supportive work between IUCn and Rus - not enough to not inscribe!
b. Switz -no guarantee that case will be made!
c. Majority accepted German proposal to go just for Crit viii. Only Switz spoke against.

I feel that such a picture, put together whilst the events are fresh in our minds, could be of use/interest to us in future discussions!

Author winterkjm
#223 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 04:54 | Edited by: winterkjm 
a. Alg/Mali voiced support for inscription particular with discussion of a "mosque" (It should be noted the chairperson was rather pushy for deferral, I think she crossed the line in pushing for a certain outcome)
b. Switz insists on following the AB evaluation, Estonia/Sen aligned with Switz view, Switz further argues against deferral and forces vote for Not Inscribe/Inscribe
c. Barely missed not inscribe by only 1 or 2 votes, 2/3 majority was not achieved, Switzerland was forced to accept compromise for deferral

Author winterkjm
#224 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 05:02 | Edited by: winterkjm 
South Korea asks to take the floor (through Japan delegate) and brings up the controversial issue of Goguryeo history and the Chinese view of Goguryeo as a Chinese ethnic group. Korea is bringing up text published by China that they percieve as innaccurate. Apparently, the text used by China was agreed previously that it could not be used.

Author elsslots
#225 | Posted: 2 Jul 2012 09:55 
Els, did you not visit the Western Ghats (Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve), when you were in Ooty?

The nominated parts of the Western Ghats are very scattered in bits and pieces in South India. I did drive through (by bus) the area, but did not visit any of the parks (as far as I can see now). So another one missed!

Page  Page 15 of 16:  « Previous  1  ...  13  14  15  16  Next » 
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2012 WHC - Livestream

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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®