do you know when will they start to take decisions on the new WHS? is there a daily agenda available? I can do only spot checks from work, and i want to avoid all the general talkings.. thanks!

Yep, the agenda can be found here.

Following that agenda they should get to the new nominations on Friday 10.15 (St Petersburg time) through to lunch on Sunday.

Did anyone follow the discussions today?

Unfortunately I had to work and did not have time during the day (but am watching now).

According to the Google Alerts the Philippine Rice Terraces have been lifted from the List in Danger.

Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) also out of Danger

http://whc36-russia2012.ru/category.php?cat_id=1024

Session today:
- they start late & had a fun night yesterday with a lot of fire works (for which the Indian says thanks)

Dialogue in response to dam in Portugal

India Delegate quote concerning development: "The pyramids would never have been built if ICOMOS had anything to say about it, because it affected the natural landscape."

Key question
"Are we going to stop development at all World Heritage sites, and keep people living as they were hundreds of years ago, or are we going to combine presevation and development."

Thank you!

We missed this yesterday: Liverpool placed In Danger

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42330&Cr=heritage&Cr1=

As expected, was the plan for this then de-listing next year?

Does that mean that a WHS can only be removed if it is on the list in danger?

I've noticed that the only countries "taking the floor" are committe members. The only exception is countries responding to inquiries and discussion about their world heritage sites. Examples being Honduras answering questions about the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve. The Philippines and Portugal also took the floor in relation to their sites that were up for discussion. Is this the normal procedure? It makes logical sense otherwise the meeting might never end if all countries on any given issue can take the floor.

Committee Members

Algeria, Cambodia, Colombia, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates

Portobelo - San Lorenzo In Danger
http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/892

The discussion on the Torre Pelli Seville was quite amusing - the tower's construction is of course well under way and the WHC was word-smithing away on how it regretted that Spain hadn't properly followed procedure, the Spanish rep was saying it would never happen again. Germany huffed and puffed "Just look at the photo" which was up on the screen and Serbia pointed out that the photo had been taken with a telephoto lens which distorted the impression. The Chair said that really there wasn't much they could do now with it largely completed - but this wasn't enough for Germany and they pointed out that Germany had cut short their high rise in Koln while it was under construction and why couldn't Spain do the same!!

What was eventually agreed in this case I will have to await publication of the decision to find out!!
There does seem to be a momentum with these discussions on "World Heritage in Danger" - you can almost see the WHC either working its way up to a state of communal anger with some sites and just spending what seems like hours arguing about inconsequential minor word changes in others! Differences between the English and French versions seem to cause particular problems. It does seem a very inefficient way of spending everyone's time!

The sites in northern Mali - Timbuktu and Tomb of Askia - placed In Danger
http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/893

I've noticed that France, Germany, and Switzerland are often in agreement. They are also very strict in some of their judgements. While other countries Mali, Algeria, South Africa, and Senegal have demonstrated some support for each others views. Perhaps some strong regional support by both groups of countries or just a different world view?

I've appreciated the South African delegates persuasive views on working with state parties. I do understand some of the European delegates concern about making deadlines and strict guidelines for inscribing a site on the world heritage list in danger. However, to me it seems like that they are not considering the capacity of nations in the developing world who may be working under severe lack of resources. Perhaps wrong, but my perception is that some of the western nation delegates wants a one size fits all solution, in that in pursuit of fairness for all nations, deadlines for Portugal or Germany should be exactly the same as those in Ethiopia or Cameroon.

5 name changes

5 withdrawals (UK, Mexico, Spain, Macedonia, France)

Discussions of new nominations starts now