World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2012 WHC - Livestream

 
 
Page  Page 5 of 16:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  16  Next »

Author elsslots
Admin
#61 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 11:26 
3 buses in front of the palace will take you to the Estonian reception of this evening!

Author elsslots
Admin
#62 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 11:30 
Here's the list of new additions for today:

http://www.worldheritagesite.org/years/2012.html

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#63 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 12:06 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Concerning the Palestine nomination

Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Palestine)

When ICOMOS recommended to "Not Inscribe" this was more in relation to being nominated on an emrgency basis rather than OUV, correct? From my understanding ICOMOS felt the emergency inscription argument was not valid. However, did ICOMOS provide a full evaluation of the OUV of the site?

I wasn't able to see this part of the WHC as it was 3 or 4am here in the US. Also what were the basic contents of Palestine's speech after inscription. The German delegate did stay for the remainder of the nominations, no?

Author elsslots
Admin
#64 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 12:18 | Edited by: elsslots 
winterkjm:
Also what were the basic contents of Palestine's speech after inscription. The German delegate did stay for the remainder of the nominations, no?


cannot really quote what the Palestine's speech was, but it referred directly to the Israeli occupation and long struggle and so on. It was unnecessary political in my view. The other acceptance speeches are all like "thank you St. Petersburg, thank you ICOMOS, we will look after it carefully".
The Israeli delegate responded to the Palestine's speech, and I feared that it would turn into a full battle of words. But he restrained himself, said that the Church of Nativity fully deserved inscription (Germany also said so), but not via this procedure. Palestine could have taken measures a long time ago to prevent it from falling apart. There's no urgency.

The German probably stayed, but she had been very active during the days before and had to comment on almost everything. The only thing she did after Palestine got the inscription was to congratulate Israel on its inscription of Mount Carmel.

Author elsslots
Admin
#65 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 12:30 
winterkjm:
When ICOMOS recommended to "Not Inscribe" this was more in relation to being nominated on an emrgency basis rather than OUV, correct? From my understanding ICOMOS felt the emergency inscription argument was not valid

indeed

winterkjm:
However, did ICOMOS provide a full evaluation of the OUV of the site?

I'm not sure.

Algeria had prepared a full amendment of the statement, and had gathered enough supporters beforehand to agree with it I guess. The site wasn't really discussed on its merits, only the procedure was. And then there was about an hour in which they (WHC) tried to figure out how to hold the secret ballot, to the growing annoyance of the German.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#66 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 12:58 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
However, did ICOMOS provide a full evaluation of the OUV of the site?


Yes.
They received the nomination on 8 Mar (the Centre had got it on 27 Jan and presumably spent the almost 6 weeks trying to decide what to do with it!!).

ICOMOS got straight down to work and, on 13 March, asked the SP for more info - just little things like a plan of the church. This they got on April 4 (it takes a long time to send a plan!).

ICOMOS had a field visit between 30 April and 1 May but ONLY to the Church of the Nativity (The nominated, and now, inscribed, complex covers a wider range of buildings and sites).

On each of the 2 criteria (iv and vi) put forward for OUV ICOMOS said
"ICOMOS considers that the property has the capacity to justify this criterion but a full study of the attributes that convey its value need to be undertaken."

Its overall conclusion was
"ICOMOS considers that the criteria have the potential to be justified but in the absence of a full mission, the conditions of authenticity and integrity have not been fully assessed at this stage, nor has it been possible to fully understand the attributes that convey its value, or an appropriate boundary"

See this link for its full report - which was of course not discussed substantively AT ALL!!
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2012/whc12-36com-inf8B1Add2-en.pdf

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#67 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 13:24 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Who argued for inclusion? Who proposed the secret ballot? It seems like Palestine knew that if it came down to a vote, it would be inscribed. This explains why they pushed it through even while France's emergency nomination was withdrawn. Perhaps following Palestine's success, France regrets not bringing it to a "secret vote" before the committee.

Following this action taken by Palestine, would not other countries act in the same manor to get their sites inscribed. This is an unfortunate president. Countries can push for emergency evaluation, and the decision comes down to a popularity contest or who best lobbyied the other delegates.

The Palestine nomination probable meets OUV, but how it achieved this is just unfortunate.

Author elsslots
Admin
#68 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 13:50 
winterkjm:
Who argued for inclusion

Algeria had put together an amendment for inclusion. In discussing this, it was clear that some would never agree with that (Germany mainly). So they had to vote and bring out a 2/3 majority

Author hubert
Partaker
#69 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 14:41 
Thank you for all your posts. The webcast seems to be a great improvement. Unfortunately, I was not able to see the session today. So I was reliant on the summary here in the forum.

So, all inscribed today! Interresting to see whether the trend to overrule ICOMOS will continue when it comes to the European nominations.

I hope I can watch the session tomorrow. But it's going to be a hot summer weekend here in Graz, thus I probably prefer to go to a swimming lake and a beer garden afterwards. So I will read your comments in the evening.
Many thanks for that in advance.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#70 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 20:08 
hubert:
thus I probably prefer to go to a swimming lake and a beer garden afterwards

Ah you are just rubbing it in now!

But I second Hubert's thanks for keeping us up to date. It was my only respite from a very busy day in the office [followed by a long night of trendy bar hopping (I will give it a go to!)].

Fingers crossed for Idrija tomorrow, and I wonder if in a year's time the Bethlehem inscription will seem as controversial.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#71 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 20:56 | Edited by: winterkjm 
meltwaterfalls:
I wonder if in a year's time the Bethlehem inscription will seem as controversial

At least the site is a worthy site that by most standards meets OUV. It was pretty much guarenteed inscription in a couple years anyway. I think the controversy will subside with time just as accepting Palestine as a member eventually did. The problem that remains is the unfair inscription Palestine managed to secure and the political injection they just gave the WHC. When I mention unfair, I am speaking of the French nomination which ICOMOS felt met all standards of inscription, but did not justify an emergency inscription only. France, while perhaps dissapointed followed the ICOMOS recommendation and decided to withdraw the nomination.

But than again who can mention fair or unfair in relation to Palestine. I think their basic position is they have been treated unfairly for decades.

Author elsslots
Admin
#72 | Posted: 30 Jun 2012 02:46 
A new day.
It starts with a long discussion about the Qatar site.
Fingerpointing at ICOMOS for lack of cooperation.
Also references to it being the state party's first site, still a bit unsure of the process and looks for confirmation if it is on the right track.

P.S.
The German delegate has found new inspiration, and is prominent in the discussion again. She cannot hide she's still angry though "If we can decide on the Church of Nativity in 3 months, why can't we do that on Qatar within 1 year?"

Author elsslots
Admin
#73 | Posted: 30 Jun 2012 02:54 
Referral for Qatar (better than the proposed Deferral from ICOMOS).

Now up: Bahrein Pearling sites
(my vote!! I've been there, great pics!!)

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#74 | Posted: 30 Jun 2012 02:58 | Edited by: winterkjm 
The Qatar Nomination is desrcibed as a fragile archeological site. This seems another example of why rush to inscribe an important site that needs to be better developed while further research is completed. Overall, seems like a good decision. I don't know if another visit is 100% neccessary, but more time certainly is needed.

It seems ironic that many delegates stressed the uniqueness of the Qatar nomination association with the pearl trade, while the very next site is entirely focused on the pearl industry in the gulf!

Author elsslots
Admin
#75 | Posted: 30 Jun 2012 03:12 
Pearling sites are in, as an exemplary nomination

Page  Page 5 of 16:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  16  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org 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.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑