World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2016 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 20 of 24:  « Previous  1  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next »

Author pikkle
Partaker
#286 | Posted: 2 Jun 2016 18:36 
Still no 8B.Addendum? I'm interested to see what happens with:

- Chaine des Puys et faille de Limagne
- Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay/Mukkawar Island Marine National Park
- Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex

Author Durian
Partaker
#287 | Posted: 2 Jun 2016 18:59 
Second batch of IUCN document will be released on 10 June

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#288 | Posted: 4 Jun 2016 11:28 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Browsing the documents, a couple interesting finds.

ICOMOS "Thematic study on the Tea Landscapes of Asia"

It would not surprise me to see tea related nominations from not only China, but India, Japan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, or Korea. Maybe even a transnational nom?

Ancient Tea Plantations of Jingmai Mountain in Pu'er (China)

IUCN "Thematic studies on the High Seas and Arctic marine sites are being undertaken"

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-5B-en.pdf

40 COM (2016)
- Number of Sites Proposed 29 (Least in more than 15 years)
- Ratio of Natural and Mixed to Cultural sites 45% N/M – 55% C (most equal distribution ever)

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#289 | Posted: 7 Jun 2016 18:22 | Edited by: jonathanfr 

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#290 | Posted: 8 Jun 2016 03:40 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Chaîne des Puys et faille de Limagne (France) "unfavorable opinion by IUCN, non-inclusion"

http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne/unesco-la-candidature-de-la-chaine-de s-puys-en-posture-delicate-1017921.html

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#291 | Posted: 10 Jun 2016 14:47 
IUCN Addendum reports are in.

Chaine des Puys et faille de Limagne N
Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay/Mukkawar Island Marine National Park R
Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex R

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#292 | Posted: 10 Jun 2016 14:58 | Edited by: winterkjm 
- Antigua Naval Dockyard and Related Archeological Sites (Antigua and Barbuda) Inscribe
- Architecture of Le Corbusier (Argentina, France, Germany, Switzerland, India, Japan) Inscribe
- Pampulha Modern Ensemble (Brazil) Inscribe
- Zuojiang Huashan Rock Art Cultural Landscape (China) Inscribe
- Hubei Shennongjia (China) Inscribe
- Mistaken Point (Canada) Inscribe
- Pimachiowin Aki (Canada) Inscribe
- Archaeological Site of Philippi (Greece) Inscribe
- Kangchendzonga National Park (India) Inscribe
- Nan Madol: Ceremonial Center of the Eastern Micronesia (Micronesia) Inscribe
- Antequera Dolmens Site (Spain) Inscribe
- Gibraltar Neanderthal Caves and Environments (UK) Inscribe
- Archipiélago de Revillagigedo (Mexico) Inscribe

- Lut Desert (Iran) referral
- Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay/Mukkawar Island Marine National Park (Sudan) referral
- Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand) referral

- Stećci - Medieval Tombstones (Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia) defer
- Massif de l'Ennedi: Paysage Naturel et Culturel (Chad) defer
- Excavated Remains at Nalanda Mahavihara (India) defer
- The Ahwar of Southern Iraq: refuge of biodiversity and the relict Landscape of the Mesopotamian Cities (Iraq) defer
- The Persian Qanat (Iran) defer
- Western Tien-Shan (Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan) defer
- Phu Phrabat Historical Park (Thailand) defer
- Ani Cultural Landscape (Turkey) defer
- Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright (USA) defer

- Roman Urbanism of the Zadar Peninsula with the Monumental Complex on the Forum (Croatia) not inscribe
- Chaine des Puys et faille de Limagne (France) not inscribe
- Mountain Ecosystems of Koytendag (Turkmenistan) not inscribe

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#293 | Posted: 10 Jun 2016 20:07 | Edited by: winterkjm 
- Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand) referral

"Myanmar brought to the Secretariat's attention the issue concerning the boundary which "remains to be defined systematically between Myanmar and Thailand", boundary along which the nominated site Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex extends. In particular, in its letter of 17 March 2016, Myanmar claims that "34 percent of the proposed forest areas of the Kaeng Krachan Complex are located in the territory of Myanmar" and appealed to defer the inscription process." - IUCN

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#294 | Posted: 10 Jun 2016 20:16 
2019 WHC will be limited to 1 nomination per state party. A total of 35 nominations will cap the annual limit. There is a complex priority mechanism described HERE.

Author elsslots
Admin
#295 | Posted: 10 Jun 2016 23:38 
So they seem to slow down indeed. Could it be that this year we only get 13 - 16 new WHS?

Author elsslots
Admin
#296 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 00:12 
winterkjm:
There is a complex priority mechanism described HERE

This mechanism, even more than now, leads to 'every country has to have its WHS' (4 WHS per country even seems to be the thing to aim for!).
It does not take into account the thematic approach as proposed in the Filling the Gaps document.
It also does not hinder the already well-represented countries to keep on nominating (the annual limit of 35 is not low enough), although their speed will diminish .

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#297 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 03:32 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Italy, France, Spain (and others) will still be able to have 2 WHS a year if they are part of a transnational nomination (not the lead state party). I assume we will see this on occasion post 2018.

A rather unlikely coincidence, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany are pretty aggressive between 2016 - 2018, most years with 2 or more nominations. They know the one nomination limit is coming. Italy is probably aware, without successful nominations in the next 2-3 years, China will surpass Italy in WHS and never lose its position.

Several active countries already adhere to the one nomination a year format. The US, Korea, Canada, the UK, Japan, and Australia more often than not when active pursue one nomination per year.

Author elsslots
Admin
#298 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 05:29 | Edited by: elsslots 
Looking more closely to the order proposed (though as already stated above, the number of 35 is still fairly high and will result into few dropouts):

the following order of priorities will be applied in case the overall annual limit of 35 nominations is exceeded:
i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the List;
ii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having up to 3 properties inscribed on the List,
iii) nominations of properties that have been previously excluded due to the annual limit of 35 nominations and the application of these priorities,
iv) nominations of properties for natural heritage,
v) nominations of properties for mixed heritage,
vi) nominations of transboundary/transnational properties,
vii) nominations from States Parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean,
viii) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having ratified the World Heritage Convention during the last ten twenty years,
ix) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties that have not submitted nominations for five years or more,
x) nominations of States Parties, former Members of the Committee, who accepted on a voluntary basis not to have a nomination reviewed by the Committee during their mandate. This priority will be applied for 4 years after the end of their mandate on the Committee,
xi) when applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as a secondary factor to determine the priority between those nominations that would not be designated by the previous points.


Applying this to the 2017 nominations, this would result in the following order
i) Asmara (Eritrea) and Mbanza Kongo (Angola)
ii) Complexe W – Arly – Pendjari (Benin/Burkina Faso), Mole NP (Ghana), Dilmun Burial Mounds (Bahrain), Khor Dubai (UAE), Sambor Prei Kuk (Cambodia), Sheki (Azerbaijan), Orheiul Vechi (Moldova)
iii) n.a. (?)
iv) Qinghai Hoh Xil (China), Bhitarkanika Conservation Area (India), Landscapes of Dauria (Mong/Rus), Primeval Beech Forests extension (various), Sila National Park (Italy), Los Alerces National Park (Argentina)
v) Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley: originary habitat of Mesoamerica (Mexico)
vi) Venetian Works of Defence between 15th and 17th Centuries (Ita/Cro/Mont)
vii) Khomani Cultural Landscape (SAf), (an would Taputapuatea (fra) qualify?)
viii) none (?)
ix) none (?)
x) n.a.
xi) As-Salt (1-2-2016), Kulangsu (29/01/2016), Historic City of Ahmadabad (01/02/2016), Historic City of Yazd (01/02/2016), Sacred Island of Okinoshima (27/01/2016), Hanyangdoseong, the Seoul City Wall (25/01/2016), Kujataa (27/01/2016), Taputapuatea (22/01/2016), Strasbourg extension (22/01/2016), Caves with the oldest Ice Age art (13/01/2016), Bauhaus extension (15/01/2016), Naumburg Cathedral (22/01/2016), Tarnowskie Góry Lead-Silver-Zinc Mine (28-01-2016), Sviyazhsk (25-01-2016), Talayotic Minorca (14-01-2016), Aphrodisias (27-01-2016), The English Lake District (25-01-2016), Valongo Wharf Archaeological Site (01-02-2016)

there are 37 complete nominations, of which one (Ivrea) is the 3nd nomination in that year of the state party, so only 36 remain
so only 1 would have to be cut, these are the ones that arrived at 1 feb 2016: As-Salt, Ahmadabad, Yazd and Valongo Wharf (so what do they do then? exclude all 4? use the time of day it arrived?)

the last cut (rule xi) is very arbitrary, why don't they use a more thorough reasoning (I'd be all in favour for a thematic approach)

the 1-nomination-per-country should also be applied to the above, but countries have to choose themselves among their darlings; we would have ended up with less than 35 nominations then, and never have to apply the ranking order as shown above. At least the system works in favour of 'the usual suspects' nominating more natural or mixed WHS

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#299 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 06:55 
elsslots:
so only 1 would have to be cut, these are the ones that arrived at 1 feb 2016: As-Salt, Ahmadabad, Yazd and Valongo Wharf (so what do they do then? exclude all 4? use the time of day it arrived?)

Except of course that, if countries knew that the date of submission might be a reason for non-consideration (which wasn't the case for As-Salt etc) they wouldn't be waiting (as they obviously currently do) until the last moment to make their submissions. That would also tend to favour the countries which get their "nomination act" together the best

Author elsslots
Admin
#300 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 07:12 
Solivagant:
they wouldn't be waiting

I don't know if they really 'waiting'. From my experience as a bid manager, you work on til the deadline, as there is always so much to do and everything can be improved. Of course one should plan accordingly, but it would be difficult to be ready weeks earlier. You could submit it Feb 2 of course to run for the next year!

Page  Page 20 of 24:  « Previous  1  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2016 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 ®
 ⇑