World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

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

2016 WHC

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

Author Solivagant
#301 | Posted: 11 Jun 2016 07:16 | Edited by: Solivagant 
you work on til the deadline,

Of course but you would set the deadline earlier - there is nothing "magic" about Jan 31 and any country wanting to do so could achieve an earlier submission. "Work expands to fill the time available". Any country fearing it might get caught by Priority 11 (which would tend to be those not claiming one of the other priorities) would be stupid not to plan to do so!

Author elsslots
#302 | Posted: 23 Jun 2016 00:11 | Edited by: elsslots 
Stećci - Medieval Tombstones (Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia) defer

I think they're going to 'fight' for inclusion at the WHC session, have some WHC member state to write an amendment.


Author Assif
#303 | Posted: 23 Jun 2016 18:18 
A total of 35 nominations will cap the annual limit.

I have just noticed the proposal is to cap the annual limitto 25, not 35. This would most certainly lead to some nominations being postponed.
Additionally, a new mechanism for approving tentative sites is proposed for the first time.

Author elsslots
#304 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 00:26 
You're right indeed, Assif. They've changed the proposal!

Author KSTraveler
#305 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 01:28 
Is there a link to the proposed annual limitto being set at 25 and the new tentative site approval mechanism?

Author Assif
#306 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 04:23 
Is there a link to the proposed annual limitto being set at 25 and the new tentative site approval mechanism?

Author Assif
#307 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 06:20 | Edited by: Assif 
Repeating Els's exercise for the 2017 nominations with the new cap of 25 nominations:

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)[/quote]

18 sites of all categories to x. Taputapuatea does not qualify for category vii (only member states from the Pacific).
7 sites to go: As-Salt, (Kulangsu and Ahmadabad are out - only one nomination per state party), Yazd, Okinoshima, Hanyangdoseong, Kujataa, Taputapuatea, (Strasbourg-extension is out - only one nomination per state party), caves with the oldest Ice Age art.
The rest are out too.

We would have a much more varied list than normally!

Author Assif
#308 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 06:58 
I will now apply the same criteria to this year's nomination:

i) Nelson's Dockyard (Antigua and Barbuda), Nan Madol (Micronesia)
ii) Ennedi (Chad), Stecci (if led by Bosnia or Montenegro), Sanganeb (Sudan), Western Tien Shan (if led by Kyrgyzstan)
iii) none
iv) Mistaken Point (Canada), Shennogjia (China), Puys (France), Khangchendzonga (India), Lut (Iran), Revillagigedo (Mexico), Kaen Krachan (Thailand), Koytendag (Turkmenistan), Western Tien Shan (if led by Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan)
v) Ahwar (Iraq) (Pimachiowin Aki out since there is another site for Canada)
vi) Stecci (if led by Croatia or Serbia), Le Corbusier (multiple)
vii) none
viii) none
ix) Philippi (Greece)
x) none?

Together: 17 sites. 8 more could be examined.
We would have: Pampulha (Brazil), Zadar (Croatia), Antequera (Spain), Ani (Turkey), Gibraltar (UK), Frank Lloyd (USA). All the rest are from state parties already represented by one nomination.

23 nominations to be examined in total - no need of capping.

Author KSTraveler
#309 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 14:00 
I am not as familiar with the World Heritage process as I would like to be, would anyone be willing to clarify criterion ix for me?

Author elsslots
#310 | Posted: 24 Jun 2016 14:32 
The ix (and other numbers in Assif's post) comes from this. They're criteria for prioritization.

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.

Author Solivagant
#311 | Posted: 25 Jun 2016 06:07 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Operational guidelines - Proposed Changes to nominated sites pa.
I was having a look through the justification for the proposed changes in the document as below
Part of this is "Table E - List of Nominations received to be examined by the Committee at its sessions between 2000
and 2015. Detail of States Parties having submitted more than 9 nominations."

I was rather surprised to discover that UK is as high as 12th in this list with 18 nominations in the period. This places it behind - China 38, India 38, Germany 34, Russian Federation 33, France 29, Italy 29, Spain 26, Mexico 25, Iran 25, Israel 24 and Ukraine 18. A few other surprises too - I hadn't realised that Russia, Israel and Ukraine for instance had been quite so "active" in these years.
But can UK really have made 18 nominations during this period???
In fact UK had 11 new inscriptions -
The Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda 2000
Blaenavon Industrial Landscape 2000
Dorset and East Devon Coast 2001
Saltaire 2001
New Lanark 2001
Derwent Valley Mills 2001
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2003
Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City 2004
Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape 2006
Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal 2009
The Forth Bridge 2015

So - where does the 18 come from?? Well Darwin's Lab got "rejected"/withdrawn etc twice (2007/10) and Jarrow etc once (2012) - so that is 11 + 3 = 14.
It appears that changes in criteria and significant boundary alterations have also been counted
Then St Kilda got Natural Criteria added and followed by an additional cultural criterion (2004/5) and Gough etc got extended at the second attempt following a "withdrawal" (2003/4 . So 14 + 4 = 18

The figures used in this Table therefore need to be looked at with a little bit of care and understanding since they apparently include ALL nominations involving significant change and thus involving the AB in an evaluation - whether or not they are actually "New" sites or even re-nominations or "multiple failures".
This is not an unreasonable way of "counting" annual nominations to address the issue of cost of evaluation etc but can give the wrong impression in relation to the issue of altering geographical balance etc. UK actually nominated 14 "new" sites which could potentially maintain/increase the imbalance between "frequently" and "infrequently" nominating States. Still not an inconsiderable number but somewhat lower than the impression given by the headline figure.
I don't know to what extent similar factors inflate the headline numbers of other States at the top of the list. Certainly Ukraine isn't widely known as the "multiple inscriber" which its figure of 18 nominations might imply!! In fact it only had 5 new sites inscribed in the period chosen (and one of those was the trans-boundary Struve Arc). I haven't been able fully to account for the other 13 - Beech Forests had a withdrawal in 2004, Bukonvinian Metro had an incomplete in 2010, Saint Sophia had 2 deferrals in 2010/12, Bakhchysarai was incomplete in 2014/15. But that only adds 6 (= 11) - and can the report really have included nominations which weren't even looked at because they were "incomplete"??

Author elsslots
#312 | Posted: 25 Jun 2016 13:28 
I've tried to find the '10' attributed to Tanzania, but get only to 8 including 4 incomplete dossiers:
WHS (3):
- Kondoa (plus once referred)
- Zanzibar
TWHS (5):
- Eastern Arc mountain forest (once incomplete, once withdrawn)
- Central Slave and Ivory Route (3 times incomplete!)
Former TWHS (0)
none with an attempt from 2000 on

Author Assif
#313 | Posted: 26 Jun 2016 06:48 | Edited by: Assif 
I was surprised too to see Israel with 24 nominations.
Trying to account for this figure:
9 inscriptions (two of them, Bahai sites and Incense Route, were first referred, which makes up 11)
Makhteshim (def 2001, withd 2005)
Journeys of Jesus (withd 2010)
Hula (def 2006)
Triple Arch of Dan (four attempts)
So 8+11=19. During this time there were neither additions of criteria nor boundary modifications. So where do the 5 remaining nominations come from?

Similarly, I could only come up with 9 for Austria (table says 13) and 8 for Mongolia (table says 10). I guess such deviance could be found for other countries on that list as well.

The same document lists all member states that submitted two or more sites at least twice. Gabon, which is on that list, did it only once (2005).

Author Assif
#314 | Posted: 26 Jun 2016 06:51 
I haven't been able fully to account for the other 13 - Beech Forests had a withdrawal in 2004, Bukonvinian Metro had an incomplete in 2010, Saint Sophia had 2 deferrals in 2010/12, Bakhchysarai was incomplete in 2014/15. But that only adds 6 (= 11)

The Ukraine had five rejected nominations in 2001 that are no longer on its T-list. This would sum up to 16 (still not 18).

Author elsslots
#315 | Posted: 1 Jul 2016 13:04 
Still no updated Tentative Lists on the WHC 2016 page -
It should be document 8a.
What is taking them so long?

Page  Page 21 of 24:  « Previous  1  ...  20  21  22  23  24  Next » 
WHC Sessions 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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®