Advisory Bodies Reports (brief summary)
Finland makes two points in regards to ICOMOS.
- Total lack of referrals to nominations. ICOMOS and WHC is often given enough information to change nomination to Inscription.
- Far more withdrawn nominations because of the upstream process.
- If the state party provides sufficient information, ICOMOS may reconsider their evaluations.
- Commends ICOMOS for early involvement with state parties bringing forth their first nominations.
- What has been done to include ICCROM more in the evaluation process?
Republic of Korea
- Questions regarding the chance for state parties to respond to ICOMOS evaluations between December and February. Though ICOMOS is strict in that no possible change in evaluation will take place, ROK asks for more flexibility (clear reference to the deferred Seowon nomination).
Advisory Body replies to questions
- ICOMOS makes comments regarding the flexibility of changing evaluations, or even second site visits. Clarifies that final evaluations come in March, only provisional decisions are made before that. ICOMOS also explains 2 months is likely far too little time for a state party to sufficiently improve or clarify a nomination dossier. Supports the involvement early on in the nomination process, even as early as the tentative list.