World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2018 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 18 of 25:  « Previous  1  ...  17  18  19  ...  24  25  Next »

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#256 | Posted: 21 Nov 2017 08:01 
yes, right, so Unesco considers Groenland in Europe

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#257 | Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:05 
winterkjm:
- Chaîne des Puys et faille de Limagne (France)

Further confirmation

Does this article reveal the 2019 World Heritage Conference will be in Jakarta?

Author elsslots
Admin
#258 | Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:10 
winterkjm:
Does this article reveal the 2019 World Heritage Conference will be in Jakarta?

No, I read it as "2018 WHC meeting previously thought to be held in Jakarta, but will be held in Manama Bahrain"

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#259 | Posted: 30 Nov 2017 09:08 
I confirm.
They also give 12 new members for the next Committee

Author ajoszucs
Partaker
#260 | Posted: 26 Dec 2017 14:31 
A surprising news from Romania about Rosia Montana. After the prime minister said in August, that "he tries to withdraw the nomination, though he does not know whether it is possible", and the strongman of the party Liviu Dragnea reaffirmed that "this community was exclusively based on mining for millennia and we should not close the door for the mining industry in Rosia Montana", an article appeared on the website of the Ministry of Culture saying that the "The evaluation visit of ICOMOS experts ended successfully" as if nothing had happened!
A German and a French academic visited the site in October, and - according to the article - they were satisfied.

http://www.cultura.ro/vizita-de-evaluare-la-rosia-montana-s-incheiat-cu-succes

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#261 | Posted: 27 Dec 2017 03:03 | Edited by: Solivagant 
ajoszucs:
A German and a French academic visited the site in October, and - according to the article - they were satisfied.

I didn't read it quite like that - but please "correct" me if I am wrong. There seems to be a fair bit of "meat" in this nomination which it could be worthwhile our "getting up to speed" on in the coming weeks in advance of the 2018 WHC. Any further contributions of history or understanding regarding the site and its nomination will be gratefully received - on my part at least!

First - the ICOMOS "evaluation visit". As I read it
a. the report merely states that the visit was "successfully concluded" in the sense that it took place without problems - I read nothing to indicate that it did (or did not) reach a positive conclusion about the Nomination (nothing about "they were satisified")
b. there was only 1 ICOMOS evaluator not 2 - the other persons named (including the "French academic") appear to have been "support staff" provided by the Romanian "National Heritage Institute team".

I have had a look at the CVs of those involved. There seems to be a degree of "incestuousness" within the academic "world" of "Mining Heritage" with the same names appearing again and again! This could result in a more objective assessment of nominations related to this field or alternatively to a rather "cosy consensus" that all such sites are self evidently of "great" importance/OUV. I don't know (does anyone else??) if any of them were involved in the evaluation of Tarnowskie Gori - but, if so, they certainly didn't give it an "easy ride"! It seems worth pursuing the names a bit further, both because the domain of "Mining Heritage" seems very active in relation to WHS Nominations (recently and in the future) and because we rarely get the chance to see "inside" the World of AB evaluations in terms of the people involved!

In selecting Dr. Helmuth Albrecht to carry out the evaluation ICOMOS appear to have chosen a recognised guru on the subject (as well as being "one of their own"!!). This link shows that, in Oct 2013, he organised the ICOMOS workshop on "Industrial and Mining Landscapes within World Heritage Context" - http://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FreibergWorkshop25_10_2013.pdf
This is his list of publications - these include "The heritage of uranium mining in the German-Czech ore mountains" and "The World Heritage Project Montanregion Erzgebirge / Krušno-hoří and the montanhistorical heritage - the basis for the regional identity and basis for the mediation". He seems to be/have been actively involved in both the Erzgebirge and Rammelsberg Nominations - though in what role I haven't been able to discover. http://tu-freiberg.de/fakult6/technikgeschichte-und-industriearchaeologie/publikation en/helmuth-albrecht

Mr Barry Gamble - a member of the Romanian "support staff" is another person who seems to make a living within the Mining heritage and academic domain. He was leader in the preparation of UK's "Cornwall and W Devon Mining Landscape" Nomination File and has subsequently written a book on the subject and carried out other "consultancies" in a range of countries including Poland - I wonder if he played a role in the Tarnowskie Gori bid? http://www.alisonhodgepublishers.co.uk/?page_id=230
This link to a page on the Nomination Website shows that he (but not Dr Cauuet below) IS a "full time" member of the Romanian Government's Nomination Team - https://rosiamontana.world/echipa/

Dr Béatrice Cauuet is a "a Toulouse University specialist in ancient mining", seems to specialise in Gold Mining and, among much else, has been a joint author of a paper on The "Mineralogy and lead isotope signature of the gold-silver ores exploited during the Roman period at Alburnus Maior (Rosia Montanà, Romania") - indeed she appears to have spent many years studying mining at Rosia Montana - http://univ-tlse2.academia.edu/B%C3%A9atriceCauuet
As per info above and below it appears that she is NOT a member of the Government team but HAS worked on behalf of the Mining Company on archaeological matters - hence, presumably, her inclusion among those supporting the evaluation

Which moves us on to questions about the "Controversies" and political manoevrings regarding the nomination of Rosia Montana as referred to by ajoszucs in several posts. This Wiki article provides some background - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83_Project
So we have a multinational mining company with links through Jersey to Canada wanting to carry out major mining works at Rosia Monatan and facing significant environmental objections to doing so. Such mining would (might??) also involve the destruction of historic mining buildings and galleries going back to Roman times. The company seems to have been carrying out a huge PR exercise to prove/demonstrate that its mining would be OK.

What I don't as yet fully understand is which side the various parties are actually on with regards to the UNESCO nomination and the issue of mining at the site!! This Web site - "Rosia Montana Project" seems to be a company one and claims that the company has been doing a lot of excellent work to investigate and preserve the historic mine workings as well as to present them to the public - https://www.rmgc.ro/
See "Patrimoniu". - "We invested over $30 million to bring history to light".

I have found this article from 2013 which indicates a degree of controversy within the archaeological community itself about the impact of mining and which also indicates that the Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) regards Dr Cauuet as a supporter - "The company has initiated an extensive research campaign, without precedent in the history of the Romanian archaeology, it also turned to the advice and involvement of one of the greatest world specialists in mining archaeology, Dr Beatrice Cauuet from the University of Toulouse, as regards the underground mining archaeology field, " See - http://www.nineoclock.ro/british-expert-contradicts-wilson-mattingly-dawson-report-on -rosia-montana/

This of course raises the issue of just how "damaging" RMGC mining activities really are to the site?? Is this an example of environmentalists using "archaeological arguments" to oppose the mining which they are against primarily for environmental reasons? As for the Archaeologists - well the above link refers to David Jennings (on the RMGC "side"!) publishing arguments in Nov 2013 against Wilson/Mattingly/Dawson (NOT on the RMGC side!) - here is a reply (just 1 month later!!) by Wilson/Mattingly/Dawson replying to the reply of David Jennings!!! http://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp0057/Rosia%20Montana%20-%20Response%20to%20David%20Jenning s%20-%2019-12-2013.pdf . This "rebuttal of the rebuttal" states that "Unfortunately in November 2013 a report commissioned by the Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC) was issued which sought to discredit the Statement of Significance and impugn our professional standards. The report, written by Mr David Jennings of York Archaeological Trust, however, contains serious inaccuracies, misrepresents our position and misinterprets the nature of our work. Consequently we feel obliged to respond......Jennings' misrepresents, misinterprets, and misquotes the Statement of Significance in order to support his contention that RMGC should be licensed to mine gold at Roşia Montană."

Incidentally it appears that, whilst being against the mining, Andrew Wilson is in favour of the nomination and inscription - and is actually cited on the Nomination Web site as being a "Supporter" - https://rosiamontana.world/sustinere-internationala/

Contd

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#262 | Posted: 27 Dec 2017 05:13 
contd
There is nothing like a good "academic spat" - but are the positions based on "good archaeological thinking" or have they been influenced by "other" factors?? It will be interesting to see what Dr Albrecht and ICOMOS ultimately conclude! It appears that a good number (majority or not??) of the local people have been against WHS inscription because they fear that this would prevent the creation of jobs - normally ICOMOS is very attuned to "local involvement" - how much credence will it give to these views? And what is the "reality" of the threat to the archaeological remains. What do we make of the fact that a long term expert on the site like Dr Cauuet is (apparently?) prepared to work in favour of RMGC ? And what of RMGC - why is it apparently doing what it can to help gain UNESCO inscription since this would seem potentially likely to place a lot of restrictions on the future development of its mines? And what of the Romanian Government which seems to be between a rock and a hard place on this one - it daren't withdraw the nomination (for political reasons?) but is afraid of losing jobs etc by progressing it and reining in RMGC (and, if "corruption" allegations are to be believed, "owes" certain people to allow the project to continue for past favours received)? All VERY complicated! If ICOMOS concludes that the site has OUV (which most parties involved seem to agree it has - whether they favour mining or not) but does need to be protected against mining by RMGC before it can be inscribed the government is going to find itself in a tricky situation! Meanwhile the mining project apparently remains "on hold"

Author ajoszucs
Partaker
#263 | Posted: 5 Jan 2018 20:31 
Yes, it IS very complicated. I've been to Rosia Montana last August and had the chance to talk to some local residents, My collegues made a documentary for the Hungarian Tv some years ago on this issue -they made some in depth interviews.

Some conclusions:

- The local community is deeply divided. Some of them try to make a living of tourism, and expect a lot of the World Heritage nomination. Rosia Montana is in the mountains but a bit far from the Apuseni sky resorts, so the tourism season is now very limited, and most of the tourist are transit passangers, who just drop in, visit the mine, and go away. People involved in local tourism say, the wh tag could considerably increase the number of better paying international visitors, and attract some investment. As the village lost most of its population in the 90s and the rest are mainly seniors mining -they say - is rather a matter of nostalgia not a real option for most of them.

- Others - e. g. our guide in the mine - still believe in mining - but not in RMGC. They hinted that Dragnea wanted to open the door for another company (who knows which).

- The investment in heritage preservation is visible. But iit's also clearly visible, that after the political tumoil RMGC left the scene. There are a couple of houses still in scuffolding - for years now. As the only source of the renovation was the RMGC fund, no one knows thier future.

- Most people agree that the RMGC now concentrates rather on the money they could get from the Romanian government for the damages, and not the fulfilment of the project. Rosia Montana is a hot issue and the Romanian opposition can mobilize crowds any time with it. Though last December the social democrats won the election with an unprecedented majority (46%), but they are far from being popular now. So RMGC would see a political headwind if the opposition liberals and conservatives win next time. For RMGC it's better to pack and not to take the risk.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#264 | Posted: 29 Jan 2018 21:37 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Jeju Island boundary modification in 2018. Korea is seeking to expand and add 4 additional areas to the current WHS. The risk for rejection is the boundary modification may be too large and may require an additional [Extension] nomination. The Cultural Heritage Administration will however take this approach first.

Suwolbong, one of the proposed additions is on the other side of the island. Further caves will also be a part of this "boundary modification".

http://www.jemin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=494746

http://www.jemin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=494746

Author hubert
Partaker
#265 | Posted: 30 Jan 2018 14:49 
No second WHS for Hamburg. Germany has withdrawn the nomination of the Jewish cemetery in Altona.
"The importance of the Diaspora for the development of the Portuguese-Sephardic culture can not be demonstrated by the nomination of a single site and not only by the art of funeral monuments" (ICOMOS report).
"In order to save the chances of an extended nomination in the future, Hamburg will withdraw its current application to UNESCO and will consider whether international partners can be found for an extended transnational serial application" (Hamburg Senator for cultural affairs).

https://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/hamburg/article172990666/Juedischer-Friedhof-wird- kein-Welterbe.html

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#266 | Posted: 30 Jan 2018 17:12 
hubert:
Germany has withdrawn the nomination of the Jewish cemetery in Altona.

Being from Hamburg, I enjoy this special place, but never felt this was truly deserving of OUV. I am not even sure combining this with other sites will help all that much.

It makes you wonder a bit of the quality of the german selection process if after all those preselections and alignments sites get pulled before even being submitted.

Author tirtha22
Partaker
#267 | Posted: 31 Jan 2018 04:28 | Edited by: tirtha22 
winterkjm:
ICOMOS Expert: Unknown
The Victorian & Art Deco Ensemble of Mumbai (India)

I think expert is from Japan.

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/world-heritage-tag-for-oval-maidan-fin al-decision-likely-in-june-5042956/

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#268 | Posted: 31 Jan 2018 09:40 
tirtha22:
I think expert is from Japan.

It is always interesting to know about the individuals contracted by the ABs to do the evaluation. In common with the guy chosen to do Rosia Montana (see above) this is another "academic" - it must be a "nice little (extra) earner" as well as keeping the personal "networks" up to date and adding to the CV!
See this link for Dr Yuri Nishimura's CV as of 2002 when he was a candidate for (one of?) the ICOMOS Vice President position(s) - https://www.icomos.org/madrid2002/nishimuracv.htm
and this from 2010 (which mentions that he did indeed serve as a VP for ICOMOS) - http://ud.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/teachers/faculty_staff/professors/yukio_nishimura.php

His prime area of expertise is "urban planning, urban design and urban conservation planning at the University of Tokyo". He has "worked as UNESCO consultant in many World Heritage Sites, including Lijiang, Lhasa (China), Penang Melaka (Malaysia), Kyongju Seoul (South Korea), and Kathmandu Lumbini (Nepal).". He has an impressive list of books, "chapters" and papers to his name and would seem to be an eminently suitable candidate.

Author Assif
Partaker
#269 | Posted: 31 Jan 2018 15:25 
nfmungard:
It makes you wonder a bit of the quality of the german selection process if after all those preselections and alignments sites get pulled before even being submitted.

In fact the German expert committee similarly recommended to combine Altona with other similar Sepharadic cemeteries and specifically mentioned Jodensavanne as such a candidate. Still the nomination got accepted on its own before a transnational nomination materialized. This was different with the case of other candidates (I recall Altes Land), for which the committee only agreed to include the candidate once such a transnational dossier already existed.

Regardless of the similarity of the Icomos expert committee's recommendation and the German one, I still agree with you nfmungard that Altona on its own is probably not that convincing and that it's a pity Germany doesn't look for more original additions to the list (e.g., AEG-Turbinenfabrik, Olympia-Stadium, Tempelhof).

As a member of the Jewish community of Hamburg I am acquainted with people who personally contributed to the preparation of the dossier, a first time experience for me. I still believe that with the right approach a serial nomination of Jewish cemeteries in Europe should succeed.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#270 | Posted: 31 Jan 2018 15:54 
Assif:
Regardless of the similarity of the Icomos expert committee's recommendation

hubert:
"The importance of the Diaspora for the development of the Portuguese-Sephardic culture can not be demonstrated by the nomination of a single site and not only by the art of funeral monuments" (ICOMOS report).

I have been looking for the ICOMOS Expert Committee's report which you each mention. I found the following from 2011 but it doesn't include the words quoted by Hubert. Is there another on Jewish Cemeteries and possible UNESCO nomination?
http://www.icomos.de/admin/ckeditor/plugins/alphamanager/uploads/pdf/Bd_LIII_juedisch e_friedhoefe.pdf

Page  Page 18 of 25:  « Previous  1  ...  17  18  19  ...  24  25  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2018 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 ®
 ⇑