World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

| Forums | Register | Reply | Search |             Start | The List | Community | Blog
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /

2015 WHC - Livestream

Page  Page 21 of 22:  « Previous  1  ...  19  20  21  22  Next »  
Author Solivagant
#301 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 01:42 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Lebanon wants component 4 (House of Mary) to be included
Mixed pilgrimage center for Christianity & Islam
We also don't know where Jesus was born or baptized exactly, why would this be a problem for Mary. It's all about criterion 6 (association with current pilgrimages).

We don't yet know whether the WHC officially decided for or against including this element (though I suspect it WAS included despite the ICOMOS request). We didn't go to visit it when we visited Ephesus a month ago but the "controversy" led me to look it up on Wiki -see link below - of interest I think! This element does seem to have absolutely NOTHING really to do with the main area of Ephesus itself . But Turkey (as with e.g Bergama) has extended the scope of the nomination to include later mediaeval aspects of the main site. But this element is situated around 8-9 kms and a c 20 minute drive away from Ephesus so its inclusion stretches matters still further - again as was done in the case of Bergama. Els's point above about Bethany isn't really comparable - the OUV of the Bethany site (such as it was) came ENTIRELY from the site's undoubtedly significant "pilgrimage" credentials based on the belief (supported by archaeological evidence of the site's general use in the relevant era) that this site was/might be what it purports to be. The Church of Mary is clearly simply an add-on to Ephesus and however important, well founded or otherwise, its role as a pilgrimage site might be, that has little or nothing to do with Ephesus itself and its own OUV (OK - Ephesus does include a 5th C Basilica dedicated to the Virgin!). No doubt there are a number of WHS inscribed on one set of criteria which could find a local pilgrimage site to "add on" and thus also claim a Pilgrimage aspect in their OUV!!

Author Solivagant
#302 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 05:00 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Upstream processes
Suggestion (agreed to by ICOMOS) that possibly the best time for a State party to get advice is when it is updating its T List.
Not clear how this might be done. Skype is mentioned! What about cost -at the moment advice is given for FREE! ICOMOS asks how priorities are to be determined and how countries with limited resources can be covered- they are the ones who need the upstream assisstance the most!

Would/could make a major change to T Lists which currently seem to contain a lot of "no hope" sites. but some of course have been using such lists as a means of keeping their people "happy"!

Author Solivagant
#303 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 05:09 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Turkey asks for an improvement to the UNESCO Web site to provide more parameters for searching on sites (Not really sure that this is that important for improving "upstream processes"!!)

Author Solivagant
#304 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 05:36 | Edited by: Solivagant 
"Ideally we would have a jointly governed unit to provide upstream guidance" - to avoid coordination problems - IUCN/ICOMOS

The ABs should also publish such advice as they give - both to publish how their effort is going/being prioritised but also to spread "knowledge"/"good practice".

A major gap in Natural sites is Latin America/Caribbean but IUCN isn't getting much call for help/advice from those countries

IUCN would also rather see upstream advice as primarily a means of assisting conservation rather than just helping specific nominations to get through!!

Author Solivagant
#305 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 10:27 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Operational Guidelines,
Seems a big split between those countries prepared to accept Para 61 with Annual limit on sites to be considered each year.
India, Turkey, Peru and ANO suggest further work before a decision is made (next year!!!)
Finland, Poland, Germany and even Philippines say no sense in delaying again. Philippines at least prepared to put back the 25 limit but not the 1 pa per country (??)
Almost an hour later there is no agreement -Algeria seems to be asking if there is any justification under the Convention to cap anything - the convention "is about nominating sites"!!!! It is pointed out that 15 years ago the WHC agreed caps both on individual countries pa and on a total pa

apparently the budget wouldn't support a working group meeting in Paris as it would require e.g translators and coffee etc and this would cost money - of which there is NONE!! In any case the small countries couldn't afford to participate so any WP would consist of the "large" countries.

Senegal etc say there should first be a root and branch reconsideration of the Convention , of OUV etc etc - in UK we call this "hitting something into the long grass" (A cricket analogy -meaning that the ball will disappear for EVER!!)

Author winterkjm
#306 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:15 
It is interesting to consider, if adopted, this would come into effect on Feb 2nd, 2017. That means the 2018 WHC would be capped to 25 nominations, and all state parties would be limited to 1 nomination.

Author Solivagant
#307 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:18 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Dispute as to whether the caps are about improving "representativitity" of the list or reducing costs - the chair of the Working group says that his committee was ALL about the former. Only rich/big states are capable of presenting 2 sites pa anyway.

Author Solivagant
#308 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:22 | Edited by: Solivagant 
the Chair seems to accept that she is going to have to have a Working Group (WG) to discuss the matter further -but 2 countries per region or open ended. Each region can then discuss matters within itself.
Suggests Turkey as chair - but they have to take on part of organisational cost too (as did Germany!!)
and the WG should concentrate on the problem Para 61 ONLY.
India seems to have been the main proposer of this WG - suggests regional meetings and a total meeting in NOV to coincide with e.g The General conference at that time and a result to be proposed to the next WHC!!

Author winterkjm
#309 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:23 
I would argue, even though the disequilibrium of the list deepened over time, it was far less than it would have been if China, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, and Spain could submit 5 dossiers a year!

Author winterkjm
#310 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:25 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I would like to see the limit set to 30 nominations per year, and maintain 2 nominations TOTAL, regardless of cultural landscape, cultural, natural, or transboundary/transnational. 1 cultural - 1 natural maximum. No more of these 3 nomination years by Germany and/or others.

Author winterkjm
#311 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:28 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I like the proposals to select priority candidates when the limit of nominations surpasses the cap of 25 nominations. This might indeed help the equity of the list.

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 25 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 over during the last twenty years

additional priority guidelines . . .

Author Solivagant
#312 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:36 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I love it - apparently if the "Centre" organise anything they HAVE to provide translation services and they can't afford it - if Turkey as chair of a WG does something "unofficially" then this (and its costs) can be avoided!!!
Thus are "important" issues "resolved"

Author Solivagant
#313 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 11:44 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Vietnam suggest an amendment to the current draft decision for countries to be "Encouraged" to put forward only 1 site pa! In the mean time the new WG can be set up as well in the decision. "In that way no one loses face" (yes - he actually said that)

Colombia was prepared to accept para 61 but as no agreement accepts the Indian proposal and the Turkish led WG - also says that an extra point should be added about State Parties considering whether their WH is already well represented and if so to suspend further nominations voluntarily

Peru - supports Indian proposal for WG with regional sub groups and thanks Turkey for taking it on. Its mandate to be ALL of para 61 (earlier discussions considered only discussing a part of that para) and related issues.

Philippines - take out para 61 from draft decisions. Wants the Nov General Assembly to discuss the result of the WG.

They are just "wordsmithing" now - so the WHC HAS managed to postpone the limitation on nominations for another year at least!! Those who didn't want this are just keeping quiet

Author winterkjm
#314 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 12:03 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Lebanon was correct, it really is only about a dozen countries who routinely produce 2 nominations per year anyway, and it is clear these countries are already well-represented. Therefore the other 175 state parties are not really affected by the caps. Moreover, Lebanon also asked the question is this more about equity or finances, because it is important to rememberer the 1st cap on nominations was only about equity. It may not help the acceptance of para 61 when 3 of these state parties on the world heritage committe.

Europe - Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Russia, Turkey
Asia - China, Iran, India
Latin America - Mexico

Author winterkjm
#315 | Posted: 6 Jul 2015 12:07 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I think its safe to say, we will see 2 (sometimes 3) nominations per year from many of the state parties above until 2018 - 2020 when this potentially comes into effect.

In our 2018 WHC forum, we do have some indications that Germany, China, and France already have potential plans for 2 nominations each.

Page  Page 21 of 22:  « Previous  1  ...  19  20  21  22  Next » 
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions / 2015 WHC - Livestream Top

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 ®