My impression is that the %age of "I = Inscribe" was rather higher this year than in others - 22 out of 45 (Unfortunately 4 important sites still remain hidden in an unavailable appendix -presumably they have not received "straight I's"!) As stated by Warwass above it would seem likely that Sheki Palace will be inscribed somehow as "reward" to Azerbaijan - but what about the 4 Referrals and 5 Deferrals? In recent years WHC's have had a record of overturning these - I wonder if their "lower" %age/number represents a change in tactics by the ABs or is just a coincidence?
I have done a high level analysis which I summarise below for your interest to see how many of them might be ripe for the WHC to push through. Of course "politics" will play a big part but, just how damning were the AB evaluations, and how easy might it be to overturn them?REFERRALSKrzemionki
- Meets Criteria iii/iv. Has some integrity and management plan issues (but not that "major"?). Is there still time for Poland to do some/all of this - and sometimes sites get inscribed with an agreement to do the "necessary" ASAP thereafter? This would seem to not be a very difficult recommendation to overturn to an "I". The main achievement of Poland I guess is to have established that it IS distinct from Spiennes and that there is "room" for both on the List with its own OUV - is it happy enough to wait another year with no big issue of principle likely to prevent it then?.Mafra
- Potential for Crit iv but not i/ii/vi. Lack of documentation and comparative anal . Also Management System needs improving. Really it is rather surprising that this wasn't given a "Deferral" with so many issues - including the Criteria.Braga
- Meets Crit iv but not ii. ICOMOS wants a better study, improved documentation and adding as a Nat Monument. Could Portugal do or promise the latter? Would seem to have a better chance that Mafra? Kladruby
- Meets Crit iv/v but not ii. ICOMOS Wants extra Buffer and protection of the nearby canal. It would seem pretty easy for Czechia to do/promise these! Could imagine the WHC agreeing that it wasn't worth holding things up for such minor matters.DEFERRALSBohai
- IUCN sees potential only for Crit ix/x BUT is not happy with this only being Part I with a 2nd part to come the other side of a major port!! Says both parts are needed. Identifies many threats - wind-farms etc etc. Boundaries not good enough. Protection not good enough. This would seem to be a rather poorer nomination than China has recently been proposing - it has been VERY good recently at covering all bases. Wouldn't seem to have a chance of being overturned (and would China try anyway?)Grossglockner
- Criteria i/ii/iv not yet justified. ICOMOS not happy with whole approach of comparison primarily with other Alpine routes. Integrity and Authenticity not yet demonstrated. Says it needs a rethink. Doesn't seem in a position to be overturnedJaipur
- ICOMOS sees "potential" for Crit ii/iv but not v/vi. Comparative Analysis - ok. But Integrity, Authenticity not met. ICOMOS seemed to quite like the basic case but had problems with the argument/presentation - and of course the usual problem for Indian sites about their state and management. There doesn't seem much case for overturning unless India really wants to make an issue of it and has lots of support.Port Royal
- ICOMOS sees potential for Crit i but not iii/iv. Didn't like boundaries, justification and protection. Saw the new Cruise Terminal and its, currently being developed, associated "shopping opportunities" as a problem!! Isn't clear that large ocean liners aren't going to damage the underwater site. See my review
for comments on and links to this. Obviously a LOT of work and convincing still needs to be done before this site could gain inscription - given of course that Jamaica hasn't already killed it with the development. But most Cruise ship passengers won't care anyway!!Transisthmian Route
- ICOMOS saw potential for Crit ii/iv BUT Panama has proposed a complex 3 stage nomination and has included the already problematic elements of the existing Panama WHS (but this is NOT an "extension"). Loads of issues and work!
So -at first sight none of the "Deferrals" would seem easily upgradeable - and none seem likely to garner the Middle East/Arab bloc support which has frequently been the "engine" for such "overturnings".
"Referrals " could have more chance -perhaps Mafra has the least. But will the States Parties pursue the matter??
We await more info on KKFC, Sheki Palace, Prosecco, FL Wright
It is also of course possible that some of the, as yet unwithdrawn, "Noes" might try to get an "upgrade" -though just withdrawing might be a safer bet!