World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

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

2019 WHC

Page  Page 25 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  24  25  26  ...  30  Next »

Author Solivagant
#361 | Posted: 20 May 2019 15:13 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A Quick summary -

Inscribed -22 (inc 1 Ext)
Terres Austral
Budj Bim
Danube Limes
Dilmun mounds
Burk Fas Metall
Writing on Stone
Augsburg Water
Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří
Plain of Jars
Risco Caldo
Jodrell Bank
Paraty (mixed) I/I
Vatnajokull I/R (2 elements)
Ohrid (Ext) "OK" (sic)

Deferred - 5
Bohai Bird Sancts
Port Royal
Transisthmian Rte

Referred - 4

"In Addendum" - which I haven't yet found!
Sheki Palace
FL Wright

"No" - 3
Alps Medit
Hoge Kempen
Priorat- Montsant

"On Hold" - 2
Fr Beaches

Withdrawn - 5
Rijal Almaa

Author jonathanfr
#362 | Posted: 20 May 2019 16:28 
Inscribe- Großglockner High Alpine Road (Austria)

In fact it's deferred

Author jonathanfr
#363 | Posted: 20 May 2019 17:49

Decides to remove Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Palestine) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

Decides to retain Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with a view to considering its deletion from the World Heritage List at its 44th session in 2020, if the Committee Decisions related to the adoption of the DSOCR and the moratorium for new buildings are not met.

Decides to remove Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Chile) from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

decides to inscribe the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region (North Macedonia) on the World Heritage List in Danger;

decides to inscribe the Ancient City of Nessebar (Bulgaria) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

Author jonathanfr
#364 | Posted: 20 May 2019 18:45 | Edited by: jonathanfr 
Vatnajokull (mixed) I/R
Ohrid (Ext) "OK" (sic)

Vatnajokull I/R
Ohrid (Ext) (mixed) "OK" (sic)

Author jonathanfr
#365 | Posted: 20 May 2019 18:51 | Edited by: jonathanfr 
China will equalize Italy with 54 sites and become the first country in the world in number of classified sites.

Largest beneficiary this year: Germany, 3/3

Author warwass
#366 | Posted: 20 May 2019 19:08 
I think Azerbaijan will have its next site inscribed and it does not matter what ICOMOS recommends; the committee meets in Baku... I remember the case of Tarnowskie Góry in Poland, 2 years ago...

Author kintante
#367 | Posted: 21 May 2019 01:19 
Very surprised by the I for Augsburg. I never thought this could be a WHS. Now I have to go again as the weather was bad last time I was there.

Author Solivagant
#368 | Posted: 21 May 2019 03:49 | Edited by: Solivagant 
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?
Krzemionki - 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.

Bohai - 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 overturned
Jaipur - 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!

Author barabanov
#369 | Posted: 21 May 2019 05:24 | Edited by: barabanov 
A Quick summary -

Inscribed -21 (inc 1 Ext)

Dear Solivagant, Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří Mining Region is also to be added to Inscribed

Author Solivagant
#370 | Posted: 21 May 2019 05:32 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Dear Solivagant, Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří Mining Region is also to be added to Inscribed

Thanks - I don't know how it got missed - my 12th potential "tick" out of 21 "New" ones as well!! Plus 3 more "potentials" in "Addendum" 8b. (By the way has anyone else looked for this- I might just have "missed" it!!)
I have gone back and "corrected" earlier relevant posts

The Vatnajokull "error" pointed out by @jonathanfr above - was due to my not thinking through why it had 2 recommendations - "I/R". Of course it wasn't due to it being a "mixed" site with differing recommendations for Natural and Cultural aspects but rather to the fact that IUCN recommended 1 portion for inscription and referred a 2nd one (A Northern part which is not the one most people will visit if they go/have been)

Author jonathanfr
#371 | Posted: 21 May 2019 05:56 
"Addendum" 8b. (By the way has anyone else looked for this- I might just have "missed" it!!

Last year, the addentums were available 2 weeks later, so this year probably on Monday, June 3rd.

Author jonathanfr
#372 | Posted: 21 May 2019 09:16 
Very surprised by the I for Augsburg. I never thought this could be a WHS. Now I have to go again as the weather was bad last time I was there.

If you are interested by Augsburg:

Author Khuft
#373 | Posted: 21 May 2019 13:18 | Edited by: Khuft 
My impression is that the %age of "I = Inscribe" was rather higher this year than in others

That was my impression too! Could it be that ICOMOS has finally been bludgeoned into being "friendlier" to nominations? In the past, even prominent sites might get a Deferral if ICOMOS was unhappy with some details - but this year, Bagan gets a shoo-in despite the "renovations" that the regime did between the 1970s and the 1990s...
It's interesting that as another point of the agenda they have a whole analysis of the nominations process, and how it can be made more efficient (and less costly) for member states (spoiler alert: advisory bodies should be more helpful). The conclusion is that a new intermediary step should be implemented, where member states pre-nominate sites and advisory bodies do a quick-and-dirty desk analysis ("preliminary assessment") whether that site might have "strong potential".

Might we end up with a 3-tier list going forward? Tentative List / Pre-assessed list / World Heritage List ?

Author carlosarion
#374 | Posted: 21 May 2019 20:12 | Edited by: carlosarion 
I am sure everyone is happy that Bagan--one of the top missing sites on everyone's list--is assessed for inscription... although it has a long way to go in terms of conservation measures.

With Jodrell Bank Observatory's impressive nomination file satisfying 4 criteria, the US must start putting relevant sites in their tentative list, especially those NASA sites that had significant contribution to the advancement of astrophysical research. Transnational sites showing international cooperation for space research has a huge potential too.

Author kintante
#375 | Posted: 22 May 2019 01:29 
the US must start putting relevant sites in their tentative list

are they still allowed to add new TWHS? They are no longer members, right?

Page  Page 25 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  24  25  26  ...  30  Next » 
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2019 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 ®