World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2019 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 26 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#376 | Posted: 22 May 2019 01:49 | Edited by: Solivagant 
kintante:
are they still allowed to add new TWHS? They are no longer members, right?

You might find this article ("The U.S. Is Withdrawing from UNESCO—What Happens Now?") of interest.
It appears that, as continuing signatories of the World Heritage Convention (an International Treaty), the US continues to have rights (and duties also!) in relation to that Convention, irrespective of its UNESCO status. The article states (how accurately? But it has some logic) that, as a result, the US can continue to Nominate WHS and have them considered - whether that extends to T LIst as well isn't clear. Since it can't nominate unless a site is on the T List one would presume that it must still be able to contribute to that List. Whether it, or Israel, which has also left UNESCO, would want to is another matter given that a part of their concern is the way in which the WHC has operated towards sites in Palestine.
The real purpose of the convention is, of course, preservation rather than as an International race to see who can get the most inscribed sites! It would seem counter to this objective to prevent a site from gaining the additional preservation status which derives from inscription.
I have just re-read the Convention and can see nothing that says that a "State Party" (SP) (So called because they are "parties" to the Convention) has to continue** being a member of UNESCO. There are requirements to pay monies but failure to pay only seems to mean that an SP can't be on the WHC or will have to leave if it is. An SP may "Denounce" the Convention - but the US has not of course done so. The Convention doesn't mention anything about a "Tentative List" - but this is presumably an artefact of the WHC under the Convention rather than under UNESCO.

** Interestingly - neither does it say that an SP has to be a "member" of UNESCO . I know of no state which became an SP to the Convention without becoming a member of UNESCO first - though there is still 1 UN member - Liechtenstein - which has not joined UNESCO and has not ratified the Convention. A State doesn't have to be a UN member to join UNESCO of course e.g Palestine (which joined UNESCO a few days before becoming an SP to the Convention)

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#377 | Posted: 22 May 2019 22:43 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Recommended for Inscription (22)

Africa (1)
Ancient ferrous metallurgy sites (Burkina Faso)

Arab States (2)
Dilmun Burial Mounds (Bahrain)
Babylon (Iraq)

Asia & Pacific (8)
Budj Bim Cultural Landscape (Australia)
Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City (China)
Ombilin Coal Mining Heritage of Sawahlunto (Indonesia)
Hyrcanian Forests (Iran)
Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan (Japan)
Megalithic Jar Sites in Xiengkhuang – Plain of Jars (Laos)
Bagan (Myanmar)
Seowon, Korean Neo-Confucian Academies (Republic of Korea)

Europe (9)
Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region [extension] (Albania)
Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia)
Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region (Czechia, Germany)
French Austral Lands and Seas (France)
Water Management System of Augsburg (Germany)
Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice (Iceland)
Monuments of Ancient Pskov (Russia)
Risco Caido and the Sacred Mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape (Spain)
Jodrell Bank Observatory (United Kingdom)

Latin America & Caribbean (1)
Paraty – Culture and Biodiversity (Brazil

North America (1)
Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai'pi (Canada)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pending June 3rd (4)
Historic Centre of Sheki with the Khan's Palace (Azerbaijan)
Le Colline del Prosecco di Conegliano a Valdobbiadene (Italy)
Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand)
The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (United States of America)

Referred: Awaiting WHC Debate (4)
Landscape for Breeding and Training of Ceremonial Carriage Horses at Kladruby nad Labem (Czechia)
Krzemionki prehistoric striped flint mining region (Poland)
Royal Building of Mafra – Palace, Basilica, Convent, Cerco Garden and Hunting Park (Tapada) (Portugal)
Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Monte in Braga (Portugal)

Deferred: Awaiting WHC Debate (5)
Großglockner High Alpine Road (Austria)
Migratory Bird Sanctuaries along the Coast of Yellow SeaBohai Gulf of China (Phase I) (China)
Jaipur City, Rajasthan (India)
Sunken City of Port Royal – A Relict and Continuing Cultural Landscape (Jamaica)
Colonial Transisthmian Route of Panamá (Panama)

Considering the 4 pending nominations and 9 nominations that could potentially be overturned, we might have as much as 30 new inscriptions! Our 4 Top Missing nominations have a perfect record (so far), I do hope the nomination dossier for the FLW nomination meets all requirements by ICOMOS. I stick by my proposal for an updated Top Missing vote in Mid-July!

Author carlosarion
Partaker
#378 | Posted: 22 May 2019 23:29 | Edited by: carlosarion 
winterkjm

Eagerly awaiting for WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2.ADD (unless my eyes just missed it) to see if Thailand has clarified the boundary issues with Myanmar with regard to Kaeng Krachan. If they do, I believe it will be up for inscription.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#379 | Posted: 23 May 2019 02:02 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
Referred: Awaiting WHC Debate (5)
....................Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice (Iceland)

The main part of the nominated area was recommended for inscription - only a 2nd Northern section was for "Referral" - so should be counted as an "Inscribe" rather than a "Refer".
"Draft Decision: 43 COM 8B.8
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Documents WHC/19/43.COM/8B and WHC/19/43.COM/INF.8B2,
2. Inscribes Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice, Iceland, including the area of the nominated property up to and including Herðubreiðarlindir Nature Reserve, thus not including at this stage the Jökulsá á Fjöllum River corridor and the northern Dettifoss - Ásbyrgi part of Vatnajökull National Park, on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (viii);
3. Refers back to the State Party the elements of the nominated property situated to the north of the Herðubreiðarlindir Nature Reserve, in the Jökulsá á Fjöllum River corridor and the northern Dettifoss - Ásbyrgi part of Vatnajökull National Park, in order to allow the State Party to complete consultations with landowners in these areas, and ensure appropriate protection measures are put in place;"

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#380 | Posted: 23 May 2019 08:29 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Thanks for the correction! I fixed it.

Author JonasK
Partaker
#381 | Posted: 23 May 2019 14:50 
In case of inscription will the Danube Limes be an extension of the existing Roman Frontiers Site or be a site on its own?

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#382 | Posted: 23 May 2019 15:18 
JonasK:
In case of inscription will the Danube Limes be an extension of the existing Roman Frontiers Site or be a site on its own?

a site on its own, not an extension

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#383 | Posted: 23 May 2019 17:11 
Don't understand...i believed the new rule was one per country. Germany will certainly have 3 sites...Potentially 2 for Austria, China and Portugal...not clear

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#384 | Posted: 23 May 2019 18:49 
One per country comes into effect for 2020.

Author Zoe
Partaker
#385 | Posted: 24 May 2019 04:12 
But if I'm not mistaken that excludes multi-national sites and perhaps previously deferred ones?

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#386 | Posted: 24 May 2019 12:37 
winterkjm:
One per country comes into effect for 2020.

Oh! I believed it was already the case. So, germany is right to take the Opportunity to inscribe a maximum of sites this year

Author davidyao
Partaker
#387 | Posted: 24 May 2019 21:32 
It's really weired that "Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes" is not an extension of "Frontiers of the Roman Empire"

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#388 | Posted: 25 May 2019 02:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
davidyao:
It's really weired that "Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes" is not an extension of "Frontiers of the Roman Empire"

If you are interested in understanding how this came about and the "logic" for it (such as it is!) then our earlier discussions on the matter from Mar 2018 provide links to relevant documents.
If you just want to cut to the chase then these 3 paras taken from this document (page 22) set out the proposed strategy for the entire Roman frontier in Europe, M East and N Africa
"Over the years, the idea of aiming at one single property encompassing the remains of the frontiers of the Roman Empire extending through Europe, Middle East and North Africa was advanced and was object of discussion between States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS. Eventually, as the idea proved to be too challenging in various ways, including the manageability of such vast potential property, other less ambitious, but more feasible options were discussed. To facilitate this process, it was suggested that a Thematic Study of the remains of the overall Roman frontiers could be a valuable tool to guide the development of a nomination strategy. This Thematic Study has now been undertaken.
This Thematic Study includes a Nomination Strategy which proposes that substantial and distinctive sections of the Roman frontiers will be nominated as individual series, initially in Europe and later in the Middle East and North Africa, under an overall framework of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire that will actively encourage dialogue and shared practices. These nominated sections will demonstrate an ingenious variety of military responses to local natural and political conditions.
The detailed nomination strategy is currently confined to the Roman Frontiers of Europe and foresees augmenting the current serial property via three serial nominations for the Lower German (i.e. Lower Rhine) frontier, the Danube frontier, and the frontier of the Roman province of Dacia"

Author Zoe
Partaker
#389 | Posted: 25 May 2019 13:35 
So will the UK get back their exclusive walls inscription? I think not. While I agree that the nominations are simpler with less parties involved, will that lead to each country having Santiago de Compostela paths? I know Portugal is trying.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#390 | Posted: 25 May 2019 15:18 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Zoe:
So will the UK get back their exclusive walls inscription? I think not.

No - because the argument is as follows (pre 2019) "All the frontier sections so far nominated and accepted as part of the multinational 'Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site' are artificial frontiers, which are defined by military installations linked by an artificial barrier. However, in most countries in Europe, in the Near East and in North Africa, the frontiers consisted of chains of military installations along natural boundaries like rivers, mountains or deserts."

So - It is claimed that the so far uninscribed European remains exhibit a different "typology" from that of the current "barrier based" UK/German ("Rhaetian") WHS. Furthermore those uninscribed remains divide into 3 sections each exhibiting a different set of attributes arising from the challenges which led to their creation. These differences justify linkage as 3 separate nominations, each possessing its own OUV -
- the Lower German (i.e. Lower Rhine) frontier; - "innovative responses to the challenges of a highly dynamic river delta (Lower Germany)"
- the Danube frontier; - "the evolution of military strategies to counter the threats emanating from sustained large-scale migration (Danube)"
- the frontier of the Roman province of Dacia - "the unparalleled mixture of military solutions developed to cope with varying landscapes and threats".

One might regard this argument as adopting a high degree of post hoc rationalisation, both to avoid having to split up and reallocate the existing property and to provide some "logic" for dividing the remaining sections into manageable chunks ..............or one might regard it as a genuinely insightful characterisation of differences in the nature of the frontier as it wended its way across Europe!

It was further concluded that the Danube frontier is the largest of the 3 identified sections and needs to be nominated in 2 stages ( the first of which we have this year)
a. "The western segment consisting of the sites within the territories of Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary"
b. "The eastern segment comprising the sites in Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania"

Thus Germany will have gained 3 WHS
a. The Upper German-Raetian Limes - which were added to UK's Hadrian's/Antonine Wall as an extension
b. The Western Danube section - was this led by Austria - thus not using up Germany's annual nomination ration?
c. The Rhine section shared with NL - it will be interesting to see if Germany takes the lead on this and thus uses up its annual nomination ration or whether it passes it over to NL!

Page  Page 26 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org 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.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑