I think there is an argument to be had that a rich country like Germany should be held to a higher standard than a poorer one, e.g. Uzbekistan. Still, it sounds pretty dramatic what was done and should have consequences.

Having been to Dresden last weekend, the complaint itself seems a bit far fetched. The bridge isn't even visible from the center. And another ugly concrete bridge dating back to the 60s (Carolabrücke, really ugly) runs right through town. In the end, I feel this was more about the process and communication than the merits.

On a more general note, a site like the Aachen cathedral wouldn't look like it does if the standards had been in place 200 years earlier. Sites change.

Well that's fine at least there is a simple solution: UNESCO will just have to convince China to stop making up climate change as a way to limit US manufacturing.
Sad.

meltwaterfalls

I thought the complaints with the great barrier reef were related to Australia building huge ports for transporting coals and the swim lanes going through the reef?

I didn't hear the debate, was just throwing out some insightful advice from someone else who is in a Polish WHS today.

Strange to see the Historic Center of Vienna inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger but not the Great Barrier Reef.

Illogical???
States Parties are always being told that having a WHS placed on the "In Danger List" shouldn't be taken as a criticism but as an opportunity to mobilise efforts both within the State Party and outside to try to improve matters. If that were REALLY true then Australia shouldn't take it as a criticism to have the Gt Barrier Reef so inscribed. Indeed many WHS on the List have had their "damage" caused by matters outside the control of the State Party - by war, fire, earthquake, tsunami etc etc. Indeed in the case of those on the Danger List because of such causes, being placed there is meant to put in motion help and action from across the World. By suggesting that putting the Gt Barrier reef on the Danger List because of Global Warming would be unfair to Australia the WHC seems to have announced that being on this list means that the State Party is "responsible" for the situation both for it happening and for putting it right.

Not tooting the horn for the US, but to my knowledge the US is the only state party who has ever really used the In-danger list to mobilize efforts toward better conservation and management and gladly welcomed it as such. Honestly, I think this is because the media reports related to the In-danger listing is often portrayed as mismanagement or lax conservation.

Back home from the Azores, skipping work for another day to follow the livestream!
8 minutes to go...

So much for the 9.30 start!!!!! Still milling around after breakfast!
I have no feeling from yesterday about how realistic it is to finish off the T List item in just 15 minutes before starting the Nomination item.

We will be fixing about Hebron.

Anybody missing his or her tablet?

For anyone who isn't able to see the Livestream but might read these notes later - THE Polish Chairman reiterates the need for delegates to avoid "Politics and Nationalism" in their discussions and decisions - he made the same point in his opening speech for the WHC so seems to be concerned that he has not been heeded in the sessions so far!

and now 8B ! Exciting.

an almost angry and "undiplomatic" Lebanese delegate isn't happy about an alteration by the Secretariat to text of the the previously published draft decision for the item regarding Hebron which hadn't followed procedure - "We are setting a dangerous precedent..... cannot be acceptable ... a manipulated modified item is unacceptable... a matter of principle ..must immediately revert to the original ............"!!

Clearly this item is going to be VERY sensitive - Bandarin's reply is slapped down by the Lebanese delegate - "this is NOT acceptable Mr Bandarin"!!!
Already there is a request for a secret vote on this item ... but we haven't even OPENED this item yet and you are wanting secret votes on a matter of procedure - the Chairman's earlier comments about "Politics and Nationalism" seem well founded.
Chairman is unhappy with the use of the word "Manipulation"!!

I would not like to be in the secretary's place at that moment!