World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2018 WHC Livestream

 
 
Page  Page 28 of 31:  « Previous  1  ...  27  28  29  30  31  Next »

Author Zoe
Partaker
#406 | Posted: 1 Jul 2018 11:48 
Not to go off-topic but what happened to the Brunswick attempt anyway?

Author Colvin
Partaker
#407 | Posted: 1 Jul 2018 11:58 
Thanks for the updates everyone. I'm in a spotty internet zone, so missed all of today's session. Sorry to hear about the ridiculous attitude of countries that oppose reasonable ICOMOS decisions -- particularly Italy with the Prosecco Hills. The chairwoman must be looking forward to the end of this year's session! Does anyone remember if there any good discussion/support for Pimachiowin Aki?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#408 | Posted: 1 Jul 2018 12:31 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Zoe:
Isn't ICOMOS paid by the state parties to the evaluations? Aside from the pride of having more inscriptions at stake, all the work put into this again for another try the year after is counterproductive for them.

No - up until now "UNESCO" has paid i.e those SPs who are net contributors to it. But the loss of the US etc cash is increasing monetary pressures. There is apparently to be discussion towards the end of this WHC about introducing a "submission fee". I reported on page 1 of this livestream topic Day 1 -"Proposal from Norway to be discussed later that State Parties (with certain agreed exception categories) should pay "up front" when they make a nomination to cover cost of evaluation etc!! Possible savings said to be c$700k pa - so not too great an amount per site if we assume around 30 nominations pa (netting off those from "developing countries"). Possibly greater pressure not to nominate too "hopefully" but possibly even greater pressure not to reject?? (A bit like Universities in UK not feeling able to "fail" students who have paid for their course?). If countries had to pay again for referrals etc that could cause problems!!!

As regards ICOMOS - it of course consists primarily of "paid consultants" plus a few "permanent" employees and a lot of "Members" in the heritage industry who staff National Committees etc presumably for expenses plus career and networking benefits!! (The total Annual expenditure for ICOMOS was c$1.8 million in 2017 with a slight loss cf a surplus in 2016. this, despite a crowdfunding campaign which brought in c $70k ) There are a lot of incestuous "poacher" and gamekeeper" activities - with consultants working at one moment for a State Party to help prepare a Nomination and then for ICOMOS evaluating another dossier. Somewhere above on another topic I looked at the people involved in the Rosia Montana and they fitted this pattern
So - I can't feel too badly about them - as with all consultants you win some and you lose some - but the money keeps rolling in!
But could it be considered bad for the credibility of the WHS system if its experts keep getting overturned for the sorts of "political" reasons we have seen over the last few days? "Heritage" needs some place operating to "professional standards" in these matters. And Italy really should have been reprimanded for accusing ICOMOS of "prejudice". "Wrong judgement" or "lack of understanding" is allowable but "prejudice" is beyond the pale!! I say that "it is bad" for the WHS system - but another way of looking at is - "Who cares?" Not the sites getting inscribed - they can compare themselves with the Pyramids, push up their tourist takings and be happy. Do the sites already inscribed feel upset about being joined by "weak" sites? I shouldn't think so. And is "Conservation " really losing - even a "poor" site in terms of OUV still has to at least attempt to achieve WHS standards - probably better than the alternative? And there is no sign yet that the "brand" is being "diluted" too much. Most visitors don't understand such matters . Ivrea and Namburg will display their new logos and everyone will be happy - just as they are at Tarnowski Gori!! Even we have a few more sites to visit and a chance to grumble about the quality of some of them!

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#409 | Posted: 1 Jul 2018 13:49 
Solivagant:
Even we have a few more sites to visit and a chance to grumble about the quality of some of them!

Ah yeah at the root of it that's the point.

Several of my favourite sites were controversial at inscription (Brasilia, Preah Vihear) and it will all get forgotten in time. It does leave a bad taste in the mouth though and skews the list even more in the direction of the over represented countries and heritage types.

But still, I'm sure I will have a lovely time in Naumburg when I visit in the future and there is even more incentive it taking that weekend break to Leipzig now.

Author Durian
Partaker
#410 | Posted: 1 Jul 2018 19:12 
I found this year WHC is quite interesting, I think for the first time in recent years that many deferral and referral sites are not inscribed by respecting ICOMOS 's recommendation, many committee members follow the global strategy with transparency process, complience with procedure, but in the same time this year the culminate of misuse of the convention for many years exploded for unbelievable level that even legal advisor have to raise warning but again no committee listen. The case of Naumburg is a very bad example of creating an inappropiate precedence for the convention, similar to Khor Dubai which I would say thanks Dubai to wihdraw.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#411 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 03:09 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Opens at 10.05
Chair makes her usual plea for brevity - but she never does anything about it!
Tehuacan
Azerbaijan drones on and on about the Natural values of the site - but all that is accepted anyway. At last gets to the point that it is supporting all the other speakers in supporting Cultural inscription
Guatemala supports cultural inscription too - and suggests an opportunity for a transboundary nomination on the earliest Meso-American sites.
Uganda (???) reads out a long statement which just repeats all the merits of the site as in the nomination (water management, pottery etc etc) in support of cultural inscription - unfortunately he has great problems with the Mexican place names!!
No one against it yet - Germany's latest ally (St Kitts) also gives support.
Australia supports natural nomination and suggests renomination under Crit ix as well. BUT says "if we are supporting Cult inscription too then it would like ICOMOS to identify which of their points of concern/recommendations should be included in the adopted decision" - i.e it isn't actually supporting but isn't opposing either- it is just trying to make the decision as "good" as possible in the circumstances
ICOMOS mentions buffer boundary currently not including all significant archaeological sites and the need for a survey to establish aspects which should be included to be followed possibly by a minor boundary modification.
This causes a bit more delay on agreeing the final inscription decision as a mixed site as the decision paras are adjusted accordingly.
Zimbabwe jumps up at this - wants "legal" advice - how can we be carrying out further surveys to find extra value when it has already been inscribed???? Legal advisor says this isn't a matter for her but for the Secretariat.
This is "calmed down" and Tehuacan is inscribed as a "mixed site"

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#412 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 03:38 | Edited by: Solivagant 
On to Barberton
IUCN finds OUV but has a number of legal and management concerns/shortcomings (e.g need for more recruitment of Geologists!!!) and recommends Referral.
Cuba - says that such a recommendation would allow further work BUT wants to hear from the SP about its views and might want Inscription if enough has been done already.
Zimbabwe - concerned that this and Kenya's from earlier were the ONLY sites from Africa this year (i.e 2) - there must be more effort and planning to ensure better representation. Supports Cuba's request -it could be that enough has already been done to overcome IUCNs concerns??
Uganda not really happy about referral - Can lack of staff really be an adequate reason for postponement?? Supports a change from Referral to inscribe.
Angola - consultations have taken place n IUCN's concerns during this session - also wants to hear from the SP - it may be that it can say enough to convince the WHC that it should go straight to "inscribe"
Hungary supports - Inscribe - thinks enough has been done. (It begins to look as if an IUCN recommendation is going to be overturned -doesn't often happen!!)
St Kitts - supports inscription in the light of work done
China - Co sponsors the amendment to inscribe. CHina supports Africa!!!!!
Burkina Faso - WHC needs to recognise that this is a nomination for a developing state and needs to act accordingly
Norway - interested in future possibility of a Transboundary with Swaziland as the latter's first WHS. Wants to hear from SP about what has been done/agreed since the IUCN evaluation - seems prepared to accept inscription if given some good reasons!
Spain - supports the inscription amendment as the SP has already taken a number of measures to solve the legal issues.
Brazil - Was 1st country in S Am to have a Geopark - understands the issues and recognises the importance of adding such sites. Believes that enough has been done by SP - supports inscribe
Azerbaijan - again reads out a long statement which repeats much of the nomination. Supports inscription.
Tunisia - supports inscribe given the inf provided
Bosnia - Most of issues raised by IUCN are well in hand - so supports inscribe

(I am going to have to check if I have been inside this site when crossing from Swaziland to RSA!!! But I fear I will have missed it by a few kms p- another "near miss" to go with Qalhat!!)

Chair tries to rush this through as "Inscribe" but it is pointed out that RSA hasn't yet been given the chance to speak!! She passes the desicion but before RSA has spoken!!
Barberton inscribed - thus overturning IUCN's "Referral" recommendation

RSA wonders why minor points such as recruitment were used as a reason for proposing "referral". Feels that it (and by implication other developing countries) were being unfairly treated on such matters

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#413 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 04:10 | Edited by: Solivagant 
China - Fanjingshan
IUCN has a number of concerns about management and future protection (infrastructure development and tourism are mentioned - also salamander farming!!) - so although it meets criteria more needs to be done - hence referral
Kuwait - China has done a lot to meet the IUCN requirements. OUV is ok, Boundaries are OK. Proposes "Inscribe!!
Tunisia - supports Kuwait
Uganda - supports inscribe -notes the size of the management budget - US $15 million!! Believes China will be able to handle the increase in "Tourist numbers".
Cuba - also supports inscribe
Zimbabwe - also supports inscribe. It is the last habitat of the "Snub Nosed Monkey"!!!!
Hungary - convinced by information provided by China regarding the "Voluntary" (!!!!!) resettlement of locals. Supports inscribe
St Kitts - Supports inscribe. Expects China to put in place appropriate "visitor management" processes
Azerbaijan - another long read - but supports inscribe
Bosnia - same as previous speakers. Says that there has been a very successful synergy between SP and AB therefore no need to put matters off any more.
Norway - agrees to inscribe
Tanzania - lists the plants which are endemic in the site and that Monkey is mentioned again!!!! Supports inscribe
Indonesia - follows all the others -no reason to postpone
Brazil - inscribe but asks IUCN for clarification re visitors - should there be restrictions in numbers or preparation for increased numbers??
Spain - wants to hear more from China about relocation and compensation for locals and is also concerned about increased visitor numbers

IUCN - re visitor numbers. At moment there are caps per day and in a very limited area. Wants action taken to manage/control both numbers and development

China - regarding relocation - it is part of National Poverty Alleviation scheme - entirely voluntary!!!

Fanjingshan inscribed

Author Zoe
Partaker
#414 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 04:16 
Solivagant:
China - Fanjingshan

Can only imagine lots of congratulations.

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#415 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 04:29 
Solivagant:
Chair tries to rush this through as "Inscribe" but it is pointed out that RSA hasn't yet been given the chance to speak!! She passes the desicion but before RSA has spoken!!

as usual....

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#416 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 04:37 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Iran - Arasbaran
Recommendation for not inscribe - presumably Iran is hoping to get this altered to de/refer or else would have withdrawn?? Surely can't hope for a straight Inscription??
IUCN says that the site's Natural values are of a Regional/National importance rather than "worldwide" - that can still be said for Natural sites if not for Cultural ones!!!
IUCN questions whether Leopard is actually present - but agrees in "corridor" aspect of site if this species were ever to re-expand.
Integrity not adequate
Protection not adequate.

No one jumps up to speak on this.....
Australia - Site is in UNESCO Biosphere reserve - but only 12% of nominated areas are fully preserved. Encourage SP to improve protection within Biosphere Reserve system - this is the appropriate approach for this site. Oz supports IUCN and NOT the proposed amendment to refer the property (you might have thought that the first speaker would have been to the amendment).
Bahrain - supports Oz. .
Zimbabwe - IUCN says doubts exist but clarifications and extra info would seems to answer the points. He tries to "big up" the site's contents of "Taxa" - repeats that the Leopard is there - and a Juniper tree at its southern limits (he is having problems reading the Latin names of all these species and Taxa!!!!!). Submits "REferral" to give the SP time to continue with relocation program for farmers etc etc . So Zimbabwe drew the short straw to try to swing this amendment!!
Hungary - on basis of IUCN and extra info doesn't think there is enough chance in sites current form - proposes DEferral to SP for substantial alteration.
Uganda - supports REferral as per Zimbabwe
Norway - supports IUCN/Australia
China - biodiversity, bird migration - China believes property justifies criteria (there seems to be an issue over whether just x or ix and x. Supports "Referral"
Cuba - SP should base its nomination on biodiversity "an open door" is there to do so (says Cuba) - supports REferral
Azerbaijan - of course has its own T List site for this area and the Iran nomination touches its frontiers - supports REferral
St Kitts - supports REferral to address concerns regarding management (but what about ALL the other "problems"???
Spain - dossier doesn't prove OUV and neither have integrity or Management!! Want to stick to initial proposal - we aren't acting in a bubble - we need to be consistent across ALL our recommendations. That won't prevent the site form working further on the preservation of the site
Tunisia - having read all the info is CONVINCED (with emphasis!!) that the site has OUV and therefore supports REferral

Rapporteur - with 3 options she wants to know WHICH WAY the WHC wants to go!!!!
Hungary - says that with all the problems much more work is required than would be allowed by REferral. If it is DEferred the SP can think agains and decide what it wants to do (implication that it might even decide not to progress)
OZ - Q isn't whether site needs protection - it doesn't have to be on WH list to vget protection. Wants to aks IUCN if they see ANY HOPE that this site might be able to demonstrate OUV. We must be careful not to offer false hope to Iran whose sincerity and integrity is NOT in question here
IUCN - we have used our normal methods of analysis as used in many similar evaluations. None of the 3 pillars are met or capable of being met. It is appropriate for it to be a Biosphere reserve. IUCN would strongly council against using a REFerral if it believed that Biodiversity" were a possibility - boundary redesign etc would be required
Zimbabwe - has heard SP and IUCN - wnats SP to tell us what extra info has been provoded
Kuwait -favours DEferral
Bosnia - thinks there is a basis for development of Dossier - agrees to DEferral

Iran - Emphasises Junipers etc - "all these things make it very important and justifying WH status". We are addressing the integrity issue by relocating the inhsbitants. We have also covered the management matters. Asks for REferral to address the few remaining minor issues!!!
Zimbabwe - in interests of Consensus now supports DEferral
EVERYONE moves to DEferral - even Indonesia and China. Also Guatemala, Angola etc etc

So - it will be DEferral - whether it will ever be brought forward again is another matter - perhaps in conjunction with Azerbaijan
Any revised nomination will need to be considered by an expert mission" is added - just in case this isn't realised!!
OZ - agrees to support DEFerral but wants decision to mention "provide clear technical justification for integrity and OUV" (but it would always have been expected to do this anyway!!
Arasbaran - deferred

Iran seems reasonably "happy" - respects decision even if this wasn't its "preferred result"

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#417 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 04:45 | Edited by: jeanbon 
2 sites inscribed for Germany and now maybe for Iran!

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#418 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 05:26 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I can't be bothered to follow the Russian Bikin Valley extension I am afraid!
It gets approved

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#419 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 05:47 
Solivagant:
I can't be bothered to follow the Russian Bikin Valley extension I am afraid!

It was riveting. Exactly as you would expect, AB recommendation overturned and extension inscribed.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#420 | Posted: 2 Jul 2018 05:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
So we reach Chaine de Puy
Interestingly the Chair days it is the "last" site - which must mean that Rosia Montana HAS been withdrawn

IUCN - change of name, boundary and criteria........ fundamental revision to focus on simpler OUV based solely on Continental rifting. Extra reviews using new experts in this field. IUCN's recommendation represents a majority view but the site still causes divergent views
Complains about misuse of the "Referral procedure" - has caused many problems in use of effort, impact on other priorities. Should have been DEferred.
BUT
Proposes inscription

No discussion -
Chaine de Puy inscribed

My 10th "already visited" inscription this year - but only 1 of which I am rating "Above Average" and many somewhat below. An interesting year for the WHS aspects but not for new inscriptions IMO

Page  Page 28 of 31:  « Previous  1  ...  27  28  29  30  31  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2018 WHC Livestream

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 ®
 ⇑