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!