My internet has gone down so I'm missing the Chaine du Puy discussion

Oh that was a quick inscription.

Complaint that Chair didn't give Russia the floor after the inscribed extension!!!
She does so

Has been confirmed that Rosea Montana has been withdrawn ?

have just logged in and they ARE discussing Rosia Montana but I won't be able tt hear all of it

It appears that despite the recommendation of the AB to inscribe the SP has requested a "Referral" to give it the chance to sort out an international legal case relating to the site.

Indonesia says that the SP's request should be accepted
Tunisia - agrees to referral and thanks the SP for making the proposal which actually helps UNESCO rather than leaving it in the middle of an international legal matter
Oz it appears has asked if it is possible for the SP to request such a referral - Legal opinion says she can see no reason why not . The extra info would need to come to the WHC within 3 years in order to avoid another complete submission

Floor to Romania - property is linked to an ongoing legal process. Any other decision by the WHC would negatively impact Romania and make it difficult for Romania to defend itself. Romania isn't willing to pay up $437 billion (???) to the mining company. Bear in mind also that a hasty enforced inscription against the will of Romania will not help protection of the property whatsoever over a referral.

All WHC members seem prepared to support referral (amendment initially prepared by Azerbaijan) - "we accept the wishes of the SP"
Norway - "It is Norway's primary stance to inscribe on list and list in danger BUT after hearing the response of the SP we are willing to discuss the best approach to serve the property in the best way" (i.e aim is to support the property rather than the SP?)
Why should the WHC support Romania rather than the other party in the legal case?
It is in relation to this that OZ would prefer that the reason for referral back should be to enable improvements to be made to protection rather than to improve Romania's case in its International dispute!!!

BUT - Europa Nostra says that Rosa Montana needs the immediate support of the WHC - i.e IMMEDIATE inscription AND on the List in Danger!!
WHC must take into account both ICOMOS AND the submissions of civil society in Romania. Suggests that to do otherwise will open it up to further mining. It all falls on deaf ears!!

Oz proposes "acknowledge the request made by SP for referral until the ongoing international arbitration is resolved" but to relate the actual referral SOLELY to the need for a later mission to look at matters concerning protection etc etc. This is more in line with OGs etc and doesn't get the WHC supporting the SPs case and/or agreeing a referral for reasons which don't allow a referral!!

Cuba - asks whether the WHC is in danger of undermining the SP with the Oz change - it appears that a resumption of nomination would HAVE to await the conclusion of the International arbitration . This should be left to the SP to decide. It is pointed out that the SP could actually have "Withdrawn" the nomination rather than asking for a referral - the latter enables it to come back in without a completely new submission if and when it wants
Norway - supports OZ (as nearly always in this WHC!).

Concern that if the SP is let off now there is no guarantee it will come back though the AB has said that the site is in a condition to inscribe.
It is clear anyway that the Referral will be accepted and that it is just a matter of wording to avoid breaking OGs. leaving the proposed site in limbo etc etc.
Rapporteur is still concerned about the wording of the decision - different from that normally done for Referrals. The arbitration might be longer than the 3 years which is set as the timescale for the SP to come back for a referred nomination. Then what??
Cuba - the "Reason" for the Referral is "Protection" ........round and round and round.....
Rapporteur is (For the first time and in my view quite justifiably!!) non-plussed as to how all this should be expressed. She makes a proposal but Oz wants to avoid making too much of the International arbitration issue - it should mentioned only at the beginning as an "acknowledgement" of its existence but NOT as the reason for "Referral" nor as something which has to be resolved before the SP might bring back the Nomination

Kuwait - how can the decision require a "monitoring mechanism" when the site hasn't been inscribed?? (Obviously the WHC wants to try to ensure that the site is properly looked after during the period of hiatus and, in doing so at least answer the concerns of those in Romania who wanted inscription - but can it really "do" that without inscribing??? Trying to square the circle!!)
Cuba wants the need for a management plan to be included! And what about involvement of the AB? They go back over issues already resolved.......

I have had enough of this - it is going to be "referred"!!

If I remember correctly, Canada did exactly the same thing with Pimachowin Aki when one of the First Nations withdrew its support at the last minute.

I Don't find the replay of the day with the last nominations, could you help me? There is only 4 hours on this afternoon (Rosia montana)

Can anybody help me with a few questions: what stands OZ for? Are there any interesting places to visit that confirm the cultural aspect of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley? Does anybody see what is the OUV Rosia Montană? This sounds neither interesting in the descriptions nor look the pictures I could find interesting. More mining, for what? Perhaps it is just an effort to protect an endangered site? Thanks for your help to understand those sites!

Australia

"ICOMOS considers that criteria (ii) and (iv) have been met for the remains related to Roman evidence of mining"
and detail -
Criterion (ii): exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
This criterion is justified by the State Party on the grounds that it contains the world's pre-eminent example of an underground Roman gold mine and further, demonstrates over 2,000 years of subsequent exploitation and continuous settlement.
Criterion (iv): be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
This criterion is justified by the State Party on the grounds that it is testimony to the long history of gold exploitation in the Carpathian precious metals province of the Golden Quadrilateral, from the Roman era to the 21st century.
ICOMOS considers that Roșia Montană exhibits an exceptional ensemble of Roman underground and above ground mining works and associated Roman era archaeological sites."

Access this document and either read in your browser or (better) download it and read in PDF. Search on e.g "Montana" and you will get to the ICOMOS evaluation (on PDF page 295) - https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2018/whc18-42com-inf8B1-en.pdf

You might find it interesting to compare the site with Spain's WHS of Las Medulas - Roman mining using different technology - it is discussed in the AB evaluation.

Do you mean "visit" in Mexico or visit on the Web - the latter might help with the former anyway!
Download https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2018/whc18-42com-inf8B1.Add-en.pdf
PDF page 7 starts the ICOMOS evaluation of cultural matters and contains a map of the inscribed area which can then provide an entre to other seearches

It looks to be much about water management and rock shelters, not so much about landmarks like Pre-Columbian temples etc

I got the impression it went back way before the sorts of "temples" we associate with Meso America. But I too need to study it more -I know I passed very close to it on a drive from Oaxaca to Puebla -another "near miss"

I read about it in a book about pre-Colombian American history recently - it's the place where Mesoamerican agriculture (i.e. maize and the like) was first developed. Historically certainly important, but touristically probably more similar to Kuk in Papua-New Guinea...