Kuwait takes up the fight for Sheki - it looks as if he has been eating "red meat" - all fired up, apparently genuinely "angry" and waving his papers
"Kuwait doesn't want to be part of a Committee which has lost its integrity - which is why it is submitting an amendment for INSCRIPTION"
Angola suggests that we need to be calm., look at the facts and "control our emotions"!!! ICOMOS must explain itself -if its logic is ok then ok we must accept it (but, unsaid, he doesn't expect it to be!!)
China - some sort of OUV MUST have been established - otherwise the WHC wouldn't have agreed to referral (He ignores the view that OUV is only given at the time of inscription. Claims that this "inconsistency" is the major issue. Supports the Kuwait amendment.
Bahrain - accepts that committee members must meet their obligations - but Azerbaijan has done what was asked of it - we would like to hear more from the SP
Brazil - main argument of ICOMOS is lack of additional info and lack of integrity etc -he cites other experts who disagree with this. But there is ALSO the issue of why a referral was given if only a certain amount of additional work is required - and Azerbaijan did this. To refuse inscription now is to refuse inscription on the basis of non provision of info which the WHC hadn't asked should be provided. Brazil also favours Kuwait amendment
Indonesia - SP isn't required to provide info which the WHC decision didn't ask it to do. Indonesia is of the view that not to inscribe is incorrect and irrelevant!
(The only possible opponents of this band wagon could be Norway and Oz - will they bother???)
Tanzania - congratulates the SP for all their efforts and patience across the years on this nomination ...............etc etc!!! "Whatever was done by design or by default was done in good faith"....... "What harm would be done to the WH list or to the site or to the international community if a site finds its way onto the list either by default, error etc". Interesting point - would it really contribute to the degradation of the List. Is Sheki really any worse than many other sites which have scraped their way through??
Tunisia - "what decisions can this Committee make - just 3 - Refer, Defer or Inscribe" Very interestingly he doesn't mention the 4th "Do not inscribe"!!! Whatever the scientific arguments might be in favour of do not inscribe we ARE in the legal situation where the site was Referred and the required actions WERE carried out. Legally the WHC can't go back on its decisions
Kyrgyzstan - consistency across WHC is important. Also Sheki is a significant site on the N Silk Route - other experts disagree with ICOMOS regarding its lack of value
(chair -we must stop at 1.15 as the interpreters go for their lunch then - please be brief)
Bosnia -also supports Inscription
Uganda - joins "Inscribe" amendment, points out erros in maps but main point is consistency with REferral decision at Krakow. "I rest my case"!!!!
Norway (AT LAST!!!!) - "We are an expert Committee - these experts should take the final decision. Politics should NOT come into play ... yet we again find ourselves in a situation where it is difficult to find a way out -puts the WHC and the SP in a difficult position.. Norway has to continue to remind itself of the many well founded decisions made by the Committee - ok the decision made at Krakow WAS incomplete and not clear ...... We are in a vacuum and MUST support the existing draft decision"
Zimbabwe -supports and co-sponsors the Kuwait amendment
B Faso - follow Kuwait
Spain - ok we are asked to be quick - BUT we (Spain) have been asked to withdraw nominations in the past - but we did so . Now we are faced with a request to inscribe a non inscribe recommendation. Everyone should play on a level playing field!!!
Hungary - shows yet again an urgent need for a review of the Referral process -BUT in face of everything we support Inscription
Guat - SP has followed everything asked of it and we support Kuwait amendment to follow consistency across WHCs
Oz - I apologize for lack of brevity but this is IMPORTANT (he has a long statment to read - no SP should be placed in this situation and he is sorry for Azerbaijan. We note that the SP faithfully followed the requested actions but it is not reasonable to transfer onto ICOMOS the responsibility to put right the problems caused by the WHC!!!! This is not Azerbaijan's fault but we should stick with the ICOMOS recommendation
St Kitts - supports inscription
Chair asks Azerbaijan - (it is now 13.15 - and the translators are hungry - we have been working for n years on this - repeats the history -thanks ICOMOS even though the SP disagrees with their scientific views on value it did agree the other points re management etc. Azerbaijan took this ALL VERY seriously. Doesn't want to blame ICOMOS for the situation - we weren't informed about the potential trap about lack of OUV. During the 5 months ICOMOS NEVER said that this trap existed regarding OUV. My country speared no effort in trying to do what it was aksed to do.
ICOMOS repeats arguments -the WHC Krakow decision was not helpful to the SP. ICOMOS has taken legal advice regarding the meaning of referral and sticks with its arguments.
Angola -we still don't have the answers to our questions - SP did everything asked of it in Krakow - but we need to revise OGs to make them clearer regarding what info they have to provide with a referral -this is unclear - Angola wants a WG. to make referrals clearer
Cuba (first time??) - we shouldn't be judging either the AB or the SP -they have both done what was asked. Most logical and prudent decision is to INSCRIBE!!
Oz will not go against the mood of the room which is clearly in favour of inscribe - we have asked other SPs to report back on actions - we should ask Azerbaijan to do the same - yet anther report to come
SHEKI INSCRIBED!! Azerbaijan gets its prize for holding the WHC meeting. Only Norway, OZ and, to some extent, Spain, spoke against it.