Re Martin Brod - Una National Park
A bit more on thisThis article
in Bosnian (or Croatian?) refers to the source of the above article which was rather poorly reported in the Sarajevo Times. Note (Google Translated) "We wanted to present everything done so far, because we are already in the second third of the complete procedure. We professionally and professionally prepare the complete documentation, but we also implement all other activities, so we eagerly await the answer in February next year
A better article is this
(in English!) from the Croatian Tourist "magazine" the Plitvice Times, It makes it absolutely clear that the stage reached is that "At the meeting of the National Commission for UNESCO, the final document by which Milančev waterfall with a complex of waterfalls located in Una National Park, will be listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List was accepted.
".....so still a way to go before presentation of a Nomination to UNESCO which will presumably take place in Feb 2023.
The second article also contains this "interesting" comment "In the forthcoming phase and after harmonization with the institutions of the Republic of Croatia, documentation for inclusion in the World Heritage List will be prepared."
So - why is this event being reported in a Croatian media source and why should "harmonization" with Croatia be required? Well, it appears that the northern section of the Bosnian Una-Milančevo buk is only about 30kms from the nearest point in the Croatian Plitvice Lakes NP! I then found this article
- "Plitvice Lakes National Park – Croatia and Una National Park – Bosnia and Herzegovina Feasibility study on establishing transboundary cooperation"
from 2011 (Very early as the earlier articles talk of the process having started in 2017). Which leaves the question - what is the nature of this "cooperation" with Croatia which still requires "harmonisation" between the 2 countries? Is it to create a Transboundary site via a Bosnian extension to Plitvice Lakes or is it merely to ensure a degree of shared management across 2 nearly adjacent sites which share the same river?? At least the latter would be "necessary" but one might have thought that the former would have been "better" both in terms of managing the 2 sites but also as a demonstration of international cooperation in the region which would have been a major "plus point" to UNESCO/IUCN. However, I have (as yet) found no evidence that a full "Transboundary" extension is to be proposed. I note that there are still border and frontier access issues between the 2 countries along the Una River - This
from a few years ago is an example of the sort of tensions existing between the 2 countries in the area which a shared WHS might help defuse!