Rosia Montana (Romania) will be Inscribed and placed In Danger at the same time

Oh no, they had already made all the signposts with the previous tentative name!!

You give me hope :-) And of course I am optimist, but still thought there would have been a more positive evaluation from the start! But now let's see, let's see...


This is wonderful


Let's call that serendipitous!

In the caseof Mathildenhöhe, I am quite optimistic because ICOMOS considers that it meets both proposed criteria for OUV. The main criticism seems to be that they plan the location of a visitor centre within the proposed core zone.
It should be possible to solve this issue, perhaps before the WHC in July or by next year at the latest.
However, this is also a basic problem. Unesco requires to establish a visitor centre. Of course, it should be close to the core zone, but it should not affect the visual impression of the site.
I know Mathildenhöhe very well, I was born and grew up nearby. It is in a densely populated residential area, so there are not many options for a visitor centre and parking spaces. Free parking for visitors at weekends has always been a problem there. I hope they will find a suitable solution for this issue.

Regardless of the addendum, which might change the picture to some extent, I am very critical of the fact that out of 18 "inscribe" recommendations at least 10 go to Europe (if you count Georgia as Asia). It is more than a half!
I am also critical of the fact that the best represented countries with experience, expertise, resources and political influence often get an "inscribe" (Japan, China, Iran, France, Turkey). Germany even got four such recommendations! On the other hand, there are no "inscribe" recommendations for Africa at all. Very frustrating.

Yes, I read the report about the Mathildenhöhe too and was also pleased to see that the referral was due only to this newly planned visitor center. Which in this context comes to me as a kind of paradox, because, if the value of the site is the architectural complex and the planning of the space, why would one alter it with a new building?! I saw the project and, although it will be placed "behind" the hill (i.e. under the east slope), in what is maybe a discrete position, it is quite cumbersome and in a totally different style. Don't know, on the hill there is already an exhibition hall, some space in the tower, maybe at least one artist house is at disposal (they do make some small exhibitions in there from time to time, right?)... so is a Besucherzentrum like the planned one really necessary? I second the ICOMOS in their criticism.

As for the Deer stone monuments, I saw that the referral is mainly due to how the sites have been presented and the need of explaining the wider social and historical context of such monuments, taking everything in consideration and not focusing only on the deer stones and their artistic value. There are in particular interesting burial mounds nearby. All in all, it seemed a quite positive review to me, and they agree on the (in my opinion very clear) OUV.

Both China and Italy are at the top of the list with 55 inscribed sites. Looks like Italy will reclaim the lone spot this year. I wonder which country would hit 60, 70 or even 80 first?

Have been skimming the docs this weekend and looked at locations. It seems that the Musei Civici agli Eremitani has been dropped from this proposal.

For those who wanted to visit the site with his own car - there is quite a big free parking space nearby Mathildenhöhe (in fact walking distance from the site) - Parkplatz, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany, exact location: 49.872389, 8.663094

I took a detailed read of the ICOMOS evaluation for the porticoes of Bologna (deferral) and it seems that the proposal came out quite botched indeed with respect to its potential. They just went on with the usual boast of the city of having the longest portico system in the world and selected the "best of"... and did very little else. And while the boast is justified, this approach is quite poor and disappointing. Adding to this that the portici belong to a very living urban landscape (a student city) and this can bring conservation "problems", yeah, this is a straight deferral. Winterkjm was right in the "sugarcoating" part of the article. But nothing irreparable, in my opinion, anyway.

It's curious to know if Bath will be "incorporated" under The Great Spas of Europe, or remain a separate UNESCO WHS inscription. I skimmed through the assessment and the only discussions I saw that touches on this are on pages 78 and 90, but by the looks of it, it will remain as a separate inscription. Does not make sense though if the boundaries will remain the same.

"i) Reviewing the management plan of the City of Bath so that its fourth iteration takes into account both its inscription on the World Heritage List in its own right and its inscription as one of the component parts of The Great Spas of Europe"

carlosarion
I have also been (slowly) going through the ICOMOS reviews (right now I'm reading Arslantepe, a very worthy site which would very easily switch from Referral to Inscription), I haven't started with IUCN's reviews. Bath would be indeed a case of a double inscription: both on its own and as part of the serial "spas" site. That's something I'm not very fond of (double entries), but in this case they valued the role of Bath (together with Baden-Baden) as part of the earliest examples of "great" balneary stations.


I don't think either it is the best for the list (as per Els' blog post) this perpetual majority of European sites that receive positive reviews and gets eventually inscribed, but at least many European TLS will be phased out this year, due to inscription (the Great Spa accounts to 7 TLS, for example, 8 is taking into account the "West Bohemian Spa Triangle"). Of course that's a minor good, considering the acrobacies that the "same suspects" make to always find new obscure themes for inscriptions. That's particularly negative for Africa, but I have the strong sense (even when not having read yet this site's review) that Ivindo will be inscribed.

Bath would join the list of other locations inscribed twice on the WHS list; there's a connection for those.

Thank you vantcj1 and Colvin! Yes vantcj1, I am also keeping myself busy on this long weekend by reading the assessments :)

I stumbled across the "Upstream process" document within this year's whole pack, which shows in the annex which support was requested in terms of either preparing Tentative Lists or Nominations. This could be a good indication for future nominations!

Some "pilot projects" that seem to have been ongoing are:
- Ancient Kano City Walls and Associated Sites, Nigeria
- Batanes Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, Philippines
- Coral Stone Mosques of the Maldives, Maldives
- Grenadines Islands Group, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Of these, all except Coral Stone Mosques are going to be phased out, as the State Party has not been making progress on them. This could mean that we'll be waiting some more for them to emerge as nominations.

The appendix also lists the new requests received. In addition to a bunch of requests for help with Tentative Lists, the following are highlighted as requests for help to work on nominations:
- Madagascar: Eglise catholique d'Ambodifotatra de Sainte Marie (on TL since 2018), La haute ville d'Antananarivo (on TL since 2016) and Nosy Naka (on TL since 2018)
- Zimbabwe: Naletale Cluster of Dzimbabwes (on TL since 2018)
- Serbia:Archeological site Belo brdo in Vinča (not on TL) --- actually an interesting one! The Vinča culture is a key Neolithic culture in Europe
- Belarus: Kalozha Church of Sts. Boris and Gleb in Grodno (on TL since 2004)
- Russia: Astronomical observatories of Kazan University (on TL since 2020)
- Brazil: Brazilian Fortresses Ensemble (on TL since 2015)
- Germany & USA: Moravian Church Settlements [as an extension to Christiansfeld, a Moravian Church Settlement (Denmark)] (on the TL of the USA since 2017, not on the TL of Germany) ---- actually quite shocking that Germany and the US are requesting help from ICOMOS, given how strained the resources of the advisory bodies are!
- Panama: The Royal Roads of Panamá: Camino de Cruces and Camino Real (on TL since 2017)
- Belgium:Public zoological gardens in the 19th century - a new typology in a rapidly changing world (not on TL) ----- smells like a new European serial site...
- Japan: Asuka-Fujiwara: Archaeological sites of Japan's Ancient Capital and Related Properties (on TL since 2007)
- China: Beijing Central Axis (on TL since 2013)
- Finland: The Ringed Seal Archipelagos of Lake Saimaa (on TL since 2021)

I also checked the previous convention in 2019 and the doc on Upstream Process there. Here are some additional requests for nominations filed at that time:
- Armenia: nominations of Zorats Karer, Metsamor, The Areni Cave, Ughtasar Petropglyphs andYerevan Brandy Company "Ararat"
- Mali: Sites historiques et Paysages Culturels du Manden (on TL since 2018)
- Nepal: Tilaurakot, ancient Kapilavastu (on TL since 1996)
- Bosnia & Herzegovina: Vjetrenica Cave (on TL since 2004)
- Thailand: Songkhla Old Town: Multicultural Settlements on Indo-Pacific Landbridge (not on the TL)
- Germany: The Heritage of Transporter Bridges (not on TL)
- USA: Civil Rights Movement Sites (on TL since 2008)
- Austria: Otto Wagner Hospital Steinhof Vienna (not on TL)
- Brazil: National Park of Lençois Maranhenses (on TL since 2017)
- Mexico: Franciscan Ensemble of the Monastery and Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Tlaxcala (as an extension and renomination of the Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl) (on TL since 2018)
(as well as some already mentioned above)