World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2020/2021 WHC Livestream

 
 
Page  Page 4 of 40:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  37  38  39  40  Next »

Author elsslots
Admin
#46 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 07:50 
Norway supports Danger listing. To be consistent (this is the 6th whc it is dicussed apparently, in last session they were given a last chance) and because of the quality of the conservation.

China doesn't - it just takes years to rebuild after the earthquake, be patient. This seems to be the majority view.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#47 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 07:54 
Just a trivial comment: The Chinese and Saudi Arabian delegate seem to have exactly the same vase on their desk!

Author Khuft
Partaker
#48 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 10:43 | Edited by: Khuft 
It seems that this year they also post proposed amendments on the WHC website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/documents/#amendment

On this basis, the following are now proposed for Inscription:
- Petroglyphs of Lake Onega
- Sudanese-style mosques
- Paseo del Prado
- Nice
- Rock Art of Hima Najran
- Getbol Korean Tidal Flats
- Kaeng Krachan
- Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt

Author elsslots
Admin
#49 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 10:52 | Edited by: elsslots 
Khuft:
It seems that this year they also post proposed amendments on the WHC website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/documents/#amendment

Good find!

Els starts looking for ancient Prado photos to 'proof' she has visited in case it is inscribed

Author elsslots
Admin
#50 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 10:57 
Khuft:
It seems that this year they also post proposed amendments on the WHC website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/documents/#amendment

Bahrain steps forward to help Australia avoid the Great Barrier Reef danger listing

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#51 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 11:13 
Khuft:
It seems that this year they also post proposed amendments on the WHC website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/documents/#amendment

On this basis, the following are now proposed for Inscription:

Excellent find, thanks Khuft.

Author vantcj1
Partaker
#52 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 12:55 | Edited by: vantcj1 
jsamad:
Liverpool has been deleted

Of course it is sad, but not delisting this site would have sent a wholly wrong message to similar cases. National, regional and local governments have to understand that being in the WHS relates to holding the highest standards and that any development (either in the buffer or core zone) will have to be assessed in detail and -after that assessment- found not to be detrimental to the site's OUV.
I only wish the same is applied next year to Selous (even if they averted it this time), just as the WHC had the obbligation to be more firm to Shahrisabz in last years and didn't. The same standard has to apply to "developed" and "developing" countries.

elsslots:
Brazil opposes (again). Nepal is doing its best and just needs more help. Danger listing would be negative for tourism.

I really don't get the mindset that a In Danger listing has to be avoided at all costs. It should have come right the first session after the earthquake.

elsslots:
Salonga NP removed from the In Danger list!

For a country that has had all its 5 WHS in the In Danger List for over 20 years, it's great news. I hope the measures they have taken there get more and more effective with time.

Lastly, thanks to all who have being posting the updates of this year's extended session.

Author Assif
Partaker
#53 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 15:39 | Edited by: Assif 
elsslots:
2 invalids

How can there be any invalid votes? How difficult can it be?

vantcj1:
Lastly, thanks to all who have being posting the updates of this year's extended session.

I fully second that. I am doing some travelling at the moment so I am enjoying your summaries in the evenings.

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#54 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 17:14 
Assif:
elsslots:
2 invalids

How can there be any invalid votes? How difficult can it be?

In every ballot there is always a quota of invalid voyes! Who knows why, I can well think it was some kind of disagreement.

Anyway, it was a good decision to choose the secret modality. It frees the voters from feeling obliged to appear in a certain way.

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#55 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 07:06 
Khuft:
On this basis, the following are now proposed for Inscription:
- Petroglyphs of Lake Onega
- Sudanese-style mosques
- Paseo del Prado
- Nice
- Rock Art of Hima Najran
- Getbol Korean Tidal Flats
- Kaeng Krachan
- Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt

Tell d'Arslantepe

Author Khuft
Partaker
#56 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 07:18 | Edited by: Khuft 
Oh, and the page with proposed nominations has been changed too:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/newproperties/?date=2021&mode=list&inscribed=0

Ethiopia - Holqa Sof Umar looks to be withdrawn (was recommended for Not Inscribe)
Slovenia - Classic Karst - same
Dominican Republic - La Isabela - same
Greece - Spinalonga - same
Spain - Ribera Sacra - same
Latvia - Grobina - same
Danube Limes: Hungary is stricken through, but the other countries are still mentioned. Weird if this gets inscribed without Hungary...

Author Khuft
Partaker
#57 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 10:57 
Khuft:
It seems that this year they also post proposed amendments on the WHC website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/44com/documents/#amendment

And a juicy further new amendment: Uganda wants to change the decision regarding the ICOMOS Studies on sites related to recent conflicts. Just quoting the final two (new) paragraphs:

7. Acknowledging the persistent divergent views among experts, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre regarding how sites associated with memories of recent conflicts relate to the purpose and scope of the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines;
8. Requests the secretariat to broaden the scope of the reflections on sites of memories of recent conflicts in order to accommodate other views not currently reflected in the existing report and incorporate the outcomes of all the reflections in their final report for consideration by the 45th
session of the World Heritage Committee.

Author elsslots
Admin
#58 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 12:02 
Khuft:
And a juicy further new amendment: Uganda wants to change the decision regarding the ICOMOS Studies on sites related to recent conflicts.

You'd think they did so on request of its neighbour Rwanda

Author Jonas Bergmann
Partaker
#59 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 12:44 
Khuft
The withdrawing of all these nominations is a good decision with the exception of Classical Karst. This one with changed boundaries should have been a transnational extension of Skocjan Caves because of Reka river going underground in the Caves, flowing through the Classical Karst producing some typical dolines there and finally coming back to daylight in Italy. All the other nominations have no OUV in my opinion.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#60 | Posted: 22 Jul 2021 14:04 
Khuft:
Greece - Spinalonga - same

With other great sites still remaining, it's weird Greece went for this one. I'd think Knossos would be a shoe in for the List?

Page  Page 4 of 40:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  37  38  39  40  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2020/2021 WHC Livestream

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑