I guess it's a mistake on the unesco website, but several countries don't count anymore the Primeval Beech forests (Germany, Belgium...)

I wonder if, apart from the growing mistrust in supranational organisations and the rising nationalism, Unesco might also be seen as too Western-centered by Asian and African countries. Might they view Unesco and Icomos and it's recommendations as a Western organisation imposing its views and not taking into account the specific sensibilities of their regions/peoples? Do they possibly view Unesco as the West still imposing tis ways or even as neocolonialism?

PS Again, maybe not the rught thread for a discussion about this, but maybe worthwile to talk about this.

To be frank, the official Unesco website is a shambles. How can it be so slow and always failing when they stream the Meetings?

they should recruit Els

In their defense, they probably still work on the 10y ago playbook with way less sites being inscribed and discussions taking time. Now it's more like maintaining basketball ticker ;)

There are 180 countries in this index. This means their mean rank is 90.5
The average rank of the Committee members is 91.9 and this more or less represents the average picture
The world is not made up only of superhonest countries, some of which don't even pay contributions to UNESCO

I don't think there's a defense for a multi-million dollar organisation.

My point exactly, the UNESCO Committee will only be as efficient, diligent, scientific, transparent, and/or reliable as the Global community at large. We know Russian will host the 45th WHC in Kazan. Additionally, Russia has submitted a nomination for 2022: Historic center of Gorokhovets.

Based on the two reviews posted, there are potentially some major challenges toward inscription, at least based on surface level reading.

"Unfortunately, the whole town was a work in progress - churches were being reconstructed . . . " - Martina Ruckova 2018

"While there is this tourist office, this town is by no means ready for tourism . . . Many of the buildings in this nomination are still under renovation . . . " - Tsunami 2019

Perhaps ICOMOS has an issue with reconstructions of historic sites in the city or requires a management plan that currently is lacking, or simply questions the OUV of the site broadly (comparative analysis, etc). Does anyone think Russia as the host country will not bend the committee toward inscription? On top of this Russia is ON the committee until 2023! The only chance this doesn't get inscribed is if ICOMOS says "Not Inscribe" and if there are at least some new Committee members who would back the Advisory body if Russia sought to challenge the poor evaluation.

Countries who generally rail against UNESCO for politisization and so-called "horse-trading" are often culpable to some degree as well. Recent examples include, Australia in regards to the Great Barrier Reef and the United States in relation to overturning the Advisory recommendation of the "Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point" (2014) from a Deferral to an Inscription. Italy is notorious in overturning poor evaluations and has been rewarded as recently as 2019 after expressing their outrage (in a growingly egregious trend of "giving the state party the floor") during the Committee discussion.

The Prosecco Hills OVERRULED from Not Inscribe (may I also suggest users to Els review if you have not already read it)

Let's look at the overturned decisions by the Committee in this unique combined session (online). Granted, some of the very nature of the current session may have been a factor that favored inscription. Yet, the trend of overuling the Advisory Bodies toward inscription is not entirely new at this point.

Recommended for Referral (9)
- Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region (Chile)
- Nice, capital of Riviera tourism (France)
- Ivindo National Park (Gabon)
- Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt (Germany)
- Deer Stone Monuments and Related Sites, the Heart of Bronze Age Culture (Mongolia)
- Dutch Water Defence Lines [Extension] (Netherlands)
- Petroglyphs of Lake Onega and the White Sea (Russia)
- Cultural Rock Arts in Ḥimā Najrān (Saudi Arabia)
- Arslantepe Mound (Turkey)

Recommended for Deferral (7)
- Sudanese style mosques in northern Côte d'Ivoire (Côte d'Ivoire)
- The Glorious Kakatiya Temples and Gateways (India)
- Trans-Iranian Railway (Iran)
- The Porticoes of Bologna (Italy)
- Getbol, Korean Tidal Flat (Republic of Korea)
- Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro, a landscape of Arts and Sciences (Spain)
- Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand)

All 16 state parties except Mongolia had their Referrals or Deferrals overturned in favor of inscription.

Reasons for divergence between Advisory Body Evaluations and UNESCO Committee decisions

1. Make-up of the UNESCO Committee (less countries willing to back the Advisory Bodies and to uphold the Operational Guidelines). This naturally shifts every two years, sometimes for the better or worse. Moreover, short-term gains (inscriptions) often win over prevention of long-term institutional harm (less value/relevance in UNESCO brand).
2. Cost and time investment in nomination process makes countries less willing to accept evaluations when convincing committee members is on the table. Second and third attempts over a decade or more? No thank you.
3. ICOMOS can be interpreted and seen as "Western-centered" and/or overly harsh toward modern development near cultural sites (Dresden, Liverpool), but also developing countries in Africa or heavily-populated nations like India.
4. Not trying to overstate the United States or UK significance in international organizations, but an absent U.S. (and largely UK as well) means less resistance to politicization within the organization and world heritage committee.
5. Its easier to overturn ICOMOS decisions compared to IUCN, because culture is more interpretive, less scientific, and nationalism to some degree is inevitable. There have been far more cultural nominations (despite efforts to combat this imbalance) than natural nominations, this imbalance has actually grown.

What is the difference between Referral and Deferral (I'm sorry if this is a dumb question), also were any nominations ruled not inscribe this year.

Referral is usually minor, OUV (outstanding universal value) is present to some degree. For example, the nomination dossier needs some supplemental material about buffer zones or the site management plan. Referred sites often lead to nominations being brought back before the committee within two years. Deferral means there are serious issues with the nomination, though there may be "potential" for the site to demonstrate OUV with an improved dossier. Deferred nominations require a reworked/overhauled nomination file and a new site visit from the Advisory body. I generally view Referred nominations as unpolished, while deferred nominations are often lacking more fundamental requirements (adequate boundaries, component choice, comparative analysis) may be problematic.

This is often why people on this forum generally are unsurprised when Referred nominations are inscribed, while there is more disagreement and controversy when Deferred evaluations are overturned in favor of inscription. It's obviously even more egregious, but more rare for a "Not Inscribe" to be overturned.

Thanks everyone for the updates! Since the main part of the inscriptions is over, I think I will sit out tomorrow and not wake up so early.


Sounds like a great start to getting a future beech forest to be inscribed for the Netherlands!


You should have threatened to move them onto the In Danger list if your management concerns weren't addressed!


True — the UK is missing out on the beech forest front!


That would be quite an interesting angle to the diversity of beech forests across the continent!

I wish Gdansk gets a "not inscribe" for Poland to get the message and send a clearer message that these historic events aren't necessary to be linked to a more or less modern town. Same goes to India for the Ghandi protests, South Africa for the anti-apartheid movement. Only because there is a building that the event took place in front doesn't make the building worth inscribing. I'm also not a fan of Luther memorials, Columbus' residences, Robben Island, Normandy Beaches, and the list goes on. Boston could be inscribed in that case, Newton's residence, or perhaps Brandenburg Gate for multiple events.

It has been announced now that Danube Limes (D/A/SK) will be discussed today at the end of the todays session.

Ethiopia is not satisfied with adoptions on minor boundary modifications without constructive discussions. I read it that they do not like too many referral and no option for turning it to accept all of them...

They were all asked by Chairman Tian whether they had any remarks before each of them was adopted! Ethiopia could have commented if they wanted.