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 42 of 45:  « Previous  1  ...  41  42  43  44  45  Next »

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#616 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 08:37 
There seems to be disagreement on why there was a second working group meeting without all the members.

Some members were not invited to the second part apparently.

Author Pavel
Partaker
#617 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 08:43 
Brazil argue that it is OK to cut Roman Empire Frontiers on small pieces and inscribe per partes

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#618 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 08:48 
It seems that there is a seond amendment being pushed (by Spain, with support from Brazil, Thailand, Uganda, Bosnia...) saying that this has been debated three times, twice deemed suitable for inscription.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#619 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 08:54 
Norway is very angry at the suggestion that there were parties not invited to the second meeting.

Saudi Arabia now backing up Norway, though with a slightly more concilatory tone.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#620 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 09:30 | Edited by: Khuft 
Oh! Secret ballot vote on this!
Incredible how much time has gone into this Danube Limes issue... Thanks Hungary!
(And did I just see it correctly - Hungary is allowed to vote as well! Probably as they are not a State Party to the nomination anymore?)

Author Pavel
Partaker
#621 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 09:32 
Danube Limes (D, A, SK): secret ballot till tomorrow 9am - inscribe or refer

Author Jurre
Partaker
#622 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 15:53 | Edited by: Jurre 
Pavel:
Danube Limes (D, A, SK): secret ballot till tomorrow 9am - inscribe or refer

Another farce. This puts these Meetings in a bad daylight again and undermines the credibility of the World Heritage Commitee, Unesco and World Heritage in general.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#623 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 15:59 
Pavel:
I read it as a political statement expressing mistrust to advisory bodies and necessity to carefully check all their recommendations.
I noticed a quote by Ethiopia during previous sessions: AB recommendations are only recommendations, they are not carved on the stone, and we (state party delegates) are making decisions.

There we have it again. As I said, mistrust in supranational organisations derails and discedits the nomination process.

nfmungard:
Normandy Beaches -> Should be out anyhow as war memories.

If they're serious about this, Unesco should delist Auschwitz.

nfmungard:
Brandenburg Gate with Gendarmenmarkt etc. (Schinkel) meanwhile, I think could be a site. If it were not tied to some ugly parts of history.

It has more to offer than the Prado and the Buen Retiro that got inscribed this year.

Author Pavel
Partaker
#624 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 16:13 
Jurre
I am usually OK with taking rules in a relaxed way, but it has its limits, or at least, it should go in a positive direction.
Danube Limes: I am schizophrenic in this case, as I do not like this nomination, but at the same time I hate the games of Hungary.
Gdansk shipyards: despite I am from the former communist block, I am against the inscription. I would be very sad if it get deferral during the tomorrow session.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#625 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 16:25 
Pavel:
I am usually OK with taking rules in a relaxed way, but it has its limits, or at least, it should go in a positive direction.

There is "taking rules in a relaxed way" and there is "casting aside any recommendations made by ICOMOS".

If the State Parties don't care about the recommendations, why have them? Just let countries propose what they want, and it'll get inscribed.

Author Pavel
Partaker
#626 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 17:29 | Edited by: Pavel 
Jurre:
There is "taking rules in a relaxed way" and there is "casting aside any recommendations made by ICOMOS".

Don't take me wrong: breaking the rules for Gdansk would not be "a relaxed way", as it does not go in a positive direction and it is all about political games.
The Bologna case is a bit different (relaxed) case, because they will follow the ICOMOS recomendation! The point is they will do it ex post. IMO Bologna deserves WHS status: I am not very happy with the process but I am still OK with it...

Author Jurre
Partaker
#627 | Posted: 29 Jul 2021 19:17 
Pavel:
The point is they will do it ex post.

What incentive do countries have to act upon the recommendations or remarks of ICOMOS/IUCN if those same remarks are afterwards waved away during Commitee Meetings because of "too harsh, too inconsistent, not realistic, not adapted to the cultural ways of the country in question"?

Author Pavel
Partaker
#628 | Posted: 30 Jul 2021 01:46 | Edited by: Pavel 
Jurre:
"too harsh, too inconsistent, not realistic, not adapted to the cultural ways of the country in question"

Well, the state parties are like little kids sometimes. I can see it, for example, in my hometown Prague, where they are trying to break their own rules on skyscrapers in the context of Prague. Then, they complain that ICOMOS is "too harsh, etc." But it is not illegal behaving like a little kid :))
Bologna: They are very smart in Bologna. Now, Piazza Maggiore, S Petronio, Torre Asinelli, S Stefano, via Zambone with the University district, etc., are all inscribed because of that silly intellectual construct of porticoes. I do not think they will ignore advice from ICOMOS for ex post boundary modifications...

Author Zoe
Partaker
#629 | Posted: 30 Jul 2021 02:46 
I don't know why the bad rep for Bologna. I've seen much worse and they found a niche rather than just trying to complain they are treated unfairly. After all they got "some" ICOMOS support rather than force their way through the council of little kids after being entirely rejected (which we've seen several times in the past years now).
Sure they'll abuse the title and make people believe Bologna overall is inscribed but that's nothing new either. Besides, Bologna is a nice visit and easy too, no traveler will complain (aside from Els who for some reason decided not to visit being nearby and all). At the current 2-star rating it still fares better than many new inscribed places.

Author Pavel
Partaker
#630 | Posted: 30 Jul 2021 03:10 | Edited by: Pavel 
Zoe:
At the current 2-star rating it still fares better than many new inscribed places.

My current low rating is because I am annoyed by the process of inscription. I am about to give more stars after all the changes and modifications will be settled. Meanwhile, I would like to see the Barca component outside the center of Bologna.

Page  Page 42 of 45:  « Previous  1  ...  41  42  43  44  45  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2020/2021 WHC Livestream
This topic is closed. New replies are not allowed.

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