World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /  

2009 WHC

Page  Page 1 of 3:  1  2  3  Next »

Author Solivagant
#1 | Posted: 12 May 2009 08:42 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Shall we start a forum on "gossip"/information/guesses etc about the upcoming WHC later next month?

Here is the first which I have found - namely that ICOMOS has decided not to support the Le Corbusier inscription for this year! The following article is from a Japanese newspaper and concentrates on the Tokyo building but seems to indicate that the entire serial inscription has been recommended for postponement (whether this is "deferral" or "referral" is not made clear). There is however a hint that Japan/France haven't given up and hope to table more information before/at the WHC and the newspaper seems to be banking on Japan's track record of overturning ICOMOS on the Iwamii silver Mine!

No hint has been given as to what it was which has left ICOMOS unsatisfied! Any ideas? It can't really be about any 1 or 2 of the 22 buildings (concerns re buffer zones etc) since they could presumably have been left out -though it must be difficult to get so many countries to get everything "perfect" for the nomination . Possibly it concerns whether the nominated series of buildings itself adequately represents the OUV (As we know India failed to get Chandigarh adequately prepared and it had to be left out despite India making comments about possibly getting it in "late")?
So it is difficult to work out what the chances are of the ICOMOS recommendation being overturned - but it has taken on 2 "big hitters" in France and Japan (plus the other countries)!!

Meanwhile The Dolomites nomination has been Oked by IUCN

PS In Jul/Aug 2008 Durian and m_m provided us with the following list of sites up for nomination in 2009 (plus any other earlier De/Referrals which States Parties want to resurrect)
- Ribeira Grande, Cape Verde
- Grand-Bassam, Cote d'Ivorie
- Mount Wutai, China
- Mount Songshan, China
- Shushtar, Iran
- Harappa (extension of Moenjodaro), Pakistan
- Tubbahata extension, Philippines
- Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty, South Korea
- Dinosaur Coast, South Korea
- Seruwila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya (extension of Kandy), Sri Lanka
- Graz extension, Austria
- St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk, Belarus
- Palais Stoclet, Belgium
- Jajce, Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Lonjsko Polje Nature Park, Croatia
- Mikulcice, Czech/Slovak
- Piton of Reunion, France
- Arc et Senan extension, France
- Works of Le Corbusier, France Germany Japan Argentina Belgium Switzerland
- Swetzingen, Germany
- Wadden Sea, Germany/Netherlands
- Galilee, Israel
- Langobardorum, Italy
- Dolomites, Italy
- Orheiul Vechi, Moldavia
- Sucevita (extension of Moldavian churches), Romania
- Lena Pillars Nature Park, Russia
- Levoca (extension of Spissky Harad), Slovakia
- Mercury and Silver Route, Spain Mexico Slovenia
- Torre de Hércules, Spain
- Farms and Villages in Hälsingland, Sweden
- La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland
- Pontcysyllte, UK
- Paraty Gold Route, Brazil
- Caral-Supe, Peru
and some discussion about this can be found under

Author Durian
#2 | Posted: 13 May 2009 04:10 

Author Solivagant
#3 | Posted: 13 May 2009 12:05 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The English in this Korean newspaper report
is a bit "opaque" so it isn't 100% certain that ICOMOS has oked it but it would appear so
"No site recommended by the ICOMOS has ever been turned down before"
"The ICOMOS is reported to have highly regarded the site's unique architectural and landscape forms rooted in Confucian and geomantic traditions, as well as the fact that related funereal rituals from the times continue to this day, in the form of an intangible cultural heritage"

Author elsslots
#4 | Posted: 13 May 2009 12:21 | Edited by: elsslots 
This Korean newspaper for Joseon royal tombs is more clear about the OK from ICOMOS.

Author Solivagant
#5 | Posted: 13 May 2009 16:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Farms and Villages in Hälsingland

ICOMOS has asked for revisions - presumably a "Referral".
"selection of areas to be reviewed, further comparative analysis, better description of the forthcoming management development". See this press release of 13 May
and this project web site
Nb the comment that, of all the nominations for Seville this year, "only a little over a third" received Advisory Body support for inscription!!

An extra surprise regarding this site is that the ICOMOS CIAV (International Committee on Vernacular Architecture) held a meeting there this March - one might have thought that this would have been building up to a celebration! Their Web site below has a nice description of the buildings etc of what they suggest could be "Sweden's next WHS"!
Coincidentally of course I came across this committee the other day when researching the early days of Plovdiv's attempt to gain inscription
Being "well in with" this committee didn't do Plovdiv any good either!!

Author david
#6 | Posted: 13 May 2009 17:55 | Edited by: david 
ICOMOS has recommended "Italia Langobardorum" to be deffered or referred. The text also states that "11 sites out of 33 have not been admitted to evaluation by the Comitee".
The site of the candidature:

Author Khuft
#7 | Posted: 13 May 2009 17:58 
Wouldn't it have made sense to combine the Joseon Tombs with the other Korean tomb sites already on the list? I'm sure the Joseon ones are really significant, but having 4 Korean tomb sites ( the other 3 being Koguryo tombs in China, Koguryo tombs in North Korea and the Gyeongju historical city which contains the tombs of the Silla kings) on the List seems like a little bit too much, no?

Author Khuft
#8 | Posted: 13 May 2009 18:17 | Edited by: Khuft 
On another note: Found this other article on Cape Verde's Ribeira Grande / Cidade Velha nomination. nde-e-instituto-do-patrimonio-pode-reduzir-a-cinzas-o-sonho-da-cidade-velha/#more-367

Seems like the nomination resulted in a complaint by the municipality of Ribeira Grande vs the Cape-Verdian Institute for Heritage IICP, which filed the nomination 3 days before deadline during a holiday without consulting the municipality. The municipality feels that its rights are being violated and would like to remain in charge of the preservation of Ribeira Grande (instead of, presumably, the Central Government or the IICP being in charge)... Not sure such a dispute is much appreciated by ICOMOS...

Author m_m
#9 | Posted: 13 May 2009 22:56 | Edited by: m_m 
the koguryo/goguryeo period is different from the joseon period. so i think that's the reason why they chose not to combine, not to mention the fact that the koguryo sites are located on different territories, hence, the difficulty and technicalities connected with transborder management (especially between north and south korea). it's similar to suggesting why not combine all imperial tombs sites in china as one world heritage site (e.g. imperial tombs of ming and qing dynasties, terracotta warriors, etc). but in fact, this is partly based also on the individual values of the site (i.e. each dynastic period may be significantly different, hence deserve a separate representation on the list) and the discretion of the state party (e.g. "lengthening" their heritage list by nominating "repetitive" sites because the formula is so successful).

Author m_m
#10 | Posted: 13 May 2009 23:27 
all the news started coming in this week. which is quite late considering that in previous years, the advisory body approvals have been done in april. in any case, an interesting news about the korean news is the omission of the natural site nomination; no mention was made. does this mean that it didn't pass the iucn evaluation? mind you, the iucn verdict is certainly out since we already have news on the dolomites.

Author Solivagant
#11 | Posted: 14 May 2009 01:29 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Regarding the possibility of merging tombs from different Korean dynasties into 1 inscription - m_m is quite right with the analogy of different Chinese dynasties. It may all seem very similar to those of us who live far away and are not familiar with Korean history but "up close" we are dealing with significantly different historical periods - even if all the tombs look very much the same (Well most European cathedrals have spires I guess!)

Regarding the transborder N + S Korean issue you may care to read my review of the Koguryo tombs in N Korea ( )- the DPRK sees itself as "Koguryo" against S Korea with a strong leader, fundamental Korean values and a unifying mission compared with those "effetes" south of the border (let alone the "historic" Koguryo lands over in China but we won't go there!) Not much chance of compromise on such matters!

I wonder if Kaesong will have got its act together and resubmitted after last year's deferral? If so we could see 2 Korean inscriptions covering 2 lots of similar looking tombs - again see my review of Kaesong ( )
for a picture of a couple of "mounds" from the Koryo period looking very much like those of the Joseon Tombs. This nomination also has its modern political aspects - the capital of the Koryo dynasty was at Kaesong - NOT Seoul. As far as DPRK is concerned that "johnny come lately" was only made capital by the Joseons and will cease to be so when the Dear Leader and his dead father, who is still "Eternal President", finally achieve unification!!

I note also that the Chosun ("Joseon") dynasty already has an inscription in the form of the Changdeokgung Palace Complex - mind you it did rule Korea from 1392-1910!

Author Solivagant
#12 | Posted: 14 May 2009 03:50 

Author quirkasher
#13 | Posted: 14 May 2009 05:23 
Looks like IUCN is not recommending the inscription of the Cretaceous Dinosaur Coast. Reason is insufficient research.

Author Solivagant
#14 | Posted: 14 May 2009 05:35 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Piton of Reunion

I wonder if this site is still being considered? It may have originally been intended to do so but this report from Feb 2009 is quite clear that the French Government had decided not to progress it

The report also seems to indicate that it is "Causses and Cevennes" which was put forward by France for 2009. But I don't understand that since this IUCN list clearly indicates that it is Reunion which it is evaluating. mination/wcpa_actnomination/index.cfm

Can anyone shed any light on this??

Author meltwaterfalls
#15 | Posted: 14 May 2009 18:11 
I take it that Dresden is still on course for being removed this year or is it being put off until the bridge is complete? Does anyone have any idea when it is due to be completed?

Page  Page 1 of 3:  1  2  3  Next » 
WHC Sessions Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2009 WHC

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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®