World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

Out or in doubt #29

 
 
Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2

Author elsslots
Admin
#16 | Posted: 2 Sep 2016 10:54 
Solivagant:
ELS -shouldn't the Connection for bombing of My Son be moved to "Damaged in war since WWII" rather than "Destroyed during invasion" which was really meant for "older" wars - and the US wasn't really "invading" anyway??

Done

Solivagant:
It might be better to extend the invasion connection definition to exclude wars since 1914 as they already have their own Connection?)

Done

Author elsslots
Admin
#17 | Posted: 2 Sep 2016 11:12 | Edited by: elsslots 
Archaeological site of Philippi
- Sieges and Battles
>> The battlefields of the Battle of Philippi are explicitly left out of the core zone of the WHS

The Persian Qanat
- Water wheels
>> Please provide a source for this

Author elsslots
Admin
#18 | Posted: 2 Sep 2016 11:58 | Edited by: elsslots 
Archipiélago de Revillagigedo
- World Biosphere Reserves
>> I don't think it is one ('only' a Mexican reserve) - cannot find it here, but it may be there under a different name

Zuojiang Huashan Rock Art Cultural Landscape :
- Significant Karst Features
>> there is karst of course, but are they any significant karst features?

Author Colvin
Partaker
#19 | Posted: 10 Sep 2016 11:33 
I just noticed that the "Located in a Capital City" connection hasn't been updated yet for The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier WHS. The Le Corbusier WHS should be linked to Paris (Maisons La Roche et Jeanneret) and Tokyo (National Museum of Western Art).

Author elsslots
Admin
#20 | Posted: 15 Sep 2016 10:28 
Two people suggested adding the Luther sites in Wittenberg to the Elbe connection.
However, as far as I can see on the map the Luther-related buildings are not located along the Elbe (and the rest of the town is not inscribed).

Any ideas / further knowledge?

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#21 | Posted: 15 Sep 2016 12:08 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
elsslots:
Two people suggested adding the Luther sites in Wittenberg to the Elbe connection.
However, as far as I can see on the map the Luther-related buildings are not located along the Elbe (and the rest of the town is not inscribed).
Any ideas / further knowledge?

I know in the past we have taken a hard line on the river connections, needing the sites to be directly on the river banks (Seville not included on Guadalquivir for example). Whilst I think that is a very valid point, and having a firm logic is very useful, I think Wittenberg is a good point to look further into it.

The location on the Elbe is obviously a very important reason for the city being there, and it provides good context for the traveller to know of its association with other sites on the river with which to draw comparison. But none of the buildings inscribed are on the river bank, or even that close (there is a park, road, railway and grassy area between the city and the river. I'm guessing that is because the river has a large floodplain as there are very few buildings on the river banks at all).

My preference would be to include it, as the connection to the Elbe River gives a better understanding of the history and importance of the site. But in doing that it does muddy the waters (pun somewhat intended) a little on what does and doesn't qualify.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#22 | Posted: 15 Sep 2016 18:28 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
On the Elbe one I was just having a look at a few of the other Czech sites.

Kutna Hora should qualify, the river Vrchlice is the boundary of the WHS, it is a tributary of the Klejnárka, which is a tributary of the Elbe.

Author elsslots
Admin
#23 | Posted: 26 Sep 2016 12:52 
Sanganeb - Lighthouse
-> the famous lighthouse is outside of the core zone, as far as I am aware

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#24 | Posted: 26 Sep 2016 13:38 

Author elsslots
Admin
#25 | Posted: 26 Sep 2016 14:39 
I cannot open your second link, jonathanfr.
But I found this document, which seems to confirm that the lighthouse lies within the boundaries of the national park (and thus, the WHS)

http://www.persga.org/Files/Common/MPA/Site_Specific_Master_Plan_Sanganeb_Atoll.pdf

Somehow I remember having read that it was outside when the WHS was named earlier this year. But I cannot find the source anymore. So I'll add the connection.

Author elsslots
Admin
#26 | Posted: 27 Sep 2016 12:28 
The sites included in this document (in the Annex) were proposed for the Connection "Minor modifications after inscription "
However, I think that these are not modifications, just clarifications. Any thoughts on this?

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-8D-en.pdf

(it does contain potential new info for the map locations though)

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#27 | Posted: 21 Oct 2016 09:26 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I have just noticed the recent addition of a new Connection titled "Directly in danger - Sites that were registered as WHS and listed on the Danger List simultaneously." (I will refer to this below as "Dual Listing"). It currently contains 3 sites - Battir, Bethlehem and Nan Madol

But we already have a Connection titled "Processed on an emergency basis - Inclusions that were processed on an emergency basis, the sites being simultaneously inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger." It currently contains 9 sites which include 2 of the above 3 - Angkor, Ashur, Bam Cultural Landscape, Bamiyan Valley, Battir, Bethlehem, Chan Chan, Minaret of Jam, Samarra.

Are these 2 Connections "different enough" to justify being separately identified and, if so are the current allocations to them correct/complete? I have investigated and it does appear that a site can be inscribed on a "Dual Listing basis" without also being considered under the "Emergency" procedure. Conversely it doesn't appear that a site can be inscribed using the "Emergency Procedure" without also being "Dual Listed".

The first mention of the "Emergency Procedure" in the Operational guidelines appears in the version of the OG dated Oct 1980 having been discussed by the WHC in Sept 1980. - "The normal deadlines for the submission and processing of nominations ,will not apply in the case of properties which, in the opinion of the Bureau, after consultation with the competent non-governmental organization, would unquestionably meet the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List and which have suffered damage from disaster caused by natural events or by human activities. Such nominations will be processed on an emergency basis". It follows therefore that no site simultaneously inscribed and placed on the "In Danger" List prior to the 1981 WHC could have done so on the basis of an "Emergency procedure"

The current (amended 2015) OG procedure is
"III.H Nominations to be processed on an emergency basis
161. The normal timetable and definition of completeness for the submission and processing of nominations will not apply in the case of properties which would be in Danger, as a result of having suffered damage or facing serious and specific dangers from natural events or human activities, which would constitute an emergency situation for which an immediate decision by the Committee is necessary to ensure their safeguarding, and which, according to the report of the relevant Advisory Bodies, may unquestionably justify Outstanding Universal Value. Such nominations will be processed on an emergency basis and their examination is included in the agenda of the next Committee session. These properties may be inscribed on the World Heritage List. They shall, in that case, be simultaneously inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (see paragraphs 177-191)."

It would appear therefore that, for the "Emergency Procedure" to be invoked it was originally required that only the "Normal deadlines/timetable" for nomination required "waiving" and that later (In Feb 2005) this was extended to include the waiving of "normal...definition of completeness"

So - where does that leave those sites which were "Dual Listed" and how many were so listed on the basis of the "Emergency Procedure"

First - I have found 2 additional sites which were "Dual Listed" making 11 in all -
Kotor - Earthquakes there in Apr and May 1979, Nomination received by ICOMOS Sep 27 1979, AB dated Oct 1979, Inscribed and placed on "In Danger List" at the Oct 1979 Cairo/Luxor WHC . Kotor couldn't have been inscribed using the "Emergency procedure" since it didn't exist in 1979

Abomey - Nomination dated Mar 9 1984, Tornado Mar 15 1984 (there had been earlier tornadoes in e.g 1975 and 1977), ICOMOS evaluation in July 1985 recommends inscription – but makes no mention of placement on "In danger" list. The Dec 1985 WHC decides to do so however. So there is no evidence that the Abomey Palaces were progressed on an emergency basis. The timescale for evaluation and inscription was "normal". It would appear that the damaging tornado coincidentally came just a few says AFTER the tabling of the Nomination and made no difference to the timetable and that the poor condition of the site preceded even that event!!

There is 1 site in our "Directly in danger" list which hasn't been added also to the "Emergency procedure" list
Nan Madol - Placed on T List Jan 2012, Nomin received by ICOMOS Jan 2015, ICOMOS recommends inscription and concurrent placement on "In Danger List". The 2016 WHC accepts this. There is no evidence among the WHC agenda papers (as there normally would be for more recent WHCs) that there had been any emergency with this site. So – processed to a "normal timetable" but still "Dual Listed"

I have done a quick trawl through all the other sites which were "dual listed" in the same year and which it is suggested were done so on the "Emergency procedure" to identify if this was the case
Angkor. AB evaluation in Sept 1992. Recommends inscription with caveats "It is further recommended that final inscription be completed once the Committee has been satisfied on the following points ....." so no great impression that any "Emergency procedure" was invoked. The minutes do show that "special arrangements" were agreed by the WHC – "the Committee has decided to waive some conditions required under the Operational Guidelines and, on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), has inscribed the Angkor site, together with its monuments and its archeological zones as described in the "Périmètre de Protection" accompanying the ICOMOS report, on the World Heritage List. The Committee stressed that this action was not to be taken as setting a precedent for the inscription procedure. Therefore, in order to guarantee protection of the site for a three year period (1993 - 1995), the Committee has decided that a special in-depth study will be made of the Angkor site" – but this, although being "special", didn't constitute use of the "emergency procedure".

Ashur – Nom file received by ICOMOS Oct 2002. Evaluation dated Mar 2003 states "Consideration should also be given to inscribing the site on the World Heritage in Danger List." Which is less "firm" than might be expected for an "emergency"! However The WHC papers make it clear that the site WAS being considered under Para 67 procedures - http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-08ce.pdf (NB Russia also tabled the Yenisei Bridge on the same item but it was rejected!!)
So – EMERGENCY INSCRIPTION

Bam CL – Earthquake Dec 26 2003, Nomination received 11 May 2004, report produced Jun 2004, WHC inscribes and "Dual lists". Document WHC-04/28.COM/14B REV makes it clear that the site is being considered under the OG emergency guideline regarding late emergency submission "The following nomination was received in 2004 under the conditions of paragraph 67, cited above."
So – EMERGENCY INSCRIPTION

Bamiyan - 2001 Buddha statues destroyed, Nom File received May 2003, ICOMOS report produced Jun 2003 recommends "dual listing". HOWEVER - the minutes make it clear that the site is being considered as "C.5 Reactivation of a deferred nomination at the request of the Committee" and NOT under the "emergency procedures (unlike Ashur and Yenisei bridge at the same WHC!). This is a somewhat "subtle" difference but it is the case!

Battir - – Papers for the 2014 WHC make it clear that this site was assessed and dual listed under the "emergency" procedure - http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-08ce.pdf
So – EMERGENCY INSCRIPTION

Bethlehem – The Agenda paper Page 5 makes it clear that this site was assessed and dual listed under the "Emergency procedure" – (NB as was Pont d'Arc in the same year - though the WHC refused to consider this nomination as an "emergency". Quite why France wanted to use/thought it could justify the "Emergency procedure" for this isn't clear but seems worth adding to the "history" of this site Els??!) http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2012/whc12-36com-8B-en.pdf
So – EMERGENCY INSCRIPTION

Chan Chan – Nom file received Jul 1985, ICOMOS eval published Apr 1986. Recommended dual listing but there is no evidence that any "Emergency" procedure was invoked.

Minaret of Jam - deferred in 1983, new nomination received May 2002, ICOMOS Evaluation states "When requested to carry out an emergency evaluation of the property in May 2002......" Dual Listing occurs at the June 2002 WHC
So – EMERGENCY INSCRIPTION

Samarra – Deferred in 1983. Revised dossier tabled Feb 2006. ICOMOS Report produced in Jan 2007 - "In the absence of an evaluation mission, ICOMOS has no choice but to recommend to the World Heritage Committee that the examination of this nomination be deferred......However, if the World Heritage Committee were to decide to inscribe the property now due to exceptional circumstances, ICOMOS would recommend that it also immediately be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger" No mention of any "emergency procedure" having been invoked and "normal" timetables etc were followed..

My feeling is that the 2 similar and partly overlapping "Connections" DO bring out different aspects but that they need to be properly "populated"! On the other hand the 2 different aspects could be covered by the first Connection ("Dual listing") IF a comment was added where the Emergency Procedure was also used.

Author elsslots
Admin
#28 | Posted: 21 Oct 2016 12:05 
Solivagant:
On the other hand the 2 different aspects could be covered by the first Connection ("Dual listing") IF a comment was added where the Emergency Procedure was also used.

I think I will go for that option, otherwise we forget that there are 2 connections that are so similar.
Thanks for the research, the weather in northern England must have been particularly gloomy today....

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Out or in doubt #29

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 ®
 ⇑