It could be that rather more than the 6 I have identified so far had their inscription accompanied by a request. It will require more investigation to establish this!!! Perhaps it might be better for now just to separately identify by text within the EXISTING Connection, those WHS where we have evidence for the request being made - rather than introducing a new Connection which might eventually encompass all the WHS in the existing Connection anyway!! We could change our mind later if needed???
I have looked at the remaining WHS within this "Connection"
2 extra "complexities" emerge
a. When I suggested above the clarification of the title of this connection from "Contiguous Transnational sites" to "Contiguous separate sites across national boundaries" I failed to recognise that both titles are invalid in relation to the currently identified/connected WHS in that some of the pairs of sites are NOT actually "Contiguous" but are rather "sites of similar subject matter in a similar region"!
i The DPRK and Chinese Koguryo sites
ii. The Belgian and French Mining sites
iii. The French and Spanish Santiago Routes
iv. The Polish and Slovakian Wooden Churches
So? What do we do?
a. Remove the need for "contiguity" from the Connection definition and change it to e.g "Separate WHS of similar subject matter in the same geographic area" (or some shorter phrase!!). But - how "close" do sites have to be to be in the same area but not "contiguous"? We have wooden churches of Peace in a similar area is that similar enough to a wooden church in Slovakia - i.e the decision has to be subjective based on criteria related to inscription. and what about e.g separate Gothic cathedrals in in the same geographic area? Etc etc
b. Remove non contiguous sites from the Connection
This at least has the merit of "objectivity" - the 2 sites are either contiguous or not - "end of"! Unfortunately it would result in the removal of 2 pairs of non-contiguous sites where the AB/WHC considered that the similarities were so great that they would have preferred a combined nomination or a later combination (Koguryo and Santiago)
b. The "recommendation" for combination by the AB/WHC can take place in different ways - either right from the start when the first nomination is made or later when the second is made. The latter happened in the case of Los Katios -IUCN was happy to inscribe Darien in 1981 with no mention that Los Katios on the Columbian side should also be inscribed (Compare with e.g the Indian Sundarbans where is stated right from the start that the Bangladeshi side should also be included). In terms of our "request for combination by AB ev" statement do we apply it in these cases to both sites or just to the latter??
In terms of the remaining "pairs" the situation was as followsa. Darien and Los Katios (1981 and 1994)
These ARE contiguous but only the latter was requested/suggested for combination - "Los Katios should be added to the WH list on the basis of Crit 11 and iv and it should be inscribed as a transfrontier site with Panama's Darien NP
" (IUCN AB) . The minutes of the 1994 WHC state (AFTER inscribing Los Katios!!)"that it "recommended that the 2 SPs consider the inscription of the transfrontier site as a single entry on the list"b. Koguryo China and Koguryo DPRK (both 2004)
Both were requested by AB AND WHC to consider combining later - "Encourages the Chinese authorities and the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to consider the possibility of a future joint, transboundary nomination of the Koguryan culture
c. Mining Sites in Wallonia and Nord Pas (both 2012)
AB and WHC accept that there are enough differences between the history/geology/culture etc of the 2 as to not justify a combination!
d. Rome and Vatican (1980 and 84)
Never suggested for combination
e, Santiago routes Spain and France ( 1993 and 98)
At time of Spanish nomination "ICOMOS suggests therefore that consideration be given by the relevant States Parties to the possibility of
an eventual extension of the property to other lengths of the Route outside Spain"
French AB Eval "It hopes, however, that the two States Parties concerned (France and Spain) will give serious consideration to combining their respective stretches of the Route in a single inscription, comparable with the joint Franco-Spanish inscription of the cultural landscape of Pyrénées-Mount Perdu in 1997.
French WHC minutes - "The Delegate of France, responding to a question raised by the Delegate of Thailand, stated that his country was ready to examine a joint inscription of the two sites of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela with Spain."
f. Virunga and Ruwenzori (1979 and 1994)
No mention of "combination" For Virunga and IUCN specifically states that "it does not regard Rwenzori to be and extension of Virunga at this point in time"
g. Tassili and Tadrart (1982 and 85)
NB Tassili is a "mixed" site and Tadrart is "cultural"
. at the time of Tassili's nomination it was noted "The natural and cultural zone of Tassili
extends beyond the Algerian border, and thus complementary requests for inscription may be introduced, in the future, by the other state parties concerned. Already (March 1982), Mali has agreed, in principle, to an extension of the zone to the Adrar from the Iforas
." But No recommendation for combination by ICOMOS was made at the time of Tadrart's nomination (possibly because of the "Mixed" aspect of Tassili?)
h. Polish and Slovak Wooden Chruches (2003 and 08)
ICOMOS accepted the different stylistic and historic nature of the Slovak churches v those in Poland so - no recom for combination
After that analysis I think my conclusion is
a. to have 2 separate "Connections" -1 for "separate Contiguous transboundary sites
" and one for "Recommended by AB and/or WHC for later combination
". These are genuinely 2 different "statuses" and, whilst having significant overlap, are not totally so - and in both directions
b. Remove non Contiguous WHS (as above) from the existing Connection
c. Place ONLY the following in the new Connection (ignoring whether the recommendation was made for 1 or 2 of the sites - since it covers both)
i. Darien , Los Katios
ii. Iguassu, Iguazu
iii. Missions, Missions.
iv. Koguryo, Koguryo
v. Santiago routes, Santiago routes
vi . Sundarbans, Sundarbans
A result of this approach is that the Belg/Fr mining sites and the Pol/Slovak churches would disappear from both Connections -being neither "contiguous" NOR "recommended for Combination". So??? Are they really worth identifying as being special for being "similar" subjects in a "similar" region - albeit that the AB/WHC hasn't considered them "combinable"?