Also, I think that a source in the new connection "Inscribed as CL but not identified as such by UNESCO" is necessary. What documentation gives the proof? I suppose it's not the AB Ev or the nomination file, because that would make them fall under the connection "Cultural landscape not recognized".
How do the two connections differ?
This is a complicated issue both to understand ..and to explain. I think Jurre may have a point regarding the overlap of the 2 Connections... but.....!!!
I can identify 5 "occasions" where a site's status as a "Cultural Landscape" can be identified
a. In what I call the "official" UNESCO list
. Such a site gets returned if you do an advanced search on CL or if you go to this page
covering sites having the "Activity" of CL. As I identified earlier, this list rather strangely includes the Defence Lines of Amsterdam. It is undoubtedly incomplete in not including WHS which were "clearly" inscribed as CLs. The problem is how to discover and define these.
b. The Nomination file
. May or may not specifically "claim" the site to be a CL. But many WHS do not have accessible Nomination files so it is difficult to rely on this source. Some nominations (particularly earlier ones?) don't mention CL even though ICOMOS later clearly considers that they are!
c. The AB Evaluation Text
. May or may not specify the site as a CL. Normally one would rely on the ICOMOS evaluation rather than IUCN since a CL needs Cultural criteria and values. It normally (but not always) appears in the section headed "Category of Property". Not all evals have this section and there is no guarantee that the AB will mention it anyway.
d. The AB Eval "Recommendation
". This can specify that a site described as CL in the Evaluation Category is NOT regarded as such by ICOMOS (I don't think we have ever attempted fully to identify all of these)... or it may just leave the matter unspecified. If it is unspecified and the "Category" section described it as a CL it seems reasonable to assume that ICOMOS still regards it as such?
e. The WHC "Decision"
. May or may not mention that a site identified as a CL in the Category is inscribed as such. It "should" (?) mention if a site nominated as a CL has been specifically excluded from being one by both the AB and the WHC??If it doesn't metnion the CL then, unless the AB evaluation consluded that it wasn't a CL then it seems reasonable to assume that it was inscribed as such?
f. "Our" list of CLs.
. Put together across many years but, possibly, not on the basis of a watertight definition of how we define a CL. Mainly it will have come from c whilst trying to make allowance for any sites excluded by d ..and probably ignoring e..
I did my comparison the other day by comparing our list f. (as it then existed) with the UNESCO list a. and identifying discrepancies in both directions. I didn't look at the existing Connection for "CL not recognised" and concentrated only on sites in f but not in a. It would appear that we had already excluded some sites from f. which were not in a. even though they had a "claim" to be CLs from their status in b, c or d and that the 3 "new" ones could/should be added to the existing Connection rather than introducing a new one whilst changing its definition to be clearer?
Most (all?) combinations of a- e can be found somewhere I suspect!!! I have just looked at Kromeriz and Grand Pre – both sites NOT in a. but present in our f when I did the survey.
Their status overall (K/G) is
d. No/No (ie not "rejected" as CL by ICOMOS)
In conclusion -
"a." is fixed at whatever UNESCO says,]
"f," Our list of inscribed CLs will always have an element of judgement involved in interpeting Nom files, AB evals and decisions,
Excluding sites on "a." which shouldn't be there (Amst Lines only?), the difference between the 2 constitutes our "Connection" for sites inscribed as CL but not recognised by UNESCO - and we only need 1 such list.
If we could identify 3 such sites from the AB Evaluations/WHC decisions then we could also have a Connection for "Sites Nominate/Evaluated as CL but rejected as such and inscribed for other reasons". At the moment we only have " "ICOMOS considers that Hedeby & Danevirke is not a CL".??