By the way, today i was looking at the IUGS world heritage list and Almadén and idrija IS most definetely part of It.
It had passed me by that this list had been published.
Yes, Almaden is in it and COULD be added to this Connection. Something that really surprises me is that, 10 years AFTER inscription, I am still the ONLY person to have reviewed Almaden
!!!! Yet there are 7 reviews of the, IMO, far less interesting and significant Idrija!!
I say "COULD be added" because it hasn't been made a WHS for its direct Geological values - solely for its "Cultural Heritage" of mining - Crits ii and iv. The same is true for Rio de Janiero (Crits v and vi) - Are we sure that we want this connection to work for purely "Cultural" sites which are not inscribed directly for their geology?
I find interesting that some WHS of geologic nature are not included while some geological heritage sites are not included in the WHL
I guess the "answer" might be that the recently published list is just a starting point ("The IUGS Executive Committee has ratified the First 100 IUGS Geological Heritage Sites as the first and inspiring step towards a wider program that will give recognition to those geological sites of the highest scientific importance of the World.
"). This indicates that
there were 181 candidates. I expect that the IUGS deliberately spread the 100 around to cover both more countries AND a fuller range of Geological phenomena. I haven't yet been able to discover which 81 didn't make it through to the first 100
There are 93 WHS whose inscription criteria includes Crit viii ("to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;"
). These are likely to constitute the majority of WHS with "IUGS potential". To complicate matters WHS which are geologically significant for more recent geomorphological reasons also find themselves included in the IUGS list. So the Okavango, whose inscribed criteria doesn't include viii, DOES include ix ("to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
But then, amazingly, I discover that Tsingy de Bemaraha was only inscribed on Crit vii ("superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
" and x "the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
" . Indeed it seems that IUGS have also included it for being of "Exceptional Beauty".
We seem to have 2 lists which are adding sites for 2 different sets of reasons - with some overlap - but with no reason to expect a very close correlation!