World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /  
 

Nominations for 2010

 
 
Page  Page 2 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next »

Author Assif
Partaker
#16 | Posted: 2 Jul 2009 08:45 
India too nominates 3 sites.

Author m_m
Partaker
#17 | Posted: 2 Jul 2009 22:15 | Edited by: m_m 
Assif:
India too nominates 3 sites.

note that the provided list includes incomplete nominations--that's the reason why some countries seem to have more than 2 sites, because even the incomplete nominations are counted. to support this, in the case of india, the western ghats nomination (which is surely a natural nomination) is not included in the iucn's list of nominations to be evaluated in 2010. also, bali, which is likely a cultural landscape nomination, is not included in the iucn list.

Author Durian
Partaker
#18 | Posted: 3 Jul 2009 03:56 | Edited by: Durian 
m_m:
note that the provided list includes incomplete nominations


m_m is correct my list is include both completed and incompleted nomination document.

I also forget two sites from Vietnam
- Cat Tien National Park
- Thang Long - Hanoi

but from IUCN information - Cat Tien National Park is maybe one of the incompleted document, but for Hanoi if it is completed it would be great as Hanoi is going to celebrate its 1000 years next year to be listed in such significant year will be great for Vietnamese capital city.

Author anametl
Partaker
#19 | Posted: 3 Jul 2009 12:43 
Sorry about that Mr. editor. I guess it really wasn't a reply but I am curious about the nomination process. Could you possibly send me some information about that?

Author elsslots
Admin
#20 | Posted: 3 Jul 2009 14:12 
anametl:
I am curious about the nomination process

See: nominations

Author anametl
Partaker
#21 | Posted: 3 Jul 2009 14:26 
Thank you. que dios te lo pague

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#22 | Posted: 3 Jul 2009 18:27 
e. There are 2 sites which are likely to have problems convincing the ABs that they have genuine OUV beyond their close connections with a famous person (which it has already been established is not an adequate enough reason) - Darwin's Landscape Laboratatory and Mt Vernon

More on this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070301570.html

Author anametl
Partaker
#23 | Posted: 4 Jul 2009 08:35 
Thank you. I think that looking at an unusual site like the Classen Ranch would be like painting a picture of modern (postmodern) art since it involves so many factors that we are currently plagued with. The competition is kind of stiff.
I am going to try to get in touch with the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Salazar to see about the possibility of being considered for the tentative list.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#24 | Posted: 8 Jul 2009 10:22 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Back in February we were wondering who was taking on the job of hosting the 2010 WHC - I posted what I had found out about Bahrain postponing their previous agreement to do so until 2011.
(See - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=5&topic=232#ne wreply )

You may have picked this up before but apparently Brazil has taken on the job
http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/618064/Delhi/1/20/1

Ah well - Parati should be ok then for a resubmission (though we don't yet know why it "failed" this year) and Brazil doesn't appear to have a completely new nomination so isn't trying too hard to make the most of its opportunity!!

Author m_m
Partaker
#25 | Posted: 8 Jul 2009 22:48 | Edited by: m_m 
don't forget that brazil has two options here since it had two unsuccessful nominations for the last two years: san cristobal and paraty.

Author Durian
Partaker
#26 | Posted: 23 Jul 2009 00:24 | Edited by: Durian 
The official list is out, so there are 36 Cultural 8 Natural and 2 Mix nominations for 2010
1. Konso, Ethiopia
2. Fort Jesus, Kenya
3. Ngorongro (cultural criteria), Tanzania
4. Ad-Diriyah, Saudi Arabia
5. Convict Sites, Australia
6. Danxia, China
7. Matheran Rail, India
8. Jaipur 's Jantar Mantar, India
9. Shrine of Ardanil, Iran
10. Tabriz, Iran
11. Phoenix Island, Kiribati
12. Bikini Atoll, Marshall
13. Hohoe and Yangdong, South Korea
14. Central Highland, Sri Lanka
15. Sarazm, Tajikistan
16. Tajik NP, Tajikistan
17. Thang Long - Hanoi, Vietnam
18. Augustowski Canal, Belarus/Poland
19. Major Mines of Wollania, Belgium
20. Pirin NP, Bulgaria
21. Piton la Reunion, France
22. Albi, France
23. Christianity in Galilee, Israel
24. Monte San Giorgio, Italy
25. Amsterdam, Netherlands
26. Roros, Norway
27. Ichnites Sites, Sapin/Portugal
28. Putorana, Russia
29. Siega Verde, Spain
30. Kyiv, Ukraine
31. Darwin's Landscape, UK
32. Papahanaumouakea, USA
33. Mount Vernon, USA
34. Tierra Adentro, Mexico
35. Yagul caves, Mexico
36. Upper Harz, Germany

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#27 | Posted: 24 Jul 2009 07:21 
Thanks Durian for getting the full list.

There are actually some interesting sites on there.
The Pacific has three being put forward. It seems the conference from a few years back is starting to have some pay off. The Bikini Atoll one is particularly interesting with its focus on Nuclear Colonialism.

And there are actually a few sites that look really important on there. Amsterdam (finally) and Jaipur's Jantar Mantar stand out as actually being world class.

However it is not all so inspiring. The usual suspects are also chucking anything more than 100 years old onto the list.
I was just thinking that the list would be greatly improved by yet another Sacred Chinese Mountain or a medium sized French town with a big Cathedral.

Iran has really stepped up its push to get sites on the list, with a real focus on the western part of the country. Five sites from the Western end of the country have been inscribed since 2003 and 6/10 inscribed are in this area. The two put forward for next year are also in the same part of the country. It certainly makes it easier to tick of more sites in a visit.
In case you were searching the official title of Shrine of Ardanil it is Historical Ensemble of Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#28 | Posted: 20 Jan 2010 17:20 
Still too many sites from Europe. As an American I am very excited the US has some new nominations. That being said, I have no idea why Mount Vernon was even nominated. It may be a fantastic site, (I have never been there), but I have my doubts of Outstanding Universal Value, and to attempt to get the site insribed first makes little sense. (I know this issue has been discussed elswhere in the forum)

Nominations such as the Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings or the Petrified Forest National Park are deserving sites that truly belong on the World Heritage List. The Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings need to be preserved, some are in sad shape, and it will be nice to have a worthy 20th century site, a time period highly under-represented just because its not "old" enough. Either one of these sites would have been a great start to the new US sites in place of Mount Vernon.

I was wondering is this the final list? Nothing outside of this has the possibility of being inscribed in 2010? Hopefully a fair number of them will be rejected. Don't get me wrong, I want all of these countries to have their cultural and natural heritage preserved. But there are too many similar sites that are so over-represented Unesco needs to make a stand.

I am personally really excited for -
Papahanaumouakea, USA
Hahoe and Yangdong Villages, South Korea

Author Assif
Partaker
#29 | Posted: 7 Mar 2010 15:57 
Taking a second look at the list I see there are many extentions of nominated sites (Ngorongro, Pirin, Railways of India, Monte San Giorgio, Roros, Kyiv, Goslar). This leaves the total number of new nominations at 29. Does anyone know whether extentions also count as proposed nominations for the 40 nominations limit a year? I don't think so.
Actually, if I remember correctly resubmissions of pending sites of earlier referrals or deferrals (as is the case with Putorana, Sarazm, ichnite sites) doesn't count either. This further reduces the number of full new nominations to 26.
Out of 40 possible nominations a year this is a rather low figure I believe.

Author Durian
Partaker
#30 | Posted: 19 Mar 2010 04:13 | Edited by: Durian 
Does anyone know the detail of Amsterdam's nomination? I heard that Dutch goverment proposed just a small area along one canal excluded the famous Dam square or the old cathedral, is this information true or not?

If true, do you think UNESCO will inscribe Amsterdam or reject it again?

Page  Page 2 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next » 
General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /
 Nominations for 2010

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 ®
 ⇑