Oh my! This is funny. I ticked this site, the one at Michealplatz in Vienna when I visited Hofburg Palace, I remembered that at first I thought it was city drainage maintenance works, so they opened some hole in the square!!

I have a funny feeling this will probably be the most visited section for everyone, all of us probably starting at it somewhat blankly whilst waiting to do something else.

Still a tick is a tick :)

Potential for "Do Not Inscribe" change to "Refer/Defer"?

Earlier under this topic, I had looked at this year's Referred/Deferred nominations to see which might be candidates for a State Party (SP) to try to get an "upgrade" out of the WHC. But what about the "Do not inscribes"? SPs might yet still withdraw some of them for a rethink or to avoid embarrassment, but, if they haven't done so by the time of the WHC it implies that they are going to try for a conversion to de/refer. If an SP can get away with it this is far superior to "withdrawing" and starting all over again! A potential candidate would seem to be the "ALPES DE LA MÉDITERRANÉE (MONACO /ITALY / FRANCE)".
This because France
a. seems to approach WHS nominations from the implicit assumption that the whole of "La Belle France" has a right to be inscribed (I remember the anger at last year's Nimes deferral when France thought it should be upgraded to an inscribe (""I'm a little surprised that people who boast of culture are not more cultured than that or braver than that!" - Daniel-Jean Valade)")!!!
b. has been in almost exactly the same place before with a VERY similar nomination - and, across 4 elapsed years, managed to convert IUCN's "Do not inscribe" into an inscribed WHS!

I refer to the "Chaîne des Puys et faille de Limagne". Its similarities with the "Alpes de la Mediterranee" nomination are uncanny. Both
a. claimed OUV solely via Crit viii for their "special" geological/tectonic features
b. were rejected by IUCN for not meeting "Key paras of Operational Guidelines: Par 77: Nominated property does not meet World Heritage criteria. Para 78: Nominated property does not meet integrity, protection and management requirements"
c. had started out with a rather wider scope "appropriate" for a National Park area with high "tourism values" but couldn't support such a case and retreated to more "esoteric" aspects. The Puys originally claimed Crit vii and viii, whilst the Alpes had started off hoping for Crit viii, ix and x.

One might think that conclusions as per b. above, give no chance of ever progressing. NOT the case!!!

In the case of the "Chaine des Puys" France first managed to persuade the 2014 WHC to change "Do not Inscribe" into "Refer". IUCN again rejected a revised nomination in 2016 but, again, France managed a conversion to "Refer". In 2018 France came back a 3rd time. In both resubmissions "changes" were made which, IUCN pointed out, were way beyond what should have been happening with a Referral ("the large volume of information submitted (685 pages), unprecedented within the framework of a referral") This time IUCN threw in the towel and commented "IUCN notes that despite the improvements made to this nomination, the intense dialogue and the deepened scientific review, it remains a proposal where there are greatly divergent, and to some extent polarized opinions.. In this case, it appears to IUCN that the inscription, if accepted by the World Heritage Committee, would represent a basis for establishing the lowest point of interest with respect to the justification of the criteria that define Outstanding Universal Value." – hardly a ringing endorsement!

Development of this year's "Alpes" nomination by France/Italy appears to have been a struggle. The original T List entry in Apr 2013 gave its title as "Espace transfrontalier Maritime-Mercantour (Les Alpes de la Mer)", was based on 4 Natural/National parks and was entirely terrestrial. Nomination was foreseen under Crit viii, ix and x and its proposed biodiversity aspects, in addition to those for geology, were important enough such that a comparator site included Guanacaste. By Jan 2017, however, the title had changed to "Les Alpes de la Méditerranée", the criteria had been reduced solely to viii for its geology and Monaco had "joined"/been co-opted (or rather some of its maritime area had***)! Change was even continuing during the evaluation and IUCN was highly critical – "IUCN considers that introducing fundamental and spontaneous change in a nomination in this way makes it extremely difficult to undertake an evaluation. Such changes also illustrate a lack of coherence in a nomination, as they pertain to matters that should be considered before submission,"

The scene appears to be set for France (this time with the support of another "serial nominator" country – Italy) to play a long game and push for a De/Refer. It will be interesting to see if the WHC allows it to get away with it. We have already identified that IUCN/ICOMOS appear to have been less "pernickety" in their evaluations this year – would they not expect a quid pro quo by which their negative professional recommendations are accepted??

*** The Monégasque section of the nomination demonstrates a "unique" aspect! 7 of the Nomination's 8 sections are terrestrial areas in both France and Italy. The remaining section however is ENTIRELY "Marine" – or rather "Submarine" since its values relate to the underwater geology of the area across the territorial waters of all 3 SPs. It is thus the only section to involve Monaco. BUT - there is no point at which it actually touches Monégasque "land" or even its shoreline. We thus potentially have the rather strange situation whereby Monaco might have a "WHS" without any terrestrial component whatsoever!

I hope they don't get away with it. I simply think there are natural sites which are much more worthy of inscription. And I definitely hope that no site that got a NI this year is inscribed. I still have nightmares at night imagining sites such as Khor Dubai gaining inscription thanks to a bloc vote.

There could be a strong case for them to overturn IUCN's recommendation of non-inscription because Monaco would want to have its first UNESCO site.

I am sure you are correct that this would be a major aspect of any argument to keep the nomination alive.
Somewhere there is an un-numbered paragraph in the Operational Guidelines - "Every small country is allowed 1 weak WHS" with its sub-paragraph "and the richer it is the more tolerance shall be shown..." - Monte Titano, Madriu-Perafita, Luxembourg city, Singapore Botanical...... Khor Dubai?

Another argument would be the importance of Marine sites. In recent years Monaco has been building up its merit marks on this subject and for its relations with UNESCO generally
a. Feb 2015 New Framework agreement between UNESCO and the Principality of Monaco. This also results in a tidy sum going to cash strapped UNESCO- "Under the term of the Agreement, Monaco is engaged to contribute to UNESCO, an extrabudgetary contribution of a minimum amount of 200,000 euros annually."
b. Nov 2107 - "UNESCO and the Principality of Monaco sign strategic partnership in favour of Marine World Heritage".
c. Dec 2018 - Conference in Monaco on protecting marine areas outside national jurisdiction - "made possible thanks to the support from the French Agency for Biodiversity and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation."

Surely Monaco deserves a WHS to recognise all this........? The trouble is that, once objective criteria have been left behind, who knows what "drivers" are playing a part in determining which sites get inscribed - conferences in Monaco are very nice..... then there are tickets for the Grand Prix....... It can all finish up like the World Cup and Olympics bidding process!

IUCN was conclusive in dismissing the selected submarine section as well as the wider selected areas with no mitigating factors - "The geological values are of scientific interest, but have not been identified internationally or regionally as warranting recognition on the World Heritage List under criterion (viii), and the tectonic values of the Alps and surrounding area are already well represented on the World Heritage List through existing sites."

Perhaps Monaco deserves more of a World Heritage site through its "Rock of Monaco" (Palace of Monaco, Oceanographic Museum of Monaco), valuing its status as an independent principality as Saint-Marino could do as a Republic. Liechtenstein (Gutenberg Castle, Vaduz Castle) might have the same idea the day it signs the convention.

I am even partisan for these principalities to be part of our top 50 missing.

I also told myself that the Mediterranean Alps could have been proposed as a mixed site with the rock art site of the Vallée des Merveilles (in the Mercantour National Park).

Based on this report, there is no plan to withdraw the nomination, in fact other rejected and then later inscribed French sites are being viewed as precedent.

"However, it is not a real rejection, says the president of the Natural Park of the Maritime Alps, Paolo Salsotto :"That of the IUCN is only an intermediate opinion. Better if it had been positive, of course, but it is not a complete rejection: often these candidacies do not pass to the first blow, it happened both in the Langhe and in the Dolomites. France has even had to present twice the candidacy of the Puy de Dôme, the area of ​​the extinct volcanoes of Auvergne."

https://www.cuneodice.it/attualita/cuneo-e-valli/patrimonio-unesco-no-alla-candidatura-delle-alpi-del-mediterraneo-ma-la-partita-e-ancora-aperta_26488.html

Today, maybe the addentum day

Still no addentum today, it's still waiting :(

jonathanfr
on 20 May and the second one in early June

So not June 3 any more.

We still await the Appendices which will tell us what the AB recommendations are regarding the 4 remaining 2019 Nominations.
In the mean time .........
A letter from the "OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, PALAIS DES NATIONS" to the WHC (?) - dated 29 Feb 2019 would seem to indicate that Thailand might well be facing some problems with KKFC. We were earlier surprised to discover that the referred nomination had been resurrected for 2019 and concluded either that Thailand thought it had "solved" the issue regarding the local indigenous rights or that it was at least trying to maintain the "referral" situation for another period.

This is the letter - https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24380
It is a response to a request (presumably from the WHC) for comment from the "Special Rapporteur" on Thailand's "reactivation" of the Nomination. A copy has also been sent to IUCN.
It is not very positive!

Addentum are available !

Addendums are released:
Sheki - not inscribe
Lloyd Wright - inscribe
Prosecco Hills - inscribe
Kaeng Krachan - defer
Interesting, whether Sheki would be turned over during voting.

Funny how many people have been checking regularly! I also did an hour or so, and now Barabanov & you are right on time!