World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search | Website: Start | The List | Community |

	forum.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
	2016 WHC - Livestream
	Page 17 of 19: « Previous 1 ... 16 17 18 19 Next »

	meltwaterfalls Partaker	#241 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:45
		I'm going to have a celebratory apple crumble for that one. It is better than the Causses and the CÃ©vennes justification for having some of the oldest chestnut trees in southern France.

	Colvin Partaker	#242 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:45 \| Edited by: Colvin
		IUCN thinks Koytendag doesn't offer anything not found in other inscribed WHS properties, including the just inscribed Western Tien Shan. IUCN feels Turkmenistan has other natural properties more worthy of inscription than Koytendag. Recommends to not inscribe.

	elsslots Admin	#243 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:45 \| Edited by: elsslots
		Finland says: keep on trying Turkmenistan, with other TWHS Turkey thinks review of IUCN was not fair, proposes Deferral. Vietnam, Kazakh, Azerbaijan support this.

	Colvin Partaker	#244 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:48
		A celebratory apple crumble seems like a good idea for almost any occasion, but particularly for this inscription! :-)

	Colvin Partaker	#245 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:51 \| Edited by: Colvin
		Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Tunisia support deferral. If everyone is in agreement, why do they need to keep speaking up (since time is a factor)?

	elsslots Admin	#246 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:54
		Koytendag Deferred.

	elsslots Admin	#247 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 12:58
		ChaÃ®ne des Puys now. No OUV regarding IUCN, better examples in Iceland and Great Rift Valley. Significant human impact.

	elsslots Admin	#248 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:02
		Lebanon proposes referral

	Colvin Partaker	#249 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:02 \| Edited by: Colvin
		IUCN now reviewing the French nomination ChaÃ®ne des Puys. They are concerned about quarrying, and don't believe the property meets requirements ro be inscribed as a natural site. I think the English feed must be delayed from the YouTube feed!

	elsslots Admin	#250 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:05
		You're a bit slow off the mark, Colvin. Watching the English feed?

	elsslots Admin	#251 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:07
		Amendment proposed by Tanzania. Proposes Referral based on only criterion 8.

	Colvin Partaker	#252 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:11
		Turkey doesn't think IUCN offered anything new in their evaluation this year than from 2014. Finland wants to know if IUCN agrees that criterion viii has been met? IUCN does not believe it has.

	elsslots Admin	#253 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:21
		LOOOOOONG discussion again about which words to choose for the referral By the way, decision on Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex is still pending from earlier today. They would rephrase the wording of the decision behind the scenes, but it would be a Referral.

	Colvin Partaker	#254 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:27
		Lebanon is clarifying their position that to recognize OUV while requiriring more information would be a referral. To recognize potential OUV while requiring more information should be a deferral.

	elsslots Admin	#255 \| Posted: 17 Jul 2016 13:32
		A Referral it is

Page

Page 17 of 19: « Previous 1 ... 16 17 18 19 Next »

	forum.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
	2016 WHC - Livestream