Have just heard a comment by Norway after the report of the Centre. Approx quote -
"Norway notes that last year's WHC overturned 87% of the AB recommendations ..... and we even wrote ourselves into history by inscribing a nomination recommended for "Do not inscribe". Norway is not proud of this"

Putting a marker in the ground - but it looks as if both "sides" have already moved on this
a. The ABs by recommending a higher %age of "Inscribes" even where it might have found some minor problems
b. The SPs by deciding not to fight "Do not inscribe" recommendations. We will have to see how hard they fight the De/Referrals

Oh, yeah it had slipped my attention that this started today.

Here is the link to the live feed for those looking for it.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/43com/

For those wanting to know when the real business gets going, the new inscriptions start being debated at 11 (Azeri time) on Friday morning and go through to Sunday afternoon.

It will then be very interesting to see how the WHS committee will respond once the host country pushes for Sheki's referral, or even inscription.

The first news has come to us from Baku: The site of the Birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem (Palestine) removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger

And Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works as well

The Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California (Mexico) inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Mexico has made efforts to protect these threatened species, notably by creating a refuge for the surviving vaquitas and promoting fishing alternatives to gillnets, which cause the death by asphyxiation of marine mammals. Despite these measures, only about ten specimens of vaquita remain today (compared to nearly 300 in 2005).

Update on where the WHC is in their schedule.

These are the remaining State of Conservation reports to be discussed. This should finish tomorrow, as 7B is completed we go to item 8A Tentative Lists of the State Parties, which does not take long, before going on to item 8B nominations to the world heritage list.

ASIA-PACIFIC
70. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
(property proposed for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger)
72. Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan)
73. Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta (Pakistan)
77. Samarkand – Crossroad of Cultures (Uzbekistan)

EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
81. Ancient City of Nessebar (Bulgaria)
(property proposed for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger)

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
98. Historic Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaíso (Chile)

AFRICA
103. Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)
107. Lamu Old Town (Kenya)
111. Fossil Hominid Sites of South Africa (South Africa)

Well that's because it was never "in danger" in the first place. This was just a ploy to bash Israel and successfully drive it out of UNESCO.

Yes, if it hadn't been accepted that it was imminently "in danger" then Palestine couldn't have proposed its nomination on an "emergency basis" back in 2012!! And got it with great difficulty during which many States Parties (SPs) didn't agree that it was an "In danger" issue. So. it was quite interesting to hear the discussion on this item and experience it as a small example of the "airbrushing" of history".

The proposal to remove Bethlehem from the "in Danger list" was presented as a matter of great "Celebration". States Parties etc fell over each other to congratulate everyone involved for this wonderful "success story" and presented it as an "exemplary Case" for everyone to look at in the future to show, when the World pulls together, what can be achieved in improved conservation. Brazil, Tunisia, Norway, Kuwait, Spain, Azerbaijan, Hungary, St Kitts, Tanzania, Bahrain, China, Zimbabwe, Australia and Cuba all congratulated every one and his dog for what had been achieved -"extraordinary work"...... The removal was accepted "nem con" of course - cue APPLAUSE - Palestine gave a thankyou speech - cue APPLAUSE and HUGS/KISSES all round!!!

It would be VERY interesting to know the reality of what the emergency inscription of Bethlehem and its placement on the "In danger list" actually achieved. ICOMOS gave a speech in which it listed things which had been done and fully supported the removal. But it made absolutely NO MENTION of its own 2012 recommendation/conclusion that ".. ICOMOS does not consider that the property can be considered to have been severely damaged or to be under imminent threat. ICOMOS does not consider that there is 'any immediate action' that could be taken by the Committee that 'is necessary for the survival of the property" This obviously wasn't the time to go over old history - rather one for mutual back slapping!!

Undoubtedly, actions have taken place which might not have occurred if the inscription hadn't taken place - some of the SPs making their speeches took the opportunity to mention that their country had been one of those giving money for the work - e.g Brazil!! We were told that, inter alia, the "Tunnel under Manger sq" had been cancelled. But this hadn't been mentioned before and presumably (??) was under control of the Palestinian Auth anyway with or without Inscription/In Danger.

The point was also made about this being one of very few "good news" stories coming out of Palestine and would help raise the spirits there. It was also a good news story in terms of the preservation of a Christian Chruch in an Arab country (Hungary had the temerity to mention that "unfortunate" aspect!!) - so I guess one shouldn't be a "party pooper" and try to throw cold water on the celebrations. It is indeed GREAT that preservation work has been successfully carried out on the Church - but it just a shame that it took such a transparently political set of actions to bring it about and that those involved, conveniently "forget" the history.

WHC is more or less on schedule. Tomorrow, we get to the nominations.

Huzzah!

I only was able to listen to the last couple of hours of today's session, but I found it interesting to watch the debate over the Royal Palaces of Abomey in Benin, where ICOMOS is concerned that a proposed new museum was ill-placed, and could create misunderstanding about the significance of structures and areas within the complex. Benin has already started modifying its plans based on the ICOMOS evaluation, and Burkina Faso proposed a number of changes to the draft statement that would enable Benin to address changes in close consultation with ICOMOS. Angola followed on with a proposal to eliminate text in the final part of the draft statement that if Benin was not making significant progress in addressing ICOMOS concerns that it could be added to the World Heritage Site in Danger list in 2020; Benin would still be required to provide ICOMOS an update on their progress by the beginning of 2020.

The proposed text change from Angola triggered a debate that threatened to prolong today's session. Norway, Spain, Australia, and Indonesia were all in favor of keeping the warning of potential placement on the In Danger list in the text. Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Guatemala, and Uganda all believed that: 1) Benin has already been making progress to address changes, and that Burkina Faso's proposed changes provide an avenue for them to move forward showing progress; and 2) the World Heritage Committee earlier in today's session already voted to strike the threat of being added to the In Danger list for two other World Heritage Sites where the state parties had initiated mitigation plans (I came in too late for today's session to identify which sites they were talking about), and for parity, Benin should get the same treatment. After much debate, the committee agreed to strike out the text about Benin potentially being placed on the In Danger list in 2020 if significant progress on the ICOMOS concerns was not made.

I appreciated hearing that Benin had already initiated changes, and that other African countries were willing to support them in those changes. I'm also glad they pushed for equal treatment in the decision-making by the committee.

Today is the day (at least in Baku)! :)

The discussions on nominations to the WHS list will open with Migratory Bird Sanctuaries along the coast of Yellow Sea-Bohai Gulf of China (Phase I) if the order of presentation indicated in https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2019/whc19-43com-8B-en.pdf is to be followed.

Session will start in 5 minutes!

https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/43com/

Change in timetable: 8A (tent lists) will come after 8B (new nominations)

Dilmun & Budj Bim will be discussed tomorrow, dropped from today's order