LOL. Are these people self-reflective at all? Precisely this behavior is denigrating the integrity of the process. Maybe they should redesign the process if they are so unhappy about it's outcome. But constantly overriding the AB simply means the AB is irrelevant.


Truth be told, European countries should be held to a higher standard as they are already dotted with sites.


I would concur if the statement was limited to countries with zero to no WHS. However, Portugal has plenty and Mafra is simply lacking in OUV. As is Augsburg to me.


Right about so. Simply ignore the AB feedback and go for the WHC. They certainly will pass everything.

Hopefully, the changes done (new whs per country) will help somewhat. But I am really questioning where the WHS train is going. Eventually it will be a pointless honor.

Some proper improvement ideas:

* Make the AB more meaningful and scale that based on the amount of inscribed sites.
** First site: Override from not inscribe possible.
** 2-9: Defer to inscribe.
** 10-30: Refer to inscribe
** 30+: Only inscribe recommendations accepted.

* For all those sites promising major improvements after inscription, set a deadline when the work has to be done or the title will be revoked.

* Provide funding to poor countries to cover for the operating expenses.

Solivagant

Fyi on KKFC, some insider informed me that currently only OZ is still not agree! Realpolitik of gold mine dispute :(

For a casual UNESCO WHS enthusiast who is just learning about the technical aspect of our cultural and natural heritage, seeing how they overturn ICOMOS/IUCN recommendations for the past couple of years is saddening. I would get it if it is just referral, but the reasons behind inscribing sites for deferral and not-inscribe recommendations are something I would want to know more about... hopefully without any political aspect to it.

But then again, I am just a casual observer, and they are the experts.

Quick note on Pskov: only the churches were actually inscribed. The site is now called Churches of the Pskov school of architecture.

I dozed off during the last couple of hours. Was lunch extended because of the long discussion on Sheki?

And thanks for the excellent summary, Solivagant; I caught the first arguments, but missed the rest.

Good morning (or afternoon now), nfmungard! I like your proposal for scaled options based on a country's number of inscribed sites.

And they're back. Le Colline del Prosecco di Conegliano a Valdobbiadene is up first.

Excuse me whilst I puke - all this self congratulation about a successful referral!!!! And don't mention the insecticides!

This about-to-be-inscribed nomination is FAR MORE of a disgrace than the inscription of Sheki Palace

I take it the FLW sites will be last....damn!

No - already inscribed and still 3 more to go -
Port Royal
Transisthmian route
KKFC

Port Royal....the Atlantis of the caribbean.

When did this happen?

You guys have given a detailed commentary on everything but that. Not a single mention. Again, when was it?

Port Royal

Jamaica accepts deferral recommendation of ICOMOS, per St Kitt's representative.
Australia recognizes that there are few underwater heritage sites and finds Port Royal a site that has high potential to demonstrate OUV under criterion IV.