Korea really dropped the ball when their coastal tidal flat nomination was submitted as incomplete for 2019. I doubt China would get an inscription, while Korea's tidal flats would not get the same recognition. I wonder how IUCN will view the Korean nomination in 2020. In fact, China's nomination became a tentative site in 2017! Therefore, their nomination was fast-tracked, in part (conceivably) to arrive at the WHC simultaneously or before Korea's nomination, which has been progressing since 2010. Will IUCN view Korea's nomination as completing or complimenting such an ecosystem of Tidal Flats? OR will IUCN view another inscription as too much of the same thing?

And good morning winterkjm — it's even earlier in California! Hope the earthquake yesterday wasn't too bad where you live.

Hence Italy's vested interest in keeping its transnational Maritime Alps nomination open...

I suppose that could make sense with a country like Thailand that has worked so long on this nomination and may get discouraged over yet another delay. Still, I see value in getting another IUCN evaluation; does the decreased size of the site effectively cover the biodiversity of the area?

And lunch is over; folks are straggling back in...

French Austral Lands now. I prepared its site page yesterday evening. Here is how to get there: http://www.taaf.fr/Participation-a-une-rotation-australe-du-Marion-Dufresne and be one of the lucky 350 each year

Such a low number of visitors!

Uganda (?) calls for the committee to stop congratulating and get to the vote already!

French Austral Lands inscribed!

Vatnajökull National Park discussion now. My flight is about to board, so I'll miss the rest of this afternoon session. I look forward to the updates!

Inscribed
Does that make it a third inscription for Amsterdam

1. Defence Line of Amsterdam
2. Seventeenth-Century Canal Ring Area of Amsterdam inside the Singelgracht
3. French Austral Lands and Seas (Amsterdam and St Paul Islands)

:)

Vatnajokull - interesting that the glacier was formed ONLY c 2500 years ago rather than at the time of the last Ice Age - I presume the IUCN guy got this correct. So it fits into our most "recent" time frame for Natural sites - Holocene

Yes - have just checked on the Vatnajokull Site - "Vatnajökull is not a remnant of the Weichselian/Wisconsinan ice sheet that covered Iceland entirely during the Last Glacial Maximum around 18,000 years ago. The sedi­mentary record from lake Lagarfljót northeast of the ice cap, receiving meltwater from the Eyjabakkajökull outlet glacier, sheds light on the Holocene development of Vatnajökull. By about 9000 years ago, no glacial sediments can be detected and during the warmest period of the Holocene (5000–8000 years ago), the large Weichselian ice sheet had disappeared and probably only small glaciers remained on the highest mountains. The return of glacial meltwater to lake Lagarfljót (signifying the return of Eyjabakkajökull) is dated to ca. 4500 years ago. This is in accordance with other data from Iceland, indicating cooler summers from ca. 5000 years ago and expanding glaciers in the highlands. Tree logs found in the forefields of Fláajökull and Skaftafellsjökull are dated to about 2000 years ago, demonstrating that the corresponding valleys were ice-free at that time."

Plus a nice Epic Subtitle

Nice!

I missed that, is Vatnajokull already inscribed?

i expected to come back and hear all the congratulations etc. but it is already on Ohrid.

Yes, the ones with the Inscribe recommendation get the least air time (which sounds a bit unfair)

Extension Lake Ohrid: Hungary has written amendment no to put site in Danger