It can be found here:
https://whc.unesco.org/include/tool_video_bootstrap.cfm?youtubeid=WjT4deiPVG0&rel=0&autoplay=1

As usual, put your comments on the live action in this topic.

Amendment:

Inscribes:
- Nyungwe National Park (Rwanda)

Based on the published amendments, Ethiopia and Egypt are the most active in submitting amendments to overturn the Advisory Bodies decisions.

From Deferral to Inscribe:
- Zagori Cultural Landscape (Greece) *amendment submitted by Egypt
- Astronomical Observatories of Kazan Federal University (Russian Federation) *amendment submitted by Ethiopia

Amendement:

Inscribes:
Funerary and memory sites of the First World War (Western Front), Belgium, France

What precisely is the reasoning behind overturning all Deferrals? I honestly am growing tired of the inflation of the list.

I don't remember amendments being submitted and published so much in advance and in such detail in previous years - am I wrong?? The Committee members must have been working late into the night since they arrived in Doha making "trades" on all these proposed amendments!! The latest one from RSA regarding the "Funerary and memory sites of the First World War" is an ENORMOUS amendment in length ( https://whc.unesco.org/document/201261 ) ......It seems to be attempting to destroy the ICOMOS arguments for referral simply by rolling over them with verbiage... "our arguments are longer than yours"! How on earth they are going to discuss it I don't know! It surely isn't really meant as a serious proposal for "adoption"? If the WHC tries to "Wordsmith" every phrase they will be there for ever. Once the general level of positive support has been established the vast majority of it can presumably be binned.

Is it really all RSA's "own work" or has it been primed on the detail by "you know who"? What is RSA's underlying purpose in getting involved in this matter? It probably sees itself as the "World guardian" on Sites of Memory but could it also be hoping to gain some support for the Rwandan deferral to be changed as well thus resulting in a "full house" of inscriptions for the 3 deferred problem sites? I personally thought that the Argentine proposal which got the ok from ICOMOS purely on Crit vi was actually the weakest of the 3 in terms of its OUV and what was in situ as "tangible heritage" - but of course, once the principle has been accepted, there is little in this very simple site for ICOMOS to argue about regarding boundaries etc - and it is over such matters that ICOMOS often seems happiest at picking holes!!

Speaking of inflation, I can't help but imagine that in the near future:
1. ICOMOS and IUCN would eventually get tired of having their assessments overturned by State Parties, but since they are mandated to give advice to UNESCO, they'd continue with less enthusiasm, making the entire process a bit of a mockery.
2. that the Committee would feel the need to put a cap on the total number of nominations in a given year to 'temper' this wholesale inscription (not the number of sites a country can nominate). That'd be a riot.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Community members might be interested to view the CV of the WHC Chairman (Abdulelah Al-Tokhais) here. Degrees up to PhD in Saudi and USA. Currently - Assistant Professor & Research Director in Tourism and Heritage at the King Saud University in Riyadh and Advisor (on "secondment" since Sept 2022 specifically for this task?) to the Saudi National Commission for Education, Culture, and Science .
His Bachelor's degree was in 2007-10 so he will be around 35 years of age?
Interesting to have a genuine "Heritage Professional" leading rather than a career diplomat. As far as I can see he isn't even a member of the royal family - unlike some we have seen at previous WHCs!!!.

I get the impression that we're already there. But of course there's nothing ICOMOS and IUCN can do - they are fully dependent of UNESCO. Your comment made me curious and I had a look at the ICOMOS financial reports - by far the most "income" ICOMOS gets is from sth they call "UNESCO contracts" - i.e. the vast majority of the work they do is for UNESCO and not for other entities. It's also a tiny organisation: they only have 10 employees. So presumably all the work is anyway done by professors etc. that get commissioned to do the actual assessments of sites, etc? That would at least ensure a certain independence by the assessors - but at the same time give ICOMOS itself little leeway when these assessments are overturned?

I think this has already happened and they are trying to cope. Kuldinga as described by Els already points to a way forward.

In any case, I would assume they receive funding for their expert opinions, so they won't stop.


But why should they? Right now, they seem to be of the the more the merrier mind set. Rich countries with mature lists like Germany see it as entitlement to submit each year. And poor countries with short lists will find it as catching up to the bloated rich country lists.

I think we are already at a point where poor countries cannot afford or simply won't pay for the proper upkeep of the inscribed sites. And where rich countries inscribe sites with little to no impact on international recognition, preservation or visits as there are simply too many and the chosen sites too unimportant.


Thanks for the confirmation.

Not me Nan!!

To sum it up: The process of nominating and selecting WHS seems to be in a pretty bad shape: ICOMOS & ICUN widely ignored, quantity instead of quality, political motivated back door shenanigans, becoming a rich nations playground

Questions to the community:
1. Do you share my impression?
2. What could be done to reform the process?
3. Does anybody think that with already 1250 WHS it's time to close or at least to revisit the list by quality/filling the gap standards?

In my opinion, before inscribing numerous further sites there should be a consolidation of Sites.
E.g wooden churches in the carpat Mountains: tserkvas 1. Site, catholic/evangelic 2nd.
Roman Limes: make it one single Site or rearrange,
Thracian Graves in Bułgaria: Join the two to one Site
Iguacu= 1 Site, silk roads?! Etc.
I guess you could diminish the list to about 1000.

And then start to fill the gaps or wiek with Extensions of WHS Sites.
Makes IT also easier to Tick off ;)

The thing I heard most from those friends who actually travel a lot, but don't care about WHS is, that there should be a separation within the list. They mostly don't understand why a place like La Chaux-de-Fonds is on the same level as the Taj Mahal. But I do not have a solution for how this would look like.

Like everyone here, I am also annoyed by the inflation of the list. But it is not only the problem of poor or rich countries. It's also about expertise, resources, etc. Well, in the end it is money.
The WH list was initiated from a Western perspective, by countries that have a tradition in heritage conservation. Therefore, it is often easier for other countries to nominate colonial sites than their natural sites. Simply said, it is easier to establish a management plan and protection for Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc than for Okavango Delta.
The number of sites is one thing, for us the most important thing.
But we could also count the area of the sites. Which country has the most hectares inscribed?. Or what percentage of a country's area is WHS area?


The WHC should follow the recommendations of ICOMOS/IUCN, adhere to its own rules regarding OUV, and focus on "filling the gaps".
Then reform would not be necessary. And who should initiate a reform? The WHC will not limit its own power.


This would only have a cosmetic effect. The number of sites would decrease, but the volume of inscriptions would remain the same. Yes, easier to tick off, but the aim of the WHC is certainly not to make our lives easier.


No they are not. Yes, they are on the same list. But the WH list is different from "1000 places to see before you die".