Sorry Assif, I hadn't meant to pass comment on any possible misuse of English - I am always impressed by the facility with which non English speakers on this Forum use my language and somewhat shamefaced at my own inability to match them to that degree in any other language!
It did seem possible that the "shame" might either be being assigned to the countries for not pursuing these sites or to UNESCO/IUCN/ICOMOS for not facilitating them!
I am particularly interested in Guyana, specifically from having spent a couple of weeks there a few years ago and generally from a wider interest in the difficulties which developing countries have in pursuing cultural and natural protection.
I have found more documents relevant to Guyana's long quest for a "World Heritage site". Amazingly one of them dates right back to 1980 - only 2 years after the first inscriptions. So Guyana has been "working" (if that is the right word!) towards gaining an inscription for over 32 years!!
The document titled
"Identification of Potential Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites (Natural)" http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000422/042277eb.pdfconcludes that there are 2 potential natural WHS in Guyana - Kaieteur and "The Roraima area of the Upper Mazaruni Watershed". Further it states that the latter is a better candidate than the former!
Yet both have fallen by the wayside - Kaieteur after a failed attempt as we have discussed ... whilst Roraima has, as far as I am aware, NEVER been pursued! Perhaps the clue for this lies in the map provided in the above report which shows the proposed boundaries as following the Venezuelan and Brazilian frontiers where all 3 countries "meet" at Mt Roraima.
A look at the map of Venezuela's existing Canaima inscription is instructive -
http://whc.unesco.org/download.cfm?id_document=116026Although we have a "Connection" for this site as being on an International Boundary it does in fact only reach the boundary at one point - the very summit of Mt Roraima. But, to the NE of Roraima the map doesn't show "Guyana" - only a "Zona en Reclamacion"!! This is because the entire "Roraima area" propsed as a potential Guyanan WHS back in 1980 is in fact still claimed by Venezuela - a claim they reiterated in 1966 on Guyana's indpendence. It is interesting that UNESCO have allowed a map to be placed on its web site which states, without any reference to Guyana's claim and
de facto occupation, that Venezuela claims the area. It would be interesting to consider what might have happened if Guyana had pursued this area for nomination - perhpas we would have had another Preah Vihear situation!!
In fact Guyana acceded to the WHS convention in 1977 whilst Venezuela was a "johnny come lately" in 1990 -just 4 years before it successfully gained inscription for Canaima. Guyana would have had no objections over that site's boundaries since they only reach its
de facto frontier at Mt Roraima. The AB evaluation for Canaima made some mention of the potential for a Transnational nomination with Guyana but concluded briefly, without explanation, that
"a proposal for a transfrontier protection of the massive does not seem feasible at this time". IUCN recommended deferral of Venezuela's nomination for a number of reasons but was overruled by the WHC which noted "
The Committee was informed that, although there was no formal written response from the Venezuelan Park authorities with respect to the Bureau's recommendation, a senior staff member had verbally indicated that it would be difficult to consider revising the boundaries of this site." Well that was ok then!! That year's WHC included as members - Columbia, Brazil, Peru and Mexico. Sounds a bit like a "home town" Latin American decision! No wonder Guyana feels badly treated over Kaieteur!!
Another document relevant to the history of Guyana's faltering attmepts to gain a WHS is this "Country Environmental Profile" produced in 2005 by the EU
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/Guyana_CEP_2005.pdfThis is a far more fundamental assessment of Guyana's environmental problems than the rather superficial one of 1980 - or perhaps everyone is just far more realistic now!! The report isn't of course about gaining WHS status but, interestingly, it doesn't even mention that possibility. It is clear that Guyana has many fundamental issues of governance, poverty eradication etc etc to sort out before its natural sites could even begin to be considered as adequately protected. One interesting "omission" however is that the report doesn't even consider/suggest that trying to get Bisophere reserve or WHS status could be a driver towards environmental protection. What perhaps surprises me is that I don't believe that Guyana is any worse than many other developing countries in these respects - yet many of them ARE managing to gain Natural or Mixed inscriptions.
I once heard Guyana's Prime Minister (President??) stating a proposal along the lines that other countries achieve a good living by producing goods and services using their natural resources. If the World wants Guyana to preserve its own natural resources for the benefit of the World then perhaps those other countries should regard Guyana as "producing" oxygen, biodiversity, recreational areas etc etc as "exports" and should pay Guyana for doing so rather than trying to make it adopt policies which limit its use of those resources in a traditional "consuming" way!! Perhaps he has a point - but it will of course not happen. So what choice does Guyana really have but to mine for gold and diamonds etc and build the highway to/from Brazil through these areas? And what real practical help did IUCN's pedantry regarding Kaieteur achieve towards stimulating Guyana to improve its preservation efforts?
