The New 7 Wonders of the World were unveiled this past weekend in Portugal. The initiative was started in 1999 by Bernard Weber and 50% of all net revenue raised by the foundation will be used to fund restoration projects worldwide. UNESCO has distanced itself from the effort. Initially asked to participate or collaborate, UNESCO declined citing the many aspects used to determine World Heritage status. UNESCO uses scientific and educational criteria to determine what sites should be included on the World Heritage List as opposed to the popular opinion sought by New7Wonders.com.
The New 7 Wonders Foundation also acknowledged that it had no control over people voting more than once for their favorite site. UNESCO likened The 7 New Wonders of the World to a lengthy media campaign that supports the opinion of anyone with internet access rather than that of world opinion.
If 50% of net revenue goes to funding restoration projects, where does the other 50% go?
Angkor Wat loses to Christ Redeemer, are you kidding?
I almost voted but decided that there are many more than 7 wonders in our world and that this was some kind of marketing ploy so why bother when I can vote for something 25 times. There is no validity.
http://www.new7wonders.com
http://www.unesco.org
Filed under: New 7 Wonders, Specialty Travel, World Heritage Sites
One of the sites inscribed during the meeting is: Twyfelfontein or /Ui-//aes The site has one of the largest concentrations of rock petroglyphs, in Africa. Over 2000 figures have been documented at the site and most of them are well preserved. They include rhinoceroses, elephants, ostriches, and giraffes. There are also drawings of human and animal footprints. The site is located in Namibia and is the first World Heritage Site in the country. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/359
The Galapagos Islands were moved to the List of World Heritage in Danger. The concern is that increased tourism has produced increased immigration and the inter island traffic has introduced invasive species in some areas. The number of days spent in the area by tourists has grown by 150% over the past 15 years.An interesting decision made by the Committee was the changing of the name “Auschwitz Concentration Camp” (so listed since 1979) to the new title of “Auschwitz Birkenau” and the subtitle of “German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945).” The Committee also adopted a “statement of significance” for the site. Read here. It is a powerful statement and lays it all out. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/363
The Committee also took the unprecedented step of removing The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman from the World Heritage List because Oman reduced the area of the Sanctuary by 90%. The population of Oryx in 1996 was 450, today it is 65 and of those, only four breeding pairs remain. This rare antelope will probably not survive due the actions of the State Party of Oman encouraging hydrocarbon prospecting as well as their inaction in controlling poaching and site degradation. This is the first time a site was removed because the obligation to conserve was not fulfilled.
I read a quick article in one of my trade magazines about the Galapagos Islands being placed on the Danger List and went to the website to read about the Heritage Sites and the Danger List.
Since the Committee is holding their meeting this week, they are releasing quite a few press statements about what they are doing. There is a site (Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany) that is in danger of being removed because of the possibility of a four lane bridge being built. Germany has been warned that it has four months to come up with a satisfactory alternative or the site faces removal at next year’s meeting. My original thought of a quick look see at World Heritage Sites turned into an hour of reading through some press releases, viewing some of the sites and thinking about the stand they have taken with the Auschwitz name change and statement as well as the importance of conserving these sites.
Filed under: Specialty Travel, Travel Industry, World Heritage Sites
Recent Comments