World Heritage Site

Every morning around 11 a.m. I do a quick check of this direct link to see whether UNESCO has registered any new Tentative Sites. When they do, I try to add the new records to our website as quickly as possible as well. The people in Paris rarely update before 11 a.m., and afternoon changes only occur when they have a lot to add. The Tentative Sites, for some reason, do not appear in chronological order – sometimes they post things that have been submitted months before. Let’s have a closer look at what the crop of the first half of 2025 brought us.

The Numbers

I have written about the trends in Tentative Sites before, trying to determine The Value of a TWHS. So does the first half of 2025 confirm this pattern?

At the time of writing (June 28, 2025), all Tentative Lists combined add up to 1778 sites. In the first half of 2025, 49 new Tentative Sites were added. 9 of those were 1-on-1 replacements of earlier ones. An additional 15 TWHS were removed and became Former TWHS.

49 new ones in the first half of the year are significantly above average, as are the 15 removals. The trend over the last 10 years was that an average of 66 new TWHS were added yearly, with a net result of 30; 66 were added, 14 removed, and 22 were inscribed and thus disappeared from the Tentative List as well. 

Full make-overs

Generally, it’s a steady trickle of new sites popping up. But now and then we see full make-overs, where countries are replacing their complete Tentative List. Countries generally don’t seem to like to drastically get rid of outdated entries; they just let them linger forever (looking at you, Egypt!).

• Austria took a bold move in January and removed 8 of its 10 TWHS. It is working on a completely new Tentative List, with only the Iron Trail still in the queue for a WHC (Preliminary Assessment 2025, so 2029?).
• Portugal did something similar, removing 7 older and vague entries from its list, such as the Route of Magellan and Sites of Globalization. But with 11 sites left, there is still plenty to choose from.
• Algeria refreshed its full list last week. All 6 previous sites were renewed, but seem better defined now. The Royal Mausoleums of Ancient Algeria (photo 2) is its most urgent candidate, possibly going up for nomination in 2027. Also, they included 5 completely new sites, such as the fortified granaries (Ighamaouen) and Djurdjura National Park.
• Guinea did a major update as well, although it couldn’t withstand holding on to some of the old ones. 4 new sites were added.

We also learned that New Zealand is seeking candidates for a new Tentative List; results are expected in 2026.

Notable individual new entries

When we look at the individual new entries, there’s a lot of preparation for upcoming nominations. We see:

• Victorian Goldfields: with a solid budget behind it, this might become Australia's candidate around 2029.
• Belgian Workers’ Assembly Halls: the final candidate of the first group that will take part in the transnational nomination of these Assembly Halls, scheduled for 2028.
• The Mongolian section of the Great Tea Route: as the name already suggests, this is part of a serial transnational effort together with China and Russia, who still have to put forward their candidates. 

Among the more imaginative new entries are:

• Phra Prang of Wat Arun Ratchawararam: This is Bangkok's landmark temple complex Wat Arun, and it would lead to a first WHS for this great and popular Asian capital.
• National Museum of Qatar (photo 3): a 21st-century building, encapsulating a restored older palace. It would become the youngest WHS ever with its opening date of 2019.
• The Secondo-Lido Lighthouse in Mogadishu: overlooking the Indian Ocean and once guiding sailors, merchants and pilgrims, it would be the first WHS of Somalia. Unfortunately, it partially collapsed 2 years ago. 

Furthermore, India, China and Türkiye keep on adding and adding individual entries to their already long Tentative Lists without removing any.

Looking at the list of sites added in 2025, are there any Tentative Sites that stand out for you?

Kenya almost killed me. The murder attempt actually was done by a Kenyan goat, which, while I was walking the streets of Old Mombasa (pictured below), decided to make a run for its freedom and jumped down to street level from a balcony. Its hoof bruised my hand black and blue, but it could as well have landed on my head. It must have been an absurd scene to watch, but the Kenyans aren’t disturbed by a bit of chaos and unpredictability. 

Still want to go? Here are some tips for travelling to Kenya as a WH Traveller.

1. Be flexible

Kenya overall is an easy country to travel in: they’re used to tourists, almost everybody speaks English and is willing to help you out (often hoping there’s a little extra in it for them, but not pushing for it). But it certainly doesn’t run like clockwork: departure times of all my 3 domestic flights and the international flight were changed significantly at least once, access to a site that was granted can be revoked for vague reasons (see my Kaya Kauma story), I had an airport transfer who didn’t know how to get to the airport, etc. So be sure to allocate a buffer in both time and money for your trip, as a too-tight schedule might end in missing out on a WHS tick.

2. You need to spice it up a bit

Thematically, there is nothing wrong with Kenya’s set of 8 WHS (a bit of Swahili culture past and present, the Great Rift Valley, Mount Kenya), but they will not bring you to the highlights of Kenya per se. The average rating of its WHS is mediocre at 3.1, and I gave most of the sites between 2 and 3 stars. Visit times were also often short, leaving you to wonder what to do the rest of the day. The set leans more towards cultural sites than natural, and the East Coast seems to be a favoured place to promote. So, especially for a first visit to the country, you might want to spice your itinerary up a bit with a few extra national parks. Notably missing is the Masai Mara, of course, but also habitats further north, such as in Samburu or Meru, could be worth it. 

3. Be prepared to go fully digital 

To pay for goods and services, Kenyans use M-Pesa as a digital payment system. Even the preacher who came to bless us for a matatu trip to Nakuru accepted tips via M-Pesa. If you’re going to be travelling independently, it’s best to set up your own M-Pesa account (you need a SafariCom physical SIM card).  For shorter trips or guided safaris, you can still work your way around it by using cash, a credit card and Wise money transfer. 

Also, virtually all parks and cultural monuments can only be paid via the Ecitizen portal. You will already set up an account here when you’re applying for the ETA to get into the country. Ecitizen for foreigners either works or it doesn’t – 90% or so have no problems but there are lots of complaints to be found online; it worked for my ETA but I never got it to function for park payments. The whole system (it is meant for Kenyans to apply for public services such as getting a new passport and all kinds of permits) is way too elaborate to just pay an entry ticket. The workaround is to get a Kenyan to secure a ticket, sometimes at the last step you can then finish it yourself by handing over your physical credit card to the cashier.

4. Public transport is easy. 

Kenya is densely populated, which also means that there is a need for frequent public transport. I mostly used matatus, minibuses (pictured below), which are doable as long as you’re not very tall or have a lot of luggage. They no longer take more passengers than they have seats (the police perform frequent checks) and most of them are express ones, which means no stops en route. They’re hard to beat regarding speed and cost. In the cities, it’s easiest to just jump on the back of a motorbike (boda boda).  I was most proud of my 100 KSh (0,70 EUR) transfer (shared taxi) from Kenyatta Airport to the Central Business District in Nairobi, for which the airport taxis normally will ask 20-25 USD. The itinerary that I posted on the Forum shows my route along 7 WHS on public transport. For a comprehensive self-drive one, I recommend the one Zoë posted earlier.

5. Pricing is all over the place

‘Safari’ is the main business of Kenya’s tourism industry, so a Kenya trip can get expensive if you use safari companies to organize it for you (one quoted me 400USD to get to Arubuko Soko Reserve for a day). But the WHS are a whole different cup of tea and most of these sites can be accessed independently. Entrance fees add up to the overall costs due to foreigner pricing, which is routinely applied in Kenya. Especially the National Parks are expensive and they will raise their prices again by the 1st of July. On the other hand, food is inexpensive and the accommodation I found good value for money. Overall, the cost of my 7 WHS fell way below my 650 EUR per WHS limit. I did skip the Lake Turkana WHS, though, for cost reasons and because I think that region deserves more time than a quick one-day in and out.

The Community Perspective of our Mount Kenya site page only states: “This site requires an up-to-date review.” – I have hinted at it already several times, wondering how a site that has been ticked by 63 members has only had one, tiny review dating back to 2006. I would guess that 90% of the “visits” here were drive-by ones. Even then, the mountain, with its characteristic rugged, glaciated peaks, isn’t always easy to see, as it is often covered in clouds. This is the best I could get, at 7 in the morning from the pool area of my lodge:

Mount Kenya is known for its several vegetation bands with Afro-alpine flora from the base to the peak. I stayed for 3 nights at the Naro Moru River Lodge, a little oasis outside of the park borders, where you can experience the vegetation and wildlife of the lower regions of the mountain at 1,970m altitude. At night, you may hear the screaming of the tree hyraxes, and during the day, you’ll find many birds typical for the region (the lodge’s bird list includes a significant number of 399 species). The Cinnamon-chested bee-eaters put on a good show, but my favourite was the White-eyed Slaty-Flycatcher with its distinctive white ring around the eyes.

To enter the core zone of the WHS, there are three options: Mount Kenya National Park, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, and Ngare Ndare Forest. The latter two were extensions and also include the Elephant corridor, where African elephants migrate with the season, away from the mountain when it gets too cold, and back when it gets too dry in the lowlands. They even have an elephant tunnel here, to avoid the main road! I decided against visiting the National Park as any hikes there seemed tough (uphill at high altitude). Lewa Conservancy is a formerly private reserve now owned by an NGO, with only exclusive accommodation on its grounds and very high entrance fees (198 USD per day). So that left me with Ngare Ndare forest, which is managed by a community organization that promotes ecotourism.

I went there with a driver/guide from my lodge. When you see the density of population in this area and the many farms (mostly producing flowers and linseed oil), you will immediately understand what a conservation success it has been that the remaining forest of Ngare Ndare is now protected. We picked up an armed ranger at the entrance, as all exploring here is done on foot and there are wild animals about (including the fairly dangerous elephants and black rhinos). The ranger started by telling that he had to fire a warning shot yesterday when he encountered a family of elephants while guiding a group of tourists. The program offered at Ngare Ndare is fixed: there's a 3km forest hike to a natural pool, and afterwards you will be sent to do the Canopy Walkway. You pay per tourist per day, plus a vehicle and a guide fee (all only collected via M-Pesa). I think you have to announce a few days beforehand that you will be visiting, at least their website suggests so and they need to have rangers available of course.

The hike was a bit of a mix of a walking safari and a forest trail. Except for one giraffe, we did not encounter any large animals, but we saw their tracks. They've managed to get the number of black rhinos at the combination of Lewa Conservancy & Ngare Ndare up to over 270 over the years (there were only 74 when the site was inscribed in 2013). Among the trees, the African olive trees and the Red cedars stood out. 

I finished my visit at the Canopy walkway (they call it "the bridge"). It seems to have been made from iron wire, like a fence. And it is long, 450 meters. Due to the time of day, we did not see many birds from the bridge, although I came eye-to-eye with a pretty Hartlaub's turaco. 

The Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests along the East Coast of Kenya comprise former fortified settlements (kayas) in an undisturbed forest setting, which still fulfill a sacred role in the belief of Mijikenda peoples. It's such a messy WHS: it is what you get after an AB overrule where the documents haven’t been adjusted to the final decision. When I started preparing for my June 2025 visit, I found out that we had its site history and name (it starts with “Sacred”) all wrong, a rare occurrence nowadays. Originally, it had 36 locations, now there are 8 according to the map section at the UNESCO website, but that’s an error also. Kaya Kinondo was explicitly excluded in the inscription decision. I have alerted the UNESCO WH Bureau to the mistake, but never got a reply and the error persists.

Instead of Kaya Kinondo, which is an easy-to-access site just outside the popular beach resort of Diani Beach, I had to find another Kaya suitable for a visit. All remaining Kayas lie north of Mombasa, so that city or one of the northern coastal towns, such as Watamu, are the best bases. Kaya Kauma stood out immediately as it welcomes visitors regularly as well. I went there on a private half-day tour from Mombasa with Diani Summer Tours.

Kaya Kauma is managed by the Council of Elders of the Kauma people, one of the nine groups that together are known as the Mijikenda. It lies about a 2-hour drive north of Mombasa. My driver started his introduction with “I have never been there, but I have the plan”. Fortunately, he was a persistent guy, because we had barely left the big city when he was called by his contact, the secretary of the Council of Elders. The secretary stated that although a visit was agreed upon beforehand, it wasn’t such a great day as today was a Muslim holiday ánd there had been a death in the village. The driver replied that he had a tourist with him and was coming anyway. Half an hour later, he got another phone call, with the message that the agreed-upon price wasn’t going to do it – the guy from Kauma now demanded 25,000 KSh (about 175 EUR). A ridiculous amount by Kenyan standards, which neither the tour company nor I wanted to pay, but the driver just kept on driving to our target. Later, he got a more reassuring call from another guy from the village near the Kaya (Jaribuni), who said that we could work things out.

The final 12km to the Kaya is on a horrible road that needs a high clearance vehicle and an experienced driver. There’s no signage anywhere, and I guided my driver using Google Maps navigation. In Jaribuni, the local contact hopped in our car and we drove on to the Forest. In the last km, we finally saw a ‘Kaya Kauma – the Sacred Mijikenda Forests’ road sign. We ended up at the edge of the forest where we could park and the Chairperson of the Kaya Kauma Conservation Committee was waiting for us. After a friendly welcome, the financial negotiations restarted. It turned out that the Kauma take a “Bhutanese” approach to tourism: "high-value, low-impact". My driver, who came from Diani Beach, argued that the Kayas in his region (known for mass tourism) are easy to access and against a low fee. The Kauma wanted 25,000 KSh for a visit to the sacred inner area of the Kaya, or 15,000 KSh for a visit to the forest only. I opted for the latter, and we managed to get the price down eventually to 8,000 KSh. 

We then followed the Kauma official into the forest. Although all Kayas were made by different groups, they share similar characteristics. One of those is a traditional path, the mwara; usually, there are only two such paths leading to the Kaya. That path first led us past the tree nursery, as the Kauma ‘restock’ the natural forest with plants and trees that bear edible fruits. The forest itself is dense but not very tall. Parts of it are ‘fenced off’ by strips of red cloth. We ended up at the entrance to the sacred area (photo 2), and as agreed, we weren’t allowed to enter. People who may enter have to leave their shoes behind and make an offering in the large jar. The entrance has a whole row of strips of red cloth, plus remains of a stockade that in the past was used to keep strangers out. 

Just in front of the entrance is also the (unmarked) burial place for the clan leaders – our guide said that his ancestors were buried there. A side road led us to a clearing in the forest, where the Kaya Kauma Committee now meets. One elderly man lives there permanently. For him and the use of the committee, four formidable straw huts were built in the traditional manner. They have strong doors made of twigs and even ‘windows’. We sat with the man for a while and talked. A visitor's guestbook was produced: for 2025, I was the 6th person to write in the book. I browsed through it but did not recognize any of the names as WH community members. The years 2023 and 2024 didn’t look much busier than 2025, probably some 20 entries a year. So the site is a clear candidate for our ‘1,000 visitors or fewer’ connection. After 1.5 hours, we said goodbye and went on our way back to Mombasa.

All things considered, it was a memorable visit. I’d love to see reviews of other Kayas coming in at this website: how can they be visited and what was the experience?

While preparing for my upcoming Kenya trip, I was studying the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (part of the Coastal Forests of Kenya TWHS). It turns out that they are looking towards a nomination, but estimate that they would need 100k-300k USD to complete it (and subsequently wondered how they would get access to so much money). The nomination dossiers have also been addressed in the WHC 2025 documents that were published this week, where a change of the format is considered for a myriad of reasons, including "to promote possibly shorter and less costly nomination dossiers". 

Maybe it’s time to have a closer look at those Nomination Dossiers (I wrote about Incomplete Dossiers before). 

History of the Nomination Dossier

The nomination dossier, as we now know it as an extensive glossy brochure, came into existence in 1998. After the first years of WHS, an overall need to get a grip on several aspects of the nomination process grew. In 1996, a fixed format for nominations was decided upon. That format is mostly still in use, although more specific questions are now being asked about risk preparedness, indigenous peoples, financial resources, etc.

When we look at a few examples of nomination dossiers from the first year, 1998, Semmering sent in 62 pages, Woudagemaal 31, Troy only 12, East Rennell 48, and the Flemish Beguinages 42. Comparing those with those of the successful nominations of 2024, there has indeed been a significant growth in the size of the documents. The number of pages (excluding annexes, maps, management plans) varied from 103 (the emergency nomination of Tell Um Amer) to 751 (Via Appia) and 759 (Marquesas Islands). The average is 286.  

The current guidelines found here do expect a dossier to include the following, which sets an expectation for a considerable length:

• Description of the property: "should not exceed 16,000 words (about 50 A4 pages) for a single site nomination or 24,000 words (about 75 A4 pages) for a serial site nomination"
• History and Development: "should not exceed 6,400 words (about 20 A4 pages)"

However, the Operational Guidelines state as well that “Nomination dossiers to the World Heritage List are evaluated on content rather than on appearance of the dossier or the quantity of annexes”.

The cost of a Nomination

The aforementioned 100k-300k USD to complete the nomination of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest probably isn’t only meant for direct costs such as writing the dossier and associated costs such as all the meetings, hiring a professional photographer, map maker etc. There are also costs to upgrade the site and its management to meet the requirements to become a WHS. 

A few examples from recent inscriptions seem to confirm that the Kenya estimate isn’t unrealistic. I found the following budget indications (publicized before nomination, so the actual costs may have been higher):

• Eisinga Planetarium in Franeker, a small building that was already well-protected: about 100k EUR (paid 50/50 by city and province).
• Schwerin: 1.2 million EUR (450k from the city, 750k from donations).
• Anticosti Island: $600,000 CAD (= 384k EUR). 
• Grand Pré: estimated at $1.3 million CAD (= 832k EUR)

And for upcoming nominations:

• Via Francigena (serial, within Italy): 1.1 million EUR from the Ministry of Culture.
• The Australian government committed $1.2 million (AUD) (686k EUR) to support the Broken Hill and Victorian Trades Halls, part of a larger transnational nomination of Workers' Assembly Halls.
• For the Okefenokee Swamp in the US, an estimated $500,000 USD was raised from private donations and foundations to prepare the UNESCO nomination document, a process that takes three or more years.

Furthermore, the nomination is sometimes taken as an “excuse” to beautify the site, to make improvements that are not necessary to get an inscription. A great example of the latter is Anticosti, where “the province also invested $7.2 million (CAD) to expand visitor accommodations and the municipality is spending $1 million (CAD) on a hiking and cycling trail. The province's decision to end oil and gas exploration on the island, in part to support the bid, also resulted in compensation payments to oil and gas companies, totaling approximately $62 million (CAD).”

The issue with extensive Nomination Dossiers

Back to the Nomination Dossiers: What are the issues?

1. Current WHS prospects are held up to standards that the older ones have never been and never will be.
2. The high expectations on content and size of the dossiers favor the richer countries. 
3. They take time from everybody who claims to be overburdened anyway. 
4. The longer the text, the more false claims and errors will creep in. 

Maybe it’s best to go back to the basics and only ask for what is really needed: a simple form, a Draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, a clear map; those three items could do the scoping of the potential WHS. Plus some appendices, such as the applicable law that regulates its protection. In the end, the dossiers aren't presenting new scientific results, they’re just reiterating facts that are well-known to the reviewers. And do you write things like Management Plans only for the bid and then leave them in a drawer?

Personally, I only skim the Nomination Dossiers when looking for a specific piece of information. And I remember the one of Qhapaq Nan, which file is so large and the format so unclear that it is hardly usable. Do you ever read a Nomination Dossier? If so, is there one that stood out positively?

We’ve seen quite a lot of new members to our WH Community over the past year, and I have noticed that it can be hard to find your way around the website as a newbie. The main thing to understand is that this is a community-based website that is driven by Community Contribution. There’s no hidden, paid team behind the scenes that creates all the content. Even the technical side is supported purely voluntarily.

You can contribute to any subject where your expertise or interest lies, and any amount of time is fine. Ways in which you can participate include:

1.  Create a User Profile 

To become a registered member, it is as simple as creating a user profile. To be shown in Our Community list of members, you will then need to add the number of World Heritage Sites (WHS) you have visited via Update your count. You can use a nickname, but we don’t allow anonymous contributions.

With this account, you’re also eligible to rate the quality of the WHS and Tentative Sites (TWHS) you have visited, which will be reflected in the ‘quality scores’ these sites have. Also, you will be able to vote in polls like the Top Missing or Most Valuable 200 that we have organized in the past.

With a User Profile, you can also get access to the Forum by creating a separate account via the User Dashboard. 

2.  Write a Review

“Reviews” are the most visible form of community participation on this website. The idea is that you reflect on your visit to a WHS or a TWHS by submitting a short story (300-800 words would be optimal). One of the treasures of this website is seeing the visitor experience to a specific WHS change over the years by reading about visits spanning 20 years or so.

As most sites have been reviewed already many times, try to focus on:

• WHS and TWHS that have not been reviewed yet, or not recently (you can see here which ones are)
• Aspects of WHS and TWHS that have not been highlighted before: a different location, a new way of approach, specific circumstances of the day, updated access information, etc.

Always add a photo (I cannot believe you haven’t got one, it’s 2025) and be as specific as possible. 98% of the reviews will be published, but in times of high supply, the lead time to publication may be up to 3 weeks.

3.  Supply Photos

This website's photo policy aims to show original and “meaningful” photos of the (T)WHS. Ideally, all photos shown have been taken by community members.

You can supply main site photos for WHS and TWHS and banner photos, and, if published, your name will be shown in the photo credits. Look at this list (sort on the last column) where we are still missing photos or where you can replace one from the Public Domain. Or at the Looking for Photos topic at the Forum for specific requests.

If you have any photos (full size so not cropped, preferably landscape - horizontal, and no selfies!), please send them via Contact.

4.  Be a Detective

Fortunately, the updates on the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists by official sources have become more transparent over the years, but a special goal of our community is to be ahead of the game. We want to know as early as possible how the new Belgian Tentative List will look, or which sites are in the running to be nominated to be in the World Heritage List in 2028.

So some people regularly scour the news (in many languages!) for updates and share them in dedicated topics on the Forum, such as the WHC forecasts and Aspiring to be on the T List.

5.  Share WH-related travel details

The place to do it is at the dedicated topic at the Forum of the relevant country. We are especially interested in WHS-focused itineraries and practical experiences. This would also be the place to share a snippet of information about a WHS visit that would not warrant a substantial review. And it is where to seek help, advice, and encouragement from others for your upcoming trip, or just to make sense of the country's (T)WHS.

6.  Make Connections

People who enjoy following the World Heritage List often enjoy lists in general. We’ve had a feature called ‘Connections’ for a long time, where we connect at least 3 WHS around a piece of trivia. The Connection Suggestion topic on the Forum is the place to suggest a new connection: announce it publicly, so other people can verify whether they are valid and suggest additions.

7.  Improve the geographic data

We have learned that the “official” coordinates, as presented by UNESCO and brought forward by the respective countries, aren’t accurate all the time. So on this website, we aim to present the best possible set of geographic data about WHS and TWHS. With community members travelling to (T)WHS all the time, they are in the best position to verify the geographic locations of the sites. Just alerting to an error in an individual location is already worthwhile.

Soon we will introduce more advanced features, such as displaying the full core zones. While in the past, a simple comment with the coordinates was enough, this is no longer the case. Geospatial data needs to be provided in a standard file format (KML or better GeoJson). You can use tools such as Google Earth or QGIS to create these file types.

8.  Find a Plaque

If you’re a true WH nerd, you will spend part of your time at a WHS to find the Plaque. A plaque should be present at every WHS to commemorate its inscription, but they come in many shapes and sizes (or are not there at all). We’ve managed to create a large inventory of these plaques and their locations, and we are always looking for more. It’s best to share a finding on the dedicated Forum topic. A new, original photo of a plaque can be sent to the general contact e-mail address.

9.  Participate in a Project

Over the years, we have had projects like “writing introduction texts to all TWHS” to add large amounts of new content to the website. These projects will be announced on the Forum, and you can bring forward ideas for new projects there as well.

10.  Organize a meet-up

Travelling to World Heritage Sites together is also fun, and we have had several meet-ups in real life already. We are always open to such initiatives, especially those that will give interested community members access to a site that is hard to visit. Think of sites with restricted access (you gotta know someone to get in) or those that require chartering a boat.

11.  Help with the IT side

This website is fully built and run independently, from the operating system upwards. If you have experience with CSS/HTML/JavaScript, Python or Linux hosting and can be a reliable help, please step forward. We are working on the new version of the website and any help is appreciated.

12.  Help with the editorial side

The World Heritage topic is very dynamic. For example, think of all the new Tentative Sites that pop up during the year: for each, an introduction text has to be written. Purely from scratch, as (like with the photos) we value originality, authenticity and accuracy. And then there’s the editing of all the connection intro texts and rationales of site connections. These could be much more complete and consistent than they are now. Or interview a WH traveller? So if you like writing texts in your spare time, you’re welcome to lend a hand.

If you're inspired, just dive in! There are tons of things to do. Soon, we will have a Content Management System in place that will support giving community members greater responsibilities as well.

Khinalig isn’t visited much by our community – it is too remote to feature on a first itinerary of Azerbaijan. A direct drive from Baku takes 4 hours, so it should be in our Remote Cultural WHS connection. I got there via a day tour from Baku by the Azerbaijan Travel Company (booked via the cheaper GetYourGuide). They run daily group tours with an English-speaking guide, which are surprisingly popular. It included some other short stops as well (Candycane Mountain and the Red Village (the town of the Mountain Jews, where the synagogue now has been closed and is guarded by Azeri soldiers because of Gaza tensions)), but when you go on your own I’d recommend doing Khinalig only as it is by far the most interesting part.

The name of the village and its people isn’t pronounced “Khee-nah-leek” as I had always thought, it is something like “Geh-nuh-leg” (the g as in the guttural Arabic/Dutch g). Despite the town of Khinalig being the obvious focus of the WHS, the core zone is much larger as it also includes both their winter and summer pastures, plus the narrow way between them which is over 200km! I tried to follow on the map whether the access road is part of that zone, but it isn’t: it meanders southeastward through an area with only minor roads. We still saw plenty of sheep and cows being moved around though.

Although there is a paved road nowadays all the way to the village, parts had washed away recently so we still had to rely on 4x4’s getting there. Taxi drivers with 4x4 Lada’s have a good business going on in the city of Quba to provide them. The road seemed doable with any car with a strong engine (our minibus probably was too heavy), but it was quite fun actually to be driven around in an old Lada. It’s still a 50km drive from Quba to get to Khinalig. Most is steeply uphill and there was still plenty of snow in early May, sometimes also covering half of the road. It’s a pretty landscape dominated by U-shaped valleys and mountain meadows.

Khinalig village lies at the top of a hill. The road in the town itself is unpaved and very steep, so you might need to park at the foot of the hill and walk up. A few houses have opened up as guesthouses and a boy was following us around selling knitwear. We had lunch in one of the traditional houses where they had all kinds of local memorabilia hanging on the walls. They showed us a “meteorite”, a very heavy, rounded stone. According to our guide it had fallen from the sky in the 19th century and destroyed some houses, but I have found no evidence to corroborate that. These stones however do feature in the nomination file: they “are considered sacred (“coming directly from heaven”), and they are found in every mosque and shrine in Khinalig. The people pick up the rounded stones that they find in nature and bring them with themselves when they come to the shrines”.

The buildings are mostly made out of local river stones, stacked together with some mud and straw. The roofs are all flat and are accessed via a ladder attached to the exterior – they serve as courtyards for the neighbouring houses. A typical house also has a “glassed gallery” – a wooden structure, now often brightly painted (photo 3), that has a covered staircase and serves as a kitchen and storage area. Cow manure is left to dry everywhere in town and is used for heating. 

Before you go and visit, I can recommend reading the nomination file first, as it is very well done (if you ignore some funny misspellings). It explains the cultural landscape of Khinalig better than what you find with your own eyes or from a tour guide. To boost tourism a bit more, I think it would also be beneficial if hikes could be organized to visit some of the shrines, cemeteries, etc. along the migration route.

Nan told me we need more icons alerting to WHS with specific Visiting Conditions. Dodging his request for ‘WHS with biosafety hazards’, I have settled for ‘Do Not Travel: WHS in the Red Zone of travel advisory systems’. Most Western countries apply such a system, supported by a public website, that advises their citizens about travel to foreign countries. These advices include up-to-date visa, customs and health information (usually more reliable than what you’d find in private sources). Still, they are mostly known for their overall advice often given in Red, Orange, Yellow and Green. Red means “Do not Travel”.

Pros and cons of the travel advisory systems

While many experienced travellers take this advice with a pinch of salt, others are more cautious and like to be aware of the specific risks involved in travelling to a certain country. A contributing factor is that most general travel and health insurance companies use the system to determine whether your insurance is valid in the country/region.

Criticisms of these advisories in general include:

1. The application of double standards to "friendly" countries (debris from missiles flying overhead is an issue for Iraq and Iran, but apparently not for Jordan, which lies on the same flyway).
2. Outdated / bearing a grudge for decades (a single incident in 2014 will be in a warning text forever).
3. Not being specific within a country (often whole countries are struck out, while on the ground parts of it are significantly safer than others).

To compile the connection, I have used the travel advisories of Germany and Australia. When both issue a Do Not Travel warning, I have included the WHS. The choice of Germany and Australia may seem arbitrary, but they both have an extensive system in place, are on the strict side (more so than NL or UK for example), and their citizens are less specifically targeted abroad than those of the USA, UK and France so they might offer a more general perspective. I have also had a look at a non-Western advisory, that of India, but it is too limited for our purposes.

The German system does not use colour coding and has no maps. It uses the term “wird gewarnt” instead to indicate the highest level of warnings. But its descriptions of the risks and the areas involved are very specific. For both the Australian and German systems, I think it would be better if they’d explicitly name tourist sights (such as Lalibela) instead of referring only to provinces or geographic features (“North of the Benue river”).

Fully off-limits countries

The following countries, including all of their WHS, have been earmarked “Do not Travel” and are thus fully off-limits:

• Afghanistan
• Belarus
• Central African Republic
• DRC
• Haiti
• Iran
• Libya
• Mali
• Myanmar (photo 1 shows Bagan)
• Niger
• Palestine
• Sudan
• Syria
• Ukraine 
• Yemen

Together, they represent 81 WHS (6.6% of the total).

WHS in affected areas

In addition, the following WHS lie in parts of countries marked as “Do not Travel”:

• Algeria: Tassili N’Ajjer (border area with Libya)
• Benin: W-Arli-Pendjari Complex
• Burkina Faso: all WHS (Germany "allows" you to travel to the big cities)
• Cameroon: Sangha Trinational, as it is in the border region with the C.A.R.
• Chad: all WHS (Germany "allows" you to travel in the south)
• Cote d'Ivoire: Comoé NP
• Ethiopia: Lalibela, Fasil Ghebbi, Bale Mountains, Aksum, Simien NP (less clear in the German advice, but implied)
• Iraq: all but Erbil Citadel (photo 2 shows the Welcome to Samarra)
• Lebanon: Baalbek, Anjar, Tyre
• Nigeria: Sukur (not clear in German but implied)
• Pakistan: Takht-i-Bahi (all in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province)

This brings the total up to 103 WHS (8.4%).

Differences in severity

I found several differences between the Australian and German recommendations. In all cases, Australia was stricter / less precise. This includes:

• Benin: Koutammakou (North Benin starts already at the city of Natitingou, according to Australia)
• Colombia: Los Katios (Australia warns against both sides of the Darien Gap)
• Cote d'Ivoire: Sudanese style mosques (Germany only warns against the Northeast, Australia has the Northwest as well)
• DPRK: Australia bans all of the DPRK, Germany does not
• Iraq: Erbil (Australia advises against travel to Iraq Kurdistan as a whole) 
• Lebanon: Australia warns against all, Germany only far south and east (Tyre, Baalbek, Anjar)
• Mauritania: Australia avoids the Ksour of Chinguetti, Ouadane (photo 3), etc, while Germany draws the line further northeast
• Panama: Darien NP (Australia warns against both sides of the Darien Gap)
• Russia: Australia bans all Russia, Germany does not
• Venezuela: Australia bans all Venezuela; Germany does not

Does your country have a travel advisory system, and do you see significant different conclusions from those above?

My first visit to Iraq was in 2014, when I covered semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. In April 2025, I went to what in tourism is known as ‘Federal Iraq’ (although that would be a more appropriate name for the entire country, including the Kurdish governorate). As it covers the major sites of Ancient Mesopotamia, it is definitely the most interesting part and it holds 5 out of the country's 6 WHS. Herewith are some tips for travelling to Iraq as a WH Traveller.

1.      Don’t expect it to be pretty

Most of it is a typical flat Arab desert landscape, littered with plastic waste. The monuments generally also lack the refinement and colour of those in neighbouring Iran. Unless roadside portraits of Shia clerics particularly enamour you, your best bet for beauty are the statues and sculptures in the National Museum in Baghdad.

2.      The safety situation normalizes rapidly

Many western countries (such as Germany, Australia, USA) still raise a red flag for all travel to Iraq, although the UK, for example, has lowered its warnings for the southern areas, including Baghdad, Babylon, Najaf, and the Marshes. On the ground, it all feels calm and safe and the people are friendly to foreigners, no matter where they are from. Nowhere does it feel oppressive, and you can walk the streets freely. Our local guide said that it had been like this for about 4-5 years, and that it normalizes more and more every quarter. The only reminder of worse times is the high number of checkpoints along the roads between governorates and while entering cities. These do slow you down a bit, but we passed all without incident within a few minutes and they never did look at us individually (just a chat with the driver/local guide and browse through a selection of the passports).

3.      There’s a lot of potential for more WHS

The coverage of the most important periods in Iraqi history is fairly balanced, but 6 WHS isn’t a lot for a country of its size and importance (Iran has 28 WHS!). I think Iraq can easily have 8-10 more. Ordered by historical period, candidates are:

• Prehistory (0): the Shanidar Cave as an important Neanderthal site (one of the largest single-site collections of Neanderthal fossils ever found), not on T List but also a prominent role in the Iraq National Museum.
• Ancient Mesopotamia (3): Sumerian at Ur/Uruk, Assyrian at Ashur, Neo-Babylonian at Babylon. Well-covered, but as it is Iraq’s unique specialty, maybe Nineveh, Nimrud or Nippur could be added as well (though these are in a poor state).
• There’s nothing from the 2 centuries-long rule of the Persian Achaemenids: worth a mention here are the rock-cut tombs of Qizqapan in Kurdistan region. 
• Classical Antiquity (1): the Parthians at Hatra, but there’s none from the Sassanids, this should be covered by Ctesiphon (not on T List). 
• Islamic Conquest (1): Abbasids (Samarra), could/should have Old Baghdad too.
• Turkic and Mongol dynasties (0): the TWHS Old City of Mosul should cover this, as its landmark mosque is from the Turkic Zengic dynasty.
• Ottoman Empire (1): Erbil WHS has an Ottoman street plan. The Baghdad and Mosul sites also have significant Ottoman remains.
• 20th century (0): could be covered by some sites in continuous use, such as the Yezidi Lalish Temple or the Wadi Al-Salam Cemetery in Najaf (both on T List)

4.      Other factors have caused more lasting damage than the 2003-2017 wars

Any damage from the 2003 Invasion and the subsequent Iraqi Civil War on the Iraqi (T)WHS now seems to have been erased or at least patched up as best as they could. Even the impact of the ISIS iconoclasts in the end was fairly limited: only Mosul and Nimrud still show the signs. Still, the state of conservation of all sites leaves a lot to be desired. A particular Iraqi problem is what to do with the unbridled reconstructions of poor quality, which were popular during the Saddam era. ICOMOS seems to suggest that removing them would be best in the end, but that would be a hell of a job. Babylon (photo 3) is covered with them and also at other sites, they are prominently visible. I also found it remarkable how little excavation work has been done at virtually all sites. Site interpretation is generally quite poor too, so better to read up beforehand.

The northern city of Mosul is the odd one out among the Iraqi (T)WHS. On the one hand, it is probably the one most severely damaged during the recent conflicts (though nearby Nimrud has been hit hard as well). On the other hand, it is the only one that has been subject to a full-scale international rescue mission, which has also brought in internationally accepted restoration and conservation standards.

The Old City of Mosul stands for a thus far unrepresented part of Iraqi history: that of the Turkic-Mongol invasions (though a nomination will also include its Ottoman remains). The Turkic Zengid Dynasty ruled the area of northern Iraq and Syria from Mosul from 1127–1222. The city, located along the major trade routes of the time, was known for its metal craftsmanship and miniature painting. The main monument left from this period is/was the Al-Nouri mosque and its leaning minaret. 

Unfortunately, it was exactly this mosque that was blown up by ISIS during their retreat from Mosul. Their black flag had been flying from the minaret since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claimed the Caliphate from here in 2014. After losing the Battle of Mosul in April 2017, they blew it up with explosives in a “final act of angry defiance”. 

The first impression of the Old Town in April 2025 is still one of devastation (photo 1). The area along the West Bank of the Tigris is in total ruins and part of it has already been bulldozed. The narrow alleyways of the Old Town had been used to fight a guerrilla-style war during the Battle of Mosul. This is where the Ottoman-era quarter is – probably more so in layout than authenticity of the buildings, as most looked not that old to me (plenty of concrete). All standing buildings have been cleared of explosives, but there seems to be no fixed plan for what to do with them.

The Al-Nouri mosque lies a few blocks more “inland” in the core of the city and it was its main mosque. The mosque complex is still fenced off like a construction site, but we were allowed to enter after registering our names on a list with site security. The minaret has now been fully restored, in all its former leaning glory, “like a man bowing”. It’s also impressively tall. The local community had been polled on whether to rebuild the minaret as it was, or leave it in ruins to remember what happened; 94% of the population wanted the monument as it was before. They’re still working on the mosque itself – the interior of the building (which wasn’t as “authentic” as the minaret anyway, as it had been rebuilt many times) still needs a lot, though the massive marble columns are of interest. They’ve also stumbled upon older versions of the mosque underneath and will make those findings visible as well. 

Another notable aspect of Mosul has always been the co-existence of different cultural groups. There are several churches in the city center, of different denominations. Like the Al-Nouri mosque, the Notre-Dame de l’Heure convent and the Tahera Church are part of the ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’-project. Kick-started with a donation of 50 million USD by the UAE in 2018 and a further 48 million USD by the EU, UNESCO, Iraq's culture ministry, and ICCROM work together in restoring these monuments. The Dominican Notre-Dame de l’Heure convent looks as good as new (photo 3) and work on the Tahera Church has just been completed as well (we weren’t allowed to enter that one as the priest was afraid we would stain the carpets before the upcoming grand opening). The Dominican convent is quite impressive, with stained glass windows and a rooftop from where you’ll get good city views. Religious activity is only occasional – there are hardly any Christians left in Mosul city, although there are more in villages in the surrounding Nineveh Governorate. The Revival Project also tries to revitalize a small heritage quarter with a museum and some Ottoman mansions. 

Before I read up on it, I hadn’t been aware how big the ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’-project is in a UNESCO context – it is said to be the largest initiative carried by UNESCO since the Abu Simbel move in the 1960s. Funding has reached 115 million USD. So, good news for Mosul, and they may even have it listed as a WHS in a couple of years. But the cynic in me wonders about whether the Shia-dominated parts of Iraq aren’t worthy of foreign investments either. Mosul is a purely Sunni city, which probably explains why the UAE were so quick to throw money at it. The EU has listed anti-terrorism and the coexistence of different religions as two of the main reasons to support the project so generously – it provides lots of local jobs and gives the place its pride back.