I would say that despite our awareness this list is still fairly Eurocentric.
A few points
a. The "excess" proportion of European sites is caused to some extent both by their OVER-representation and by the UNDER-representation of other continents. We can do something about the former but not the latter. We have the "List" we have from which we are reducing - we can't bring in un-inscribed sites from other Continents even where we recognise their unfortunate absence. Nor should we exclude valuable/unique European sites just because to include them would cause arithmetic imbalance across the regions!
b. I don't think we should adopt "positive discrimination" by being "not as critical of sites from other Continents". It is an impossibility of course when making value judgements, but it would be nice to think that we had been entirely even-handed across all continents and cultures. Our lack of knowledge, different "cultural values" and limited practical visiting experience in some parts of the World will all make this difficult.
c. Different cultures have differently shaped "Heritage footprints". WHS is about "Tangible" heritage. I think it is perfectly reasonable that, for historical reasons, which we can all list, Europe is going to have a rather bigger footprint in terms of "structures" for instance than others. In this domain I would expect that, even if we had perfect judgement, then "Europe" would continue to have larger numbers of cultural sites in relation to its area and population than other continents.
d. The mixture of Cultural and Natural values in a single list has always been a problem area - the mere fact that Natural sites have other World wide (and indeed, UNESCO sponsored) lists, whereas Tangible Cultural sites do not, demonstrates that the combination of Natural and Cultural across a single List isn't entirely satisfactory. On the whole, this is an area where Europe is going to be less "strong" since it has a smaller proportion of its area still in a natural state than other Continents and also covers a smaller range of natural regions. But - how do we value a Natural biome v a cultural style and how small do we grind in each - what, in Natural terms is the equivalent level of "High Byzantine" in Cultural ones? I know that Assif wanted to correct another inequality in the List i.e the "under-representation" of Natural sites (which would of course have a geographic "knock-on" effect). My own view is that the WHS List is always going to "specialise" in Cultural matters and that Natural sites have other means of achieving recognition and protection and that we should not try to be as "granular" in representing different types of Nature as we are in representing different types of Culture. I have no answer as to how "granular" we should be in either but to illustrate -for Cultural sites we should perhaps aim at representing "Sub-sub-categories", whereas for Natural ones we should only aim at "Sub-Categories"? If we do this then a number of African, Meso-American etc Natural sites get excluded simply because we are just not aiming to be so "specific" at the "specialist level" for them.
So, in my view, we should accept that European sites are inevitably still going to be proportionally over-represented in our results and should not adopt any form of discrimination against them to prevent this. Our aim should be to reduce the Eurocentricity of the List solely by
a. Removing duplication of similar sites (and sometimes this action will impact non-European sites too - e.g similar forested Natural sites and all those African CLs?)
b. Measuring "value" using the same scale at least across Cultural sites - this means not grinding to the level of "different periods" of a style for the European whilst only going to the level of a single representation across a massive period for the non- European.
c. Trying to filter out our personal preferences and fill our knowledge gaps when choosing sites for this exercise. I have already found that a major interest in making the choices so far has not been the repetition of my pre-existing preferences but the attempt to understand each site via reading at least its AB evaluation!! Similarly regarding the discussions regarding e.g non Christian religious sites