But no evidence that France has yet officially asked for this "Minor boundary Modification"?
It wasn't in last year's decisions and I have looked through this year's papers for any such modification proposals. See this document for the list (page 7) - only Arles from France
Amazingly it was as long ago as Nov 2008 that we managed to establish what the official boundaries of the Paris WHS were and at that time had to REMOVE the Statue of Liberty on the Ile des Cygnes from the replica connection ! See - https://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=search&loc=1&forum=5&topic=202&page=956

Ok thank you for this clarification.

Recommended for Inscription (24)

Africa (1)
Ancient ferrous metallurgy sites (Burkina Faso)

Arab States (2)
Dilmun Burial Mounds (Bahrain)
Babylon (Iraq)

Asia & Pacific (8)
Budj Bim Cultural Landscape (Australia)
Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City (China)
Ombilin Coal Mining Heritage of Sawahlunto (Indonesia)
Hyrcanian Forests (Iran)
Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan (Japan)
Megalithic Jar Sites in Xiengkhuang – Plain of Jars (Laos)
Bagan (Myanmar)
Seowon, Korean Neo-Confucian Academies (Republic of Korea)

Europe (10)
Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region [extension] (Albania)
Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia)
Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region (Czechia, Germany)
French Austral Lands and Seas (France)
Water Management System of Augsburg (Germany)
Vatnajökull National Park - dynamic nature of fire and ice (Iceland)
The Hills of Prosecco di Conegliano in Valdobbiadene (Italy)
Monuments of Ancient Pskov (Russia)
Risco Caido and the Sacred Mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape (Spain)
Jodrell Bank Observatory (United Kingdom)

Latin America & Caribbean (1)
Paraty – Culture and Biodiversity (Brazil)

North America (2)
Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai'pi (Canada)
The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (United States of America)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Referred: Awaiting WHC Debate (4)
Landscape for Breeding and Training of Ceremonial Carriage Horses at Kladruby nad Labem (Czechia)
Krzemionki prehistoric striped flint mining region (Poland)
Royal Building of Mafra – Palace, Basilica, Convent, Cerco Garden and Hunting Park (Tapada) (Portugal)
Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Monte in Braga (Portugal)

Deferred: Awaiting WHC Debate (6)
Großglockner High Alpine Road (Austria)
Migratory Bird Sanctuaries along the Coast of Yellow Sea Bohai Gulf of China (Phase I) (China)
Jaipur City, Rajasthan (India)
Sunken City of Port Royal – A Relict and Continuing Cultural Landscape (Jamaica)
Colonial Transisthmian Route of Panamá (Panama)
Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand)

The 43rd WHC has begun! All Not Inscribe nominations have been withdrawn at this point. The nominations will be heard tentatively on July 5th, but like previous years it is possible they get to nominations slightly earlier or later. 2019 is probably the best batch of nominations in years and certainly better than 2018 and 2020 for iconic sites. I just finished visiting 2 additional components of the Frank Lloyd Wright nomination, making it 7 of 8 of the serial properties, only missing out on Fallingwater. I also mention the FLW nomination because it is perhaps surprising to consider that this inscription gives NYC proper, Chicago, and Los Angeles their first world heritage sites. The Statue of Liberty is debatable, but technically Liberty Island is part of Manhattan. With Babylon, Plain of Jars, and Bagan inscribed I hope this is a catalyst for our Top Missing discussions.

There have been plenty of interesting articles recently about specific candidates and the world heritage program in general. Here are two such articles that grabbed my attention.

UNESCO Will Analyze the Candidacy of the Palace of Mafra to World Heritage

ASEAN Wants More World Heritage Sites

If the sites recommended for inscription get approved, the new number of UNESCO WHS for the following countries will be:

Italy - 54 + 1 = 55
China - 53 + 1 = 54
Spain - 47 + 1 = 48
Germany - 44 + 3 = 47
France - 44 +1 = 45
UK - 31 + 1 = 32
Russia - 28 + 1 = 29
Iran - 23 + 1 = 24
USA - 23 + 1 = 24
Japan - 22 + 1 = 23
Brazil - 21 + 1 = 22
Australia - 19 + 1 = 20
Canada - 19 + 1 = 20
Korea - 13 + 1 = 14
Czechia - 12 + 1 = 13
Austria - 10 + 1 = 11
Hungary - 8 + 1 = 9
Indonesia - 8 + 1 = 9
Slovakia - 7 + 1 = 8
Iraq - 5 + 1 = 6
Albania - 3 +1 = 4
Burkina Faso - 2 +1 = 3
Bahrain - 2 + 1 = 3
Iceland - 2 + 1 = 3
Laos - 2 + 1 = 3
Myanmar - 1 + 1 = 2

Germany is a big winner here.

I missed the Alp Maritimes withdrawal. Is there a reference link?

Thanks.
Reading the link seems to take one into a parallel universe where "No" never means "No". The trouble is that this has so often been the case!!!
We are told that the withdrawal "will have made sense only if the Minister now undertakes to put his hand to the dossier with all the necessary partners, to improve it and resubmit the candidacy in 2020"
"Improve it"??? As I read the AB evaluation IUCN said there was no OUV there - how can "improving it" overcome this???
And of course it would have to be re-submitted and re-evaluated from scratch. So the earliest would be a re-submission by Feb 2020 for the 2021 WHC.
We have here another example of everyone agreeing that a formal rejection would be the end of matters. But what if certain areas of the Maritime Alps are submitted under natural criteria and OUV x/y/z with title "AAAAAAA". It gets rejected - so a slightly different set of locations gets nominated with title "BBBBB" and slight differences in proposed criteria/OUV etc etc. Is this a resubmission of an already rejected nomination (which is not allowed) or a new submission which would have to be allowed? It has already been suggested above that another way of proposing the area for WHS would be to include its archaeological remains (as a mixed site?) at "Vallee des Merveilles".

Even the historic center of Sheki with the Khan's Palace?

Regarding the Alp Maritimes withdrawal, Italy wanted to launch a vigorous campaign to persuade the WHC to change the evaluation. However, France and Monaco agreed on withdrawal, therefore the nomination has been delayed until at least 2021. This information is widely available in several articles recently published online. Not surprised about Italy in the slightest as we've seen previously, they do not accept "Not Inscribe" lightly.

I apologize, I forgot about Azerbaijan's nomination. It may very well still be in the running.

Re Sheki Palace - "Tradition" requires some sort of "prize" to the host country!! Recently we had Tarnowskie upgraded at the Krakow WHC. But to convert a "Do not inscribe" to "Inscribe" seems a very big step!

I have re-read the ICOMOS evaluation to look for "weaknesses" in their argument which the WHC could lock onto in order to keep the Sheki palace in the running.

One problem which ICOMOS recognise is why they should have recommended a "Referral" in 2016 "in order to further advance conservation and preservation mechanisms with a view for their better implementation;" and for "the State Party to prepare the Action Plan for conservation and preservation of the nominated property in close consultation with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS" and then apparently find all sorts of problems with authenticity, lack of OUV etc etc.

ICOMOS claims that they asked Azerbaijan to provide "additional information with regard to the basis of Outstanding Universal Value, the approach towards the Comparative Analysis, the administrative arrangements for the management of the site and future prospects of development control." but that, whilst Azerbaijan provided extra info on management etc, it did NOT address issues regarding Comparative Analysis and OUV.

Foreseeing that Azerbaijan might claim that it didn't need to revisit these aspects given that the 2016 WHC only recommended a referral on management issues ICOMOS states that "in compliance with the Convention and the Operational Guidelines, Outstanding Universal Value is recognised at the time of inscription of a property on the World Heritage List and that no recognition of Outstanding Universal Value is foreseen prior to this stage". i.e It had every right to revisit the OUV etc issues as the 2016 WHC hadn't actually formally "recognised" OUV simply by having agreed to a referral!!

ICOMOS does however recognise that the exact "meaning" of a "referral" (I.e what can the SP regard as having been "settled" when a site is referred) is not perhaps clear enough - "ICOMOS considers that this referred back nomination demonstrates the need to further review and clarify the referral back procedure and its application as decided by the World Heritage Committee at its last session."

Enough for Azerbaijan to claim that it has been badly treated by ICOMOS "going back" and raising "closed" issues??? We will see!

Still, I dislike this type of "success" stories. I also read this year´s addendum by ICOMOS and it is consistent with the previous evaluation: the site does not have OUV, and has serious integrity and authenticity issues. It was consequently impossible for ICOMOS to provide a different assessment without a site re-focus or re-nomination and a due evaluation process. And still, the changes in site management that Azerbaijan implemented for the site's referral were also deemed insufficient.

Further to Els's figures in her Blog regarding inscriptions going to the Top 10 countries by number of WHS at this year's WHC.
That the system operates on the basis of "To those that already have shall yet more be given" is even more starkly demonstrated I believe by the following.
29 New WHS were inscribed – 1 of which was trans-national across 2 countries (Erzgebirge). In addition, there was 1 extension to another country (Lake Ohrid for Albania). So there were 31 additional "country count" inscriptions. Of these -
9 of the top 10 countries gained 11 (Chin, It, Sp, Ger, Fr, Ind, Mex, UK, Rus, Iran)
16 of the top 20 countries gained 19 (+ US, Jap, Braz, Oz, Can, Gr, Tur, Port, Pol, Swed)
18 of the top 25 countries gained 22 ( + Bel, Kor, Cz, Peru, Switz)
i.e Of the existing top 25 countries by number of WHS, only 7 didn't get another this year!!! (Mex, Gr, Turk, Swed, Bel - but tried with Hoge Kempen, Peru, Switz) and there were only 9 inscriptions (31, minus 22) going to a country not in the existing Top 25 in number.

There are 167 countries with at least 1 WHS (plus "unowned" Jerusalem). The number of signatories to the Convention is 193 - so 26 have no WHS at all. There are some further "states" which haven't signed the Convention but we get into definitional issues there so, if we say that there are 193 countries which COULD potentially have had an inscription then, removing the Top 25, leaves 168 other countries. with relatively few WHS (between zero and 11 - Argentina is at 26th, followed by Austria at 27th - and it tried with Grossglockner!)

ONLY 9 of these 168 countries gained an inscription this year, with each claiming 1 of the 9 remaining inscriptions not gobbled up by the "top 25". (Myan - now has 2, Lao - 3, Ice -3, B Fas - 3, Bah - 3, Az -3, Alb – 4, Iraq - 5, Indon - 9)

Only a day after closure of the nomination part of the WHC session, almost all new WHS have been 'claimed' by visitors. This year's batch seems to be quite accessible, with the exception of the French Austral Lands (far and expensive and limited) and the Chinese Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (rumour goes that its core zones are closed).

Here's the full list of now:

# World Heritage Site Visited By
743 Jaipur City, Rajasthan 51
790 Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings 42
856 Bagan 32
920 Vatnajökull National Park 23
933 Water Management System of Augsburg 21
960 Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Monte in Braga 18
975 Mining Cultural Landscape Erzgebirge 16
984 Mafra Palace, Convent and Royal Hunting Park 15
987 Paraty Culture and Biodiversity 15
993 Dilmun Burial Mounds 14
1010 Plain of Jars 12
1019 Seowon, Neo-Confucian Academies 11
1023 Kladruby nad Labem 10
1027 Krzemionki prehistoric striped flint mining region 9
1031 Jodrell Bank Observatory 8
1032 Mozu-Furuichi Kofungun 8
1034 Sheki 8
1035 The Prosecco Hills 8
1051 Hyrcanian Forests 6
1060 Churches of the Pskov School of Architecture 5
1064 Liangzhu Archaeological Site 5
1076 Risco Caido 4
1081 Budj Bim Cultural Landscape 3
1089 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai'pi 3
1091 Ancient ferrous metallurgy sites 2
1092 Babylon 2
1107 Ombilin Coal Mining Heritage of Sawahlunto 1
1112 French Austral Lands and Seas 0
1116 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries 0

In case you're interested, you can download the complete dossier for the Frank Lloyd Wright sites HERE. No charge. You can order the printed version for 35 bucks.

The Nomination files and maps of the newly inscribed sites are now available on the UNESCO Website:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/newproperties/