it can be of some interest to analyze why a nomination is deleted.
Yes - there are potentially interesting stories about some of these!Railway Bridge over Yenissey River
This was actually nominated in 2003 and ICOMOS concluded that "the proposed property of the First Railway Bridge over the Yenissei River appears to meet the requirements of outstanding universal value on the basis of criteria ii and iv."
The ICOMOS evaluation notes - "The property was presented as an emergency inscription. Nevertheless, no physical concerns are indicated in the nomination documents. It is understood however that the Ministry of Railways had been considering that possibility of demolishing the bridge as it did not meet the present traffic requirements any longer. Since 1999, the bridge has come under a new administration and it has been listed for protection at the local level. Notwithstanding the requests, the State Party has not provided specific reasons to continue with the emergency inscription."
By 2007 the bridge had indeed indeed demolished!!! So a non-existant site remained on the T List for around 7 years!!!! See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_Bridge
What would have happened if ICOMOS had been less pedantic on this, had investigated the concerns in more detail and recommended inscription? It is difficult to imagine that the bridge would still have been demolished?? Mind you it never actually paid the site a visit so perhpas it conclusion that it "appeared" to have OUV was a bit too easily reached knowing that it wouldn't actually be tested!The Ancient Plovdiv
Bulgaria had tried with this site as recently as 2006 and withdrew it for reasons never made clear but presumably a negative evaluation - but the site's "nomination history" goes back way beyond this and the site had been withdrawn by Bulgaria in 1983. ICOMOS had then concluded that "it was difficult at this stage to include urban sites on the list for their vernacular architecture and that the problems concerning the types of towns characteristic of the different regions of the World would first have to be clarified."
. I carried out quite a long evaluation of the site's nomination history back in May 2009 here - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=274&pa ge=0#msg1295
It brings out a number of matters I believe including the vary active nature of Bulgaria's involvement in the early years of the scheme (it had 9 sites by 1985 but has not achieved an inscription since then). San Luis Potosi etc
I visited this site in 2008 and again carried out an investigation into it when writing the review. This identified that in fact no mining had taken place in the town despite Mexico's describing the city's "historical urban-mining set". There was also a major controversy about the continuing mining which was taking place in the mountains around the city. If anyone is interested my review is here - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t5163.htmlLa Constancia Mexicana
We visited this site too in 2008 - but found so little of interest that I never even bothered to complete a review! It had clearly been a major 19th century industrial textile complex but was in serious need of preservation. Apparently it had finally closed as recently as 1991. Its most noteworthy building was a church wthin its entrance square -then being used as an art gallery. Other than this, the site was closed but a security guard offered to take us round - many of the buildings remained but there was relatively little of the machinery left. Beyond the site were areas of worker's housing in typical Mexican 1 story style. No doubt, with the sort of investment put into e.g New Lanark, something could be made of it but would being Mexico's first textile factory be enough - at the time I thought not!! Nevertheless the buildings could provide a fine base for some sort of future use. I have today done some Googling and have discovered that, as recently as Feb 2012 the building had reopened after a major investment in refurbishment. At least one of its uses is to be "la Sede Nacional de las Orquestas Sinfónicas Esperanza Azteca" See - http://www.pueblaonline.com.mx/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=22697:la-constanc ia-mexicana-reabre-sus-puertas&Itemid=126.
("Azteca" is Mexico's second biggest TV comany and appears to be operating an educational foundation). This Youtube video shows the glittering opening and gives a good impression of the reconsturction (skip the speeches!! Part 3 has a concert from the youth orchestra. ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnCqup9sRZU
There is also talk of turning it into a Textile Museum - http://heraldodepuebla.com.mx/2013-02-19/educaci%C3%B3n/la-constancia-mexicana-podr%C 3%ADa-ser-un-museo-textil
If anyone is interested there are many other "hits" to be obtained on "La Constanca Mexicana Puebla" which provide access to a history of the site, the issues concerned with clearing the contamination of the site and further debates about what should happen to it. This (in Spanish) is the best I could find on the history and architecture of the building - http://www.boletin-cnmh.inah.gob.mx/boletin/boletines/3EV20P98.pdf
. It would certainly appear that the authorities in Puebla are deteremined to progress with finding uses for, and developing, the site - whether Mexico as a country would ever be likely to bring it back into contention for WH status once its restoration is complete and its future uses decided is another matter.Parc National du W du Niger (Burkina Faso)
The "interest" here relates to its relationship to the inscription in 1996 of the parts of this trans-boundary Park which are in the country of Niger. This was highly contentious. IUCN saw no OUV at all (and had many reservations regarding management as well) but supported its earlier designation as a World Biosphere Reserve. However, a rearguard action by mainly developing countries assisted by France (presumably in support of La Francophonie"!) beat off opposition by Australia, Canada, Germany and USA (with China/Japan/Malta abstaining) and overturned the IUCN recommendation in a close 2/3rds majority vote. It was noticeable that Niger voted in favour of its own site and Benin was also in favour. Now Benin also has a section of the W Parl on its T List!! At the moment it is still present. Presumably Burkina Faso didn't foresee the same set of circumstances existing to support an extension from itself!! however, it will be interesting to see if its "throwing in of the towel" results in Benin doing the same. And finally, whether 1 or 2 of the 3 owners of this National Park drop out, still seems to call into question the ability of the Niger portion of the site to maintain the required levels of management for a WHS.