Not really a list to get excited about at first sight. Even another cathedral!
La Chaux-de-Fonds is a site connected to the Swiss art of horlogerie (watch making), that would be a first. Torre de Hercules is a Roman Lighthouse. Shushtar is Iran's answer to China's Dujiangyan Irrigation System.

And Oman got its "Aflaj" irrigation system inscribed 2 years ago - It even uses the word "Qanat" as is used in Iran to describe the underground water tunnels. Though, to be fair the Shushtar site does sound to have rather more than just a few tunnels! Perhaps there will be a "Water System" every couple of years from now on! But we can't yet have a "connection" for irrigation systems until we sort out the Connection/Category overlap issue!

Unlike the other Corbusier sites, Chandigarh missed the 'before 1st of February' deadline! See this news link.

yup, i'm not that enthusiastic with this list too. i stated before that the list of natural nominations was a let down. well, based on this full list, i actually find the natural nominations more interesting than the cultural ones. stand outs for me for cultural nomination are the le corbusier works, la chaux-de-fonds (not the site itself, but the watch-making industry there), torre de hercules (yes, another roman site, but at least this one is still used), and the harappa extension (they always discussed the indus civilization being based in moenjodaro and harappa in history classes, so how come the pakistani authorities only nominated the former in the first place?).

I was wondering how come only two sites from the Americas, three from Africa (including Reunion) and none from Oceania or the Arab countries were nominated this year. And again so many European ones... I was wondering whether the extensive work done on closing up the gaps in the representativity of the world heritage list is baring any fruits at all. What do you think could be done to encourage more nominations from areas strongly underrepresented in the list?

well, a priority system is already in place. like priority should be given to state parties without sites, then to those with few sites on the list, etc. somewhere in the middle of the prioritization system, they also include the "other" nominations that might come from similar sites (i.e. already represented) and/or from countries with high number of sites on the list. the problem is so few of the slots are taken by the under-represented or new state parties that the max-40 slot nomination per year ends up being gobbled up by countries which regularly nominate sites (e.g. italy, france, spain, uk, china, india, for the last one, it seems that it has been fixated to nominating railways for the last few years). further, any signs of representativity in the year's batch seems to be more of an isolated case. just like last year when vanuatu and papua new guinea got on the list and it is already being heralded as a good year because the pacific is represented. but look at now, no site from the pacific. there was also a year (when the appravasi ghat was inscribed) when the number of african sites is equal to the number of european sites inscribed on the list and some aftrican media have shown signs of pride. but other than that year, european sites tend to outnumber--even dominate--nominations from other regions.

In fact the list provided by m_m above on Aug 1 is only 29 new sites (plus 6 extensions) so there are actually "spare slots". I don't know if more may emerge at the WHC.

Given that UNESCO defines the "Pacific" as just being the "smaller" Islands plus Oz, NZ and PNG it is hardly surprising that there aren't large numbers coming forward. Oz hasn't exactly done badly over the years. NZ might be somewhat under-represented (why is it taking so long to bring forward the Maori Pas? It did seem to miss a trick when the WHC was held there). And some of these islands are not independent - e.g Hawaii does appear to have one of the next 2 US proposals now that US has decided to re-engage. But regarding most of the islands - just how many coral reefs can the List take? We know from our "Top 50 missing" list that there are some cultural sites eg Nan Madol and Yapese Currency but it isn't clear why these are taking so long to prepare - it will come down to governmental priorities and competence I guess. We have recently been discussing the issue of "Customary" ownership as a difficulty. I have had a particular interest and some personal insights into the largest of the "non developed" Pacific countries - PNG and can understand the problems they face even with IUCN/ICOMOS help in bringing forward proposals which stand a chance - yet it has many potential natural and cultural sites. Another of the larger Pacific islands countries The Solomons is in semi chaos governmentally.

Regarding "The Americas" (Excluding US/Canada). There are in fact 2 extra countries covered in the multi-national serial lists - Mexico and Argentina. I look at a number of unlisted countries - Guyana, Jamaica, Barbados - they each have something which could be brought forward if not "Top 50 missing" material. But the occasional Google alerts on WHS matters I get from their local newspapers just seem to be a liturgy of problems and procrastinations. Lack of finance, skills and priority must be a major factor. Similarly with e.g Columbia - when you have been fighting a virtual civil war for decades and some of your best potential sites e.g Cuidad Perdida have been "no go" areas the lack of proposals is perhaps understandable. Mexico has a T list as long as your arm and can keep the WHC going as long as the WHC allows but the lack of proposals from e.g Guatemala since 1981 is surprising. One would have expected that the governments of much of Latin America ought to be technically capable of bringing sites through to inscription and had both worthwhile sites and the incentive in terms of tourism potential from N America to do so. But look at the relatively low number of reviews of existing sites on this Web site!

And so to Africa. I have been to one of this year's proposals - Ribeira Grande on Cape Verde ( http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t1902.html ) and know that this proposal is the result of a good many years work and support from Spain - including a major restoration job on the Fortress. I hope that ICOMOS grants it a fair wind! A difficulty facing ICOMOS/IUCN and the WHC is whether/how much to compromise standards and "let in" sites which, if they were European would be found wanting in terms of management regimes etc. It may seem patronising but perhaps has to be done if states are to maintain interest. Indeed there are examples where the WHC has taken a "longer view" than its evaluating body - There are some African e.gs but I can't immediately think of one. However, there is Chief Roi Mata's Domain in Vanuatu which we have discussed recently where the WHC overruled ICOMOS's negative recommendation. The largest reason for lack of African proposals lies in the fact that there are large swathes of the continent which are wracked by civil war, pestilence etc. I received an alert recently about Sierra Leone which seems to be awaking to the possibility of a nomination ( http://awoko.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=5098&cntnt01re turnid=15 ). But this could take 8 years or more to come to fruition. Incompetence and corruption will account for many more delays. Nigeria, as a country, "functions" (if that is the word) almost despite itself - it could have some great sites but the commitment from dedicated people (and I am sure there are many) required to bring such sites to successful nomination is just so difficult to mobilise over the long term required - a place like Kano is consumed by religious and ethnic conflict with the Central government which would have to bring forward any proposal - don't look for any progress there! In Eritrea Asmara has a fantastic gem in its Art Deco heritage ( http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t2024.html ) but its government is xenophobic and possibly more interested in playing regional politics as part of its dispute with Ethiopia than assigning resources and effort to bringing forward a proposal. Given the size and success of the Eritrean diaspora (mainly in the US and Canada) I am surprised that "national pride" hasn't led to moneys and effort being pledged. But perhaps the idea of celebrating "Eritrea" by nominating "Mussolini's city" isn't exactly inspiring! And of course such countries don't really want tourists whatever they might state publicly (as I know to my cost in trying to gain permission to go almost anywhere outside Asmara!) - so that incentive, which is so important elsewhere in stimulating nominations doesn't play well either. Similar stories could be told about many other African countries

Finally a quick review of Asia - Well China will put forward as many sites as it is allowed, India will put forward as many as its dysfunctional (particularly at "State" level as this seems to have the main role in bringing sites forward?) government can bring forward (just look at the long-runing Majuli fiasco!) and Iran is finally getting its act together on the basis of "National Pride" so we can expect a steady stream emanating from there (it has a large T List!). If we look at some of the others- Well Myanmar can't/won't even organise cyclone relief for its peoples so, although it has several "Top 50 missing" sites, little seems likely to happen from there. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states (eg Bahrain) are likely to put forward a number of sites in the coming years and are beginning to "motor". But I wonder if Oman's Oryx delisting will have some of them worried also? But there also a number of asian countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Tajikistan which have other things to worry about! N Korea seemed to try again last year with Kaesong but, for some reason we don't know got slapped down - if it does anything it will ONLY be for its own arcane political reasons. Similarly Indonesia must have been very disappointed not to get Bali - why on earth not?? It must be dispiriting to a country which has lots of excellent potential sites to offer. Bhutan possibly doesn't care too much - it doesn't have the desire to attract too many tourists and will preserve its national treasures with or without WHC listing so that just leaves "National Pride" as a possible driver. Bangladesh is another "dysfunctional" country as is Pakistan - so not much is likely to emerge from either of them despite good potential.

A successful inscription requires a "match" between
a "Demand" in the form of a country wanting inscriptions for purposes such as tourist revenue generation, national pride and genuine concern for conservation
b. "Supply" in the form of suitable "Universal Value" sites and governmental capability to bring forward well-founded proposals backed by all the paraphernalia of management plans, buffer zones etc

A lot of countries in this World don't/can't/won't achieve both of these - hence we always seem to come back to the same old countries making proposals!

the 2009 list of nominations still doesn't include those that have been referred to in previous years. like last year's list, in which the mijikenda forests was not on the list of nominations, but made it to the list officially because it had a "referred" status from the previous session. as far as i can remember, some of the referred sites that might be considered are the leon cathedral and sulaiman-too sacred mountain.

note also that even though unesco is touting a broader definition of outstanding universal value to include intangible heritage (and hence, to be more considerate of african culture) as well as the inclusion of other under-represented themes, its other requirements are still too eurocentric. it prefers a management plan and formal legislation in place. but this is coming from a european point of view wherein the protection of landmarks has been in place for decades, even centuries. hence, when state parties would like to nominate the site, they're simply pushing some buttons in the documentation and collation of data.

as for pacific, african and other countries, there are a lot of internal problems to deal with like civil strife, red tape, corruption and revolving door politics. hence, any formal legislation to protect sites and management plans are lacking. thus, nominations take years, even decades to just complete (e.g. good example is zanzibar's initial nomination and eventual inscription). further, to go back to what i stated before, the definition of management plan and legislation for these countries may differ, such as in the form of tribal ownership of the land, as well as protection not thru a set of law, but thru a set of unwritten ones akin more to the western classification of beliefs and superstitions passed down from one generation to the next. it might just be a set of advices from an elder generation to a younger one from a western point of view, but these are sacred vows for the natives. so in a way, there is a set of "legislation" in place, but not in the eurocentric, and whc definition.

note also that lately, nominations that have been deferred/referred by advisory bodies have actually made it to the list when the whc overturned the decisions, like aapravasi ghat, chief roi mata's domain, etc. they probably recognize the fact that being a newbie, there should be greater consideration in the nomination process. hence, any lacking requirements are just submitted in the succeeding sessions for evaluation, instead of the actual need to complete all documents by the time of the nomination.

Does anyone have a list / overview of the nominations that were referred?

If my administration is correct, the ones deferred or referred in 2008 were:

The Putorana plateau (Russia)
Historical Relics in Kaesong (DPR Korea)
Cultural Landscape of Bali Province
Historic Monuments and Sites of Hiraizumi
The Spa at Luhacovice
Les Couvents Franciscains du Nord-Est Brésilien
River island of Majuli
Cathedral and main street (royal) of Leon
Suleyman-Too (Kyrgyzstan)
Triple-arch Gate at Dan & Sources of the Jordan

Of the above I can't see Majuli being progressed this year - I recently received this alert in which the BJP party is promising "to do the necessary" to solve the island's erosion problems and thus get Majuli inscribed IF it is elected (It all sounds a "long term job" unless ICOMOS/the WHC relents)!!
http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/533178/National/1/25/1

I had forgotten of course that the reasons for Bali and Kaesong not getting inscribed were eventually published with the 2008 meeting minutes (which still rather strangely sit within "News + Events" on the UNESCO Web site rather than in "Statutory Documents" with all the other WHC minutes. Perhaps that is because the minutes are not "official" until they have been accepted by this year's WHC?). Yes, each of these would appear to have a chance of being brought forward again this year (I hope so as I have been to both and it would help my stalled "count"!!).

Presumably also deferrals/referrals from earlier years than 2008 can be brought forward as "priority" this year (does this "right" ever run out?)? Els, does your excellent "administration" keep a record of "open" (i.e they haven't been followed up by an inscription or rejection and are still on the country's T List)) deferrals and referrals from earlier years (or at least for the last few) to give us a quick picture of which sites might still be "in the frame"? A sort of running "Pending list".

Something like this?
Gives all deferrals and referrals since 2000, for sites that are still on the T List.

Yes great!! It is interesting how many have "hung around" for quite some years - I wonder if they will ever see the light of day again?
Now you have the "logic" set up you might as well go back a few more years as well (I presume you are taking the data from the dB we put together of WHC events? Though probably not as e.g Charlestown and a few others don't have a record of the deferral on their T list pages)!!!
PS Can you show D or R for deferral/referral??

Yes, I can of course. Due to some strange construction I used identifying T-sites, one or two sites show up where they shouldn't. I'm working on that.
Likewise, The Putorana plateau isn't shown but should be.

Many thanks for this, Els!
On the topic of Heidelberg, I remember having read some time ago (more than 1 year, I think) that Germany will probably not be working on that nomination again anytime soon. In Germany's federal system, they somehow decided to allocate Nomination attempts among the various states. Some of the states complained that it was their turn now to try their luck instead of Baden-Württemberg trying (and maybe failing) for a third time with Heidelberg. You can see that the sites on the Tentative List are pretty much split among the various federal states.... seems like now it's Bavaria's turn to have a go at it with Schwetzingen.