Obviously there is an initiative to extend the WHS Primeval Beech Forests. A recent meeting of representatives of ten countries, organized by the German Ministry of Environment, identified 45 potential sites in 22 countries. They plan the submission to the T-list by February 1, 2015. Austria will be the leading state party.
This Italian article lists 8 sites in Italy, the "Zoniënwoud" in Belgium (see forum Belgian WHS) is probably also part of the nomination, and an Austrian article earlier this year mentioned the "Nationalpark Kalkalpen" and the "Wildnisgebiet Dürrenstein" as potential candidates from Austria.

http://www.geapress.org/altre-news/le-foreste-di-faggio-candidate-a-patrimonio-mondia le-unesco/57020

WHAT? This has to be a mistake. Might as well protect every patch of forest on the European continent! Currently, the Primeval Beech Forests are only inscribed on a single criteria.

It only mentions by name these countries (22 seems extreme)
Austria, Spain, Romania, Croatia, Albania, Ukraine, Belgium, Bulgaria, Kosovo and Slovenia.

2004 RECOMMENDATION

"IUCN recommends the World Heritage Committee not to inscribe the Primeval Forests of Slovakia on the World Heritage List under natural criteria. Some elements of the Primeval Forests of Slovakia are of importance for conservation at the European level."

2007 RECOMMENDATION & Suggestion for Extension

Reject criteria VII & X, inscribes under criteria IX. Commends transnational approach.

"IUCN understands there are discussions ongoing concerning possible future extensions of the nominated property in other areas in Central Europe. In this context,
a number of reviewers suggested that the property could eventually be renamed (e.g. Primeval Beech Forests of Central Europe) to allow other States Parties to nominate
sites of potential outstanding universal value as extensions to the series."

Over the recent years, IUCN and WHC have obviously increased their willingness to extend this site. From the 2011 decision document:
"Commends the States Parties of Ukraine, Slovakia and Germany for their on-going commitment to ensure a comprehensive approach to conserving the primeval and ancient beech forests of Europe and for their exploration of the potential for the World Heritage Convention to further these efforts by cooperating with the support of IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, with other interested States Parties towards a finite serial transnational nomination in order to assure the protection of this unique forest ecosystem."

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4284

Have just had a look at the Beech forest extension nomination.
It includes a map of the distribution of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica) across Europe (page 28). It also states ""The European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) represents the main climax tree species in Central Europe and an important forest constituent in an area extending from the north of Spain and the south of England and Sweden to the east of Poland, the Carpathian Arc and down to the south of the Balkan Peninsula and the Apennine Peninsula, i. e. in the biogeographical provinces Atlantic (2.9.05), Central European Highlands (2.32.12), Pannonian (2.12.5) and Balkan Highlands (2.33.12). The representation of ecological processes characteristic of Europe's beech natural forests in the proposed serial nomination is therefore of global value and significance"
I make that a few more than 22 countries even excluding "minnow" states!
How many of them have signficant "primeval" examples (as opposed to "secondary growth") might be another matter.

One does wonder what potentially is being "gained" by extending this inscription across yet more countries.
a. The ecological zone is already represented and its importance thereby recognised- it isn't (is it??) suggested that every example of important cultural artifacts (Gothic Cathedrals for instance) be inscribed just because they are "important". Surely the "Representative concept" should apply to Natural sites also
b. If the objective is to assist preservation there are plenty of other "lists" which can help in that respect
Never mind - here is a list of Lowland Beech Forests in England - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Lowlands_beech_forests Next stop Epping forest and the Chilterns!!

I have a beech tree in my garden too :)

I also question the value of such an extension, but the initiative seems to be supported by the IUCN and the WHC. See below the announcement of a meeting in May this year. It states that in 2011 "the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has linked the listing of the German sites to a call for a European process to ensure the conservation of the most valuable beech forests in Europe in one joint world heritage property in the future."

http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/service/events/details/event/european-unesco-world-natural -heritage-extension-process/

I found a PowerPoint presentation that provides the time frame and a map with proposed zones

http://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/Attachments/EuropeanBeechForestsneu.ppt

I love the "?" against UK on page 13 of this presentation under the subject of which countries might participate for the "2015 Vison"
9 identified - Gr, A(lbania), Bul, Ro, Slo(venia), Au, I, S(pain), F,
7 in doubt -UK, Poland, Sweden, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia.

Leaving aside the other "doubtful" countries, such a map with a big "?" against UK could be used to introduce many a subject
a. Future EU membership - or at least "enthusiasm" for the concept
b. "Real" interest in pursuing further WHS

A few other examples of UK and "lukewarm" involvement in the pursuit of ever more trans-boundary WHS nominations -
a. I had a few discussions with the guy from UK interacting with Germany on possible extensions to the Vizcaya transporter bridge. UK government is NOT interested -despite the fact that we have 3 such bridges!
b. There was talk of the Chelsea Physic Garden joining the group of countries (led by Sweden) pursuing "The Rise of Systematic Bioogy". See http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/kronoberg/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/samhallsplanering-oc h-kulturmiljo/kulturreservat/varldsarv/folder_linnes_varldsarv_engelska.pdf .I have NO evidence that the UK has joined the other 7 on this
c. There was talk of UK joining the Viking Site initiative with e.g Tynwald in Isle of Man. To my best knowledge nothing happened - http://www.thingproject.eu/sites/default/files/THING%20Project%20UNESCO%20Report.pdf
d. Indeed I was quite surprised to see Bath "joining" the other "Spas of Europe" but get the impression that this was a "defensive" measure to avoid Bath being left out of what might become an iconic list of European Spas. Still no response to my questions about this made directly to Bath!!

UK is and remains "Semi-detatched" on such exercises!! (For which, by the way, I do not criticise it)

Like you say that isn't out of kilter with everything else that may have involvement from our continental neighbours. :)

I didn't realise there was a transporter bridge in Warrington, nor the Widens-Runcorn one that was demolished.
It seems there is even a recent one in the London Docklands.

How does the Isle of Man sit in regards to WHS? I guess the UK would represent it, but it is in a sort of limbo, I wonder if Manx representatives were keen to participate but DCMS were more reluctant.

Yes -Isle of Man applied to be included in UK's T List just like any other "Territory".
Here is their pitch to be included among the Viking sites - perhaps the problem was that (so far) the Viking sites haven't tried to add any "assembly sites" to that of Thingvellir
http://old.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/WHAF_Tynwald_Hill_and_environs_Norse_as sembly_sites.pdf

This was the conclusion (along with that for e.g Gracehill of which i also haven't heard anything more as a transboundary nomination)
"Four sites (the Fountain Cavern, Anguilla, the Royal Sites of Ireland – Navan Fort, Gracehill Conservation Area (both Northern Ireland) and Tynwald Hill, Isle of Man) are recommended for future consideration for inclusion at a future date on the new Tentative List should firm transnational nominations be prepared. Three of these were put forward as potential transnational sites. The fourth (the Fountain Cavern, Anguilla) has been identified in regional thematic studies of the Caribbean as best fitting into a transnational nomination rather than going forward on its own. The Panel noted that Navan had previously been on the 1986 Tentative List, but was turned down by the World Heritage Committee".

Thanks for highlighting Gracehill, I didn't realise it was proposed.

I seem to have had a lot of cross over with the Moravian church over the years even if I'm not that knowledgeable about them. Reason to go off and explore more I guess.

I wonder if the nomination of Chritiansfeld next year will change things for prospective Moravian church sites around the world?

==Edit==
I found this section on the Gracehill website
it was decided that a number of settlements including Christiansfeld, Zeist (Holland), Bethlehem (USA), Elim (South Africa) and Gracehill (UK) should be part of a serial transboundary transcontinental nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List.

So I guess that was the original plan, but Christanfeld has just started going it alone?

The Danes go to great length in the nomination file that Christiansfeld is the no. 1 choice. They've ranked 27 Moravian settlements on all kinds of criteria, though it gives me a feeling that they knew already beforehand that there could be only one No. 1: Christiansfeld itself. Wonder how ICOMOS will react.

"The final result of the comparative analysis takes the form of the sum of all of the sub-totals discussed above. Here, Christiansfeld scores highest with 365 points. It is followed by Gnadau with 330p; Lititz with 320p; and Ebersdorf, Gracehill, Königsfeld, and Salem with 315p."

I guess they found a transnational nomination just too much of a burden, or a too long wait:

"Actual work within the network had, however, ceased already in 2007. At the fourth Moravian Heritage Network conference, held on 6-10 October 2007, the feeling among the towns was that:
• "Christiansfeld is ready to apply for UNESCO
• Gracehill has a long way to go, being one of many interesting cities in UK
• Bethlehem has applied for the USA tentative list and they are waiting for an answer
• Elim did not find a place on the South African List in 2005 and they have to wait for some years to get a new chance
• Zeist has to wait at least until 2009 because the Dutch tentative list is closed
• Herrnhut has not started the process."

From the Gracehill website -
"Several European delegations subsequently visited Gracehill and an invitation followed to the second conference in Bethlehem, USA. It was felt appropriate to involve Ballymena Borough Council at this time and the council elected to send a representative, Cllr Robin Stirling, to this conference. Cllr Stirling and Dr David Johnston (from Gracehill) attended the third conference in South Africa early in 2006."

A nice little number for some councillor stuck in Ballymena!


They used the same approach to show how good Stevns Klint was. It is a useful technique certainly but tends to come up with the answer one first thought of and, in my experience is more useful as an analysis tool rather than as an argument clincher.

Thailand's Nan province. Btw I don't understand why free of prostitution is become one of the factor to be WHS for locals.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Push-to-get-World-Heritage-listing-for-Nan-p rovinc-30247995.html

China: Route walked by noted Chinese Marco Polo aims for world heritage

http://www.ecns.cn/experience/2014/11-26/144352.shtml

Who is Xu Xiake?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Xiake

Xu Xiake visited WHS at least Huangshan, Wuyishan, Songshan, Wutaishan, Wudangshan, Grand Canal, West Lake, Lushan, South China Karst, Three Rivers.

Benidorm??
http://www.elmundo.es/comunidad-valenciana/2015/04/20/55351c3022601d9c518b4584.html

It isn't clear whether this is likely ever to be a serious proposal or is just a way of getting easy publicity. 6 out of 10 criteria and Mixed natural and cultural seems ambitious!

The town got a mention in this forum way back in 2008 when the suggestion was made by a French professor ( http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=152&pa ge=1#msg895 ) - but this suggestion seems to come from a more relevant source.

Blackpool of course did reach the consideration stage for UK's T List in 2010/11 - but got no further. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78258/WHAF_ Blackpool.pdf
and
http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba90/feat1.shtml