appologize if I dont understand.
In the link that Durian gave, it turns out Bali is among the ones who hasnt completed the documents needed at the time necessary. Does it mean Bali wont even be considered to be on 2011 WHS?

Pls enlighten me, and thanks.

The Operational Guidelines ( http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf ) Paragraph 128 state -
"Nominations may be submitted at any time during the year, but only those nominations that are "complete" (see paragraph 132) and received by the Secretariat on or before 1 February will be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee during the following year. Only nominations of properties included in
the State Party's Tentative List will be examined by the Committee (see paragraph 63)."

WHC-09/33.COM/INF.8B3 is the equivalent document from the 2009 WHC regarding those nominations which were/complete/incomplete as of Feb 1 2009 in readiness for the 2010 WHC. I note that the Bali documents were "incomplete" that year too!!! As far as I can see NONE of those which didn't have "complete" documents got evaluated for consideration in 2010 - so it looks as if the rule is strictly enforced and things don't look good for Bali in 2011.

Just in case anyone was interested in the Italian nomination for this year I came across this website supporting it today.

I must admit I know nothing about the subject so can't pass judgement.

But it does have a magnificently cumbersome title: The Longobards in Italy. Places of the power (568-774 A.D.)

Given recent events in Bahrain it will be interesting to see whether
a. The 2011 WHC still takes place there. The presumed inscription of the Pearling Heritage site was intended to be the icing on the cake thanking Bahrain for hosting the event and recognising its cultural credentials developed as part of a coherent governmental strategy
b. Shaikha Mai bint Mohammed al Khalifa is still Bahrain's Minister of Culture and Information and Chair of the WHC wherever it takes place! She has been the "face" of, and probably a prime mover in, the development and implementation of the Bahraini strategy but, unlike a ministerial position in Bahrain that of "Chair" of the WHC is of course not in the control of the Bahraini revolutionaries - but it would be somewhat embarrassing to UNESCO if its "chair" had been removed from government by a "revolution" in advance of the WHC!!

Among the many complaints by Bahrainis about their governance, the tendency of the regime to pack government positions with members of the royal family (as is Shaikha Mai) is, of course but one. Wiki states "As of 2010, roughly half of the serving cabinet ministers of Bahrain have been selected from the Al Khalifa royal family, while the country's only Prime Minister, Khalifah ibn Sulman al-Khalifah, (serving since independence in 1971) is ... the uncle of the current King".

Removal of at least some of these family members from government appears to be a minimum demand of even the more moderate "revolutionaries" and a necessary part of any settlement. Also there has been some evidence of a split in opinion within the family as how best to handle the "uprising" - at the moment the compromisers/modernisers appear to be in command after a short contrary period. Clearly all the major powers involved except Iran want to see a continuation of the Al Khalifa Monarchy, as presuambly do many Bahrainis - at least among the Sunni minority.

Will Shaika Mai survive? Here is a link to a positive biographical article from a couple of years ago presenting her as a go-getting moderniser and a middle eastern female role model with no patience for the bureaucrats she has to deal with. Whether this attitude is a sign of good modern management style or an example of the dictatorial approach adopted by Al Khalifa family members - who knows!
http://www.privatair.com/privatair/privatair/docs/magazines/LeadArticle_24.pdf

On this forum we have referred earlier to the rather strange delay in the assignment of the WHC to Bahrain (final post - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=5&topic=232&pa ge=0#msg1080 ) together with its possible linkage to the elevation of Shaikha Mai - and the article provides a hint of what was going on with reference to her frustrated "resignation" from a smaller post! Indeed she has obtained further elevation within the government hierarchy since the above article which only saw her as a humble "Under Secretary"! She also appears to have got the wish, expressed in the article, to bring Tourism and Culture together within the same Ministry
http://www.moci.gov.bh/en/header/TheMinistry/

Currently she is of course a lesser member of the government - but will she be a part of the "coming wave" or a victim among others from the "ancien regime"? Bahrain's politcs are complex beyond the Sunni/Shia split. There are conservative tendencies within the Sunni majority which have not looked upon some of the limited social freedoms Bahrain currently "enjoys" with any great pleasure. The Al Alsalah party "rejects much of Bahrain's modernism" (Wiki) and rejects women's right to be in Parliament. In the past it has spoken out against the preservation of Bahrain's cultural artifacts/building the National Museum etc ("Housing for the living is better than the graves for the dead. We must have pride in our Islamic roots and not some ancient civilisation from another place and time, which has only given us a jar here and a bone there.") Though the guy who said that "was sacked because he was perceived to be too close to Shia Islamists," (Wiki).

There is a lot still "in play" and UNESCO must surely be looking nervously at a possible plan B for Hotel rooms in Paris as a back up for Bahrain in Jun 2011!!

So those hotel rooms in Paris will be needed - http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/728

Thanks to Saudi tanks it looks as if the al-Khalifah family will still be in charge and Shaikha Mai would still be able to chair the WHC as a minister rather than as an exile. Though even her mere presence in those circumstances might be regarded as something of an embarrassment to UNESCO. I suppose she might bow out gracefully citing "important work" to do in Bahrain!!

A shame really.

And I wonder if Bahrain will still be "given" the host's reward of an Inscription in the form of the Pearling landscape?

This year Japanese's nomination, Hiraizumi, after checking news from many sources, is safe with only minor damage from the earthquake.

For other WHS in earthquake zone, Nikko and Shirakami-Sanchi, there is no report of any damage from those two sites.

God Bless Japan.

This link show Nikko's Taiyuinbyo Shrine during the earthquake.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH1Y0kMcQwM

The full list for this year has been publicized. 42 sites, including a rerun for the Le Corbusier sites and the Triple Arch Gate of Dan:

Cultural nominations
Pearling, Testimony of an Island Economy (Bahrain);
Bridgetown and its Garrison (Barbados);
West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou (China);
Coffee Cultural Landscape (Colombia);
Konso Cultural Landscape (Ethiopia);
The Causses and the Cévennes (France);
The architectural work of Le Corbusier, an outstanding contribution to the Modern Movement (France, Argentina, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Switzerland);
Fagus Factory in Alfeld (Germany);
The Persian Garden (Iran);
The Land of Caves and Hiding (Israel);
The Triple-arch Gate at Dan (Israel);
The Longobards in Italy, Places of Power, 568 - 774 A.D., (Italy);
Hiraizumi – Temples, Gardens and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land (Japan);
Fort Jesus, Mombasa (Kenya);
Fundidora Monterre (Mexico);
Transboundary Nomination for Yapese Stone Money Sites in Palau and Yap (Micronesia / Palau);
Petroglyphic Complexes of the Mongolian Altai (Mongolia);
León Cathedral (Nicaragua);
Oke-Idanre Cultural Landscape (Nigeria);
Historical City of Jeddah (Saudi Arabia);
Cultural Landscape of the Serra de Tramuntana (Spain);
Archaeological Sites of the Island of Meroe (Sudan);
Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps (Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia);
Ancient villages of Northern Syria (Syrian Arab Republic);
Old City and Ramparts of Alanya with Seljuk Shipyard (Turkey);
Selimiye Mosque and its social Complex (Turkey);
Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatia Metropolitans (Ukraine);
Cultural Sites of Al Ain: Hafit, Hili, Bidaa Bint Saud and Oases Areas (United Arab Emirates);
Citadel of the Ho Dynasty (Viet Nam).

Mixed nominations
Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (Jamaica);
Wadi Rum (Jordan);
Saloum Delta (Senegal).

Natural nominations:
Ningaloo Coast (Australia);
Pendjari National Park (Benin, an extension of W National Park of Niger);
Wudalianchi National Park (China);
Ancient Beech Forests of Germany (Germany, an extension of the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians, Slovakia and Ukraine);
Western Ghats (India);
Harra Protected Area (Iran);
Ogasawara Islands (Japan);
Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley; (Kenya);
Trinational Sangha (Congo, Cameroon, Central African Republic)
nomination under new criteria of the World Heritage property of Phong Nha – Ke Bang National Park (Viet Nam).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/forty_two_sites_to_be_co nsidered_for_inscription_on_unescos_world_heritage_list_in_june/

Good to see the well represented countries holding back on gaining new inscriptions:
Germany (4)
France, Japan (3)
China, Italy, Iran (2)

Should help bring some balance to the list.

I am not particularly bothered by China nominating 2 sites every year. (At least for now!)China is a vast country, with an ancient history that at least rivals any one of the great civilizations. In 10 years time if China is still nominating 2 a year consistantly, then it will be more of an issue. Also China ratified the convention late compared to most European countries, ten years later than France. My issue with China, is turning these amazing sites into silly tourist attractions. (Not always the case, but still happens) Moreover, I have an issue with China's relentless pursuit of world heritage, in which people are required to move out of the site boundaries, or that an exhorbitant amount of money is spent to achieve inscription.

France, Germany, Italy on the other hand....

whatever happened to India's Santiniketan?

I have analysed the "comings and goings" of the nominations to be considered in Paris this year.

The first list was that one identified by Durian in July 2010 -it was the agenda item for the WHC of 2010. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001884/188419e.pdf
It listed those sites which had put forward documentation as per the deadline of Jan 31 2010 for consideration at the 2011 WHC

Total submitted by the deadline - 52
Total meeting the "completeness check" - 39

The 13 sites "failing the completeness check" were

Kenya - Mt Kenya extension
Lesotho - Sehlabathabe
Tanzania - Slave Route
Tanzania - Eastern Arc Mntns (There have been some interesting "News" items about this site. It appears that the Tanzanian president is in anti-UNESCO mood at the moment because he sees UNESCO as hindering his country's devlopment by imposing too many restrictions on development in/near to WHS. The Serengeti highway is the live issue and he has told his ministers that the Eastern Arc mountains must also be withdrawn from future consideration!)
Indonesia - Bali Cult Landscape (Is Indonesia EVER going to get this one right?)
Pakistan - Hiran Minar (Well Pakistan has other things on its mind -perhpas it was spending too much ministerial effort not looking for Osama bin Laden!)
Germany - Bayreuth (for 2012) ***
Germany - Schwetzingen (for 2012) ***
FYRM - Kokino
Portugal - Elvas
Russia - Bolgar Complex
Russia - Kremlins
Mexico - Banco Chinchorro

**** Nb Bayreuth and Schwetzingen hadn't actually "failed" the check but were noted as being "complete for 2012". This was presumably because Germany had 2 other sites in its own name which had passed the check (Ancient Beech Forests extension and Fagus works?). Schwetzingen had even been put forward for 2009 but hadn't actually been "considered" by the WHC as it had been "withdrawn" beforehand -presumably because of a rejection by the AB.

So 39 sites went forward to the Advisory Body evaluations etc.

Next we were told (see Els's post above for 6 May) that 42 sites are to be discussed at the WHC

Checking these 42 against the 39 "new" and "complete" nominations listed in July 2010 :-

ADDED - 5 - all carried forward from previous years after referrals etc
Ethiopia - Konso Landscape (referred in 2010)
France - Causse and Cevennes (referred in 2006 and 2009)
France etc - Le Corbusier (referred in 2009)
Israel -Triple Arched Gate (referred/withdrawn etc in 2006, 2008 and 2009)
Kenya - Mombasa Fort Jesus (referred in 2010)

DROPPED OFF - 2
India - Santinikaten
France - Bassin Minier du Nord-Pas

39 + 5 - 2 = 42!!

The Santinikaten documentation was stated to have been "complete" so what happened? This report indicates that ICOMOS visited the site around Oct 2010 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/heritage-site-status-for-santiniketan-unesco-team-t o-decide/695468/
It would appear that ICOMOS didn't like what it saw and Santinikaten seems yet another example of India failing to prepare its sites properly!! Of course a State Party is entitled to "tough it out" with the WHC if the AB goes against it and, as we have seen, they sometimes win but India seems just to have given up early without going for the charade of a late "withdrawal". See the reasons hinted at in this newspaper review
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_unesco-world-heritage-site-status-eludes-shantin iketan_1540665
I particularly love this comment ""We are waiting for the elections in West Bengal to get over. We will then consult the state government, and come up with something more vigorous," Sircar told PTI." Such wonderfully Indian justification for procrastination.
The initial "completeness" assessment must be very perfunctory leaving substantive problems to be identified later by the AB team - no sense in preventing them having a nice trip of course and I guess they can do some "coaching" whilst they are there but it all seems a bit of a waste of time when it must have been evident from the documentation that the site wasn't under a single management regime as "required" by UNESCO.

And why would "Bassin Minier" not have made the final cut for 2011? Possibly it was because "Causse and Cevennes" is using up France's "Cultural nomination" for 2011 and it hadn't been foreseen that it would come back in so quickly when France submitted the complete documentation for Bassin Minier in 2010??

ICOMOS reccomends Hiraizumi and Ogasawara Islands inscription.

Hiraizumi – Temples, Gardens and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land (Japan)

Ogasawara Islands (Japan)

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110508a8.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110507/lf_afp/japanununescoculturedisaster

With regard to the bassin minier of Nord-Pas-de-Calais, I'm wondering: might they maybe be joining forces with the Belgians (Mining sites of Wallonia)? It's pure conjecture from my part, but French-Belgian collaboration would not be unprecendented (e.g. France piggy-backed on the Belgian belfries)...

Hi Khuft,
Re the possible linking of the French and Belgian mining nominations. Yes - it could certainly suit France to piggy-back on the Belgians and thus avoid "using up" its annual nomination quota. As has been pointed out, France could actually gain 3 cultural inscriptions this year via its annual single cultural nomination plus its elements of the transnational Le Corbusier and Pile Dwelling nominations!

The AB review by ICOMOS which led to the deferral of the Mining sites of Wallonia in 2010 didn't however indicate that it favoured such an approach - all its problems with the Belgian nomination related to its management, buffer zones, ownership etc. It made no suggestion at all that the nomination would be strengthened by such a combination - indeed, although it didn't think that Belgium had carried out a thorough enough comparative analysis with sites in other countries, it didn't even see the French mining sites as being appropriate :-
"Finally, the Walloon coal mining sites are located in close proximity to and enjoy significant geological, mining, and social affinities with the Nord-Pas-de-Calais
mining basin in France (on the French Tentative List). However, because of the different history and the nature of the heritage conserved, the Belgian analytical and descriptive approach differs from the French approach as an evolving cultural landscape. The immediate environment of the Walloon sites precludes such an overall landscape approach."

Of course one or other party could decide to change its "approach"!

On a related matter. Am I right in thinking that sites brought back in after referral DO count towards the States Party's annual nomination quota of 1 cultural plus 1 natural max? There are rules that bringing back such referrals must be done within 3 years but that seems to relate more to the timetable for lodging documentation - after 3 years then the Jan 31 deadline of the year before consideration applies in order to allow time for a full appraisal. I can find no suggestion however in the Operational Guidelines that referred sites brought back within 3 years can avoid the 1 plus 1 quota?
As far as I can see the only way to "beat" the quota is to allow another State Party to lead the nomination of a transnational site which includes your own!

I'm intrigued by the "Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps (Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia)", which possibly will give France, Germany and Italy another easy WHS. Anyone seen one of these "pile dwellings"?