I'm not surprised why recent Japanese sites are no longer easy to inscribe (Hiraizumi, Iwami Ginzan, Kamakura and Nagasaki). This is the result of decentralization of cultural department. Instead of central government's work to write nomination dossier, local governments are the one who create the nomination package, site selection and drafting OUV. It is normal for local government to put sites they want to inscribe to get support from many locals even those sites are not strongly relevant to the whole OUV presentation. Actually it is almost a bureaucratic miracle to combine sites from different prefectures (Nagasaki Churches is a good example of collaboration between Nagasaki and Kumamoto, but when they have to redraw the nomination, Kumamoto denied to withdraw any sites and Nagasaki has no choice but to withdraw its own sites instead).

Kamakura is a good case for what prefecture idea can go wrong. The original idea of central government toward Kamakura is similar to Kyoto and Nara as old capital. OK! time change and now just old capital is not enough to show OUV, and local government pick the idea of Samurai and sadly rejected by ICOMOS, and now their idea shift to Zen Buddhism! And nobody know this idea has been carefully selected or not.

Another example is the idea to extend Himeji to cover other great Japanese castles, Hikone, Matsumoto, Matsue and Inuyama. In the old time central government can finish this great potential easily, but now all five prefectures have to work together and seem that it is unlikely to happen as each prefecture has its own idea and budget plan.

In Asia, not only Japan that this decentralization happened and effected the site nomination, India, Indonesia and Thailand are having the same fate. Each local government pick the site as they want and send to central authority to approve before sent to WHC. The good thing is that this way put tentative list to be very active from many ambitious local politician, but produce only few good site to show OUV. I was surprised to know that Indonesian government has no idea to propose Jakarta until recently after decentralization. Chiang Mai has been push by the university and the city itself and no support from Bangkok whose original idea was just plan to nominate one stupa 150 Km from Chiang Mai and currently such site are already forgotten and no support from locals!

Picking the thread up again...

To me (Western)-Europe is probably the area that is covered pretty well as is. The country I feel most confident about making an estimate is... Germany:

* Germanic, non-Roman Germany (Bronze Age, Iron Age, non Roman). It's historically quite interesting and very little remains, so I wouldn't even know what site to inscribe here.
* Vikings. Now I know the submission was rejected last year. I do think part of the reason was the serial nomination. Haithabu itself is interesting and has a nice story.
* Jewish Germany: Important in context of German history.
* Gründerzeit (1860-19th century): German cities, specifically Berlin grew massively during the industrialization and after Germany was formed.
* Neo Romanticism: Neuschwanenstein. Iconic, imho terrible.
* Jugendstil/Art Noveau: There are some great Jugendstil buildings in Germany. Darmstadt is already scheduled, but I am not fully convinced due to the planned nature of the site. I prefer to see Jugendstil buildings in a town. Görlitz would apparently address both points.
* Post WW2: Buildings till Nazi Germany are well covered. Nazi era buildings will not be submitted by Germany for the foreseeable future. Post WW2 there is until now no building yet. The Munich Olympiastadion was mentioned. The Reichstag by Foster imho is amazing. And maybe some communist buildings?

If I do my math, I end up with with <= 10 sites.

A few comments on countries I have visited, but feel less confident:
* France: 20th century/modern architecture, industrialization, celtic civilization (?), non-european domains. --> <= 10.
* Italy: Lecce, Padova, Ostia, modern architecture --> <= 10.
* Spain: Feel like all relevant times and civilizations pre 20th century are covered, Phoenicians, Carthage, Arabs, ... --> <= 5.

This article really highlights the current mindset regarding Italy's upcoming nominations and future prospects. Moreover, the article also explores how the Italian representatives to UNESCO are very aware of China's pace of nominations in regards to theirs.

"It is not a competitive sport - explains the president Bernabe - is a matter of defending their sites, enhance them and preserve them. The Unesco heritage label is not touristy but something that is won and that, remember, you can also lose. The risk of an overtaking? There is, also China has a great culture. But I am convinced that Italy still remain in the lead ".

http://www.repubblica.it/viaggi/2016/06/03/news/unesco_nessun_sito_italiano_nominatio n_duemilasedici-141207305/

Did anyone notice Austria's tentative list is about to be exhausted (2019), with the exceptions of old nominations pre-2003. Is Austria also one of the growing number of European countries with very few potential nominations left? Are there many prospects for an updated tentative list?

Hall in Tyrol – The Mint (2013) WHC 2018
Great Spas of Europe (2014) WHC 2019
Frontiers of the Roman Empire (2015) WHC 2018
Extension to the Joint World Heritage Property "Primeval Beech forests of the Carpathians (Slovak Republic and Ukraine) and the Ancient Beech forests of Germany (Germany)" (2015) WHC 2017
Großglockner High Alpine Road / Großglockner Hochalpenstraße (2016) WHC 2018

winterkjm

Only candidate that comes to my mind are the Hundertwasser buildings, possibly some additional alpine sites and maybe some very niche nominations. Otherwise most of Austria seems covered.

Agreed. I still think that the current attempts to inscribe Kirche am Steinhof could be (justifiably) fruitful.
I am not sure about Alpine sites. If the extension to the Beech forests and Großglockner are inscribed (in addition to Hallstatt and Semmering) wouldn't that be enough? The was an attempt to inscribe Bregenzer Wald for its agricultural practices that failed, but Germany is now attempting a similar inscription with Alpine and Pre-Alpine Meadows and Marshes.

Europe Volume of Nominations (Inscriptions)

Andorra 0
Armenia 1 or <
Austria < than 5
Azerbaijan < than 3
Baltic States (3 countries) < than 3
Belarus < than 3
Belgium < than 5
Bulgaria < than 5
Cyprus < than 3
Czech Republic < than 3
Former Yugoslavia (6 countries) < than 10
Germany < than 10
Georgia < than 3
Holy See 0
Hungary < than 3
Ireland < than 5
Luxembourg 0
Malta < than 3
Moldova 1 or <
Netherlands < than 5
Nordic States (5 states) < than 10
Poland < than 5
Portugal < than 5
Romania < than 5
San Marino 0
Slovakia < than 3
Switzerland < less than 3
Ukraine < than 5
United Kingdom < than 10

France > than 5
Greece > than 5
Italy > than 5
Russia > than 5
Spain > than 5
Turkey > than 10

Any insight from our European users? These are just estimates based on my incomplete knowledge.

Based on these projections, Europe may have around 140 more inscriptions before being largely exhausted in terms of new WHS. Ignoring the fact cultural and natural heritage is not really finite; Europe is approximately 70% represented to full capacity. Admittedly, not particularly scientific, but perhaps worth discussing. Might have to do one for Asia next.

Thanks for the summary winterkjm. I would say both Germany and the UK could do better than 5 further imscriptions. Notably the UK is still missing some significant sites related to the industrial era, railways, university towns and natural sites from the colonies.

Duly noted! I changed it to < than 10, I really can't see much beyond that. Remember though, not nominations, inscriptions. Germany is nominating sites very aggressively, but many are failing these days and the UK is < than 50% in the last couple years.

Asia Volume of Nominations (Inscriptions)

Afghanistan < than 5
Australia < than 10
Bangladesh < than 5
Brunei < than 3
Fiji 1 or <
Kiribati 0
Kyrgyzstan < than 3
Maldives 1 or <
Marshall Islands 1 or <
Micronesia 1 or <
Nepal < than 3
New Zealand < than 5
Palau 1 or <
Singapore 1 or <
Solomon Islands 0
Sri Lanka < than 3
Tajikistan < than 5
Tonga 1 or <
Turkmenistan < than 3
Vanuatu 1 or <
Vietnam < than 5

Bhutan > than 5
Cambodia > than 5
China > than 20
Korean Peninsula > than 5
India > than 20
Indonesia > than 5
Iran > than 20
Japan > than 5
Kazakhstan > than 5
Laos > than 5
Malaysia > than 5
Mongolia > than 5
Myanmar > than 10
Pakistan > than 5
Papua New Guinea > than 5
Philippines > than 5
Thailand > than 5
Uzbekistan > than 5

Asia is significantly more difficult to predict, because nomination success and activity is influenced greatly by economic status, infrastructure, and development. Sure Japan, S. Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are somewhat easier to gage tentative list sites and potentially strong nominations. Based on these projections Asia still has at least 200 more inscriptions.

I think Cambodia has high potential to have at least more 6-7 sites but it will take a very long study especially for pre and post Angkor sites, and its current tentative list has no natural site at all which is a bit disappointing as its tropical forest in eastern region is probably one of the best preserved in SE Asia mainland


Sri Lanka is almost reached its peak, only 1 or 2 site in Northern Sri Lanka that once controlled by Tamil Tiger may have potential, but maybe nothing left after long civil war.


Apart from Plain of Jars and Hintang Archaeological site, I have not seen any potential cultural sites from Laos except That Luang for its national symbol and trans-border nomination with Thailand for their similar shape of Pagoda or temple style. But I still believe Laos has high potential for its natural sites, there are many caves and large Karst region in Laos which internationally recognized, so possible at least more 5-6 sites for Laos.

Thanks for the insight, I changed Cambodia since it has potential for more cultural and natural nominations and lowered Sri Lanka to < than 3. Laos is really difficult, but I do feel it has a lot of hidden potential (as you mention) that could easily lead to more nominations in 10 - 20 years.

I would agree. To me though the industrialization is well covered but the basics are missing (old towns, cathedrals, ...). Victorian age and post industrialization seems to be in short supply, too. Can't imagine there really is no modern architecture in UK.

Nan Madol, money disc sites and some natural sites could be inscribed. 3 or less.


One cultural and one natural sites could be inscribed. 2 or less.


Although I agree Iran has still much to offer I would refrain from putting it on par with India and China. 10 or more.


I would say 3 or less.


I would say 3 or less.

Re: France
I would like to remind you that France hasn't exhausted its overseas nominations. New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Caribbean, French Guyana, Southern territories - All could potentially receive a natural nomination.

The same is true of the UK: Chagos, St. Helena, Falklands, South Georgia and Sandwich Ils, Turks and Caicos Ils.