I just read Malaysian FRIM evaluation by ICOMOS that they suggest inscribing on criteria IV instead even Malaysia not propose that criteria. I have a question is this normal?

Vietnam seems to be very active to seek support for its nomination. We may see the changing from deferral to inscribe for Yen Tu during WHC.

https://en.vietnamplus.vn/pm-calls-on-unesco-to-continue-support-for-vietnams-heritage-nominations-post320669.vnp

Not normal but I think it has happened before. When I return home late next week, I will query the database for examples (maybe there's new connection in there).

The Panama decision is finally out! So inscribe as an extension of "Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá" or technically "Reformulations" but still confuse with the fate of "Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo"

Fontainebleau minor modification to boundaries

The French cleverly did it again now they expand buffer zone to include all forest in Fontainebleau Domain which is TWHS Domaine de Fontainebleau : château, jardins, parc et forêt! an extension in disguise

Had a quick look at this and a problem is that
a. Nomination Files do not appear on the UNESCO Web site until 1998 so for earlier inscriptions we often don't have a clear statement of what Criteria the State Party requested (if any)
b. The AB evaluations prior to that date often, but not always, state the Criteria requested but there are many occasions when they either state that no Criteria were suggested (in which case of course the idea of a criterion being "added" doesn't apply) or there are "issues" and lack of clarity with what is stated. Have a look at the AB evaluations for Luther Memorials and Canal du Midi (both 1996) and see what you make of the requested and inscribed criteria! Are they changes or mistakes and by whom and when? We don't really have ernough documentation to be sure.

So, at least prior to 1998, it is not possible fully to identify where Criteria have been added by the AB or the WHC compared with those proposed in the Nomination File.

Like Paris or Chenonceau in the past, France seems to be a specialist for that!

Yen Tu

I have to admit that Vietnam is very transparent on its lobbying to change D to I.

https://www.vietnam.vn/en/doan-cong-tac-cua-tinh-quang-ninh-cung-uy-ban-quoc-gia-unesco-viet-nam-van-dong-ho-so-yen-tu-tai-phap

I have a follow-up on this question: I have checked all WHS that have a Site History 'event' labelled Criteria. None of those relate to a change in criteria suggested by the AB ev. There's one site that I wrote about though, Kuldiga. It was proposed by Latvia under crit iii, but inscribed on v only as suggested by ICOMOS.

There are quite a lot actually - 46 going back to 2000! . If that is not going to be too many then here are 4 more from 2023/4 for a Connection ......will send Els the spreadsheet later. Quotes are for AB evaluations

Royal Court of Tiébélé (Crit 3 added)
"In conclusion, ICOMOS considers that the comparative analysis justifies consideration of this property for inscription on the World Heritage List. ICOMOS considers that criteria (iv), (v) and (vi) are not justified, but that criterion (iii) is demonstrated."

Zagori Cultural Landscape (Crit 5 Added)
"The property is nominated on the basis of cultural criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi)"......."ICOMOS considers that the nominated property meets criterion (v), but that criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi) have not been demonstrated."

Santiniketan (Crit 6 Added)
"The property is nominated on the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (vi)."....."ICOMOS considers that criteria (iv) and (vi) are demonstrated."

Sacred Ensembles of the Hoysalas (Crit 4 added)
"The property is nominated on the basis of cultural criteria (i) and (ii)."..... "ICOMOS considers that the nominated property meets criteria (i), (ii) and (iv)."

Big News from Poland (thanks Andrzej): Gdynia seems to have been withdrawn, they will try to fix the points addressed by ICOMOS (referral advice) and come back next year.

https://architektura-muratorplus-pl.translate.goog/inicjatywy/unesco-nie-dla-gdyni-przynajmniej-nie-w-tym-roku-decyzja-komitetu-swiatowego-dziedzictwa-odlozona-aa-Zx8Y-rADi-v9cr.html?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=nl&_x_tr_hl=nl&_x_tr_pto=wapp#google_vignette

Seems a bit drastic, but maybe there has been some diplomacy to push for withdrawals instead of endless discussions at the session.

Old Town of Ghadamès (Libya)

"Decides to remove the Old Town of Ghadamès (Libya) from the List of World Heritage in Danger;"

https://whc.unesco.org/document/221361

According to this article, Gdynia is withdrawn.

https://radiogdansk.pl/wiadomosci/region/trojmiasto/2025/07/01/srodmiescie-gdyni-na-razie-nie-trafi-na-liste-unesco-potrzebne-poprawki/

Some more proposed decisions in docs added today

Abu Mena
Decides to remove Abu Mena (Egypt) from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Good news, after the positive reports we already had from the review by Frederic earlier this year

Lake Ohrid

Decides to inscribe the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region (Albania,
North Macedonia) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

Abu Mena (Egypt)

"Decides to remove Abu Mena (Egypt) from the List of World Heritage in Danger;"

https://whc.unesco.org/document/221410