I thought it is worth looking into why some countries which used to have a much more comprehensive T-list which they abolished in favour of a slim to non-existing one. I exclude Germany, Italy, Mexico, Spain, the UK and the USA which all recently refurbished their T lists.

Notable examples are:

Argentina (about half)
Belarus (about half)
Canada (about half)
Costa Rica (almost entirely)
Denmark (about half)
Eritrea (half)
Estonia (about half)
Greece (half)
Jamaica (about half)
Latvia (about half)
Libya (entirely)
Luxemburg (entirely)
Madagascar (about half)
Maldives (about half)
Mali (about half)
Mozambique (about half)
Netherlands (about half)
Norway (about half)
Poland (almost entirely)
Portugal (about half)
Syria (about half)
Tanzania (about half)
Tunisia (about half)
Turkey (about half)
Venezuela (about half)

For some of these countries the explanation is clear, namely that they feel that by now what the formerly had on their T-lists does not qualify (any more) for OUV. Such examples are Netherlands, Poland, Luxemburg, Portugal or Denmark. For other countries further investigation is required. Examples: Libya - What would be the benefit of deleting the entire T-list?; Turkey - Despite Anatolia being a biological hotspot and constituting a gap most natural sites were deleted, why?; Argentinta - Especially Las Parinas was mentioned as a gap in the thematic study about volcanoes. Why was it then omitted?; Belarus - Minsk would certainly fill a gap. And so on.

Is it also that the new lists are not less "comprehensive" but are less "lengthy" because countries are now going for combined sites ("Villages of...." etc) and Cultural Landscapes rather than individual monuments and single locations. It could be of interest to sort inscribed sites by year of inscription within number of locations and leaving out CLs which hoover up a large number of locations within a "single" one. The average number of locations per site (leaving aside a few statistical "outliers" such as Rock paintings etc) seems likely to me to have been increasing over the years.

I think it is a bit of a shame that we haven't kept a comprehensive and traceable "family tree" of T List "subsumations". As we have discovered during the recent exercise, a lot of earlier T List sites haven't really disappeared from the T List but have been swept up within wider T List sites (or gained inscription by so doing). It must seem very difficult now to claim OUV for most as yet uninscribed single monuments around the Word as most reall gems have already been inscribed but more moderate sites can be "given" OUV by being made a part of something much wider and (arguably!!!) more significant and/or being linked with something more significant. Such nominations also have the benefit of "sharing" the WHS kudos around the country. Belgium, Italy, Mexico, Spain, France etc have been very "good" at this.

True, but all the sites we still have on the list of former T-sites were not subsumed.
I think what I meant was that I think it is worthwhile looking at the sites that were omitted and see why. For some, they just apparently lacked OUV. Some were too difficult to nominate. For some I do not know the reason (re: Libya). That is why I tried to compile a list of some former T-sites which I believe could have the potential to get inscribed (see other forum entry).

But many of the sites on the current T Lists DO include smaller sites which were on previous T Lists and are now subsumed so the attrition you referred to in the first post has been less than might at first sight seem the case.

Regarding "Former T List" sites (which exclude those known to have been subsumed) - you have listed some of the reasons. I guess each country needs to be looked at individually to try to assess the reasons

If we look at Libya with 7 "Former sites" and no Active T List at all. Again it is unfortunate that we don't have immediate access to the year in which they were removed but I would look at them and conclude
a. For various political reasons Libya wasn't interested in going for more WHS from the 90s onwards. It ceased being a member of the WHC after 1988. The last few years haven't exactly put it in a better situation either!
b. There are a large number of those now removed which would have been being nominated as Greek/Roman sites. I have visited Apollonia and Ptolomais - I guess Apollonia could have been justified as an extension to Cyrene with which, as its port it was inextricably linked. One might expect that a nomination of Cyrene today without Apollonia might have been criticised by ICOMOS. But the 1982 AB evaluation makes no mention! As I rmeember the site its "best" bits were mosiacs which had been lifted and were either on show on site or in the museum in Tripoli
c. Regarding Ptolomais, Tocra and Eusperides - yet more Roman sites. I guess it might have been the case that UNESCO/ICOMOS might have liked to have seen the full set of the Pentapolis nominated but how many roman ruins should the List have?
d. Ghirza is another "Roman" albeit away from the coast. The same question applies
e. Germa would have been a "Roman period" site of the Berbers - I guess it could have been worked up - but was Gaddhfi that interested in "Berbers" and the Fezzan other than for the oil and water?
f. Tripoli is a strange one. We visited and may not have been taken to everything of significance but in terms of cultural remains I know of nothing much
g. Medin Solton I can't find either on the Web or in Lonely Planet!!

It is actually Medina (as-)Sultan.
Here is some information:https:
www.temehu.com/islamic-tourism-and-mosques.htm

Have had a look at Norway to address the question raised by Assif


As I said for Libya -I suspect the answer will be slightly different for each country.
One would certainly hope that for countries practicing "Good governance" (Among which i would place Norway!!) the changes would reflect a reasoned development of policies towards "World Heritage".

Norway's early T Lists created in 1979 and 1984 would inevitably lack such a process - the entire scheme lacked history and case law. It was hardly surprising that early lists were not the most "considered" in such circumstances!

So Norway killed off its old T List in 96 with a couple of old Christian buildings and a few other "much the same" type sites (e.g Rock Carvings!). It then seems to have undertaken a careful consideration of its strengths and gaps in the List - I have found minutes of meetings with other Nordic countries and on topics such as "The Arctic".

The 6 sites now on its T List were added across - 2002 (x2), 2007 (x2) 2009 and 2011. In come 3 transanational proposals (including an extension), acceptance of thr need to embrace Saami culture, a couple of genuine "Arctic" sites and 1 modern site which Norway could claim to be a bit special (The Hydro power station).

Norway may have a smaller list than before but the new one, IMO, clearly demonstrates a much deeper consideration of what Norway has that is "special" and also of its part of a greater Nordic/Arctic community.