I have been trying to follow up which properties are actually on the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection" and therefore allowed to display the "Blue Shield" (I have never knowingly seen one!!).

Many searches both generally and within UNESCo failed to find a web edition of such a register -and then I came across WHC-09/34.COM/5E dated 9 July 2010 and presented to the Brasilia WHC. ( http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2010/whc10-34com-5Ee.pdf ).

"To date, there is no cultural property inscribed on the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection. However, several Parties have submitted to the Secretariat applications for enhanced protection. The Secretariat is currently working to determine whether those applications are complete before sending them to the Bureau of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict for evaluation.
14. However, for information, the Vatican City (Holy See), which is also inscribed on the World Heritage List since 1984, was entered in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection established under the Hague Convention"

I note the use of the phrases "Enhanced protection" and "Special Protection" here but these seem to be the same?? Generally it wouldn't appear that much progress has been made over the last 50 years on this matter and the potential tie-in with the later World Heritage scheme has only recently been recognised -hence its appearance on the WHC agenda

I also found this http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001585/158587eb.pdf which seems to be 4 entries onto the register for "special Protection" from Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Vatican.
The Netherlands entry alone doesn't have a "Date of Registration". But a strange aspect is that, apart from the Vatican the locations seem to be presented as "Refuges" - underground???? - presumably to be used as places of storage for cultural treasures in time of war

The refuge in Maastricht, Sint-Pietersberg, is/was a underground (limestone mine) storage room in World War 2 were a lot of art was stored to protect tehm against damage. It is known as "De kluis" One of the paintings was the "Nachtwacht" from Rembrandt. It was stored there by the dutch and germans in 1942 until the end of WW2, to protect them against attacks by the allied forces.
http://www.stichtingrrb.nl/images/kluis.pdf

These blue shields are very common in The Netherlands, maybe because they have been invented at the The Hague Convention.
See for example this former farm and now restaurant in the little village that I grew up in. It is a recognized Rijksmonument (1 of 62,000) and part of "International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection" (1 of 4,000-5,000 in NL). The Blue Shield is on display to the left of the entrance: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Delden-Hengelosestraat_8.jpg

But as far as I can make out the "Blue Shield" for the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special protection" is of a different design from that shown on the former farm.
The former is a true "shield" as per the link you provided earlier with blue and white
http://www.ancbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=19
the farm's is just a blue diamond?

Oops, sorry, you're right. But we're still pretty sure that they are fairly common in NL. I'll look for a real example

All these are shelters for art in WW2. The link in the text for the blue schield http://www.ancbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=19 tells that it is It is the protective emblem specified in the 1954 Hague Convention: Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Yes we know what the Blue shield means but the issues are - have ANY sites other than these in a document from 2000 EVER been registered onto the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special protection" and is there any difference between "enhanced" and "special" protection?
Els suggested that sites in NL with a blue diamond were registered - but at first sight that doesn't seem relevant to a system with a different emblem.
We know that the sites on the 2000 document are for the most part shelters for art (But NOT the whole of the Vatican?) but the Register was apparently intended to have tangible sites of intrinsic value placed upon it - I, so far, can ONLY find reference to the Vatican having been so registered.
It would be very interesting either to find other sites or some reference to their only being 1 such registered site- in which case some indication of why there has been so little progress would also be of interest"!

In fact I have found this quote in the Wiki entry for The Vatican which confirms my impression above
"Furthermore, it is the only site to date registered with the UNESCO as a centre containing monuments in the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection" according to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" (my emphasis)
Taken with the 2000 document this seems to mean that there can be different categories of registered sites - those containing monuments and those which are "refuges". This is confirmed by re-reading that document - Only the Vatican is under the heading of "Paragraph II - Centre containing Monuments. The other locations are under "Paragraph II - Refuges.

It would seem that, whatever else they may be, the sites in NL with the blue diamond are not on the register.

The Eyse Eisinga Planetarium has a shield with a blue diamond. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/32282344@N08/5896941515/sizes/l/in/set-72157623829728126 / (it is tiny, just above the number of the house). I'll search if it is mentioned anywhere that it is indeed part of the register.

I found a NL government website about the use of this shield. Originally it was meant for the sites that should be protected during war time, as per The Hague Convention of UNESCO. The ministry of culture has to apply with UNESCO to get a monument listed. However, during the course of time a great number of other symbols have started to appear on monuments. Between the lines I read that also illegal use of the blue diamond shield is common, because almost no one knows its origins. The rules are: the blue diamond should be corresponding with the UNESCO register, and the Dutch National Monuments (Rijksmonumenten) don't have their own sign.

Full text:
http://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/veelgestelde-vragen/ik-heb-monument-en-wil-graag-blauw wit-schildje-gevel-waar-kan-ik-aanvragen

Still: we haven't found the full and current list of monuments UNESCO's International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection

Els,
What is the correct translation of
"Het verdrag stelt bovendien dat het blauwwitte schild niet zonder machtiging mag worden geplaatst op cultureel erfgoed"
The automatic translators are coming up with
"The treaty also states that the blue and white shield without authorization may be placed on cultural heritage"
But has a "negative" been missed out from the English and should it not be
"The treaty also states that the blue and white shield may not be placed on cultural heritage without authorisation"??

The siutation seems to be that
a. A "Blue and white shield" (albeit NOT to the International standard) appears ot have become the de facto indicator of a National Monument in the Netherlands
b. This has no official relationship whatsoever to the Blue Shield scheme arising out of the ""International Register of Cultural Property under Special protection"
c. It still seems likely that ONLY The Vatican is on that register as a monument - though there may be other locations registered as "refuges"

Yes you are right, it says: "the shield cannot be placed without authorization on a cultural heritage"

I would not say "whatsoever" - some may have such a relationship. I will sent the cultural department that maintains this website an e-mail to ask about it.

It somehow seems that they started it in the 1950s as an early incarnation of the world heritage idea, obviously as a result of WWII. But now so many other schemes are in place.

P.S. I don't think a tiny blue shield near a front door will deter any war time attack now. It would be better to paint a large blue diamond on the roofs of the buildings to prevent an air attack!

Yes, I presume in an "ideal" robotic wars environment all the world's "smart bombs" would be programmed with the co-ordinates of every building on the register and would thereby avoid them. (I have just returned from Belgrade where a number of bombed buildings have been left untouched and it is amazing to see just how "pin point" the bombing was even all those years ago). At the same time of course the future Talibans, Gaddafis, Husseins and Milosovics (and Bushs/Blairs etc) would all carefully avoid using such buildings for any purpose related to warfare - offensive or defensive.

No wonder the "register" hasn't got very far! Though I guess if one really thinks "technologically" one could imagine each building on the register and wanting such protection being issued with a "chip" which would contain sensors looking for electronic equipment, explosives and even "people" and such protection would only apply as long as full "neutrality" was maintained!

PS Whilst you are sending an e-mail ask them about the 100 "UNESCO Monumenten" and why they are so called!

Yesterday I received a reply on my e-mail from the Dutch Cultural Heritage Board.
They explained the following:
- In NL, a separate indicator is registered for those monuments that have been brought forward to Unesco under the The Hague Convention, and thus are legally allowed to display the Blue Diamond Shield.
- This is an active registration, it is their task by law to keep this up.
- The Dutch total is now about 400
- They don't know if Unesco maintains a full register of all such sites around the world.

There is a database on their website in which you can see which monument is protected under the The Hague Convention. Unfortunately you cannot search on it, but have to browse each monument for a Yes or a No. I did a quick scan on the town of Franeker (home of the T-listed Eise Eisinga Planetarium). This historic town has 179 national monuments, and only 3 of these are also enlisted in the international listings under the The Hague Convention. They are the Planetarium, the great Town Hall and a church.

I am still trying to get to the bottom if this!
The picture I now have is that simple "use" of the Blue Shield is national matter, albeit within the provisions of the various Conventions (in particular that the buildings so marked are not used for military purposes) and with International coordination more recently through "Blue Shield" ( http://www.ancbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=51 ) , and is separate from the "International Register" which post-dates and is separate from the provisions under which the Blue Shield may be deployed

This rather dense investigation into the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands in the 21st Century covers the issue in Para 3.1.6 ( www.ejcl.org/132/abs132-4.html )
"Article 27 of the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, as well as Article 3 and Article 16 of the 1954 Hague Convention, and Article 5 of the Second Protocol oblige the State Parties to take the appropriate measure (in times of peace) for the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict. One such measure is the identification and marking of buildings as referred to in Article 27 of the 1907 Convention, as well as in Article 8 of the 1954 Hague Convention and Article 13 of the annexed Regulation. In the Netherlands, the identification of immovable cultural property to fall under the special protection regime of the Conventions was done in cooperation between the then Ministry of Culture, Social Wellbeing and Recreation (now: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science) and the then National Service for Monument Care (now RACM).In first instances some 100 monuments were granted special protection and were marked with the symbol of the "Blue Shield"".
There is no mention here of a "Register" when marking buildings with a Blue Shield (nor is there in the "What we do" of the Blue shield Web site). This US training exercise regarding the "Blue shield" also makes no mention of any register. The example of Iraq (mis)using the sign at Ctesiphon shows that "visibility" of the sign and determination that the rules were being followed properly are the only issues (i.e no need to refer to a "Register")
http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-10iraqenl.html

So where does the "Register" come in? Because the basic provisions were not considered strong enough in all cases "Chapter II [Articles 8-11] of the 1954 Hague Convention introduces and regulates the concept of "Special Protection". Under this UNESCO, after consulting all High Contracting Parties, may place on a special list at the request of the state concerned, a limited number of temporary refuges or shelters for movable cultural property, and also "centres containing monuments and other immovable property of very great importance", subject to the defending State being both able and willing to demilitarize the location and its surroundings."
See the 1954 convention - http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

The 1994 WHC in Phuket ( http://whc.unesco.org/archive/94-3-f12.htm ) discussed further the concept of "Special Protection" and states inter alia "Such refuges are listed in the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection" and may be marked by a triple use of the emblem. The above US training exercise contains a paragraph on the use of this "Triple" shield marker to demonstrate "Special Protection". It also states unambiguously that "To date, only one monumental complex, the whole of the territory of the Vatican City State, has been entered in the Register." This confirms the document dated 2000 referred to in an earlier post on this forum thread. i.e as late as 2000 only Vatican was on the International Register as a monument (rather than as a refuge). A complexity is that the first document uses the phrase "special protection" in relation to ALL the blue shield identified locations. However, both the context and the use of lower case letters (I.e not a proper noun) indicate to me that this is NOT the same as the particular "Special Protection" offered by the "Register" over and above the Blue Shield alone

Unfortunately even that isn't the end of the matter! Following the wars in Yugoslavia it was recognised that the existing conventions/protocols were not sufficient and, in 1999 "it was decided to adopt a new supplementary legal instrument to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, in the form of an Additional Protocol, named the Second Protocol (the original 1954 Protocol being renamed the First Protocol). Chapter 3 (of this protocol) creates a new category of 'Exceptional Protection' for the most important sites, monuments and institutions. This will be an international designation publicised in advance (rather along the lines of the World Heritage List under the 1972 World Heritage Convention)".
(from http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/091-099e.pdf ). Note that it states this WILL be an "international designation" and, coming in 1999, must be separate from the "Register" which was being referred to in 1994 and goes back to the 1954 Convention. As yet I have been unable to
a. find any examples of sites which have been given this designation
b. establish the relationship between "Exceptional Protection" and the "Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection"

Can anyone take this further?

This I found on the german wikipedia site: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Distinctive_emblem_for_cultural_prope rty_under_special_protection.svg&filetimestamp=20071107093402
There have to be 3 shields for cultural property under special protection ?
See also URL

Yes -see the US training article above for an example of the "Triple Shield" and the 3 circumstances in which it is used