No inscriptions or nominated properties since:

Honduras (1982) *No tentative list

El Salvador (1993)

Belize (1996) *No tentative list

Total 4 WHS

As of late there has been plenty of attention on first nominations for a state party, or a first inscription. However, some state parties have been inactive for decades. These 3 nations in Central America without question have potential nominations that could be inscribed.

We have the connection Swan Songs:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tag.php?id=941
From these countries Ghana and Zambia might soon have their next nomination. Macedonia is active too.

We also had the following discussions:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=4&topic=1660
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=4&topic=1659

It is interesting to see that many countries we discussed previously are becoming more active now.

Yet, it is strange that several countries in Central America are not pursuing any new nominations when the potential is rather strong.

Honduras - Celaque National Park URL Comayagua URL

El Salvador - Tazumal URL El Imposible National Park URL
- Both sites included on tentative list in 1992, never nominated URL

Belize - Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary URL Xunantunich URL Caracol URL Altun Ha URL Lamanai URL Lubaantun URL
- Great potential for a Mayan serial nomination

Three reasonings over that:
1) Unless a country has a real inmediate interest (such as fostering tourism), it is hard for them to even think on having a representative T list. Guatemala and Nicaragua are right now the only central-american countries that have more or less that. Even Costa Rica could have two or three more two natural sites on its T list, but it doesn't.
2)We have to take into account that the countries mentioned, plus Guatemala have deep social problems, poverty and huge levels of insecurity. And lack the law enforcement level that other countries have. So maybe it won't be a priority until some years from now.
3)Even Panama, while its economy is thriving, it doesn't have a T list. I think it could inscribe at least two more sites: Bocas del Toro city (caribbean victorian architecture and probably a natural component for the islands) and San Blas Archipelago cultural landscape URL. But it doesn´t. and has a right-wing president that has clashed with The WH Committee over hydroelectric projects in La Amistad, lack of protection in Portobelo and grand infrastructure projects in Panama city. So I don't see an scenario where there's going to be a T list soon.
4) In some countries the cost/reward analysis for an inscription is seen as in red numbers. For them, to have a site inscribed would be great, but it is not foreseen in a short or middle term and what they have in terms of tourism is satisfactory for them. That probably happens in Panama, since Bocas del Toro is already highly visited from both sides of the border, but mainly by costa ricans of my age group who want to have the rustic feel that our Limon province once had.
Not an inactive country, even when a similar thing happens with tourism in Granada, it seems that they are thinking on nominating that historic center and even some of the islands in Lake Nicaragua URL it would add to the profile of such a remarkable city. Another colonial historic center, yes, but there were some historic centers proposed additional by an Icomos panel back in 1998, of which also some have been inscribed since.
URL

Hi vantcj1

A few questions regarding Central America T Lists "in/activity" - covering your own country and Nicaragua (Yes, I know that CR/Nicaraguan relations are a bit "strained" but, as it is just "next door", you might know!)
1. CR started the "World Heritage" trail with great enthusiasm but had a disastrous experience in 1980 when the Church of Orosi, National Monument at San Jose, National Theatre and Church of Nicoya were all rejected whilst 3 other nominations were "deferred" with issues or proposals of alternative approaches for CR to consider
i. Nat Arch' park of Guayabo de Turrialba, - additional comparison data required
ii. Sta Rosa Historic Mansion - extend nomination to cover natural aspects of the Sta Rosa NP?
iii. Ruins of Ujarras - go for a series of Missions with other countries?
The bureau of 1981 noted that no info had been received on any of the above. As far as I know none of them has ever been brought forward or put on CR's later T Lists. Are they all now fully "dead" following a recognition that their nomination had been based on a rather early "misunderstanding" as to what might constitute a site with valid "OUV"? Do you think those events had any impact on how CR approached "cultural sites" thereafter - almost nothing at all!

2. Between 1994 and 2006 CR had a T List site titled "Region Ferroviaria San Jose - Limon" . In 2002 a UNESCO/ICOMOS report was produced (possibly as part of a document titled "Paisajes culturales en mesoamérica"?) covering this site (unfortunately it doesn't seem to be publicly available). Was this report the reason why the site was dropped from the T List or were there other reasons? I have a particular interest in it having been twice to Pto Limon and have visited the railway which now seems to operate only in the lowlands as a freight/tourist service (and to be in some need of investment/maintenance!). Banana plantations are not currently represented on the inscribed list and this site could have pulled together the production of Banana, Sugar Cane and Coffee (though this might have been a bit difficult if nothing remains of the highland part of the railway? There are also the interesting ongoing aspects of the population/cultural influx from Jamaica to build the railway. Colombia's recent Coffee Landscape wouldn't seem to have had any more going for it?

3. You mention one Nicaraguan T List possibility above - Granada and its nearby island Archipelago in Lake Nicaragua. Is it your understanding that this is being pursued by Nicaragua ahead of the Fortress of the Immaculate Conception ("El Castillo")? My review of that site following a visit in 2005 raises a few potential issues and I would be interested to know if Nicaragua has yet made a decision one way or the other! http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t484.html
Both sites seem to be rather unjustifiably trying to mix into a single nomination Natural AND Cultural heritage which just happen to be near to each other. I personally would have thought that Granada was as good as other Latin American Colonial towns which are still getting inscribed but perhaps Nicaragua feels that it has to find an additional angle.

You mention the problems that Panama has been having regarding 3 of its 5 inscribed sites (poor maintenance of Portobelo, the "tunnel"/ringroad at Casco Viejo and the issue of dams in La Amistad). Central America seems to have perhaps more than its fair share of "in danger" issues considering that, unlike some other areas of the World, it isn't a war zone! Honduras has Rio Platano, Belize has its Barrier Reef and Colombia has its Isthmus site of Los Katios! I wonder if this sort of thing isn't another "disincentive" for a government thinking of going for WHS inscription (both in Central America and elsewhere). The message is that inscription can lead to world wide public "humiliation" and inability to do what a government might want to do! A few years ago countries were perhaps a bit naive regarding the additional pressures which WH inscription could create when "development" and "conservation" come up against each other. No longer I suspect. The 3 potential benefits of inscription - (National) Pride, (tourism) Profit and Preservation sound all very good until they get in the way of other objectives. For instance - Nicaragua's long term (albeit possibly unrealistic?) hopes of having a 2nd isthmus crossing or at least a trans-shipment rail and port system could be made more difficult if the Lake, Miskito or San Juan River areas were WHS!

I suspect further Mayan nominations by Central American governments. The benefit/cost ratio is much more positive. I can understand their potential disincentive of inscribing a large natural area. The question then eventually leads to Maya representation on the WHL?

Mexico - 5 Maya inscriptions
Honduras - 2 Maya inscriptions
Guatemala - 2 Maya inscriptions
El Salvador - 1 Maya inscription
Belize - 0 Maya inscriptions
URL

Belize (2)
I do believe if Belize put together a strong nomination dossier of various exceptional Mayan properties, it's chance of inscription would be very high.

Guatemala (2)
Guatemala recently updated their tentative list, clearly aiming toward further nominations of Mayan sites, often in a multi-component approach.

El Salvador (1)
El Salvador's greatest chance of inscription in in Chalchuapa, featured on the countries outdated tentative list. A well put together nomination (including the Olmec ties) would certainly have a shot at inscription.

I would reasonably assume there could be approximately 5 strong nominations that could be inscribed between these 3 countries. This would promote and preserve the full extent of the Maya Civilization.

I think that the problem described for Central America is also true of other Latin American countries with some exceptions (Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil).
Guyana, French Guyana and Trinidad still do not have any sites inscribed. Haiti, Dominican Rep., Puerto Rico, Paraguay and Uruguay only have one site inscribed each. Chile and Colombia are underrepresented, but unlike Peru, they do not seem to pursue further nominations at the moment.

The Complete list of new nominations from 2012-2013-2014 from Latin America (5)

Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between
the Mountain and the Sea (Brazil)

Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar
Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)

Qhapaq Nan, Andean Road System (Transnational Nomination)

Precolumbian chiefdom settlements with stone spheres of the Diquís (Costa Rica)

Considering that Latin America includes (32) state parties that have ratified the convention, this is a very small amount of "complete" nominations in 3 years. Home of the Maya, Olmec, Toltec, Aztec, and Inca civilizations. 400 years of Spanish colonization. Vast natural landscapes from volcanic, river deltas, deserts, rainforest, coral reefs, high-elevation lakes, and extensive wetlands make this region hugely important ecologically. Hopefully, in the near future we will see more nominations from this underrepresented region.

I would make the claim even stronger. Apart from the relatively successful countries (Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina) these are all nominations from the past ten years:

Valparaiso (Chile 2003), Humberstone (Chile 2005), Coiba (Panama 2005), Sewell (Chile 2006), Malpelo (Colombia 2006), Caral (Peru 2009), Coffee (Colombia 2011), Leon Cathedral (Nicaragua 2011).

8 nominations in a decade for the following 23 (!) countries and territories: Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Dominican Rep., Trinidad, Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Falklands.

This recent rate of nominations could be compared with that of other underrepresented regions such as Africa, theArab states, the Pacific or Central Asia although some of the Latin American countries and territories (Panama, Chile, Uruguay, French Guyana, Puerto Rico, Falklands) are considerably richer and would have the resources to pull through the nomination process.

Actually, adding back in Argentina, Brazil and Cuba doesn't add a great number of nominations over the past 10 years. They have inscribed a mere 5 between them - 1, 2 (+ 1 failure - Paraty) and 2 respectively (including 2003 in the "10 year count" as you have, Assif). Not a great example of "success" over 10 years and similar to Chile and Colombia who also had 2 each. Mexico is, of course, the "great exception" in the region with 9 plus, I think, just 1 failure (SL Potosi as part of Silver/Mercury Route.)

A bit "unfair" to include Falklands, Pto Rico and Fr Guyana though as none of them actually controls its nominations (Even leaving aside the issue of whether, apart possibly from Pto Rico, they should be called "Latin American" - which point also applies to Suriname, Haiti, Guyana, Belize and Trinidad!). If the whole of the "Americas" is looked at over the period then the picture doesn't change much with Canada (3), USA (1 - but Hawaii is not really in the "Americas"! Plus 1 "failure" with Washington's plantation), Barbados (1) and St Lucia (1) - whilst Jamaica had 1 deferred.

With referring to Brazil, Cuba and Argentina (and maybe Bolivia too) as success I meant they are much better represented than the rest of Latin America (excluding Mexico of course). It's true they haven't nominated that much in recent time, but they are still much better represented than Chile or Colombia for example.

Both Falklands and Puerto Rico had the chance to present their own candidates as both UK and USA had an open selection process for their new T lists. Neither presented any candidates. I don't know how the French T-list is compiled though.

With Latin America I took all territories the official language of which is Romance (French, Portuguese and Spanish). This would include French Guyana, Martinique, Guadelope, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Cuba. You are right, Solivagant, that strictly speaking Guyana, Falklands, Belize and Suriname have English and Dutch as their respective official languages, which are no Roamnce languages. I took them for being located in South or Central America. Maybe a bit untidy, you are right. But as you say, taking all of the Americas into consideration: Jamaica, Canada, USA and even Greenland, the general picture remains of underrepresentation with Mexico as a big exception (and maybe Cuba too). Even relatively successful countries like Canada, Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Bolivia have some strong candidates that are still missing, both cultural (archaeological, modern heritage) and natural.

Looking at the Filling the Gaps reports we can see some categories that could readily be filled by American nominations:

non-vineyard agricultural landscapes (e.g. Caribbean plantations, wheat fields of the Mid-West, coca fields in Bolivia),
non-European technological properties (e.g. Golden Gate Bridge, Calçoene megalithic observatory, Tren de los Nubes),
modern heritage (e.g. Chicago School of architecture, Miami Art Deco, Watts Towers, Frank Lloyd),
post-independence sites from the Americas,
non-Mayan Precolumbian sites (e.g. Olmec, Chachapoyas, Atacama, Moche, Mississipian, Intermediate Zone [Turrialba, Cuidad Perdida, Ometepe], Kuhikugu, Taino, Wari, Chinchorro),
industrial landscapes (e.g. Hollywood, Anglo factory, Silicon Valley, gold rush towns),
hunting-gathering-fishing (e.g. in Greenland, Amazone Basin, whaling in South Georgia),
migration-slavery (e.g. Monte Verde, Clovis, Ellis Island, Alcatraz, Usuaia),
non-religious oral traditions (e.g. Civil Rights Movement, Cuban communism, American Civil War, Ground Zero, UN headquarters),
aviation (NASA),
cold winter deserts (Colorado Desert),
tundras (Canada),
polar systems (Greenland, Alaska),
Californian shrub,
Central Mexico desert,
Mosquito (natural),
rainforests of Southern Chile,
temperate forests and shrubland of Central Chile,
grasslands of Falklands and Tierra del Fuego,
tropical Andes (e.g. in Colombia),
coastal deserts of Chile and Peru,
South Georgia (natural),
tectonic and structural features (Nazca Plate, Caribbean Plate),
stratigraphy (e.g. Fuegian Andes).

True! But of course that open selection process doesn't favour a small non-independent political entity since the tokenism which enables small independent countries to get a WH Site based on the "a prize for every member" policy being adopted by UNESCO won't apply with a nomination from a dependency. Also, sites from such dependencies are going to have to fight with the motherland for a limited annual slot. I would suggest that this means that it is less likely that such "token" sites are going to get chosen for nomination than would happen in an independent country. This of course feeds back to determine the sites which get put forward and perhaps mitigates against the merely "locally" or "regionally important" getting chosen. I remain a bit surprised that UK has chosen to go forward so early with Gorham's Cave from Gibraltar - at least I can't believe that it got chosen because someone wanted to ensure that every UK dependency got a chance - but it might well be because someone wanted to ensure that at least ONE Uk dependency did so! Tiny Anguilla and Turks& Caicos Islands also of course did put forward a suggested nomination which wasn't chosen. so the Falklands certainly had a chance!! And, despite what i said above about the disincentives for a country to choose "dependencies" UK has perhaps disproportionately inscribed its own "remnants of Empire" - 3 (including Bermuda which could be regarded as being part of the "Americas") out of 28 (but all before 2000 at which point it was 3 out of 20) and 2 more on its current T List.

But what might the Falklands have had to offer? You suggest the "grasslands" - certainly IUCN is currently pushing the subject of "Temperate Grasslands" and their preservation. I discovered this Workshop report but, since it was run by and held in Argentina perhaps unsurprisingly the Falklands weren't represented and didn't get a mention!! https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/grasslandsworkshopoct08.pdf
Whether the Falklands grasslands have any case for maintaining that they have better integrity than those on the mainland I don't know.
The only reference I can Google for a possible Falklands WHS was this http://www.falklands.net/ResearchPublications4.shtml from 1998 - "internationally recognised sites, such as Beauchêne Island which is being considered for World Heritage status," for its penguin and albatross colonies. How seriously it ever got considered I don't know - not very, I suspect, from the lack of other references.

My own particular memory of Falklands scenery was for the "Stone Runs" which are apparently among the best examples worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_run but again I would have thought do not have enough OUV!

Regarding "Latin America" - yes certainly a definition allows all Romance language speaking countries to be included but, more normally in UK usage, it is limited to Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries/islands. Wiki says it is "a region of the Americas where Romance languages (i.e., those derived from Latin) – particularly Spanish and Portuguese, and variably French – are primarily spoken." (so, is Quebec thereby "Latin American"??) But it wasn't a major point - I was really just wanting to bring in the other countries. Trinidad by the way ("(Latin American) would include French Guyana, Martinique, Guadelope, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Cuba.)" is of course a cricket-playing, English speaking country!!

Better to stick to pure geographical terms then - South America, Central America, Caribbean....

Re Falklands: maybe a cultural landscape nomination could be conjured up around sheep farming :-)

From wikipedia:

Farmland accounts for 1,123,985 ha (4,339.73 sq mi), more than 90% of the Falklands land area.Since 1984, efforts to diversify the economy have made fishing the largest part of the economy and brought increasing income from tourism.Sheep farming was formerly the main source of income for the islands and still plays an important part with high quality wool exports going to the UK. According to the Falklands Government Statistics there are over 500,000 sheep on the islands with roughly 60% on East Falkland and 40% on West Falkland.