Probably because visiting a "Buffer Zone" is not going to give (most of?) us a "ticked" site, discussions surrounding the subject haven't figured (much) on the Forum to date. At WHCs, however, the subject looms quite large – whether in nomination evaluations or in reporting on the management and protection of existing sites so it does seem worth looking at the operation (or otherwise) of the concept. Following my raising of a "Connection" for such situations, I have recently been trying to follow up on which sites have "officially" been exempted from having a "Buffer Zone" (as opposed to managing to "get away" with it by not having had one since an inscription in the early days and, so far, avoiding having to define one!). I have particularly been concentrating on the subject as it "operates" in the USA.

First however it seems worth
a. Raising a new topic for it
b. Providing references to a couple of seminal documents on the subject as it relates to WHS.

"The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone. ICOMOS Symposium. Hiroshima Nov 28/9 2006. Program and papers"- http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/hiroshima/
17 Papers cover experiences and views from Sweden, Croatia, Netherlands, Poland, Germany (the "Koln skyscraper issue"), Sri Lanka, USA, Bulgaria, Spain, Finland, Australia and Japan. Other interesting issues which I noted concerned "Heritage Routes" (particularly in relation to inconsistencies in the Spanish Santiago inscription); Also the USA case for NOT having buffer zones, as well as possible alternative ways of achieving a similar result. This used Yellowstone as its "case in point" which had of course become something of a "Cause celebre" some time before because of the pressure placed on the US to control developments outside the inscribed boundary and the outrage this caused as a supposed demonstration of UNESCO interference in internal US matters.

World Heritage Document 25. "International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones. Davos, Switzerland 11 – 14 March 2008". "The meeting brought together experts of cultural and natural heritage sites from all regions of the world, to exchange experiences, discuss present and future challenges and propose to the World Heritage Committee elements for a reflection on the nature and function of buffer zones." The report contains "Position Papers" by ICOMOS etc regarding Buffer Zones, together with 16 "Case Studies" (All different I think from those used in the earlier Symposium above) and a number of "Recommendations" - http://whc.unesco.org/document/101967
The US case study was Mammoth Cave where it noted "While none of the existing World Heritage sites in the United States includes an official buffer zone, a few sites have established "areas of cooperation" around them under the auspices of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme". The ICOMOS paper also includes a history of the developing "Operational guidelines" in respect of "Buffer Zones"

The US has been particularly successful to date in avoiding the creation of "Buffer Zones" around its WHS. Below I report on the history to date and consider the current situation

We know from the 2008 paper No 25 on Buffer Zones (previous post) that none of the 20 sites inscribed by USA up to 1995 originally included a "Buffer Zone" or had incorporated one up to that date (Page 149 "While none of the existing World Heritage sites in the United States includes an official buffer zone, a few sites have established "areas of cooperation" around them under the auspices of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme"). But what has happened subsequently? Since the tightening of requirements for Buffer Zones which has taken place in the Operational Guidelines (OG) since 1995, most countries have carried out at least a degree of "catch up" to define Buffer zones for previously inscribed sites and have also incorporated the requirement into the vast majority of new nominations – to what extent has the USA followed suit?

Regarding "catch up" - the main source I have discovered are the statements made in the "Periodic Reporting Second Cycle" submitted for the 2013 WHC (See http://whc.unesco.org/en/eur-na/ ). The procedures for this 6 yearly reporting require the completion by the States Party of a series of standard sections setting out the state of preservation of each site. Several questions relate specifically to the status of the "Buffer Zone" and actions which need to be taken to enhance it. Such questions "flush out" the silence on the matter which has existed since inscription and force a response! NB - the document is completed by the States Party and not by ICOMOS, IUCN or UNESCO. However, in all cases, these documents appear to have been accepted by UNESCO without further questioning or the identification of further actions. The US sites inscribed up to 1995 fit into 1 of 3 categories in this respect -

a. Sites whose report states that "There is no buffer zone and none is required". There are 14 - Mesa Verde, Yellowstone, Everglades, Gt Smoky, La Fortaleza, Statue of Liberty, Mammoth, Olympic, Yosemite, Chaco, Hawaii Volcanoes, Monticello, Carlsbad and Grand Canyon. The same situation was reported for 2 other sites together with some further comment - Independence Hall – "Although the site does not have a formal buffer zone, the low scale and open setting of the national historical park that surrounds Independence Square effectively provides equivalent protection" and Cahokia – "The property owned by the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site beyond the World Heritage Site boundaries but inside the US National Historic Landmark boundaries function as an informal buffer area for the World Heritage Site."

b. Sites which have not yet carried out their "Periodic Reporting" - Redwood, Waterton and Glacier Parks (Incidentally, the Canadian part of the latter 2 Trans-national sites also lack a buffer zone). So we have no extra information about them regarding buffer zones

c. Sites whose report states "No buffer zone, but there is a need for one". Only Taos was in this category and promised that "Taos Pueblo will work with the NPS to determine a process to establish a buffer zone and possibly expand the boundaries of the World Heritage Site to include the Blue Lake Wilderness Area - the buffer zone would be a first step toward designation"

Following the inscriptions of Carlsbad and Waterton in 1995, the USA had a long period with no nominations – during which the OG significantly tightened the requirements for Buffer Zones. When it "restarted" in 2010 the US addressed the matter in each nomination as follows -
a. Papahanaumokuakea (Inscribed 2010)
"The nominated property has no buffer zone, as it is in an extremely remote region and its boundaries have been set at 50 nautical miles (~100km) out over open sea from each of the islands and atolls...... ICOMOS considers that the boundaries of the nominated property and of its buffer zone are adequate" (AB evaluation)

b. Mount Vernon (Nominated and deferred 2010)
"The buffer zone covers 159ha and comprises property owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, which is used for a variety of functions related to the mission of the organization, i.e. passive use as a forested buffer between the historic area and adjoining residential developments, meadows and fields for livestock grazing, and areas that have been set aside for operational and visitor-related functions. .... The inclusion of the proposed buffer zone in the nominated property might be a way to reinforce the understanding of the mansion farm as one component of a much larger plantation landscape" (AB evaluation)

c. Poverty Point (Inscribed 2014)
"No buffer zone is proposed. The State Party holds that the existing physical buffers and the stable agricultural character of the setting as well as the legal framework in place, which affords adequate protection to the nominated property, are, taken together, factors that make a buffer zone unnecessary"..... " ICOMOS therefore considers that, in conformity with paragraph 104 of the Operational Guidelines, an area surrounding the nominated property with complementary formalized regulatory mechanisms concerning its use and development should be defined to give an added layer of protection to the nominated property. "This should include [its] immediate setting, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection". The buffer zone should be determined through appropriate mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of the envisaged protection. ICOMOS' view, the existence of a buffer zone would prevent possible further damage arising from privately-driven agricultural or development activities and facilities but would also allow for future contiguous archaeological research" (AB eval)

d. San Antonio Missions (Nominated for 2015)
"The boundary of the nominated serial property coincides with the publicly owned property of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and of the Alamo Complex. The total area is 296.2 hectares (731.9 acres). A buffer zone surrounds the nominated property following the boundaries set up in the various city ordinances, including Rio Overlay Districts 3-6, Mission Historic District, River South Management Area, and the Alamo Historic District. The buffer zone runs from Travis Street in the north to Camino Coahuilteca on the south, Presa Street on the east and Mission Road and Roosevelt Ave on the west. The total area of the buffer zone is 1,828.8 hectares (4,519.1 acres)." (Nomination File Summary - http://www.missionsofsanantonio.org/assets/san-antonio-missions---world-heritage-_toc _executive-.pdf )

So – what can be concluded from all this?

a. The US appears to have been successful in arguing that nearly all of its inscriptions up to 1995 have no need of a Buffer Zone. Its main argument seems to be that, since the properties are in Government ownership the legal protections are adequate and that a buffer zone wouldn't add anything – in so doing it no longer seems to be trying to use the "Areas of cooperation" argument used in the above-cited Paper 25. It seems to have achieved acceptance of this argument irrespective of whether the site is a "National Park" (the majority) or a "lesser" entity (E.g Cahokia is a "State Historic site") and also whether it is a large natural site which could be argued to include adequate "buffer" within its boundaries or whether it is a smaller site within a city (e.g Independence Hall – whose argument that it is an "open setting" seems particularly weak!). Whether other "developed" countries such as Germany, Australia etc who have accepted the need to have buffer zones in their "equivalent" sites would accept that their legal framework is so much "weaker" in these respects than that of the USA is another matter!! This would appear to be an example of "US exceptionalism" to which UNESCO has bowed, rather than dig in its heels on a relatively "minor" matter with possible unforeseeable results (all sites being put "in danger"/removed from the list/USA leaving the Convention etc etc!)

b. The one early inscription where the need for a buffer zone appears to have been conceded is that of Taos Pueblo. This site, and its surrounding lands, are of course owned by the "Self governing Indian (sic) Community" of Taos Pueblo. That presumably is why the need for a buffer zone has been conceded! To date, however, nothing seems to have happened in creating one.

c. Since the recommencement of nominations in 2010 the US has been forced at least to address the issue in their documents. That for Papahanaumokuakea was able to adopt the same arguments used by UK in the case of Gough and Henderson Islands – namely that an entirely sea-based buffer zone beyond the official boundary which is already way out in the ocean is irrelevant.

d. However, the issue could not be so easily side-stepped in the case of Mount Vernon – it is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (MVLA) and therefore has different legal protection than a State or Federally owned site. But of course the lands outside the site are owned by ordinary US citizens who would be unlikely all to accept that they should be subject to buffer zone restrictions! The way round this was to identify a bit of the site owned by the MVLA and designate it as "Buffer Zone". Unfortunately it only ran along one side of the site and didn't impress ICOMOS who, in any case, regarded this land as being an essential part of any inscribed area. The issue never had to be pressed to a conclusion however since the site had other problems regarding OUV etc which the US has not, to date, pursued.

Continued in next post

e. The Poverty Point nomination provided another crunch point! Again the US argued that no buffer zone was required because of other existing legal protections. ICOMOS did not agree and requested that a buffer zone be created. But, despite this, the nomination was accepted at the WHC and, in so doing UNESCO presumably accepted the US arguments in this case!

f. Which brings us to next year's nomination - the San Antonio Missions. Whilst I have (so far) been unable to access the full Nomination file, the extract cited above represents the first occasion on which the US has included a "genuine" explicit buffer zone beyond the main site at the time of nomination. It would appear that it has finally accepted that it has to find some way of "playing ball" on this matter! This fact has not gone unnoticed among the anti-UNESCO community. See this - http://www.infowars.com/united-nations-to-destroy-property-rights-of-thousands-around -alamo/ . The US argument seems to be that the buffer zone merely recognises existing zones for "Historic Districts" and the legal protection these already provide via "city ordinances". So far the (silent?) majority of the good citizens of Texas appear to be going along with this – it will be interesting to see if ICOMOS considers that merely specifying some areas as "Buffer Zones" without a federally enforceable framework for such "zones" is adequate.

In conclusion – The US is still "wriggling on the hook" on this matter. It has been pretty successful in avoiding being "caught" on most of its existing sites but still has something to do re Taos and has at least accepted the principle of Buffer Zones for the San Antonio Missions. The issue is going to come up again for Frank Lloyd Wright (2016) and Hopewell (2017). But of course US is not the only country "wriggling" on this matter – UK has also done so regarding its London sites and no doubt there are other countries too - but only US appears to have this overall and culturally/legally-based aversion to the establishment of buffer zones on private property. Up until now other countries on the WHC appear to accept this exceptionalism – if they are really aware of it!!

I have just been looking at the draft new Management Plan (MP) for Stonehenge and Avebury. (Short and long versions here - http://consult.wiltshire.gov.uk/portal/spatial_planning/whs/stonehenge_and_avebury_wh s_management_plan_2015 Go to "Supporting Documents" )

UK seems to be continuing its rearguard action against formal "Buffer Zones"!! One can understand why it might not want buffer zones in e.g Central London but the wide open spaces of Salisbury Plain don't exactly seem likely to cause any great problems given that most of the rest of the World lives with them (Except of course that other "Anglo Saxon" free-market country the USA - though I think that the motivations of each in being against "buffer zones" do differ somewhat)

No, clearly this is a bigger issue of principle for the UK government than just Salisbury Plain. Presumably it is worried that if it gives on the principle there then its arguments for London and Liverpool etc are weakened?

Neither Stonehenge nor Avebury currently has a "Buffer zone" and the proposed MP doesn't intend putting one in place! But the issue has had to be addressed in the MP and there is a need to overcome a slightly inconvenient fact that the "need" for such a zone at Avebury had been identified and published back in 2005 - "The 2005 Avebury Management Plan concluded that a 'buffer zone needs to be defined effectively protecting the WHS, its monuments and their landscape settings from visual intrusion and other adverse impacts' " . Stonehenge however took a different view - "The Stonehenge Plan 2000 concluded there was no compelling justification for a formal buffer zone in that part of the WHS"
This divergence clearly needed to be reconciled with the creation of a joint MP.

The intended approach is set out in this very "political" statement - "Since these discussions on the need for a buffer zone, the approach to protecting the setting of WHSs has developed. This has occurred in a climate of increasing and broadening understanding of the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage assets more generally".
UK is basing its argument on the fact that the UNESCO Operational Guidelines state - "'wherever necessary for the proper conservation of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided'. It does leave open the option that the setting of the World Heritage Site can be protected in other ways." (my "bold")
Through this half open gate UK is trying hard to avoid the creation of "formal" buffer zones. The technique for doing this is to carry out a "Setting Study" as per this guidance - https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets/

UK accepts in theory that there MAY be a need for buffer zones but it seems to be very reluctant to actually do so, preferring to adopt less "hard" definitions - it "recognises that it may be appropriate to protect the setting of a World Heritage Site with a buffer zone or in other appropriate ways. The Guidance underlines that the setting requires protection and that it is essential that the Local Plan sets out how this will take place."

Now - is this a good example of the "pragmatic" approach to matters of governance which UK likes to think it is rather good at as opposed to the "dogmatic" ones adopted by many other cultures? We know already that UNESCO doesn't regard a formal "Buffer zone" as being the final word on the area beyond a site's inscribed boundary which should be considered regarding protection (Eg St Petersburg, Seville etc) so it could be argued that UK is really pointing to a useful approach which the rest of the World should adopt as opposed to hard lines on maps delineating "buffer zones" -ie take each case on its own merits regarding what should be regarded as signficant in "setting" terms both in terms of distance from the WHS and in terms of what can be allowed and not allowed. On the other hand is this reluctance to draw firm lines on maps an indication of a reluctance by UK to impose restrictions which UNESCO/ICOMOS etc etc might regard as essential?

We haven't discussed this matter since Dec 2014.....The latest Flow Country evaluation seems to justify a review of the current situation...and the past 10 years!

I was interested (and surprised) to note that The "Flow Country" nomination has escaped the general "requirement" to have a Buffer Zone (BZ)! The IUCN evaluation states - "The nomination does not include a buffer zone. The position of the Scottish Government is that a World Heritage natural site buffer zone is not a statutory designation and would not provide any specific legal protection. The use of an additional layer of environmental designation unfamiliar to the public (buffer zone) is considered adding a level of confusion to the local population in respect of their interaction with the nominated property. Therefore, the Scottish Government discourages the use of buffer zones around natural World Heritage properties..... The buffer function is therefore provided within legal and planning frameworks without delimiting a World Heritage buffer area." A reasonable argument or a fine example of "UK Exceptionalism"?....."Our laws are so superior that we don't need to adopt confusing concepts from beyond as followed by everyone else......"?

UK has long battled with UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN on the matter of BZs. See this UNESCO document from 2011 covering discussions regarding Westminster and the Tower of London . which adopts a similar argument that buffer zones are not "as good" as the way "we" do things - "The mission spent some considerable amount of time discussing and understanding the absence of buffer zones for both the Tower and Westminster World Heritage Sites.....Overall, it was explained, the term "buffer zone" carries a negative connotation in the UK. It's perceived as being overly restrictive....". Adding BZs to the Tower and Westminster were of course raised during a post inscription Mission, but it appears that UK is still being successful in avoiding identifying BZs for at least some of its new Nominations. Is it "unique" in achieving this? We have a Connection for "No Buffer Zone" with just 16 entries – is it really that uncommon?

The Operational Guidelines (OGs) have "suggested" the need for BZs since the 1980 version Para 12 -"Whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be foreseen and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone can be defined as an area surrounding the property which has an essential influence on the physical state of the property and/ or on the way in which the property is perceived". The same words have largely survived in the OGs through to the current 2023 version in Para 103 of that document, with the minor, but probably not significant, change from "Whenever" to "Wherever" necessary. The OG creates (at least!) 2 problems – What is "necessary" and how should the "area" be defined?.

The UNESCO site page for each WHS has provision to show both "Property" and "Buffer Zone" areas but is not always accurate. In the following analysis I have tried to refer to the detail of the AB evaluations (and even Nomination files) in those cases where the UNESCO page gives no BZ data. This has indeed often identified that there is a BZ even if not shown "up front". I have gone back as far as 2014 to identify how common inscriptions with "no BZ" have been "recently" -

2014 - 1 out of 26.
Poverty Point (US). ICOMOS wasn't happy and recommended Deferral for various boundary/buffer related reasons but was overruled with Inscription and the issue wasn't sorted
2015 - 1 out of 24.
Forth Bridge (UK). Only contains a "de facto" BZ...ICOMOS considers the legal protection adequate
2016 - 0 out of 21
2017 - 2 out of 21
Lake District (UK) - "A BZ is not proposed......ICOMOS considers that the reasons given by the SP ....are satisfactory"
Khomani (SA) - No BZ proposed. ICOMOS not happy with a number of boundary related issues and recommended Deferral for all to be reconsidered. Overruled with inscription and the matter wasn't sorted.
2018 – 2 out of 19
Aasivissuit (DK) - ICOMOS considers that the lack of a BZ is "unlikely to be an issue in the long term"
Barberton (SA) - No BZ proposed. IUCN wanted strengthened BZ and proposed Refer. Overruled by inscription and the issue not sorted
2019 – 3 out of 29
Budj Bim (OZ) - ICOMOS "the property is not surrounded by a delineated BZ". Australia puts forward a concept of an "unlimited BZ" and refers to the "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 which provides sufficient protection and that therefore no buffer zone is required". ICOMOS is concerned ("ICOMOS considers that this system can be understood as an unlimited buffer zone, provided that monitoring mechanisms are well elaborated and consistently applied") – but leaves it there!.
French Austral (FR) - IUCN accepts that "The addition of reserve control over the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding the reserve established in 2017 provides an effective buffer zone."
Vatnajokull (IS) - No buffer zone proposed and IUCN accepts that "Given the vast size of the nominated property, the particular resilient nature of the OUV, and the existing protection in the nominated property's surroundings through the Nature Conservation Act, the Public Land Act and the Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilisation, IUCN agrees that the designation of a buffer zone is not essential for this property, provided these wider measures continue to be effective."
2021 - 3 out of 34
Slate Landscape of Wales (UK) - "The SP has not proposed a BZ"....The ICOMOS evaluation considers the OG background to all this in length... and is not at all happy ("However, ICOMOS notes the vulnerability of the setting due to the configuration of the serial components and the absence of a formal buffer zone.") but lets it go!
Spa Towns of Europe – ICOMOS notes "All component parts include buffer zones (some quite extensive) with the exception of the City of Bath. However, this component is surrounded by a designated Green Belt which seeks to protect the open landscape around the City while the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty abuts the City to the north, east and south" ... so that is ok then!!! But ICOMOS does want improvements/extensions to the BZs of Vichy and Karlovy Vary - they don't "do things as well" in France or Czechia!
KKFC (TH) – IUCN notes "The original and revised nomination of 2014 and 2016 respectively also included a buffer zone of 242,778 ha." which has been removed ..... is not happy... wants a reconsideration of this among other aspects with a Deferral....but is overruled and the issue passes by!
2023 – 2 out of 45
Rachid Karami Fairground (LE) - "no buffer zone according to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention has been proposed. ICOMOS observes that consideration should be given to defining a buffer zone encircling the nominated oval-shaped area"..... goes along with the overall "Emergency inscription" but proposes that, subsequently "with the assistance of the joint ICOMOS/WHC reactive monitoring mission, the establishment of a buffer zone"
Gedeo (ET) - "there is no buffer zone as it is stated that there is no difference between the landscape within the property boundaries and the landscape beyond, as both are part of the Gedeo Zone". Although recommending inscription ICOMOS also stated that "the addition of a buffer zone to protect the immediate setting needs to be considered."

Thus, relatively few sites since 2014 have gained inscription without identifying a separate BZ area with its own boundaries. But what is the overall situation taking into account earlier inscriptions? Has there been much of a "catch up" on them? I have looked at a small number of countries as follows for their "No BZ" status -

Spain - 11 out of 50 (Cordoba (84), El Escurial (84), Gaudi (87), Avila (85), Donana (94), Lonja (96), Las Med (97), Pyr (97), Coa (98), Atapuerca (00), Elche (00). Nb. Heritage of Mercury (2012) DOES have a BZ accepted by ICOMOS even though not shown in UNESCO summary
France - 9 out of 52 (Arles (81), Fontainbleau (81), G of Porto (83), Reims Cath etc (91), Paris Seine (91), Avignon (95), Pyr-Mt Perdu (97) , Rts St de Comp (98), Austral lands 23). Nb – although not shown in the UNESCO summary the French Belfries do each have a "zone tampon" shown in the Nom file.
Austria - 0 out of 12
Ethiopia - 9 out of 11. Most are 2006 or earlier, Konso (11) ICOMOS wanted a "Deferral" for buffer zones etc but was overruled and the issue wasn't sorted. Gedeo is described above under 2023.
Rep of Korea - 5 out of 16. All of which were inscribed up to 1997.

UK - 22 out of 33. It is thus easier to identify the 11 which do – Studley (86), Greenwich (97), Orkney (99), Derwent Valley (01), New Lanark (01), Saltaire (01), Kew (03), Gough (ext 04) Pontcycyllte (09), Gorham (16) and Jodrell (19). N.b - in the case of Gough its Marine area is considered a BZ by UNESCO even though it is stated elsewhere "Buffer zone: no buffer zone has been defined but none needed" and Liverpool (04) DID have a buffer zone! Furthermore - In the 2014-23 period it managed to gain inscription without BZ for Forth Bridge, Lake District, Slate Landscape, and the Bath element of Spa towns i.e ALL its inscriptions across the period other than Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar! And now is about to achieve the same with Flow Country – though the Gracehill element of Moravian Churches in N Ireland DOES have a BZ!!!

So, what to conclude about WHS and Buffer Zones as of 2024?
a. There are many more WHS without them than the 16 our connection currently identifies. Many of them relate to earlier inscriptions (up to around 2000?) which have not retrospectively identified a BZ (although others from that era have done so). These include many sites which would seem to "need" a BZ and would be expected to have one if nominated now
b. Relatively few nominations (certainly since 2014) gain inscription without a BZ. Ways of "avoiding" a BZ include
i. Getting a Nomination without one overturned from "De/Refer" to "Inscribe" at the WHC - you will not be made to go back and create one! Similarly if you get an inscription with a request to create a BZ later
ii. "Convincing" the AB that your existing legislative protection framework is adequate without one. Somehow UK seems to have become particularly adept at this but other examples can be found e.g Australia with Budj Bim - though that also traded on "First Nations" cultural issues which ABs are reluctant to question!

Will add the ones you mentioned above!

Ok ....but perhaps we need a rethink
Are we wanting to identify or at least differentiate those WHS with No BZ because
a. They escaped the "need" early on and there is no mention by the AB about the issue in its eval - these, IMO, will be the majority.
b. The AB for some reason (as stated in the AB eval) agreed there was no need for a separately identified BZ
c. The AB wanted a separately identified BZ but for some reason (E.g over rule or job still to be done) there isn't one

Perhaps not now but a shared trawl by country or year will be needed.....

In the intro to the original connection, we say "WHS without a Buffer Zone where this lack has been publicly acknowledged and accepted within UNESCO processes". That would imply only your option B, but we may have strayed from that already with the 16 connected sites listed.

With my current knowledge (and I have not deep-dived into it as you did), I think it would be good to add to the rationale whether the omission of a buffer zone was accepted for a reason, and where it was promised to be added later (and did not happen). I am unsure about listing all the old ones (pre-1997) where the maps and the AB ev's were terrible overall (your option A).

We could try first to add/sharpen the rationale to the 16 existing connected sites, and see what issues come up?

Hortobágy - AB ev says that a buffer zone has been defined for the national park. There is no official map. Should be removed from the connection I think

Yes...not quite sure why it got put on this connection....ICOMOS accepted it from the start. Where the UNESCO page shows an figure for a BZ (as it does for Hortobagy) we should accept that it regards the "BZ" as meeting its requirements...... unless we can find an obvious error, (The converse is not the case - just because UNESCO does NOT show a BZ on a WHS page isn't adequate proof that there isn't one)


On the other hand it would be interesting to see which sites/countries (and any "pattern" in this - e.g UK/USA in particular??) have managed to avoid specifying BZs.....All (nearly?) early sites will have faced a Mission or review/boundary definition of some sort across the years ...and, as the Westminster/Tower of London show, that will have been an opportunity for ICOMOS/IUCN to pressure for a BZ.... yet some/many still "escape". Extensions or minor boundary mods will have been another chance for the issue to be pushed....