Hello, I would like to start a debate: in your opinion, what would be the ideal and final number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, in the long term? Is a perpetual desirable development or should there be a limit number? Stop the list of sites now rule out the top 50 missing while too many sites the décrédibiliserait. I suggest that there are as many sites as the year when we are, for example, 2,015 properties in 2015, 2,016 in 2016, with an addition per year which would be a really exceptional site chosen among a shorlist candidates. As if in 2015 years of history, the man had created in 2015 wonders. The idea of ​​not stopping the list and add a site per year is that archaeological discoveries can be made (terracotta army, Chauvet cave) and that history is moving (Auschwitz yesterday but tomorrow. ..). The lucky winner of the year would be much like the Oscar winner or a sporty finish. Theoretically, at the time of writing, 1007 sites are inscribed and 1656 are potential, which would lead to a maximum of 2663. With my proposal to make a list for the current year, this leads to an intermediate number between minima (1007) and maxima (2663). 2015 less 1007 = 1008 remaining places. :)

I used to think that 1000 would be a fine final number. But since I've been studying the theories around Heritage a bit more, I understand that there will never be an end. New constructions will be built that we find necessary to safeguard, locations get new meaning for humanity or groups of people because of associations with what happened there. The definition of 'heritage' is in constant movement, so the List will reflect that (maybe with a delay of some years).

I totally agree with Els. However, I'd wish the cultural/historic whs list to be separate from the natural whs list.