Just wondering about how up-to-date our components are in regards to the yearly minor boundary modifications that often add additional components to WHS? How accurate are our boundary modifications that were approved in 2018 or before? Here is one example I noticed that was missing.

Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes (Korea) in 2018, two additional components were approved.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1264/multiple=1&unique_number=2314

This document includes minor boundary modifications for 2019.

https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2019/whc19-43com-8B-Add-en.pdf

A valid point, but I am not sure that minor boundary modifications "often" add components.
I notice that Korea tried to get 5 extra components included in the 2018 "minor" boundary modification but was only allowed 2 and was told to submit the others through the extension process if it wished to pursue them.

IUCN further commented "In principle, IUCN considers that it is problematic to add completely new components to a serial World Heritage Site, which are not immediately linked to areas already included in the inscribed property. Although located on the same island and overall volcanic system as the inscribed property, IUCN notes that only the potential inclusion of the Upper Geomunoreum component is directly linked with the existing component parts of the nominated property, via a shared buffer zone. The other component parts are completely separate units"

So the 2 additional components which were accepted were already included within the buffer zone of the inscribed site since they formed a part of the same single Lava Tube complex already inscribed in 3 parts by "filling" in 2 of the gaps.

As far as I can see the 2019 list of minor extensions doesn't include any new components.. But it is certainly a valid point that we should perhaps always check this item on the WHC agenda to make sure!!

Els can you remember which year it was that we "took" from the UNESCO Web site our list of components for sites inscribed at that time? Any additional components arising from "minor boundary modifications" could only have been added since that year - which can't be more than 3 or 4 years ago surely?? So wouldn't be difficult to make a quick check through.

As a follow-up to today's blog post, here's the list of all minor boundary modifications (including those to buffer zones) that we had gathered.

The minor boundary modification for Paris was just officially adopted.

As already mentioned, this boundary modification is substantial. Kind of unique timing as the Olympic Games are in full swing.

What about the suggested modification of Loire Valley including Angers? Any decision?

The advice of ICOMOS was not to approve and I do not see any amendments, so I would guess that it has not been changed. I did not watch the 'discussion' though (usually these are just hammered through without debate).