It may seem a bit early to consider the nominations for 2010 when this year's set are still undecided!! However, I found this on the IUCN Web site listing all the sites they are evaluating in the coming year either as Natural, Mixed or Cultural Landscape (CL) sites.

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_work/wcpa_worldheritage/wcpa_no mination/wcpa_actnomination/

A few comments
a. A few are "postponed" from this year's origninally expected sites - e.g. Reunion. I think also at one time the trans national Dinosaur sites in Portugal/Spain were intended for progression this year - but how many more dinosaur sites can the list take!
b. Another subject we have discussed is progress or otherwise on Pacific sites - Kiribati and Hawaii both figure with marine reserves.
c. China has put forward yet another set of mountains!
d. Tanzania appears to be going forward with an "Ngorongoro cultural landscape" rather than just adding "cultural" criteria for Olduvai? This makes 8 CLs in all (including 2 "mixed sites" which also seem to be CLs!) - is all this getting too "fashionable" and "easy"? I notice another CL for the coming year is the "Konso Cultural Landscape" - but this site is called "Konso-Gardula (paleo-anthropological site)" on Ethiopia's T List (it must be the same site since only T list sites can be evaluated) - apparently the same approach is being taken as for Ngorongoro i.e handling a paleo-anthropological site as a CL!
e. There are 2 sites which are likely to have problems convincing the ABs that they have genuine OUV beyond their close connections with a famous person (which it has already been established is not an adequate enough reason) - Darwin's Landscape Laboratatory and Mt Vernon

ICOMOS doesn't seem to be as open as IUCN in publishing its affairs (it was similar with the information about this year's evaluations) but, as I remember it, the list of nominations received for the next round is published by UNESCO at the WHC - or is it later when the minutes come out?

well the dinosaur site in this case is focused on ichnites, not on fossil remains as in previous sites. being the first nomination with the ichnites dominating the "universal value", it also has to convince the ab that ichnites per se are of outstanding universal value. and within that context, that the site in portugal/spain is one of the best, if not the best, representative.

note also for mt vernon that despite its association w/ a personality, a news article stated that the nomination is playing this down, focusing on the site as an outstanding example of a certain type of land use/management during the early years of america. hence, the nomination under criterion iv, and not vi. quite interesting to see that the darwin nomination also approaches this by veering away from criterion vi.

I remember that when Spain nominated ichnites sites few years ago, IUCN require more study for comparision to illustate OUV, so they must be sure that now they have enough study to show how outstanding for their sites, this kind of approch happen all the time especially from IUCN, the best example I can come up is Glarus Overtrust which is now listed as Swiss Tectonic Arena Sardona, the first time IUCN said NO and the Swiss withdrew it before WHC made decision then with more study reports and expanding the nominated area, so in 2008 IUCN said YES. However I still consider IUCN has set high standard for world heritage evaluation better than ICOMOS for at least IUCN has certain idea what to use for their decision making.

And for 2010; I would like to note on Italian Monte San Giorgio, as you may notice half of this mountain is already listed by Switzerland since 2003 and in report IUCN propose to extand this site to cover Italian part, right now I don't know this proposal is a truly seperate new site or an extension for transborder site.

In my personal view from the list, Sri Lankan nomination is the most well known site as the site include the famous Adam's Peak, the only holy mountain for Christians, Hindus, Islam, Jews and Buddhists which truly made it to be on the list of world heritage in terms of cultural site but for nature or mix!?

I know for sure that Monte San Giorgio is an extension.

There are 2 other boundary extensions (assuming that "Ngorongoro Conservation Area" stays the same despite the addition of criteria iii, iv and CL status)
a. Pirin is presumably a resubmission of the extension which was withdrawn at the last minute in 2008 (decision 32 COM 8B.15) for unstated reasons (Els - your entry for Pirin states that it was extended in 2008 - I think that is incorrect?)!
b. Roros - this site changed its name (some one must have thought that the change had great significance!) from "Roros" to "Roros Mining Town" in 2006 and now seems to want to be called "Roros Mining Town and the Circumference". What mystifies me is that the requested criteria are exactly those on which was inscribed in 1980 (iii, iv, v) anyway. Presumably the significance of "..... and the circumference" is taking on board the cultural Landscape aspect which wasn't available back in 1980. But why is Norway bothering?

there are a lot of well-known sites for the 2010 batch, like the marine park off hawaii. bottom line is the 2010 batch is certainly more interesting than this year's. as for norway's decision to extend, probably this is a result of restrospective inventory/periodic reporting, like that there is still some potential for an extension following the delineation of the boundary.

http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/

From today's edition of 'Heritage Link' news:

Wearmouth-Jarrow Nomination for World Heritage Site

The monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow in northeast England will be the UK's nomination for World Heritage Site status in 2010. The monastery, which functioned as 'one monastery in two places', is centred on St Peter's Church in Wearmouth Sunderland and St Paul's Church in Jarrow. Wearmouth-Jarrow was a major international centre of learning and culture in the 7th and 8th centuries. Its most famous inhabitant, the Venerable Bede, was the greatest scholar of his day and the impact of his writings is still felt in the 21st century. Original and rare 7th-century architectural and archaeological remains of the monastery survive at both Wearmouth and Jarrow.

By achieving World Heritage Site status, Wearmouth-Jarrow will sit alongside the Taj Mahal and Pompei as one of the almost 900 most important sites in the cultural development of humanity. World Heritage Site status will also ensure that Wearmouth-Jarrow is protected for the future. For more information visit the http://www.wearmouth-jarrow.org.uk/


http://www.wearmouth-jarrow.org.uk/documents/Wearmouth-Jarrow_Nomination_Plan_for_pub lic_consultation.pdf

As I understand it this site is NOT a nomination FOR 2010 although it was originally intended to be so. "Darwin at Down" was withdrawn very late on by UK from consideration by the 2007 WHC after its slating by ICOMOS (There is a general belief that a site once rejected can't be resubmitted so countries often "withdraw" sites they know/fear are going to be rejected to give themselves a second chance or at least avoid the igmony of public failure - though there are examples of previous rejections getting back in later). The UK Department of Culture felt that it could do the necessary to the nomination (which included persuading ICOMOS that such a site did have adequate OUV - there are various posts on this forum about the chequered history of this nomination!!) and decided to insert it for consideration again - this time at the 2010 WHC. As a result the sites previously identified for consideration then and thereafter were all put back by 1 year.

So, in relation to Jarrow and Wearmouth, the "2010" refers to the date by which papers must have been submitted to UNESCO in order for it to be considered at the 2011 WHC -in this case Jan 2010. The current UK position is shown on this Webpage
http://www.culture.gov.uk/4168.aspx/
(Note how the Antonine wall is shown as an Inscribed site in its own right as the 28th site of 27 (!!) when in fact it was just an extension - perhaps it is listed separately to salve Scottish sensibilities that they don't get enough of a "look-in" with nominations! I really don't understand why Scotland used up its "turn" on that site when it had other good ones it could have pushed forward.)

I personally find Jarrow etc a "weak" nomination albeit that it is a nice site which is worth visiting if you are in the NE of England - doesn't the list already contain a superfluity of early Christian monuments? It also suffers from the potential weakness of relying too much for its OUV on its connections with an individual - in this case The Venerable Bede. The nomination file will have had to try to play this down, however much it "plays well" in UK. Every UK schoolchild hears of this man even if they know absolutely nothing more of what he did and as a result he is part of our "National Consciousness" and feeling of historical self-worth - that doesn't cut much ice with ICOMOS/UNESCO! The original "Darwin at Downe" suffered from the same weakness and has now been rebadged as "Darwin's Landscape Laboratory" to try to emphasise the physical remains rather than the mystical connection with the great man!
But it was England's turn and the NE wanted something!

The NE already has Durham and Hadrian's Wall (which is now a part of the larger Frontiers etc etc).

Yes, it's for 2010/11, I just thought people may be interested in reading the papers etc. and it seemed as good a place as any to post it, but of course if it is deemed inappropriate then it can possibly have a thread all to itself.

And yes, I do in fact know the tangled history of the Darwin nomination.

If you look at the distribution of UK nominations (including those for 2009 and 10 i.e up to Jarrow etc's nomination) since the first year (when Durham Cathedral was inscribed) and, bearing in mind that Hadrians Wall is "half NW", then every area of England has had at least 1 nomination since then apart from NE and, surprisingly, East Anglia, which one would have thought felt rather "left out" of the whole exercise as it has no representation at all! Oh, except possibly "Cambridge Colleges and Backs" which was deferred in 1989 and just about counts as "E Anglia" - I understand it has thought better of becoming a WHS at all, not wanting all the hassle involved, and will not be pursuing matters further! Possibly an appropriately "brainy" decision - though Oxford was possibly even brainier having never got involved at all!

Of potential E Anglian sites only the Norfolk Coast appears on the T List now and, as far as I can discover, the only other towns form that area to have expressed interest in pursuing WHS status are Norwich and Bury St Edmunds. Does anyone have any "inside knowledge" as to why Norwich was/has been so tardy - doesn't it see enough benefits or possibly it does see too many downsides - surely it could have put together a core zone of adequate size and quality? Unfortunately now it would just be another European Mediaeval City with another Norman Cathedral among many on the list

However, Norwich is certainly a wonderful city and hopefully doesn't lose out in the tourism stakes from not being a WHS. I am sure it doesn't - though possibly some of growing number of Chinese tour groups give it a miss as it can't claim WH status. I note that as part of its tourism and heritage preservation strategy it has joined the "League of World Historical Cities"
http://www.city.kyoto.jp/somu/kokusai/lhcs/eng/index.htm
but this Japanese organisation, rather like Norwich's football club, is a bit "2nd Division" after the OWHC! Though I notice that Edinburgh has joined both, collecting heritage logos for its letterheads and locations for annual conferences to attend (Nara in 2010) rather like some cultural "Poo bah"!

Of course, Hadrian's Wall was a WHS before it became part of the wider site.

I have made some inquiries about Norwich. I do know someone who is an 'insider' who feels possibly the Norwich coast is stretching things, but who knows?

Possibly Norwich doesn't feel it's quite up to scratch. Wonderful city, but possibly not WHS material? I'm not sure that it's always about tourism. But Narch is a world of its own. :-)

As for Edinburgh, I doubt it needs to collect logos, it too is such a wonderful city. That's in my humble opinion, of course. I have no idea if the city leaders will be attending such conferences, but certainly, it is a world class historic city. That again is IMHO, of course.

It will be even more so when the Time Ball is operating again, a fascinating history. That's conservation, and good conservation, as is the rest of what is happening on Calton Hill. Slowly the monuments are being appropriately repaired, and there is currently Doctoral research being carried out on its significance.

http://www.ewht.org.uk/Nelson-Monument---time-ball-removed-for-conservation.aspx

For anyone in the area in July, SPAB in Scotland is holding an evening walk around Dean Village. July 9th. More details from the SPAB Office.

http://www.spab.org.uk/html/spab-in-scotland/what-is-spab-in-scotland/

I hope that the Brunel nomination doesn't fail. That's one I would love to see succeed.

I asked a friend who lives nearby and who has some insight about Norwich as a WHS...

"Norwich as a stand-alone nomination, you've got to be joking! Lincoln is far better-preserved and has a better cathedral..."

Of course, not all may agree.

The List of 2010 nomination both completed and incompleted documents are as follow;
- Australian Convict Sites , Australia
- Augustowski Canal, Belarus/Poland
- Wallonia Mines, Belgium
- Pirin Extension, Bulgaria
- Hangzhou West Lake, China
- Danxia, China
- Konso, Ethiopia
- Piton, France
- Albi City, France
- Hanz Mountain (Goslar Extension), Germany
- Matheran Railway, India
- Jaipur's Jantar Mantar, India
- Western Ghats, India
- Bali, Indonesia
- Shrines in Ardabil, Iran
- Tabriz Bazaar, Iran
- Galilee, Israel
- Monte San Giorgio, Italy
- Fort Jesus, Kenya
- Phoenix Islands, Kiribati
- Bikini Atoll, Marshall Island
- Ailinginae Atoll and Island of Current, Marshall Island
- Yapese Stone, Micronesia/Palau
- Centla and Terminos, Mexico
- Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, Mexico
- Yagul and Mitla Caves in Oaxaca, Mexico
- Oke-Idanre, Nigeria
- Amsterdam, Netherland
- Roros Extension, Norway
- Mindanao's Mount Apo, Phillippines
- Dinosaur Ichnites, Portugal/Spain
- Putorana Plateau, Russia
- At-Turaif District in ad-Dir'iyah, Saudi Arabia
- Island of Meroe, Sudan
- Old Village of North Syria, Syria
- Central Highland, Sri Lanka
- Hahoe and Yangdong, South Korea
- Devil Town, Serbia
- Portuguese Coa Valley Extension, Spain
- Sarazm, Tajikistan
- Tajik National Park, Tajikistan
- Alanya Castle, Turkey
- Ngorongoro, Tanzania
- Slave and Ivory Trade Route, Tanzania
- Al Ain, UAE
- Kyiv Extension, Ukraine
- Bukovyna and Dalmatia Metropolitans, Ukraine
- Darwin's Lab Landscape, UK
- Papahnaumokukea, USA
- Mount Vernon, USA

Very interesting list : many sites from south pacific countries, the comeback of USA, AMSTERDAM!, India astronomy site, a lot of deferred and refered sites and etc.

Mind you that for the Americas (North, Central, South and Caribean) only USA and Mexico nominated sites for the year coming. Having relatively long tentative lists and often enough budget for the task I don't see the reason why.

looks like some good pacific sites for 2010.
But i would like to know how mexico can nominate 3 sites