Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Background research to support the work of the ICOMOS Indigenous Heritage
Working Group
May 2019
© Hidehiro Otake © Francois Odendaal Productions (FOP Films)
© Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation © Alberta Parks
�
ICOMOS Canada © 2019
�
Document disponible en français également, la version anglaise faisant autorité. - Document available in French also, the English version being the official one.
ICOMOS Canada is the Canadian committee of the International Council on Monuments and on Sites, the only global non-governmental organization dedicated to the conservation of the world’s cultural heritage places. It carries out its mandate through over 100 national committees and 28 international scientific committees. One of its important mandates is to advise UNESCO on cultural heritage matters especially in the context of the World Heritage Convention. ICOMOS Canada is the Canadian national committee of ICOMOS. Become a member online. P.O. Box 737, Station B Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1P 5P8
E-Mail: [email protected]
ICOMOS Canada est le comité canadien du Conseil International des Monuments et des Sites, la seule organisation internationale non gouvernementale qui se consacre à la conservation des lieux patrimoniaux dans le monde. ICOMOS livre son mandat par le biais de plus d’une centaine de comités nationaux et de 28 comités scientifiques internationaux. L’un de ses mandats importants est de remplir un rôle aviseur auprès de l’UNESCO sur la conservation du patrimoine culturel dans le contexte de la Convention du patrimoine mondial. Devenez membre en ligne.
C.P. 737, Succursale B Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1P 5P8
Courriel : [email protected]
canada.icomos.org
Thank you to Parks Canada for generously contributing funds to the preparation of this report
Ile Verte Lighthouse - Phare de l’Ile-Verte © ICOMOS Canada
�
Introduction from the President of ICOMOS CanadaOn behalf of ICOMOS Canada, I am pleased to submit this report to the international community of heritage practitioners, members of ICOMOS. This report is the result of the work of Dr. Michael O'Flaherty, Assistant Professor at the University of Manitoba, in collaboration with the ad hoc group of ICOMOS members interested in implementing Resolution 19GA 2017/27 approved at the Assembly General of Delhi.
This resolution, unanimously supported by the General Assembly, recognizes the organizational challenges surrounding the understanding, evaluation and conservation of sites that express Indigenous heritage values. As the World Heritage Convention expands its influence and the World Heritage List welcomes new examples of the richness of the human experience, the ICOMOS community offers a space for exchanging and
reflecting on the characteristics of Indigenous heritage and its contribution to the heritage of humanity.
The challenge is important. The theory and practice of heritage conservation remain largely rooted in a Western tradition that has nevertheless opened up to other cultural expressions of heritage at ICOMOS through tools such as the Nara Document on Authenticity, international charters on cultural landscapes and cultural routes, as well as national charters and declarations of general meetings. These existing tools remain incomplete in part because they do not fully integrate intangible dimensions and the link between culture and nature, both aspects being essential ingredients of the Indigenous heritage worldview.
The challenge must be met. ICOMOS has already begun substantive work over the past few years in addressing the indigenous dimensions of heritage through many recent initiatives, including the Culture-Nature Journey, the Our Common Dignity Initiative - Rights-Based Approach, and the Connecting Practice Project. The initiative launched at the Delhi General Assembly aims to focus the attention of expert members, national committees, and international scientific committees on the need to develop adequate tools and directly involve representatives of indigenous communities in the work of ICOMOS.
This report is the first step in a long process to better understand the many facets of Indigenous heritage. The initial choice to pay particular attention to the World Heritage context is deliberate. An increasing number of sites with indigenous dimensions are on national Tentative Lists for submission to World Heritage. ICOMOS, as an advisory body to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, will have to study these proposals taking into account the cultural specificities that define them and must therefore be adequately equipped to implement its mandate in respect of human cultural diversity.
That said, the subject must be studied in all its complexity, beyond the parameters of the Convention, a work that will be the subject of the mandate of a future committee, soon to be established.
ICOMOS Canada is pleased to have taken the initiative to begin the work of the organization on the subject. In the spirit of our own priorities on Indigenous heritage, cultural landscapes, and climate change, our support is the tangible mark of the important international contribution that Canadian experts can make on the subject.
Christophe Rivet, PhD
President ICOMOS Canada
BackgroundResearchforIndigenousHeritageWorkingGroup
FINALREPORT
–May20,2019–
for:
ICOMOSCANADA
by:
R.MichaelO’Flaherty
Eco-AntResearchandConsulting
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) i
TableofContents
INTRODUCTION 1Purpose..................................................................................................................................................1Scope.......................................................................................................................................................1Methods..................................................................................................................................................2ContentofReport................................................................................................................................3
CHALLENGEOFDEFININGINDIGENOUSHERITAGE 4WorkingDefinitionofIndigenous................................................................................................6AnApproachtoIndigenousHeritage...........................................................................................7ApplicationofanApproachtoIndigenousHeritage...............................................................8Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................10
HISTORYOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGEASWORLDHERITAGE 121.RepresentationofIndigenousHeritageinInscribedSites............................................122.SitesontheTentativeLists.......................................................................................................223.Discussionsaboutadditionalpotentialsites......................................................................254.WorldHeritageCommitteeDecisions...................................................................................265.InternationalEffortstoBetterAddressIndigenousHeritage.......................................32
DISCUSSIONOFISSUESINADDRESSINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGE 351.IdentificationofValues..............................................................................................................352.Authenticity....................................................................................................................................493.Integrity...........................................................................................................................................544.ProtectionandManagement....................................................................................................57
CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS 61RecommendationsforFutureWork..........................................................................................62
SOURCESCITED 65
APPENDIXONE—INSCRIBEDSITESREPRESENTINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGE 69InscribedSitesRepresentingIndigenousHeritage...............................................................69InscribedSitesPossiblyRepresentingIndigenousHeritage.............................................93SourcesConsulted............................................................................................................................93
APPENDIXTWO—HIGH-LEVELTHEMESFORSITESWITHINDIGENOUSHERITAGE 95
APPENDIXTHREE—TENTATIVELISTSITESWITHINDIGENOUSHERITAGE 99
APPENDIXFOUR—NATURALSITESWITHINDIGENOUSPEOPLES 145
APPENDIXFIVE—DECISIONSBYWORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEE 149
APPENDIXSIX—PERIODICREPORTINGCYCLE3QUESTIONNAIRE 154
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) ii
APPENDIXSEVEN—TERMSOFREFERENCE 159
ListofFigures
Figure1. HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsUnderCulturalCriteria,ShowingRepresentationofIndigenousHeritageComparedtoSitesWithoutIndigenousheritage........................................................................................................14
Figure1a RelativeProportions,OverTime,ofSitesRepresentingIndigenousHeritageandThosenotRepresentingIndigenousHeritage.............................14
Figure2. HistoryOfWorldHeritageInscriptionsthatIncludeIndigenousHeritage,ShowingRegionalRepresentation.............................................................................15
Figure2a HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinAfrica..................................................16
Figure2b HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinLatinAmerica&theCaribbean.16
Figure2c HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinNorthAmerica.................................17
Figure2d HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinEurope................................................17
Figure2e HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinAsiaandthePacific........................18
Figure2f HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsinArabStates........................................18
Figure3. HistoryofWorldHeritageInscriptionsthatIncludeIndigenousHeritage,ShowingNumberofSiteswithLivingandRelictHeritage.................................19
Figure4. ProportionofSitesthatareLivingandRelictforeachHigh-levelTheme...20
Figure5. RepresentationofIndigenousHeritageontheTentativeLists(2018).........22
Figure5a RepresentationofIndigenousHeritageontheWorldHeritageList(2018)23
Figure6. WorldHeritageCommitteeDecisionsandCaseLawAddressingIndigenousPeoplesand/orIndigenousHeritageineachYear(1972–2018)....................................................................................................................................27
Figure7. CumulativeWorldHeritageCommitteeDecisionsAddressingIndigenousPeoplesand/orIndigenousHeritagetoDate(2018)..........................................27
ListofTables
Table1. RegionaldistributionofSitesIdentifiedasPossiblyRepresentingIndigenousHeritage........................................................................................................13
Table3. NumberofSiteswithLivingandRelictHeritageamongthoseRepresentingandPossiblyRepresentingIndigenousHeritageatbothGlobalandRegionalLevels(2018)............................................................................15
Table3. RelativeProportionsofSitesInscribedandontheTentativeLists(2018),BrokenDownbyRegion................................................................................................19
Table4. RegionalRepresentationofHigh-levelThemesamongInscribedSiteswithIndigenousHeritage........................................................................................................21
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) iii
Table5. IndigenousParticipationinManagementofInscribedSites............................21
Table6. RelativeProportionsofSitesInscribedandontheTentativeLists(2018)24
Table7. RelativeProportionsofSitesInscribedandontheTentativeLists(2018),brokendownbyRegion.................................................................................................24
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 1
Introduction
Purpose
ThisreportprovidesbackgroundonanddiscussionofindigenousheritageintheWorldHeritagecontext.BackgroundconsistsofhistoryofrepresentationofindigenousheritageinWorldHeritagesitesanddecisionsandactionstakenbytheWorldHeritageCommitteewithrespecttoindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage.DiscussionfocusesonrecentandongoingchallengesandopportunitiesforbetterunderstandingandrecognizingindigenousheritageasWorldHeritage.
AspertheTermsofReference,thisreportisexpectedtoinformdiscussionswithintheICOMOSIndigenousHeritageWorkingGroupanddevelopmentofaworkplan,includingfororganizationofaninternationalworkshop.ThereportdoesnotseektomakedefinitivestatementsonindigenousheritageandhowitshouldbeaddressedintheWorldHeritagecontext,norcanthereportspeaktohowICOMOSinteractsdirectlywithindigenouspeoplesorStatesParties.
TheTermsofReferenceforthisreportareprovidedinAppendixSeven.
Scope
ThefocusofthisreportisspecificallyonindigenousculturalheritageasWorldHeritage.OnlyculturalormixedsitesontheWorldHeritageListorTentativeListsarediscussedinanydetail.SitesontheListofWorldHeritageinDangerarehereconsideredalongwithsitesontheWorldHeritageList,withoutmakinganydistinctionbetweenthetwolists.Whereknowledgeofindigenousheritageand/orindigenouspeoples,andinparticularwheretheyareparticipatinginsitemanagement,isavailableforsitesproposedorinscribedunderonlynaturalcriteria,arecordofthesesitesismadebutnoattemptismadetoprovidedetailoranalysis.ThefocusisalsoonimplementationissuesassociatedwiththeOperationalGuidelinesandotherpolicy,withemphasisonbetterunderstandinghowindigenousheritageisidentifiedandrepresentedontheWorldHeritageList.WhileimplementationoftheWorldHeritageConventionmustaddressissuesofindigenouspeoplesrights,asoutlinedforinstanceintheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(UNDRIP)andconfirmedbytheUNESCOPolicyonEngagingwithIndigenousPeoples(2018),thisreportdoesnotdirectlyaddressrights.ICOMOShascommittedtoimplementingrights-basedapproachesinWorldHeritage,includingthroughtheinitiativeOurCommonDignity(discussedfurtherinthesection,“InternationalEffortstoBetterAddressIndigenousHeritage”).BecausethelegalandpolicycontextsofStatesPartiesdifferconsiderably,itisnecessarytorespectinternationalstandardsforrightswhenimplementingprotectionandmanagementintheWorldHeritagecontext.Respectingtherightsofindigenouspeoples,includingbyensuringtheirparticipationinidentification,nominationandmanagementoftheirheritage,willsubstantiallyimproveidentification,
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 2
representionandprotectionofindigenousheritageasWorldHeritage.TheAdvisoryBodieshaveacknowledged,oursharedworkonnominationsandconservationissueshasshowntheimportanceoffindingconstructivesolutionswhereWorldHeritageprocessesintersectwiththerightsofindigenouspeoples,culturalgroups,localcommunitiesandindividualsassociatedwithWorldHeritageproperties.Whererightsissuesarenotaddressed,arangeofproblemsandconflictscanarise.1
Methods
BasicdataoninscribedWorldHeritagesites,includingsitedescriptionandcriteriaunderwhichsitesareinscribed,wastakenfromthemostrecentdigitalversionoftheWorldHeritageListinExcelformat(whc-sites-2018.xls),downloadedfromtheWorldHeritageCentrewebsite.ThisExcelfilewasthenexpandedtoincludeadditionalinformationsuchasthenamesofindigenousgroups,whetherindigenousheritageislivingorrelict,formofparticipationinmanagement,andgeneralthemesaddressedbysites.Furtherdetailsonthisexpandedfileareprovidedinaseparatedocument(DescriptionofExcelFilewhc-sites-2018Markup.xls.docx);bothareincludedwiththisreportasseparatefiles.
AllchartsandtablespresentedinthisreportarebasedontheinformationcontainedintheexpandedExcelfile(whc-sites-2018Markup.xls).Thisspreadsheetisprovidedasastartingpointfordiscussionofindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage;hopefullythisfilebecomesalivingdocumentthatwillbeupdatedandrefinedthoughdiscussionwithintheWorkingGroup.
DecisionsonwhetherornotasiterepresentsindigenousheritagewereinmostcasesbasedonareviewoftheStatementofOUVfoundontheWorldHeritageCentrewebsite.Inmanycases,andespeciallywheredetailsonindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritagewasnotclearfromtheStatementofOUV,theICOMOSEvaluationand,insomecases,eventhenominationdocumentwerealsoconsulted.
Sincethereisnolistofindigenouspeoplesaroundtheworldtoworkfrom,web-basedresourceswerealsoimportantinidentifyingindigenouspeoples.Sourcesincluded,theInternationalWorkGrouponIndigenousAffairs(IWGIA),Denmark,andwherepossible,localindigenouspeoples’representativeorganizationssuchas:theIndigenousPeoplesofAfricaCo-ordinatingCommittee(IPACC);AliansiMasyarakatAdatNusantara(AMAN),Indonesia;NepalFederationofIndigenousNationalities(NEFIN);RussianAssociationofIndigenousPeoplesoftheNorth(RAIPON);UnionofIndigenousNomadicTribesofIran(UNINOMAD).Wherepeopleareparticipatinginormembersoflocalindigenouspeoplesrepresentativeorganizations,theyareassumedtobeindigenouspeoples.MinorityRightsGroupInternational,awidelycitedsourceforinformationonindigenouspeoples,was
1 ICOMOS,IUCNandICCROM(2014),“WorldHeritageandRights-BasedApproaches”.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 3
cautiouslyconsultedbutwaslargelyunhelpfulsincetheygroupindigenouspeopleswithallminorities,includingreligiousminorities.Itisunlikelyanydefinitionorsetofcriteriaforassigningsitesinto“indigenous”and“non-indigenous”categorieswillbeappropriateinallcasesorsatisfyallinterests.Asaresult,decidingwhichsitescontainindigenousheritageissomewhatarbitrary;classificationsmadeinthisreportarethereforenotstatementsoffactbutinterpretationsthatrepresentaninitialattempttoprovideanoverviewofrepresentationofindigenousheritageinWorldHeritage.Continuedrefinementcanbemadethroughengagementwithregionalandsubjectmatterexpertise.
ThereviewofWorldHeritageCommitteedecisionsislimitedtodirectreferencestoindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage,andincludes“caselaw”;thatis,“DocumentsandDecisionsadoptedbytheWorldHeritageCommittee,primarilyemergingfromindividualcases”,asdefinedintheDraftPolicyCompendium.2Committeedecisionswerecompiledfrom:(a)asearchofdecisionspostedontheWorldHeritageCentrewebsite(whc.unesco.org)thatcontaintheterm“indigenous”,and(b)individualcasesthathavebeenhighlightedinrecentliteratureontheheritageandrightsofindigenouspeoples.
Using“indigenous”asasearchtermmayhavelimitedutilityincaseswhereindigenouspeopleswerenotidentifiedasindigenousorreferredtoasa“localpopulation”.Inaddition,olderWorldHeritagereportsweremuchlessdetailedandtendedtofocusmorestrictlyonthephysicalfabricofpropertiessoreferencestoindigenouspeopleandtheirheritagearegenerallyabsent.
AdraftversionofthisreportwassharedwithmembersoftheWorkingGroup;commentsandsuggestionswereaddressedtoanextentpossiblewithinthescopeoftheprojectandthetighttimelines.
ContentofReport
1. ChallengeofDefiningIndigenousHeritage;anintroductiontoissuesindefiningindigenousheritageandtheimportanceofincludingindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageList.
2. HistoryofIndigenousHeritageasWorldHeritage,startingfromdraftingoftheConvention(1972)tothepresent(2018,themostrecentWHCmeeting).
3. DiscussionofIssuesinAddressingIndigenousHeritage,anoverviewofconcernswithrespecttoindigenousheritageinWorldHeritage,focusingonnominationandinscriptionunderculturalcriteria.
4. InternationalEffortstoBetterAddressIndigenousHeritage,focussingonrecentinitiativesinwhichICOMOSparticipates.
2 UNESCO(2018b),“TheDraftPolicyCompendium2018”.WHC/18/42.COM/11.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 4
ChallengeofDefiningIndigenousHeritage
ComplicatingeffortstobetterrecognizeindigenousheritageasWorldHeritageisanabsenceofclearguidanceonwhoindigenouspeoplesareandwhattheirheritageconstitutes.ThereisnopublicguidanceorpolicydocumentfromUNESCOthatactuallyindicateshowtoidentifyindigenouspeoplesortheirvalues.Thereis,forinstance,theUNESCOPolicyonEngagingwithIndigenousPeoples(hereafter“theUNESCOPolicy)3butthatpolicycontainsnoclearguidanceonhowtointerpret,inreal-lifescenarios,whatpeoplesthepolicyactuallyappliesto.
TheprovisionsoftheUNESCOPolicyspecificallyrelevanttoWorldHeritage(i.e.Article77(p),“policies,interventionsandpracticesofconservationandmanagementinandaroundculturalandnaturalheritagesites”)appearlargelyifnotwhollyaddressedthroughthe“PolicyDocumentfortheIntegrationofaSustainableDevelopmentPerspectiveintotheProcessesoftheWorldHeritageConvention”.4Article22.iioftheWorldHeritageSustainableDevelopmentPolicycallson(notrequires)StatesPartiesto,Ensureadequateconsultations,thefree,priorandinformedconsentandequitableandeffectiveparticipationofindigenouspeopleswhereWorldHeritagenomination,managementandpolicymeasuresaffecttheirterritories,lands,resourcesandwaysoflife.
GiventhereareStatesParties,includingthosethathaveendorsedUNDRIP,thatdonotrecognizeasindigenouspeopleallorsomeoftheirconstitutentpopulationswhoself-identifyasindigenouspeople,itislikelythatatsomepointdecisionswillneedtobemadeinspecificcasesastowhetherornottheprovisionsofSustainableDevelopmentPolicyarticle22.iiareinfactbeingobserved.Notehoweverthattheprovisionsofarticle22.iiarenotrequirementssoitisunclearifStatesParties,theWorldHeritageCommitteeandpotentiallytheAdvisoryBodieswillactuallyberequiredtomakeaninterpretationorstatementonindigenouspeoples“whereWorldHeritagenomination,managementandpolicymeasuresaffecttheirterritories,lands,resourcesandwaysoflife”.
TheOperationalGuidelinesalsocontainnorequirementstoactuallyidentifyindigenouspeoplesandseektheirconsentinthecreationandmanagementofWorldHeritagesites.Asdiscussedinthenextsection,under“4.WorldHeritageCommitteeDecisions”,article123oftheOperationalGuidelinesonlyencouragesStatesPartiestodemonstratefree,priorandinformedconsentofindigenouspeopleshasbeenobtained,notinfactrequirethatsuchconsentbeobtained.Article40includesIndigenouspeoplesaspotential“partnersintheprotectionand
3 UNESCO(2018a).4 UNESCO(2015).Footnote11toArticle77(p)oftheUNESCOPolicystates,“ForWorldHeritage
sites,seePolicyDocumentfortheIntegrationofaSustainableDevelopmentPerspectiveintotheProcessesoftheWorldHeritageConvention”.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 5
conservationofWorldHeritage”.Inbothcases,StatesParties,andbyextensiontheCommitteeandICOMOS,arenotrequiredtoactuallyidentifyindigenouspeoples.StatePartyidentificationofindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritagehasbeensubstantiallyimprovedbychangestoPeriodicReporting,asperDecision41COM11,Article11thatadoptsproposedrevisionstotheOperationalGuidelines,ChapterVandAnnex7.ThesechangesseektoimplementtheSustainableDevelopmentPolicybyproducingmeasurableandthereforegloballycomparabledata,aswellasbyraisingawarenessofthetopicamongStatePartiesandsitemanagers.5
ThequestionnaireforPeriodicReporting,Cycle3,requestfromStatesPartiesdetailedinformationonengagementwithindigenouspeoplesbutdoesnotaskStatesPartiesorsitemanagerstoidentifyspecificindigenouspeoplesatspecificsites.Forexample,question4.1ofSectionIasksStatesPartiestoratethelevelofinvolvementofindigenouspeoples“inthepreparationofthemostrecentnominationdossiers”.Question5.3.15ofSectionII,tobeansweredbyspecificsitemanagers,asksDoesthemanagementsystemincludeformalmechanismsandproceduresthatensureparticipationandcontributionofthefollowinggroups[includingindigenouspeoples],livingwithinorneartheWorldHeritagepropertyand/orbufferzoneinmanagementdecisionsthatmaintaintheOutstandingUniversalValueoftheproperty?”ThefullquestionnairecanbefoundontheWorldHeritageCentrewebsite(http://whc.unesco.org/en/prcycle3/).AnoverviewofcontentrelevanttoindigenouspeoplesisprovidedinAppendixSix.
Lastly,theGlobalStrategyforaRepresentative,BalancedandCredibleWorldHeritageList—whichhasasoneofitsobjectives“tobroadenthedefinitionofWorldHeritagetobetterreflectthefullspectrumofourworld’sculturalandnaturaltreasures”—hasimprovedrepresentationofindigenousheritage,largelyindirectly,bypromotingnominationsfromregionsandonthemesthatareunderrepresented.Althoughtherearecomparativeorthematicstudiesontopicsthatpertaindirectlytoindigenousheritage(e.g.,CulturallandscapesofthePacificIslands,2007,andRockArtofSaharaandNorthAfrica,2007),therearenosuchstudiesthatseektoidentifyandexplaingapsforindigenousheritageasaspecificformofheritage.
Insum,existingWordHeritagepolicydoesnotrequireICOMOStoactuallydefine“indigenouspeoples”or“indigenousheritage”butinsteadencouragesanadhocapproachthatreliesonStatesPartiestoidentifyindigenouspeoplesassociatedwithexistingorproposedsites.If,forexample,therewasarequirementintheOperationalGuidelinesthatallnominationsweretoformallydocumentthefree,priorandinformedconsentofaffectedindigenouspeoplesinorderforanominationtobeconsideredcomplete,thatrequirementwouldthennecessitatetheWorldHeritageCentre,perhapswiththeassistanceoftheAdvisoryBodies,actuallyconfirmwhichindigenouspeoplesareaffectedandonwhatbasistheirindigeneity
5 PeriodicReportingtakesplaceoverasix-yearcycle,withStatesPartiesandsitemanagersfrom
eachreportingregionsubmittingreportsinaspecificyear,followingtheorder:ArabStates,Africa,AsiaandthePacific,LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,thenEuropeandNorthAmerica.Cycle3istotakeplacebetween2018and2024(https://whc.unesco.org/en/periodicreporting/).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 6
orlackthereofisdetermined.SuchadeterminationcouldnotsimplybelefttotheStatesPartiesthemeslevesgivendifferinginterpretationsofwhichethnicgroupsshouldbeconsideredindigenous,nottomentionthatsomeStatesPartiesdonotevenrecognisetheexistenceofindigenouspeopleswithingtheircounties.AstheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesasserts,“Indigenouspeopleshavetherighttodeterminetheirownidentityormembershipinaccordancewiththeircustomsandtraditions”(Article33).Underthesecircumstances,itmaybeprudentforICOMOStocontinuetoaddressconcernsforparticipationofindigenouscommunitiesinidentificationandmanagementofculturalandnaturalheritageonacase-by-casebasis,ratherthanseektoactuallydefinetheterm“indigenous”inadvanceorcreateanofficiallistofwhoisindigenous.Thatsaid,forthepurposesoffuturediscussionswithinICOMOSabouthowtobetteridentifyandincorporateindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritagelist,itisusefultoprovidehereaworkingdefinitionwiththeunderstandingthatanydefinitionisunlikelytosatisfyallsectorsandapplyequallytoallcasesaroundtheworld.
WorkingDefinitionofIndigenous
TherearetwodirectlyrelevantsourcesofguidanceintheWorldHeritagecontextforadefinitionofindigenouspeoples.FirstistheIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention(InternationalLabourOrganization1989),whichreferstopeoplesinindependentcountrieswhoareregardedasindigenousonaccountoftheirdescentfromthepopulationswhichinhabitedthecountry,orageographicalregiontowhichthecountrybelongs,atthetimeofconquestorcolonisationortheestablishmentofpresentstateboundariesandwho,irrespectiveoftheirlegalstatus,retainsomeoralloftheirownsocial,economic,culturalandpoliticalinstitutions.
SecondisthedefinitionproposedbyJoseR.MartínezCobowho,asSpecialRapporteuroftheSub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities,producedthelandmarkStudyoftheProblemofDiscriminationagainstIndigenousPopulations:Indigenouscommunities,peoplesandnationsarethosewhich,havingahistoricalcontinuitywithpre-invasionandpre-colonialsocietiesthatdevelopedontheirterritories,considerthemselvesdistinctfromothersectorsofthesocietiesnowprevailinginthoseterritories,orpartsofthem.Theyformatpresentnon-dominantsectorsofsocietyandaredeterminedtopreserve,develop,andtransmittofuturegenerationstheirancestralterritories,andtheirethnicidentity,asthebasisoftheircontinuedexistenceaspeoples,inaccordancewiththeirownculturalpatterns,socialinstitutionsandlegalsystems.6
6 Cobo(1983),StudyoftheProblemofDiscrimination,p.50,para.379.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 7
AnApproachtoIndigenousHeritage
Assuggestedearlier,theWorldHeritagepolicycontextspeaksspecificallytoindigenouspeoplesbutICOMOSdoesnotneedtoadoptaspecificdefinitionofindigenoustoaddressindigenousheritageintheWorldHeritagecontext.Rather,itisproposedherethatICOMOSdefineanapproachtoaddressingindigenouspeopleandtheirheritage.SuchanapproachtoindigenousheritageinWorldHeritagecouldbebasedonthefollowingprinciples:
1. Recognitionoftherightsofindigenouspeoples,assupportedbyexistingpolicyandtheICOMOScommitmenttorights-basedapproachesintheirworkonWorldHeritage.7
2. Self-identificationasindigenouspeoplesshouldbethefirstprincipleindeterminingtowhomWorldHeritagepolicyonindigenouspeoplesapplies.BoththeILOConventionandtheCoboreportstresstheimportanceofself-identificationasindigenouspeoples,regardlessoftheiridentificationbythestateinwhichtheyreside:“indigenouspopulationsmustberecognisedaccordingtotheirownperceptionandconceptionofthemselvesinrelationtoothergroups”.8ThisconformstoArticle33ofUNDRIP,citedabove.NothingintheapproachproposedhereorinanyfutureactionbyICOMOSshoulddetractfromtherightofindigenouspeoplestodeterminewhoisconsideredamemberofaspecificindigenouspeopleorhowthatmembershipisassigned.9
3. Beadaptiveratherthandefinitive,inordertorespondtocomplexitiesinhowspecificpeoplesself-identifyasindigenousaswellasemergingissuesinunderstandingofindigeneityworldwide.
4. Whereverpossible,theidentificationandmeaningofindigenousheritageneedstobedefinedinspecificcasesbythebearersofthatheritagethemselves.Whileitispossibletoidentifysomecommonfeaturesofindigenousheritageverygenerally(e.g.,holism,attributionofagencyand/or“spirit”tothenaturalworld),suchfeaturesdonotformthebasisforadefinitionofindigenousheritageasatypeofheritage.
5. Inpracticeandwherepossible,erronthesideofinclusivity.Attentionneedstobepaidtobalancingconcernforlocalpeoples,orethnicminorities,notidentifiedasindigenous.Suchpeoplemayliveside-by-sidewithindigenouspeoples,expresssimilarvaluesandexperiencesimilarsocio-economicproblems.AstheIndigenousPeoplesofAfricaCo-ordinatingCommitteehassuggested,“SomeAfricansmaybeoffendedbytheideathatoneethnicgroupshouldbecalled‘indigenous’andothersnot.IPACCrecognisesthatall
7 AspertheOurCommondDignityinitiative,discussedinthesection“InternationalEffortstoBetter
AddressIndigenousHeritage.”8 Cobo(1983),StudyoftheProblemofDiscrimination,p.49,para.368.9 Forthepurposesofunderstandingindigenous(cultural)heritageasWorldHeritage,itmakes
littlesense,atleastatthispointintime,toaddresstheindigenousidentityofindividuals.ICOMOShasnoreasontobeinvolvedinassessmentofhowindigenouspeoplesassignmembershipinanindigenousidentity.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 8
Africansshouldenjoyequalrightsandrespect.AllofAfrica’sdiversityistobevalued”.10ThisreflectstheIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention,inwhichthereisaconceptualdistinctionmadebetweenindigenousandtribalpeoples—adistinctionthatneedstobeupheldinWorldHeritagegiventheexistenceofUNESCOpolicyspecifictoindigenouspeoples—butalackofdistinctioninpracticalapplication.11Localnon-indigenous(“tribal”)communitiesshouldbeaffordedthesamehumandignitybyseekingtheirconsentandparticipationinWorldHeritageprocessesthataffecttheirlands,resourcesandwaysoflife,butwithoutinvokingpolicyonindigenouspeoples.
ApplicationofanApproachtoIndigenousHeritage
TheTermsofReferenceforthisreportrequireidenitificataionofindigenousheritageamongsitesontheWorldHeritageListandtheTentativeLists.ThepurposeofthisexerciseistoinitiatediscussionintheWorkingGroupandnottocreateanauthoritativelistofindigenouspeoplesinWorldHeritage.Therefore,someofthefollowingissuesraisedinidentificationofindigenousheritageforthepurposesofthisreportarenotnecessarilythesameissuesthatwillbefacedthroughthereal-worldworkinwhichICOMOSengages.
Perhapsthemostintuitiveaspectofindigeneityisthenotionofbeingoftheland,beingtheoriginalinhabitantswhoprecedearrivalofother,generallydistinctlydifferent,groupsandespeciallysettlersfomotherlands.Inmostcases,thisisthebasisforidentifyingindigenouspeople;however,theimportanceof“historicalcontinuity”neednotbeunderstoodonlyintermsofautochthonousstatusinrelationtoamorerecentimmigrantand/orsettlerpopulation.AsCobosuggests,historicalcontinuitymayalsobeexpressedthroughpersistenceofculturaltraditions,andinparticularthosethatseparateindigenouspeoplesfromaculturalmajority,ratherthanactualoccupationofancestrallands;suchtraditionsare“thebasisoftheircontinuedexistenceaspeoples”.Thus,indigenouspeoplescontinuingtheirculturaltraditionsoutsideofthelandstheyhistoricallyoccupied,includingpeoplelivinginurbancentres,arestillindigenous.
Identificationofindigenouspeoplesin(“sub-Saharan”)Africaseemsparticularlyvexedandisthereforeworthyofnotehere.ThereareagreatnumberofAfricanpeopleswhomaintainauniqueculturalidentityrootedintheirhistoricalattachmenttoaspecificareabutarenotconsideredindigenous(e.g.,Dogon,Yoruba).Thistendencymayreflectanunderstandingof“indigenous”asbeingautochthonousandthereforeprecedingarrivalofotherAfricanculturalgroups,asthepeopleconventionallyunderstoodtobeindigenouslargelyhaveveryuniquelinguisticandgeneticcharacteristicsassociatedwiththeirancientrootsinthe
10 http://www.ipacc.org.za/en/africa’s-indigenous-people.html.11 Article28ofILOConvention(C169)doeshaveprovisionsspecifictoindigenouslanguagesbut
thatistheonlydistinction.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 9
continent.12EvenifsuchaperspectiveisadoptedforAfrica,itisnotconsistentwithhowindigenouspeoplesareidentifiedinotherregions.Moreover,itisinappropriatetoseeindigenouspeoplesofAfrica(orelsewhereforthatmatter)ascorrespondingtoclassicanthropologicalcategoriesofhuntingandgatheringandpastoralism.Thisneglectsthewayhunting,fishing,gathering,agriculture,andherdingarelivelihoodstrategiesthatpeopleadopt,invariouscombinations,undercertainecologicalcircumtances;suchcircumstancescanchangeasaresultofenvironmentalchange,demographicchange,ormovementtonewenvironmentalconditions.Livelihoodstrategiesarenotareliablemarkerofatypeofhumansociety,muchlessasocietythatmustcarryadouble-generalisationsuchas“indigenoushunter-gatherer”.ItisnotsensiblethatfarmingshoulddisqualifyapeopleasindigenousinanAfricancontext.Suchastandardisnotappliedintherestoftheindigenousworld.
FurtherdiscussionisthereforeneededtobetterunderstandhowapproachestorespectingtherightsandinterestsofindigenouspeoplesinWorldHeritageprocessescanbeappliedinanAfricancontext,withoutabandoningthespecificityoftheterm“indigenous”andtheprimacyoftheprincipleofself-identificationasindigenouspeoples.Forthepurposesofthisreport,arestrictive,traditionalapproachtoidentifyingindigenouspeoplesinAfricawasadopted;inUNESCO’sreal-worldwork,amoreinclusiveapproachisadvised,followingtheIPACCprinciplethat“allAfricansshouldenjoyequalrightsandrespect.”
Furthertotheissueofhistoricalcontinuity,whereWorldHeritageconsistsofarchaeologicalremainswithoutaclearandlocallyvaluedconnectiontolivingindigenouspeoples(i.e.whereheritagewasnotcreatedandcurrentlyvaluedbylivingindigenouspeople),itisdebatablethatheritageshouldbeseenaspartofindigenousheritage.Ifthesignificanceofrelict,archaeologicalvaluesisattributedbynon-indigenoussourcesthenthatsignificanceisnotitselfarisingfromanindigenousworldview.Wherethereisaclearconnectionbetweenlivingpeopleandarchaeologicalremains,those“elementsofthearchaeologicalheritageconstitutepartofthelivingtraditionsofindigenouspeoples”.13
Forexample,atQal’atal-Bahrain–AncientHarbourandCapitalofDilmun(Bahrain),theDilmun(Semitic-speakingpeoples)maybeconsideredindigenousbutthereisnosustainedorself-identifiedculturalconnectiontopresentpeoplessothesitehasnotbeenclassifiedas“indigenous”.ThesameappliestositessuchasStoneCirclesofSenegambia(Gambia)andTiwanaku:SpiritualandPoliticalCentreoftheTiwanakuCulture(Bolivia),forwhichtheculturethatcreatedthesitehasnosustainedoridentifiedculturalconnectiontopresent-dayindigenouspeopleslivinginthearea.
12 SeeIndigenousPeoplesofAfricaCo-ordinatingCommittee(IPACC):“PeoplessuchastheSanand
Khoe,theHadzabe,andthevarious‘Pygmy’forestpeoplesrepresentsomeoftheoldestgenetypesontheplanet”(http://www.ipacc.org.za/en/africa’s-indigenous-people.html).
13 ICOMOS(1990),CharterfortheProtectionandtheManagementoftheArchaeologicalHeritage.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 10
TherearealsositesforwhichthevaluesofcurrentindigenouspeoplesassociatedwithasitearenotpartofsiteOUV;forinstance,theRockSheltersofBhimbetka(India),whereitisonlynoted“theculturaltraditionsoftheinhabitantsofthetwenty-onevillagesadjacenttothesitebearastrongresemblancetothoserepresentedintherockpaintings”.AsimilarcaseisfoundatKukEarlyAgriculturalSite(PapuaNewGuinea),wherethecurrentvaluesoftheindigenousKawelkaarenotpartoftheOUV.Whilesuchsitesmayinfactreflectsharedculturaltraditionsthatarethebasisforthecontinuedexistenceofindigenouspeoples,ifthatsignificanceisnotcelebratedinsiteOUVthenthesite,asaWorldHeritagesite,cannotbesaidtoadequatelyreflectorcelebrateindigenousheritage.SuchaconclusionisastatementonlyofthewayinwhichWorldHeritagestatusreflectsindigenousheritage,notofthesignificanceorcontinuityofindigenousheritageitself(outsideofWorldHeritage).
Examplesofarchaeologicalsiteswherecontemporaryindigenouspeoplecontinuetovaluethesiteandthereforehelptodefineitssignificanceinclude:QuebradadeHumahuaca(Argentina),KakaduNationalPark(Australia),Head-Smashed-InBuffaloJump(Canada),PimachiowinAki(Canada),KonsoCulturalLandscape(Ethiopia),BassariCountry:Bassari,FulaandBedikCulturalLandscapes(Senegal),Papahānaumokuākea(UnitedStatesofAmerica)andChiefRoiMata’sDomain(Vanuatu).
Conclusions
ThecurrentWorldHeritagepolicycontextprovidesnospecificrequirementforbutexpressesanexpectationthatStatePartiesensurethefree,priorandinformedconsentandeffectiveparticipationofindigenouspeoples,andonlyindigenouspeoples,indevelopmentofnominationsandinmanagementofinscribedsites.
WhilethereisnoclearpolicydirectionspecifictotheroleofICOMOSasanAdvisoryBodytotheWorldHeritageCommittee,ICOMOScansupportpolicyonindigenouspeoplesbyraisingconcernstotheCommittee,andtoStatesPartiesthroughtheCommittee,whereproposedandinscribedWorldHeritagesitesdemonstrateaneglectfortheconsentandparticipationofaffectedindigenouscommunities.TheneedtovoicesuchconcernsisdirectedbythecommitmentofICOMOStorights-basedapproaches(ifnotamoralimperativetoupholdtheintegrityofWorldHeritageprocesses).
However,insomesituationsitmaybeunclearifapeopleassociatedwithaproposedorinscribedsiteareinfact“indigenous”andthereforesubjectoftheprovisionsofpolicyaddressingindigenouspeoples.Therefore,itishererecommendedtoadoptaflexibleyetprincipledapproachtoaddressingindigenousheritageasWorldHeritage.Thereisnoneedtodefineindigenouspeoplesorindigenousheritagebutinsteadoutlineanapproachtounderstandingandworkingwithindigenousheritage.Forthepurposesofthisreport,decisionsastowhoisandisnotindigenousneededtobemadeand,asaresult,theprocesswassomewhatarbitraryasitdependedonidentificationbytheStatesParties(intheirStatementsofOUV)andinmanycases,
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 11
assessmentwithoutknowledgeofhowpeopleself-identify(asdiscussedinMethods);therefore,assessmentsandallrelatedfiguresonrepresentationinWorldHeritageinthenextsectionaresuggestiveonly.
ItmaymakesensefortheWorldHeritageCentretomaintainaregistryofpeopleassociatedwithspecificsitesthathaveself-identifiedasindigenousorareconventionallyknownasindigenouspeoples.Sucharegistryisbestdevelopednotintheabstract,fromsomegeneraldefinitionof“indigenous”,butfromexistingandemergingcases,andundertheguidanceofregionalandsubjectmatterexperts,includingindigenouspeoplesrespresentativeorganizationsandtheInternationalIndigenousPeoplesForumonWorldHeritage(IIPFWH).Sucharegistrymayhelpidentifyandtrackprogressonspecificcasesand,moregenerally,howwelltheWorldHeritagesystemisaddressingindigenousheritageandtherightsandinterestsofindigenouspeopleinWorldHeritage.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 12
HistoryofIndigenousHeritageasWorldHeritage
Thissectionprovidesasummaryofhistoricaltrendsin:(1)representationofindigenousheritageinproposedandinscribedWorldHeritagesites;and(2)actionsrelatedtoindigenousheritageincludingWorldHeritageCommitteedecisionsandotherdiscussionsspecificallywithinWorldHeritagecontexts.
ThesourcedatafromwhichfiguresinthissectionaredevelopediscontainedinanExcelspreadsheetsubmittedwiththisreportasaseparatedigitalfile(whc-sites-2018Markup.xls).AdditionaldetailsonthisfileareprovidedunderMethods,above,andinaseparatedocument(DescriptionofExcelFilewhc-sites-2018Markup.xls.docx)submittedwiththisreport.
Giventhedifficultyinreliablyidentifyingwhatsitescontainindigenousheritage,datapresentedhereisonlyafirstcuttobefurtherdevelopedthroughregionalandsubjectmatterexpertise.
1.RepresentationofIndigenousHeritageinInscribedSites
Asof2018,atotalof1092siteshavebeeninscribedontheWorldHeritageList,883ofwhichareinscribedunderculturalcriteria,eitherasculturalormixedsites.Fifty-threesiteshavebeenidentifiedascontainingindigenousheritage.
AppendixOneprovidesatabularsummaryofrepresentationofindigenousheritageamongallWorldHeritagesitesinscribedunderculturalcriteriaasof2018.Forthosesitesidentifiedashavingindigenousheritage,thefollowingisprovided:ageneral(high-level)descriptionofvalues;theculturalname,wherepossible,ofindigenouspeoplesassociatedwithsite;whetherindigenousheritageislivingorrelict;theformoftheirparticipationinsitemanagement,ifknown;andthecriteriaunderwhichthesiteisinscribed.
Anadditionalsixty-sixsiteshavebeenidentifiedaspossiblyhavingindigenousheritage;thesesitesarelistedinasecondtableprovidedinAppendixOne.Theuncertaintyassociatedwiththesesitesisnotbasedonalackofevidenceofindigenousheritage,inwhichcasesiteswereassessedasnotrepresentingindigenousvalues.IfaStatementofOUVcannotevensuggestthepresenceofindigenousheritagethereisnoreasontoconsiderthesiteasrepresentingindigenousheritage.Thisdoesnotmeanthesitedoesnotcontainindigenousheritageorisnotsignificanttoindigenouspeoples;indeed,thesitemayevencelebrateitsindigenousheritage,butoutsideofWorldHeritage.Sitesareidentifiedaspossiblycontainingindigenousheritagefortworeasons:(1)thereisnoclearconnectionbetweenrelict,especiallyarchaeological,valuesandcurrentindigenouspeoples,includingthrough(intangible)associations;and(2)itisunclearifthepeopleassociatedwiththatheritageshouldbeunderstoodasindigenous.Insomecases,bothissuesapplied(e.g.,EnnediMassif:NaturalandCulturalLandscape(Chad),AncientVillagesofNorthernSyria(SyrianArab
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 13
Republic))andthesesiteswereclassifiedinAppedixTwoaslackingaclearconnectiontopresentindigenouspeoples.Theapproachtakenhereistobefairlystrictindefiningindigenousheritage.TheWorkingGroupcanconsiderwhatspecificprinciplesshouldguidehowwidelyitisdesireabletoidentifysitesasindigenous.14Table1providesanoutlineoftheregionaldistributionofthosesitesidentifiedaspossiblyrepresentingindigenousheritage,showingthereasonsidentifiedabove:(1)“Connection”topresentlacking,and(2)“Identity”asindigenouspeoplesuncertain.Thisinformationisprovidedhereprimarilyintheinterestsofclarifyingmethodsandcallingattentiontoregionalvariationsincertaintyofidentifyingindigenouspeoples.TABLE1. REGIONALDISTRIBUTIONOFSITESIDENTIFIEDASPOSSIBLYREPRESENTINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGE
POSSIBLYIndigen.
NOTIndg.
Conn
ectio
n
Iden
tity
INDG.
sumAfrica 36 5 6 10 95
LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean 69 14 0 20 141NorthAmerica 10 3 0 7 40
Europe 424 0 4 3 476AsiaandthePaciic 158 2 21 12 256
ArabStates 67 3 8 1 84sum: 764 27 39 53 1092
Figure1providesanoverviewofthenumberofWorldHeritageSitesinscribedunderculturalcriteriasincetheadoptionoftheConventionConcerningtheProtectionofWorldCulturalandNaturalHeritagebytheGeneralConferenceofUNESCOin1972.Separateportionsofthetotalnumberofsitesareshownasstackedareas,withtheirowncolourandcross-hatching,forsitesidentifiedas:representingindigenousheritage;possiblyrepresentingindigenousheritage;and,notrepresentingindigenousheritage(i.e.havingaStatementofOUVthatdoesnotrefertoindigenousheritage).
14 AmoreinclusiveinterpretationofindigeneitywouldidentifymanymoresitesinAfrica,including,
forexample,sitesassociatedwiththeDogon(CliffofBandiagara(LandoftheDogons),Mali)ortheYoruba(Osun-OsogboSacredGrove,Nigeria).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 14
FIGURE1. HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSUNDERCULTURALCRITERIA,SHOWINGREPRESENTATIONOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGECOMPAREDTOSITESWITHOUTINDIGENOUSHERITAGE
Figure1.ashowsthechangeovertimeinpercentageofallsitesthatconsistofthoserepresentingindigenousheritage.Separatelinesareprovidedforsitesidentifiedasrepresentingindigenous(IndgHert)andforboththesesitescombinedwiththoseidentifiedaspossibly(“maybe”)havingindigenousheritage(IndgHert+Maybe).Thegraphshowsthatwithastrictdefinitionofindigenousrepresentation,theproportionofsitesidentifiedashavingindigenousheritagehasbeenfairlyconstant,perhapsevenslowlydecliningwithaslightuptickonlyinthelastfewyears.Insum,indigenousheritagepresentlyaccountsfor6.0%ofallheritage,whiletheaverageforthelasttwentyyears(1999–2018)is5.7%.FIGURE1.ARELATIVEPROPORTIONS,OVERTIME,OFSITESREPRESENTINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGEANDTHOSE
NOTREPRESENTINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGE
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
IndgHert+Maybe:AllSites
indgHert:AllSites
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEIndigenous
NOTIndigenous
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 15
Figure2showsinscriptionsovertimeforsitesthatincludeindigenousheritageaspartofsiteOUV,brokendownbyregion.Table2providesasummaryofthedatashowninFigure2.Inbothcases,thosesitesassessedaspossiblyhavingindigenousheritageareexcludedfromthefiguresforrepresentationofindigenousheritage;sitesassessedaspossiblyhavingindigenousheritagearegroupedherewithsitesnotrepresentingindigenousheritage.
ForbothTable2andFigure2,theWorldHeritageregionof“EuropeandNorthAmerica”hasbeensplitintwosoastobetterreflectthevastlydifferentindigenousheritagefoundinthesetworegions.Theregion“EuropeandNorthAmerica”perhapsdoesmakesomesenseintermsoflinkingpeopleintheArcticandSubarcticregions.TheWorkingGroupcanconsideriffurtherworkisneededtorefineregionssoastobetterunderstandrepresentationofindigenousheritage,keepinginmindthatPeriodicReportingissummarisedaccordingtotheestablishedWorldHeritageregions.TABLE2. REGIONALREPRESENTATIONOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGE(2018)
IndigenousHeritage NOIndigenousHeritage
Cultural Mixed Cultural Mixed Natural
Africa 9 1 43 4 38LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean 15 5 81 2 38NorthAmerica 5 2 13 0 20Europe 2 1 420 8 45AsiaandthePacific 7 5 174 7 63ArabStates 1 0 75 3 5
TOTAL: 39 14 806 24 209
FIGURE2. HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSTHATINCLUDEINDIGENOUSHERITAGE,SHOWINGREGIONALREPRESENTATION
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
ArabStates
Asia&Pacicic
Europe
NorthAmerica
LatinAmerica&Caribbean
Africa
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 16
Figure2showsthenumberofindigenousWordHeritagesiteshasgrownmostsignificantlyinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean;thenumberofsitesinAsiaandthePacific,NorthAmericaandAfricahasgrownmoreslowly;EuropeandespeciallytheArabStateshavebothremainedatfairlylowlevelsofrepresentation.Figures2.Athrough2.Fprovideregionally-specificviewsofindigenousheritageinWorldHeritageinscriptionsovertime.Forthesefiguresitiseasiertorepresentseparatelythenumberofsitesassessedaspossiblyhavingindigenousheritagesothosesitesarenotgroupedwithsitesrepresentingonlynon-indigenousheritage.Eachfigureusesthesamerangeontheverticalscalesotheycanbecomparedtooneanother.FIGURE2.AHISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINAFRICA
FIGURE2.B HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINLATINAMERICAANDTHECARIBBEAN
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEIndigenous
NOTIndigenous
Naturalonly
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEIndigenous
NOTindigenous
Naturalonly
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 17
FIGURE2.C HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINNORTHAMERICA
FIGURE2.DHISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINEUROPE
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEindigenous
NOTindigenous
Naturalonly
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEIndigenous
NOTIndigenous
Naturalonly
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 18
FIGURE2.E HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINASIAANDTHEPACIFIC
FIGURE2.F HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSINTHEARABSTATES
Figure3showstrendsinWorldHeritageinscriptionsthatincludeindigenousheritageaspartofsiteOUV,breakingdowninscriptionsbywhethertheheritageisliving(i.e.continuingtobeactivelyused/maintainedbyalivingindigenouspeople)orrelictonly.Relictsitesincludearchaeologicalsitesthatmayhavealivingindigenouspopulationinoradjacenttothesitebutthoseindigenouspeoplearenotactivelyinvolvedintheuseormaintenanceofthesiteandtheir(intangible)associationswiththesitearenotexpressedintheStatementofOUV.Siteswithlivingheritageareincreasingasaproportionofallsiteswithindigenousheritage,apositivetrendonthewhole
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEindigenous
NOTindigenous
NaturalOnly
0
50
100
150
200
250
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
INDIGENOUS
MAYBEindigenous
NOTIndigenous
Naturalonly
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 19
Figure3includesonlythosesitessitesassessedasrepresentingindigenousheritage.Table3providesamoredetailedbreakdownforlivingandrelictindigenousheritageinboththosesitesassessedasrepresentingindigenousheritageandthosesitesassessedaspotentiallyor“maybe”representingindigenousheritage.FIGURE3. HISTORYOFWORLDHERITAGEINSCRIPTIONSTHATINCLUDEINDIGENOUSHERITAGE,SHOWING
NUMBEROFSITESWITHLIVINGANDRELICTHERITAGE
TABLE3. NUMBEROFSITESWITHLIVINGANDRELICTHERITAGEAMONGTHOSEREPRESENTINGAND
POSSIBLYREPRESENTINGINDIGENOUSHERITAGEATBOTHGLOBALANDREGIONALLEVELS(2018)
Indigenous
Maybeindigenous
living relict
living relict
Globally 26 27 20 46
Africa 7 3 5 6LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean 2 18
2 12
NorthAmerica 4 3
0 3Europe 3 0
3 1
AsiaandthePacific 9 3
9 14ArabStates 1 0 1 10
Figure4showsrepresentationofhigh-levelthemesamongcurrent(2018)inscribedsitesidentifiedashavingeitherlivingorrelictindigenousheritage.Sitesassessedaspossiblycontainingindigenousheritagearenotaddressedinthisfigure.
AssignmentofthemestositesfocusesonwhatisstressedintheStatementofOUV.ThemesthatmaybepresentbutarenotpartoftheOUVarethereforenotassignedtosites.Bywayofexample,KakaduNationalPark(Australia)containsevidenceof
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Num
berofSites
Livingheritage
Relictheritage
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 20
contemporarylanduse,culturaltraditionsandintangiblevalues,andtheNationalParkworkscloselywithtraditionalownerstointegratedthesevaluesinsitemanagementandpromotion;however,thefocusofthesiteasaWorldHeritagesitecontinuestobeonrockartandotherarchaeologicalvaluessoonlythearchaeologythemeisassignedtothissite.
Multiplethemescanbeappliedtoonesiteandallsiteshavebeenassignedatleastonetheme.Therangeofthemesisperhapslimitedbutitseemsadditionalthemes(e.g.,culturalroutes,culturallandscapes)willonlyproduceadiminishingnumberofinstances.AppendixTwocontainsthecodingofthemesforallsitesidentifiedasrepresentingindigenousheritage(andmostthatareassessedaspossiblycontainingindigenousheritage).FIGURE4. PROPORTIONOFSITESTHATARELIVINGANDRELICTFOREACHHIGH-LEVELTHEME
Archaeologicalsites,includingrockart,accountforalargeproportionofindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageList.Sitesexpressingthethemesofarchaeologyandarchitecturetogetheraccountfor45of53sites(85%)representingindigenousheritage.Evenwherecurrentassociationswithindigenouspeoplesareexpressed,oftentheStatementofOUVandfocusofsitemanagementisverystronglyonthetangiblefeatures(e.g.,Head-Smashed-InBuffaloJump).Inmanysuchcasestheimpetusforinscriptionwasfocussedonexternallyidentifiedvaluesbutindigenouspeopleshavepushedtoexpandthefocus(e.g.,Tongariro,Uluru-KataTjuta).Thisissueisdiscussedfurtherinthenextsection,“DiscussionofIssuesinAddressingIndigenousHeritage”.
Table4showshowthemesarerepresentedineachoftheWorldHeritgeregions.Theseresultsarepotentiallyofinteresttopeopleworkinginspecificregions;forexample,intangiblevaluesaremorehighlyrepresentedinAsiaandthePacific,andarchaeologicalsitesandarchitecturearedominantthemesforLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.
0510152025303540
Num
berofSites
Living
Relict
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 21
TABLE4. REGIONALREPRESENTATIONOFHIGH-LEVELTHEMESAMONGINSCRIBEDSITESWITHINDIGENOUSHERITAGE
Archae
olog
y
Archite
cture
Settlemen
t
Land
Use
Cultu
ralTraditio
ns
Intang
ibleValue
s
Globally 38 30 18 18 16 17
Africa 4 3 2 4 3 5LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean 20 17 11 4 5 2NorthAmerica 5 3 1 3 3 4Europe 2 0 1 3 0 0AsiaandthePacific 6 6 2 3 5 6ArabStates 1 1 1 1 0 0
Table5providesanindication,asreportedbyStatesPartiesandICOMOSEvaluations,offormsofparticipationbyindigenouspeoplesinmanagementofthosesitesidentifiedasrepresentingindigenousheritage.Giventhediversityofmanagementarrangementsandtheabsenceofcleardata,involvementinmanagementisdescribedinasfewcategoriesaspossible:collaborativemanagementincludesanythingfromdirectcommunitymanagementbyindigenouspeoplestoclosecollaborationinwhichindigenouspeoplesplayasignificantroleindailymanagementboards(eventhoughtheStatePartydoesnotactuallycedeauthorityoverland-usedecisionmaking);participationcoversavarietyofparticipatorymechanisms,includingrepresentationasstake-holdersonsitemanagementboards,butmorethanmerelyconsultation;consultationisincludedwithnone,sinceitisnotaformofinclusioninsitemanagement.Whereitwasnotpossibletomakeadetermination,siteswereclassifiesas“unknown”.TABLE5. INDIGENOUSPARTICIPATIONINMANAGEMENTOFINSCRIBEDSITES
collaborativemanagement participation none unknown
living 9 9 5 3relict 0 4 21 2
sum: 9 13 26 5
Detailsonfree,priorandinformedconsent(FPIC)arenotgenerallyprovidedforthesitesidentifiedasrepresentingindigenousheritage;itishighlylikelythatFPICwasnotactuallyobtainedformally.InthecaseofNanMadol(Micronesia),theICOMOSEvaluation(2016)explains,“Freepriorandinformedconsenttothenominationwassignedbythetraditionalownersin2011”(bysigningtheMOUforsitecreation).Insomecases,aformofconsentwasobtained(e.g.,ChiefRoyMata’s
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 22
Domain(Vanuatu)andTongariroNationalPark(NewZealand));15insomecasesconsentcanbeseentohavebeenobtainedbyvirtueofindigenouspeoples’activeroleincreationofthesite(e.g.,LaponianArea,Sweden,andPimachiowinAki,Canada).GiventherangeofformsofconsentandthelackofastandardappliedinWorldHeritage,unlikefortheConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage,itisnothelpfultodetermineretrospectively(i.e.inadvanceofclearpolicyandguidelinesonFPIC)whetherornotconsenthasbeenobtainedinindividualcases.
2.SitesontheTentativeLists
Figure5providesasummaryviewofrepresentationofindigenousheritageamongthe1,694sitesontheTentativeLists,basedonthecurrent(2018)TentativeListspostedontheWorldHeritageCentrewebsite.Thisinformationisprovidedtogiveapictureofwhatisbeingplannedfor,potentially,byStatesPartiesbutdoesnotgiveasenseofwhatsitesmighthavegoodpotentialormaybesignificantintermsofimprovingrepresentationofindigenousheritage.Also,Figure5providesnoindicationofhowlongsiteshavebeenontheTentativeLists.DetailsonTentativeListsitesidentifiedascontainingindigenousheritageareprovidedinAppendixThree.FIGURE5. REPRESENTATIONOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGEONTHETENTATIVELISTS(2018)
15 Tongariroraisesthequestionofhow“informed”consentiswhenculturalmisunderstandingleads
todifferentexpectationsforinscriptionandpost-inscriptionmanagement(seeGeorgeAsher“TheTangibleandIntangibleHeritageofTongariroNationalPark:ANgātiTūwharetoaPerspectiveandReflection,”inDisko&Tugendhat,2014:377–401).
IndigenousCultural
IndigenousMixed
Non-indigenousCultural
Non-indigenousMixed
NaturalSites
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 23
FIGURE5.AREPRESENTATIONOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGEONTHEWORLDHERITAGELIST(2018)
Figure5.ashows,asapointofcomparison,representationofindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageListitselfincludingthosesitesidentifiedaspossiblycontainingindigenousheritage;thisisamoreaccuratepointofcomparisongivenitusesthemoreliberalinterpretationof“indigenous”thatwasusedinidentifuyingTentativeListssiteswithindigenousheritage,asdiscussedinAppendixThree.16AmongTentativeListsites,thosewithindigenousheritagerepresent10.8%ofallsites.OntheWorldHeritageList,siteswithorpossiblywithindigenousheritagemakeup11.1%ofallsites(5.3%ifexcludingsitespossiblycontainingindigenousheritage).
Table6providesacomparisonbetweenthecurrentcompositionoftheTentativeListsandtheWorldHeritageListexcludingsitesidentifiedaspossiblyrepresentingindigenousheritage.TheonlysignificantchangeintypesofsitesproposedontheTentativeListsisthemuchlargerproportionofmixedsitesmakingupbothindigenousandnon-indigenousstes.However,asdiscussedinthenextsection,inscriptionofmixedsitesismuchmoredifficultandthereforelesslikely.TABLE6. RELATIVEPROPORTIONSOFSITESINSCRIBEDANDONTHETENTATIVELISTS(2018)
16 UnliketheWorldHeritageListitself,theTentativeListscontainseparateentriesforeachStates
Partiesportionofatransnationalsiteandforindividualelementsofaserialnomination.Insomecases(e.g.,SilkRoad),individualportionsofaserialsiteandthelargercompositesiteitselfarelistedseparatelysowhatwouldbeoneinscribedsiteisseveralTentativeListsites.Extensionstoexisting,inscribedsitesarealsopresentontheTentativeLists.WiththeexceptionoftheSilkRoadproposedserialtransnationalsite,over-countingdoesnotapplytoindigenousheritageandisasmallpartofthewholesodoesnotchangetrendsshowninTable6.
IndigenousCultural
IndigenousMixed
Non-indigenousCultural
Non-indigenousMixed
NaturalSites
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 24
TentativeLists InscribedSites
total % total %
Culturalwithindigenous 115 6.8% 39 3.6%
Mixedwithindigenous 68 4.0% 14 1.3%
Culturalwithoutindigenous 1001 59.1% 806 73.8%
Mixedwithoutindigenous 144 8.5% 24 2.2%
Naturalsites 366 21.6% 209 19.1%
1694 100.0% 1092 100.0%
Table7showsrepresentationofindigenousheritageontheTentativeListswithineachregioncomparedtoinscribedsites(thelatterbeingthesamedatapresentedinTable3).It’snotclearanymeaningfulconclusionscanbedrawnfromthisdatasincetheTentativeListsofsomeStatesPartiesaremoreaspirational“to-do”liststhanshort-listsofthebest-chancecandidates.Howeveritisworthnotingthedifferencesbetweenthelistsintermsofnumberofsitesproposedascontainingindigenousheritageandasmixedsites(withandwithoutindigenousheritage).TABLE7. RELATIVEPROPORTIONSOFSITESINSCRIBEDANDONTHETENTATIVELISTS(2018),BROKEN
DOWNBYREGION
TheTentativeLists InscribedSites
Indigenous NotIndigenous Sum Indigenous NotIndigenous Sum
cult mix cult mix nat cult mix cult mix nat.
Africa 19 12 127 34 77 269 9 1 43 4 38 95
Lat.Amer.&Carib. 30 25 89 16 40 200 15 5 81 2 38 141
NorthAmerica 6 4 11 1 10 32 5 2 13 0 20 40
Europe 4 4 406 52 94 560 2 1 420 8 45 476
Asia&thePacific 45 21 245 28 105 444 7 5 174 7 63 256
ArabStates 11 2 123 13 40 189 1 0 75 3 5 84
SUM: 115 68 1001 144 366 1694 39 14 806 24 209 1092
Withoutinsideknowledgeofboththesiteinquestionandtheprocessthroughwhichitisbeingpreparedfornomination,itisnotpossibletosaywithanycertaintythatindigenousheritageispotentiallyoutstandingorevenifinfactthesitehasareasonablechanceofinscription.Nevertheless,someTentativeListsitesareidentifiedasofinterest,primarilybasedonthecontemporarypresenceofindigenouspeoplesandsufficientexplanationofindigenousheritagetoraisereasonableexpectationfortheirpotentialtorepresentmultiplefacetsoflivingindigenousheritage:
• LesOasisàFoggarasetlesKsourduGrandErgOccidental(Algeria)
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 25
• ParcdesAurèsaveclesÉtablissementsOasiensdesGorgesduRhoufietd’ElKantara(Algeria)
• BudjBimCulturalLandscape(Australia)• SaktengWildlifeSanctuary(SWS)(Bhutan)• GwaiiHaanas(Canada)• SirmilikNationalParkandTallurutiupImanga(proposed)NationalMarineConservationArea(Canada)
• SteinValley(Canada)• LaforêtetlescampementsrésidentielsderéférencepygméeAKAdelaRépubliqueCentrafricaine(CentralAfricanRepublic)
• HuangguoshuScenicArea(China)• LesIlesMarquises(France)• EcosystèmeetPaysageCulturelPygméeduMassifdeMinkébé(Gabon)• ApataniCulturalLandscape(India)• GaroHillsConservationArea(GHCA)(India)• TurkicsanctuaryofMerke(Kazakhstan)• Paysagecultureld'Azougui(Mauritania)• HuicholRoutethroughthesacredsitestoHuiricuta(TatehuariHuajuye)(Mexico)
• HighlandsofMongolAltai(Mongolia)• SacredBinderMountainanditsAssociatedCulturalHeritageSites(Mongolia)• BaldanBereevenMonasteryanditsSacredSurroundings(Mongolia)• OasisdeFiguig(Morocco)• SānLivingCulturalLandscape(Namibia)• ItinérairesCulturelsduDésertduSahara:Routedusel(Niger)• KikoriRiverBasin/GreatPapuanPlateau(PapuaNewGuinea)• Trans-FlyComplex,andUpperSepikRiverBasin(PapuaNewGuinea)• FagaloaBay-UafatoTiaveaConservationZone(Samoa)• Marovo–TetepareComplex(SolomonIslands)• Yalo,ApialoandSacredGeographyNorthwestMalakula(Vanuatu)
3.Discussionsaboutadditionalpotentialsites
Thissub-sectioncontainsdetailsofsitesthathavebeenidentifiedaspotentiallysignificantandthereforepossiblecandidatesfortheTentativeLists.ThepurposeifthissectionisonlytoprovideinformationonadditionalpotentialsitesofinterestandnottoraiseanyquestionsastowhysuchsiteshavebeenidentifiedorwhytheyhavenotbeenincludedontheTentativeLists.Sourcesofinformationaresofarlimitedtopublishedreportsandworkshopoutcomes.Regionalexpertiseisneededtocompileamorecompletelistofpotentiallysignificantsites.
TheonlysiteidentifiedforthisreportisVárjjatSiida(Norway),aSaamisitebeingproposedbytheSaamipeopleforadditiontoNorway’sTentativeList.AudhildSchanche,SeniorAdvisortotheSaamiParliamentinNorway,spokeabouttheproposalattheInternationalExpertMeetingonWorldHeritageandIndigenousPeoples(Copenhagen,2012).VárjjatSiidaisdescribedaswithin“theoldterritoryof
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 26
theVarangerSaamiandacoreareaintheformationofSaamiculturaltraits”.Attributesincludehabitationsites,aburialground,sacredstones,sacrificialstonerings,andremainsoftrappingsystemsforwildreindeer.Theinitiativeissupportedbylocalreindeerherdingorganizations,localgovernment,theSaamiCouncil,andtheSaamiParliamentarianCouncil(jointbodyoftheSaamiparliamentsinFinland,SwedenandNorway).17
4.WorldHeritageCommitteeDecisions
ThepurposeofthissectionistoclarifytheperspectivesoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,throughtime,asseenintheirformaldecisionsrelatingdirectlytoindigenousheritage.Thesedecisionscomprisegeneraldecisionsandcaselaw.Generaldecisionsapply,intheory,toallStatesPartiesand,whereapplicable,totheSecretariatorAdvisoryBodies;forexample,theDecision39COM11throughwhichreferencetoindigenouspeopleswasadoptedintheOperationalGuidelines,paragraphs40and123.
Caselaw,asdefinedintheDraftPolicyCompendium,18includesdecisionsadoptedbytheWorldHeritageCommitteeinreferencetospecificnominationsorinscriptions;forexample,decisions(includingreferrals,deferrals,andinscriptionsontheListofWorldHeritageinDanger)thatmakestatementsabouthowindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritagehavebeenaddressedinnominationmaterialsorsitemanagement.Whilethesedecisionsaremadeinreferencetospecificsites,theyreflectprecedentsindecision-making.AsstatedintheICCROMScopingStudyforthePolicyCompendium,“eventhougheachWorldHeritageCommitteeissovereign,notformallyboundbydecisionstakenbypreviousCommittees,successiveCommitteeshavedecidedtofollowagreedapproachesandmodifythemovertimeifnecessary”.19
Caselawincludesdecisionsaboutindigenouspeoples,andespeciallytheirvaluesandroleinmanagement,withrespecttonaturalsites;however,noattemptismadetobecomprehensive.Caselawfromnaturalsites,typicallyaddressingStateofConservationorreactivemonitoringreports,isonlyincludedwheredecisionsexplicitlyaddressindigenouspeoplesandtheirvalues.GiventhehugeefforttosiftthroughallCommitteedecisions,thelistofcaselawprovidedhereisonlyafirstcutthatrequiresadditionalregionalexpertisetomakemorecomplete.SincethePolicyCompendiumalreadyaddressescaselawonindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage,itwillbehelpfulforICOMOStocontinuecompilingthiscaselawforinclusioninthePolicyCompendium.
AfullcompendiumofCommitteedecisions,includingcaselaw,isprovidedinAppendixFour.Figure6providesasimpleviewofaggregatetrendsinCommitteedecisionsaddressingindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage.Althoughtheabsolutenumberofdecisionsreferencingindigenouspeoplesand/orindigenousheritageis
17 Disko&Tugendhat(2013):ReportontheInternationalExpertWorkshop,pp.33–34.18 UNESCO(2018b).19 ICCROM(n.d.),ScopingStudy,p.4.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 27
relativelysmall(seealsoFigure7),therehasbeenatrendtowardsanincreasingnumberofsuchdecisions,asseeninthethree-yearmovingaverage.Figure7showscumulativedecisionsandcaselawsincetheadoptionoftheWorldHeritageConvention.Sincetherecordingofcaselawisincomplete,Figure6ismisleadinginshowingtrendsincaselawasacomponentofCommitteedecisions;itmoreaccuratelyreflectstrendsinreportingofcases.Forexample,LarsenandBuckley20reportonseveralcasesin2015,creatingaspikeinthedataforthatyear.FIGURE6. WORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEEDECISIONSANDCASELAWADDRESSINGINDIGENOUSPEOPLES
AND/ORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEINEACHYEAR(1972–2018)
FIGURE7. CUMULATIVEWORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEEDECISIONSADDRESSINGINDIGENOUSPEOPLES
AND/ORINDIGENOUSHERITAGETODATE(2018)
20 “TheWorldHeritageCommitteeandHumanRights”(2018).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
CaseLaw
WHCDecisions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
CaseLaw
Decisions
3-yearmovingaverage(Decisions)
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 28
Whattheabovechartsdonotconveyisthesignificanceofindividualdecisionssinceallareweightedequally.Somedecisionsinfactcontaindifferent,separatepointsaddressingindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritagesoitispossiblethateachsub-decisioncouldbecountedseparatelyinordertobetterweighttheimportanceofseparate,multipleissuesaddressedinasingledecision;forexample,Decision35COM12EArticle15hastwo,perhapsthree,separatepointsaddressingindigenouspeoples:“e)Involveindigenouspeoplesandlocalcommunitiesindecisionmaking…andlinkthedirectcommunitybenefitstoprotectionoutcomes,f)Respecttherightsofindigenouspeoples…”.
Moreover,certaindecisionsareparticularlysignificant.Forexample,Decision35COM12E,Article15establishesexplicitly,forthefirsttimeinWorldHeritage,theimportanceofrespectingtherightsofindigenouspeoplesandensuringtheirparticipationinallaspectsofWorldHeritagesitemanagement.Whileonlypresentedasadesiredoutcomeratherthanarequirement(“TheWorldHeritageCommittee…encouragesStatesPartiesto…”)thedecisionreminds“beingasignatorytotheWorldHeritageConventionentailscertainresponsibilities,including…managementofWorldHeritagepropertiesaccordingtothehighestinternationalstandards,[and]promotionofgoodgovernance”.Thefirstsub-clauseofArticle15callsonStatesPartiesto“setupacollaborativeframeworkbetweenagenciesfortheconservationofproperties,includingagenciesinchargeofthefollowupofotherconventionsandinternationalagreements”;amongtheseotherconventionscanbeincludedtheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.
MuchattentionhasbeenpaidtotheimportanceofDecision39COM11,throughwhichnewwordingonindigenouspeoplesandtheirrightswasadoptedintheOperationalGuidelines,Paragraphs40and123.Paragraph40doesincludeindigenouspeoplesaspotentialstakeholders,whichshouldhelpencouragerealizationofDecision35COM12E,Article15.e(“involveindigenouspeoples”).However,thenewwordinginParagraph123doeslittletoimplementtheguidanceofDecision35COM12E,Article15.f(“respecttherightsofindigenouspeoples”).Paragraph123encouragesStatesParties,
todemonstrate,asappropriate,thatthefree,priorandinformedconsentofindigenouspeopleshasbeenobtained,through,interaliamakingthenominationspublicallyavailableinappropriatelanguagesandpublicconsultationsandhearings.
ThisonlyencouragesStatesPartiestoinformthepublicofcaseswherefree,priorandinformedconsenthasalreadyinfactbeenobtained;itdoesnotevenencourage,muchlessrequire,StatesPartiestoactuallyobtainsuchconsent.
AnotherhighlysignificantCommitteedecisionwasCONF203XIV.3in1998,throughwhichtraditionalmanagementwasacceptedasanadequateformofmanagementforWorldHeritageproperties.TheCommitteeadoptedrevisedwordingforParagraph44(a)oftheOperationalGuidelines,recognizing“legaland/ortraditionalprotectionandmanagementmechanisms”.Asthedecisionnotes,"TheCommitteehadaconsiderabledebateoncustomaryprotectionandagreedthatcustomarymanagementshouldbesupported.Itpointedoutthatwhiletraditional
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 29
protectionandmanagementmechanismsareprovidedforintheOperationalGuidelinesforculturalsites(par.24b(ii)),nosimilarprovisionexistsfornaturalsites(par.44b(vi))".
Theimpetusforthischangecamefromtheinscription,throughDecisionCONF203VIII.A.1,ofEastRennell(SolomonIslands)undernaturalcriterion(ii)[now(vii)]alone.TheEastRennelnominationexplains,“mostofthelandatEastRennellremainsundercustomarytenureanddecisionsconcerningthatlandarethedirectresponsibilityoftheresourceowners”;21moreover,the“SolomonIslandslacksanyformalprotectedareaslegislation”.22Thedecisiontoinscribeexplains,
Anumberofdelegateswelcomedthenominationandnotedthatasiteprotectedbycustomarylawisbreakingnewground,andthattheinclusionofthistypeofpropertyisinlinewiththeGlobalStrategy.SitesfromotherStatesParties,whichareundertraditionalmanagementandcustomarylaw,mayprovideexamplesforgeneralprinciples.
WhilenoothercasesofWorldHeritagesitesbeingprotectedbytraditionalprotectionalonehavesincebeeninscribed,23severalsiteshighlighttheimportantroleoftraditionalprotectionandcustomarymanagement:
• KakaduNationalPark(Australia):Decision37COM8EadoptsretrospectiveStatementofOUV:“Thepropertyiswellprotectedbylegislationandisco-managedwiththeAboriginaltraditionalowners,whichisanessentialaspectofthemanagementsystem....AmajorityofBoard[theKakaduNationalParkBoardofManagement]membersrepresentthepark’straditionalowners.”
• PimachiowinAki(Canada).Decision42COM8B.11adoptsStatementofOUV:“FirstNationshaveplayedtheleadingroleindefiningtheapproachtoprotectionandmanagementofPimachiowinAki.…ProtectionandmanagementofthepropertyareachievedthroughAnishinaabecustomarygovernancegroundedinJi-ganawendamangGidakiiminaan,contemporaryprovincialgovernmentlawandpolicy,andcooperationamongthefourFirstNationsandtwoprovincialgovernmentpartners.”
• KonsoCulturalLandscape(Ethiopia).Decision35COM8B.18adoptedStatementofOUV:“Thepropertyisprotectedbytraditional,RegionalandFederallaws.Thetraditionalcodeofmanagementoftheculturallandscapeispracticedsidebysidewiththemodernadministrativesystem”.
• CulturalLandscapeofBaliProvince:theSubakSystemasaManifestationoftheTriHitaKaranaPhilosophy(Indonesia).Decision36COM8B.26recommends“Tosustainthelivinglandscapewayswillneedtobefoundtoprovidemoresupporttosupportthetraditionalsystemsandtoprovidebenefitsthatwillallowfarmerstostayontheland.”
21 Wingham(1998),“‘ResourceManagementObjectivesandGuidelinesforEastRennell,”p.14.22 WeinandChatterton(2005),“AForestsStrategyforSolomonIslands”.23 TherearetwoadditionalsitesontheSolomonIslandsTentativeList:Marovo–TetepareComplex
andTropicalRainforestHeritageofSolomonIslands.SeeAppendixThreefordetails.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 30
• BassariCountry:Bassari,FulaandBedikCulturalLandscapes(Senegal).Decision36COM8B.16adoptedStatementofOUV:“Formsoftraditionalprotectionandmanagementcontinuetobeimplemented,complementedbytheactionofseveralnationalandlocalinstitutionalbodiesandNGOs.Overallthecombinationoflegal,institutionalandtraditionalprotectivemeasuresisadequatetoensurethesafeguardoftheOutstandingUniversalValueoftheproperty”.
Aninterestingnoteontraditionalprotection:Decision35COM12EArt.7,“RequeststheWorldHeritageCentreandtheAdvisoryBodiestodevelopguidance...[on]Theuses,limitsanddocumentationrequirementsfortraditionalmanagement(paragraphs108andfollowing)”.Itseemstodatenosuchguidancehasbeenprovided,atleastnonethatispublicallyavailable.Furtherdiscussionoftraditionalmanagementisprovidedinthenextsection,under“ProtectionandManagement.”
Alsohighlysignificantforrecognitionofindigenouspeoplesandtheirheritage,wastheadoptionofthefifth"C"(Communities)tothestrategicobjectivesofWorldHeritageConventionin2007.Decision31COM13A(and31COM13B)noted“thecriticalimportanceofinvolvingindigenous,traditionalandlocalcommunitiesintheimplementationoftheConvention".ThisshiftinfocustostresstheimportantrolecommunitiesplayinWorldHeritageroughlycorrespondswiththerisingnumberofCommitteedecisionsregardingindigenouspeopleandtheirheritage,asshowninFigure6.
PotentiallythemostsignificantdecisionforrecognitionofindigenouspeoplesinWorldHeritageprocessesistheadoptionoftheWorldHeritageandSustainableDevelopmentPolicybytheGeneralAssemblyofStatesPartiestotheWorldHeritageConvention,throughResolution20GA13.TheDraftpolicydocumentwassupportedbytheWorldHeritageCommitteethroughDecision39COM5D.
Article22oftheSustainableDevelopmentPolicy,callsonStatesPartiesto:i. Developrelevantstandards,guidanceandoperationalmechanismsforindigenouspeoplesandlocalcommunityinvolvementinWorldHeritageprocesses;
ii.Ensureadequateconsultations,thefree,priorandinformedconsentandequitableandeffectiveparticipationofindigenouspeopleswhereWorldHeritagenomination,managementandpolicymeasuresaffecttheirterritories,lands,resourcesandwaysoflife;
iii.Activelypromoteindigenousandlocalinitiativestodevelopequitablegovernancearrangements,collaborativemanagementsystemsand,whenappropriate,redressmechanisms.
Article22strengthensthecommitmentsmadein2011(Decision35COM12E,Article15)toengageindigenouspeoplesthroughobtainingconsenttodevelop(ormodify)sitesandbyensuringeffectiveparticipation,includingthroughcollaborativemanagement.Promotionofindigenousandlocalinitiativesin
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 31
managementmayalsosupporttheroleoftraditionalmanagementand/orcustomarygovernanceinsiteprotectionandmanagement.However,itisstilltooearlytoknowhowthisnewpolicywillbeimplemented.Article8ofResolution20GA13statesthatWorldHeritageCentreandAdvisoryBodiesaretoreporton“necessarychangestotheOperationalGuidelines,whichwouldtranslatetheprinciplesofthepolicydocumentonsustainabledevelopmentintospecificoperationalprocedures”.Foritspart,theWorldHeritageCommitteehasencouragedStatesParties,throughDecisions40COM5Cand41COM5C,“toensurethatsustainabledevelopmentprinciplesaremainstreamedintotheirnationalprocessesrelatedtoWorldHeritage”.AnothermajordecisionoutstandingisthecommitmenttoaddresstheoutcomesoftheInternationalExpertWorkshoponWorldHeritageConventionandIndigenousPeoples(Denmark,2012),whichincludeextensiverecommendationsonchangestotheOperationalGuidelinestobetteraddresstherightsandinterestsofindigenouspeoplesinWorldHeritageprocesses.AsexpressedinDecision37COM12ii,andagaininDecision39COM11,theCommitteehaspledgedtore-examinetherecommendationsoftheInternationalExpertWorkshop“followingtheresultsofthediscussionstobeheldbytheExecutiveBoardontheUNESCOpolicyonindigenouspeoples”.
Finally,twoimportantdecisionsthatwillshapethefutureofhowindigenousheritagewillbeaddressedinWorldHeritage.Decision41COM7,Article41,establishedtheInternationalindigenousPeoplesForumonWorldHeritage,aformalconsultativemechanismforpresentationandadvocacyofindigenouspeoples’concernsinWorldHeritagedeliberations,includingCommitteemeetings.ThisfollowsthemuchearlierDecisionCONF208XV.1-5in2001tonotestablishaWorldHeritageIndigenousPeoplesCouncilofExpertsasproposedbytheIndigenousPeoplesForumconvenedinassociationwiththeCommitteemeetingatCairns,Australia,in2000.AlsohighlyimportantisDecision41COM10A,Article14andDecision41COM11,Article11,throughwhichtheCommitteeadoptedsubstantialchangestothePeriodicReportingprocess.BoththeOperationalGuidelines(2017)andtheCycle3Questionnairehavebeendramaticallychangedtogatherawiderrangeofdata,includingontheroleofindigenouspeoples(seeAppendixSixforexcerptsfromtheCycle3Questionnaire).Theserevisionsshouldpromotegatheringofmorecomprehensiveinformationonparticipationofindigenouspeoples,whichpreviouslywasnotexpectedofStatesPartiesunlessspecificallyrequestedthroughCommitteedecisions.
Insummary,someimportantdecisionshavebeenmadetoclarifytheroleofindigenouspeoplesinidentificationandmanagementoftheirheritagebutthereallybigdecisions,thoserelatedtoimplementationoftheUNESCOPolicyEngagingindigenousPeoplesandtheWorldHeritageSustainableDevelopmentPolicy,haveyettobemade.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 32
5.InternationalEffortstoBetterAddressIndigenousHeritage
ThissectioncontainsabriefdiscussionofinternationaleffortstodatetoimproveunderstandingandrepresentationofindigenousheritageinWorldHeritage;
OURCOMMONDIGNITY
OurCommonDignityisaninitiativeonrightsinWorldHeritageundertakenbytheAdvisoryBodiestotheWorldHeritageConvention(ICCROM,ICOMOSandIUCN)underthecoordinationofICOMOSNorway.24Theobjectiveofthisinitiativeistobuildawarenessofrightsissuesinheritagemanagementandpromote“goodpractice”approachesforWorldHeritage,fromtentativelistdevelopment,tonominationandsitemanagement.25Activitiesthathavebeensponsoredunderthisinitiativeinclude:aHeritageManagementandHumanRightsPilotTrainingCourse;theAdvisoryBodiesbibliographyprojectonhumanrights,andnotesontheAdvisoryBodiesrightspolicy,includingabriefsummaryontheICOMOSrightspolicyreview.26
ICOMOSreiterateditscommitmenttorights-basedapproachestoWorldHeritageintheBuenosAiresDeclaration(5December2018),whichmarkedthe70thanniversaryoftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights.TheDeclarationencouragedICOMOSmembers,Committeesandgroupsto,amongotherthings,“Buildstrongrelationshipswithcommunitiesandpeoplesintheirwork”and“Embracetheprincipleoffree,priorandinformedconsentofsourcecommunitiesbeforeadoptingmeasuresconcerningtheirspecificculturalheritage.”AttheGeneralAssemblyinBuenosAires,theOurCommonDignityInitiativeworkinggroupexplainedtheconcernforparticipationinculturalheritageconservationhasexpandedbeyondWorldHeritagetoculturalheritagemoregenerally.
CONNECTINGPRACTICE
ConnectingPracticeisajointinitiativebetweenICOMOSandIUCN,withthegoal“todeliverafullyconnectedapproachtoconsideringnatureandcultureinthepracticesandinstitutionalculturesofIUCNandICOMOS.”27Oneofthelong-termobjectivesisto“influenceashiftinconceptualandpracticalarrangementsfortheconsiderationofcultureandnaturewithintheimplementationoftheWorldHeritageConvention”(IUCN2016).PhaseI(2013-2015)proceededasatrialprojectatthreeWorldHeritagesitesinMongolia,Ethiopia,andMexico.AmongtheoutcomeswererecommendationsforimplementinginactualWorldHeritageevaluations:(a)Jointbriefingoftheteamsandpreparationforthesitevisit;(b)Collaborationamongstteammembersandbetweenthemandlocalscolleagues;(c)Holisticapproachovertheinterconnected
24 EstablishedResolution19GA2017/23(OurCommonDignity:NextstepsforRights-Based-
approachesinWorldHeritage)ofthe19thGeneralAssemblyofICOMOS,2017.25 ICOMOS(n.d.),“OurCommonDignityInitiative”.26 Sinding-Larsen&Larsen(2017),TheAdvisoryBody“OurCommonDignityInitiative”,p.4.27 IUCN(2016),“ConnectingPractice”.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 33
characterofthenatural,culturalandsocialvaluesoftheproperty;and(d)acommonreport.28Asaresultofimplementingsuchchanges,KristalBuckleyhasnoted,
ThecommunicationbetweentheAdvisoryBodiesduringtheevaluationcyclehasimprovedsignificantly.Dependingontheissuesandresourcesavailable,bothIUCNandICOMOSprovideadviceonvaluesandmanagementtotheotheronselectednominations,andthisadviceisincludedinthereportspresentedtotheWorldHeritageCommittee.29
PhaseIIfocussedontwocasestudies:HortobágyNationalPark–thePuszta(Hungary)andtheMaloti-DrakensburgPark(SouthAfrica/Lesotho).ThePhaseIIReportemphasises“institutionalbarriers”thatimpederealizationofafullyintegratedapproachtoconsideringnaturalandculturalheritageasWorldHeritage:
Thisimpliestacklingorganisationalhistoriesandinterests,decision-makingprocessesaswellasinstrumentsusedtoexerciseauthority.Anypotentialshiftsinhowculturalandnaturalheritagearecurrentlyconceptualisedwillfailtorealisetheirfullpotentialunlesstheyaredevelopedinparallelwitheffortstoovercomethoseinstitutionalbarriers.30
Inmanycases,suchinstitutionalbarriersresultfromresponsibilityforsitemanagementbeingassumedbyanagencythathasexpertiseinonlyoneofeithernaturalorculturalheritage.
InordertoalignassessmentandreportingmetricsinPhaseIIfieldvisits,IUCNandICOMOSadopted(withadapttions)acommontool:theEnhancingOurHeritageToolkitbasedontheIUCNWorldCommissiononProtectedAreas(WCPA)FrameworkforAssessingtheManagementEffectivenessofProtectedAreas.Thetoolkitfocusesonassessingtheextenttowhichmanagementisprotectingvaluesandachievinggoalsandobjectives.ThehopeisthatthistoolkitwillbeabletobesedonallWorldHeritageproperties.31ResultsofthefirsttwophasesofConnectingPracticewerepresentedatIUCN'sWorldConservationCongressinHawai’i(2016)andagainattheICOMOS19thGeneralAssemblyandScientificSymposium(Delhi,2017).Presentationsandworkshopsaddressinterlinkagesofculturalandnaturalheritageto
buildonthegrowingevidencethatnaturalandculturalheritagearecloselyinterconnectedinmostlandscapesandseascapes,andthateffectiveandlastingconservationofsuchplacesdependsonbetter
28 IUCN&ICOMOS(2015).ConnectingPracticeProject:FinalReport,pp.15–16.29 Buckley(2014),“Nature+CultureandWorldHeritage,”pp.111–12.30 Leitão,etal.(2017),ConnectingPracticePhaseII:FinalReport,p.18.31 Leitão,etal.(2017),ConnectingPracticePhaseII:FinalReport,pp.5–7,21–22.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 34
integrationofphilosophiesandproceduresregardingtheirmanagement”.32
PhaseIIIspecificallyfocusesonlandscapes/seascapeswithtraditionalagriculturalandharvestingsystemsthatdemonstratesignificant“bioculturalvalues”(i.e.culture-natureinteraction).Thegoalis“toestablishnewandstrongerpartnershipswithavarietyoforganizationsinordertoenhanceunderstandingandcollaboration.”33Inplannedfieldwork,theprojectpartners“willengagedirectlywithlocalmanagementauthoritiestoassesstheculturalandnaturalvaluesatthesites,understandtraditionalmanagementframeworks,researchdynamicevolutionofbioculturalpractices,andreviewlevelsofacceptablesitechange.”34ThelatestactivityreportedonisaworkshopatICOMOSheadquartersnearParis,France,7–8February2019.TherewasacallputoutforsitemanagersofWorldHeritagesitesinterestedinparticipatingintheproject,withadeadlineof30September2018.35Perhapsthe2019workshopselectedthefieldsitesfromamongresponsestothecall.
32 WorldHeritage&Nature-Culture,IUCNWorldConservationCongress,Hawai’i,2016.
https://www.usicomos.org/mainsite/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/N-C_WH-Journeys-Programme-1.pdf
33 ICOMOS.n.d.“ConnectingPracticeWorkshop|7-8February2019.”https://www.icomos.org/en/home-wh/56423-connecting-practice-workshop-7-8-february-2021.
34 ICOMOS.n.d.“ConnectingPracticeWorkshop.”35 ICOMOS.n.d.“LaunchofConnectingPracticePhaseIIIandCallforInterest.”
https://www.icomos.org/en/178-english-categories/news/43156-launch-of-the-third-phase-of-the-connecting-practice-project.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 35
DiscussionofIssuesinAddressingIndigenousHeritage
Inthissectionisadiscussionofissues,includinggapsinunderstandingandongoingchallengesrelatedtoidentificationandpresentationofindigenousheritageintheWorldHeritagecontext.ManyofthesechallengesarisefromculturaldifferencesinunderstandingsofkeyWorldHeritageconceptssuchas“outstanding”,“exceptional”,“universal”,and“authenticity”.Whererelevant,successesinaddressingindigenousheritageinWorldHeritageareidentified.
Specificemphasishereisplacedonissuesdirectlyimpactingdevelopmentofnewnominationsandongoingmanagementofinscribedsites;namely:(1)identificationofvaluesandjustificationofOUV;(2)assessmentofauthenticity;and(3)establishmentofeffectiveandappropriateformsofprotectionandmanagement.
1.IdentificationofValues
AsStefanDiskoremindsus,“whichvaluesarerecognizedaspartofasite’sOUV,andwhichonesarenot,canhavemajorramificationsforindigenouspeopleslivingwithinornearaWorldHeritagesite.”36ThediscussionherefocussesontwokeyissuesthatareparticularlyimportanttohowindigenousheritageisidentifiedandaddressedintheWorldHeritagecontext:interpretationoftheconceptofOutstandingUniversalValue,andunderstandingholisticviewsofnature/culture.
OUTSTANDINGUNIVERSALVALUE
AttributionofOutstandingUniversalValue(OUV),or“significancewhichissoexceptionalastotranscendnationalboundariesandtobeofcommonimportanceforpresentandfuturegenerationsofallhumanity”(OperationalGuidelinespara.49),isthefoundationoftheWorldHeritageList.AsanearlierICOMOSreviewoftheOUCconceptsuggested,“allsitesaresomehowuniqueandthereforeexceptional.Therefore,exceptionalshouldherebeinterpretedassomethingthatisexceptionalinitsquality,i.e.somethingthatexcelsovertheothers”.37
AssessmentofOUVisthereforeinherentlycomparative,sinceinternationalassessorsandreviewersneedtounderstandthesiteinawidercontexttobeabletodetermineifitisinfact“outstanding”;thatis,whencomparedtoothersimilarexamplesofaformofheritage,thenominatedsiteisshowntobeamorehighlyrepresentativeormoreexceptionalexampleofthatformofheritage.Thisistheinstitutional(andcultural)contextthatICOMOSmustoperatewithin.Inanindigenousculturalcontext,however,thepracticeofidentifyingsomethingasoutstandingorexceptionalaboveallothersissomewhatforeign;indigenouspeoplesgenerallyareloathtocomparethemselvestootherpeople,bothasgroupsandasindividuals.Theytendnottoseethemselvesas“exceptional”inrelationtootherindigenouspeoples(i.e.theexpectedpointofcomparison)butmerelydifferent.Theywouldagree,“allsitesaresomehowuniqueandthereforeexceptional”.
36 Disko(2017),“IndigenousCulturalHeritage”,p.10.37 Jokilehto(2008),TheWorldHeritageList:WhatisOUV?,p.14.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 36
Forexample,intheirfirstnomination(2013)theFirstNationsofPimachiowinAkiavoidedmakingadefinitivestatementofexceptionalitybecause“theydidnotwanttomakejudgementsabouttherelationshipsofotherFirstNations’[orindigenouspeoples]withtheirlands”.38SincetheindigenouspeopleofPimachiowinAkiwereleadingdevelopmentofthenomination,theywereputinwhatwasforthemtheawkwardpositionofbeingrequiredtodemonstrateclearlyinapublicdocumentthattheyweremoreworthyofrecognitionthanotherpeopleandtheirlands.Fromaproceduralperspective,however,itwasunderstandablethatICOMOSfelt“thisviewsetsupadifficultdilemma”since,
SucharelationshipisnotuniqueandpersistsinmanyplacesassociatedwithindigenouspeoplesinNorthAmericaandotherpartsoftheworld.…WhathasnotbeendemonstratedishowthisstrongassociationbetweentheAnishinaabegandthelandintheareanominatedcanbeseentobeexceptional.
Asimilarassessmentwasmadeinthe2010ICOMOSEvaluationoftheNgorongoroConservationArea(UnitedRepublicofTanzania)nomination:
therearenumerouspastoralistcommunitiesfromTanzaniatoSudan...Notwithstandingculturalandregionaldifferences,allofthesegroupsshare,invariouswaysandtovariousextents,agreatnumberofculturalcharacteristics...TheMaasai,althoughextremelyinterestingintermsoftheirculturaltraditions,aretherefore,inICOMOS’sview,neitherauniquenoranexceptionaltestimonytosuchpastoralisttraditions.39
Forapeoplewhoseeeverythingasdifferentandthereforeunique,40therewillunderstandablybeconcernoverthesuggestiontheyarenotinfactunique.WhenthePimachiowinAkinominationwasreferredbytheCommittee(Decision37COM8B.19),withoutmentionoftheissueofcomparison,therewassomeattentionpaidtotheissuebyCanadianindigenouspeoplesandtheirsupporters.AtaWorldIndigenousNetworkconferenceinDarwin,Australia,coincidingwiththe37thsessionoftheCommitteeinPhnomPenh,Cambodia,apetitionwascirculatedcriticisingWorldHeritageprocessesthatrequire“indigenouspeopletomakeinappropriateclaimsofsuperiorityaboutourculturesincomparisontoothernationsandcommunitiesinordertograntusspecialrecognition”.41
Tobeclear,thereisnothingwrongwithasserting“theConventionisnotintendedtoensuretheprotectionofallpropertiesofgreatinterest,importanceorvalue”
38 ICOMOSEvaluation2013,WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B1,39 WHC-10/34.COM/INF.8B1.NotetheKenyanTentativeListsite,TheAfricanGreatRiftValley-The
MaasaiMara,thatdoesproposetorepresentthepastoraltraditionundercriterion(v).Also,thereisasite(OldonyoMurwak)ontheTanzanianTentativeListspecificallyfocusedontheage-gradetraditionsoftheMaasai.
40 “IrememberonedaywewerecuttingfirewoodandIwaslookingatthetrees.Ijustlookedatthosetrees.Everytreewascreateddifferently,sobeautiful.Eachonewascreatedinitsownuniqueway”(ElderEllenPeters,intranslation,PikangikumFirstNation,Canada,November25,2004).
41 Feneley(2013),“Indigenousleaderstoldof‘insulting’UNrule”.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 37
(OperationalGuidelinespara.52);therewouldbelittlepointinaListthatadmittedallinterestedsites,evenifthatwerepossible.Thereisaneed,then,tofindwaystobetterunderstandandaccommodateindigenousreticencetocompareandassertexceptionality.Wherethesignificanceofindigenousheritageisarticulatedthroughaholisticunderstandingoftheinseparabilityofnatureandculture,orland/seaandpeoplemoregenerally,itislikelythatheritagewillbeseenasessentialtoexpressingandmaintainingaspecificindigenousidentity(i.e.partoftheuniquecustomsthatmarktheirindigeneity).Insuchcases,itwillbemoredifficulttodisentanglejudgementsaboutheritageattributes(onandoftheland)andculturalidentityaspartofamoredetached(“objective”)WorldHeritageperspective.
Thecentralityofattachment/relationshiptolandinformingandexpressingculturalidentityshouldnotbeseenasanotherinstanceof“nationalpride”anddesireforinternationalprestigetojustifythesignificanceof“apropertyof[merely]nationaland/orregionalimportance”(OperationalGuidelinespara.52).StatesParties’attachmenttosymbolsofnationalpride“stressthemonumentalityandimportanceofsitesinordertoprovideanimageofthenationasheroic,grandandpowerful".42Forindigenouspeoples,culturalandpersonalidentity,evenculturalsurvivalinthefaceofdiscrimination,isoftenwrappedupintheirrelationshiptoheritageattributesandtheir(intangible)associations.Therefore,ifamoreholisticapproachtoheritageistoberecognisedinWorldHeritage,greaterattentionneedstobepaidtotheimportanceofcross-culturalcommunicationinWorldHeritageprocesses.ApracticalstepforimprovingrepresentationofindigenousheritageasWorldHeritageistoprovideassistancetoindigenouspeoplesandStaesPartiesinunderstandingtheWorldHeritageperspective,essentiallyadifferentculturalperspective,inthedevelopmentofsiteproposalsandnominations.
Forexample,itcanbeadifficultandperhapssubtlepointthatbecausetheWorldHeritageConventionaddressestangibleaspectsofheritagemanifestinlandandwater,OUVmustinhereinthephysicalfeaturesofthesiteitself.Therefore,arguingthatasiteisexceptionalshouldinfactavoidcomparingcultures,orevenpeople,andfocusinsteadonthewaysinwhichasitedemonstratesaparticularformofculturalheritage.Comparisonisnottobeanassessmentoftheculturalvaluesthemselvesbuttherelativeabilityofasitetoreflectorrepresentthosevalues.
Theconcernformakingjudgementsaboutotherpeoplesthroughcomparativeanalysiscanalsobeaddressedbyensuringcomparisonfocusesontheabilityofthespecificgeographyofthenominatedsitetoreflectaspecificsetofvaluesincomparisontoothersiteswithsimilarvalues.Bywayofexample,Head-Smashed-InBuffaloJump(Canada)issaidtohaveOUVbecauseitis“oneoftheoldest,mostextensive,andbestpreservedsitesthatillustratecommunalhuntingtechniquesandthewayoflifeofPlainspeople”.Thesiteisagloballyexceptionalillustrationof
42 Labadi(2007),“RepresentationsoftheNationandCulturalDiversity”,p.161.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 38
communalhuntingpractices,whichwereoncemorewidespreadintheworldbutaretodayuncommon(orperhapsnon-existent).Furthermore,becauseindigenouspeoplestendnottowanttospeakaboutotherpeoples,andinparticularotherindigenouspeoples,theremaybedifficultyinunderstandingtheuseoftheterm“universal”;theyarelikelytobemorecomfortalespeakingforthemselvesratherthantheentireworld.AsJokilehtohasexplained,intheWorldHeritagecontexttheterm“universal”referstoissuesorthemesthatarefacedbypeopleacrosstheworldbutexperienced,understood,andaddressedinwaysthatarehighlycontext-specificorculturallyunique.43Forexample,thestruggleforsurvivalinthefaceofaharshenvironmentisacommongeneralthemeinhumansociety(i.e.,is“universal”)butthespecificexpressionofthatgeneralthemeiswhatmakesupthebasisforpotentialOUV.TheshrinesandstonefiguresfoundontheislandsofPapahānaumokuākea(UnitedStatesofAmerica)representaculturally-specificexpressionofthehuman/universalsearchformeaninginlifeanddeath.Whilesuchconceptsandtheirapplicationmaybesecond-naturetoICOMOS,reachingunderstandingwithindigenouspeoplesislikelygoingtorequiredirect,face-to-facediscussionsandworkshopsinthedevelopmentofTentativeListproposalsandnominations.WrittenguidancedocumentsonOUVandcomparativeanalysis,withexamplesofsuccessfulindigenousnominations,willhelpindigenouspeoplesandStatesPartiesworktogethermoresuccessfully.
TheWorldHeritageLististobecomposedof“themostoutstanding”sites“fromaninternationalviewpoint”,asjustifiedbyStatesParties,assessedbytheAdvisoryBodiesandultimatelydecideduponbytheCommittee.Yetindigenouspeoplesareveryoftenmarginaltothecentersofpoliticalandculturalpowerandarethereforelessinfluentialindefiningthis“internationalviewpoint”.Alsoasaconsequenceofmarginalization,indigenouspeopleshavelargelynotbeendirectlyinvolvedindevelopmentofWorldHeritagenominations.Asaresult,inscribedsiteswithindigenousheritagehavegenerallydefinedvaluesfromanon-indigenousperspective.
Bywayofexample,theKukEarlyAgriculturalSite(PapuaNewGuinea)wasinscribedundercriterion(iv)becausethesite“containswell-preservedarchaeologicalremainsdemonstratingthetechnologicalleapwhichtransformedplantexploitationtoagriculturearound6,500yearsago”.AlthoughindigenousKawelkauseofthesitefortraditionalagriculturecontinues,the2008ICOMOSevaluationdeterminedtheprincipalvaluesofthesiteareintheevidencefororiginsofagriculture:
ICOMOSconsidersthatitsoutstandinguniversalvalueisassociatedwitharchaeologicalevidenceandhenceitisappropriatetoconsiderthisarelictlandscape.Thesiteisstillfarmedinatraditionalway,butthisfarminghasbeenre-introducedandmodifiedfromtraditionalpracticesand,althoughthisiscompatiblewiththearchaeologicalevidenceand
43Jokilehto(2008),TheWorldHeritageList:WhatisOUV?,p.48.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 39
providesaveryappropriatecontextforunderstandingthearchaeologicalremains,itisinitselfnotofoutstandingvalue.44
WhileitisdefensibletoconsiderthevaluesofcontemporaryKawelkafarmersasnotbeingthemselvesofOUV,thattheOUVisthenbasedsolelyonoriginsofcropdomesticationwithoutreferencetoKawelka,demonstrateshowOUVwasdefinedsolelybyanexternal(expert)perspective.ThesamecanbesaidofNgorongoroConservationArea(Tanzania),acasethatdemonstrateshow,
iftherecognizedOUVofasitedoesnotreflectorcoincidewiththevaluesattachedtothesitebyindigenouspeoples,thiscanleadtorestrictionsandprohibitionsontheirtraditionallanduseactivitiesandthushavesignificantconsequencesfortheirlives,livelihoods,culturesandwell-being.45
TheNgorongoroConservationAreacaseisparticularlydisturbinggivenrecommendaitonsfromReactiveMonitoringmissionsforsocialengineeringtoreducetheimpactofgrazingonnaturalheritage—whichincludethe“trulysuperbnaturalphenomenon”of“welloveronemillion”wildebeestmigratingthroughthesite—woulddirectlyreducetheauthenticityofMaasaipastoralheritage;46recommendationsincluded(voluntary)relocation,introductionof“improved”cattlestock,deliveryofwaterandsaltinproscribedlocations,andprovisionoffoodaid.47Maasaiadaptations(sedentisationandagriculture)werealsoseenasathreattositeculturalOUV,includingarchaeologicalheritagepotential:
FurthergrowthoftheMaasaipopulationandthenumberofcattleshouldremainwithinthecapacityoftheproperty,andincreasingsedentarisation,localovergrazingandagriculturalencroachmentarethreatstoboththenaturalandculturalvaluesoftheproperty...Thepropertyencompassesnotonlytheknownarchaeologicalremainsbutalsoareasofhigharchaeo-anthropologicalpotentialwhererelatedfindsmightbemade.48
InboththeKukandNgorongorocases,itmayseemthatoutsidepeoplehaveidentifiedsomethingofinternationalvaluebeneaththeirland,avaluetheyarenotthemselvesapartof.
Thepaucityofindigenoussiteswithoutmonumentalarchitecture,rockartorotherarchaeologicalfeatures,incomparisontotheongoingnominationofterracedagriculturalfields,fortifiedsettlementsandvernaculararchitecture,suggestsasystematicbiasinhowOUVisinterpreted.AsDiskohassuggested,
44 ICOMOS(2008):87.45 Disko(2017),“IndigenousCulturalHeritage”,p.10.46 IntheKukEarlyAgriculturalSite,forexample,adaptationssuchasimprovedcropvarieties,non-
indigenouscrops,anddrainageonagridpattern,ledtheICOMOSEvaluationtoconclude,“Thisisnotacontinuationoftraditionalpracticebutare-introductionofappropriatepractice”(86).
47 JointUNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCNReactivemonitoringmissiontoNgorongoroConservationArea(Tanzania)(2012).Theonerecommendationforsocialengineeringthatwouldnotlikelyaffectauthenticityisthat“moreeffortshouldbeputintothepromotionoffamilyplanning”(p.41).
48 AdoptedSOUV,Decision34COM8B.13(2010),para.4.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 40
ThisisareflectionofthefactthattheWorldHeritageConventionwasinspiredbya‘European-inspiredmonumentalistvisionofculturalheritagewhichisolateditsphysicaldimensionsfromits-non-physicalones’andfavored–atleastinitially–theinscriptionofbuiltandarchaeologicalheritage.49
Whilenowsomewhatdated,theICOMOSstudyofrepresentativity(“FillingtheGaps”)forthe2004WorldHeritageListconcluded,“themostrepresentedculturalheritagecategoriesontheWorldHeritageListarearchitecturalproperties,historictowns,religiouspropertiesandarchaeologicalproperties,whichtogetherconstitute69%oftheculturalpropertiesontheList”.Forthe2004List,sitesexpressingthetheme“indigenousbeliefsystems”madeup28ofthe226siteswithinthelargercategory“SpiritualResponses”;however,mostofthesesites“relatetoantiquity,withrelativelyfewrelatingtolivingspiritualtraditions”.50
AsshowninTable4intheprevioussection,38(72%)ofthe53inscribedsitesidentifiedasrepresentingindigenousheritagecontainarchaeologicalvaluesasthefocusofOUV;some57%(30of53)havearchitectureasafocusofOUV.
CurrentindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageListalsoemphasisesmajormodificationsoflandsuchasfortifiedsettlementsandterracedlandscapesthatnotonlyrepresentauniqueadaptationtochallengingconditionsbutalsoareavisuallystrikingelementofthelandscape.ExamplesofthistendencyincludeRapaNuiNationalPark,Chile,which“containsoneofthemostremarkableculturalphenomenaintheworld.Anartisticandarchitecturaltraditionofgreatpowerandimaginationwasdevelopedbyasocietythatwascompletelyisolatedfromexternalculturalinfluencesofanykindforoveramillennium”.51RapapeopleactuallycontinuetoliveontheislandbuttheircurrentvaluesarenotpartofsiteOUV.Similarly,atRockIslandsSouthernLagoon(Palau):“Permanentstonevillagesonafewislands,…includetheremainsofdefensivewalls,terracesandhouseplatforms…[and]provideanexceptionalillustrationofthewayoflifeofsmallislandcommunities”.Currentindigenousheritage,includinguseoftherockislands,isnotpartofsiteOUV.
Forcriterion(ii),whichspeakstoculturalinteraction(“interchangeofhumanvalues”)asbeingofpotentialOUV,thescopeofinterchangeaddressediscurrentlylimitedto“developmentsinarchitectureortechnology,monumentalarts,town-planningorlandscapedesign”.Amongthe121sitesidentifiedhereasrepresentingorpossiblyrepresentingindigenousheritage,onlyfourhaveanOUVnotspecificallyordominantlyfocussedonarchaeologyand/orarchitecture:QuebradadeHumahuaca(Argentina),QhapaqÑan,AndeanRoadSystem(Argentina,Bolivia,
49 Disko(2017),“IndigenousCulturalHeritage”,p.13.50 Jokilehto(2005),“FillingtheGaps”,21,35.Jokilehtoindentifies35sitesasrepresentingthetheme
“Ancientandindigenousbeliefsystems”butthe7inEurope(e.g.,Stonehenge)aremore“ancient”than“indigenous”soareexcludedhere.TheeightsitesinAfricaarenotconsideredindigenousinthisreportbutfitwithintheanalyticalframeworkoftheGapAnalysis.
51 ICOMOS(1995),p.4.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 41
Chile,Colombia,Ecuador,Peru),CulturalLandscapeofBaliProvince:theSubakSystemasaManifestationoftheTriHitaKaranaPhilosophy(Indonesia),andOsun-OsogboSacredGrove(Nigeria).52Giventhescarcityoflivingindigenouosheritageinscribedunderthiscriterion,thewordingmaybeusefullyamendedtobebroaderinscope,withoutrequiringtheneedtomakeretrospectivechangestoStatementsofOUVforsitesalreadyinscribed.
Interpretationofcriteria(iv)and(v)inparticulariscolouredbyaperspectiveinwhichthecorevaluesaredefinedinarchaeologicaltermsthatreflecttheremnantsofempire.Indigenousempiresaresituatedinhistoricalepochsandevaluatedfortheirinfluenceonworldhistory,whereasindigenouspeoplesoutsideofempireareevaluatedasrepresentinga“stageinhumanhistory”,whichcanserveattimesasaeuphemismforsocialevolution.Withoutthemonolithicandarchitecturalremainsofempire,indigenouspeopleseemtoberegardedasbeing“withouthistory”.53
TheǂKhomaniCulturalLandscape(SouthAfrica),forexample,“isuniquelyexpressiveofthehuntingandgatheringwayoflife”.Thenominationand2001ICOMOSEvaluationofTsodilo(Botswana)definedthecorevaluesofthesiteinreferencetorockart,which“presentsthepeopleofTsodilo(bothindigenousandnon-indigenous)aspeoplewhosesignificanceisintermsoftheirinteresttotheoutsideworld,asmarkersofhumankind’sevolutionaryprogress”(Taylor2015:127).Similarly,forHead-Smashed-InBuffaloJump(Canada),“thesignificanceofthelandscape…liesinitshistorical,archaeologicalandscientificinterest.”TheStatementofOUVforKakaduNationalPark(Australia)isfairlyexplicitonthewaycontemporaryindigenouspeoplesreflectahistoricalandexternally-definedunderstanding:“Thehunting-and-gatheringtraditiondemonstratedintheartandarchaeologicalrecordisalivinganthropologicaltraditionthatcontinuestoday.”AtNgorongoroConservationArea(Tanzania)theevaluationofthe“Maasaipastorallandscape”centersonthe“settlementsofthepreviouslypastoralMaasaipeopleandtheirextensivegrazingareas”(emphasisadded);asdiscussedfurtherunderAuthenticity(p.45),theMaasaiwereassessedasnotrepresentingpastoralismbecausetheycombinedpastoralismwithagriculture.TheMaasaicaseinparticularpointstotheextremelynarrowinterpretationofindigeneityintheAfricancontext(seep.8).
ComparethiswithterracedagriculturalsitesinEurope,forexample,whichareacategoryofheritagealreadywellrepresentedbutinscriptionscontinue;themostrecentbeingCulturalLandscapeoftheSerradeTramuntana(Spain),inscribedin2011as“asignificantexampleoftheMediterraneanagriculturallandscape.”54ThiscontinuedinscriptionofterracedMediterraneanagriculturallandscapessuggeststhereisahighlynuancedunderstandingofdifferencesamongsuchsites.Butitisunclearifatthispointintimewehavesimilartoolsfordifferentiatingand
52 NotingthatbothQuebradadeHumahuacaandQhapaqÑanhaveastrongfocusonboth
archaeologyandarchitecture.53 Wolf(1982),EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.54 Which,itshouldbenoted,wasnotrecommendedforinscriptionbyICOMOS.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 42
recognizingtheuniquesignificanceofindigenouslandscapeswithoutconventionalmarkerssuchasmonuments,vernaculararchitecture,orarchaeologicalremains.Ifindigenoussitescannotbeframedwithinanarchaeologicalorarchitecturalperspective,willtheydefaulttobeingassessedthroughculturalanthropologyasatypeofpeopledefinedinethnic/tribalterms(e.g.,theSaami)orasaformofeconomicorganization(e.g.,huntingandgathering,ornomadicpastoralism)?
SpeakingattheInternationalExpertWorkshoponWorldHeritageConventionandIndigenousPeoples(Denmark,2012),AudhildSchanche,SeniorAdvisortotheSaamiParliamentinNorway,spokeaboutoftheproposalforaSaamiTentativeListsite(seeabove,underDiscussions):
thereisatendencytothinkthatifonesiteincludespartofanIndigenouspeople’sheritage,thatwillbesufficient,thethemewillbecovered...a[single]SaamisiteisseenasrepresentingeverythingSaamithroughtimeandspace.…behindthistendencymaylayaninheritancefromthedayswhenIndigenouspeopleswereseenaslackinginhistoryandhavingstaticanduniformcultures.55
SimilarconcernswereraisedinthePimachiowinAkicasewhenthesecondICOMOSEvaluationsuggested,
ICOMOSconsidersthatwhatisclearfromtheworkundertakenisthatideassimilartotheKeepingtheLandconceptarecommonacrossthevastareaoftheAmericanNorthSubarctic....WhatisnotclearonthebasisoftheevidenceprovidediswhethertherearefewsocialandculturaldifferencesbetweenthemanycommunitiesandthusPimachiowinAkiisthebestplacetorepresentthisvastpartoftheglobeontheWorldHeritagelist,orwhetherthereareculturaldifferencesrelatedtospecificaspectssuchashuntingtraditions,governance,watermanagement,andculturalhistory,andtherecouldbeanopportunityformorethanoneplacetobeputontheWorldHeritageListasareflectionofdifferingapproachestotheideaofKeepingtheLandinthisregion.
InthePimachiowinAkicase,theEvaluationprovidedapositiveresponsebyallowing“thepossibilitythatotherlandscapesreflectingdifferentnuancedapproachesofKeepingtheLandmightbeconsideredfortheWorldHeritagelistinthefuture”.Butintruth,theabilitytodifferentiateindigenousnominationsfromoneStateParty,orfromsimilarregions,withoutarchaeologicalorarchitecturalmarkershasyettobefullytested.ThecomparativeanalysisforUluruNationalPark(Australia)isapossibleexceptioninthatitprovidedcomparisonwithKakaduNationalPark(Australia),concluding:“WhiletheculturallandscapesoftheKakaduandUluruNationalParksoriginateinrelatedculturaltraditions,theyexemplifyculturaladaptationstooppositepolesofanecologicalcontinuum.”56
55 InDisko&Tugendhat(2013),ReportontheInternationalExpertWorkshop,p.34.56 Althoughitispossiblethatecology,notculture,wasthedecidingfactorindifferentiatingthetwo
claimstoOUV.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 43
ThislongdiscussionofissuesinidentifyingOUVofindigenousheritageisnotprovidedasacritiqueofICOMOSpracticebuttopointoutthatthelegacyofanearlyfocusonarchaeology,monumentsandbuildings(alreadynotedbyICOMOSin2004,“FillingtheGaps”)seemstopersist.Itisnotclearhowrelianceonoutside,expertassessmentofvalueisgoingtochangesinceStatesPartiesagenciesresponsibleforWorldHeritagetypicallyrepresentthetechnocraticelitesoftheirsocieties.Becauseindigenouspeoplesaregenerallymarginaltothecentersofpower,theyareunlikelytofindmuchsupportfromthosecentersofpowerwithoutclearincentivesandtechnicalsupportforStatesPartiestonominateindigenousheritage.
Givenindigenousworldviewsaresignificantlydifferentfromthoseofnon-indigenouspeoples,participationofindigenouspeoplesintheidentificationofvaluesisparticularlyimportant;iflivingindigenousheritageistobepartofasite’sOUV,engagementwithlocalexperts,thosewholivetheirownheritage,isnecessarytounderstandthesignificanceofthatheritage.
InsofarascontemporaryindigenousheritageveryoftendoesnotfocusonthosevaluesalreadywellrepresentedontheWorldHeritageList(i.e.rockart,architecture,monumentsormassivechangestotheearth),thereshouldbespecificvaluefortheWorldHeritageListintermsofindigenouswaysoflifeandwaysofseeingtheworld.Ifindigenouspeoplesandtheirvaluesareinfactdifferentfromtheculturalmainstreamsoftheirwidernations,thensotooshouldbetheircontributionstoWorldHeritage.Encouragingnominationsofindigenousheritagetoconsiderusingcriterion(iii),andperhapsalsocriterion(v),togetherwithcriterion(vi),toaddressculturaltraditions(and/orland/seause)andtheirintangiblevalues,isausefulapproach;thiswastheapproachsuggestedbyICOMOSforPimachiowinAkifollowingthedeferraloftheirfirstnomination.57Thesearesomesuggestionsforavenuesforwardthatseektobetteraccommodateindigenousunderstandingsoftheircontemporaryrelationshiptotheland/seawherethatrelationshipisnotarticulatedthroughrockart,architecture,monumentsormassivechangestotheearth.58
HOLISTICVIEWSOFNATUREANDCULTURE
Giventheimportanceofcontinuingrelationshiptolandinexpressingindigenousheritage,identityandculturalsurvival,separationofheritageintotwoexclusivecategories,naturalandcultural,isperhapsthemostsignificantissuepreventing
57 ThisapproachwasalsosuggestedbythetheExpertMeetingon“AuthenticityandIntegrityinan
AfricanContext”(Zimbabwe,2–29May2000),“toconsiderthepossibilityofusingcriterion(iii)–theexceptionaltestimonytoaculturaltraditionorcivilization–or(v)–traditionalhumansettlementorlanduse-,inrelationtointangibletestimonyofacivilization.Thiswouldmeanusingcriteria(iii)or(v)togetherwith(vi).Itisnotedthatcriteria(iii)and(v)sofarhaveonlybeenusedfortangibleevidence”(UNESCO2000:32).
58 Onmassivechangestotheearth:“Isthereevidenceforalarge,evenhuge,inputofhumanenergyandskill,perhapsinmouldinganextensiveareaforaparticularfunctionsuchasworship,irri-gation,agriculture,communication,orartisticeffect”(ICOMOS(2001)inFowler(2003),p.128).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 44
betterrepresentationofindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageList.AsDiskohassuggested,“SomeofthestrongestcriticismovertheyearsoftheconceptofheritageembodiedintheConventionhascomefromindigenouspeoplesandhasrelatedtoitsseparationofnaturalandculturalheritageanditsfocusontangibleaspectsattheexpenseofintangibleaspects”.59
Aholisticviewofheritageasequallyandinseparablyconsistingofvaluesthatarenaturalandcultural,andtangibleandintangible,isanimportantcontributionindigenouspeoplescanmaketotheWorldHeritageList.
Aswillbearguedhere,thelegacyofaWorldHeritagefocusonarchaeology,monumentalworksandbuildingspreventsafullerunderstandingofholisticviewsofheritageinwhichcultureandnature,andtangibleandintangiblevalues,areseenasequallyandinseparablyformingonewhole.TheinabilitytoaddressholismisnotespeciallyinherentinWorldHeritageoperationalrequrements(e.g.,criteriaforevaluationofOUV)butareflectionofinstitutionalinertiarootedindifferingculturalperceptionsofheritage,anddivisionofresponsibilitiesbetweenAvisoryBodiesandbetweentwoconventions,
AtthemeetingoftheCommitteeinCairns,Australia(2000),theindigenousPeoplesForumurgedtheCommitteeandallStatesPartiesto“recognisetheholisticnatureofindigenousnaturalandculturalvaluesandtraditions…[which]aredynamiclivingvaluesratherthanstatichistoricones”.60Bywayofillustration,fortheAnanguofUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark(Australia),people,plants,animals,landformsareallthelivingembodimentofthecreationbeings:“humansandeveryaspectofthelandscapeareinextricablyone”.61Similarly,fortheDehchoassociatedwithNahanniNationalPark(Canada),inscribedunderonlynaturalcriteria,“thedichotomybetween‘natural’and‘cultural’isafalsedistinctionfortheDehchoFirstNations,whoholdaholisticviewoftheDenepeopleasinseparablefromtheland”.62
ThedesireofindigenouspeoplestoseenaturalandculturalvaluesexpressedasasingleentityiswellunderstoodatthispointinthehistoryofWorldHeritage.Ratherthantrytodemonstratethispoint,thissub-sectionwillfocusonhowWorldHeritagecanbetterrecognisetheholisticnatureofindigenousheritage,withspecificreferencetothenature-culuredichotomy.63In2017,theCommitteehighlighted“theimportanceofpromotingintegratedapproachesthatstrengthenholisticgovernance,improveconservationoutcomesandcontributetosustainabledevelopment”inaccordancewiththeSustainableDevelopmentPolicy(Decision41COM7,Arts.37&38).TheSustainableDevelopmentPolicyitselfsuggestsStatesPartiesshould
59 Disko(2017),“IndigenousCulturalHeritage”,p.2.60 WHC-2000/CONF.204/21.61 CalmaandLiddle(2003:104–5).62 PitakenandAntoine(2014).63 Notwithstandingtheongoingfocusontangibleheritagenotedabove(i.e.afocusonarchaeology,
monumentsandarchitecture),theapplicationofcriterion(vi)alongwithcriterion(iii)andperhapsalsocriterion(v)doesallowforaddressingholismoftangibleandintangiblevalues.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 45
recognisethecloselinksandinterdependenceofbiologicaldiversityandlocalcultureswithinthesocio-ecologicalsystemsofmanyWorldHeritageproperties.Thesehaveoftendevelopedovertimethroughmutualadaptationbetweenhumansandtheenvironment,interactingwithandaffectingoneanotherincomplexways,andarefundamentalcomponentsoftheresilienceofcommunities.
ThepolicybasisforrecognisingtheinterdependenceofnatureandcultureinWorldHeritagethereforenowexists.However,theSustainableDevelopmentPolicyhasnotbeenoperationalized,includingthroughchangestotheOperationalGuidelines,soactuallyachievingrecognitionofthisinterdependenceinnewnominationsislikelytocontinuetobedifficult.Asdiscussedinthenextsection,“InternationalEffortstoBetterAddressIndigenousHeritage”,therearecurrentlyeffortsbeingmadetobetteraddresstheintegrationofnaturalandculturalvalues,includingthroughcollaborationofAdvisoryBodiesintheassessmentprocess.
ICOMOShasacknowledgedthatitisdifficulttoaccommodate,underthetermsofthecurrentOperationalGuidelines,anindigenousperspectivethatseesnaturalandculturalvaluesasinseparable.Inthe2013EvaluationofPimachiowinAki,ICOMOSstated:
ThisnominationraisesfundamentalissuesintermsofhowtheindissolublebondsthatexistinsomeplacesbetweencultureandnaturemightberecognisedontheWorldHeritageListfortheculturalvalueofnature.…Althoughculturalandnaturalcriteriahavebeenmerged,theirusehasnot.Currentlythereisnowayforpropertiestodemonstratewithinthecurrentwordingofthecriteria,eitherthatculturalsystemsarenecessarytosustaintheoutstandingvalueofnatureinaproperty,orthatnatureisimbuedwithculturalvalueinapropertytoadegreethatisexceptional.64
Somepractitioners,includingSuviLindén(MinisterofCultureofFinland,addressingthetwenty-fifthsessionoftheCommitteeinHelsinki,Finland,2001),havecalledforchangestothecriteriaforassessmentofOUV:“itwouldbeverymucheasiertoincludetheculturalheritageofindigenouspeoplesifthecriteriaofculturalandnaturalsiteswerecombinedintoonesetofguidelines”.65However,thisisnotpracticalatthistimesincethiswouldinvolvereviewandpossiblyrevisionofalargenumberofStatementsofOUVforalreadyinscribedsites.ThisisnonethelessaprojectthatcanbeborneinmindshouldawholesalerevisionoftheWorldHeritagesystembeenvisionedinthefuture.
64 ICOMOS(2013),p.45.Itcanbepointedout,however,thatthereverseperspectivesareintimately
apartofWorldHeritageassessmentsofsiteintegrityandOUV:removalof(environmentallydestructive)culturalsystemsisnecessarytosustaintheoutstandingvalueofnature,andnaturecanreflecttheabsenceofculturalvalue(i.e.habitationanduse)toadegreethatisexceptional.
65 WHC-01/CONF.208/24,p.97.MergingofculturalandnaturalcriteriawasalsorecommdedbytheExpertMeetingonAuthenticityandIntegrityinanAfricanContext(UNESCO2000:171).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 46
Mixednominationsarenotaneasysolution,sincetheyrequiremuchmoreworktocompletegiventhatnaturalandculturalvaluesareassessedindependently.Areviewofdecisionprocessesformixednominationsrevealed,“inmostcasestheseappeartobemorecomplexthanthosenominatedforonlyculturalornaturalvalues”;theyrequiredmoretimetoprepare,greatercoordinationbetweenAdvisoryBodies,andaremoredifficulttoprepareasingledecisionongiventherearetwoseparateevaluations.66Asaresult,StatesPartiesarenowrecommendedtoseekupstreamassistancefromIUCNandICOMOS“atleasttwoyearsbeforeapossiblenominationissubmitted”.67
Becausemixednominationsareeffectivelytwoseparatenominations,informationandjustificationforbothshouldbebalancedorthenominationmaybeconsideredincomplete.68Asaresult,accordingtoKristalBuckley,akeyreasontherearesofewmixedsitesontheWorldHeritageLististhatmanyStatesPartieslacktheinformationand/orcapacitytodevelopbothnaturalandculturalargumentsforinscriptiontothesamedegreeofdetail.69AccordingtoLarsenandWijesuriya,unlessthereisclearaddedvalue,nominationsareurgedtodownplaytheinterconnectionbetweennatureandcultureinfavourofthemostlikelywinner.70ThispointisechoedbyDisko,whosuggests,
evenifStates[Parties]havethebestintentions,therearesignificantpracticalandfinancialreasonswhytheymaychoosetodisregardindigenousvaluesinpreparingnominations.Inparticular,theymayprefertonominatenature-protectedareasasnaturalratherthanmixedsitesbecausemixednominationsareconsideredtoocomplex”.71
EveninacasesuchasPimachiowinAki(Canada),inwhichtheproponentswereveryclearintheirdesiretonominatethesiteforitsstronginterplayofnatureandculture—“Ourintentionhasbeentohavethisarearecognisedforbothitsculturalanditsecologicalvalues…thetwoareinseparableforus.Thereisnodistinction”(SophiaRabliauskas,PoplarRiverFirstNation)72—thatinterplaywasnotseentohavebeenexpressedintheinitialnomination.Asthereportonthereflectiononprocessesformixednominationsnoted,
TheanalysisoftheparticularcaseofthedeferrednominationofPimachiowinAkioccasionedthedecisionthathasledtothepresentpaper,andprovidesaclearexampleofasitethatdoesreflectasymbiosisbetweencultureandnatureandaprocesswherethedisconnectthatcan
66 WHC-14/38.COM/9B,p.3art.14.67 15/39.COM/9B.68 WHC-14/38.COM/9B,p.4art.18.69 Buckley(2014),“Nature+CultureandWorldHeritage”,p.116.ThiscanbeseeninTentativeList
descriptionsforproposedmixedsitesthatprovidehighlyimbalanceddescriptions,typicallyleaningtonaturalvalues(e.g.,NationalParkSierradelLacandón(Guatemala));indeed,someTentativeListdescriptionsforproposedculturalsitesprovidemoredetailfornaturalvaluesthanforculturalvalues.
70 “Nature-CultureInterlinkages”(2015),p.10.71 “IndigenousCulturalHeritage”(2017),p.15.72 InFeneley(2013).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 47
occurisevident.IUCNandICOMOSnotethatthisdisconnectisalsoevidentinthenominationassubmitted,notonlyintheevaluationprocess.73
Thereis,then,ageneralconcerninWorldHeritagethatmixedsitescaneffectivelydemonstratetheinterplayofnatureandculture,74regardlessofthedesiresofthenominatingpartyandthewillingnessofICOMOS(andIUCN)toaccommodatethesedesires.Infact,ithasbeensaid,
themajorityofinscribedmixedsitesdoesnotreflectatruesymbiosisorindissolublebondbetweencultureandnature.Forplaceswhereculturalandnaturalattributeshaveonlytangentiallinksandmaynotreadilycoincideinspatialterms,therecanoftenbeconsiderabledifficultiesindefiningacommonboundaryandputtinginplacecoordinatedmanagement.Thisraisestheissuewhethermixedpropertiesshoulddemonstrateaclearinterplaybetweencultureandnature.75
Culturallandscapes,whilealsohelpfulinexpressingtheinterrelationshipbetweencultureandnature,arenotnecessarilyapracticalsolutioneithersincetheydon’tchangethewayanominationhastobearguedandassessedunderculturalcriteria;nominationundernaturalcriteriaisentirelyoptional(andifadopted,theconcernsoutlinedabovewillapply).
However,thereisvalueinpromotingtheuseoftheculturallandscapeconceptforproposalsandnominationsaddressingindigenousheritagefromamoreholisticperspective.Theculturallandscapesconceptcanhelpindigenouspeoples,StatesPartiesandICOMOSorganisethinkingandeffortsinawaythatiscross-cultural,accommodatingbothindigenousandWorldHeritageperspectives.AsLisitzinandStovelhavesuggested,
Therealadvantageofadmittingculturallandscapestotheheritagefamily,however,istheopportunityaffordedtoembraceaholistic‘wayoflooking’,inassessingwhatitisimportanttoretainandmanage.…Aculturallandscapeapproachdemandsanotherwayofworking,onefocusedonthekeyprocessesthathaveshapedandcontinuetodefinethecharacterofthelandscapeovertime.76
Theculturallandscapeconcepthelpsto:
1. Clarifythewholerangeofessentialelementsthatexpressthecharacterofthelandasithasbeenformedthroughinteractionwithitsoccupants;thisapproachalmostrequirescarefulconsiderationofintangibleculturalheritageandindigenousculturalperspectivesmoregenerally.MorethananyotheraspectofWorldHeritage,culturallandscapesallowforaholisticand
73 WHC-14/38.COM/9B,p.4art.22.74 WHC-15/39.COM/9BProgressReport.75 WHC-14/38.COM/9B,p.4art.20.76 “TrainingChallengesintheManagementofHeritage”(2003:35).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 48
complexexpressionofhowindigenouspeopleidentifywithandrelatetotheland(andsea).77
2. Enablearticulationofaholisticunderstandingoflandandcultureformingacoherentwholewithoutthecomplexityofamixednomination.Evenif,atpresent,ICOMOScannotassessaclaimthatculturalvaluesareessentialtosustainingnaturetoanextentthatisoutstanding,thatconnectioncanstillbesuggestedsincetheOperationalGuidelinesstate,“Thecontinuedexistenceoftraditionalformsofland-usesupportsbiologicaldiversityinmanyregionsoftheworld.Theprotectionoftraditionalculturallandscapesisthereforehelpfulinmaintainingbiologicaldiversity”(Annex3,para.9).
3. Allowforbetterunderstandingoftheimportanceofculturaltraditions,includingtraditionalprotectionandmanagement,indemonstratingauthenticity.AsICOMOSnotedintheEvaluationofEnnediMassif(Chad),“livingcommunitiescannotbeconceivedasstaticentities.Inthisregard,aculturallandscapeapproachwouldbebeneficialforthefine-tuningofthearticulationoftheconditionsofauthenticitywithregardtotraditionsandhuman/environmentinteractions.”78
4. Allowforawiderangeofexpressionsofhowplaces(attributes)andassociationsareinterconnectedacrossanentirelandscape.“Thepossibilityofdesignatinglonglinearareas”(OGAnnex3,para.11)isspecificallyofrelevancetoindigenouspeopleswhotravelwidelyandunderstandtheirprogressacrossthelandasaseriesofnamednodesassociatedwithkeyhistoricalandmythologicalevents(e.g.,songlines),ratherthanthecartographic(“bird’seye”)viewofmainstreamsociety.
5. Accommodatechange:“Theyareillustrativeoftheevolutionofhumansocietyandsettlementovertime,undertheinfluenceofthephysicalconstraintsand/oropportunitiespresentedbytheirnaturalenvironmentandofsuccessivesocial,economicandculturalforces,bothexternalandinternal”(OGAnnex3,para.6).Continuing,organicallyevolvedculturallandscapesinparticularplay“anactivesocialroleincontemporarysocietycloselyassociatedwiththetraditionalwayoflife,andinwhichtheevolutionaryprocessisstillinprogress”(OGAnnex3,para.6,emphasisadded).Thiscanhelpfindwaystoexpressmutualadaptationofnatureandcultureinwaysthatareoutstadingand/orexceptional.
Buttheculturallandscapeconceptisnotanindigenousconceptandindigenousperceptionsandunderstandingsshouldnotbemadesecondarytoorsomehowtailoredtofittheculturallandscapeconcept.Thatsaid,WorldHeritageisnotanindigenousconcepteither,soculturallandscapescanhelpfacilitatecross-culturalcommunicattionabouthowtounderstandnaturalandculturalheritageasanintegratedwholewithintheWorldHeritagecontext.Aculturallandscapeapproach
77 Associativeculturallandscapes,inwhich“materialculturalevidence…maybeinsignificantor
evenabsent”(OGAnnex3,para.10),wouldbepossibleusingcriterion(vi)incombinationwithcriterion(iii)and/orperhapscriterion(v).
78 ICOMOS(2016:25).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 49
isameanstoanend(i.e.justificationofindigenousheritageasbeingofOUV)morethananendinitself.Insum,WorldHeritageprocesseslackeffectivemechanismsforaddressingtheinterplayofcultureandnature.Whilenotspecifictoindigenousnominations,thisissuewilllikelyberecurringfornominations(orre-nominations)seekingtoexpressindigenousvaluesasholisticunderstandingsoftheinseparabilityofnatureandculture.Assuggestedintheprevioussub-section,suchholisticviewsrepresentanimportantpotentialcontributiontotheWorldHeritageList.Therefore,furtherdiscussionisneededtofindwaystoaccommodatetheseholisticunderstandingswithinexistingcriteria,withoutsuggesting“thatculturalsystemsarenecessarytosustaintheoutstandingvalueofnatureinaproperty,orthatnatureisimbuedwithculturalvalueinapropertytoadegreethatisexceptional”.Emphasisonculturaltraditionsandculturallandscapesisonepracticalwayforwardatthistimeastheyallowforawidespectrumofpotentialnominationsfocussedonindigenouspeoples’relationshiptoland.Also,asmentionedearlier,combiningcriterion(vi)onintangibleassociations,withcriterion(iii)onculturaltraditions,orpotentiallycriterion(v)ontraditionalland/seause,canprovideforaholisticarticulationofindigenousheritage.Theprogressreportonthereflectiononprocessesformixednominations,“atpresent,thereisnoevidencethatthewordingofthecriteriacreateddifficultiesfortheevaluationofmixedsites”.79Thesameseemstobetruefornominationsexpressingtheinseparabilityofcultureandnature;however,interpretationofhownominationsarejustifiedunderspecificcriteriathatshapestheacceptanceofholismintheWorldHeritagecontext.Inpresenting(andassessing)aholisticviewofnature-culture,itisactuallynotnecessarytodemonstratethatculturalpracticeshavepreservednaturalvaluestoadegreethatisexceptionaloroutstanding;inmanycases,indigenouspeopleshavehistoricallybeenforcedintomarginalandspatiallyrestrictedlandscapesandhavethereforehadtochangehowtheymovearoundinandmakeuseoftheland(orsea)anditsresources.Suchchangesshouldnotnecessarilybeseenassignallingadeclineinauthenticity,andthereforeOUV,sinceindigenouspracticesmaystillexpressauniqueandpotentiallyoutstandingrelationshiptoland(orsea).AstheExpertMeetingonDesertLandscapesandOasisSystemsintheArabRegion(Egypt,2001)noted,“Itistheintegrityoftherelationshipwithnaturethatmatters,nottheintegrityofnatureitself”.
2.Authenticity
DiscussedhereareissuesfacingIndigenousheritageinassessmentofauthenticity,theabilityofasitetocrediblydemonstrateitsOUV.Issuesrelatedtoassessmentofintegrityarediscussedinthenextsub-sectionandfocusoncompletenessofrepresentationofculturalheritagewithinasite.
79 UNESCO(2015b),WHC-15/39.COM/9B,Art.4,p.2.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 50
AssessmentofauthenticityisinprincipleatechnicalexerciseinvolvingapplicationofclearcriteriatoverifyaproposedOUVcontinuestohavesignificanceinasite.FollowingtheNaraDocumentonAuthenticity,thesecriterianeednotberigidlydefined;theyonlyneedtobeclearintheirintentionandadaptabletoaspecificcontext.InmostrespectsthisisthecaseforWorldHeritage.AttributesofAuthenticity—formanddesign,materialsandsubstance,useandfunction,etc.(OperationalGuidelinespara.82)—areclearandpracticalcriteriaforassessingwhetherculturalvaluesaretruthfullyandcrediblyexpressedinthespecificcontextofanominatedsite.
Anominationshouldbeabletodemonstrate,forinstance,thatatraditionalharvestingsiteinaspecific,documentedlocationandsettingcontinuestosupportaspecificuseandfunction,followinghistorictraditions,techniquesandmanagementsystems(thatarepartoftheOUV).Andthisdemonstrationshouldbemadeculturally-specifictoremaintruthfultotheculturalcontextandproposedOUV.AslaidoutintheOperationalGuidelinespara.81(followingtheNaraDocumentonAuthenticity),“therespectduetoallculturesrequiresthatheritagepropertiesmustbeconsideredandjudgedwithintheculturalcontextstowhichtheybelong”.
However,achievingaculturallyappropriateassessmentcanbeextremelydifficultsinceassessorsarerequiredtomakeanindependentassessmentthatisunderstoodandacceptablewithinaninternationalcontext(i.e.WorldHeritage);moreover,andespeciallyinthecaseofindigenousheritage,assessorsarelikelynotfamiliarwiththelocalculturalcontext.
AsoutlinedintheOperationalGuidelines,“theabilitytounderstandthevalueattributedtotheheritagedependsonthedegreetowhichinformationsourcesaboutthisvaluemaybeunderstoodascredibleortruthful”(para.80),withinformationsourcesbeing“allphysical,written,oral,andfigurativesources,whichmakeitpossibletoknowthenature,specificities,meaning,andhistoryoftheculturalheritage”(para.84).Inpractice,culturalandlanguagebarriers,aswellasmoresubtlebiasesstemmingfromtheexpertpositionofassessors,canmakeitdifficulttofullyacknowledgeoralsourcesinparticular,whicharetypicallytheprimarysourceoflocalknowledgeofindigenousheritageresources.Asaresult,itcanbeeasiertoacceptinformationfromarecognisednon-localexpertthananindigenouselder(i.e.localexpert).Thesamedynamicplaysoutinallmannerofvenuesinwhichindigenouspeoplesmustcommunicatetheirvalues,especiallylegalprocessesrequiringtestimony,politicalforums,anddecisionmakingoverdevelopmentpriorities.Becauseindigenouspeoplesaregenerallymarginaltothemainstreamsofcultural,politicalandeconomicpower,theyarealreadyatadisadvantageinhavingtheirperspectivesvoicedandunderstood.
Integraltoandcompoundingtheproblemofcross-culturalcommunicationistheproblemofassessingtheauthenticityofvaluesthatblendinseamlesslywith,andperhapsmakeupapartof,thenaturalenvironment.AudhildSchanche,Senior
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 51
AdvisortotheSaamiParliamentinNorway,remarkedthatidentificationandunderstandingofindigenousheritageishamperedby,
thenotionthatindigenousculturalmonuments[i.e.attributes]arevagueandunnoticeable.Theyareseenaspartofthe‘wilderness’ratherthanasphysicalexpressionsofremarkableculturalachievements....However,whatisvagueorrecognizableasculturalmonumentshasverymuchtodowithknowledgeonhowandwheretolook.80
AsexplainedinthePimachiowinAki(Canada)nomination,Althoughmosthabitationandprocessingsitesareusedseasonallyandmaybeleftunusedforlongperiods,thesesitesaremanygenerationsoldandtheirlocationshavebeenestablishedbasedonproximitytoresources,easeofaccess,gooddrainage,shelterfromelements,andsafetyfromwildfire.Evenwherethesesitesarenotcurrentlyinuse,theyremainimportantinprovidingahomebaseforfutureharvesting,whenresourceavailabilityandpersonalcircumstancesallowforgreateruseofthearea.Moreover,unusedhabitationsitesareimportantinoraltraditions,actingasphysicalmarkersofpersonalandcollectivehistories,includingclaimstoresources.
Someonelookingforwell-maintained(i.e.usingtraditionalmaterialandmethods)builtstructuresasevidenceofcontinuedsignificanceofahabitationsitemaynotproperlyunderstandtheindigenousvalueofthathabitationsite,whichisnotrootedinthestructuresthemselvesbuttherelationshipofpeopletothesite.
Thereisalsotheissueofaccommodatingculturalchange;thatis,“howmuchofthetwenty-firstcenturyshouldbepermittedtointrudeintheselandscapesofoutstandinguniversalsignificancebeforetheirvaluesarecompromisedandchangedinmeaning?”81ThefollowingcasesillustratetheconflictbetweenexternalexpectationsandlocalneedsthatcanariseintheassessmentofAuthenticity.
The1995EvaluationofRiceTerracesofthePhilippineCordilleras(Philippines)remarks,“Onediscordantelementinthelandscapeoftheterracesistheuseofcorrugatedironsheetsforroofinginplaceofthetraditionalthatch”.Inaddition,asJillCariñooftheCordilleraPeoplesAlliancehasnoted,thelocalgovernmenthassoughttoprohibitconstructioninthericeterracesareainordertopreservethetraditionalappearanceofthesite;however,theindigenousfarmersoftendefytheprohibitionbecausetheyneedspacetobuildmorehomesfortheirexpandingcommunity.82
RegardingNgorongoroConservationArea(Tanzania),WilliamOlenasha(MaasailawyerandlegaladvisortotheNgorongoroPastoralCouncil)hascommented,“TherichpastoralistandMaasaiculturewasnotincludedinthejustificationforinscriptionbecause,accordingtoUNESCO,itisnolongerpureenough”.83The
80 InDisko&Tugendhat(2013),p.34.81 Lennon(2003),p.120.82 InDisko&Tugendhat(2013),p.45.83 InDisko&Tugendhat(2013:48).
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 52
ICOMOSEvaluationhadearliernoted,“theMaasaiwithintheNgorongoroConservationAreacannotbesaidtorepresenttheMaasaipastoralistswhoarespreadoveramuchwiderareatothenorthinKenyaastheirdistinctivepastoralismwithintheConservationareahasnowbeensignificantlychangedintoagro-pastoralismthroughtheimpactofpopulationgrowthandotherfactors”.Ithashoweverbeenarguedthattendingcropshasbeenalong-establishedtraditionamongtheMaasai.84ThereisalsotheimportantandveryvalidICOMOSobservationthat,asaresultofsuccessiveforcedrelocations,thereistoolittlelandusedbytheMaasaiwithinthesitetoadequatelyrepresentpastoralvaluesatalandscapelevel.85
The2013ICOMOSEvaluationofthefirstnominationofPimachiowinAki(Canada),alsonotedthatadoption(orplannedadoption)ofnewformsoflivelihoodwasanindicationAnishinaabegnolongerrepresentedanauthentic,presumablyhunter-gatherer,tradition:“continuityofland-usetraditionswillnotnecessarilybethewayforwardastheAnishinaabegwillseeknewlivelihoodopportunitiestoallowthemtocontinuetoliveinthearea”.86ThisassessmentwasbasedonthejustificationforOUVundercriterion(v),whereasthesubsequentnominationundercriteria(iii)and(vi)didallowformoreflexibilityinunderstandingtheindigenousrelationshiptolandaspartofaculturaltraditionratherthanaformoftraditionallanduse.ThePimachiowinAkire-nominationhighlightsthevalueoffocusingonindigenousculturaltraditionsasreflectedinandsustainedbyrelationshiptoland(orsea),ratherthanstaticdepictionsofcultural/ethnicidentityrepresentedinhistorical(anthropological)texts.AsCalmaandLiddlehavesuggestedfortheAnanguofUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark(Australia),theculturaltraditionsthatdefinetheirrelationshiptolandandoneanother(i.e.Tjukurpa,“thelaw”)cansurviveadaptationstoachangingsocio-economiccontext:
ItisincumbentonmodernAnangutofollowTjukurpa,bothintheirmanagementoftheenvironmentandintheirsocialrelationships...[evenwhere]resourceshavebeenhuntedwithrifleorwerereachedbymeansofafour-wheel-drivevehicle.87
Althoughnotspecifictoindigenousheritage,BuggeyandMitchell’scommentsontheimportanceofaccommodatingchangeinculturallandscapesarehighlyrelevanthere;ifindigenousheritageistobeseenasanintegrationofnaturalandcultural
84 See,forexample,SpearandNurse(1992)whoexplain,“’Maasaifarmers’isnotanoxymoron”.
Nevertheless,“Maasaiingeneralareoftentakenasaparadigmfor‘purepastoralists’[whose]culturesandvalues,itisasserted,areuniquelyrelatedtoapastoralmodeofproductionandaresharplydistinguishedfromtheculturesandvalesofBantu-speakingfarmers”.
85 Itmayalsobethatrestricionsofaccesstolandhaveencouragedadoptionofagriculture.86 ICOMOS(2013),p.39.FuturelivelihoodactivitiesproposedbyFirstNationsincludeda
community-ledlow-impactforestryoperationinthebufferzone(proposedbyaFirstNationthatwithdrewfromthesite),andremoteareatourismatahandulofcommunity-ownedlodgesandahealingcampwithoutroadaccess.
87 Calma&Liddle(2003),p.105.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 53
values,survivalofthepeoplewhoformed,maintainandembodythatheritageisequallyimportantaspreservationofthephysicalfabricofalandscape:88
Successfulconservationofthistypeoflived-inlandscapeaccommodateschangewhileretaininglandscapecharacter,culturaltraditionsandeconomicviability.89
Theaboveissuesarenotmerelytechnicalinnaturebutmoral.Fowlerquestionsifwe,
forheritagereasonshaveinthelastresorttherighttoinhibit,evenprevent,‘normal’economicdevelopment—likeacquiringbasicfacilitiesofwater,electricityandhygiene—inarchaiclandscapeswithcommunitieslivinginundevelopedcircumstances…[thatis,]whetherornot‘preserving’small,essentiallynon-Westernizedindigenouspopulationsintheir‘natural’habitatsistheproperbusinessofthoseimplementingtheWorldHeritageConvention.90
Inalivinglandscapechangeisalaysoccurring,astraditionalpracticesadapttoandinturnsponsorecologicalchange.Climatechangeinparticularwillincreasinglyrequireadaptationbyindigenouspeoplessince,
Indigenouspeoplesareamongthefirsttofacethedirectconsequencesofclimatechange,duetotheirdependenceupon,andcloserelationship,withtheenvironmentanditsresources.Climatechangeexacerbatesthedifficultiesalreadyfacedbyindigenouscommunitiesincludingpoliticalandeconomicmarginalization,lossoflandandresources,humanrightsviolations,discriminationandunemployment.91
AsThomasAndrews(TerritorialArchaeologistatthePrinceofWalesHeritageCentre,Yellowknife,NorthwestTerritories,Canada)asks,howthendoesonetestauthenticityonachanging,livinglandscape?92Continuityofculturaltraditionsisnotsimplythesamenessofpracticesbeingrepeatedovertime,almostpassively,butcontinuedsurvival,includingthroughadaptation.AsAndrewsandBuggeysuggest,“Aboriginalculturallandscapesarelivinglandscapesthatchangeastimeprogresses”but“onlythelandscapeoftodayisavailabletous:theotherscanonlybeconceivedinourimagination…[andso]…toseekasenseofauthenticityinthepastistosearchforanartificialconstruction”.93
88 AsnotedbyTokieLaotanBrown,ICOMOSNigeria:“Itisthusimperativethatthemeasuresof
authenticityneedinsteadtorespecttheculturalcontextstowhichplacesbelong,thebeliefsystemsassociatedwiththem,andtherelatedconceptsofland,timeandmovementthatembodymeaningintheculturallandscape.Authenticity…isnotjustexclusivelyaboutplaces;ratheraboutthepeopleandcultureslivingwithintheircollectivetraditions.”
89 “CulturalLandscapeManagementChallengesandPromisingNewDirections”(2003).90 WorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes(2003),p.56.91 UnitedNationsDepartmentofSocialandEconomicAffairs,IndigenousPeople(n.d.)“Climate
Change”(https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/climate-change.html).92 “RecastingAuthenticityinAboriginalCulturalLandscapes”(2014),p.97.93 “AuthenticityinAboriginalCulturalLandscapes”(2008),p.70.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 54
Insum,humansocietiesalwayschangeandadapttotheneedsofthepresent.Forindigenouspeoplesinparticular,adaptationispartofculturalsurvival.TheNaraDocumentonAuthenticitydirectsICOMOStojudgeculturalvaluesintheirculturalcontextandthatcontextwillalmostcertainlyinvolvesomeformofadaptation.Andyet,whileculturalinteractionisspecificallyidentifiedasadesiredformofheritageontheWorldHeritageList(i.e.undercriterion(ii)),culturaladaptationbyindigenouspeoplesseemslargelyoffthetable.Indigenousheritageisgenerallyassessedbyastandardofauthenticitythatisfocussedonpreservationofidealtypesinspecifichistoricalperiods.
Thisisn’ttosuggestabandoningasetofstandardsforassessingauthenticityofindigenousheritage,butitisnolongersufficienttoworkfromstandardsthatidentifyvaluesfrozeninsomearbitrarypointoftimedepictedinhistorical(anthropological)texts.Thefunctions(orroleanduses)ofheritageinsocietyarewhatdetermineitsprimarysignificanceandsourceoflife.AsJokilehtoandKingsuggest,“thefunctionsthemselvesbecomeafundamentalpartoftheheritage[and]…Ifthefunctionscontinue,theywillalsonecessarilyinvolvechange.”94Thisemphasisesontheongoing,dynamicsocialprocessesandculturalvaluesthatmakeindigenousheritagenotonlymeaningfulbutpossible,reflectstheNaraDocumentonAuthenticity(1994):“therespectduetoallculturesrequiresthatheritagepropertiesmustbeconsideredandjudgedwithintheculturalcontextstowhichtheybelong.”
3.Integrity
Tobegin,wecanrecalltheconclusionsoftheExpertMeetingonDesertLandscapesandOasisSystemsintheArabRegion(Egypt,2001)—“Itistheintegrityoftherelationshipwithnaturethatmatters,nottheintegrityofnatureitself”.Whereheritageexpressesanindigenousrelationshiptoland/sea,itisimportanttounderstandtherangeoftangibleandintangiblecomponentsthatcharacterisethatrelationship.Therefore,discussionofIntegrityherefocusesoninclusionofabreadthattributeswithinasiteneededtosufficientlyreflecttheproposedOUV.Withthisinmind,issuesofintegrityparticularlyrelevanttoindigenousheritagelargelyresultfromalackofparticipationbyindigenouspeoplesinsitedesignationandidentificationofvalues.Unfortunately,mostsiteboundariesareinheritedfromprotectedareadesignationwithlittleornoconcernforrepresentationofindigenousheritage.SuchwasthecasewiththeNgorongoroConservationArea(UnitedRepublicofTanzania),forwhichconsiderationofMaasaiheritagewasnotabasisfordesignationofConservationAreaboundaries.Onthecontrary,Maasaiweredeliberatelyexcludedfrommostofthesite.Asaresult,ICOMOScouldconclude,“thepastoraltraditionsoftheMaasaiintheproperty…applytoonlyacomparativesmallarea,andthatthegrazedlandscapecannotbesaidtorepresentthemorewidespreadMaasaipastoralisttradition”.95
94 “AuthenticityandConservation”(2000),p.38.95 ICOMOSEvaluation(2010),p.76.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 55
Whentheidenticationofvaluesandsubsequentrationaleforconservationofthosevalueshasbeendeterminedwithoutreferencetoindigenousvalues,thereisahighlikelihoodkeypartsofthelandscaperepresentingindigenousheritagewillbeomitted.There-nominationofUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark(Australia)isacaseinpoint.FortheAnangupeople,thelandscapeisunderstoodtohavebeenformedbyancient,ancestralcreation-beingswhose“bodies,artefactsandactionsbecameplacesimbuedwiththeirpresence.”Theseplaceshavepotentspiritualsignificanceandareconnectedtooneanotherby“tracks”thatrecordthetravelsandactivitiesoftheancestralcreation-beings.96AsGraemeCalma,anAnangutraditionalowneratUluru-KataTjutaNationalParkhasexplained,
ForculturessuchasthatofAnangu,theconceptoflandscape,ratherthandiscreteareas,ismoreappropriate.…ThemonolithofUluruhasattractedtheattentionofWesternsocietyfromanaestheticpointofview,butinfact…thesignificanceofUlurutoAnanguisnotrestrictedtothemonolithitself.ItssignificanceistiedintothestoriesoftheancestorsthatextendaroundandbeyondUluruandintothecountrybeyondtheUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark.Unlikesomesacredmountains,UluruisnotviewedbyAnanguasadiscreteentity,aconceptualandgeographicallocation;thisisaWesternculturalconstruction.97
Thespecificculturalsignificanceofsitesisoftenforindigenouspeoplesdeeplytiedintothewiderlandscapeofwhichthesiteisapart.Forexample,asJillCariño(CordilleraPeoplesAlliance)explainedattheCopenhagenExpertWorksop(2012)withrespecttoRiceTerracesofthePhilippineCordilleras(Philippines):“fortheWorldHeritagesystem,thefocusisreallyonthericeterraceszone,whereasthefocusforindigenouspeopleisonmaintainingthewatersheds,andalsoonthemuyong,theprivateforests.”98
Afinalimportantpointonintegrityandboundaries:formanyindigenouspeoples,boundariesthatdefineanareaofstewardshipresponsibilityareestablishedandrenewedthroughhistoricalnegotiationandoftennotstrictlydefinedcartographiclines,unlessasanoutcomeofcollaborationwith(colonial)government(e.g.,tribaladministration/”indirectrule”,landclaims,protectedareaco-management).SpeakingattheExpertMeetingonAfricanCulturalLandscapes(Kenya,1999),DawsonMunjeriofZimbabwehassuggested,
Theproblemoftheboundariesoflandscapesisoftentheresultofalongandcomplexhistory.Itisoftenpreferabletoconsidertheboundariesofasitemoreasacombinationofstableandflexibleelements,forminganapproximatecontour,ratherthanalinealandexactboundary.
Eventhoughindigenouspeoplemayknowthroughcustomandoralhistorywheretheirareaofresponsibilityendsandanother’sbegins,itisanothermattertobegin
96 ANPWS(1994).Renomination,pp.21,4.97 InCalma&Liddle(2003),p.104.98 InDisko&Tugendhat(2013),p.44.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 56
drawinglinesonamap.Formanyindigenous(andlocal)peoples,theirrelationshiptolandistypicallynotaterritorialrelationship,inthesenseofadefinedareaservingastribalhomeland.AsDawsonMunjeriexplainedattheExpertMeetingonAuthenticityandIntegrityinanAfricanContext(Zimbabwe,2000),“IntheareaaroundtheGreatZimbabweWorldHeritagesiteconstantproblemshavearisenwhenitsboundarieshavebeenassertedandlegallyenforcedagainstasurroundingcommunitywhohavealwaysknownthat‘Dumaharinamuganhu’(theDumahavenoboundary).”99
However,thereisevidenceinICOMOSEvaluationsofadesiretoseeindigenouspeoplescompletelyrepresentedwithinadefinedarea.Concernwasraised,forexample,thattheMaasaioftheNgorongoroConservationArea(UnitedRepublicofTanzania)“arenotconfinedtotheConservationAreaandincludeneighbouringgroupsinTanzaniaandinKenya.”Moreover,“theMaasaicannotbedirectlylinkedtoearlierpeopleslivingintheareaastheyarebelievedtohavemigratedtotheareaonlyintheearly19thcentury(althoughthereisevidencethatpastoralistshavegrazedtheareaforsometwomillennia).”Asaresult,“recognitionofapalimpsestculturallandscapeismoreappropriatethantryingtolinkthepropertywithaparticularculturaltraditionorcivilization.”100AsimilarassessmentwasappliedinthecaseofǂKhomaniCulturalLandscape,SouthAfrica):
Theintegrityofthenominatedpropertyalsoposesquestions,astheoriginallandscapeoftheǂKhomaniandotherSan-relatedpeopleismuchlargerthantheonebeingnominatedandthereforethenominatedpropertyrepresentsonlyaportionofwhatusedtobetheǂKhomaniSanassociativelandscape.101
Inbothcasesthereisalegitimateconcernforwhetherthesitesareabletofullyrepresentindigenousheritagewithinthespecificgeographyofthesite.
AndagainforPimachiowinAki(Canada):TheboundariesdonotencompassalltheAnishinaabegancestrallands;somelieoutsidetheboundariesandofthesesomeareinthebufferzone.TheAnishinaabe/OjibwelanguageisspokeninanextensiveareaonbothsidesoftheborderbetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica.ThepeoplewithinthenominatedarearepresentaroundlessthanaquarterofallthosespeakingAnishinaabemowinastheirfirstlanguage.102
Fromthere,theEvaluationentersalengthydebate,usingpublishedsourcesnotcitedintheportionoftheEvaluationmadepublic,onthehistoryofindigenousoccupationofthearea.Recognizingthelackofrigidculturalboundaries,the
99 UNESCO(2000),p.4.TheDumabeingdescendantfromthebuildersofGreatZimbabwe.100 ICOMOSEvaluation(2010),pp.67–69.101 ICOMOSEvaluation(2017),p.67.102 ICOMOSEvaluation(2018),p.23.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 57
Evaluationneverthelessseekstoassignidentitytooneortheothergroup,asmutuallyexclusive:
ICOMOSconsidersthatastheCreeandOjibweareverycloselyrelated,includinglinguistically,asbotharepartoftheentireShieldcommonarea,andasbothhavelivedinthewiderareaoverthousandsofyears,probablyinaneverchangingdynamic,withsomegroupslivingclosetoeachotherandsomefurtherapart,thenPimachiowinAkicouldbesaidtobebothAnishinaabeandCree,withtheAnishinaabegbeingthecurrent‘caretakers’.PimachiowinAkiwasanareapreviouslysharedbytheAnishinaabegandCree,but,undertheinfluenceofthewesternideasoflandownership,itcametobeassignedtotheAnishinaabeg.103
Equally,onecouldsaythatthepeopleofPimachiowinAkihavecomeundertheinfluenceofwesternideasofethnicity,whicharedistinctlytribal;thatis,seenaswell-bounded(distinct)andtiedtoaterritorialhomeland.ICOMOSneednotputitselfinthepositionofidentifyingwell-boundedethnicitiesandassigningthosetodelimitedareas.Similartotheissueofidentifyingindigenouspeoplesasrepresentinga“stageofhumanhistory”,thereisaneedtodiscusshowindigenousheritagecanbefreedfromhavingtorepresentsectionsofsomemapofindigenouscultures.Thereisnosimilarapproachappliedinthenon-indigenousworld;nooneis,forexample,suggestingtheCulturalLandscapeoftheSerradeTramuntana(Spain)needberepresentativeoftheBalearicpeople.
Insum,assessmentofintegrityislikelytoremainadifficulttaskwithregardtoindigenousheritagewhere,(a)sitedesignationprecedesassessmentofpotentialfornominationasaWorldHeritageSiterepresentingindigenousvalues,and(b)indigenousheritageisnotconfinedtoafixedgeographyinhabitedbyanethnicallyhomogeneousandsedentarypeople.Ensuringparticipationbyindigenouspeoplesintheidentificationofvaluesandboundariespriortocreationofasiteisthebestsolution.
4.ProtectionandManagement
Theimportanceofindigenouspeoples’consenttoandparticipationinWorldHeritageprocesseshasalreadybeenidentifiedasakeypartofpolicyonindigenouspeople(morethanheritagespecifically)inWorldHeritageprocesses(i.e.UNESCOPolicyonEngagingwithIndigenousPeoples,theWorldHeritageSustainableDevelopmentPolicy,andtheOperationalGuidelinespara.40).OfparticularinteresthereisArticle22.iiioftheSustainableDevelopmentPolicy,whichcallsonStatesPartiesto“activelypromoteindigenousandlocalinitiativestodevelopequitablegovernancearrangements,collaborativemanagementsystemsand,whenappropriate,redressmechanisms.”
Thefocusinthissub-sectionisontheimportanceofincorporatingtraditionalorcustomaryformsofindigenousstewardshipinsiteprotectionandmanagement;thatis,aspartof“equitablegovernancearrangements,collaborativemanagement
103 ICOMOSEvaluation(2018),p.24.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 58
systems.”Thisfocusunderscorestheimportanceofunderstandingtherolethatindigenouspeoplethemselves,ascarriersofculturaltraditions,playinembodyingandreproducingheritagethroughtheirsharedunderstandingsandcollectiveactions.AsdiscussedearlierunderWorldHeritageCommitteedecisions,supportforcustomaryprotectionandmanagementofnaturalheritagewashighlightedintheinscriptionofEastRennnel(SolomonIslands)in1998underonlynaturalcriterion(ix)(whichwascriterion(ii)atthattime).Atthetimeofinscription,SolomonIslandshadnoprotectedareaslegislationbutin2010passedtheProtectedAreasAct;requirementsfordeclaringEastRennellaprotectedareaareinplacebutthesitehasnotbeensodeclared.104A2003ReactiveMonitoringmissionreportconcluded,“littlemanagementinterventionisrequiredinprotectingthenaturalvaluesofthesite,whichisprotectedbycustomarypracticesthatincludearespectforthenaturalenvironmentandsustainableuseofitsresources”.105However,by2010theCommitteeraisedconcerns“thatcommercialloggingmaybethreateningthepropertyandadjacentareasinWestRennell”(Decision34COM7B.17).A2012ReactiveMonitoringreportsuggested“Theprovincialgovernment,andthecommunityleadersandpeopleofEastRennellwhoarethecustomaryownersoftheland,areopposedtologgingbutundercurrentlawsareessentiallypowerlesstopreventit.”TimberextactionintheSolomonIslandsrequiresalicence,whichisissuedfollowinganenvironmentalimpactassessment,neitherofwhichrequirementswerebeingenforcedbythenationalgovernment.106
Therealissuesthenisthat“theStatePartyhastakennostepstobanloggingonRennellIsland,asrequestedbytheWorldHeritageCommittee,norhasitsignalledanyintentiontodoso.”Therefore,itisnotclearhowprotectedareasdesignationwouldactuallyimprovethesituationgivengovernmentunwillingnesstoenforcelegislationtocurtailcommercialtimberharvests:“Inpractice,theGovernmentignorestheneedfordevelopmentconsent[fromtheMinistryofEnvironment]asenforcementisaproblem,andnotimbercompanyhasbeenprosecutedfornothavingproperlegalauthoritytoundertakeloggingactivities.”Moreover,thenationalgovernmentdoesnotadequatelyfundorprovidecapacitytocommunitymanagersofthesite.107
AsthelandmarkcaseofEastRennelshows,communityprotectionandmanagementofWorldHeritagesitescanbeextremelycomplicated,especiallywithoutadequatesupportfromtheStateParty.Smallindigenouscommunitiesdonotgenerallyhavetheresourcesandpowertoeffectivelypreventresourceextractionindustriesfromthreateningtheirland,resourcesandwayoflife.Equally,indigenouspeoplesvery
104Dingwall(2013),p.13.105Tabbasum&Dingwall(2005).“ReportontheMissiontoEastRennellWorldHeritageProperty&
MarovoLagoon,SolomonIslands,”p.11.106A2010IUCNdelegationnoted“thatforestryisoneofthemostpoliticallyvolatileissuesinthe
countryandthatseveralgovernmentministersofthetimehadlogginginterests,whichwerepublicknowledge”(Dingwall2013:17).
107Dingwall(2013),p.18.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 59
oftendonothavethecapacitytoopposecreationofprotectedareasthatlimittheiraccesstolandandresources.Nevertheless,theselimitationsincapacitydonotruleoutthepotentialsignificanceofcustomarymanagementofindigenousheritage.Evenwithoutrecognisingcustomarytraditionandmanagementas“necessarytosustaintheoutstandingvalueofnatureinaproperty”(i.e.assessingthatrelationshiptobepartoftheOUV),itisstillpossibletoidentifycustomaryprotectionandmanagementaspartofhistory,integrityandprotectionandmanagement.Itisstillpossible,andimportant,toacknowledgetherolepeoplehaveplayed,evenifthatrolecannotatthistimebeidentifiedasbeingofOUV.The2001ICOMOSEvaluationofTsodilo(Botswana)isacaseinpointwhereintheroleofindigenouspeopleinthepreservationofOUVisentirelyignored(andperhapsattributedinanegativelysensetotheirinabilitytoharmheritageresources):“threebasiclong-termfactscontributetoTsodilo’soutstandingstateofpreservation:itsremoteness,itslowpopulationdensity,andthehighdegreeofresistancetoerosionofitsquartziticrock”(63).Itcan’tbesaidthatculturesustainsnaturetoadegreethatisexceptional,butitcanbesaidthatnatureissustainedbyanabsenceofculturetoadegreethatisexceptional.Itisnotclearhowthelatterviewisnotalsoaretrospectiveassumptionthatfulfilsaculturalparadigm,inthiscaseaWestern,Malthussianviewoftherelationshipbetweennatureandculture.Recognitionofcustomarymanagementasanimportantlocal(ifnotuniversal)valuesupportsArticle22.ivoftheSustainableDevelopmentPolicyprovisionthataddressesthefifthstrategicobjectiveoftheWorldHeritageConvention(toenhancetheroleofcommunities):
Supportappropriateactivitiescontributingtothebuildingofasenseofsharedresponsibilityforheritageamongindigenouspeopleandlocalcommunities,byrecognizingbothuniversalandlocalvalueswithinmanagementsystemsforWorldHeritageproperties.
AstheExpertMeetingon“AuthenticityandIntegrityinanAfricanContext”(2000),concluded,“withouttakingintoaccountthesetraditionalsystems,heritagemanagersruntheriskofalienatingthecommunitieswhoaretheprimarycustodiansoftheirheritage.”108ApositiveinstanceofICOMOSencouragingStatesPartytorecognizecustomarymanagementisintheevaluationofKhangchendzonga(India):
ICOMOSrecommendsthat,intheprotectionandmanagementofnaturalresources,considerationalsobegiventothedeeptiesandassociationsthatlocalcommunitieshavedevelopedwithnatureoverseveralcenturiestobuildandnurturetheirworld-view.109
Moreover,wherecustomarymanagement(andgovernance)isanessentialpartofhowindigenouspeoplesrelatetooneanotherandtheresourcesonwhichthey
108UNESCO(2000),p.28.109 ICOMOSEvaluation(2016),p.57.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 60
depend,thosecustomarymanagementtraditionswillbeintegraltotheunderstandingandconservationofindigenousheritage.Inthissense,customarymanagementmayitselfbeanimportantpartofindigenousculturalheritage.Indigenousmanagementpracticesandinstitutionsaregenerallynotdiscretetechnicalenterprisesasinmodernwesternheritageandresourcemanagement;theyareinseparablefromallothersocialandculturalrelations.Inlargepartthisisanaspectofholism:justaspeopleandland,cultureandnature,areinextricable,soistheirmanagement.AsCalmaandLiddlenoteforUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark(Australia),“ItisincumbentonmodernAnangutofollowTjukurpa,bothintheirmanagementoftheenvironmentandintheirsocialrelationships”.110Insuchcaseswherecustomaryprotectionandmanagementareintimatelyapartoflivingculturalheritage,itisimportanttounderstandingandsupportingthemanagementprocesses(bothinpastandpresent)thathavedefinedandarethereforenecessaryforcontinuityofindigenousheritage.Speakingofculturallandscapesmoregenerally,Fowlerhassuggested,“itwouldfollowinmanycaseslogicallythatifwesustainthepeoplethenwehavesecuredthebestmeansofmaintainingtheheritagewhichwewishtolookafter”.111Lisitzen&Stovel’scommentsonmanagingculturallandscapesarealsohighlyrelevanttomanagementoflivingindigenousheritage:“Doesitmeananythingtosavetheappearanceofthelandscapewithoutmaintainingtheunderlyingtraditionalsocialstructure?"112RecognizingthepotentialOUVofcustomarymanagementcanbeseenaspartofanewapproachtounderstandinginterlinkagesbetweencultureandnaturedescribedbyLarsenandWijesuriya:anapproachthat“entailsre-embeddingOUVintheeverydayfabricofconnections,whichallowedspecificattributestoemergeandpersistinthefirstplace”.113Ithasbeennotedearlier,underWorldHeritageCommitteeDecisions,thattheCommitteehadrequestedin2011,"theWorldHeritageCentreandtheAdvisoryBodiestodevelopguidance,forconsiderationatthe36thsessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,toclarify:uses,limitsanddocumentationrequirementsfortraditionalmanagement”.114TheearlierrecommendationsoftheExpertMeetingonAfricanCulturalLandscapes(Kenya,1999)alsosuggested,
Notingtheimportanceoftraditionalprotectionandmanagementmechanismsinlivingculturallandscapes,itwassuggestedthatManagementGuidelinesforculturallandscapesbepreparedassoonaspossible,onthebasisofcasestudies,whichtakeintoaccountcustomarylawsandpractices,aswellastraditionalmanagementmechanisms.
Theseimportanttasksremaintobeaddressed,tomyknowledge.
110 (2003),p.105.111WorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes1992-2002(2003),p.56.112“TrainingChallengesintheManagementofHeritageTerritoriesandLandscapes”(2003),p.35.113 “Nature-CultureInterlinkages”(2015),p.13.114Decision35COM12EArt.7.a.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 61
ConclusionsandRecommendations
SeveralissuesintheidentificationandrepresentationofindigenousheritageasWorldHeritagehavebecomeclearoverthelastdecadeorso.First,thereistheimportanceofrecognizingandrespectingtherightsofindigenouspeoplesinWorldHeritagecontexts,includingthroughsecuringfree,priorandinformedconsent(FPIC)toanydevelopmentof(orchangeto)WorldHeritagesitesandthrougheffectiveparticipationinallaspectsofWorldHeritagesiteprocesses,fromidentificationofvaluestodailymanagementofthosevalues.Theimportanceofindigenouspeoples’FPICiswellestablishedinpolicyandrecognizedbyICOMOSthroughtheircommitmenttorights-basedapproaches.
WhileICOMOShasadvocatedforincreasedparticipationofindigenouspeoples(e.g.“Initsinterimreport,ICOMOSaskedtheStatePartytoexplainhowlocalcommunitieswillbeinvolvedinthemanagementofthepropertyanditsexpandedbufferzone”),thereisnoevidencetheWorldHeritagesystemhasmovedtoaddressFPICofindigenouspeoples.Incaseswhereindigenouspeopleshavebeeninstrumentalinbringinganominationforward(e.g.,LaponianAreaandPimachiowinAki),thatleadershipcanbetakenasaproxyforFPIC.ConsultationisnotFPICbecauseissuesaredefinedinadvanceandaresponserequiredinspecific(usuallyculturally-inappropriate)contextssuchasmeetings,inwhichindigenousrepresentativesmaynotbeabletogiveadefinitiveanswer;andsilencedoesnotgiveconsent.
WhilerespectingtherightsofindigenouspeoplesislargelytheresponsibilityofStatesParties,ICOMOScanplayarolethroughtheprocessesinwhichtheyhaveanimportantrole(e.g.,upstreamassistance,evaluation,reactivemonitoring);ICOMOScanmonitorcomplianceandraiseobjectionsorconcerns,whereappropriate,incaseswheretherightsofindigenouspeoplesarebeingviolated.ICOMOScanalsohelptheWorldHeritageCentredevelopaguidancenoteonFPIC.Second,ithasbecomeclearthereisaneedforgreaterrepresentationofindigenousheritageontheWorldHeritageList.The2004ICOMOSgapanalysisidentifiedsomegapsrelevanttoindigenousheritage,notablyliving“traditional”culturesandindigenousbeliefsystemsintheAmericas.Inscriptionsofindigenousheritagehavecontinuedfairlysteadilysince2004andinparticulartherepresentationoflivingindigenousheritagehasbeguntoimprovesomewhat(seeFigure3).
Third,thereisaneedtobetteraccommodateheritagethatexpressesamoreholisticunderstandingofculturalandnaturalvalues,andtangibleandintangiblevalues.Insofarasindigenousheritageisoftenexpressedinthisholisticmanner,thecurrentlimitationsoftheOperationalGuidelinesandassessmentprocedurestoaddressanintegratedapproachareanobstacletobetterrepresentationofindigenousheritageasWorldHeritage.Aparticularlyvexingcontradictionliesinthewayindigenousheritageisconsideredculturalheritage(only)andyetsiteboundariesaretypicallydefinedbynaturalvalues.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 62
ProceduralimprovementshavebeenmadeincollaborationbetweenICOMOSandIUCNtoensurenominationsthatexpressanintegrationofculturalandnaturalheritageareassessedinanappropriatelyintegratedmanner.TheReflectiononprocessesformixednominationsoccasionedbyDecision37COM8B.19,inwhichtheCommittee“recognizesthatmaintainingentirelyseparateevaluationprocessesformixednominationsdoesnotfacilitateashareddecision-makingprocessbetweentheAdvisoryBodies”,andsubsequentcollaborationbetweenICOMOSandIUCNintheevaluationprocessesisevidenceofthisimprovementinapproach.
RecommendationsforFutureWork
CAPACITY-BUILDINGSUPPORTFORSTATESPARTIES
ICOMOScanplayanimportantroleindevelopingcapacitybuildinginitiativesforStatesPartiestobebetterabletoidentifyandnominateindigenousheritageasWorldHeritage.StatesPartiesandtheirrepresentativesarethekeypointaroundwhichchangecanoccurinspecific,concretecases.
ThePhaseIReportfortheConnectingPracticeinitiativehasrecommendeddevelopmentofajointResourceManualonmanagingnaturalandculturalWorldHeritagepropertiesratherthanhavingthetwoseparatemanuals,revisingtheResourceManual“PreparingWorldHeritageNominations”toincorporateguid-anceonhowtolinkcultureandnature,andproduceaguidancedocumentonbestpracticesindevelopmentofTentativeLists.115
Statespartiesalsoneedguidanceonhowtorespectfullyengagewithindigenouspeople,includingbysecuringtheirconsentandparticipationinWorldHeritageprocessesthataffecttheirlandsandresources.Perhapsthissupportwouldbepartoftheupstreamprocess.
ThenewlyformedInternationalIndigenousPeoplesForumonWorldHeritagewillplayaroleinadvocatingforindigenouspeoplebutcannotrealisticallybeexpectedtotakeuptheroleofmeetingwithindigenouspeoplesandStatesPartiesinspecificcountriestoplanTentativeListproposalsandnominations.
DISCUSSIONONHOWTOBETTERUNDERSTANDINDIGENOUSHERITAGEASWORLDHERITAGE
DiscussionsintheICOMOSIndigenousHeritageWorkingGroupcanconsiderwhatitisaboutindigenousheritagethatmakesitunique,andperhapsthereforemoredifficulttoaddressinaWorldHeritagecontextrootedinverydifferentunderstandingsofheritage.IndigenouspeoplecanbreathnewlifeintoWorldHeritage,inparticularbybringingamoreholisticunderstandingthatseesnaturalandculturalvalues,andtangibleandintangiblevalues,asoneintegratedwhole.
Indigenousheritagecanalsoprovideastrongsenseofthelivingaspectsofheritage;theimmediacyofheritageintheculturalcontinuity,evensurvival,ofpeopleengagingwiththeirheritageinthepresent.AsXavierForde(ICOMOSNewZealand)remarked,heritage“hasoftenbeenunderstoodmoreasa‘stock’ofthings/artefacts
115 IUCN&ICOMOS(2015).ConnectingPracticeProject,p.9.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 63
representativeofabstractnotionsofhistoryandcultureinthepast”;however,indigenousheritageisbetterthoughtofas“a‘flow’ofthecontemporarylivingrelationshipofpeoplestotheirlandsandtotheirancestorsthroughartefacts,naturalfeatures,traditionalresourcesandactivities,subsistenceactivitiesandmethods,gatheringsandrituals.…[Thus,]‘indigenousheritage’cannotbeconceivedofoutsideofthepersonallivingrelationshipsofindigenouspeoplestotheirheritage.”Thereneedstobeamoreaccommodatingandnuancedwayofunderstandingindigenousrelationstoland/sea,asmanifestinspecificattributes,thatallowsforavarietyofformsofexpression,beyondeither:(a)reflectedinarchaeology,architectureandmonuments,includingmonumentalearthworks,or(b)abstractidealtypessuchasstagesinhumanhistory(e.g.,hunter-gatherers)orrepresentativeethnicities(e.g.,TheSaami).Suchcategoriesarestaticandboundedinwaysthatindigenousheritageisnot;theyencourageaviewofpresentindigenouspeopleasbeing“withouthistory”.
THEMATICSTUDYONINDIGENOUSHERITAGE
Ashasbeennoted,“evaluation[ofnominations]issignificantlyimprovedwhereacomparativestudyhasalreadybeencarriedout,whetheratlocal,state,regionalorgloballevels”.116WhiletherehavebeenseveralExpertMeetingsonculturallandscapesandseveralpublicationsonsacredsites,therehasnotyetbeenathematicfocusonindigenousculturaltraditionsorindigenousculturallandscapes,particularlyforregionsnotwellrepresentedandperhapsevenunderstoodintermsoftheirindigenousheritage(e.g.,ArabStates,andEurasia).
SuchacomparativeorthematicstudywillhelpguideStatesPartiesinnominatingandtheAdvisoryBodiesinassessingindigenousheritagesiteswherethefocusofOUVisnotprimarilybasedonarchaeologicalorarchitecturalattributes.
CONTINUEREFININGKNOWLEDGEOFINDIGENOUSHERITAGEINEXISTINGINSCRIBEDSITES
OneopportunitytoimproverepresentationofindigenousheritageinWorldHeritageissimplytobetterunderstandwhatindigenousheritagealreadyexistsininscribedsitesbutisnotwellarticulated.Buildinganinventoryofsitesinwhichthebreadthofindigenousheritageisnotfullyrecognisedwillrequirebroaderregionalexpertise,includingcollaborationwithIUCN.Oneofthegoalsofsuchaninventorywouldbetoadvocatefor,andperhapsworkwithStatesPartiestodeveloprecommendationsfor,retrospectivechangestoStatementsofOUVand,whererelevantandpracticable,renominationunderadditionalcriteria(aswasdoneforUluru-KataTjutaNationalPark).KhangchendzongaNationalPark(India)isarecentcasewhereICOMOSidentifiedthesitewouldbenefitfrombeinginscribedundercriterion(vi),whichwasnotproposedbytheStateParty,inadditiontocriteria(iii),(vii)and(x).
AsthePhaseIIReportfortheConnectingPracticeinitiativenoted,
116 Fowler(2003).WorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes1992-2002,p.51.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 64
findingsfromthecasestudiesshowedthatpropertiespossessedawiderrangeofvaluesthanhadbeenrecognisedwhenthepropertywasinscribedontheWorldHeritageList.Thisledsomeoftheteamstoquestionhowthepropertieswereinscribedandifare-nominationshouldbeconsidered.117
KakaduNationalPark(Australia)isaclearcasewheretheStatementofOUVdoesnotfullyreflectthesignificanceofvaluesrecognisedasbeingofOUVundercriterion(vi).WhilethereisnodoubttheParkcelebratesindigenousheritage,itisnotreasonablethattheWorldHeritagesystemitselfdownplaysthesignificanceoflivingindigenousWorldHeritageatthisimportantsite.
117 Leitãoetal.2017.ConnectingPracticePhaseII:FinalReport,pp.13–14.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 65
SourcesCited
Andrews,Thomas.2014.“RecastingAuthenticityinAboriginalCulturalLandscapes,”Proceedings,96–104.
Andrews,ThomasD.,andSusanBuggey.2008.“AuthenticityinAboriginalCulturalLandscapes”.AssociationforPreservationTechnologyInternational(APT)Bulletin,39(2/3):63-71.
ANPWS(AustralianNationalParksandWildlifeService,DepartmentoftheArts,Sport,theEnvironment,TourismandTerritories).1994.“RenominationofUluru-KataTjutaNationalParkbytheGovernmentofAustraliaforInscriptionontheWorldHeritageList”.
Buckley,Kristal.2014.“Nature+CultureandWorldHeritage:WhyitMatters”,Proceedingsofaroundtable,ExploringtheCulturalValueofNature:aWorldHeritageContext,Montréal,Québec,12–14March2014.pp.105–21.
Buggey,Susan,andNoraMitchell.2003.“CulturalLandscapeManagementChallengesandPromisingNewDirectionsintheUnitedStatesandCanada.”InUNESCO,Culturallandscape:TheChallengesofConservation.WorldHeritageSeriesn°7,outcomesofWorkshopinFerrara,Italy,11–12November2002,pp.92–100.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre
Calma,Graeme&LynetteLiddle.2003.‘TrainingChallengesintheManagementofHeritageTerritoriesandLandscapes,”InUNESCO,Culturallandscapes:TheChallengesofConservation.WorldHeritageSeriesn°7,outcomesofWorkshopinFerrara,Italy,11–12November2002,pp.104–19.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
Cobo(1983),StudyoftheProblemofDiscriminationagainstIndigenousPopulations,UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/21/Add.8.https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/martinez-cobo-study.html.
Dingwall,PaulR.(IUCN).2013.“ReportontheReactiveMonitoringMissiontoEastRennell,SolomonIslands,21–29October2012.”Item7oftheProvisionalAgenda:StateofconservationofpropertiesinscribedontheWorldHeritageListand/orontheListofWorldHeritageinDanger.Thirty-seventhsessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,PhnomPenh,KingdomofCambodia,16–27June2013.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
Disko,Stefan.2017.“IndigenousCulturalHeritageintheImplementationofUNESCO'sWorldHeritageConvention:Opportunities,ObstaclesandChallenges.”InAlexandraXanthaki,SannaValkonen,LeenaHeinämäki,PiiaKristiinaNuorgam(Eds.),IndigenousPeoples'CulturalHeritage:Rights,DebatesandChallenges.Leiden,TheNetherlands:KoninklijkeBrill.
Disko,Stefan,andHelenTugendhat(Editors).2014.WorldHeritageSitesandIndigenousPeoples’Rights.Copenhagen,Denmark:IWGIA,ForestPeoplesProgramme,GundjeihmiAboriginalCorporation.
Disko,Stefan,andHelenTugendhat.2013.“InternationalExpertWorkshopontheWorldHeritageConventionandIndigenousPeoples.”ReportontheInternationalExpertWorkshopontheWorldHeritageConventionandIndigenousPeoples,20–21September2012,Copenhagen,Denmark:IWGIA–Kulturstyrelsen–Naalakkersuisut.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 66
Disko,Stefan,HelenTugendhatandLolaGarcía-Alix(2014).“WorldHeritageSitesandIndigenousPeoples’Rights:AnIntroduction”.In:WorldHeritageSitesandIndigenousPeoples’Rights(IWGIADocumentNo.129),pp.25–26.
Feneley,Rick.2013.“IndigenousLeaderstoldof‘insulting’UNRuleonWorldHeritageListing,”TheSydneyMorningHerald,May28,2013.Online.http://www.smh.com.au/national/indigenous-leaders-told-of-insulting-un-rule-on-world-heritage-listing-20130527-2n7ac.
Fowler,P.J.2003.WorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes1992-2002,WorldHeritageSeriesn°6.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
ICCROM(InternationalCentrefortheStudyofthePreservationandRestorationofCulturalProperty).n.d,[2016].ScopingStudyforWorldHeritagePolicyGuidelines.IncludedinbackgrounddocumentforWHC/18/42.COM/11(UNESCO2018a).
ICOMOS(InternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites).2016“EvaluationofEnnediMassif(Chad).No1475”.
ICOMOS(InternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites).2013.“EvaluationofPimachiowinAki(Canada).No.1415”.
ICOMOS(InternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites).1995.“EvaluationofRapaNuiNationalPark(RepublicofChile).No.715”.
ICOMOS(InternationalCommitteeonMonumentsandSites).1990.ICOMOSCharterfortheProtectionandtheManagementoftheArchaeologicalHeritage.https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/arch_e.pdf.
ICOMOS.n.d.“’OurCommonDignityInitiative’—Rights-basedApproach.”https://www.icomos.org/en/focus/our-common-dignity-initiative-rights-based-approach.
ICOMOS,IUCN,andICCROM.2014.“WorldHeritageandRights-BasedApproaches:ReportfromWorkshopinOslo1–3April2014:BuildingCapacitytoSupportRights-BasedApproachesintheWorldHeritageConvention:LearningFromPractice.”Oslo,Norway:ICOMOSNorway.
ILO(InternationalLabourOrganization).1989.C169-IndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention,1989(No.169).ConventionconcerningIndigenousandTribalPeoplesinIndependentCountries(Entryintoforce:05Sep1991)
IUCN(InternationalUnionforConservationofNature).2016.“ConnectingPractice:DefiningnewmethodsandstrategiestosupportNatureandCulturethroughengagementintheWorldHeritageConvention,”Online:http://www.iucn.org/theme/world-heritage/our-work/more-projects/linking-nature-and-culture.
IUCN(InternationalUnionforConservationofNature)andICOMOS(InternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites).2015.ConnectingPracticeProject:FinalReport.ReportonPhaseI.http://openarchive.icomos.org/1561/.
Jokilehto,Jukka.2008.TheWorldHeritageList:WhatisOUV?DefiningtheOutstandingUniversalValueofCulturalWorldHeritageProperties.ICOMOSMonumentsandSitesSeries,Vol.XVI.Berlin:hendrikBäßlerverlag.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 67
Jokilehto,Jukka.2005.TheWorldHeritageList:FillingtheGaps―AnActionPlanfortheFuture.ICOMOSMonumentsandSitesSeries,Vol.XII.Paris:InternationalCouncilonMonumentsandSites(ICOMOS).
JukkaJokilehtoandJosephKing(2000),“AuthenticityandConservation:ReflectionsontheCurrentStateofUnderstanding”,In:UNESCO(2000).“ExpertMeetingonthe"GlobalStrategy"andThematicStudiesforaRepresentativeWorldHeritageList(UNESCOHeadquarters,20-22June1994)”,p.38.
Labadi,Sophia.2007.“RepresentationsofthenationandculturaldiversityindiscoursesonWorldHeritage”,JournalofSocialArchaeology,7(2):147-70.
Larsen,PeterBille,andGaminiWijesuriya.2015.“Nature-CultureInterlinkagesinWorldHeritage:BridgingtheGap,”WorldHeritage,75:4–15.
Leitão,Leticia,Bourdin,Gwenaëlle,Badman,TimandWigboldus,Leanna.2017.ConnectingPracticePhaseII:FinalReport.ProjectReport.ICOMOS/IUCN.http://openarchive.icomos.org/1841/.
Lennon,J.2003.“ValuesastheBasisforManagementofWorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes.”InUNESCO,CulturalLandscapes:TheChallengesofConservation’,WorldHeritageSeriesn°7,outcomesofWorkshopinFerrara,Italy,11–12November2002,pp.120–26.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
Lisitzin,K.andH.Stovel.2003.“TrainingChallengesintheManagementofHeritageTerritoriesandLandscapes.”InCulturalLandscapes:TheChallengesofConservation,UNESCOWorldHeritageSeriesn°7,outcomesofWorkshopinFerrara,Italy,11–12November2002,pp.33–6.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
Mitchell,N.,M.Rössler,andP.-M.Tricaud.2009.WorldHeritageCulturalLandscapes:AHandbookforConservationandManagement.Paris:UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre.
OlenashaWilliam2014.“AWorldHeritageSiteintheNgorongoroConservationArea:WhoseWorld?WhoseHeritage?”InStefanDiskoandHelenTugendhat(Editors),WorldHeritageSitesandIndigenousPeoples’Rights,189–220.Copenhagen,Denmark:IWGIA,ForestPeoplesProgramme,GundjeihmiAboriginalCorporation.
Pitkanen,Laura,andJonasAntoine.2014.“ProtectingIndigenousRightsinDenendeh:TheDehchoFirstNationsandNahanniNationalParkReserve”.In:S.DiskoandH.Tugendhat(eds.),WorldHeritageSitesandIndigenousPeoples’Rights,pp.436–437.
Sinding-Larsen,Amund,andPeterBilleLarsen(Editors).2017.TheAdvisoryBody“OurCommonDignityInitiative”onRights-basedApproachesinWorldHeritage:TakingStockandLookingForward.Oslo:ICOMOSNorway.http://www.icomos.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Report_web.pdf.
Spear,Thomas,andDerelNurse.1992.“MaasaiFarmers:TheEvolutionofArushaAgriculture,”TheInternationalJournalofAfricanHistoricalStudies,25(3):481–503.
Tabbasum,SalamatAli(UNESCOWorldHeritageCentre),andPaulDingwall(IUCN).2005.“ReportontheMissiontoEastRennellWorldHeritageProperty&MarovoLagoon,SolomonIslands,30March–10April2005.”
Taylor,Michael.2014.“‘WearenotTakenasPeople’:IgnoringtheIndigenousIdentitiesandHistoryofTsodiloHillsWorldHeritageSite,Botswana.”InDiskoandTugendhat,pp.118–129.
BACKGROUNDRESEARCHFORINDIGENOUSHERITAGEWORKINGGROUP(MAY20,2019) 68
UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization).2018a.UNESCOPolicyonEngagingwithIndigenousPeoples.Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization).2018b.“TheDraftPolicyCompendium2018:ForexaminationbytheWorldHeritageCommitteeatits42ndsession,Manama,Bahrain(24June-4July2018).AnnexItoItem11oftheprovisionalagenda,ProgressReportontheDraftPolicyCompendium.Forty-secondsessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,Manama,Bahrain,24June–4July2018.WHC/18/42.COM/11(28May2018).Paris:UNESCO.http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2018/whc18-42com-11-en.pdf.
UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization).2015a.“PolicyDocumentfortheIntegrationofaSustainableDevelopmentPerspectiveintotheProcessesoftheWorldHeritageConvention,”adoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyofStatesPartiestotheConventionConcerningtheProtectionoftheWorldCulturalandNaturalHeritageatits20thsession,Paris,18–20November2015,WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13.Paris:UnitedNationsEducational,CulturalandScientificOrganization.
UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization).2015b.“Item9oftheProvisionalAgenda:GlobalStrategyforarepresentative,balancedandcredibleWorldHeritageList:9B.Progressreportonthereflectiononprocessesformixednominations.”Thirty-ninthsessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,Bonn,Germany28June–8July2015.WHC-15/39.COM/9B(15May2015).Paris:UnitedNationsEducational,CulturalandScientificOrganization.
UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducationalScientificandCulturalOrganization).2000.“ExpertMeetingonthe"GlobalStrategy"andThematicStudiesforaRepresentativeWorldHeritageList(UNESCOHeadquarters,20-22June1994).”Twenty-fourthsessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,Cairns,Australia,27November–2December2000(WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.11,9October2000).Paris:UnitedNationsEducational,CulturalandScientificOrganization.
UNPFII(UnitedNationsPermanentForumnonIndigenousIssues).2010.“StatementoftheUNPFIIatthe34thSessionoftheUNESCOWorldHeritageCommittee,Brasilia,2010.”DeliveredbyUNPFIImemberVictoriaTauli-Corpuz.
Wein,LaurieandPaulChatterton.2005.‘AForestsStrategyforSolomonIslands2006–2011:FinalReportfromWWFSIForestsStrategyPlanningWorkshop,October18and19,2005’.Honiara,SolomonIslands:WorldWildlifeFundSolomonIslands.
Wingham,ElspethJ.1998.“ResourceManagementObjectivesandGuidelinesforEastRennell,SolomonIslands”.PreparedfortheNewZealandOfficialDevelopmentAssistanceProgramme,MinistryofForeignAffairsandTrade,May1998.
Wolf,EricR.1982.EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.