background research to support the work of the icomos ......through tools such as the nara document...

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

http://canada.icomos.org/become-a-member/

http://canada.icomos.org/fr/devenir-membre/

http://canada.icomos.org

�

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,


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”.


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.


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”.


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/).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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,


assessmentwithoutknowledgeofhowpeopleself-identify(asdiscussedinMethods);therefore,assessmentsandallrelatedfiguresonrepresentationinWorldHeritageinthenextsectionaresuggestiveonly.

ItmaymakesensefortheWorldHeritageCentretomaintainaregistryofpeopleassociatedwithspecificsitesthathaveself-identifiedasindigenousorareconventionallyknownasindigenouspeoples.Sucharegistryisbestdevelopednotintheabstract,fromsomegeneraldefinitionof“indigenous”,butfromexistingandemergingcases,andundertheguidanceofregionalandsubjectmatterexperts,includingindigenouspeoplesrespresentativeorganizationsandtheInternationalIndigenousPeoplesForumonWorldHeritage(IIPFWH).Sucharegistrymayhelpidentifyandtrackprogressonspecificcasesand,moregenerally,howwelltheWorldHeritagesystemisaddressingindigenousheritageandtherightsandinterestsofindigenouspeopleinWorldHeritage.


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


• 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


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.


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)


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


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.


• 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


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.


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”.


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.


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.


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.


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”.


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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).


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).


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).


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).


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.


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


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


findingsfromthecasestudiesshowedthatpropertiespossessedawiderrangeofvaluesthanhadbeenrecognisedwhenthepropertywasinscribedontheWorldHeritageList.Thisledsomeoftheteamstoquestionhowthepropertieswereinscribedandifare-nominationshouldbeconsidered.117

KakaduNationalPark(Australia)isaclearcasewheretheStatementofOUVdoesnotfullyreflectthesignificanceofvaluesrecognisedasbeingofOUVundercriterion(vi).WhilethereisnodoubttheParkcelebratesindigenousheritage,itisnotreasonablethattheWorldHeritagesystemitselfdownplaysthesignificanceoflivingindigenousWorldHeritageatthisimportantsite.

117 Leitãoetal.2017.ConnectingPracticePhaseII:FinalReport,pp.13–14.


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.


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.


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.


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.