7.2 World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

Introduction

• Continuation from yesterday's lecture on cultural landscapes.

• Acknowledgment of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the Gandangara, and Dharug people of the Blue Mountains, recognizing their ongoing connection to the land.

Definition of Cultural Landscape

• An area with both natural and cultural outstanding universal values, as defined in articles one and two of the World Heritage Convention. These values combine to make the landscape significant on a global scale.

• Important to note that the cultural landscapes category in the World Heritage Convention falls only under article one but can be classified as a mixed site like Uluru, which demonstrates both natural and cultural heritage.

• A place shaped by a cultural group over time through interactions with the environment, reflecting traditions, practices, land use patterns, and social relations, is another definition, aligning with Sawyer's broader proposal.

Considerations and Challenges

• Multiple definitions for cultural landscapes lead to interpretation variations.

• Issue arises when the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) assess a site separately. Their differing perspectives can result in inconsistent evaluations.

• ICOMOS: Culture nature's journey, emphasizing how culture shapes and is shaped by nature.

• IUCN: Nature culture's journey, giving primacy to nature in influencing cultural development.

• Despite different approaches, both organizations are working towards the same outcome, enabling more collaboration and integrated conservation strategies that bridge natural and cultural heritage.

Cultural Landscapes in Literature

• Analysis of papers from databases to identify trends in discussing cultural landscapes and world heritage.

• European region has the highest number of papers, followed by Australia, indicating significant research and academic interest in these areas.

• Only 1% of the world's cultural landscapes are in Australia, but it has the second highest amount of scholarly concern and interest, suggesting a focus on recognizing and managing these landscapes.

• This disparity suggests potential for cultural landscapes that hasn't translated into actual inscriptions, pointing to challenges in meeting World Heritage criteria.

Reasons for Limited Success

1. No universal definition:- The term is used across multiple disciplines, leading to inconsistent application.

   • Each country has slight differences in terminology, impacting legislation and management practices related to cultural landscapes.

   • Limited public awareness of cultural landscapes hinders recognition and protection efforts.

2. Nature culture binary is still prevalent:- ICOMOS and IUCN operate within individual silos, despite efforts to promote integrated approaches.

   • Emergence from the establishment of protected areas like Yellowstone National Park promotes wilderness ideology, often marginalizing cultural dimensions.

3. Lack of understanding of First Nations heritage:- Original conception of World Heritage Convention was largely European archaeological-focused, sidelining indigenous perspectives.

   • Issues arise when experts from ICOMOS aren't from the culture they're assessing, leading to misinterpretations and omissions of significant cultural values.

   • Example: Tea Gardens assessment in China, where a significant site for the local community was not included due to a lack of understanding of its cultural significance.

Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area

• Originally nominated for natural and cultural values in 1984 as a mixed site, reflecting its dual significance.

• In 1999, the World Heritage Bureau recommended deferral for the natural heritage nomination due to integrity issues, including dam raising proposal, cattle grazing, logging, clearing, coal and oil shale mining, and fire. These activities threatened the area's ecological integrity.

• Integrity refers to the wholeness of the site, its capacity to maintain ecological processes, and the intactness of its natural and cultural attributes.

• ICOMOS didn't recommend inscribing it under the cultural category due to discontinuity in the aboriginal interrelationship with nature due to European colonization. The impact of colonization disrupted traditional practices and connections.

• Nomination was exclusively focused on the rock art, with poor archaeological records, neglecting other important cultural expressions.

• Intangible heritage was not considered, overlooking oral traditions, cultural practices, and spiritual connections to the landscape.

• Australia pushed ahead with the natural nomination, inscribed on 11/29/2000 under two criterion, with the idea to eventually renominate for its cultural heritage, indicating a long-term vision for recognizing the area's full value.

Warragamba Dam

• Sydney's largest drinking water catchment, located in the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley, is a vital water source for the region.

• 1995: First proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall was rejected by the car and labor government due to environmental and cultural impacts of the Blue Mountains, reflecting early recognition of potential harm.

• 2016: Proposal returned, amended to 17 meters due to climate change impacts and severe weather events like flooding, framed as a necessary adaptation measure.

• Designed to be a flood mitigation strategy, aiming to protect downstream communities from inundation.

• Hawkesbury and Pean Valley flood risk management strategy identified raising the wall as the most suitable option, based on cost-benefit analyses.

• Classified as critical state significant infrastructure due to potential impacts to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, acknowledging the high stakes involved.

• Estimated 4,800 hectares of World Heritage Area listed would be potentially inundated, resulting in habitat loss and ecosystem disruption.

• Includes at least 48 threatened or endangered plant and animal species and communities, highlighting the biodiversity at risk.

• Contains 14% of the world's eucalypt species, underscoring its global importance for plant conservation.

• Because the area is classified as world heritage, the state parties had to inform UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention of the proposal, triggering international scrutiny.

• IUCN will undertake its own technical review on the project, providing independent scientific assessment.

• Water New South Wales had to conduct an environmental impact statement to assess, the flora and fauna distribution and other impacts on that the proposal would have on the outstanding universal values, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation.

• The project as proposed was found to directly degrade the outstanding universal values, leading to concerns about its compatibility with World Heritage status.

• The IUCN considers that proceeding further with the implementation of the project appears to be inappropriate, advising against the dam raising.

• The project has now been abandoned, reflecting a shift towards alternative solutions.

Statement of Outstanding Universal Values

• Introduced later, from 2013, to better articulate the area's significance.

• Understanding of the cultural context of the greater Blue Mountains area is fundamental to the protection of its integrity, emphasizing the need for holistic conservation.

• Aboriginal people from six language groups continue to have custodial relationship with area, maintaining traditional connections and responsibilities.

• Occupation sites and rock art provide physical evidence of the longevity of the strong Aboriginal cultural connections of the land, demonstrating a continuous cultural presence for millennia.

• The IUCN notes that this statement provides an entry point from which how the proponent should proceed in assessing impact, guiding future development decisions.

• Project may result in a total loss of a number of known cultural sites with high cultural and scientific significance, raising ethical and heritage concerns.

• IUCN has also received comments from ICOMOS International, which related to the integrity of the property, reinforcing the need for caution.

First Nations Cultural Heritage of the Blue Mountains Area

• The Burragarang Valley is an important site of the Gundungurr people who lived in the valley prior to the Warragamba Dam construction, holding deep cultural roots.

• There was forcible removal and relocation following the construction, which inundated significant proportions of the culturally significant sites, causing displacement and cultural loss.

• The area tells the Gundunga creation story, which explains how these two dream time spirits, Gaurangatcha and Murrigan, formed the gorges of the Barakarang Valley, connecting the landscape to spiritual narratives.

• Once the dam was constructed, many of these sites were lost or made inaccessible, disrupting cultural practices and knowledge transmission.

• The results that I found during my honors research was that the largest concern was for environmental reasons, which is, I guess, quite expected. 34 respondents were concerned with cultural impacts, and a few people explicitly referred to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area as a cultural landscape, which I think was the more surprising part.

Nature Culture Binary in World Heritage

• Cultural assets were recognized by both indigenous and non indigenous people as important values, and any further loss would be considered a tragedy, highlighting shared heritage values.

• The Greater Blue Mountains is considered to represent a distinct cultural or even biocultural landscape, even if it's not formally recognized as one, indicating potential for future nomination.

• There was a significant need to better recognize First Nations connection to place, especially in the context of this broader concern to maintain the environmental integrity, emphasizing cultural dimensions of conservation.

• The Greater Blue Mountains is a classic example of the nature culture continuum as it's a property with both cultural and natural qualities with listing just for its natural values.

• Advocating for renomination as a cultural landscape. It would require that consultation with each of those six language groups. And it will also mean that by renominating now as a cultural landscapes, the existing sites on our tentative list, like it would have it would mean rather than having a new world heritage site, it would just increase the value for one.

Gondwana Rainforest Of Australia

• A serial property made up of about 41 separate protected areas across both the New South Wales and state boundaries, forming a complex network of ecosystems.

• Inscribed in 1986 on the World Heritage List for the Earth's evolutionary history, ongoing geological and biological processes and exceptional biological diversity, recognizing its scientific and environmental value.

• In 1994, it was added to the National Heritage List as a natural heritage landscape, reinforcing its national significance.

• Around the same time, there was a boundary expansion to include additional important areas.

• 2007, the name was changed from the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves to the Gondwana Rainforest Of Australia, reflecting its Gondwanan origins.

• In 2010, it was added to that tentative list for another boundary expansion as well, signaling ongoing efforts to enhance its protection.

Cultural Heritage

• It's faced similar issues with the Blue Mountains, so there just hasn't been enough or many archaeological surveys, limiting understanding of its cultural history.

• There's no permanent settlements within the rainforest areas, but there was frequent use of the area by Aboriginal groups, indicating seasonal or temporary occupation.

• It lacks a lot of that physical tangible heritage, which makes it difficult to assess its cultural value using conventional archaeological methods.

• There's current native title claims across the region, reflecting ongoing indigenous connection and rights.

• In the 02/2001 strategic management plan for World Heritage, it outlined that there was potential renomination as a cultural landscape for this site, considering its cultural dimensions.

• Remnants of the forestry history, which is important to acknowledge if we're thinking about a cultural landscape, reflecting human impacts and resource use.

IUCN Categories

• Considering the nature culture binary in the classification system and how protected areas are categorized.

Protection

• How do we protect a serial property under these multiple jurisdictions, ensuring consistent management?

• There is a bit of disparity with how the sites are managed on an individual basis, which brings us to issues of federalism and intergovernmental coordination.