JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES

世界遺産学研究
Special Issue 2020:
Proceedings of the Fourth Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation in Asia and the Paciﬁc 2019
September 24 - October 4, 2019, Tsukuba, JapanMIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

文化と自然の複合遺産

UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation

筑 波 大 学・世 界 遺 産 学 学 位 プ ロ グ ラ ム

U n i v e r s i t y o f T s u k u b a・D e g r e e P r o g r a m i n H e r i t a g e S t u d i e sCopyright: © 2020 University of Tsukuba.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without
prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction ofthis publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the
copyright holder.
Citation: Ishizawa, Maya, Inaba, Nobuko and Yoshida, Masahito, Eds. (2020). Proceedings of the Fourth Capacity
Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, Asia and the Pacific 2019. Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage. Journal of World Heritage Studies, University of Tsukuba, Japan: University ofTsukuba. 163 pp.
Editorial Board of the Journal of World Heritage Studies:
Yasufumi Ukita (Chief Editor)
Hiromu Ito and Mariko Ikeda (Associate editors)
Edited by: Maya Ishizawa, Nobuko Inaba and Masahito Yoshida
Editorial assistance: Claudia Uribe Chinen
Photos: All photos in the Part Two by Claudia Uribe except of pp. 137 Ami Masuichi, and pp. 82, 109, 111, 113,
114, 116 by Ichita Shimoda, pp. 85, 87 and 103 by Maya Ishizawa and p. 153 by Maiko Suda.
Available from:
UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation
World Heritage Studies, University of Tsukuba
1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
Japan 305-8571
Tel +81-29-853-6344
Fax +81-29-853-7099
http://conservation.tsukuba.ac.jp/UNESCO-Chair/
ISSN: 2189-4728

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIESSpecial Issue 2020:
Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation, Asia and the Pacific 2019

MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

文化と自然の複合遺産
Organized by

UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation

In collaboration with
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration ofCultural Property (ICCROM)
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)SEPTEMBER 24-OCTOBER 4, 2019
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA, TSUKUBA, JAPANi

ii

Table of Contents
List of Acronyms................................................................................................................................v■ Foreword.......................................................................................................................................... 1■ Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3■ Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... 5■ Part One: Proceedings of the Fourth Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation. Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage

Special contribution
An Indigenous perspective: the case of Pimachiowin Aki Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Canada by Sophia Rabliauskas.......................................................................................................... 9
CBWNCL 2019 Participants Case Studies
Exploring Nature-Culture Linkages in the Apatani Valley of Arunachal Pradesh, India by Bina
Gandhi Deori................................................................................................................................... 17
Nature-Culture Interaction at the Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province, Philippines by Eulalie
Dulnuan.......................................................................................................................................... 24
Doi Suthep Mountain, The Living Heritage by Warong Wonglangka............................................. 30
Managing mixed sites and cultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities in Alpine National
Park by Kimberley Wilson............................................................................................................... 38
Ngorongoro Conservation Area: A land of treasures by Joshua Mwankunda................................ 44
The Study of Nature-Culture Linkages of World Heritage Mount Wuyi by Ziyan Yang.................. 50
Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes: Nature, Culture and Borderless Beliefs by
Anuranjan Roy................................................................................................................................ 58
Recognizing the characteristics of Kangchenjunga Conservation Area as a potential World
Heritage property in Nepal by Yadav Uprety................................................................................. 65iii

■ Part Two: Report on the Fourth Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation. Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................74
CBWNCL 2019. MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE......................................................... 78
Module 1: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage.......................................................................................................................................... 80
Module 2: Management, Implementation and Governance in Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage........................................................................................................................................ 107
Module 3: Reflection on Theory and Practice...............................................................................117
Module 4: International Symposium............................................................................................ 125■ Annexes
Annex 1: CBWNCL 2019 Participants Abstracts........................................................................... 155
Annex 2: List of Participants......................................................................................................... 158
Annex 3: Program of the CBWCNL 2019....................................................................................... 160

iv

List of Acronyms

ACA

Agency for Cultural Affairs (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, Japan)

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CBWNCLCapacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages

DRM

Disaster Risk Management

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization (UN)GIAHS

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

HIA

Heritage Impact Assessment

HUL

Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO)ICCROM

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property

ICOMOSInternational Council on Monuments and Sites

IPBES

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

MoE

Ministry of the Environment, JapanOUVOutstanding Universal Value (World Heritage Convention)

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals (UN Agenda 2030)

SOC

State of Conservation (World Heritage)UN

United Nations

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WCPA

World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN)

WHWorld Heritage

WHITRAPWorld Heritage Institute of Training and Research Asia and the Pacificv

vi

Foreword

The Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in
1972, is the only international legal instrument that deals with the safeguarding of places holding Outstanding
Universal Value for cultural and/or natural significance. The category of mixed cultural and natural heritage has
been used from the beginning of its implementation for places which contain both natural and cultural values
transcending national borders and are universally significant for all humanity and future generations. However,the definition of mixed sites was only included in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of theConvention in 2005.
After more than 40 years of listing, only 39 of the 1121 inscribed are mixed cultural and natural
heritage. This denotes that nominating properties justifying Outstanding Universal Value for both natureand culture is a challenging task. One of the reasons found is that until 1992, there were cultural references
under natural criteria, hence, a number of natural sites inscribed before that date - when Cultural Landscapes
categories were integrated and the criteria for justifying inscription redrafted - could have been today
nominated as mixed or even mixed cultural landscapes. Yet, of the more than 100 properties inscribed so far
as cultural landscapes, only 10 are also mixed. Regarding the criteria, it can be noted that certain criteria arefound more often in the nominations of mixed sites: cultural criterion (iii), and natural criterion (vii), which isnatural beauty, which in itself is a cultural concept that is not present in any of the 6 cultural criteria. Added
to this, some management challenges in mixed sites are related to the definition of boundaries, changes ininterpretation of criteria, separated management systems for nature and culture, relationships with local
communities, transboundary nature of many mixed sites, among other complexities.
These themes have been addressed on the fourth- and last of the series- Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation held in 2019. The UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture
Linkages in Heritage Conservation at the University of Tsukuba in collaboration with the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Convention, IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS,
has completed the first phase of this 4-year capacity building programme, which has contributed to theimplementation of the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy, bringing together natural heritage andcultural heritage practitioners of Asia and the Pacific and beyond, to exchange on the potential of integrated
management of heritage landscapes and their natural and cultural values.
The Special Issue 2020 of the Journal of World Heritage Studies of the University of Tsukuba includes
the outcomes of the workshop and the International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation on Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage. Renowned international and Japanese experts shared
their experience on the challenges of an integrated management of World Heritage places potentially fulfillingor inscribed for both natural and cultural criteria. Moreover, lessons learned of the 4-year programme wereshared by the organizers and potential next steps discussed.
The Special Issue 2020 covers 8 cases from CBWNCL 2019 participants, 7 of which illustrate examples
from Asia and the Pacific, and 1 from Africa. 2 have been inscribed as mixed sites, 1 is a cultural landscape,2 are in the Tentative List of their respective country, 3 are protected at the national level. Furthermore, aspecial contribution from Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage, Canada, inscribed in 2018 as a mixed site and acultural landscape brings a detailed testimony about the challenges described above including management
by Indigenous Peoples. This broad range of case studies illustrate the complexities of nominating, evaluating
and managing mixed sites of Outstanding Universal Value. It also opens pathways towards more holistic
approaches on heritage conservation and sustainable development globally.
Mechtild Rössler
Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre1

2

Introduction

The 4th Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia and thePacific, focusing on the theme of “Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage,” was organized by the UNESCO Chairon Nature-Culture Linkages at the University of Tsukuba, Japan, in collaboration with the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, ICCROM, IUCN, and ICOMOS. This workshop was the final in a series of four workshops,
running from 2016 to 2019. It brought together individuals from the culture and nature sectors, ten heritage
practitioners from Asia and the Pacific: Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, andVietnam; one from Africa (Tanzania), one from Europe (Albania). They were joined by eight graduate students
from the Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation at the University of Tsukuba from Brazil, China,
Ghana, Japan, and Thailand, who took part in the process as observers.
This Special Issue 2020 of the Journal of World Heritage Studies is divided into two parts. Part 1 starts
with a special contribution from Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage site, followed by the case studies of 8 of the
12 participants of the CBWNCL 2019 that have been peer-reviewed and published. In Part 2, the activities
developed during the workshop are compiled, structured by modules.
In Module 1: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage, lecturers and participants were invited to the University’s campus for four days. The lectures given
by international heritage experts, in both the nature and culture sectors, have been summarized. The 12
participants’ case study presentations and the following group discussions are reported.
In Module 2: Management, Implementation, and Governance, there is a recount of the four-day field
trip to the prefectures of Yamanashi and Shizuoka, where the components of the World Heritage property“Fujisan, sacred place and source of artistic inspiration,” are located.
In Module 3: Reflection on Theory and Practice, participants were placed into working groups. The
outcomes of each group on the analysis of and recommendations for the World Heritage visited are described.
In Module 4: International Symposium, the keynotes and debates are summarized. Five international
experts participated, representatives of the partner organizations –UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN,ICCROM, and ICOMOS– and two representatives of the Japanese Government – one from the Ministry of theEnvironment and one from the Agency for Cultural Affairs. Finally, the conclusions of the workshop, based on
the outcomes of the participants’ reflections and the symposium debates regarding the challenges faced in
Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage, within the region and globally, are reported.
In the annexes, the abstracts of participants’ presentations (Annex 1), the list of participants (Annex 2)
and the program of the workshop (Annex 3) can be found.

3

4

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the editorial board of the Journal of World Heritage Studies for their continuous
support in the publication of the CBWNCL Proceedings as a special issue of the Journal.
We would like to thank the collaboration of our partners, ICCROM, IUCN, ICOMOS and the UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, and their support to the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation during these four years of the capacity building programme. Special thanks go to Dr. Mechtild
Rössler, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for her kind support and collaboration. Moreover, we
would like to especially thank Jessica Brown, Steve Brown, Edwin Bernbaum, Kristal Buckley, Marlon Martin
and Gamini Wijesuriya for accepting collaborating as reviewers of this fourth special issue of the Journal ofWorld Heritage Studies. We would like to acknowledge the patient cooperation of the authors who havecarefully work on their articles, contributing to a diverse and rich illustration of landscapes in Asia and thePacific region and beyond, showcasing important issues in relation to mixed cultural and natural heritage andthe inextricability between nature and culture in significant heritage places.
Thanks are also due to the academic and administrative staff of the World Heritage Studies andCertificate Programme on Nature Conservation at the University of Tsukuba for accompanying this project. The
cooperation of the graduate students involved in these programs is also appreciated, their support during the
symposium has been indispensable.
Maya Ishizawa, Nobuko Inaba and Masahito YoshidaBonn, Tokyo and Tsukuba, 20205

6

Part One:
Proceedings of the Fourth
Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation.
MIXED CULTURAL AND
NATURAL HERITAGE

7

8

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Special contribution

An Indigenous perspective: thecase of Pimachiowin Aki World
Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage, Canada
Sophia Rabliauskas

Poplar River First Nation
My name is Sophia Rabliauskas, I am from Poplar River First Nation. I was involved with Pimachiowin Aki
World Heritage Site Project for almost 15 years. I have had different roles during that time, I worked with ourcommunities as a coordinator, I visited communities over the years to translate and to ensure the people
were always informed and updated. My other role was a spokesperson for Pimachiowin Aki.
Poplar River is located 400 km north of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The land we consider to be
our Traditional Territory is approximately 1 million hectares. Each of our Pimachiowin Aki First Nations,
Poplar River First Nation, Paungassi First Nation, Little Grand First Nation and Bloodvein First Nation haveapproximately the same size territories. Our combined population is approximately 6,000. Our combined
traditional territories are 33,000 square kilometres consisting of traplines, hunting, fishing and harvestingareas. In Poplar River’s case we have archaeological evidence of our people’s occupancy on that land forover 6,000 years. We consider ourselves as Anishinaabe and we all speak the same language, our beliefs
and values about the land are similar, which has helped our work to be successful in building a strong
nomination.
This gathering is about understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage. Our whole existence as a people is the interrelationships between our culture and nature where
we have lived for thousand of years. Our people believe that the responsibility of taking care of the landcame from the Creator, therefore we feel that this is a very sacred responsibility. Our Traditional Territories
have been well cared for by our people who have lived here for generations. The land, water, air, and all its
life is healthy and strong, and we still carry the knowledge and teachings of our Elders and our ancestors.
My passion for this work comes from the teaching of the Elders and their concern about the
wellbeing of the land. The work to care for this land started by my ancestors long before I was born andhas continued to evolve into First Nation’s led initiatives such as community land use planning, First Nations
Accord and finally the Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Nomination. The name Pimachiowin Aki means landthat gives life. The name was chosen by our Elders, who continue to remind us that we are inseparable fromthe land that was given to us from the Creator. This land is our home, it is our very existence as a people andit is the worth the protection.
We have always acknowledged and practised the wisdom and teachings of our Elders. The message
I carry comes from my father and grandfather and many other Elders. As soon as I was able to talk, myfather and grandfather taught me to respect all life. We understood the importance of protecting theenvironment. They always gave thanks for anything that was taken from the land. They believed the Creator
9JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

gave us life from these things and it was our duty to protect and preserve them. They talked about the Circleof Life, where all forms of life, the animals, fish, birds, insects, plants everything, including human beings fit
on a circle side by side, no one more important than the next. They were all given responsibilities to continue
the life we were given. Our responsibility was to care for and protect what we were given. We knew weneeded fresh water and food to survive. The elders experiences and knowledge of their surroundings has
been the means of their survival. Our people understood the importance of conservation and preservationby practising the natural laws the Creator gave to us and my father put it much more eloquently when hesaid “if we do not care for the land, the land will suffer and we will suffer as people”.
We, as Anishinaabe have endured the effects of colonization and assimilation, we are at the brinkof losing our language, culture and identity. Many Indigenous Nations in Canada have lost the use of their
Traditional Lands. Poplar River and our partners are very fortunate to still have access to their Traditional
Territories. The four First Nations communities have made a commitment to protect and preserve our
traditional territories for future generations.
We strongly believe that in order to heal, we need to restore the balance within our community. We
need to teach our children and grandchildren the importance of understanding the sacred relationship our
people have with land and how our life depends on it more than ever. We gain life, wisdom, and knowledge
from the land, because we strongly believe that the land is very much alive. Acknowledging the spiritualityof the land is to sustain the health of the Anishinaabe people. Our health and survival depends on the land,
our belief has always been that we are the land and the land is very much part of us.
Our vision is to protect the Boreal Forest for the benefit of future generations. We continue
to revitalized our traditional practices by emphasizing community healing through ceremonies. Ourcommunities have completed a comprehensive Land Management Plan. The plans were developed by ourElders, youth, and members of our communities. For thousand of years, our people have lived in this region,
and using their Indigenous knowledge of all forms of life, have practised and lived true sustainability. Ourcommunities used this knowledge as guidance and direction for the Land Use Plans. These plans are basedon traditional practices and knowledge, along with scientific knowledge. These plans formed the basis of
our World Heritage Nomination.
Our communities started working together to find ways to further protect our lands. In 2002, ourcommunities signed the First Nations Accord which is an agreement to protect our traditional territories.
One of the main goals was to seek support and recognition of our network of linked protected areas in
the form of UNESCO World Heritage Site listing, combining both natural and cultural. We believed thiswould give us a unique and internationally significant opportunity to demonstrate the value of First Nations
Traditional Knowledge in protecting and caring for the land and also to demonstrate that we can work
together with First Nations, Governments, and other countries. Our Elders felt this was important initiativethat we would leave a lasting legacy to the world from our people to protect and preserve this area forthe benefit of the planet. What we have accomplished by keeping our land undeveloped and intact is
extraordinary in todays world, where we witness the destruction of our planet on a daily basis. Our Elders
believe that we need to share our knowledge of the land for the good of all people and the planet.
At that time the IUCN had put out a call for proposals for potential World Heritage Sites within the
Boreal Forest. Our First Nation partners started to develop a proposal. We had heard that our Manitoba
Provincial Government and the Province of Ontario were planning to submit a proposal for their Provincial
Parks at the same time. We approached the Provincial Governments and invited them to work with us tosubmit one proposal. Both parks were partially within our Traditional Territories. We reached an agreement
and a joint preliminary proposal for a natural and cultural site was submitted. In 2004 the release of thereport for the 2003 IUCN workshop in St. Petersburg, Russia included “The St. Petersburg declaration”
which supported the Manitoba and Ontario First Nation led nomination for the World Heritage site. In Aprilof 2004 Canada’s Minister of the Environment endorsed the First Nations nomination for the World Heritage
by including it on Canada’s updated Tentative List for the World Heritage.
In 2006, the communities and the 2 Provinces established the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, whose
main purpose was to coordinate and complete the nomination package for inscription for the Pimachiowin
10JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Aki nominated area for the UNSECO World Heritage List. We were fortunate to receive funding from theProvince of Manitoba which allowed us to complete the project. The nominated area consisted of traditional
territories of 5 First Nations and the 2 Provincial parks. It was nominated as both cultural and natural site.
The corporation democratically represents all partners and has charitable status, permitting it to pursue andreceive donor funding. The First Nations and the two Provinces each appoint a Director of the Corporation’s
Board. Each Director is responsible to the constituents he/she represents and is committed to act in the bestinterests of the Corporation. The Board is co/chaired by one Anishinaabe First Nation representative and
one Provincial Government representative selected by the Board of Directors. Elders, Advisors (including
Parks Canada staff) and ex-officio parties are invited to participate at meetings of the Board as business
requires. The Board structures allows all parties to have equal say. We were advised by Parks Canada to use
the following criteria:●●

Criterion (ix) Pimachiowin Aki is an outstanding example of a large, healthy multi level and resilIent boreal
shield ecosystem encompassing a vast boreal forest, biodiversity, free flowing fresh water rivers, myriad
lakes and wetlands. Pimachiowin Aki fully represents the significance of the ecological and biologicalprocesses in the evolution of the boreal forest shield ecosystem. Its size and ecosystem diversity fully
supports wildfire, an essential ecological process in the boreal forest. The rivers, lakes and tributaries
provide ecological connectivity across the wide landscape of Pimachiowin Aki. Extensive wetlands andpeat bogs store carbon and contribute significantly to biodiversity. Poplar River Traditional Territory
stores over 500 million tons of carbon. Healthy predator-prey relationships are sustained among iconic
boreal species such as wolf, moose, and woodland caribou.

●●

Criterion (v) Pimachiowin Aki is an outstanding example of Indigenous traditional land use continuously
adapted and evolved for more than 6,000 years to meet the social, cultural, and livelihood needsof the Anishinaabeg in our harsh subarctic boreal shield environment. Anishinaabe oral traditions,traditional knowledge, customary governance and cosmology are integral to sustaining traditional land
use practices. Customary harvesting areas, travel routes, livelihood and ceremonial sites and ancient
pictographs provide testimony to holistic connectedness with our surroundings. Pimachiowin Aki fully
encompasses the tangible and intangible elements of the living Anishinaabe cultural landscape that isresilient but vulnerable to irreversible change.

We considered the area to qualify as a World Heritage living cultural landscape.
There were many language issues and concepts that were very difficult to translate into our language. For
example, when I met with the Elders to ask them what were the outstanding Universal Values of theirlife on the land. They reminded me of our belief, that the land and everything on it was given to us by thecreator, therefore everything that was created by the creator is sacred, and therefore has its value and hasa unique purpose in life. We have had a difficult time trying to think how we could separate ourselves fromthe land, in order to try to fit into these criteria. It took us 10 years to complete the nomination following the
Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention.
Each of our First Nations have developed our own lands management plans, as well the Provinces
have developed plans for each of the Provincial Parks. The provinces will manage these parks in conjunction
with the First Nations. This structure ensures that our First Nations will lead this process.
The research and studies that have been completed throughout this project have helped myself andothers in our communities to relearn and embrace the rich history of the Anishinaabe people of this region.
Ancient stories that are alive to us and continue to guide the people of this land. We have reconnectedwith the spirits of our land through ceremonies, dances and songs which have been passed down fromgeneration to generation.
Our first nomination package was completed and delivered to the World Heritage Committee in2012. We hosted a visit of the IUCN and ICOMOS evaluators to our territories and homes. They spent threedays in our lands and were welcomed in our ceremonies, and treated with respect, kindness and honesty.
Our Elders and community members expressed our hopes and dreams for a World Heritage designation.
Some of their questions were confusing to us and difficult to answer. As they flew across our Territories one
11

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

of the evaluators expressed surprise and asked us, where is the evidence of your existence on this land. All
he could see was pristine wilderness and no developments. He didn’t understand how the concept thatthousands of people have lived and travelled on this land for thousands of years only leaving minimal traces
was a positive thing. We couldn’t comprehend his question.
We were surprised and disappointed in early May 2013 when we received their recommendations on
our nomination. It was recommended that our nomination be deferred. We could understand if they needed
more information. We had no problems with that. What surprised us was the insulting tone of their report.
Not only was the report full of errors, there was a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of ourcultural identity. According to the ICOMOS report: “However in the supplementary information provided by
the State Party it was made clear the First Nation did not wish to see their property as “exceptional” as they
did not want to make judgements about the relationships of the other First Nations with their lands and thus
make comparisons. ICOMOS considers that this view sets up a difficult dilemma and that further discussions
are needed”.
We have always believed we have no right to say we are better than anyone else, especiallyother Indigenous groups. This statement is a clear example of an oppressive colonized term, which was
unacceptable. The major portion of this report emphasized our weakness and flaws which to them arerisks to the success of our nomination. The report states we are vulnerable to irreversible change andour interactions with our environment is fragile and vulnerable to a range of threats and that our goalsof recording and relearning our culture is wrong. They say the ability of the First Nation to sustain our
culture is threaten by socio-economic and health issues and by acculturation, which includes extremely
high unemployment and health problems. They told us our community plans have to address these issues.
This is only few of their negative comments. This information is not new to us, as First Nation we are quite
aware of the problems we face on daily basis. We felt that a successful World Heritage designation would
enhance the work that is already being done in these communities to address many of these issues. We feltthat ICOMOS recommendations were saying that we are not capable of sustaining our plans of protecting
and preserving the land of our people. We expected mutual respect from the evaluator’s report instead it
only perpetrated racism and we didn’t want to accept it. We felt the report had not respected our Aboriginalrights and that our nomination was a gift to the world and should be recognized.
We received tremendous support from other Indigenous people from around the world at thegathering of the World Indigenous Network Conference in Australia in May 2013. From that gathering wecirculated a petition in support of our project which was signed by the Indigenous people. The petition was
sent to the World Heritage Committee who were meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. There was great
support for the Pimachiowin Aki bid from Indigenous peoples from around the world, and the UNESCO
delegates in Cambodia recognized that the process for selecting sites was flawed. They promised to fix theprocess and revisit the Pimachiowin Aki nomination. In the end the committee upheld the decision of theiradvisors and our project was deferred.
This was a difficult time for our communities. We did not understand the reasoning behind
their decision and we were ready to give up at one point. We held meetings to discuss the future of ournomination. We did not want to subject our communities and Elders to any more negative reports andevaluations. Elders in their wisdom and determination persuaded us to move forward and to continue thisprocess. They are very resilient.
We were grateful for the support we did receive from IUCN and the World Heritage Committee atthat time. They suggested that Canada invite a joint ICOMOS and IUCN Advisory Mission in order to address
the issues raised during the evaluation. The Committee also requested the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,
in conjunction with the Advisory Bodies, to examine options for changes to the criteria and to the Advisory
Body evaluation process. They wanted to address the many outstanding concerns resulting from ourevaluation process. They also requested that these issues be discussed during the Committee’s 38th session
in 2014.
The Advisory Mission to Pimachiowin Aki was held in October 2013. They called it an upstream
process. The name was appropriate to our communities because we actually had to travel upstream to
12

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

attend the meeting. Our Board of directors, advisors and elders met with representatives from ICOMOS/
IUCN. We worked together for five full days to develop the direction our new nomination would take. It wasa meaningful uplifting process and very successful. The mission report was completed in November 2013.
A new Pimachiowin Aki nomination was completed between November 2013 and December 2014
and submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in January 2015. Compared with the 2012 nomination,
the 2014 nomination document better described and illustrated Anishinaabe relationship with the land- Aki.
The Anishinaabe cultural tradition of ji-ganawendamang Kitakiiminan (Keeping the Land) was the central
theme of the new nomination.
The nomination included justification for inscription on the basis of two World Heritage cultural
criteria (iii) and (iv), and retained the concept of a “mixed” cultural and natural World Heritage Site. The
use of an additional cultural criterion in this nomination gives added emphasis to Pimachiowin Aki’s status
as an Indigenous cultural landscape. The nomination also included more maps showing cultural attributes
such as cabins and campsites, travel routes, traplines and place names. We insisted on a more meaningful
involvement by our Elders, recording their stories and extensive knowledge. Their voices became an integral
part of the new nomination.
I was fortunate to have attended, as part of a Pimachiowin delegation the 39th Session of the World
Heritage Committee in Bonn Germany in July 2015. ICOMOS and IUCN reported on various ways to improvethe evaluation of mixed World Heritage nominations. The World Heritage Committee approved changes
to its Operational Guidelines that recognize the international rights of Indigenous peoples, whose culturalcontributions and connections to the natural world are central to many UNESCO nominations. Indigenous
people are now recognized as a distinct group with distinct rights, and the free, prior, and informed consent
of the affected Indigenous peoples must be obtained during World Heritage nomination processes.
The second field mission to evaluate our new nomination took place August 23-31, 2015. The mission
included visits with our Elders and community people, other experts and government representativessite visits and participation in talking circles, pipe ceremonies and a sweat lodge-aerial inspection of thenominated area.
This evaluation was completely different than the first visit. The evaluators were well preparedand fully engaged in this process. They had actually read the nomination and spent twice as long with ourpeople. They managed to visit each of our communities. The mission went very well. During the last dayof the visit which took place in Winnipeg with representatives from all communities and governments
including the Premier of Manitoba, we were asked that if our nomination was successful, what steps were inplace to ensure that we would continue into the future. Each of our First Nation representatives responded
by saying: Pimachiowin Aki is our home, we will care for it, so that our children and grandchildren will havea healthy environment in the future. The evaluators recommended that our nomination become a World
Heritage Site. A few months before the next World Heritage Committee meeting one of our partners
Pikangikum First Nation from Ontario decided to pull out of our nomination. We spoke to them and went
to meet with the community in Pikangikum to try to persuade them to stay with us. We are not exactly sure
why they decided to withdraw, and in the end out of respect for them we accepted their decision.
We had no choice but to request for another deferral which was granted. We redid our nomination
again taking out Pikangikum Territory and all references to them. We completed the changes andsubmitted the new nomination. The evaluators again recommended our submission. In July of 2018 at theWorld Heritage Committee meeting in the Kingdom Bahrain, Pimachiowin Aki was inscribed as a World
Heritage site. It was a wonderful moment for especially after so many years. Each of our Communities heldcelebrations.
We are busy now implementing our lands plans and providing education and awareness for our
young people so this area will provide a strong healthy environment into the future.

Thank You.
13

14

CBWNCL 2019
Participants Case Studies

15

16

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

EXPLORING NATURE-CULTURE
LINKAGES IN THE APATANIVALLEY, ARUNACHAL PRADESH,
INDIA
Bina Gandhi Deori

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ancient Indian History Culture & Archaeology, Visva-Bharati University,
Santiniketan-731235, West Bengal, India; binadeori@gmail.com■■Abstract

The Apatani Valley or Ziro Valley in Arunachal Pradesh, located in the foothills of the Eastern Himalayas, isknown for its unique topography and Indigenous traditional cultural practices. The region is endowed with arich diversity of fauna and flora. The Valley is home to several species of plants used for traditional medicine
and rare species of animals native to the Himalayas. Over centuries, tribes residing in the Valley, mostly
the Apatanis, developed ingenious methods to meet their daily needs in response to the environmental
conditions in which they live. These methods can be seen in different spheres of their life and have defined
their relationship with nature through time. Apatani Valley was included on the Tentative List of India for
World Heritage as a cultural landscape in 2014. In this paper, the unique culture of the people and thenature-culture linkages as observed in the Apatani Valley are explored, as well as the natural significance of
the Valley in order to consider its potential as a Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage property.

KEY WORDS: nature-culture linkages, heritage, mixed sites, Apatani■■1. Introduction

these unique values, the Apatani Valley was included
on the Tentative List of India to World Heritage as acultural landscape in 2014. This paper explores theunique culture of the people and the nature-culture
linkages, as observed in the Apatani Valley, basedon interviews undertaken by the author with locals
in Apatani Valley during fieldwork conducted in theyears 2016-18. Furthermore, the natural significanceof the Valley is explored in order to consider its

The Apatani Valley or Ziro Valley, located 130 km
away from Itanagar, the state capital of Arunachal
Pradesh in India, is situated in the Lower Subansiri
District in one of the most rugged and inaccessible
topographies of the Himalayan ranges [Fig. 1]. It lies
within the Himalayan global biodiversity hotspot
and is home to a significant number of endemic andrare plant and animal species. A variety of medicinal
plants are native to the Valley, like Angiopteris evecta(G. Forst.) Hoffm., Anisomeles indica (L.) O.K., andColocasia affinis Schott. Recently, two new orchid
species-Thrixspermum japonicum and Gastrochilus
platycalcaratus - have been discovered as the firstrecord in India, making it a vital biodiversity zone in
the country. The Valley is inhabited mostly by the
Apatani tribe, a clan-based society, recognized for
its unique traditional innovations and practices infarming and natural resource management. Due to

Figure 1: Ziro Valley, India (Source: Author 2017)17

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

potential as a Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
property.

of Apatani history that are mostly based on oral
traditions.

■■2. Significance

Likewise, particular forests are consideredsacred groves because their ancestors planted
trees in these forests. In Donyi(Danyi)-Polo(Pwlo)
ism , every element of nature, like mountains,forests, trees, rivers, and streams, are under theguardianship of a particular spirit. Therefore,
the Apatanis believe that spirits that dwell, forexample, in the trees, if disturbed, can cause
harm. Since their ancestors planted the trees, they
consider it their duty to protect the forest from any
destruction. These places are believed to be theabode of environmental deities Su-Myoro or Myorü(Radhe 2018). Thus, people refrain from causing
any disturbance in the forest. This deep symbiotic
relationship is reflected in their traditional culturalexpressions.

As part of the Eastern Himalayas, the Apatani Valley
enjoys a wide range of diverse flora and fauna due
to climatic and altitudinal variations. It has subtropical and temperate forests. The Valley is mostly
covered in bamboo and pine forests of various
species. The forests are rich in different varietiesof species of plants with medicinal properties.
According to a study conducted by C. P. Kala in 2005,
a total of 158 medicinal plant species have been
documented so far for curing various diseases andailments. Many plant species traditionally used by
the native people in their daily consumption are also
found to have medicinal values (Yakang and Gujarel2015). The Valley is home to different species ofwildlife commonly found in the Himalayan region,such as the Clouded Leopard, Capped Langur,
Malayan Giant Squirrel, Barking Deer, Indian Gaur,and the Common Palm Civet.

The Apatanis have a rich traditional knowledge system. They have developed an advanced
Indigenous farming system, ingenious land use pattern, rich cultural expressions (like music, religious
performances, performing arts, textile, traditional
ornaments, tattoo, etc.), and an efficient natural
resources management system. For instance, theApatani practice of wet cultivation is a highly complex Indigenous farming system. Their farming is
an integrated system of paddy cum fish cultivation.
Fish are grown in the same plots where paddy areplanted. Rice-fish farming is widely popular in other
Southeast Asian countries. However, it is practiced
only by the Apatani tribe in Arunachal Pradesh,
while the rest of the tribes grow just paddy in wet
cultivation or practice slash and burn. Millet isgrown on the raised bunds that separate each plot.
It is an essential ingredient in the preparation of Apatani beverage called O, an essential drink in all theirfeasts, festivals, and religious ceremonies. From thesame piece of land, the Apatani farmers grow rice,
fish, and millet showing a method of optimum useof land.

Because of the easy availability and accessibility to the forest resources in their vicinity, locals
are highly dependent on these resources for theirlivelihood and sustenance. With centuries of living
in close affinity in this environmental setting, theApatani people have developed a way of life that
relates closely to natural resources management.
Therefore, conservation is part and parcel of theirculture. The Apatani’s belief system (known as Donyi(Danyi)-Polo(Pwlo)ism) is based on the venerationof nature and its elements, a way of life that is inharmony with the universe. For the Apatani culture,
it is essential to be in synchrony with the environment that sustains them. It is the only possible way
to sustain a healthy ecosystem known to them.
There are natural features spread across theValley and beyond, which are sacred natural sites
documented in their folklore. These are mountains
or hills where it is believed that Apatani ancestors
settled for some time during their journey while
migrating, rivers that they followed in their paths,
or a hillock where they settled. The Apatanis callthese stopping places supung [or lemba]: the routeleads from Wi Supung to Nyime (“Tibet”) Supung,to Hising Supung (the source of the Tsangpo River),to Shango Supung, along the bank of the river, toMiido Supung, still in the Tsangpo Valley (Blackburn
2003/2004).

The Apatanis have also developed a highly
complex irrigation system for the agricultural
fields [Fig. 2]. Water from the nearby stream ischannelized and brought into the agricultural plot
through a canal or bamboo. For irrigation purposes,
a cut is made through the band on each plot, or aduct made of bamboo is inserted through the band,so that excess water from one plot is drained to thenext seamlessly. This ensures the equal distributionof water throughout the field and checks overflooding in the plot. In the meantime, the fish fromthe plot are also harvested. After harvesting the

The study of these Apatanis’ sites is apotential field of research that can fill in the gaps
18

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Wet Cultivation, Ziro Valley, India (Source: Author 2017)

buxifolia Nutt. ex Hook. f., and the Agapetes
incurvata (Griff.) Sleumer, which are endemic to
Arunachal Pradesh. There is also a demand to
declare the TWS as a Butterfly Sanctuary because
three of the world’s rarest butterflies, the Bhutan
Glory, the Kaiser-e-Hind, and Brown Gorgon, arefound there.

crops, the paddy stalks are burned or allowed torot in the field, which turns into manure after a few
months, adding to the fertility of the soil. This isan example of a sustainable farming system as it iswholly organic and environmentally friendly.
Highlighting the above-mentioned significant core values, the Apatani Valley was identified
as a cultural landscape and included on India’s Tentative List for World Heritage in 2014 under criterion(iii): unique cultural tradition; and criterion (v): outstanding example of a traditional human settlement
and land use. Nominating the Apatani Valley as a
World Heritage cultural landscape would illustrate
an ideal example of a unique cultural tradition thatemerges from nature-culture linkages.

Added to the potential to fulfill natural
criterion (vii), other significant natural values of theValley are yet in need of further exploration, suchas the Valley being a potential site for criteria (x) inorder to evaluate the potential of the Valley as aMixed Cultural and Natural Heritage site.
■■3. Management

The Ziro Valley is also known for its
mesmerizing natural scenic beauty, with its extensive
pine tree forests, rumbling rivers, and lofty hills.
Since time immemorial, the beautiful landscape has
been inspiring the local people as it is reflected intheir rich folk tradition. The natural beauty of theValley has great cultural and spiritual significance inthe life of the people.

The Department of Environment and Forests,
Government of Arunachal Pradesh, a statesponsored agency responsible for conserving
the environment, identifying, establishing, andconserving protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh is
the main body that looks after the management offorest resources. Conservation and management offorests and their biodiversity and conservation anddevelopment of wildlife are a few of their primarygoals.

Taking into consideration the rich floraand fauna of the region, the Talle Valley Wildlife
Sanctuary, 30 km from Ziro, was established in
1995. The Talle Wildlife Sanctuary is under IUCNManagement Category IV. It is a popular wildlife
sanctuary as well as a biodiversity hotspot in
Arunachal Pradesh. Including the Talle Wildlife
Sanctuary (TWS) as a part of the nomination canbe an asset as it is categorized under the Important
Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) category andis also an Endemic Bird Area (EBA). TWS is also
home to certain species of plants, such as theAgapetes atrosanguinea Airy Shaw, Agapetes

The Apatanis also have their Indigenous
resource management system that is centuries old.
It is deeply rooted in their religious and spiritualbeliefs. Sacred groves are maintained for centuries,
and any kind of cutting and extraction of plants andtheir parts is restricted. Sacred groves locally known
as ‘ranthii ’ are associated with the corresponding
village or villages. Six sacred groves have been
identified as part of a major research projectsponsored by UNESCO, New Delhi (Dutta et al.
2017).
19

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Bulyañ (traditional village council), with
its limited role, still regulates and manages forest
resources. The bulyañ consists of the experienced
elder members of the clan who supervise mattersrelated to community forest resources because
traditionally, the forests were clan-controlled.
Anybody not abiding by the laws and destroying
the sacred groves are accordingly punished by
the bulyañ . As a result of strict community forest
protection, the Apatanis maintain bamboo groves tomeet their daily needs [Fig. 3]. This also helps in theprotection and conservation of Indigenous speciesof plants.

Bamboo (Phyllostachys bambusoides), Cane(Calamus acanthospathus), part of trees (Castanopsis
hystrix , Castanopsis indica ), are regularly used inmost of the rituals. Therefore, these species ofplants are also cultivated in home gardens to makethem more accessible.
Plantation of species of Bamboo, Michelia ,Pine , Castanopsis , Prunus , etc., and caring andconserving species of Calamus , Sachharum ,Mahonia , etc. in forests have been given highpriority because of their ritual and cultural value (fordetails see Yakang and Gujarel 2015). Practices likethe restriction of felling of trees of certain species,
abstinence from venturing into the forest after the
performance of certain rituals, maintaining sacredgroves, and the use of different parts of plants
in rituals are essential parts of the Apatani belief
system. They can be seen as a means to conserve
forests and natural resources.
Regarding agriculture, governmentorganizations, like the Department of Agriculture,
the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),
and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), conduct agriculturerelated research and provide all necessary aids tothe farmers. The local farming communities havetheir agriculture management system, like thetraditional practice of collecting and conserving
their seed banks, that help to maintain farmers’
traditional knowledge and their local varieties.

Figure 3: Bamboo Groves, Ziro Valley, India (Source:
Author 2017)

Through traditional festivals and ritual
performances, the Apatanis also conserve forest
resources. During Dree , Myoko, Murung , andother minor festivals, plants of certain species areused to prepare ritual altars and other religious
paraphernalia [Fig. 4].

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
Rapid urbanization has brought unprecedentedchanges to the Apatani Valley. Unplanned
construction of concrete buildings has rapidlychanged the face of the Valley. Agriculture-based
economy is gradually giving way to a marketoriented economy in which every product from theforest comes with a price-tag and is exploited to
extract more profit.
Presently, the Talle Wildlife Sanctuary
is the only Protected Area in the whole district.
More such potential areas need to be identified by
the Department of Environment and Forests forthe protection and conservation of wildlife. TWS
is home to certain species of plants enlisted as
Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, such as Agapetes
atrosanguinea Airy Shaw, Agapetes buxifolia Nutt.
ex Hook. f, and Agapetes incurvata (Griff.) Sleumer.

Figure 4: Ritual Image, Ziro Valley, India (Source: Author
2017)With traditional agriculture being morelabor-intensive, village youths are venturing out of20

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

species of amphibians, orchids, butterflies, andthe most endangered species, such as a clouded
leopard.

the Valley in order to seek better education andjob opportunities. This urban migration of youths
over the years is one of the leading causes of lossof traditional knowledge and traditional culturalexpressions. As the youths spend much of their timeoutside their village and community, they do not getenough time to learn and train in the Indigenous
knowledge system from the elderly members of thefamily or clan. Traditional knowledge is learned ortrained informally on the spot while participating in
the process. With the passing of the old generation,
the community is gradually losing its valuable
wealth of Indigenous knowledge.

Tourism in the Valley is another sector
that needs urgent attention. Various schemes
have been implemented to promote tourism as ameans to boost the local communities’ income andemployment generation. The Ziro Music Festival,
an annual musical event, is an initiative by the
local youths and artists from the Northeast regionof India that brings several tourists to the Valley.
Through this event, tourists also get a glance at
the Apatani’s life when they visit the villages andexperience culture firsthand. Due to its remotelocation, tourism is being promoted to bring moretourists to the region. Due to the lack of moreavailable options, it is seen as an important sector of
economic development.

With the introduction of Western education,certain traditional institutions that are basedon age-old cultural ethos of the community are
gradually being neglected. With the spread ofChristianity among the Apatanis, the traditional
system based on their Indigenous values is also
weakening. Therefore, it is a challenge to upholdthe traditional value system of one’s ancestors whileembracing a different belief system.

■■5. Recommendations
There is an urgent need for collective efforts,
including the concerned government departments(including agriculture, horticulture and environment
and forests), non-governmental organizations
operating in the region and the community
members for the conservation of natural resources
and continuation of traditional practices that
upholds the Apatani Valley heritage values. A
common platform is needed where informationis shared freely and openly, and important issues
regarding the implication of a heritage designationneed to be discussed with the active participationand involvement of the local public. Activities
regarding nature conservation need to be briefed
and discussed regularly in their meetings. The
Bulyañ should continue its work, hand in hand withgovernment departments for the management of
natural resources.

In general, there is a feeling of apprehension
among the locals. This is mainly due to theinaccessibility of information regarding theimplications of the heritage status of the Valley.
Issues like ownership of the land in the demarcatedarea, financial compensation if there is any need
to be discussed with the stakeholders. These canbe addressed and communicated through thelocal village council and non-government agencies
operating in the region.
The preparation of the nomination dossierby the Directorate of Research, Government of
Arunachal Pradesh, is still being processed. There
are specific impending technical issues about the
mapping of the area and the definition of boundariesof the nominated property. The identification of theforest area and the definition of the componentsof the property in the main town are still underdiscussion in relation to urban planning and thepotential restrictions and regulations stemmingfrom a potential heritage designation. In the earlier
dossier, the cultural aspect overshadowed the naturalvalues of the site, likely because the nomination of
the Apatani Valley was done as a cultural landscapeunder the cultural category. As mentioned above,
TWS potentially fulfills the natural criteria (x) as it ishome to rare plant species that are endemic to theregion. Pleioblastus simone , a bamboo variety, isfound only in the Talle Valley. Recently, an extremelyrare species of plant, Petrosavia sakuraii , was locatedhere. TWS is also home to different kinds of rare

The Directorate of Research, Arunachal
Pradesh, is already updating the nomination dossier
including all necessary information as directedby the agency at the national level. However, thepossibility of drafting a nomination under Mixed
Cultural and Natural heritage should be further
reflected upon.
Regarding youth and local communities,
more horticulture schemes should be implemented
in the region, like the introduced Kiwi plantation, sothat the farmers do not have to leave the Valley tolook for other alternatives.
Programs focusing on the importance of21

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

natural sites and its association with the Apatani
heritage and different aspects of the Apatani culture
should be organized in educational institutions
to create awareness among the Apatani youth.
Cultural events, including storytelling and painting
based on folklore, could be introduced as part of
the academic curriculum, both by the private andpublic schools. Following the same course, higher
educational institutions should also organize
workshops targeting academics for discourse on
the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Apatani
Valley and its interlinkages.
The Directorate of Research, as they are
the office directly connected to the nomination,
should conduct workshops for the public to impart
information on UNESCO, World Heritage, and its
implication for the Apatani Valley. This will be auseful exercise for the people to clarify their doubts,
if they have any, and have an informed opinion as
their say is of prime importance regarding the Valley
getting a heritage designation. The Department ofTourism should promote eco-tourism as the region
has the potential for sustainable development
for the socio-economic empowerment of thelocal community and the conservation of natural
resources.
T he Apatani Valley is an ex tremely
important site with significant natural and culturalvalues. These values are revered by the locals andhave shaped their outlook. The unique natureculture linkages, as found in the Valley as a resultof continuous interaction with each other, havecreated a unique community that nourishes andnurtures. Appreciation of traditional knowledge,
be it traditional medicine or Indigenous methodsof farming, is growing. Therefore, the Apatani
Valley, with its unique cultural traditions, needs tobe globally recognized as an outstanding culturallandscape, while its natural values continue to be
explored.

22

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature citedBlackburn, S. 2004. Memories of Migration: Notes on legends and beads in Arunachal Pradesh, India.
European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 25/26: pp. 15-60
Deori, B. G. 2018. Study of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Apatanai Tribe, Arunachal Pradesh. Projectsubmitted to ICH (Division) INTACH, New Delhi
Dutta, J., Muang, O., Balasubramanian, D. Pangging G. and Arunachalam, A. 2017. Sacred Groves of Ziro
Valley Dominated by Apatani Tribes in Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Hill Farming 30(1): pp. 132-138
Farooqy, P. 2017. Symbiosis between Nature and Culture: A case study of the Apatani Cultural Landscape,India. Journal of World Heritage Studies, Special Issue 2017: pp. 51-55
Lee, E., Domashov, I. and Manral, U. 2018. The Role of Indigenous and Customary Knowledges in NatureCulture Linkage. Journal of World Heritage Studies, Special Issue 2018: pp. 144-151
Kala, C. P. 2005. Ethnomedicinal botany of the Apatani in the Eastern Himalayan region of India. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1 (11): pp. 1-8
Ngilyang, T. 2017. Wildlife in the Traditional Lifestyle of the Apatani Community of Ziro Valley, Arunachal
Pradesh. Bulletin of Arunachal Forest Research 32 (1&2): pp. 53-61
Panda, S. and Sanjappa, M. 2012. Checklist of Ericaceae of Talle Wildlife Sanctuary in Lower Subansiri Districtof Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(1): pp. 2322-2327
Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
2016. Khangchendzonga National Park (KNP) and Climate Change. Sikkim Inscribed as India’s First ‘Mixed’
Site on UNESCO World Heritage List. 16th July 2016. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=147212[Accessed on 02 April 2019]
Radhe, Y. 2018. Su-Myoro or Myorü Sü: Environmental Deities. Popiriscope Select Edition Vol. I: pp. 122-129
Sikdar, M. 2014. Traditional Practices in Agriculture among the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh. The Tribal
Tribune 6(3): pp. 1-5
Sikdar, M. 2014. Traditional Practices in Agriculture among the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh. The Tribal
Tribune 6(3): pp. 1-5
Takhe, K. 1993. The Advancing Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh. Hapoli: Takhe Omang
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014. Apatani Cutural Landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/en/
tentativelists/5893/ [Accessed on 12 March 2019]
Yakang, B. and Gujarel, P. R. 2015. Traditional use and conservation of some selected plants used in festivals
and rituals in Apatani plateau of Arunachal Pradesh, India. International Journal of Conservation Science 6(2):pp. 189-200

23

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Nature-Culture Interaction
at the Rice Terraces of Ifugao
Province, Philippines
Eulalie D. Dulnuan

Ifugao State University, Lamut, Ifugao, 3605, Philippines; +63 (0)9354980030, +63 (0)9668959764,
eulalied@gmail.com■■Abstract

The Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) in the Philippine Cordilleras are the epitome of nature and culture interactions
in a heritage site. They showcase how the Indigenous peoples of Ifugao harmoniously co-exist with nature.
As a World Heritage Site and a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS), the IRT are a living
cultural landscape and an agro-biodiversity haven. Management of these cultural and natural treasures
should be done in tandem to optimize efforts and resources. The changes being experienced at the IRT andthe corresponding responses should all be documented in an Ifugao Rice Terraces Assessment, which will
help in scenario planning for the sustainable conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces.

KEY WORDS: Ifugao Rice Terraces, Nature-Culture Linkages, UNESCO World Heritage Site, GIAHS, Ifugao
Rice Terraces Assessment■■1. Introduction

and the central part of the Cordillera Administrative
Region [Fig. 1]. It has 11 municipalities spread overa land area of 251,778 hectares, 23% of which isforested land. Nine of these municipalities haverice terrace clusters (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 2008). Most of thesemunicipalities are in the uplands, with 81% of theland area having slopes of over 18 degrees (SITMO
2008). The elevation is high, and the identified
highest point in the Philippine highway system is in
Tinoc, Ifugao, measuring 2,428.66 meters above thesea level.

The Philippines has three main islands: Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao and is divided into 14
regions. The Province of Ifugao is in Northern Luzon,

The histor y of Ifugao was succinctly
described by Hanyuan Jiang (2016) as follows:“Unlike the lowland areas, Ifugao was notconquered by the Spanish regime in the
16th century and was only accessed byoutsiders after the American occupationof the Philippines in 1898. Over this longindependent time, the Ifugaos cultivatedtheir Indigenous culture, which makes
them unique and proud today.”Figure 1: Location of Ifugao, Philippines(Source: Camacho et al. 2016)24

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

The Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) values the rich biodiversityof the IRT, designating it as a Globally Important
Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS). It valued
the socio-ecological production landscapes for its
ecosystem services. In identifying the landscape,
GIAHS is not limited to just the rice terraces. The
landscape includes the forests in the mountaintops, as well as the village and the community. The
Ifugao Rice Terraces are seen as an agroecosystemcomposed of five major components, namely:
woodlot (muyung ) and communal forest (ala ),swidden farms (habal ), rice terraces (payo ),settlement areas (boble ), and water bodies andirrigation systems (liting). Each of these components
are harmoniously interrelated but may perform
unilateral functions within the landscape (DENR
2008).

Indeed, Ifugao’s distinction is in its people’s
culture exhibited through its Indigenous knowledge,
systems, and practices. They observe customarylaws that lay the foundation for justice, unity,and peace within their tribes (Camacho, Gevaña,
Carandang, and Camacho 2016). As one of theethnic-cultural communities in the Cordillera region,
the Ifugaos are rice terrace owners. Ownershipof rice terraces is through families and clans withan area ranging from a few square meters to 5
hectares. Through time, the Ifugaos evolved uniqueways and strategies for the dynamic conservation
and adaptive management of the Rice Terraces,
which are still functional at present (DENR 2008).
■■2. Significance of the heritage place including
natural and cultural values

2.1 SignificanceThe stakeholders with the most significant
interests are the ones at the grass-root level – thefarmers who till the land. How do they value theland? While they might not share the tourists’aesthetic appreciation of the landscape, they look
into the productivity of the IRT, for its intrinsic valueof providing food, water, and shelter.

The Province of Ifugao is valued, among otherthings, for its rice terraces, famous for its beauty
and marvelous landscape. The United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) designated five rice terrace clusters(located in four municipalities) as World Heritage
Sites, describing the areas as living culturallandscapes of unparalleled beauty [Fig. 2]. The IRT
demonstrated outstanding Universal Value, with
the World Heritage Committee declaring the IRT asa priceless contribution of Philippine ancestors tohumanity.

For the Indigenous peoples of Ifugao, theIRT symbolizes their affinity to the land. Despite nothaving any formal organization in the olden days,
the Ifugao passed on this unique socio-ecologicalsystem from one generation to the other througha system of family inheritance and customary laws

Figure 2: Part of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Municipality of Mayoyao, Ifugao, Philippines(Photo credits: Harley Palangchao)25

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

or agricultural landscape or biophysical and widersocial environment” (DENR 2008).

(DENR 2008). The passage of Republic Act No. 8371,
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Act (IPRA Law) of 1997, was a significant milestone
in the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights
over their lands. However, currently, most Ifugaos
still do not own land titles since most of their lands
are more than 18 degrees. This inability to own theirland is in relation to Presidential Decree No. 705(Revised Forestry Code). The decree states that noland of the public domain eighteen percent in slope
or over shall be classified as alienable and disposable
nor any forest land fifty percent in slope or over as
grazing land. Since the vast majority of Indigenous
peoples inhabit hilly lands which are more thaneighteen percent in slope, they are consideredsquatters on their own land (DENR 2008)

Overall, these designations are cognizantof the cultural and natural richness of the IRT. As aliving cultural landscape, the rice terraces are theepitome of the nature-culture interaction. It is an“enduring testimony to how the Ifugao people can
exploit the resources around them without causing
irreparable damage to the environment” (Martin2017). The respect of the Indigenous communities
to their land is evident in how they personify thelandscape, performing rituals, and rites before
activities are done. For instance, the “hongan dipage ” or agricultural cycle ritual is a series of rituals
done before any of the rice culture tasks are done,
to appease the gods. The Rice-Giver gods from the
Skyworld, the Rice-Giver god from the Underworld,
the deities, and the fairies are pacified through thesacrifice of chickens and/or pigs in specific rituals.
During land preparation, a ritual is performed toplacate gods who might be disturbed. Before astone wall is constructed, rituals are completed toprotect the workers from accidents. After the stone
walls are in place, rituals are done in thanksgiving
and to request the permanence of the structure.
Before seedbeds are prepared, this is announced
to the gods. A ritual is also performed to ensurethat the seedlings will sprout and grow. Thus, it
continues until harvest, and even before storing
the harvested grains. Camacho et al. (2016) said
that Ifugaos believe that many endemic trees, suchas Ficus spp . are associated with spirits (anito ), sothey conserved them. Through these Indigenous
practices of personifying nature, one could see theintimate relationship of nature and culture in therice terrace landscape. While the IRT falls under thecultural heritage category of the World Heritage
List, the socio-cultural aspect is founded on nature.
Namely, the communal system of rice production
depends on the use of water from the forest
mountain. Moreover, rice production activities
follow the seasons of the year. Farmers time theiractivities with the lunar calendar, deciding on theauspicious time to plant, to weed, or to harvest.
Ifugao farmers look into natural indicators to moveto the next agricultural activity. For example, theflowering of the hablang plant is the signal of the
beginning of summer, and thus, the water in theterraces will become scarce.

For domestic tourists, the rice terraces
constitute their identity and a badge of pride. They
represent the Filipino society that also claims theIfugao heritage as a Filipino legacy.

2.2 Designations
Two Presidential Decrees (260:1973 and 1505:1978)
have declared the IRT as National Cultural Treasures,
having a high value from the viewpoint of culture
and therefore are considered irreplaceable treasuresof the country. Moreover, the terraces are protectedby Republic Act No 10066 of 2009 (National Cultural
Heritage Law), providing for the protection andconservation of National Cultural Heritage.
In December 1995, these rice terraces were
inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List during
the 19th session of the World Heritage Committee
held in Berlin, Germany. The justification for
its inscription is that the Rice Terraces are an
outstanding example of living cultural landscapes,
and represent and illustrate the traditional
techniques and remarkable harmony between
humankind and the natural environment (UNESCOn.d.).
Later in 1997, the American Society of Civil
Engineers unveiled their marker at a vantage point
overlooking the town of Banaue, in recognitionof the Ifugao terraces as an “engineering marvel”(Gonzalez 2000).
In 2004, the FAO inscribed the IRT as GIAHS,
recognizing its “remarkable land-use systems andlandscapes rich in globally significant biologicaldiversity…” (DENR 2008). FAO defines a GIAHS as “aliving, evolving system of human communities in
an intricate relationship with their territory, cultural

Water from the mountains, through theuse of bamboo and other such flumes, are skillfully
channeled to the catchment basin which are therice terraces. Ifugao farmers know the relationshipbetween forest and rice field cultivation; thus, they26

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728(SITMO), a non-governmental organization. SITMO’svision is to be an organization with competent,
committed workers and core volunteers toadvance the campaign for the protection andrehabilitation of the rice terraces of the provinceof Ifugao, including the non-designated heritage
municipalities. The organization implemented
small scale pilot projects that were relevant intheir advocacy for the IRT conservation, from
community-based tourism to weaving, rice terraces
stonewall restoration to community archaeology.

ensure intensive Indigenous practices on watershed
protection.
As explained above, and as the World Heritage
Committee has recognized it, the Ifugao is acommunity producing a landscape based on thesustainable use of natural resources for generations,such that one (culture) is nothing without the other(nature).
■■3. Management

3.1 Who helps out?

Then there is the Ifugao State University(IFSU), the only higher education institution in
Ifugao province. Since 2014, IFSU did its level best
to involve itself in the management of the IRT. It
established the GIAHS Research and Development
Center, which focuses its research direction on theconservation of the IRT. Through collaboration with
the Kanazawa University, and with assistance fromthe Japanese International Cooperation Agency(JICA), IFSU strengthened its IRT research program.
Training several community members on researchmethods, the GIAHS Research and Development
Center enabled non-academicians to study the
problems in their rice fields, in the community,
and in their work areas. Through research, they
get a better understanding of how to handle thechallenges they encounter in the rice fields or in
their community. In 2018, IFSU partnered with
the National Chengchi University of Taiwan, andestablished an International Innovation Center on
Indigenous Studies. This Center conducts a seriesof training workshops that promote Indigenous
knowledge, systems, and practices, especiallythrough the Indigenous Peoples’ Education. This
is in recognition of the fact that loss of Indigenous
knowledge will lead to the detriment of the IRT.

The management of the IRT can be seen at different
levels. International organizations, such as UNESCO,
welds its influence to ensure the integrity andauthenticity of the IRT as a World Heritage Site.
Through its recommendations, Conservation
Master Plans were crafted, and its implementation
regularly monitored through the required Stateof Conservation Reports submitted annually by
the State Party. The master plan has bio-physicalinterventions as well as socio-cultural responses toensure a holistic conservation plan.
Given that the country is party to theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the IRT was
also designated as GIAHS. This designation provides
a systematic support for the dynamic conservation
and adaptive management of significant agricultural
biodiversity harbored in these sites, including
their associated culture and knowledge systems(DENR 2008). FAO provided technical and financial
support for the IRT’s conservation, which ranged
from Indigenous plant nurseries to ecotourism
development.
The State Party, through its many levels ofgovernment units, influences the IRT management
as it tries to address the myriad problems that aliving landscape faces, such as pests and diseases
attacking the rice plants to natural catastrophes.
Since its designation in 1995, an agency was createdto oversee the welfare of the IRT. It has changed
names from one national administration to another(from Ifugao Terraces Commission to Banaue Rice
Terraces Task Force and IRT Cultural and Heritage
Office) until finally, the Ifugao Cultural Heritage
Office (ICHO) was settled upon by the provincial
local government. The ICHO primarily administers
the implementation of the IRT Master Plan (20152024).

3.2 Concerted Efforts
The stakeholders of the IRT regularly collaborate on
the management of the site. When the UNESCOWorld Heritage Committee inscribed the IRT on
the List in Danger in 2001, the stakeholders had
to get their acts together to save the IRT. Throughconcerted efforts, the stakeholders managed toremove the IRT from the List in Danger in 2012.
The provincial local government has ensured
the continued utilization of the Rice Terraces
Conservation Fund (RTCF), which comes from therevenue of the 200 kw Ambangal Mini Hydroelectric
Plant in Kiangan, Ifugao. Proceeds from the fund arebeing used for the development of irrigation as wellas culture-related interventions.

Prominent in the conservation movement
in Ifugao is the Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement
27

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

The support that the property receives fromlocal, national, and international sources is very
encouraging. At the local level, the municipal local
governments have allocated funds for conservationrelated activities. National agencies, such as the
National Irrigation Authority, Department ofAgriculture, and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resource, have also allocated funds
for the conservation of the rice terraces. There
have been companies that have provided financial
resources for the rehabilitation of the rice terraces,such as Universal Harvester Inc., Carmeldre, Toshiba
Corporation, Mitsui & Co, Ltd. and Black Pencil. The
JICA continues to be a major supporter, with its
investment in the Forestland Management Project
and the Ifugao Satoyama Meister Training Program.
Other countries have also given financial support,such as Italy (Muyong Project), Taiwan (Center for
Taiwan-Philippines Indigenous Knowledge, Local
Knowledge, and Sustainable Studies), and The
Netherlands (Netherlands Funds –in Trust).

inventory and assessment of all components of the
IRT, especially on the ecosystem services from its
rich biodiversity. The project will use the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) framework fromthe United Nations with the attempt to collectivize
all conservation efforts among organizations toprovide agreeable and scientific information as thebasis for political (legislative) and societal (cognitive)
measures anent to the significance of the Ifugao
ecosystem services and resiliency for sustainable
development.
■■5. Recommendations
For sustainable management of the IRT, thefollowing are recommended:
1) Development of an adaptive co-management scheme for the conservation of therice terraces. UNESCO and FAO shouldcollaborate and coordinate more oftenwith each other for optimum managementof the IRT. Both organizations have mutualinterests in IRT conservation. However,they have separate strategies that probably
confuses the IRT stakeholders or grassroots who are implementing UNESCO andFAO recommendations at the ground level.
Joint and parallel actions by both organizations will unite the end-users, the Ifugao
communities, in understanding the values/
criteria of the two organizations, ensuring
the sustainability of the IRT; and■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
A study done by Ngidlo (2013) disclosed fivedrivers of change impinging on the integrity of
the rice terraces as an agricultural system. The
drivers of change are education, tourism, modern
agricultural technologies, Christianity, and climatechange. Five scenarios are taking place in the riceterraces as the foregone effects of these drivers ofchange. These are: diminishing culture, vanishingvarieties and breeds, shifts in economic activities
and outmigration, physical degradation of the riceterraces, and urbanization. These drivers of change
are either acting singly or in combination with eachother to reduce the overall integrity of the riceterraces (Ngidlo 2013).

2) Support, involvement, and participation of
the local government units in the conductof an Ifugao Rice Terraces Assessment,using the MEA framework. Carrying out
such an assessment will help in identifying
the changes experienced in the IRT, theresponses taken, and it will make possible
the setting of scenarios for the future of
the IRT. The results and findings of theassessment will serve as a blueprint of thestate of the Ifugao Rice Terraces that canbe utilized for the next 50 to 100 years as it
analyses the current trends and conditionsof biodiversity, ecosystem services,and human well-being since 50+ years
back while proposing plausible scenario
responses. Additionally, the project
output will support policy and decisionmakers in the province and municipalities.
Recommendations of such an assessment
could be adopted in comprehensive
development plans, conservation plans,and executive-legislative agenda.

There have been numerous responses to thechanges observed in the landscape. Government
programs ranged from direct assistance (i.e.,stonewalling projects in response to erosion
problems) to irrigation construction and/or
rehabilitation, reforestation, and many more. Local,
regional, and international institutions have given
their share in trying to solve issues and challenges.
These resulted in a variety of interventions. Thereis a need to put all these together in a coherent
manner, to better understand the interrelations
between the different ecosystem services (bothculture and nature) and their interrelationships withthe landscape. A research project called Ifugao Rice
Terraces Assessment, funded by the International
Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative through its
Satoyama Development Mechanism, proposes an
28

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Camacho, L., Gevaña, D. T., Carandang, A. P. and Camacho, S. 2016. Indigenous knowledge and practices forthe sustainable management of Ifugao forests in Cordillera, Philippines, International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 12: pp. 1-2, 5-13
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2008. The Ifugao Rice Terraces Philippine Project
Framework. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bp814e.pdf [Accessed 1 July 2020]
Gonzalez, R. M. 2000. Platforms and terraces: bridging participation and GIS in joint-learning for watershedmanagement with the Ifugaos of the Philippines. ITC, Enschede
Jiang, H. 2016. Conservation of Ifugao Values (Master thesis). Thesis. University of California, Davis
Martin, M. 2017. The Rice Terraces of Ifugao province, Philippines. Journal of World Heritage Studies, Special
Issue 2017: pp. 10-14
Ngidlo, R. T. 2013. The Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province, Northern Philippines: Current Scenario, Gaps andFuture Direction. Global Journal of Biology, Vol. 2 (4): pp. 151-154
Save the Ifugao Rice Terraces Movement (SITMo). 2008. IMPACT: The Effects of Tourism on Culture and theEnvironment in Asia and the Pacific: Sustainable Tourism and the Preservation of the World Heritage Site of
the Ifugao Rice Terraces, Philippines. UNESCO, Bangkok
UNESCO. n.d. Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/722 [Accessed, 8
August, 2019]■■Legislation:
Republic Act No 10066 of 2009 (National Cultural Heritage Law). https://www.officialgazette.gov.
ph/2010/03/26/republic-act-no-10066/#:~:text=Short%20Title.,Cultural%20Heritage%20Act%20of%20
2009%E2%80%9D.&text=It%20further%20provides%20that%20all,which%20may%20regulate%20its%20
disposition. [Accessed 1 July 2020]

29

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

DOI SUTHEP MOUNTAIN,
THE LIVING HERITAGE
Warong Wonglanka1, Feng Han2*(1) Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning Tongji University& Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University, 239 Huay Keaw Road; 50200, Chiang Mai, Thailand;+66(0)53 941 000, warong.w@cmu.ac.th(2) Tongji University, Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning,
Siping Road; 20092, Shanghai, China; +86 (0)21 659 83592, franhf@qq.com(*) Corresponding author■■Abstract

Doi Suthep is one of Thailand’s most significant mountains, due to its rich nature, biodiversity, and longstanding cultural associations with Chiang Mai Old City - included on the World Heritage Tentative List for
Thailand as the “Monuments, Sites, and Cultural Landscape of Chiang Mai, Capital of Lanna.” This paperargues that Doi Suthep Mountain is an essential component of the Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative
Project, as a sacred place and center of Chiang Mai’s soul. There are inseparable linkages between Doi
Suthep Mountain, Chiang Mai Old City, and the Chiang Mai people. This paper describes the importance of
Doi Suthep Mountain from natural and cultural perspectives. It provides some examples of initiatives related
to the protection of the heritage of Doi Suthep based on the local communities’ sense of belonging, which
can become pillars to support the conservation challenges of this living heritage.

KEY WORDS: Doi Suthep Mountain, Chiang Mai, Living Heritage, Nature-Culture Linkages, Conservation■■1. Introduction

includes evergreen pine mixed with deciduous
forests and lower-level dry dipterocarps. The Doi
Suthep area became part of the 24th National Parkof Thailand as Doi Suthep - Pui National Park in 1981.
The area is home to over 300 bird species, many ofwhich are rare and endemic. It is also recognized
for its biodiversity and nearly 2000 species of plants
and butterflies (Rerkasem and Rerkasem 1995). The
biodiversity in the Doi Suthep Mountain ecosystem
has been sustainably managed by and has inspired
the people who have lived in Chiang Mai Old City.
Natural resources have been sustainably usedand harmoniously connected to the city and theirculture through landscape design (Wonglangka andHan 2018).

The northern region of Thailand was once known
as the Kingdom of Lanna, where now Chiang Mai
province is located. Chiang Mai Old City, the capitalof Chiang Mai province, is at the heart of the “Chiang
Mai World Heritage Initiative Project” conceived
to nominate the “Monuments, Sites, and CulturalLandscape of Chiang Mai, Capital of Lanna.” Chiang
Mai Old City was the capital of the Kingdom of
Lanna from 1296 to 1768, and later became atributary state of Thailand from 1774 to 1899 (Penth2000). Chiang Mai Old City has thrived for 700 years,
located in the center of the Chiang Mai province
on flat land along the foothills of the Doi Suthep
Mountain, located to the northwest. The mountainbelongs to a multi-peaks complex system that
forms an essential part of the western mountainous
ranges in northern Thailand [Fig. 1]. Doi Suthep
Mountain reaches approximately 1,658 m above sea
level at its highest peak. Vegetation on the mountain

The mountain was worshipped by
Indigenous peoples long before the establishmentof Chiang Mai Old City, as it is considered to be
the abode of their ancestors’ spirits. Doi Suthep
Mountain is recognized as a sacred place in local
30

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Location of Doi Suthep Mountain and the protected area of Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative Project(Source: Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative Project 2018)beliefs. According to the Chiang Mai Chronicle(Wichienkeeo and Wyatt 1998), King Meng Rai often
traveled through the vast valleys, accompanied byhis troops and advisors, searching for the perfectlocation to build his permanent capital. He searched
for a peaceful site, with resources like crystal-clear
waterfalls. The waters flowing from Doi Suthep
Mountain into streams surrounding the present
Chang Mai area attracted him. He then awaited
auspicious signs, which were sent by the legendary
hermit named Sudeva. Sudeva ensured spiritualstability and physical protection in the establishmentof the city (Muangyai and Lieorungruang 2008).

Old City. This paper describes the natural valuesof Doi Suthep. It demonstrates how natural values
and cultural values correlate as well as how Doi
Suthep and Chiang Mai Old City are interconnected.
Furthermore, it examines the current situation of
Doi Suthep. The paper aims to indicate natureculture linkages in order to extend the dimensionsof Doi Suthep conservation to be appropriately
included in the nomination being prepared by the
Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative Project.
■■2. Significance

2.1 Natural Values
Even though Doi Suthep holds theseimportant cultural values and meanings for the
local people, the National Park law legislates its
protection and management as a natural site only,
following top-down management from government
agencies. However, the “Chiang Mai World Heritage
Initiative Project” has included Doi Suthep as an
essential element of the living heritage of Chiang
Mai Old City, based on its cultural values. This
paper describes the interplay between nature andculture in Doi Suthep, its meaning for Chiang Mai
people, and its significant role in the historicaldevelopment of the sacred landscape of Chang
Mai. According to Chiang Mai World Heritage
Initiative Project, Chiang Mai is recognized as the“capital city” of cultural heritage in the northern
region of Thailand, reflecting Outstanding Universal
Value Doi Suthep is also being considered as partof the nominated property as a Landscape theDoi Suthep Mountain has more than 679 species ofvascular plants, consisting of 526 dicotyledonous
pants, 113 monocotyledonous plants, 34 species offerns, and six types of gymnosperm. An abundanceof common and unique fungi and mushrooms canalso be found there. Doi Suthep Mountain is an
important area for plant conservation in Thailand
and has a number of IUCN classifications, including:A11 in the threatened plant list, A3 in the threatened
endemic plants at a national level, and category
C for threatened habitat areas and threatened
plants. Doi Suthep is also the habitat for over 439
wildlife species, including 31 mammals, 360 birds, 31
reptiles, and 18 amphibians. Doi Suthep Mountainis an important place for botanists to be able tostudy these unique specimens. Approximately 40
plants were first discovered in this region and havethe term “suthep” in the scientific name (Rerkasem
31

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Some endemic species of Doi Suthep Mountain ending with the word that revealed with “suthep” in thescientific name: a) Cyrtodactylus doisuthep; b) Sebastonyma suthepianna; c) Doimon doisutep; d) Erythrophylloporus
suthepensis; e) Gardenia sootepensis; f) Aspidistra sutepensis; g) Bulbophyllum sutepense; h) Rothmannia sootepensis; i)Eria sutepensis (Source: Author 2018)with their viharas and distinctive ornaments,
are considered to represent the four stages ofEnlightenment, according to the Buddhist scriptureof Lanna. On the top of the mountain, at around1,060 m, is Phra That Doi Suthep Temple, which
is a Buddhist place of worship where visitors pay
homage to the Lord Buddha’s relic. This temple is ofdeep spiritual significance and is regarded as one of
the most important nationally and internationally.
San Ku, the abandoned pagoda from the 8th century,
located on the peak of Doi Suthep Mountain, isregarded as the highest archaeological site in
Thailand. All of Doi Suthep’s temples are sacredplaces to both Indigenous and local Chiang Mai
people.

and Rerkasem 1995) [Fig. 2]. The significance ofthe natural habitat of Doi Suthep could relate toWorld heritage criteria (x), to contain the mostimportant and significant natural habitats for insitu conservation of biological diversity, including
those containing threatened species of outstanding
Universal Value from the point of view of science orconservation.

2.2 Cultural Values
Doi Suthep is considered to be Chiang Mai’s soul, as
it can be seen from everywhere within Chiang Mai
city. It is revered as a sacred place, and there aremany living local traditions on Doi Suthep Mountain[Fig. 3]. For instance, offerings to the ancestor’s
spirits and the tradition of walking up on foot to
pay homage to the Buddha’s Relic are annually
performed. Fai Hin Temple, Sri Soda Temple, Pha
Lad Temple, and Phra That Doi Suthep Temple arelocated along the trail to the top of the mountain.
The locations of these Lanna-style buildings,

1

2.3 Interdependencies between Doi Suthep
Mountain and Chiang Mai people
The Chiang Mai people refer to themselves as theKhon Muang and are of mixed origin. The first
inhabitants were known as the Lawa and Mon, who

The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1 (2001)

A1: Reduction (Critically Endangered = ≥90%, Endangered = ≥70%, Vulnerable = ≥50%) over past 10 yrs or 3 generations where causes of reduction are
understood AND have ceased AND are reversible
A2: Reduction (Critically Endangered = ≥80%, Endangered = ≥50%, Vulnerable = ≥30%) over past 10 yrs or 3 generations where causes of reduction
may not be understood OR may not have ceased OR may not be reversible
C: Population size (Critically Endangered <250, Endangered <2,500, Vulnerable <10,000)

32

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 3: Some cultural properties on Doi Suthep Mountain: a) Phra That Doi Suthep Temple; b) the Annual Tradition ofwalking up on foot to pay homage to the Buddha’s Relic; c) Pha Lad Temple; d) Sri Soda Temple; e) Fai Hin Temple (Source:
Author 2017)

Figure 4: Reflections of plants from Doi Suthep Mountain as cultural assets in Chiang Mai Old City: a) Plants as
offerings; b) Plants in decorative patterns; c) Plants in murals (Source: Author 2018)33

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

against the city’s enemies. Additionally, it has long
generated and provided water sources for thecity to the east below, while the city was built in
response to the landscape morphology. Ancient
canals and reservoirs at the foot of the mountainare still vividly evident nowadays. The top of Doi
Suthep is, very importantly, where another King
had invited and placed the auspicious Buddha’sbones in the stupa inside Wat Phra That Doi Suthep,signifying the most sacred place in the city. For
years, the entire mountain of Doi Suthep was taken
as a deeply spiritual location tightly embraced by
the Chiang Mai residents and local people nearby.

originated from the south of Myanmar, Second
group is Tai, who had migrated from the northernarea to Chiang Mai from the 10th century, as well
as Hill tribe, and the Haw Chinese coming overlandfrom Yunnan. In the mid-19th century, Westerners
started arriving with Christian missionaries andincreased in numbers with the growth of the teakindustry. The teak industry also attracted large
numbers of Shan who worked all over the north forthe logging companies. Thus, Chiang Mai has a very
culturally diverse population.
Since the establishment of Chiang Mai,
this culturally diverse community has continued
to revere the natural and cultural aspects of Doi
Suthep Mountain. Various species of plants from Doi
Suthep have tangible and intangible significance forthe local communities, including those with spiritual
meaning (481 species), used as offering materials(55 species), found in local literature (116 species), apart of beliefs and customs (38 species), and thoseavailable for mural painting and decorative patterns(20 species) [Fig.4]. In choosing the Doi Suthep
Mountain area as the site for the capital, King Meng
Rai considered the proximity of major streams,
which supplied water for drinking and agriculture.
At the same time, the city was prepared for waterrunning from the west of the city, which could beblocked by Doi Suthep, preventing flooding of thecity. Such strong interdependencies can also befound in Hmong villages on the mountain.

The Thai Government revised its World
Heritage Tentative List on the 9 th of February,
2015, and included the “Monuments, Sites, andCultural Landscape of Chiang Mai, Capital of Lanna”
under criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi), with Doi Suthep
as a component (UNESCO 2016). This new entry
was noted by the World Heritage Committeethat met in Bonn, Germany, in July 2015. Theinterconnections between the natural and culturalvalues of Chang Mai are particularly highlighted in
the proposed justification of criterion (i): Chiang
Mai Old City was designed to serve a multiple set of
specific purposes, such as defense, which included
connectivity with nature and benefit from thesurrounding natural landscape. Furthermore, city
planning was directed towards prosperity throughwet rice cultivation and production. However, nonatural criteria are being used in the Chiang Mai
World Heritage Initiative Project for the inclusionof Doi Suthep. Yet, the natural values of Doi Suthep
are not only essential to Chiang Mai Old City but
also globally remarkable as they can be linked with
its outstanding cultural values – which result in theunique way of life in Chiang Mai. This paper expects
that the consideration of these nature-culture
linkages will create awareness about the naturalvalues of Doi Suthep and support the developmentof a more comprehensive framework for the Chiang
Mai World Heritage Initiative Project, encouraging
the Chiang Mai local people to cherish and preserve
Doi Suthep accordingly.

Furthermore, Doi Suthep Mountain has
provided many organizations with educational
opportunities, such as the Observatory of Chiang
Mai University, and Research Stations by Kasetsart
University, including the Seismological Research
Station.
■■3. Designations
The Doi Suthep Mountain was designated at thenational level as the 24th National Park of Thailand
in 1981. At the local level, the Doi Suthep Mountainis claimed to be a spiritual place for local people
in Chiang Mai and those in the north. Doi Suthepreflects the ancient wisdom of the city’s design
and planning, which was based on auspicious andspiritual elements called “Chai Mongkol” or the
auspicious elements for victory. Built over 700
years ago by King Meng Rai, the city planning showsa distinctive selection and use of Chai Mongkol
landscapes, involving the plains land, water, andforest on Doi Suthep, which were annexed andconnected from East to West. Having Doi Suthep
to the West of the city presents a good fortress■■4. Management
Doi Suthep Mountain has been studied, conserved,
and recognized as nationally important, and isprotected by several laws. On the one hand, theSuthep Pui National Park is registered and protectedunder the Thailand National Park Act B.E. 2504 (1961
enforced by the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment). In this framework, the protectedarea has been categorized as a Special Utilization
34

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Area, Recreation Area, Service Area, Forest Area,
and Reforestation Area. Nevertheless, some groupsof people still live in the protected area, including
many hill tribe people such as the Lawa and Hmong,
who migrated from remote areas in Chiang Mai and
Lamphun to Doi Suthep Mountain and settled down
there before the area became a National Park. On
the other hand, the archaeological monuments andsites are protected as archaeological property under
The National Act for The Protection of Ancient
Monuments, Ancient Objects, Art Objects, andNational Museums B.E. 2504 (1961).

the aim of “Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative
Project” is to bring all of the sectors together
to collaborate and to learn from each other for
heritage conservation. The Project has beenorganized by the Chiang Mai University, with theparticipation of representatives from various
conservation groups from the community of Chiang
Mai, provincial agencies, and the abbots of all thetemples in Chiang Mai Old City.

Furthermore, animism is important in
Chiang Mai culture (Wonglangka 2013) and plays
an important role in conserving the Doi Suthep
Mountain. Tree ordination, prolonging the forest
destiny, and sacred trekking for all groups of people
on Visaka Buja’s Day, enable the Chiang Mai people
to maintain a strong sense of belonging at Doi
Suthep Mountain and personally develop at a higher
spiritual level. Such practices also keep natural
resources, environment, and ecosystems balanced
and coordinated perfectly with the lifestyle of the
Chiang Mai people. These cultural practices on Doi
Suthep are relevant to nature conservation andimply that the natural resources on Doi Suthep are
considered as holy objects of Chiang Mai Old City.
The continuation of these practices is, therefore,
essential for the conservation of Doi Suthep naturalvalues.

The urban sprawl of Chiang Mai city spreads rightup to the foot of Doi Suthep, increasing the amountof population living in or near Doi Suthep. Many
development projects which encroach into Doi
Suthep mountains have been constructed to profit
from the tourism boom. Urbanization, which has
caused great damage to the Doi Suthep mountains,
has had three main effects (Elliott 1994):■■5. State of Conservation, Challenges, andOpportunities

1) Construction activities have damaged
the vegetation, degrading the forest andincreasing soil erosion, causing the siltationof watercourses.
2) The improvement of access has facilitatedactivities which damage the forest, e.g.,hunting, collecting butterflies and orchids
for sale, rubbish dumping, tree felling, etc.,
and increased the risk of forest fire.

Visiting hours for most areas within Doi
Suthep-Pui National Park are generally, 8 am – 6
pm. However, under special circumstances, such as
religious ceremonies, special regulations are in place
to enable people to walk on the trail overnight, tocarry lit candles, and to walk up the mountain –all of which are long-standing Buddhist traditions.
Normally, regulations do not allow fire in the
National Park. Allowing for traditional use fosters
the deep sense of ownership and belonging in thelocal communities, and this results in the ongoingparticipation in natural resource conservation. In
May 2019, the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment launched a policy to ban plastic on Doi
Suthep Mountain. The campaign started during thesacred trekking on Visaka Buja’s Day. The Provincial
Electricity Authority subsequently also managed tomaintain a neat appearance to improve the visualquality of the Doi Suthep Mountain area.

3) The sense of wilderness, sought by many
people who visit the tourism place in themountains, has been destroyed.
To counteract these effects, cultural identities
associated with heritage could help in enhancing
a sense of belonging for a group or clan of people(Shinbira 2012). The “sense of belonging” shapes
the relation between human and place byintroducing the connectedness of space. Therefore,
enhancing the sense of belonging throughcultural practice can encourage the awarenessof places (Hall 2014), and can be applied to theconservation practice. The sense of belonging andownership the Chiang Mai people have over Doi
Suthep Mountain were evidenced in June 2014
when there was a public backlash in relation toa proposal to build a large golden dome in thetemple on the top of the mountain. The people
had concerns that the structure would be aneyesore and obstruct the views to and from themountaintop temple and the Phra That Doi Suthep
Temple, therefore, scrapped those construction

While there are many different regulations
considered and disciplines involved in managing
Chiang Mai, such as an overlapping of authorities
in the Urban Planning Law and the Land-use Law,
35

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

plans. In June 2018, the Chiang Mai people also
protested a government housing project proposedin the foothills of Doi Suthep, which resulted in
the government agreeing to end the controversial
housing project and return the area to the forest
park.

Heritage, which are in urgent need of protection
from what has been stated above. Therefore, theproposal of the Chiang Mai World Heritage Initiative
Project should further extend its framework andadd the natural dimension of Doi Suthep to preserve
its natural values, from Cultural heritage to Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage, before there is afurther decline.

■■6. Conclusion and Recommendation

Doi Suthep still provides spiritual significanceto the city and its people and is the fundamental
reference of Chiang Mai Old City planning. Further
study on the nature-culture linkages in Doi Suthep
may inform a new conservation framework, rethinking the category of this heritage site. Applying
a nature-culture linkage approach may mitigate
threats and support a sustainable heritage
conservation strategy.

The cultural landscape of Doi Suthep mountains is aliving heritage that has survived for many centuries.
It continues to maintain its spatial definition andarrangement, despite the changing circumstancesat the local, national, and international levels. A
framework for the management of Doi Suthep
should consider both its natural and cultural values.
The mountain, sacred as a hidden land both toAnimism and Buddhism, represents a uniquespace for the co-existence and exchange between
different religious traditions and ethnicities,
constituting the base for Lanna identity (sometimes
referred to as Neo-Lanna or Modern Lanna), andunity. The ensemble of myths, stories, and notable
events, as well as the sacred texts themselves,
convey and manifest the cultural meanings
projected onto these natural resources and theIndigenous and specific Buddhist cosmogonythat developed in the Lanna region. The interplay
between nature and culture in Doi Suthep can beseen explicitly.
The case study of Doi Suthep also illustrates
the multiple values of the mountain with various
stakeholders. Taking a values-based approach
can present a challenge for the management of
Doi Suthep Mountain as a National Park. Natural
heritage protection laws can be in essential
disagreement when trying to recognize and involve
the whole range of the different stakeholder
groups and their differing values equally in theconservation and management of heritage. Oneof the discrepancies of heritage managementon the Doi Suthep Mountain is the difference innatural and cultural heritage. The use of only nature
conservation protocols may not suit the culturalproperties and cultural practices of local people.
At the moment, the Chiang Mai World
Heritage Initiative Project is striving to push
Chiang Mai Old City to be recognized as a World
Cultural Heritage site. Doi Suthep, considered apart of Chiang Mai Old City, would be part of thecultural property as it is the sacred mountain of
the city. However, the preliminary information
points out that Doi Suthep could fulfill the criteriaof Outstanding Universal Value in terms of Natural
36

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Elliott, S. 1994. The Effect of Urbanization on Doi Suthep-Pui National Park. Chiang Mai University:
Proceeding on The Symposium of The Urbanization and Forests: pp. 76-86
Hall, K. 2014. Create a Sense of Belonging. Psychology Today 3: pp. 24
Muangyai, N. and Lieorungruang V. 2008. Cultural Landscape Analysis of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park,
Chiang Mai. Silpakorn University International Journal 8: pp. 39–72
Penth, H. 2000. A Brief History of Lanna: Civilizations of North Thailand. 1st edition. Silkworn Books., Chiang
Mai
Rerkasem, B. and Rerkasem, K. 1995. The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand). South-South
Cooperation Programme for Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics,
Working Papers No. 3. UNESCO, Paris
Shinbira, I.A. 2012. Conservation of the Urban Heritage to Conserve the Sense of Place, a Case Study
Misurata City, Libya. American Transactions on Engineering and Applied Sciences 1 (3): pp. 253–264
UNESCO. 2016. Monuments, Sites and Cultural Landscape of Chiang Mai, Capital of Lanna. http://whc.
unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6003/ [Accessed 20 October 2019]
UNESCO. 2019. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, Paris
Wichienkeeo, A., and Wyatt, D. K. 1998. The Chiang Mai Chronicle, 2nd edition. Silkworn Books, Chiang Mai
Wonglangka, W. 2013. Land-Marking Tree of Chiang Mai : Beliefs of Plant and Place Marking. Art,
Architecture and Beliefs 1: pp. 69–89
Wonglangka, W. and Han, F. 2018. Lanna Buddhist Temple: The Cultural Landscape as Urban Green Space.
Journal of Environmental Design 5(1): pp. 107–29

37

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Managing mixed sites andcultural landscapes: Challenges
and opportunities in Alpine
National Park
Kim Wilson

Parks Victoria; Level 10, 535 Bourke Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000, Australia; kim.wilson@parks.vic.gov.au■■Abstract

There are many natural and cultural layers that make Alpine National Park significant, and there are strong
linkages between many of these values. This mixed site, including various cultural landscapes, is afforded
heritage protection through state and national legislation and is noted for both its natural and cultural
attributes, including rare flora and fauna, tangible and intangible Aboriginal heritage, and over sixty Alpine
Huts constructed after European settlement. Balancing the dual natural and cultural imperatives in thismixed environment is complex and challenging, particularly in relation to enabling access for over one million
visitors each year, sustainably managing the dynamic ecosystems and broad-ranging values, and directing
rehabilitation efforts following extreme weather events. However, there are also opportunities to embrace
the synergies and narratives that connect some of these values, particularly in relation to celebrating ‘shared
heritage,’ and acknowledging the lessons learned and impacts of past land management practices.

KEY WORDS: Alpine National Park, Mixed site, Cultural landscape, Nature-culture linkages, Natural andcultural heritage■■1. Introduction

Located in north-east Victoria, ANP is one ofeleven (11) inter-state national parks and reserves
that collectively make up the larger ‘Australian Alps
National Parks and Reserves’ (AANP) environment,
which is included on the Australian National
Heritage List. There is general consensus amongexperts that AANP could meet both natural andcultural OUV thresholds in a World Heritage context(Lennon 1999). There have been previous efforts
to progress potential World Heritage listing forthis mixed site, however the complexities around
exploring and articulating the full spectrum ofand relationships between those mixed values, inaddition to other political pressures, has createdsignificant challenges. Natural values havepreviously tended to be more fully understood andhave generally taken precedence, while there hashistorically been a lesser emphasis on recognising
the various cultural values, which has resulted
in a somewhat unbalanced proposition. In more
recent years, however, there has been far greater

In a World Heritage context, mixed sites are areas
recognised as having elements of Outstanding
Universal Value (OUV) of both natural and cultural
heritage (UNESCO 2019). Some mixed sites that
demonstrate the ‘combined works of nature andof man’ may be described as ‘cultural landscapes’,
however others may only meet the OUV thresholdunder cultural criteria while its natural attributes donot (Larsen and Wijesuriya 2015). In an Australian
context, the natural and cultural values of nationally
heritage listed places are similarly considered ina single integrated system. Alpine National Park
(ANP) is recognised as being of outstanding heritage
value to the nation for many natural and cultural
reasons (Australian Government, Department of
the Environment and Energy 2008), and could be
described as a large mixed site that includes various
cultural landscapes.
38

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

exploration and documentation of the various
cultural values (Lennon 1999, Truscott et al. 2006).

expressions of an artistic and religious nature, andevidence of the ways in which Aboriginal people
adapted to changing climates and a wide range
of environmental conditions. Intangible stories,
practices, expressions, knowledge, and skills also
provide information about this cultural heritage, andinclude accounts of Aboriginal ‘dreaming’ narratives
that highlight sacred traditional associations andmythological significance (Australian Alps Traditional
Owner Reference Group (AATORG) and Australian
Alps Liaison Committee (AALC) 2014, Lennon 1999).
European settlers began arriving in the larger
Alps region from the 1820s, and took ownershipof land shortly thereafter primarily for seasonal
cattle grazing. The cattlemen continued theiragricultural practices in the summer months forover one hundred and fifty years, and constructed
hundreds of Alpine Huts throughout the landscape
to use as shelter. In later years, additional Alpine
Huts were also built as temporary shelters for gold
miners, foresters, government workers, skiers, andbushwalkers (Butler 2005) [Fig. 2].

The undulating mountains of ANP comprises
6,460 square kilometres of land (2,494 square
miles), including Victoria’s highest peak, Mount
Bogong (1,986 metres above sea level), and someof the highest areas of the Great Dividing Range(‘high country’). The tableland, montane, sub-alpine,
and alpine altitudinal zones enable a diverse rangeof flora and fauna to thrive. During the warmer
months, wildflowers bloom and long sunny days
attract hikers, cyclists, and campers; while in winter,the mountain peaks and iconic native trees areblanketed in snow as the Alpine Resorts and larger
region transforms into snowfields for skiers into
snowfields for skiers [Fig. 1].

In the latter half of the 20th Century, grazing
was progressively withdrawn from the moresensitive higher areas of the Alps due to mounting
scientific evidence of the resulting environmental
impacts (Centre for Applied Alpine Ecology 2001).
In 1989, after extended community campaigning,several parks were amalgamated to form the large
contiguous ANP. Almost twenty years later, in 2008,
the larger AANP area was included on the Australian
National Heritage List (Australian Government,
Department of the Environment and Energy 2008).

Figure 1: An alpine ski resort during winter (Source:
Author 2019)

Aboriginal people have had cultural
associations with the Australian Alps for tens of
thousands of years. Many tangible remnants
and archaeological sites remain scatteredthroughout the high country, including material

Figure 2: Visitors at ‘Wallaces Hut’ (Source: Author 2019)39

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■2. Significance(Australian Alps Traditional Owner Reference Group(AATORG) and Australian Alps Liaison Committee(AALC) 2014, Lennon 1999).

The larger AANP has both natural and cultural
heritage values, and is recognised as a nationallysignificant site that is afforded protection undernational heritage legislation – the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act(1999) (Australian Government, Department of
the Environment and Energy 2008). Further statelevel legislation provides additional protection forsome specific cultural heritage within this landscape(including Aboriginal cultural heritage, built heritage,archaeological sites) that are of significance to themore localised Victorian community (Victorian
State Government, Department Environment, Land,
Water and Planning (DELWP) 2019). Both of thesevalues-based heritage designations highlight thevarious natural and cultural values that make theplace significant, and identify the specific attributes
through which those values are expressed (Australia
ICOMOS 2013).

Many of the documented cultural heritage
values are related to the land use of European
settlers, and include transhumant grazing (Alpine
Huts, former grazing areas, stock yards and routes),scientific research (botanical, soil, karst, fauna,fire, and glacial research sites), water harvesting(tunnels, aqueducts, power stations, and former
settlements associated with the Kiewa Valley Hydroelectric Scheme), and recreation (snow sports).
The associative social significance of the area tosome community groups is also acknowledged(mountain cattlemen, skiers, and bushwalkers), as
are the associations with a number of well-known
artists (including Eugene von Guérard) and writers(including ‘Banjo’ Paterson) who have immortalised
this area in contemporary popular culture (AustralianGovernment, Department of the Environment andEnergy 2008).

The high altitudes of ANP provide refuge
for a unique and broad range of cold-climate plant
and animal species, including the Bogong daisybush (Olearia frostii ) which can be found only in thisregion. Alpine Ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis ) andSnow Gums (Eucalyptus pauciflora) are prominent,
while the rare Alpine Sphagnum Bogs are especially
important in maintaining the hydrography of thelandscape, and providing habitat for a number ofendemic and threatened animal species including
the Corroboree Frog. Only found in a few scatteredalpine and sub-alpine areas, the rare grounddwelling Mountain Pygmy-Possum (Burramys
parvus ) feeds on Bogong Moths (Agrotis infusa ),and is the only exclusively alpine marsupial that
stores food and hibernates during winter. Bogong
Moths migrate long distances from the lowlands inneighbouring states where they breed and feed, tothe high alpine country in early summer where theycluster and remain dormant in rock crevices andcaves (Australian Government, Department of theEnvironment and Energy 2008).

■■3. Management
All five (5) of the National Parks in Victoria thatare included in the larger nationally heritage listed
Australian Alps area, including ANP, are directly
managed by Parks Victoria. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) between the responsible
authorities across adjoining States – Victoria, NewSouth Wales, and Australian Capital Territory – isin place and formalizes a cooperative approach to
managing the larger AANP as a single biogeographic
entity. An inter-governmental ‘Australian Alps Liaison
Committee’ (AALC), and associated ReferenceGroups, include members from each responsible
authority and collaboratively advises on strategic
management issues (Australian Alps National Parks
2016).
Day -to - day mana gement pr ior i ties
include protecting the natural environment,
fire management, preserving cultural heritage,nurturing community partnerships, enabling
access for people, and supporting research
and monitoring. A range of community groups
contribute to managing this mixed site, including
volunteer hunters who assist in the delivery of pest
control programs, and other volunteer groups who
assist in the maintenance of the various Alpine Huts
(Parks Victoria 2016).

Prior to the displacement of Aboriginal
people caused by European settlement, various
Aboriginal clans gathered seasonally on the highpeaks for intertribal meetings, trade, ceremonies,
and feasting on these Bogong Moths. While these
traditional moth feasting activities are specificallyacknowledged in the Australian National Heritage
Listing, no other Aboriginal cultural heritage
values are formally recognised, and this is widely
considered by Traditional Owners and heritage
experts to be a limitation of the heritage listing

Alpine National Park is noted as an areaof Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity, and theAboriginal Cultural Heritage Act (2006) requires
40

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

that consideration is given to the potential impact
on cultural heritage of any proposed activity insuch areas. If proposed activities are considered tohave a ‘high impact,’ the preparation of a Cultural
Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) and approval
by Traditional Owners is required to mitigate anyrisks (Victorian State Government, Department
Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)
2019). This process enables Traditional Owners
to consider and more holistically safeguard all
significant Aboriginal cultural heritage, above andbeyond the limited range described within theformal heritage listing.

long time periods), and sometimes reveal tangible
archaeology related to Aboriginal cultural heritage(including rock shelters, stone tools) [Fig. 3]. The
scale and intensity of extensive bushfires in 20192020 resulted in widespread and severe impacts
to the larger South-Eastern Australian landscape,including a large proportion of AANP, and surveying
and recovery efforts are underway.
Ongoing research shows that introduced
animals and plant species, and climate change arecausing changes to vegetation (feral foxes, cats,deer, and horses are understood to be trampling
the alpine environment; and other plant species
are considered to be encroaching on water
sources), and are threatening biodiversity (including
inhibiting Bogong Moth breeding which results infood scarcity for the threatened Mountain Pygmy
Possum) (Parks Victoria 2016). A recent AustralianFederal Court case on the proposed trapping andremoval of feral horses from two areas of the Alps
highlighted some of the tensions within the EPBC
legislation, and resultant competing priorities
around protecting natural and cultural values in thismulti-layered AANP environment. Some community
groups consider these feral horses (also referred
to as ‘brumbies’) to be of cultural value, and as
contributing to the heritage significance of AANP.
The Federal Court of Australia, however, foundthat in this case, actions taken to protect naturalvalues (meeting Australia’s obligations under theConvention on Biological Diversity) took precedence
over the consideration of assessing possible impacts
on national heritage values (Australian Brumby
Alliance Inc v Parks Victoria Inc 2020).

One (1) specific Alpine Hut and various goldmining remnants and sites within ANP are also notedof being of particular significance to the people ofVictoria and are therefore also included on the statelevel Victorian Heritage Register, which provides
additional protection under the Heritage Act (2017).
If any works are proposed to these structures oron the immediate surrounding land, considerationmust be given to whether the heritage significancewould be affected, and subsequent approval by theexpert administrators of the legislation is required.
All known and unknown archaeological sites over 50
years old are also automatically afforded protection
under this legislation (Victorian State Government,
Department Environment, Land, Water and Planning(DELWP) 2019).
■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
Maintaining all of the natural and cultural values
that make this mixed site significant is a carefulbalance – particularly in light of increasingly severe
weather events which continue to impact the alpine
landscape and ecosystems. Although bushfires often
destroy built heritage (Alpine Huts), and severely
impact the natural environment (drought and drier
conditions are increasing fuel for larger fires); theyalso enable the natural regeneration cycles of somevegetation (including slow-growing snow gums over■■5. Recommendations
It is widely acknowledged that the conservation of
the natural environment (including ‘restoring’ thelandscape by re-establishing native vegetation) has
traditionally been the primary interest of agencies
managing National Parks, and that cultural heritage
matters (such as conserving evidence of previous
land use) are subsequently a secondary concern(Brown 2012, Lockwood and Spennemann 2001).
AANP is a heritage place with both natural andcultural values, and while there are importantenvironmental challenges to address, efforts
to modify the landscape and replicate earlier
environmental conditions must be tempered withregard for the ways humans have shaped thosesame areas over time. The Management Plan (Parks
Victoria 2016) acknowledges that evidence ofprevious land-use can be an important part of theheritage of a park, and both the natural and cultural

Figure 3: Snow Gums slowly regenerating after bushfires
many years ago (Source: Author 2019)41

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

values of such places should be considered before
intervening and reshaping the landscape to meetwhat pre-European settlement conditions were
presumed to be.

connections between ceremonial sites, pathways
and the spiritual meaning of high points within theAustralian Alps.
Another specific opportunity for a further
expansion of narratives in relation to culturallandscapes is around a number of fenced land
enclosures, ‘Maisie’s Plots’, which were set aside in1945 for research purposes by a pioneering female
plant ecologist, Maisie Carr (nee Fawcett) [Fig. 4].
This longitudinal study is one of Australia’s longest
continuous vegetation monitoring programs and is
still actively visited and studied by ecologists. The
data captured demonstrated the significant impacts
on important alpine vegetation that cattle grazing
had, and subsequently led to the withdrawal of
cattle grazing in the Alpine area – representing asignificant change in land use. The locations andbackground of these plots are not widely known,
nor are they specifically heritage protected in theirown right (Centre for Applied Alpine Ecology 2001).

There are many opportunities to strengthen
nature-culture linkages by expanding narratives
to highlight both the natural and cultural impacts
associated with the previous and current land use
at specific sites, regardless of perceptions aroundthe success or failure of such practices. Suchintertwined and authentic heritage storytelling
will enable us to view these cultural landscapes associoecological systems, and better balance theconservation of both the natural and cultural valuesof our heritage places.
With a par ticular focus on culturallandscapes within ANP, there is potential forfurther innovative interpretation around ‘shared
heritage’ narratives (the collective memory of both
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities) – inparticular, further acknowledging the network of
Aboriginal cultural routes throughout the area,
and the later use of those same traditional paths
by European settlers (who were often guided by
Aboriginal people). Many such trails remain in use
today (including parts of the Australian Alps Walking
Track), however interpretation exploring theoverlapping historical use of these routes by both
Aboriginal people and European settlers is limited.
The Australian Alps Traditional Owner ReferenceGroup (AATORG) and Australian Alps Liaison
Committee (AALC) (2014) note that further researchshould be prioritized to better understand the

It is imperative that mixed sites and culturallandscapes are managed in such a way that bothnatural and cultural values are afforded equalconsideration. Authenticity in heritage storytelling
enables us to reflect on the past, and articulate
the lessons learned. Regardless of whether humaninterventions (such as land use) have resulted inpositive or negative environmental outcomes,
the linkages and indeed interdependencies
between nature and culture should be drawn out
and acknowledged. Our mixed sites and culturallandscapes can tell us so much about the humanjourney in nature.

Figure 4: Maisie’s Plots (Source: Author 2019)42

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Australian Alps National Parks. 2016. Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the Cooperative
Management of the Australian Alps national parks. https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/
aanpmou_2016_18_signed.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2019]
Australian Alps Traditional Owner Reference Group (AATORG), and Australian Alps Liaison Committee (AALC).
2014. Australian Alps Aboriginal Cultural and Spiritual Values Report Summary. https://theaustralianalps.files.
wordpress.com/2015/09/alps-aboriginal-cultural-and-spiritual-summary.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2019]
Australian Brumby Alliance Inc v Parks Victoria Inc. 2020. FCA 605
Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Energy. 2008. National Heritage Places Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves. Place ID 105891. www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/
national/australia-alps [Accessed 30 November 2019]
Australia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.
Burwood, Australia ICOMOS
Brown, S. 2012. Applying a Cultural Landscape Approach in Park Management: An Australian Scheme. Parks
18(1): pp. 99-110
Butler, G. 2005. Victorian Alpine huts heritage survey. Melbourne: Graeme Butler & Associates
Centre for Applied Alpine Ecology. 2001. Bogong High Plains Natural History: Maisie’s Pretty Valley Plots. La
Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
Larsen, P.B., and Wijesuriya, G. 2015. Nature-culture interlinkages in World Heritage: bridging the gap. World
Heritage Review 75: pp. 4-15
Lennon, J. 1999. The International Significance of the Cultural Values of the Australian Alps: Report to theAALC. https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/cultural-values.pdf [Accessed 30 November
2019]
Lockwood, M., and Spennemann, D. 2001. Value conflicts between natural and cultural heritage
conservation-Australian experience and the contribution of economics. In Heritage Economics: Challenges
for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century, Proceedings, Australian National
University, Canberra, July 4, 2000, pp. 218-242. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra
Truscott, M., Grinbergs, A., Buckley, K., and Pearson, M. 2006. Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Values of
the Australian Alps National Parks. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra
Parks Victoria. 2016. Greater Alpine National Parks: Management Plan. Parks Victoria, Melbourne
UNESCO. 2019. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris
Victorian State Government, Department Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). 2019. Legislationand heritage protections. www.heritage.vic.gov.au/legislation/legislation-and-heritage-protections[Accessed 30 November 2019]43

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

NGORONGOROCONSERVATION AREA: A LANDOF TREASURES
Joshua Mwankunda

Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Department of Cultural Heritage, Ngorongoro Crater, Makao street, P.O. Box 1,
Ngorongoro Crater, Arusha; +255 755 159875, joshua.mwankunda@ncaa.go.tz■■Abstract

This paper examines opportunities and challenges of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) in Tanzania
in terms of conserving ecosystems, understanding human evolution and developing its identity as providing
economic benefits to local communities living within and around the property. NCA has global significancefor its natural, cultural and geological values. It has been recognized by multiple UNESCO designations as aMixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage property, a global Geopark and part of Serengeti-Ngorongoro
Biosphere Reserve. NCA is managed by a public institution known as Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Authority (NCAA), which follows the multiple land use model where the objectives are to promote theconservation of natural and cultural resources, while safeguarding the interests of Indigenous residents andpromoting tourism. In this paper, the significance of NCA is reviewed in terms of the linkages between its
natural and cultural values. Furthermore, the challenges faced by NCA are discussed and recommendations
are suggested for the conservation of the site and its continuity for supporting the wellbeing of local
communities.

KEY WORDS: Ngorongoro, Culture, Nature, Communities■■1. Introduction

the NCA is yielding a long and unbroken sequenceof evidence, over approximately four million years,
for human evolution and human-environment
dynamics.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), locatedin Northern Tanzania [Fig.1] was established in
1959 by the NCAA Ordinance No 413 of 1959 as amultiple land use area with objectives to promote
the conservation of natural and cultural resources,
safeguard the interests of NCA Indigenous residents
and promote tourism. The NCA is a uniqueprotected area in Africa where conservationof natural resources is integrated with humansettlements’ development in an extent of 8,292
sqkm.

Moreover, NC A hosts about 90,0 0 0
Indigenous people belonging to three ethnic groups– namely Maasai engaged in pastoralism, Tatoga
engaged in pastoralism and minimal crop cultivationand Hadzabe who live as hunters and gatherers.
Living testimonies such as traditional skills appliedin house construction, rituals of these communities
demonstrate the continuation of traditionalcustoms and practices.

The landscape of the NCA is protected
to conser ve nature, ecology, wildlife, andprehistoric and contemporary archaeological andpaleoanthropological features. NCA supports thepresence of approximately 25,000 large animals,
mostly ungulates (General Management Plan
2019a). Extensive archaeological research within

Even though the multiple land use modelallows the integration of human settlements
within the protected area, this system wasestablished 60 years ago and in this span oftime, increasing population and tourism havebeen progressively impacting NCA’s state of44

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Location of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. (Source: NCAA 2019)■■2. Significanceconservation. The distinction between the culturaland natural heritage of the NCA has prevented
the understanding of the interlinkages between
people and their environment currently upholdby the resident communities, and their potential
for effective management. In this paper, theseinterlinkages are highlighted and recommendations
to address NC A’s management challenges
suggested based on nature-culture linkages.

2.1 Natural and cultural values
The stunning landscape of NCA is part of the
Serengeti ecosystem which is one of the lastintact ecosystems in the world. It accommodates
spectacular concentrations of wildlife formingsome of the greatest natural wonders of theplanet, including the only surviving largest wildlife
45

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

migration of over one million animals (wildebeest).
The property is home to over 25,000 large animals,
mostly ungulates with the highest known densityof mammalian predators in Africa, including thedensest known population of lion, endangered
species such as Black Rhino, wild hunting dog,
golden cat and over 500 species of birds.

NCA is regarded as the cradle of humankind.
These characteristics of NCA have granted
World Heritage status under criterion (v), traditional
human settlement related to the archaeologicaltestimonies of human evolution in the extension
in 2010; while the original nomination in 1979 was
based only on natural criteria (vii), exceptional
natural beauty; (viii) representing major stages ofearth’s history; (ix) significant on-going ecologicaland biological processes; and (x) significant natural
habitat for in-situ conservation.

Fu r t h e r m o r e, t h e a r e a i s y i e l d i n g
exceptionally long sequence of crucial evidence
related to human evolu tion and human environment dynamics, which at the moment isdated to close four million years ago. NCA stands asa testimony to major geological processes duringformation of the planet Earth, located at the greateast African valley.

However, NCA is also home to about 90,000
local residents together with their livestock – atotal number of over 500,000 cattle, sheep andgoats, which co-exist with wildlife. It is one of the
few remaining multiple land use protected areas
in Africa, which relates to a traditional nomadic
culture, the Maasai, who have not been includedin the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of theWorld Heritage Property. In the next section, therelationship between local communities, theirterritory and wildlife is explored, showing theinterdependency between nature and culture in
NCA.

The NCA has geo-formations connectedwith Indigenous communities’ livelihoods which arevalued as outstanding sceneries. Well known geosites include Mount Oldonyo Lengai, Lake Eyasi,
Nasera Rock, Olkarien Gorge and Magic Shifting
Sand [Fig. 2].
Important archaeological sites include
the Laetoli Footprints, which are famous for the
discovery of ancient humanlike footprints left on
the volcanic ash and providing the earliest known
evidence (3.6 million years ago) of humans walking
by two legs. Furthermore, the Olduvai Gorge,containing ancient human and animal fossils
together as well as various stages of stone tooltechnology is located within NCA. This area washome to a range of early Homo-evolution species,
such as Homo Habilis, Homo Eructus and Homosapiens; which are connected with the Laetoli
species known as Australopithecus Afarensis. Thus,

2.2 Interdependency of nature and culture within
NCA
Geology, which is a natural phenomenon, hashoused and facilitated dating of archaeologicalremains that today is able to reveal evidence
and knowledge of human evolution. Maasai
communities worship some naturally occurringfeatures in NCA, such as magic shifting sand, Mount
Oldoinyo Lengai, fig trees and other formations.

Figure 2: Magic shifting sand (Source: Author 2019)46

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Maasai communities’ clans are named after wild
animals such as lions, snakes, etc. It is a taboo to killrelated animals since they are considered part of afamily or even ancestors.

the paleo-anthropological resources in the country,
including those within the NCA. A Memorandumof Understanding has been established to mandate
NCAA to manage the cultural resources andantiquities related to the archeological remains.

The Ngorongoro Magic shifting sand [Fig. 2]
which is created by nature, not for specific purpose
and in constant movement of 17m – 19m, apartfrom its aesthetic values, it is also a Maasai sacredmonument with rituals practices, a monument ofreconciliation [Fig. 3] and peace making and Maasai
believes that where it ends in its movement, it willbe the end of the world.

The management structure of NCA A
comprises a Board of Directors appointed by the
Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism. Among
Board members, is a chairman for Ngorongoro
Pastoralist Council, association of local communities
living within NCA funded by NCAA with objectives ofproviding further social services such as education,
health and food security.
Consultative meetings are regularly held
between NCAA and TATO (Tanzania Associationof Tour Operators) regarding improvementsof the proper ty in terms of environments,
tourist infrastructure and safety. NCA offers
cultural tourism products such as museums andinterpretation centres: Olduvai, Laetoli, Leakey’s
living museum and communities’ cultural Bomas
showing their daily lifeways [Fig. 5]. Two cultural
tours to Laetoli hominid footprints and Olduvai
Gorge are highlights for visitors, as well as nature
photographing and filming and game drive to wild
animals.

Figure 3: Reconciliation practice at Ngorongoro’s magic
shifting sand dunes (Source: Author 2019)

Elephant do feed on natural occurring soils
and caves, famously known Elephant Caves thatuniquely connects geology and wildlife [Fig. 4].

Figure 5: Maasai cultural houses called Bomas (Source:
Author 2019)
Figure 4: Elephant feeding on natural soils,
demonstrating the interaction of geology and wildlife(Source: Author 2019)

Property management is guided by aGeneral Management Plan 2015 – 2025. Currently,
the primary management objectives are to conserve
the natural, cultural and geological resources of theproperty, protect the interests of the local residents(pastoralists) and to promote tourism, however
management of the area is constrained by highhuman population growth, effect of climate change
and ecological stresses that has resulted in increaseof poverty raising human – wildlife conflicts.

Yet, these interconnections have notbeen sufficiently explored for supporting themanagement system of the NCA.
■■3. Management

3.1 Legislation, institutional arrangement, resources
The primary legislation protecting the property
is the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinanceof 1959. The property is under the managementof the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority(NCAA). The Tanzanian Division of Antiquities is
responsible for the management and protection of■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
Conservation status is currently evaluated as being
in a good state, with all OUV intact (UNESCO World
47

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Heritage Centre 2019). However the property isthreatened by the following situations:●● Integrative interpretation of natural and culturalvalues that also recognizes people, for example
speaking of lions and their population growth canbe explained in tandem with respect originatingfrom their relationships with a Maasai sharing
same clan with lions traditionally.

●● Increased demand of resources arising fromincreased populations of wild animals, livestock
and people coupled with human population
spatial distribution over the landscape andchanging lifestyles of the existing social structure
resulting in regular human – wildlife conflicts andcontinuous reduction of the property’s carrying
capacity.

●● Harmonized management systems for all UNESCO

designations will lessen workload to management
team and reduce costs related to advisory/revalidation mission coming at different times andwith different scope of works being applied on
the very same landscape. This can be achieved by
combining statements of outstanding Universal
Value for nature (including Geology) and culture aswell as its conservation management approaches.
Current revisions on the General Management
Plan are geared to try addressing these issues.

●● Changes in ecological, demographics and climaticconditions have significantly caused competitionof available resources such as water and forage;balancing needs for these to sustain humanactivities (accommodation and transhumance
pastoralism) and wildlife is becoming increasingly
threatened.
●● Decline of the pastoral economy, according to

McCabe et al. (1992), a member of a household
requires at least 8.0 Tropical Livestock Units (TLUs)
for sustenance. However, the current TLUs perperson within NCA is 2.3 (excluding donkeys),accounting for about 30% of the minimum
requirement. The declining trend in livestock
per capita causes pastoral food shortage, as
NCA communities rely solely on livestock forfood insecurity. This has prompted communities
to adopt survival strategies, some of them areculturally and environmentally unacceptable suchas begging from tourists, prohibited cultivationand occasional poaching.
These situations indicate gradual
deterioration for both human and ecologicalconditions, including in relation to land degradation
and reduced quality of forage due to increased
invasive alien and pioneer weed species.
■■5. Recommendations
For the continued maintenance of the property’s
OUV, the following actions are suggested:●● Reassess the multiple land use model within NCA

in view of balancing conservation, development
and sustainable community livelihood;●● Harmonize approaches in the management of

natural and cultural heritage (e.g. by adopting asingle General Management Plan), previously andcurrently, NCAA has two different management
plans for nature and culture.

48

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
McCabe Jr, G.T., Emmett, R.L. and Hinton, S.A. 1993. Feeding ecology of juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser
transmontanus) in the lower Columbia River. Northwest Science 67(3): pp. 170-180
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). 2019a. Ngorongoro Conservation Area Management Plan.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area – NCAA Library
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). 2019b. The Multiple Land use model of Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, lessons learnt, challenges and options for the future, draft report (2019). Ngorongoro
Conservation Area – NCAA Library
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2017. Report of the ICOMOS/IUCN Advisory mission to Ngorongoro
Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania), 23-26 August 2017. https://whc.unesco.org/en/
documents/165407/ [Accessed 09 August 2019]
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2019. UNESCO World Heritage Centre - State of Conservation (SOC 2019)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania). https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3928 [Accessed
09 August 2019]49

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

The Study of World Cultural
and Natural Heritage Mount
Wuyi
Ziyan Yang

China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites, Department of Foreign Affairs, 11/F, Tower B, Xinjiang
Plaza, No.7 Sanlihe Rd, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100044; +86 18610276252, Yang.ziyan@hotmail.
com■■Abstract

Mount Wuyi was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1999 under criteria (iii), (vi), (vii) and (x). The
original nomination included only the southern, albeit larger, side of the Wuyi mountain ecosystem. The
World Heritage Outlook, undertaken by IUCN in 2014, concluded that there was a “great need for better
coordination across the province divide and Mount Wuyi would be greatly strengthened if Jiangxi sections
could be added.” As a result, the State Party sent the Minor Modification proposal, which was evaluated,
amended, and approved during the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee. At this time, ICOMOS
suggested to study further and address the concerns concerning the identification and addition ofcomponents to the cultural values. This paper details the cultural and natural heritage values of the property
and their linkages as well as the management system. In addition, it provides an analysis and research of thecultural values mentioned in ICOMOS’s latest recommendation.

KEY WORDS: World Heritage, Nature-Culture Linkages, Mount Wuyi, Evaluations of IUCN & ICOMOS,
Heritage Value Analysis, Management, and Conservation■■1. Introduction

State Party submitted the Minor Modification of
Mount Wuyi World Heritage, which was evaluated,
amended, and approved during the 41st session of
the World Heritage Committee in 2017 (UNESCO
2017a).

Mount Wuyi was inscribed on the UNESCO World
Heritage List in 1999 under criteria (iii), (vi), (vii)and (x). The original nomination included only thesouthern, albeit larger, side of the Wuyi mountainecosystem in Fujian province and not the northerncomponents located in Jiangxi province. The
Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal
Value for this property was adopted during the36th session of the World Heritage Committee in2012 (UNESCO 2012). The World Heritage Outlook
analysis, undertaken by IUCN in 2014, concluded
that there was a “great need for better coordination
across the province divide and Mount Wuyi would
be greatly strengthened if Jiangxi sections could be
added.” The report urged the State Party to extend
the property across the provincial boundary toinclude valuable and richer habitats on the Jiangxi
province side of the mountain. As a result, theMount Wuyi World Heritage property,
nominated as a mixed site, currently covers 107,044
ha, and the buffer zone is 40,170 ha [Figs. 1 & 2]. It
consists of Mount Wuyi National Nature Reserve,
the whole Mount Wuyi National Scenic Area, andthe Remains of Ancient Han Dynasty National Key
Cultural Relics Protection Unit, located in Fujian
province and forming the original inscribed property
in 1999, and the recent extension of Mount Wuyi
northern slopes, a part of the Mount Wuyi National
Nature Reserve located in Jiangxi province (UNESCO
2017b)

50

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Topographical Map of Mount Wuyi World Heritage (after the modification) (Source: CNPA 2017)

Figure 2: Mount Wuyi World Heritage (Source: CNPA 2017)■■2. Significance

2.1 Cultural Valuesand Han Dynasty city, both established in the 1st
century BCE, reflect the Minyue ethnical culture,
which gradually vanished 3,000 years ago.

Mount Wuyi is a landscape of great beauty fusedharmoniously with a series of cultural relics andexceptional archaeological sites. The boat coffins

The property is directly and tangiblyassociated with Neo-Confucianism since the 11th
century CE. Mount Wuyi was the cradle of Neo51

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

combined works of nature and man” shows thelinkage between humans and nature. Furthermore,“natural features (…) from the aesthetic point ofview” and “natural sites (…) from the point of viewof natural beauty” show that nature is valued basedon human aesthetics. Therefore, nature values
interrelate with cultural values, and the resultsof these interactions are tangible and intangible
cultural heritage, such as shrines, poems, andpaintings.

Confucianism, evidenced by several temples andacademies associated with Zhu Xi and Wang
Yangming, who were the central figures of NeoConfucianism development. The outstanding
natural landscape of the property nurtured NeoConfucianism, which became a dominant doctrine
from the 10th to 19th centuries, playing a significant
role in countries of Eastern and South-eastern Asiaand influencing philosophy and politics over much of
the world. Furthermore, the mountain and natural
beauty of the property have inspired Chinese poets,
artists, and philosophers through the centuries.

Specific to the value of Mount Wuyi
World Cultural and Natural Heritage site is therepresentation of the harmonious unity between
humankind and nature. The peaks, the landform(criterion vii), and the animal and plant kingdom(criterion x) of the property were originallymasterpieces of the natural crustal movement andsubtropical climate. However, it inspired people’s
infinite aesthetic imagination and aesthetic
creativity. The heritage of Mount Wuyi represents
the perfect fusion of nature and culture. In detail,nature has provided Mount Wuyi with a uniqueand vibrant environment, which has attracted
scholars and masters of the past generations totour, write, seek seclusion, or teach. The landscapecultivated people’s temperament and enlightenedpeople’s wisdom, while the human activities spreadand developed Mount Wuyi, adding luster to thenatural landscape. There are many cultural relics on
both sides of the natural landscape of Nine Bend
River along with the mountain, the ruins of theboat coffins, Zhu Xi and others’ academies, the cliff
carvings, the temples and monasteries (criterioniii). These relics are like dazzling gems embeddedin the landscape of the property, blending people’s
thoughts, emotions, wisdom, and labor (criterionvi) into the natural landscape, adding a rich cultural
atmosphere to Mount Wuyi, reaching the state ofunity of heaven and man.

2.2 Natural Values
The riverine landscape of Wuyi’s Nine-Bend River(lower gorge) is of exceptional scenic quality in its
juxtaposition of smooth rock cliffs with clear, deep
water.
In terms of biodiversity, Mount Wuyi isamong the most outstanding subtropical forestsin the world. It constitutes the largest, mostrepresentative example of mostly intact forest
representing the diversity of the Chinese Subtropical
Forest and the South Chinese Rainforest. The
property has acted as a unique species refuge since
Tertiary times for a large number of ancient, relict
plant species and plant communities, many of them
endemic to China and contains exceptional numbersof reptile, amphibian, and insect species (Chen
1999).

2.3 Linkages Between the Cultural and Natural
Values
According to Article 1 of the Convention Concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (UNESCO 1972), the definition ofCultural Heritage contains “sites: works of man
or the combined works of nature and man, andareas including archaeological sites which are of
Outstanding Universal Value from the historical,
aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological pointsof view.” Article 2 of the Convention stipulates thatthe definition of natural heritage includes “naturalfeatures consisting of physical and biologicalformations or groups of such formations, which areof Outstanding Universal Value from the aesthetic
point of view; natural sites or precisely delineatednatural areas of Outstanding Universal Value fromthe point of view of natural beauty.” Therefore, it
can be noted from the above definitions that there
are strong interactions and connections between
the definitions of the values of cultural heritageand natural heritage (Yang 2004). For instance, “theIn conclusion, the cultural phenomenonis created through the activation of the spiritualcreativity of the aesthetic subject when theobjective beauty of Mount Wuyi’s rare natural
resources and natural beauty acts on the aesthetic
subject. It is a concrete manifestation of thepermanent charm and nature-culture linkages ofthe property.
■■3. Management

3.1 Current Protection and Coordinated Management
The entire modified property is owned by thegovernment of the People’s Republic of China and is
52

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

afforded strong legal protection. The components
include national-level nature reserves, a scenic
site, and national level listed cultural relics, thus
assuring the safeguarding of both the cultural andnatural values of the property. This protection falls
under several national laws, including the Forestry
Law (1984/2020), Environmental Protection
Law (1989/2015), Cultural Relics Protection Law(1982/2017), Regulations on Nature Reserves(1994/2017), Regulations on Scenic Sites (2006), and
the Wildlife Protection Law of the People’s Republicof China (1988/2018). The Fujian Mount Wuyi
property was designated as a UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve in 1987.

face of the new emerging threat of climate change.
Integrity and resilience have been enhancedby modifying the boundaries of the property.
This change gives the area increased habitat
connectivity, a marginally greater area, especiallyof precious broadleaf evergreen forest, and amore extensive range of habitat types, extending
the site into the major Yangtze catchment. This
includes a broader sweep of local species and biotic
communities.

3.2 Sustainable Tourism
With special permission, only a small numberof tourists are allowed to visit the Mount Wuyi
National Nature Reserve in Jiangxi province, thecore zone, buffer zone, and a small part of theexperimental zone, which are included in the World
Heritage property (Forestry Department of Jiangxi
Province 2002). New quotas have been set following
the completion of studies looking at the impactsof tourism and carrying capacity. The Mount
Wuyi World Heritage coordination committee has
established a very elaborate monitoring system,
including monitoring not only the general physicalenvironment – air quality, water quality, andvegetation cover – but also the level of visitor use
and impacts.

Af ter the acceptance of the Minor
Modification, the property encompasses land in
two provinces. Management plans coordinatedby the administrative authorities of Fujian and
Jiangxi provinces are being developed for effective
protection and management. Monitoring systems
are in place with local participation to ensure regularmonitoring and informative decision-making. At theoperational level, the modified property is jointly
managed by the People’s Government of Jiangxi
Province and Fujian Province through an overall
Coordination Committee. An overall umbrella
management plan is being developed considering a
top-down management system with a multi-sector
approach, which includes the Provincial Department
of Forestry, the Provincial Bureau of Cultural
Heritage, Mount Wuyi National Nature Reserve
Management Bureau, and County Governments ofboth provinces.

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity

4.1 Co-management
At the national level, the property is coordinatedand managed by the National Forestry andGrassland Administration, and the National Cultural
Heritage Administration. The Ministry of Education(UNESCO China) acts as the external window unit forinternational communication, similar to some othercountries.

According to the latest assessment of theWorld Heritage Outlook 2, undertaken by IUCN in2017 (Osipova et al. 2017), it is concluded that thesuccessful modification of the site boundary in 2017
was highly significant in improving the resilienceand viability of the Mount Wuyi ecosystem andbiodiversity. IUCN considers that the integrity ofthe site has been further strengthened by adding
the Jiangxi section, which included new areas of thesame ecosystem contiguous with the original site.
The management action has had a positive effecton nature conservation. For instance, despite its
smaller size, the Jiangxi sections of the mountainare regarded as different, wilder, and richer in fauna
than the larger Fujian sections. Given the relatively
small size and fragmented nature of subtropicalforests in the existing Mount Wuyi property, theextensive plantations of Moso bamboo, and limited
sample of different available catchment areas, theoriginal World Heritage site appears to have had
vulnerable habitat integrity and low resilience in the

After the property became a cross-provincial
World Heritage site, to better protect the property,
the Yanshan County of Jiangxi Province and the
Wuyi City of Fujian Province signed a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) for the coordinatedmanagement and protection of Mount Wuyi World
Heritage in 2017. However, as the administrative
authorities are based in different provinces, they
still face a problem of joint management of theproperty.
Moreover, Mount Wuyi involves many
natural protective designations, including Mount
Wuyi Scenic Area Management Committee,
53

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Jinggangshan, respectively. The cultural relics inthese two sections include the E’hu Academy, theRuins of Baikou city, and the sites of Philosophers of
Mind of the Ming and the Qing Dynasties and werementioned in the ICOMOS evaluation report aspotential components of the property [Fig. 3]. The
E’hu Academy is located more than 30 kilometers
north of the proposed boundaries. In comparison,
the Ruins of Baikou city and the sites of Philosophersof Mind of the Ming and the Qing Dynasties arelocated 250 kilometers away. Thus, these elements
could not be included within a minor modificationof the boundaries.

Mount Wuyi National Forest Park, and Mount
Wuyi Nature Reserve. The existing protection
and management institutions in Mount Wuyi are
divided into sections, which has increased thecoordination complexity as well as caused thedecline of the property’s protection objectives
and its effectiveness. The differences between
the natural and cultural authorities have inevitably
increased the complexity of the management of theproperty. The management division problem facedby natural heritage has increased the difficulty ofmanagement, making it impossible to form theoverall concept of property development, and it is
impossible to show the overall resource advantageof the property to the world.

In 2015, the Chinese government updated
its Tentative List. It included Mount Jinggang andMount Wuyi (Jiangxi) as a potential extension of
Mount Wuyi World Heritage property, taking
into consideration that they belong to the same
geotectonic unit, the same physical geography
region, and the same general culture. More
importantly, the proposed extension ensures
greater habitat integrity, resilience, and ecologicalconnectivity from the natural heritage point of view.
From the cultural heritage point of view, a potential
extension of the property would enrich the culturalcharacters of the site and strengthen the interlinks
between cultural and natural environments byconsidering testimonies of different stages of thehistorical development of the area.

4.2 The concerns in relation to the cultural values ofthe property
According to the requirement of Decision 41
COM 8B.38 (UNESCO 2017a), the State Party was
requested, with the support of ICOMOS and theWorld Heritage Centre to “undertake further study
to address the concerns about cultural values ofthe property,” which is an essential suggestion
for deepening the nature-culture linkages of theproperty. There are several cultural sites associatedclosely with the development of neo-Confucianism
scattering in the Jiangxi province. Two geographicalsections are connected to the cultural values of theproperty, located in north Mount Wuyi (Jingxi) and

Figure 3: The location of E’hu Academy, Ruins of Baikou city, and the sites of Philosophers of Mind of the Ming and the
Qing Dynasties (Source: CNPA 2017)
54

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■5. Current developments

the property of Mount Wuyi, which owns several
protective designations, will retain only the highest
protective level. It will be managed by only one
administration, resolving cross-management issues,and significantly improving management efficiency.
The new system solves the multi-management
problem of natural heritage, which can contributeto the integration of cultural and natural heritage.

5.1 The establishment of a national park-based
Protected Area System
The General Office of the CPC Central Committee
and the General Office of the State Council of PRC
China issued the “Guiding Opinions on Establishinga National Park-based Protected Area System” in2019. Under the definition of China’s new protectedarea system, the protected areas are divided into
three categories according to the ecological value,
and the intensity of protection: national parks,
nature reserves and natural parks, and the main
status of national parks are established.

5.2 Address the concerns in relation to the culturalvalues of the property
The objective of the 2017 Minor Modification
was to strengthen the integrated conservation ofvegetation and ecology in the most efficient way,
focusing on the natural aspects of the property.
However, the State Party notes the requests ofDecision 41 COM 8B.38 adopted during the 41st
session of the World Heritage Committee andadmits that the E’hu Academy, Ruins of Baikou city,and the sites of Philosophers of Mind of the Mingand the Qing Dynasties are linked to the culturalvalue of the property.

The new system can significantly improvethe cross-management of multiple ministries
and the overlapping of protective designation by
centralizing the responsibility. By the end of 2017,
the total number of protected areas in China was
11,412, including 3,922 designated at the national
level of protection. The total area of all types of land
protected accounts for about 18% of the total landarea in China, which exceeds the world averageof 14%. The area of nature reserves accounts for
14.8% of the land area in China, accounting for morethan 80% of the total area of all protected areas(Luo and Xu 2019). Among the many protectedareas, there are overlapping settings and multihead management issues. Management authorities
related to multiple protective designations include
the National Forestry and Grassland Administration,
the Ministry of Environmental Protection, theMinistry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development,
the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of
Oceans. After the establishment of the new system,
there is only one set of protective designations
in a protected area, which is managed by one
department and greatly enhances management
effectiveness. At the same time, the establishmentof the National Park Administration can achieve
unified management across provinces and regions.
Additionally, they can establish a coordination work
leading group with the relevant provinces to jointly
promote the pilot work and uniformly exercise themanagement rights within the scope of its national
park.

Therefore, further research is recommended
to study the status and impact of Neo-Confucianismin the Southern Song Dynasty and the academy
system insofar these cultural sites could be partof the Mount Wuyi World Heritage site. The
archaeological discovery of the Ruins of Baikou
city adds another dimension that complements
the values demonstrated by the remains of theHan Dynasty city already inside the property. The
two sections, which are considered the birthplaceand cradle of Neo-Confucianism, would enrich theoutstanding Universal Value of the property. The
cultural relics of the related sections complements
and extends the cultural heritage of Mount Wuyi
World Heritage and witnesses the civilized or
cultural tradition that once existed in the region andhas partly disappeared. Associated sections and its
associated cultural relics, together with the Mount
Wuyi World Heritage, comply with criteria (iii) and(vi).
However, considering the area anddistance of the associated cultural relics, the mostappropriate way to include the cultural relics ofnorth Mount Wuyi (Jingxi) section and Jinggangshan
section into the scope of the property should be
to consider the extension with a new nomination.
Due to the current World Heritage application rules(one new nomination per country per year), thisalternative may imply a long queue at the national
level.

In summar y, the establishment of acentralized and unified management system for
Mount Wuyi National Park should be completed
per the “Mount Wuyi National Park Regulations(Trial).” In 2020, China will fully complete thenational park pilot tasks, and Mount Wuyi willserve as the first batch of national parks. By then,55JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Chen, C. D. 1999. Biodiversity of the Wuyi Mountain and its importance in China. Biodiversity Science, 7(4):pp. 320–326
China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites (CPNA). 2017. Minor Modification to Boundaries ofMount Wuyi World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Forestry Department of Jiangxi Province. 2002. The overall planning of the construction in Wuyishan
National Nature Reserve of Jiangxi Province
Luo, J. W. and Xu, T. 2019. Illustration: Developing a Nature Protected Area System Composed Mainly of
National Parks. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?biz=MzU2Mzc5NzEwOA==&mid=2247485218&idx=1&sn=bed43
713ba48b48373615bfedfdad363&chksm=fc558a39cb22032fddecb4424746e0efde7db79795e3ad454bcff7
0afa824465dbc15178090f&mpshare=1&scene=23&srcid=&sharer_sharetime=1565833275822&sharer_sha
reid=aed113327e0f9813c749ddc301d15323#rd
Osipova, E., Shi, Y., Kormos, C., Shadie, P., Zwahlen. C., and Badman, T. 2014. IUCN World Heritage Outlook
2014: A conservation assessment of all natural World Heritage sites. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Osipova, E., Shadie, P., Zwahlen, C., Osti, M., Shi, Y., Kormos, C., Bertzky, B., Murai, M., Van Merm, R., andBadman, T. 2017. IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2: A conservation assessment of all natural World Heritage
sites. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage. General
Conference, 17th session, Paris, November 16. https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ [Accessed 15
September 2017]
UNESCO. 2012. Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg,
2012), pp. 224. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2012/whc12-36com-19e.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2016]
UNESCO. 2017a. Decisions adopted during the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee (Krakow, 2017),
pp. 249. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-18-en.pdf [Accessed 15 September 2017]
UNESCO. 2017b. Minor Modification to Boundaries of Mount Wuyi World Cultural and Natural Heritage, pp.
8-9. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/911/documents/ [Accessed 15 September 2017]
UNESCO. 2019. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris
Yang, G. X. 2004. On the Subject System of the Wuyi Science and its Relation of Wuyi Culture. Journal of
Nanping Teachers College 23(3): pp. 10-13■■Legislation:
Cultural Relics Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. 1982 & rev. 2017. http://www.ncha.gov.cn/
art/2017/11/28/art_2301_42898.html [Accessed 28 June 2020]
Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. 1989 & rev. 2015. http://www.gov.cn/
zhengce/2014-04/25/content_2666434.htm [Accessed 28 June 2020]

56

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Forestry Law of the People’s Republic of China. 1984 & rev. 2020. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-12/28/
content_5464831.htm [Accessed 28 June 2020]
Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Nature Reserves. 1994 & rev. 2017. http://www.forestry.
gov.cn/main/3950/20170314/459882.html [Accessed 28 June 2020]
Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Scenic Sites. 2006. http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2006-09/29/
content_402732.htm [Accessed 28 June 2020]
Wildlife Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. 1988 & rev. 2018. http://www.forestry.gov.cn/
main/3949/20170314/204777.html [Accessed 28 June 2020]

57

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

SACRED MOUNTAINLANDSCAPE AND HERITAGE
ROUTES: NATURE, CULTURE
AND BORDERLESS BELIEFS
Anuranjan Roy

UNESCO Category 2 Centre on World Natural Heritage Management and Training for Asia and the PacificRegion, Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun - 248001, India; +91 135 2646 299, +91 7044294470,
anuranjan@wii.gov.in, anuranjan.roy@gmail.com■■Abstract

The traditional pilgrimage route through India towards the holy mountain of Kailash in the Tibet Autonomous
Region of China represents a timeless example of nature-culture linkage where the exquisite terrain is
an integral part of the local cultural practices. With multiple generations of pilgrims passing through,adding continuous layers of interpretation and memories, it is a living heritage which continues building its
reputation and legend. The paper will look at the nature-culture connections that make the Indian sectionof the pilgrimage trail unique while acknowledging its continuity with the larger transnational landscapeof pilgrimage to Mt. Kailash spread across India, Nepal and China. It will also correlate learnings from the
Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages 2019 organized by the University of Tsukuba andthe site visit to Mt. Fuji to their parallels in the Indian pilgrimage route and landscape.

KEY WORDS: Kailash, Pilgrimage, Mixed Site, World Heritage, Nature-Culture■■1. Introduction

Kailash is a significant rite of passage for multiple
cultures in South Asia much like the pilgrim paths
towards the summit of Mt. Fuji, visited by theparticipants during the Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages 2019 (CBWNCL 2019),
are cultural cornerstones for Japan.

1.1 The Journey“Good novels - great ones - never actually seemto tell us anything; rather, they make us live it andshare it by virtue of their persuasive powers.” Mario Vargas Llosa, Excerpts from Letters to a Young
Novelist.

Though the focus of this paper will be thetraditional pilgrimage route through India towards
the peak of Mt. Kailash (Kangrinboqe 6,638 m)
and the holy lake of Mansarovar which are locatedwithin the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) of China,
it is important to understand the cultural continuity
and connections, which are much older thanpresent-day political boundaries (ICIMOD 2011).

Much like great novels, a journey ofpilgrimage derives its power from experiencing it.
The storied terrain that will be discussed inthis paper is an ancient one and its connection to
the human experience seamless. When a place ofsignificant natural beauty is intricately linked withmillennia of human memories, the journey itself
becomes a story, a legend and a culture in itself –a rare nature-culture synergy. The journey to Mt.

1.2 An Overview of the Landscape
The Kailash Sacred Landscape (KSL) is an area of
about 31,000 km2, comprising of north eastern
58

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

corners of Uttarakhand state in India, the adjacentdistricts in Nepal’s far western region, and thesouth western portion of China’s TAR. KSL has
a diverse range of ecological conditions, richbiodiversity, distinct cultures and Indigenous
sources of livelihood. About 7,120 km2 of KSL
included in the Indian portion has been chosen
for the Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage
Routes nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage
List (ICIMOD 2011). With nearly 70 % (4,965 km2) ofthe land classified as forest cover, and with 4 majorwatersheds and 2 prominent protected areas in or
adjacent to it, the combination of its natural wealthand historical importance to pilgrims makes it anembodiment of the culture-nature symbiosis.

The site [Fig. 1] includes the Byans, Darma
and Chaudans valleys in the state of Uttarakhand.
The nomination includes the Askot Wildlife
Sanctuary and the eastern edges of the Nanda
Devi Biosphere Reserve making it contiguous with
its eponymous National Park, a World Heritage
Site in its own right. The watersheds of PanarSarya, Saryu-Ramganga, Gori, and Dhauli-Kali help
sustain the diversity in the Indian portion and in its
entirety, the KSL gives rise to two mighty rivers – theBrahmaputra to the east and the Indus to the west
(UNESCO 2017). The extensive river systems of theSutlej and the Karnali are also born here. The rainfall
on the region’s southern flanks eventually finds its
way to the Ganges (Weise 2018).

The Sacred Mountain Landscape andHeritage Routes was placed on India’s Tentative List1
of World Heritage as a Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage Site in April 2019 (UNESCO 2019) withreference to the criteria (iii) exceptional testimony
to a cultural tradition, (vi) tangibly associated withliving traditions, and (x) in-situ conservation of
biological diversity. The identified region fulfills
the criteria through long-held local traditions anddistinctive landscapes.

■■2. Significance

2.1 Cultural SignificanceLike Mt. Fuji is traditionally considered to be theresidence of Asama-no-Okami, the god of Volcanoes
and the goddess Konohana-Sakuya-Hime, Mt. Kailash
is regarded by Hindus as the abode of the deity Shiva,a central figure in the Hindu pantheon and is also
associated with Mahameru, the sacred cosmologicalmountain linked to the creation of the world. The

Figure 1: The Mahakali Route, used for the annual Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage, follows the western banks of the
Kali River (Source: Author 2019)1

The site was temporarily withdrawn from the Tentative List of India to World Heritage on 8 July, 2019 to carry out technical modifications for re-submission at a later date.

59

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Map of the Sacred Mountain Landscape and Pilgrimage Routes (Source: WII 2019)

mountain features prominently in ancient scriptures
like the Skand Puran and classical Sanskrit works like
Kalidasa’s Kumarsambhava and Meghaduta. Despite
the Buddhist-Bon myth of the battle between Milrepa
and Naro Bon-chung, their respective religious
figures over Mt. Kailash, today the two communities
continue to access the pilgrimage route with mutual
respect: the Buddhists circumambulating Kailashin the clockwise direction and Bons, anti-clockwise(Weise 2018). Regional folk stories like ‘You Don’t
Die Till You’re Dead’ feature the characters of threefriends representing Hinduism, Buddhism and Bon,
expanding upon the common importance of Kailash
to all of them (Kapur 2017).

(Jauljibi), Taleshwar (Jhulaghat), Tapovan (Dharchula),
Rameshwar (Ghat), and Thal are considered sacredwith specific rituals and worship practiced there.
Similar to the popularity of the Yoshida Route taken
by pilgrims to go up Mt. Fuji as seen in person by
the participants of CBWNCL 2019 during their fieldvisit, the main foot pilgrimage route to Mt. Kailash
follows the valley of the sacred Kali Ganga river
whose source is indicated as a pond at which there
is a temple of importance for the Hindu devoteesof the goddess Kali. Historically, more pilgrimage
routes east of the Kali gorge route like the one that
goes through the Unta Dhura Pass near Nanda
Devi via Milam had existed but have now fallen into
disuse (Bernbaum 2012).

While several historic routes for pilgrimage andbusiness radiate through the Indian part of the
Kailash landscape, the Mahakali route in the
Kumaon region, going along the western banks of
the Kali river through Nepal, opens for the annual
Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage [Fig. 2]. Similar
to the Oshi Houses for Fujiko pilgrims visited byparticipants of the CBWNCL 2019, the area has
a tradition of a number of smaller religious andresidential structures to accommodate pilgrims
passing through.

Places like the village of Kuti, the last village
on the route to Adi Kailash, have mythologicaland significant nature-culture linkages drawn
from its paddy fields without rice grains due to an
incomplete worship ritual by a queen as per legend;
a mountain-top temple dedicated to Kunti, motherof the five heroes at the centre of Indian epic, The
Mahabharata , and the village being the settlementof choice for Ved Vyasa who is identified as thecomposer of The Mahabharata and compiler of the
Vedas for its serene natural settings. This charmof the Kuti landscape and its inhabitants extended
well beyond the age of myths all the way up to 150
years ago, when Charles A. Sherring was compelled
to note that “In these lovely valleys, there is still theromance and poetry of life: each has its god, eachbush its spirit“ (Pande and Bhawariya 2015).

Given the richness of natural wealth, thelocal culture in this part of Uttarakhand is heavily
influenced and shaped by it. A number of lakes
like Anchheri Tal, Chhipla Kund, the previously
mentioned Parvati Tal have cultural significance andconfluences of rivers at Pancheshwar, Jauleshwar
60

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Beyond the worship of nature, the ecologicalcycle finds expression in the many festivals of theregion such as Harela, Chippla Jaat, Khatarau, Kandali
and through important local fairs like Nanda Devi,
Jauljibi, Punyagiri, Thal, and Gangolihat (UNESCO2019). The Kandali festival of the Rang communityof Chaudans, a once in 12 years celebration last heldin 2011, is particularly interesting as its celebration
involves the token uprooting of a plant that flowers
in about the same time gap in remembrance ofthe defeat of an invading force which used theflowering plants as a cover.

suitable habitat for musk deer, Himalayan Monals
and other migratory birds such as tits and finches
and several communities use birch poles as prayer
flag poles and some its bark in rituals. In selected
communities, the burning of birch is a sin and due
to local communities becoming conscious of birch
conservation, the past 30-40 years have seen partial
recovery of the birch forests in Byans Valley (Rawat2018).
■■3. Management
The control and use of the landscape is governedby a variety of state and national laws. These
include the state level Van Panchayat Act (Village
Council) 1931. Forest Development Agency (FDA),
a federation of Van Panchayats responsible forpreparation of projects and receives funds fromvarious agencies and transfers the same to the Van
Panchayats for forestry activities. It is chaired by
the Conservator of Forests and has the territorial
DFO (Divisional Forest Officer) as the Secretary.
At the national level, the Wildlife Protection Act[1972] and Forest Conservation Act [1980] areapplicable in the landscape too. Beside this, theIndian government’s National Mission on Sustaining
the Himalayan Ecosystem in sync with its National
Environment Policy [2006] encourage communitybased management of vulnerable ecosystems (G. B.
Pant Institute 2010). The annual pilgrimage throughthe landscape towards Mt. Kailash in TAR is also
regulated by the Government. The annual numberof pilgrims is restricted to 18 groups of 60 pilgrims
each staggered through the months of June throughSeptember when the access road is open. The
selection for the same is done through an online
application, followed by a draw of lots and further
evaluation/interviews (Kailash Mansoravar Yatra
2019).

2.2 Natural SignificanceThe Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage
Routes site is naturally blessed with five major
ecoregions from alpine meadows to broadleaf
forests, with 191 bird, 90 fish, 38 mammal and 26
herpetofauna species (3 out of which are CriticallyEndangered (CR) and 7 Endangered (EN) as per
the IUCN Red List) and about 1,200 plant species(24 endemic), including a rich array of medicinaland other herbs (UNESCO 2019). On the field visit
to Mt. Fuji, its importance as a funnel and theonly source for fresh water in the local area wasemphasised upon. The transnational landscapebeing the source for many major rivers like theIndus, the Brahmaputra, the Sutlej and the Karnali,
besides the rainfall on its southern flanks finding its
way to the Ganges (ICIMOD 2011), provides criticalecosystem services to large stretches of alluvial
plains downstream and to densely populated humansettlements.
Near the Lipu Lekh pass, at Navidhang,pilgrims can see Om Parvat, where snow in the foldsof the mountain forms a shape similar to the Hindu
spiritual word ‘Om’ (Bernbaum 2012). Geologicalfeatures like Adi Kailash (a peak with a structure
similar to Mt. Kailash), Parvati Tal (as an equivalentof Mansarovar Lake) within the Indian region havelong had an importance of their own both as anatural presence and a cultural marker.

The local Rang or Rang-Shauka community
live in one of the five zones of the Sacred Mountain
Landscape and Heritage Routes site, that of thehighland areas of Byans, Darma, Chaundas, andJohar valleys. Besides this, the Seera, Askot, Seera,
Gangoli and Sor regions, all exhibit unique linguistic,social, religious and economic features and arealso shaped by their interactions with pilgrims overhundreds of years. A spectrum of societies can beseen in the vertical movement from the valleys tothe higher reaches, from agrarian, pastoral-agrarian,pastoral trader, nomad pastoral to a form of huntergathering. The hill farmers carry forward a legacyof selection of suitable crops for the predominantly
rainfed agriculture, an outcome of thousands ofyears of manipulations tried through succeeding

Flora like Tangsen/hemlock Tsuga dumosa ,Cimicifuga foetida , and Morina polyphylla are
species rarely found in the Western Himalayas
making the area an important ecological transitionzone from the Western to the Eastern Himalayas.
Its alpine meadows are rich in wild medicinal
plants and there are local healers who retain theirknowledge of the traditional treatments. Traditionalsacred groves and community forests such as
Bugyals, Tapovan and Haath Kali are also criticalto maintain the natural balance. Birch forests are
61

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

generations (G.B. Pant Institute 2010, 2012). The
Tribal Heritage Museum in Munsiyari has effectively
conserved and institutionalized ancient and living
traditions of Indigenous communities in its displays
and collections. The newly initiated Rang Museum
at Dharchula is dedicated to preserving the detailsof a traditional lifestyle rapidly disappearing. In the
picture below [Fig. 3], the traditional artifacts seen
have been donated voluntarily to the museum fromvillages across the three valleys as they have fallenout of daily use.

The socioeconomic life of the local people
in the Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage
Routes has been defined by a nomadic lifestyle,transhumance, and migration. Rock salt, borax,
wool from Tibet and the higher mountain passes
would be traded for food grains, jaggery, clothes,and other commodities from lower India facilitating
an exchange of cultures at the major fairs andmarketplaces where the transactions occurred. An
illustration of the connections in the KSL, Limi Valleyin Nepal was for centuries a central connection anda marketplace for traders from Tibet and India (The
Hindu 2019). With the end of the caravan trade andtranshumance due to modern political developments
and the availability of mass-produced iodized salt, its
economy saw a drastic decline. Alternative meansof livelihood drawing on tourism, pilgrimage andlocal business currently offer the only income to theresidents of the site. A good management plan mustfactor in ways to provide channels for up-skillingand employment drawing on and augmenting theprotection of the area’s heritage.
■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity

Figure 3: Donated traditional artifacts with the Rang
Museum, Dharchula (Source: Author 2019)

The region-specific Kumaoni style ofarchitecture uses local materials like stone, slate
and mud in construction techniques passed
down as legacy as is the art form of Aipan, where
the artists create motifs of natural elements
and gods/goddesses on cloth, paper and walls.
These arts and crafts are yet to be documented
in detail and management plans could consider
the same, looking at the sustainability and viabilityof generating income streams from them. Longheld local traditions in Uttarakhand of preserving
sacred groves (Dev Vans), i.e. community forests likethose in Hokra Devi, Lateshwar Mahadev, Satgarhand Hat Kali, overseen by Van Panchayats (Village/
Forest Councils) are critical to maintaining balancewith nature. These Dev Vans perform important
ecological functions like water recharging, nutrient
cycling, prevention of soil erosion, conservationof biodiversity, and in mountain areas evenprevent landslides. Local communities associate
the sacred sites and landscapes with local deities
linked with their culture while pilgrims from otherparts of the country link the same with the panIndia deities like Shiva. Both groups of worshippers
must be considered stakeholders (Bernbaum2012). By including sites of local importance in theconservation plan, local involvement and interestin the conservation of the site may be greatly
enhanced.

In the Indian state of Uttarakhand as well, remotevillages continue to be abandoned and thereby
leading to a loss of traditional ecological knowledge.
Inaccessible areas, dif ficult terrain, harshclimate, seasonal work, and lack of employment/
occupational opportunities leading to an increase
in alcohol consumption among youth. Migration forhigher education and private/government jobs inother cities of the district has increased significantly.
The significance and utility of temples, sacredgroves, and traditional local fairs is also on a gradualdecline (WII 2014). The region is inhabited mostly
by communities, who depend heavily on the forestsand forest products to earn their livelihoods andthe degradation of natural ecosystems; inadequate
infrastructure for drinking water, health, education;
increasing incidents of human-wildlife conflict withmonkeys, wild pigs, leopards and black bears are asource of concern as per the annual report on theconservation of KSL (WII 2014). Due to geologicalinstability and extreme climatic conditions,landslides like the one seen in Fig. 4 disrupt roadconnectivity to the terrain. The areas are alsoseeing changes brought on by infrastructure andtourism and the generation of sustainable, genderresponsive, and socially equitable livelihood options
are the need of the hour.

62

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

tourism may see a significant drop in business post
the pandemic but small-scale adventure in difficult
to access sites may yet return. For the adventurous
tourist as well as the religious, sensitization andguidelines are necessary to prevent the side-effectsof over-commercialization that a spurt in tourism
often causes. Culture and site-specific content
always work better and can be created with thispurpose in hand (WII 2010, ICIMOD 2014). The
popular art inspiring impact of Mt. Fuji on Japanesesociety can be compared to the influence of Mt.
Kailash and successful ideas from Japan could be
reworked and adapt to this landscape.

Figure 4: Landslides disrupt connectivity within thelandscape (Source: Author 2019)

For instance, during the CBWNCL 2019,
participants had an opportunity to visit the Shizuoka
and the Yamanashi Prefectures World Heritage
Visitor Centres for Mt. Fuji where the former wasa modern design with an orientation towards
the international tourist while the latter was a
traditionally designed one catering to the spiritually
inclined local visitor. A similar approach could beconsidered for the Sacred Mountain Landscapeand Heritage Routes site to develop interpretation
content that would appeal to every kind of visitor.
Much like how the religion of Shugendo allows fora syncretic mix of esoteric Buddhism, Taoism andShinto influences, the nature of the pilgrimage routeto Mt. Kailash through scenic surroundings andthe story of the peak itself is such that a Hindu cansee it as the path to the abode of Shiva, a Buddhist
regards it as Demchog’s palace, for a Jain it is where
their first Tirthankara attained enlightenment andfor a practicing Bon, it is the Swastika Mountainof their tradition without conflict (Bernbaum2012) making this all-encompassing nature of thegeography appeal to the secular traveller just as
much.

However, local communities have had a long
history of living in harmony with nature which caneasily be harnessed for conservation in the region.
Through the Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation
and Development Initiative (KSLCDI) Implementation
Programme in India under the aegis of International
Centre for Integrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD), with Wildlife Institute of India (WII) as oneof the partner organizations, considerable progresshas been done in restoring the nature-culture
connect and help local communities preserve theirinvaluable heritage (ICIMOD 2011). After extensive
surveys on community perception and inputs
from stakeholder’s consultation meetings wereincorporated into a Feasibility Assessment Report(G. B. Pant Institute 2010), the Programme has sinceengaged in multiple participatory, communitybased, local multi-stakeholder in the Indian KSL for
capacity building, youth outreach, Participatory
Natural Resource Management (NRM), Community
Based Ecosystem Management Plans (ESM) andLong-Term Ecological and Social Monitoring (LTESM)(WII 2016).
■■5. Recommendations

The Indian section of the KSL represents
but a unique part of a whole, a whole which
encompasses millions of acres holding deep cultural,
natural and aesthetic value. The KSL can be said tobe, for the most part, pristine and because of thesignificance it has held in human history for such along time, human presence on the landscape is as
natural as any other life form’s would be. As large
truly natural areas disappear around the earth, thefew that remain become that much more importantas examples of what will always continue to inspire
humankind. Extending a definition of popular
culture given by communication theory guru StuartHall, to a journey through the KSL, the journey itself
is the “carrier, reflection and producer of culture”.

For the preservation of traditional knowledge
and sustainable living, the growing populationneeds to be supported through reliable livelihood
opportunities. Owing to its remoteness, the region
does not yet attract tourists to its fullest potential
and the feasibility report (G. B. Pant Institute 2010)
have suggested a very good scope as an adventure
tourism hub with Mountaineering, Trekking, Rock
Climbing, River Rafting, Skiing, Para-gliding, Angling
all on offer. With trained local guides and flow ofincome to the villages, this offers a way to lessforest dependent lifestyles with the caveat that thesocial and economic changes that this will bringneed to be studied in parallel. As the COVID19 crisis
currently engulfing the world indicates, mass market
63

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Bernbaum, E. 2012. Mount Kailash in the Context of Sacred and Inspirational Mountains around the World.
ICIMOD, Lalitpur, Nepal
G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development. 2010. Kailash Sacred LandscapeConservation Initiative Feasibility Assessment Report: India. Almora, India
G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development. 2012. Journey Through A Sacred Land.
Almora, India
International Council for Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu. 2011. Kailash Sacred LandscapeConservation Initiative Feasibility Assessment Report. ICIMOD, Lalitpur, Nepal
International Council for Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu. 2014. Guidelines for Travelling
Responsibly in the Kailash Sacred Landscape. ICIMOD, Lalitpur, Nepal
Kapur, K. and Adhikari, P. (ed.). 2017. ‘You Don’t Die Till You’re Dead’, Shared Sacred Landscapes - Stories from
Mount Kailas, Tise & Kang Rinpoche. Vajra Books, Nepal
Pande A. and Bhawariya R. 2015. The Song Supreme – Rendezvous with Tradition, Myth and Adventure in
the Vyans Valley. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam
Rawat, G. 2018. A Botanical Kora Around Adi Kailash. Saevus, Sep-Nov 2018
The Hindu, INDIA. 2019. This remote Tibetan valley in Nepal looks to India and China for sustenance. https://www.thehindu.com/society/this-remote-tibetan-valley-in-nepal-looks-to-india-and-china-for-sustenance/
article26341791.ece#comments_26341791 [Accessed 10 April 2019]
UNESCO. 2017. Scenic and Historic Area of Sacred Mountains and Lakes.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6187/ [Accessed 18 April 2019]
UNESCO. 2019. Annexure 1_Annex 2A-Sacred Mountain Landscape, India_Apr19
Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes
http://bit.ly/indian-ksl-tentative [Accessed 18 April 2019]
Weise, K. 2018. Mount Kailash, the Transnational Landscape. In Moe Chiba, Shikha Jain, Sonali Ghosh, V.B.
Mathur (eds.): Cultural Landscapes of Asia: Understanding and Managing Heritage Values. Aryan Books
International, India
Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun. 2010. Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative Feasibility
Assessment Report – India. Wll, Dehradun, India
Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun. 2014. Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation and Development
Initiative (KSLCDI) Project Implementation Programme in India – Annual Report 2014. Wll, Dehradun, India
Wildlife Institute of India (WII). 2016. Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation and Development Initiative(KSLCDI) Project Implementation Programme in India – Annual Report 2016. Wll, Dehradun, India

64

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

RECOGNIZING THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE KANGCHENJUNGACONSERVATION AREA AS A
POTENTIAL WORLD HERITAGE
PROPERTY IN NEPAL
Yadav Uprety1

Research Center for Applied Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal 44700 Kathmandu;+00977-9843772554, yadavuprety@gmail.com■■Abstract

The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area in Nepal is a potential World Heritage Site because of its uniquecharacteristics and strategic location. The exceptional altitudinal range (from 1,200 m to 8,586 m at Mt.
Kangchenjunga, the world’s third-highest peak) within an area of only 2,035 km2 has created pristine habitats
for flora and fauna. The local people practice a variety of livelihoods, including agriculture, pastoralism,
forestry, and trade, resulting in a vibrant cultural tapestry. The human settlements within the area are someof the highest altitude settlements known in the world that adapt traditional systems for coping with aharsh environment. The area holds both challenges and opportunities from conservation and development
perspectives. In order to translate challenges into opportunities, there is a need for a more integrated andcoordinated approach with multiple-stakeholder participation. The recognition of the area as a World
Heritage property can provide a platform to bring stakeholders together to better manage the natural andcultural entities of this “Gift to the Earth.”

KEY WORDS: Heritage, Eastern Himalaya, Larix , Limbu , Snow leopard■■1. Overview

Conservation Area (KCA) to another protected
area, the Makalu Barun National Park. The KCA
lies within the Sacred Himalayan Landscape andKangchenjunga Landscape and is a crucial link in the
chain of transboundary protected areas maintaining
contiguous ecosystems across the region (ICIMOD,
WCD, GBPNIHESD and RECAST 2017, Bhandari et al.
2018, Gurung et al. 2019).
The KCA covers some 2,035 km2 of land in the
Taplejung district within the eastern Himalayan
biodiversity hotspot [Fig. 1]. It was established

The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (IUCN
Category VI) is a community-managed protectedarea located in the north-eastern corner of Nepal. It
shares borders with the Khangchendzonga National
Park (Biosphere reserve) in Sikkim, India, to the eastand the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), China,
to the North (Chaudhary et al. 2015, KCA 2019).
The area towards the west is called Papung, whichacts as a corridor connecting the Kangchenjunga

1

Current affiliation since 2020, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Nepal, 44700 Kathmandu; +00977-9843772554; yadav.uprety@wwfnepal.org

65

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

The extraordinary vertical sweep of over 7 km, from1,200 m to over 8,586 m at Mt. Kangchenjunga,
within an area of only 2,035 km2, has createdpristine habitats for flora and fauna. The nameof the protected area itself was derived after Mt.
Kangchenjunga. The area represents high mountainphysiographic regions, with 41% of its area coveredby rocks and 23% by snow and glaciers. The
remaining 36% is covered by forest (16%), shrubland(10%), grassland (9%), agricultural land (0.5%) andlakes (0.1%) (KCA 2019).

in 1997 and handed over to the community for
management in 2006. It was declared a “Gift to the
Earth” as part of the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF)Living Planet Campaign by the people of Nepal to
the global community in 1997, given its natural andcultural riches (Bhandari et al. 2018).
Over 6,500 people, from 1,257 households,
reside in the KCA. The population is dominatedby Limbu , Rai , and Sherpa ethnic groups. The
conservation area exhibits one of the widest
altitudinal ranges of any protected area worldwide.

Figure 1: Location map of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (Credit: Hem Raj Acharya 2019)
66

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■2. Overall significanceConifer Forests and the Eastern Himalayan Alpine
Meadows. It is home to protected species such as
the Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), Red panda (Ailurus
fulgens ), Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus ),Musk dear (Moschus chrysogaster ) and the Paharemonkey (Macaca assamensis ). The Snow leopard
is a high-Himalayan carnivore, which is considereda flagship species [Fig. 2]. Likewise, the Red panda
is an indicator of suitable wildlife habitat andreferred to as umbrella species of the temperatezone. The KCA is also an Important Bird Area, whichharbors 252 local and migratory bird species,
including eight globally threatened species. It also
provides a pristine habitat for many threatened
and endangered plant species, including the Lauth
salla (Taxus wallichiana ) and Kutki (Neopicrorhiza
scrophulariiflora). The area also harbors more thantwenty species of Rhododendrons, one of the key
species from eastern Himalaya (Poudel, Acharya,
Uprety, Dhakal, and K.C. 2018). Large and pure standof Larix forest can be found in the KCA.

The conservation imperative for the KCA comesfrom its coverage that protects important biologicaldiversity of Eastern Himalaya (see Mittermeier et
al. 2004) as well as the people that depend on it for
their livelihood (Chaudhary et al. 2015, Bhandari etal. 2018, KCA 2019). One of the oldest monasteries–Dhiki Chhyoling – as well as ethnic diversity, cultural
practices, rich biodiversity, and diverse wetlands,
make the KCA a complete blend of cultural andnatural heritage. The tangible and intangible valuesof the KCA show that the property has the potential
to meet the following World Heritage criteria: (iii)
exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition which isliving; (vi) tangibly associated with living traditions ofoutstanding universal significance; (vii) exceptional
natural beauty; and (x) significant natural habitats
for in-situ conservation of biological diversity.
Several glacier lakes are the major attractionof the high-Himalayan region. Yangma village (11households), one of the highest altitude settlements(4,200 m) in Nepal, lies in the KCA (KCA 2019).
These places are also the most important tourist
destinations.

2.2 Cultural values
Though the population and households are sparsely
distributed in the KCA, they represent a mosaic
of ethnic groups. The area is primarily the hometo the Limbu community, belonging to the Kirat
ethnic group. An old Limbu saying, “ghar odar ho,
ban bhandar ho ” or “the house is a shelter whereas
the forest is a storehouse,” indicates how the Kirat
worldviews see the forest. The ethnocultural
fabric of the region is rich in traditional practices

2.1 Natural values
The complex topography of the KCA harbors
important biological diversity with many endemic
species from two Global 200 ecoregions of Eastern
Himalaya – the Eastern Himalayan Broadleaf andFigure 2: Snow leopard, the flagship species in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (Credit: Hem Raj Acharya 2016)
67

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

and, consequently, the residents of the KCA havebeen using a vast array of these natural resourcesin various ways for their subsistence. The religious
sites, such as temples, monasteries, and lakes, in thearea, attest to the KCA’s rich cultural heritage [Fig.
3]. The local people pursue a variety of livelihoods,
including agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, andtrade, resulting in a vibrant cultural tapestry. The
annual cycle of transhumance migration of grazing
animals is unique to the landscape [Fig. 4]. People of
the area have historically and culturally establishedclose linkages with neighboring countries.
Transborder trade and cultural exchanges have been
taking place for a long period of time (Chaudhary et
al. 2015).

The ministry endorsed the KCA Management
Regulations in 2007. Under these regulations, the
KCA Management Council (KCAMC) was formalized
and was responsible for the implementation of theapproved plan. The KCA Office coordinates between
the Council and DNPWC to provide the necessary
technical support to the Council, investigate andsettle judicial cases regarding the forest and wildlife
crime, and implement approved activities.

3.2 Participatory management
The Government of Nepal aims to achieve its
conservation and development goals in the
KCA through the integration of natural resource
conser vation with sustainable communit ydevelopment (Amatya, Brown, Sherpa, Shrestha,and Uprety 1995). It aims to achieve this bystrengthening local community capacity to improvetheir socio-economic conditions. Therefore,
participatory conservation approaches have been
adapted for the area’s management. The KCAMC
formation has been a significant milestone for
institutionalizing a participatory conservation
approach in Nepal. The government handed
over management of the KCA to the KCAMC in
September 2006. Since then, the KCAMC is thehighest decision-making body of the KCA and hasroles and responsibilities for the managementof natural resources, biodiversity conservation,and community development activities. The
KCA has set an example and is proof that whencommunities are empowered to manage theirresources, provided with livelihood options linked tobiodiversity, and when good governance practices
are institutionalized, communities are very likely
to become conservation stewards (Bhandari et al.
2018). This model of conservation has been adopted
in other parts of Nepal.

Figure 3: Goddess Pathivara in Taplejung district (Credit:
Author 2017)

The KCAMC implements conservation andmanagement activities through community-basedorganizations. This includes seven user committees,
26 conservation community forest user groups, 46
user groups, 35 mother groups, five co-operatives,
four Snow leopard conservation sub-committees,eight community based anti-poaching units, andsix fire control sub-committees (KCA 2019). These
community-based organizations are significant
assets and provide opportunities in the KCA for
its sustainability. Conservation and development
partners are supporting the KCA in various ways.

Figure 4: Seasonal grazing pattern of herders in the
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area. Each box represents‘goth/kharka’ and time of the stay of cattle in the ‘goth’;‘goths’ ranging from c3900-4200 m elevation (Source:
ECCA-Nepal 2008)■■3. Management

3.1 Management authority
Management authority for the KCA is primarily
the responsibility of the Nepalese Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC),
within the Ministry of Forests and Environment.
68

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity

cultural linkages with China and India. The site has
been well-managed, and the stakeholders havebeen working together for a long time to manage it.
Therefore, the stakeholders should work together
now in the nomination process. If recognized as a
World Heritage Site, it will contribute to achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals in various ways.
The following are some of the recommendations forconsideration by the policymakers:

Transboundary illegal wildlife trade, human-wildlife
conflict, over-exploitation of medicinal herbs,
forest and rangeland degradation, and habitat loss
are the major threats to conservation. Likewise,
inadequate resources (both financial and human)and capacity within the local authorities are major
issues. The government’s vision to develop the
KCA as a tri-national peace park with China andIndia did not materialize due to lack of continuous
efforts, and also the partners had problems with theconnotation of “peace” since there was no conflict.
The KCA also provides essential research facilities for
the Snow leopard as the international stakeholders
on Snow leopard have agreed to establish a Snowleopard research station in the KCA.

1. The inaccessibility of the region meantthat community stewardship would benecessary. The community has been
engaged substantially, but this can befurther improved by supporting traditional
livelihoods and the equitable sharing of
benefits.
2. As the area is the blend of nature andculture and the similar adjacent area in
India has been declared as a UNESCO World
Heritage site, the Nepalese government
should initiate studies to identify the best
available option to protect the uniquenessof the landscape. This could result in
Nepal’s first mixed heritage site. Alongwith this, the area could also be designatedas a Tri-national Meeting Park. The
scientific community and conservationists
should advocate and lobby with handson information for nominating the site.
Fulfilling data gaps, updating current
understanding, and inadequate knowledge
management should be immediately
addressed for proper policy advocacy andformulation.

The remote location and lack ofinfrastructure make large areas of the KCA
inaccessible. The weather, especially in theupper reaches, is extreme, and the area is highly
vulnerable to the impact of climate change (Uprety
et al. 2017). High expectations of local people
for development and prosperity have impacted
the ecosystem’s integrity and associated values.
Likewise, rapid socio-economic transformationand discouragement of traditional practices, suchas shifting cultivation (see Aryal, Kerkhoff, Maskey,
and Sherchan 2010), have had negative impacts onnature-culture interfaces. Out-migration, a national
phenomenon, is a concern. Sustainable financing forconservation and development activities, including
mitigation of human-wildlife conflict, conservationof wildlife habitats, and controlling cross-borderillegal wildlife trade, are the current challenges.

3. Currently, three parallel discussions can beinitiated: first, consider the KCA for World
Heritage, second, consider Kangchenjunga
Landscape Nepal part as World Heritage
and third consider whole Kangchenjunga
Landscape that covers parts of Nepal,
India, and Bhutan for World Heritage.
However, the best option is to go for
the KCA as a Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage Property in the World Heritage
List, and later it can be considered fortransboundary World Heritage Property.
This will provide opportunities to work
together with Indian counterparts since
the Khangchendzonga National Park in
Sikkim has already been inscribed (Wagh2017). The collaboration between the twocountries will be fostered by the fact thatboth properties meet the same criteria,

The pristine biodiversity and culture,potential sites for promoting ecotourism, thewillingness of the community to participate inconservation activities, and the existing communitybased management council are some of the major
opportunities in the area.
■■5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The KCA contains characteristics that could justify its
potential Outstanding Universal Value, and therefore
it could be considered for nomination to the World
Heritage List. Though it has not been placed yet on
Nepal’s Tentative List, it potentially meets criteria(iii), (vi), (vii) and (x), which are under the criteria forwhich the neighboring Khangchendzonga National
Park in India was inscribed in 2016. It has maintained
contiguous vegetation ecosystems as well as
69

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

and the properties are inseparable fromnatural and cultural interconnectedness
point of view. The lessons from Lake Ohridin Albania and North Macedonia can bestudied for this possibility (UNESCO n.d.). If
this can happen, it will be an outstanding
example in the Himalayas. The latter
two options would take a long time tomaterialize.
4. The functional integrity of this protectedarea would also profit from opportunities
to engage with neighboring countries
such as India and China, which share thebroader ecosystem; the most apparent
c o llab o r ati o n sh o ul d b e wi th the
Khangchendzonga National Park in India as
this protected area is contiguous with the
KCA.
5. Legal protection, policy, and management
should be progressively reformed andimproved to ensure an appropriate balance
between the natural, cultural, and spiritual
aspects of the KCA.
■■6. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the University ofTsukuba, Japan, for providing the opportunity toshare the prospects of the KCA as a World Heritage
Property in the Capacity Building Workshop on
Nature-Culture Linkages in Asia and the Pacific(CBWNCL 2019). Special thanks to Mr. Hem Raj
Acharya for providing Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

70

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Amatya, D. B., Brown, T., Sherpa, L. N., Shrestha, K. K. and Uprety, L. P. 1995. Feasibility Study for the
Proposed Kanchenjunga Conservation Area. Report Series, 21. WWF, Nepal
Aryal. K.P., Kerkhoff, E.E., Maskey, N. and Sherchan, R. 2010. Shifting cultivation in Sacred HimalayanLandscape: A case study of Kangchenjunga Conservation Area. WWF, Nepal
Chaudhary, R.P., Uprety, Y., Joshi, S.P., Shrestha, K.K., Basnet, K.B., Basnet, G., Shrestha, K.R., Bhatta, K.P.,
Acharya, K.P., and Chettri, N. 2015. Kangchenjunga Landscape Nepal: from conservation and development
perspectives. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), Government of Nepal; Research Centre
for Applied Science and Technology (RECAST), Tribhuvan University; and International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), Government of Nepal,
Kathmandu, Nepal
ECCA-Nepal. 2008. Study report on assessment of status and quality of Rangeland in Kangchenjunga
Conservation Area (KCA) in Walagchung Gola. Ghunsa and Yamphudin VDC. A report submitted to WWF
Nepal, Kathmandu
Gurung, J., Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Ning, W., Chaudhary, R.P., Badola, H.K., Wangchuk, S., Uprety, Y., Gaira, K.S.,
Bidha, N., Uddin, K., and Shah, G.M. 2019. Evolution of a transboundary landscape approach in the Hindu
Kush Himalaya: Key learnings from the Kangchenjunga Landscape. Global Ecology and Conservation 17: pp.
1-15
ICIMOD, WCD, GBPNIHESD and RECAST. 2017. Kangchenjunga Landscape Feasibility Assessment Report.
ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/9. ICIMOD, Kathmandu
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA). 2019. Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Plan
(2075/76 - 2079/80 BS). Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Council (KCAMC), Phaktanglung,
Taplejung, Nepal
Mittermeier, R.A., Gils, P.R., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreaux, J., and da
Fonseca, G.A.B. (eds.). 2004. Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial
Ecoregions. CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico City
Poudel, R.C., Acharya, H.R., Uprety, Y., Dhakal, Y. and Rajan K. C., Rajan. 2018. Rhododendrons ofKangchenjunga Conservation Area and Adjoining Landscape (provisional English title). Government of
Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Office, Taplejung
Uprety, Y., Shrestha, U.B., Rokaya, M., Shrestha, S., Chaudhary, R.P., Thakali, A., Cookfield, G., and Asselin,
H. 2017. Perceptions of climate change by highland communities in the Nepal Himalaya. Climate andDevelopment, 9(7): pp. 649-661
UNESCO. n.d. Protecting Lake Ohrid Region. https://whc.unesco.org/document/137775
Wagh, S., 2017. The Kanchendzonga Sacred Landscape: Nature-Culture Linkages and Local Associations with
Special Issue 2017: pp. 56-61
Bhandari, A. R., Rai, D. P., Wikramanayake, E., Thapa, G. J., Koirala, S., Gyawali, T. P. and Joshi, D. 2018.
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area: A Retrospective Report. WWF Nepal, Kathmandu

71

72

Part Two:
Report on the Fourth
Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservationin Asia and the Pacific –CBWNCL 2019
MIXED CULTURAL AND
NATURAL HERITAGE

73

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fourth Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia andthe Pacific (CBWNCL 2019) took place in Tsukuba, Japan, September 24 to October 4, 2019. The workshop
was organized by the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation at the Universityof Tsukuba, in collaboration with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International Centre for the Studyof the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN), and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
This Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage themed workshop was the fourth, and last, in a series programmed
for 2016-2019. The series of workshops aimed to contribute to the World Heritage Capacity Building
Programme through developing the skills of young and mid-career heritage practitioners in the Asia andthe Pacific region to deal with the interlinkages between natural and cultural values in heritage sites. Ten
participants from Asia and the Pacific, one from Africa and one from Europe, attended the fourth workshop
with eight graduate students from the University of Tsukuba.
The workshop was divided into four modules:-----

Module 1: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
Module 2: Management, Implementation, and Governance – Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
Module 3: Reflection on Theory and Practice
Module 4: International Symposium

Module 1 consisted of four days of intensive lectures, group discussions, and participant case studies’
presentations. The first day was organized as a roundtable. The organizers presented the CBWNCL projectand schedule for the CBNWCL 2019, followed by the resource people’s interventions highlighting the main
issues within the category of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage in the context of the World Heritage
Convention. Cases from Nordic countries (Norway and Sweden), Japan, Australia, the United States, andSri Lanka were presented and discussed. After this first round, participants introduced the main issues
being faced in the conservation and sustainability of their heritage places. Next, a lecture focused on theWorld Heritage Convention and its implementation processes was given. The second day started with atalk that discussed the evolution of the conservation practice, from a nature-culture divide, towards a more
integrated perspective, which considers the nature-culture linkages and people-centered approaches toconservation and a landscape approach to heritage. This lecture continued with focusing on management
systems, pointing at the role that traditional management systems play in heritage sites. The focus of thethird day was on governance and management, especially presenting IUCN concepts and tools. There wasa presentation of the emblematic case of Pimachiowin Aki’s inscription on the World Heritage List. This
process influenced the development of nature-culture approaches to heritage conservation in the context
of World Heritage. On the fourth day, lectures focused on the Japanese experience of Mixed Cultural andNatural Heritage, as well as an introduction to the field visit to Mount Fuji, which has been inscribed on theWorld Heritage List as a cultural property in 2013.
During the four afternoon sessions, twelve case studies were presented. These case studies included five
World Heritage sites, three on the Tentative List of their respective countries, and four landscapes protected
at the national level. Case studies reflected a diversity of understandings of “mixed sites” and interlinkages
between natural and cultural values. It was clarified that the concept of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage,in the context of World Heritage, was reinforcing the divide; however, opportunities lie in this category
for further inter-sectoral collaboration and exploration of the links between natural and cultural values in74

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

heritage places. Case studies showed that overlapping legal systems and designations from both natural andcultural heritage protection laws could cooperate further for the integral conservation of landscapes. Some
examples of best practices in involving local communities and cultural values in the protection of natural
heritage were shared, and the importance of the conservation of ecosystems for communities’ sustainability
was highlighted. It was recognized that nature-culture linkages are present in all landscapes and need to beacknowledged for effective and holistic conservation.
Module 2 was a four-day event, where the participants visited components of “Fujisan, sacred place andsource of artistic inspiration.” This World Heritage serial property includes parts of the Mount Fuji volcano,protected as the Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park, and historical sites, places of scenic beauty, and naturalmonuments that are protected as cultural properties located on its slopes and surroundings. In Yamanashi
prefecture, where the northern part of the property is located, participants learned about the natural andbiodiversity values of Mount Fuji and its ecosystem at the Mount Fuji Research Institute and the Biodiversity
Research Center. Moreover, at the Yamanashi prefecture World Heritage Visitors Center, participantslearned about the spiritual values of Mount Fuji and the history of its pilgrimage routes. On the second day,participants had the opportunity to follow an ancient pilgrimage route from Umagaeshi – the point whereclimbers traditionally left their horses during a pilgrimage – to the first station. They also experienced thespiritual traditions and historical architecture in the shrine and temple complex of Kitaguchi-Hongu-FujiSengen Taisha, the first stop for pilgrims before starting their ascent from Fujiyoshida town. In Fujiyoshida
town, participants visited an Oshi House, where pilgrims from all over Japan used to rest before beginningtheir ascent of Mount Fuji.
Participants visited the fifth station on the third day, where the majority of tourists start their ascent to
Mount Fuji. There, they learned about the tourism management strategies in place, which look at protecting
the natural values of Mount Fuji by controlling the periods of ascent (usually recommended during twosummer months) and installing a strict waste management system. However, how to safeguard Mount Fuji’s
spiritual values remains an open question. Participants then had the chance to walk one section of anotherpilgrimage route at 2,500 m.a.s.l., where they learned about the fauna and flora in the area where the Mount
Fuji tree line is located, as well as the ecosystem services it provides to the region. Later, participants visited
the Mount Fuji Museum, where they learned about the Fire Festival related to the closure of the pilgrimage
season and about the traditional way of life of the surrounding agricultural communities. This knowledge
was further clarified at the Shizuoka Prefecture World Heritage Visitors Centre (located in the southern partof the volcano), where participants came to understand how the water and soils of Mount Fuji allowed thedevelopment of a productive region, connected as well to the sea. By looking at the different sides of MountFuji, it was possible to understand the complexity of its ecosystem and its considerable influence on theeconomic, social, environmental, and cultural development of the surrounding communities and beyond.
Through this field trip experience, participants could also discuss with researchers, managers, tourist guides,
and locals about the values of Mount Fuji and the challenges for their protection and conservation.
Module 3 was comprised of one and a half days of reflection on the theory and practice gained during theworkshop. Participants started working in groups during the field visit, which continued back in Tsukuba.
They were tasked with mapping the values and interrelations between nature and culture in the sites
visited, and to assess the management of the sites, by identifying the lessons learned and elaborating
recommendations. Moreover, participants were asked to reflect on their case studies and present one lesson
learned that they could take and apply in their home country. Participants prepared group presentations,and exciting discussions arose regarding their different understandings over the same heritage place.
Participants were impressed by the coordinated efforts for the conservation of both the natural and cultural
significance of Mount Fuji. They highlighted the importance of the diversity of interpretation centers in the
different prefectures and localities that would present different perspectives towards World Heritage andthe conservation of both natural and cultural values. They agreed that the Japanese case, especially in thesymbolic Mount Fuji, brought about clearly the nature-culture linkages expressed in the pilgrimage, theart, and the way of life of surrounding communities. Participants also valued the experience of working ininterdisciplinary groups and learning from the diverse backgrounds and case studies of their colleagues,
students, and resource persons.
Module 4 marked the closure of the workshop and the four-year CBWNCL programme with the 4th75

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation. The symposium was heldon October 4th at the Tsukuba International Congress Center within the framework of the 2019 Tsukuba
Conference. The University of Tsukuba organized it under the theme ‘How do science, technology, andinnovation contribute to achieving Society 5.0 and SDGs?’ In this thematic context, the symposium
contributed with presentations and discussions focused on the importance of collaborating between
different sectors of the conservation practice to preserve the world’s natural and cultural heritage, which is
Target 4 of the SDG 11.
The symposium gathered international experts and representatives of partner organizations: Dr. Mechtild
Rössler (Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre), Dr. Webber Ndoro (Director General of ICCROM),
Mr. Tim Badman (Director of the IUCN Nature-Culture Initiative), Ms. Kristal Buckley (ICOMOS World
Heritage Advisor), and Mr. Gamini Wijesuriya (Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM and
WHITRAP). Representatives of the Japanese Government, Mr. Takahiro Okano (Ministry of the Environment)
and Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma (Agency for Cultural Affairs), talked about the situation in Japan in both natureand culture sectors, respectively. The twelve participants of the CBWNCL 2019, heritage practitioners fromthe culture and nature sectors coming from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam, Albania, and Tanzania, attended the meeting and took part in the discussion. Eight graduate
students from the University of Tsukuba, from five different countries (Brazil, China, Ghana, Japan, andThailand), took part in the whole process as observers.
After the opening speeches from Professor Kyosuke Nagata, the President of the University of Tsukuba,
and the UNESCO Chairholder, Professor Masahito Yoshida, Dr. Mechtild Rössler gave a keynote speechon the challenges of inscribing Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage properties on the World Heritage Listand pointed out the existing divide between the management of natural and cultural values. She asserted
that continuous intersectional collaboration at all levels of management is further needed, as well as
strengthening the nature-culture linkages through community involvement. Dr. Webber Ndoro explainedcases of World Heritage in Africa and how the nature-culture ties are embedded in local views but have been
divided at the institutional and management levels, to the detriment of the holistic conservation of heritage.
He stated that more work on connecting nature and culture sectors is needed, and especially, capacity
building needs to be further implemented. Mr. Takahiro Okano, from the Ministry of the Environment,
then explained the work being done in the natural and national parks of Japan to integrate culture. Next,
Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma, from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, talked about cultural landscapes and thestrategies to incorporate local communities into the management of Japanese heritage sites. Closing themorning session, Professor Yoshida, the UNESCO Chairholder, pointed out how the divide between natureand culture is less significant at the national level, where for example, Mount Fuji is recognized both ascultural and natural heritage. However, the divide increases at the international level, where it could not be
inscribed as a Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage property.
In the afternoon session, Dr. Maya Ishizawa, coordinator of the CBWNCL programme, presented the work
done during the 4-year capacity building programme pointing at the achievements, the lessons learned, andthe potential future steps. She explained that after four workshops with four distinctive themes - AgriculturalLandscapes, Sacred Landscapes, Disasters and Resilience, and Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage - the
network of the Nature/Culture community of practice has expanded beyond the region. The Nature/Culture
approach to conservation needs to respect Indigenous and local knowledge, be founded on a landscapeapproach, foster people-centered approaches, and intersectoral collaboration. Moreover, after four years,
it was clarified that heritage practitioners need to further foster facilitation and interdisciplinary skills to
promote nature-culture linkages in heritage conservation. Hence, the next step identified by the UNESCO
Chair is to produce an instrument that collects lessons learned on facilitating nature-culture linkages. Dr.
Gamini Wijesuriya, Ms. Kristal Buckley, and Mr. Tim Badman, who were collaborators throughout the 4-years
project, represented the UNESCO Chair partner organizations and provided comments on the outcomesof the capacity building exercises as well as presented their organization’s future goals. ICCROM will further
develop a capacity building with an emphasis on the African region. ICOMOS will be continuing theircollaboration with IUCN in the Connecting Practice project. The IUCN and ICCROM will continue their joint
development of the World Heritage Leadership Programme, expanding cooperation with other Conventions,especially the Convention on Biological Diversity.

76

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

During the roundtable discussion, it was further asserted that more efforts on capacity building need to beundertaken in connecting nature and culture sectors and examining heritage more holistically. The CBWNCL
project and its achievements were commended, and further work along the same line was encouraged.
It was highlighted that there is a need for educating future trainers, which would allow the continuity of
programs like the CBWNCL. It was pointed out the need to develop capacity building at multiple levels,and to emphasize the local capacity building, both of heritage professionals, site managers, and local
communities.

77

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

CBWNCL 2019. MIXEDCULTURAL AND NATURALHERITAGE
Heritage Conservation is an evolving practice, with one of the current debates focusing on identifying
and recovering the connections between the nature and culture sectors. This exchange has become
instrumental for the interpretation, conservation, and sustainable management of both natural and cultural
heritage sites.
The purpose of the Capacity Building Workshops on Nature-Culture Linkages in Asia and the Pacific (CBWNCL)
has been to contribute to the World Heritage Capacity Building Programme led by ICCROM and IUCN, in
consultation with ICOMOS and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, in developing new approaches towards
the integrated conservation of cultural and natural heritage. These workshops have explored nature-culture
linkages, focusing on theory and practice in Asia and the Pacific Region. Visiting Japanese heritage sites
constituted a core component of the programme, allowing participants to conduct on-site practical work.
Participants are expected to be able to understand issues better and explore approaches being adopted in
the field.
The first workshop, themed “Agricultural landscapes,” was held in September 2016. It was inaugurated withan international symposium at the University of Tsukuba and with field visits to the Noto Peninsula and theHistorical villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama, World Heritage site since 1995. Fourteen participants
coming from the culture and nature sectors from nine countries in Asia and the Pacific (Philippines, India,
Australia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, China, Turkey, Indonesia) and two countries from other regions(Latin America, Colombia, and Africa, Ghana) gathered with international and Japanese experts during theworkshop.
The second workshop was dedicated to “Sacred Landscapes” and was held in September 2017. This time,
the workshop closed with the Second International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation. Sixteen participants from thirteen countries in Asia and the Pacific (Australia, New Zealand,
Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan,
India, and Cambodia), one from Europe (France), and one from Africa (Ghana), along with international
experts in the heritage field as well as Japanese professionals and site managers, visited the Sacred Sites andPilgrimage Routes of the Kii Mountain Range.
The third workshop dealt with “Disasters and Resilience” and took place in September 2018. The
workshop was inaugurated with the Third International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation. Fifteen participants, eleven from nine countries in Asia and the Pacific (Australia, Bangladesh,
Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India), two from America (Chile and Hawaii,USA), one from Europe (Russia) and one from Africa (Kenya), had the chance to discuss with international
and Japanese experts in the heritage field about disaster risk prevention and building resilience with naturaland cultural heritage. They visited sites that exhibit the interlinkages between nature and culture in the
Tohoku region that were affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011.

CBWNCL 2019 theme: Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
Thirty-nine properties are inscribed on the World Heritage List as Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage (Mixed
Sites). They are single sites, but their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is justified under natural and cultural
78

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

criteria, in its majority, overlooking their connections. The evaluation of nominations for Mixed Sites has
been done separately by IUCN, focusing on the natural criteria (vii) to (x), for natural values, and by ICOMOS
focusing on the cultural criteria (i) to (vi), for their cultural values. Two separate Statements of Outstanding
Universal Value (SOUV) and management plans are prepared, and generally, two separate teams undertakethe management under different regimes. This separation was one of the obvious questions raised by theAdvisory Bodies to the World Heritage Convention, that attempted to bridge the gaps and recognize theinterdependency of nature and culture and the reciprocal benefits of working together. After forty years ofworking independently, the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy paved the way to start addressingthese issues around 2013. During the same period, the World Heritage Committee requested the Advisory
Bodies to find methods to develop evaluations where the linkages between cultural and natural values could
be acknowledged and integrated into the SOUV of Mixed Sites. This request led to the Connecting Practice
Project, and all these efforts collectively led to Capacity Building Activities. This workshop series forms apioneering activity. It has opened the opportunity for practitioners and researchers to understand thelinkages between nature and culture and the benefits of working together.
In Japan, there are no Mixed Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, even though some of the cultural andnatural properties have the potential for this designation. One example is Mount Fuji, inscribed as “Fujisan,sacred place and source of artistic inspiration” on the World Heritage List in 2013 as cultural property, under
the criteria (iii) and (vi). It covers areas in Shizuoka and Yamanashi prefectures. Protected as a National Park
(Fuji-Hakone-Izu), Mount Fuji is an interesting example in exploring nature-culture linkages. A variety ofJapanese national designations are present: tangible and intangible cultural properties, natural monuments,
places of scenic beauty, critical habitats and species of animals and plants. The sacred values of pilgrimage
are interconnected with the symbolic and aesthetical values of Mt. Fuji, providing a significance that goesbeyond national borders.
In this workshop, issues related to Mixed Sites that can be exemplified by Mount Fuji and participants’ casestudies were discussed. Management and governance challenges, integration of Indigenous worldviews into
management systems and plans, the applicability of natural criterion (vii) in the World Heritage context, as
well as how to work towards a method for identifying and analyzing the interactions between natural andcultural values, are some of the topics that were explored.
Objectives●●
To provide the existing knowledge on Mixed sites and the implications of their nominations andpost-inscription management aspects by dividing nature and culture within a single site.
●●
To provide the knowledge being developed about sites as landscapes recognizing the natureculture linkages and the benefits of working together for effective management of Mixed sites ingeneral, and in participants’ sites/case studies in particular.
●●
To visit and exchange experiences with local managers and residents and learn how cultural andnatural heritage values have been protected and conserved with different approaches, initiatives,and governance systems.
●●
To establish networks among heritage practitioners in the region.
Methodology
The workshop is an intensive programme combining theory and practice through lectures, presentations,and roundtables at the Tsukuba University Campus. Participants also went on a field study to the “Fujisan,sacred place and source of artistic inspiration,’” World Heritage property since 2013, where they were able
to get in contact with local managers and local communities.
Participants
The workshop was open to a maximum number of 15 professionals from Asia and the Pacific region involvedin the management of Mixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage sites, Mixed Sites on the Tentative Listof their respective country, or potential Mixed Sites. Young and mid-career heritage practitioners with aminimum of 5 years of experience from both natural and cultural heritage sectors currently engaged inmanaging/working in cultural heritage sites with natural values, and natural heritage sites with culturalvalues were eligible to apply.

79

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE ONE:UNDERSTANDING NATURE-CULTURE LINKAGES IN THE
CONTEXT OF MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

Module One consisted of four days of intensive lectures, group discussions, and participants’ case study
presentations, from September 24 to 27, 2019, at the University of Tsukuba. The lectures dealt with theinternational framework regarding nature-culture linkages and landscape conservation, from the naturaland cultural sectors’ perspectives, covering the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the Protected
Landscape Approach from the IUCN, and the Cultural Landscapes Categories used in the World Heritage
context. Twelve case studies were presented during the four sessions: five World Heritage sites, three on the
Tentative Lists of their respective countries, and four landscapes protected at the national level.
The first day, a roundtable discussion chaired by Dr. Maya Ishizawa, coordinator of the CBWNCL programme,
took place with four international experts presenting case studies from different countries: Professor
Nobuko Inaba (Japan), Ms. Kristal Buckley (Australia), Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya (Sri Lanka), and Ms. Jessica
Brown (USA). Dr. Ishizawa presented the CBWNCL programme, the goals, and the agenda for CBWNCL 2019.
To start the roundtable discussion, Dr. Ishizawa presented the case of the Nordic countries, Norway andSweden, and their attempts to inscribe Mixed and transboundary World Heritage properties. She explained
the challenges these countries faced in order to inscribe together Sámi Indigenous landscapes and theirunsuccessful collaboration due to their different legal systems and Indigenous Peoples’ status at national
levels. This example highlighted the complexity of transboundary and Mixed site nominations, which
involves differing national laws as well as differing protection and management systems at both the regionaland national levels.
Professor Inaba explained Japan’s experience with the nomination of Mount Fuji as a World Heritage
property. She presented Mount Fuji as protected for both its natural and cultural values at the national level,
and that the State Party contemplated the idea of nominating the property as a Mixed site, using, in addition
to criteria (iii) and (vi) for culture, criterion (vii) for nature. Professor Inaba explained that at the national
level, this criterion is under the Law for the Protection of Cultural Property. However, at the World Heritage
international level, this is considered “natural” criterion; therefore, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of
the Environment. She noted that because Mount Fuji is highly developed in some areas, they decided tonominate it as a cultural property only because the chances to pass the nature conservation requirements
would complicate the nomination process.
Next, Ms. Buckley talked about the four mixed World Heritage properties of Australia, noting that, as early
inscriptions, these sites lack the relationship between the cultural criteria and natural criteria adopted forjustifying their OUV. She pointed out that several World Heritage sites in Australia are Indigenous territories.
Hence, some Australian natural World Heritage sites hold critical cultural values for Indigenous groups thathave not been recognized at the World Heritage level. It was also noted that values change, yet the World
Heritage system evolves at a slower pace, and cultural heritage has been mostly recognized as static andnot living heritage. She concluded with mentioning that conservation works at a diversity of levels andthat expectations differ from different institutions’ perspectives and, therefore, site management can bechallenging at the local level.
Ms. Brown then introduced the United States National Parks system and how, despite including bothnature and culture, implementation is done in sectoral and disciplinary silos. However, she explained thatthe concepts are evolving, and the system is changing and moving away from the old “wilderness” ideasof the first American national parks. Ms. Brown pointed out that most nature conservation work is done
through partnerships and that NGOs, civil society, and communities play a significant role in the protection
80

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

of landscapes, for which governance results in an important concept. She also asserted that most of theintegration work is done on the ground and through place-based activities.
Finally, Dr. Wijesuriya commented on the case of the Central Highlands in Sri Lanka, recognized as a uniquemontane forest ecosystem, but also, as a sacred place for Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims, with evident
cultural values. Nevertheless, he explained that the site does not have any laws at the national level thatwould protect it as cultural heritage. Still, Sri Lanka nominated it as a Mixed site; however, ICOMOS evaluatedit against inscribing the cultural criteria, claiming they needed further work to ensure the conservation ofcultural heritage. He concluded that the site was inscribed as a Natural World Heritage property, having
detrimental consequences for its conservation, which management, especially during the pilgrimage season,is challenging.
The short roundtable presentations provided an outlook of the conservation practices around the world andthe main issues in the World Heritage system, illustrated by these diverse experiences. It was clarified how
the implementation of the World Heritage Convention faces different realities in different countries and how
heritage systems are composed of multi-level stakeholders and management, which need to be coordinatedfrom the international to local levels. The complexity of Mixed sites was unraveled to initiate the workshop’s
learning process.

Roundtable discussion chaired by Dr. Maya Ishizawa with case-studies from Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Sri
Lanka, and the USA.

After these first presentations, participants were asked to introduce themselves and explain (1) their role intheir heritage site; (2) their understanding of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage; (3) their understanding of
nature-culture linkages; and (4) the central issue in their sites. The cases showed that in a diversity of settingsand institutional arrangements, challenges for heritage management were recurrent: engaging local people
in conservation plans, developing a balance between heritage conservation and tourism development, andinvolving inter-institutional and multi-level participation.
Following these introductions, Ms. Kristal Buckley, a Lecturer at Deakin University and an ICOMOS World
Heritage Advisor, introduced the concepts, processes, and issues in World Heritage. She described theframework of the World Heritage system and the key actors in charge of implementing the World Heritage
Convention. She presented the nomination process to the World Heritage List and the management of81

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

inscribed properties, for which monitoring and reporting are core elements. She also mentioned recent
developments in the World Heritage system such as the World Heritage Leadership Programme, issues ofpost-conflict reconstruction of cultural heritage, the application of rights-based approaches, the evolutionof notions of authenticity, the direct engagement of civil society, the increasing importance of the role ofsite managers, adaptation to climate change and disaster risk preparedness, the integration of sustainable
tourism strategies, and the implementation of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban
Landscape (HUL).

Ms. Kristal Buckley (Deakin University/ICOMOS) giving a lecture on the World Heritage concepts, processes, and issues.

After the lectures, two participants presented their case studies on agricultural landscapes. Dr. Ishizawa
recalled that these two case studies were also presented during the first workshop CBWNCL 2016 on
Agricultural Landscapes and that the idea was to revisit them from different disciplinary perspectives androles concerning the heritage places.
1) Ms. Bina Gandhi Deori, an Assistant Professor at Visva-Bharati University, India, presented “TheApatani Valley of Arunachal Pradesh, India.” She explained how the Apatani Valley is a well-known
cultural landscape noted for its unique topography and Indigenous traditional cultural practices.
Over centuries, the tribes of the region, the Apatanis, have developed Indigenous methods in
response to adapt to their environment in a better way. This adaptation could be seen in different
spheres of their cultural life, and also defined their relationship with nature. She explained thatshaman, who are spiritual leaders, still play a critical role, holding the traditions interrelating andcelebrating relations between humans and nature. She pointed out that Apatani Valley is currently
on India’s Tentative Lists for World Heritage as a cultural landscape. The nomination process isslow because of the challenging coordination between the different stakeholders involved andthe disagreement of some of Apatani people who consider their landscape as sacred, and otherlocal groups that are afraid of potential restrictions. She highlighted the challenges that people
face are related to the commercialization and commodification of their cultural practices, as wellas the rapid development of the Ziro Valley. This needs to be urgently addressed by the managing
authorities. She suggested that local communities should be included in the nomination andmanagement processes and local capacity building developed so that people can better understandthe potential benefits of an inscription.
2) Ms. Eulalie Dulnuan, Director at the Ifugao Rice Terraces Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
Systems (GIAHS) Research and Development Center, Ifugao State University, Philippines, presented
82

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728“Nature-Culture Interaction at Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province, Philippines,” a World Heritage
cultural landscape inscribed in 1995. She explained that the Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) in thePhilippine Cordilleras is the epitome of nature and culture interaction in a heritage site. The site
showcases the Ifugao peoples’ harmonious co-existence with nature. As a World Heritage Site anda Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS), she mentioned that the IRT is a living
cultural landscape and a biodiversity haven. She proposed that the management should be donein tandem to optimize efforts and resources. She suggested that the changes being experienced
at the IRT and the corresponding responses should all be documented in an Ifugao Rice Terraces
Assessment, which will help in scenario planning for the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces.
She suggested that interlinkages between GIAHS and UNESCO designations should be developed
further for the benefit of the Ifugao people and the conservation of their livelihood, represented by
the terraces.
After listening to the presentations, Dr. Ishizawa asked international experts if these sites that are either
nominated or inscribed as cultural landscapes, could be seen as Mixed sites, and to clarify what were thedifferences between these two designations that in some properties come together. Ms. Buckley clarified
that in the evaluation of cultural landscapes, even when the State Party does not propose natural criteria,
the IUCN makes an assessment and gives recommendations to ICOMOS. She specified that the integrity of
ecosystems and ecosystem services concerning the management systems in place is the focus of IUCN’s
feedback. She explained that, in some cases, the IUCN recognizes the importance of the natural valuesof those landscapes, even if these may not fulfill the OUV for natural criteria. The focus of the OUV ofcultural landscapes relies on the relationship between human communities and their environments andthe creativity related to this relationship. She asserted that the interlinkages may not be recognized in thedesignation, but that the work should focus on the management, where both natural and cultural values
can be integrated into the strategies and plans. She finally added that “mixed” may not be useful sometimes
for these purposes since nature conservation can propose stricter regulations and are not always in alliancewith the values that people assign to the sites.
Dr. Wijesuriya commented that the designation as Mixed sites might differ from the understanding of theplaces as mixed heritage, where cultural and natural values are interrelated, and the concept of Mixed sites
in the World Heritage system. He explained that, to be designated as a Mixed site, the property needs tofulfill at least 1 of the 4 natural criteria. He added that, if the purpose of the site is to recognize the linkages,
then, cultural landscapes are more appropriate as a designation. However, he clarified that the Word
Heritage system does not help to recognize the interlinkages through the criteria. Hence, among experts, it
was concluded that the area where the practice can be influenced in bringing together nature and culture
is at site management level. He stated that it is more feasible to bring all values - cultural and natural- into
the management processes and management plan than to change the criteria in the Operational Guidelinesof the World Heritage Convention. He insisted that management is currently the solution for bridging thenature-culture divide.
Ms. Brown recalled the concept of bio-cultural landscapes, pointing at the fact that in every culturallandscape, there must be natural values. Professor Inaba mentioned that when the concept of the culturallandscape was introduced in 1992, all were fascinated and felt it was an excellent step for World Heritage.
She explained that since then, there had been a discussion on how to locate the category in the system, andit was decided that it would be cultural heritage and not natural heritage. As a consequence, the criteria
were re-worked to become a set of 10 criteria. However, she concluded that this is not yet solved and that
there are still questions, especially regarding criterion (vii), which refers to the aesthetic and scenic values ofnatural landscapes. Ms. Buckley added that when cultural landscapes were introduced and the criteria reworked, “people” were deleted from the natural criteria and that this has been a loss because, in inscriptions
previous to 1992, the interaction was present, for example, in the Great Barrier Reef. She mentioned thatcriteria are not useful at the site level and that the OUV captures specific values and not all values. However,she insisted that management does not have to do that, and therefore, the focus is to work on integrated
management. She commented that the term cultural landscapes are not inclusive enough, and probably
just using the term “landscape” would be more useful. Professor Yoshida pointed at the conflict in Japanbetween the agricultural sector and the nature sector because he said that the focus of nature conservationis reduced, for example, on biodiversity values, species, and habitats. He explained that this focus leaves
83JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

all other values out of their scope. Professor Inaba added that in Japan, the nature conservation law does
not have the power to control private land use, whereas the agricultural law has that power. Ms. Brown
responded that IUCN is a large union, and they have an inclusive approach, where nature conservation talks
about the relationship between people and nature. She commented that in 2007, IUCN convened a summit
for protected areas categories and defining each category management objectives. She mentioned thatwhen the Protected Area Category V was defined, on landscapes and seascapes, there was a discussion
about whether people and culture should be included. She concluded that at that time, cultural values were
integrated into the definition of protected areas.
With this discussion, the categories of Cultural Landscapes and Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
were clarified, their differences highlighted, and the issues arising from these two different paths for theunderstanding and nomination of World Heritage properties explained.

Ms. Bina Gandhi Deori, Visva Bharati University, India, presenting the case of the Apatani Valley of Arunachal Pradesh.

The second day of the workshop started with the screening of a fragment of a discussion during the 38th
World Heritage Committee Session in 2014 held in Doha, Qatar. The issues on the nomination, evaluation,and inscription of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage Properties were being discussed (ref. Decision
38COM 9B). During this meeting, the weaknesses of the system to evaluate properties where naturaland cultural values were both outstanding and interrelated was pointed out. Proposals regarding a new
evaluation process for mixed properties were being assessed, the perspectives of IUCN and ICOMOS were
presented on this matter, as well as interventions from members of the Committee regarding reframing
the criteria, and developing potential amendments in the Operational Guidelines were raised. After thisintroduction to the problem, Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM,
former Project Manager of ICCROM Sites Unit and current Special Advisor for the World Heritage Institute ofTraining and Research - Asia and the Pacific (WHTRAP), presented the work of ICCROM as an advisor to theWorld Heritage Convention, and in the training of heritage practitioners and specialists in conservation andmanagement at an international level. He mentioned that the scope of the work of ICCROM goes far beyond
World Heritage. Since its foundation in 1956, they have developed programs for Africa, for audiovisual
heritage, for collections, and living heritage; therefore, focusing on cultural heritage at large, and assisting
the Member States of the organization in the development of national conservation systems and capacity
building programmes. Then, he introduced the development of nature-culture linkages in the conservation
practice, highlighting its evolution as separate fields of nature conservation and cultural heritage
84

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Ms. Eulalie Dulnuan, GIAHS Research and Development Center, Ifugao State University, Philippines, presenting the caseof the Nature-Culture Interaction at Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province.

conservation. He explained that in many cultures, there have been conservation systems in place since time
immemorial, and modernization brought about and spread a uniform system dividing nature and culture as
two distinctive fields. He pointed out that the creation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972,
which integrates both fields, was an important innovation, yet, it differentiated the definitions of natural
heritage and cultural heritage. Nevertheless, through the work of the Advisory Bodies -IUCN, ICOMOS,
and ICCROM-, both fields have been moving from just conserving nature for itself or cultural monuments
for themselves. They are shifting to a values-based approach, which includes heritage, people, and thebenefits for communities of conserving both natural and cultural heritage. Moreover, the system is moving
towards the integration of nature, culture, and people, especially in the World Heritage context, which canbe illustrated by the development of the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy of 2011, and the World
Heritage Leadership Programme started in 2016. He clarified that the focus is on People-centred approaches
for the conservation of Culture and Nature . He said that the discourse has changed from conservation to amore inclusive approach of heritage protection and management, where the considerations to people andtheir relationship with heritage are fundamental. Based on the questions, why something is important and towhom, the conservation practice has moved to look for the wellbeing of society while conserving heritage.
For Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage sites, he proposed that this integrated management approach
would possibly influence in the longer term the criteria, authenticity, and integrity. However, he clarified thatat present, what can be influenced is management, where all values, natural and cultural, can be addressed.
He explained that the ICCROM-IUCN World Heritage Leadership Programme is focusing on management andbuilding capacities for all actors that can influence management.
In a second lecture, Dr. Wijesuriya introduced the key concepts and processes involved in the managementof World Heritage properties. He remarked on the importance of the pillars of the Outstanding Universal
Value, i.e., criteria, authenticity, integrity, protection, and management system. He emphasized that World
Heritage management is based on OUV and the attributes conveying it, either tangible or intangible, whilelooking at their authenticity and integrity. He explained how in 2008, the concept of “threats” used in theWorld Heritage monitoring system was changed to “factors affecting the property”, taking into considerationthat these could have positive and negative impacts. He highlighted that development is not always negative
because, in some areas, people are benefited. Some of the factors that participants mentioned as examples
occurring in their sites were cultural changes, pollution, transportation, climate change, population growth,85

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

disasters, tourism, human-wildlife relations, political aspects, armed conflict, and rural outmigration. Dr.
Wijesuriya mentioned that the World Heritage Committee looks at what is happening at World Heritage
sites every year through the State of Conservation (SOC) process. He said that factors can exist within theproperty, or they could come from outside and that these can be current or potential. Hence, he expressedthat if a property is not adequately managed, negative impacts can unfold. He informed that when a site
is proposed to the World Heritage List, the respective government undertakes the responsibility of its
management, which is in the requirements in the Operational Guidelines: a management plan supported
by a management system. The management plan specifies how the OUV should be preserved, and that thisshould involve participation means for future and present generations.
Dr. Wijesuriya explained that a management system consists of 3 elements (legal framework, institutionalframework, and resources), three processes (planning, implementation, and monitoring) and three results(outcomes, outputs, improvements to the management system). He highlighted that different management
systems can influence one World Heritage site, especially when these are mixed, and that therefore, there isa necessity to integrate these systems.
He mentioned that all World Heritage properties need to have a management system established at
the time of nomination and that these can be based on customary practices. However, he said that legal
protection needs to be established. He emphasized that the power of the World Heritage Convention relies
on monitoring the properties, which allows us to secure their conservation. He added that management
systems should be dynamic and be revisited regularly, so these can be improved if necessary. Notably, hementioned that the World Heritage system is continuously evolving, and therefore new requirements are
established, and management systems need to be adapted.
He shared the matrix created by the Advisory Bodies and UNESCO to assess a management system. Dr.
Wijesuriya explained that sometimes, instead of changing a law, it is possible to use other laws and othermanagement systems to support conservation (e.g., instruments of urban planning).
He added that currently, the element of sustainable development had been added to the system withconsiderations of how heritage and culture benefit people. He said that it is important to recognize culturalcontinuity and establish a collective decision-making process that includes people.
He recalled that there are different ways of approaching heritage management: conventional (experts), valuesled (collective effort-weight on experts), people-centered. Currently, the values-led approach dominates in theWorld Heritage, and that in order to safeguard the values, it is necessary to conserve the attributes that convey
these values (tangible or intangible). He said that this is established in the Statement of OUV, which describes
why a place is significant and functions as the basis for establishing the management plan. However, he insisted
that the management plan can include all values and not only the ones forming the OUV.
Ms. Jessica Brown commented that the concept of adaptive management should be considered, with the
management process not being linear but retrofitting, receiving feedback, and adjust to changes.
Dr. Wijesuriya continued by mentioning tools that are now increasingly being used for the management ofWorld Heritage properties, such as the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), which is also based on values.
He gave an example of how tourism can have both positive and negative impacts on the new project of aport in a World Heritage site in Sri Lanka. He mentioned that the conclusion of the HIA study was to change
the design of the proposed project. He also added other tools from the World Heritage system, such as theperiodic reporting, which is done in cycles per region, and the reactive monitoring, as part of the State ofConservation process, when a property has a detected potential negative impact. He added the increasing
importance of visitors management.
He finalized by affirming that it is possible to influence the system by using integrated approaches throughmanagement, and that management helps decision-making. Ms. Kristal Buckley added that management isalso a space of reflection for the different actors in a heritage site.

86

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM/WHITRAP) is presenting about management systems of World Heritage.

After the morning lectures, four participants presented their case studies on potential mixed sites anddifferent understandings of what a mixed site could be:1) Warong Wonglangka, a lecturer at Chiang Mai University, Thailand, presented “Doi Suthep
Mountain, The Living Sanctuary.” He explained the concept and the updates on the process of
nomination of Chiang Mai’s old city to the World Heritage List. He stated that Doi Suthep is oneof Thailand’s most significant mountains due to its prominent role in the history of Chiang Mai
Old City and also because of its biodiversity values. He added that Doi Suthep is a sacred place
and the centre of Chiang Mai’s soul. He explained that Chiang Mai city has a unique architecture
and is very attractive to tourism, the reason why there are problems with urbanization andtourism development. He said that in 2015 the idea of nominating Chiang Mai as World Heritage
started as an initiative of the local people and local scholars to protect the historic town andsurroundings from future developments. In the development of the project, they added to theoriginal nomination idea, which focused only on the old city and a temple in Doi Suthep, thewhole mountain area. They considered that Doi Suthep was an essential component because of
its inseparable linkage with Chiang Mai Old City urban design, ancient water system, Chiang Mai’s
people, and their traditions. In his presentation, he described the importance of Doi Suthep’s
biodiversity as a source of artistic inspiration and cultural practices. He also mentioned how thechange in the boundaries of the nominated property could have an impact on the criteria andregulations in the old city. He concluded that the natural heritage of Doi Suthep mountain, which
is protected as a national park, needed to be an essential component in the management of thepotential World Heritage site.
2) Kimberley Wilson, a Historic Heritage Coordinator of Parks Victoria, Australia, presented “Managing
cultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities in Alpine National Park.” She explained that the
Alpine National Park (ANP), located in a mountainous region in the South of Australia, forms partof the more massive Alps National Parks network composed of 11 national parks. She explainedthat Parks Victoria is in charge of 5 of those 11 national parks. She stressed that the ANP had beenrecognized at the national level as mixed heritage due to both its natural (including rare alpine andsubalpine flora and fauna) and cultural values (including tangible and intangible Aboriginal heritage,
and over sixty Alpine Huts constructed after European settlement) which are strongly linked.
87

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

She added that this cultural landscape is afforded heritage protection through state and national
legislation as National Heritage, and even though it has been discussed for a long time, it is not yet
in the Tentative List of Australia for World Heritage. She noted that balancing the dual imperatives
in this mixed environment is often complicated and challenging, particularly concerning thesustainable management of the dynamic ecosystems, enabling access for over one million visitors
each year, and directing rehabilitation efforts following extreme weather events. However, she
noted that there are also opportunities to embrace synergies and explore multifaceted narratives,
particularly in relation to celebrating shared heritage, and acknowledging the lessons learned frompast land management practices. She suggested that looking at the interlinkages between natureand culture, especially in studying grazing impacts on the landscape and exploring the integrationof aboriginal culture in the interpretation of the landscape, would enhance conservation.
She concluded that even though the primary domain of protection of the ANP is its naturalenvironment, cultural heritage is fundamental for the interpretation of the place, and restore thelandscape. She suggested thinking about these places as socio-ecological systems that would allow
a better balance in the management of cultural and natural values.
3) Laze Deqing, a researcher at Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage International ResearchCenter (JUWHIRC), China, presented “Ancient Heritages in Kham Minyag.” She said that precious
cultural heritage in Tibet could be found in remote areas such as cultural heritage from the
Minyang tribe. She explained that Minyang is one of the 18 historically powerful tribes in Tibet.
She mentioned that Minyang language is a unique dialect in Tibet and that there are referencesin ancient literature to the vast extent of the Minyang tribe’s domain. She added that in today’s
Minyag region, in addition to the well-known Gongga Mountain, a few fortified towers and private
chapels of over a hundred years old remained, and are the cultural heritage of the Indigenous
people. She said that in this vast and sparsely populated area, the key of nature-culture heritage
conservation is the Indigenous people and their traditions and local knowledge. She described
the landscape as being composed of the mountain and the lake, which are important symbols
for the local communities. This cultural heritage is endangered due to outmigration and loss of
traditional knowledge and building skills. She explained her work on the conservation of these
historic buildings and the maintenance of traditional construction skills. She added that cultural
heritage awareness-raising and education for the younger generation are needed to ensure thesustainability of these villages and its surrounding nature reserve area. She concluded that for thesustainability of cultural and natural heritage protection in a rural area, the most effective way
is the intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge and skills and the engagement ofIndigenous people and their talents.
4) Wanda Listiani, a lecturer at Bandung Institute of Art-Cultural Heritage, Indonesia, presented“Galunggung’s Bamboo and Eternal Sound Healing by Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage inCipari Village Tasikmalaya and Djuanda Forest Park, West Java, Indonesia.” She explained that
Djuanda Forest Park in Bandung and Galunggung Mountain in Tasikmalaya are sites which arelocated in West Java, Indonesia, and where local communities maintain cultural, spiritual traditions
that relate to nature. She presented some videos where she showed the work she is engaged in,focused on the recovery of some performing traditions: dances and music. She explained that
Mount Galunggung is known because of its biodiversity and the settlements historically shaped by
its volcanic activity. Supported by historical records, Galunggung is understood as a ‘kabuyutan,’or a sacred site, and testifies the confluence of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. She said thatspirituality and beliefs are expressed in traditional arts and rituals practiced around cycles of life
and agriculture (e.g., the harvest ritual of Kampung Naga). She added that Mount Galunggung also
holds importance for local communities as it contributes to the local economy. In particular, shementioned the bamboo grown on its slopes are a resource utilized by the famous craft industryof the Cipari village in the nearby city of Tasikmalaya. The management of Mount Galunggungas a place of natural and cultural values involves not only the local government but also the local
people. She added that conservation efforts paid attention to capacity building, performing arts
as cultural attractions, and tourism development. She talked about her work, which focuses on reconstructing in collaboration with the communities, the rituals which are related to Galunggung.
Furthermore, she explained that the communities are working on tourism awareness in order to88

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

develop tourist activities that promote local people’s participation while strengthening their crafts
and arts.

Left: Mr. Warong Wonglangka, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, presenting the case of Doi Suthep Mountain, the Living
Sanctuary. Right: Dr. Kimberley Wilson, Parks Victoria, Australia, presenting the case of Alpine National Park.

Left: Ms. Laze Deqing, Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage International Research Center (JUWHIRC), China,presenting the case of the Ancient Heritages in Kham Minyag. Right: Ms. Wanda Listiani, Bandung Institute of ArtCultural, Indonesia, presenting the case of Cipari Village Tasikmalaya and Djuanda Forest Park in West Java.

After the presentations, participants discussed the following questions in three groups:●●●●

Why are nature-culture linkages important to heritage conservation?
How do the existing international and national frameworks either enable or constrain holistic
approaches that link nature, culture, and people?

Each group presented the conclusions resulting from their discussion. The first group, represented by Yadav
Uprety from Nepal, suggested that nature-culture linkages give a sense of ownership and respect for eachother, and also allows generating synergies between natural and cultural systems, which they consideredvery important. Furthermore, he mentioned that nature and culture form the whole management system,and excluding one or the other would be detrimental. The group considered that nature-culture linkages
support management, blurring boundaries, and enables a more effective system. Besides, he mentionedthat the group agreed that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) give an international framework thatenables bringing nature and culture together. He added that there are international mechanisms for reassessing the sites’ values. Re-assessment is fundamental in order to revisit sites and landscapes, which are
dynamic in which related value systems are continually changing.
The second group, represented by Joshua Mwankunda from Tanzania, concluded that nature is forming
cultural heritage and, at the same time, cultural heritage is shaping the natural landscape and that this vision
is human-centered. He proposed a diagram where people are at the center, and culture and nature are on
the sides, and the group called for a balance. He also expressed that they consider these processes as being
simultaneous and important for heritage conservation. He added that in the heritage practice, there is a
shift to focus on the wellbeing of the society and that heritage conservation should benefit people. However,89

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the group found that there are certain constraints such as the World Heritage framework, where natureand culture are separated, and also at national levels, most countries preserve an institutional division inwhich different components employ different approaches, tools, and resources. Nevertheless, the group
found that tourism connects both cultural and natural heritage. Mr. Mwankunda added that the group
discussed the role of UNESCO National Commissions and international programs on capacity building suchas the World Heritage Leadership, which are enabling the connection between natural and cultural heritage
practitioners with a focus on people.
The third group, represented by Anuranjan Roy from India, explained that people feel associated withthe landscape when talking about nature-culture linkages. He affirmed that there is an interdependency
between nature and culture, and a strong influence of culture in nature. Linkages are not being forced but
already exist, and it is essential to make people remember about these linkages. The group consideredthat we should keep looking at linkages through which we can look at changes, especially in the local
environments. The group realized that World Heritage might be limiting the understanding of these linkages
because of the changes in the criteria and permanent division between culture and nature sectors; however,they found that the Intangible Cultural Heritage recognition is an excellent bridge between the two, whichenables finding the connections. He also recalled the US National Parks system as exemplary for connecting
the heritage practices at a national level. However, the group found that most national systems divide
between the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Environment, and in some cases, like India, the Ministry of
Climate Change.
Professor Inaba commented that if there is already a linkage, there is no need to look at linkages because
linkages are something to perceive when there is a separation. Ms. Brown added that the idea of people
remembering the linkages was intriguing and that there are many cosmovisions not only based on training
but also culture, and that there is a broad spectrum. She added that we tend to idealize Indigenous peoples
as being the holders of holistic knowledge; however, she stressed that other groups also do not see theseparation. Ms. Buckley responded that the discussions in these workshops and regarding the linkages
between nature and culture in the World Heritage context are based on English as a working language. She
mentioned that there are languages where the concepts of nature and culture do not exist as separate andthat participants may be using other words and languages where this conceptual separation is unthinkable.
So, she invited participants to question whether the discussion regarding the separation and linkages madesense in their languages and own practice. Professor Yoshida agreed that at the local level, culture andnature are not divided and that we follow an international language with the World Heritage Convention. He
stressed that nature-culture linkages help in the management of the local environment and local culture andthat the local cosmologies are very important to solve this separation.
Finally, Dr. Wijesuriya suggested doing an exercise where participants would find how nature-culture
linkages or separation are looked at in their different languages and cosmovisions. Ms. Brown added thatin IUCN, there is an informal exercise being done on exploring concepts of nature in different languages aswell. Dr. Ishizawa closed the session inviting participants to do this exercise before going to the field visit to
Mount Fuji.
During the third day of lectures, Ms. Jessica Brown, Chair of the IUCN-WCPA Protected Landscapes Specialist
Group and Executive Director of New England Biolabs Foundation, presented about the Management andGovernance of Protected Areas. She first introduced participants to the work of IUCN. The characteristics ofthe organization as an international union are based on States and institutions membership and the role ofthe six commissions composed of specialists in a diversity of themes (ecosystem management, educationand communication, environmental, economic and social policy, species survival, environmental law andthe oldest on protected areas), integrating a global network of expertise. She explained that as a memberof the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), she chairs the Specialist Group on Protected
Landscapes. She asserted that landscapes have both natural and cultural dimensions and that the natureculture linkages always come down to a place, a landscape. She referred to the work of Adrian Phillips,
former chair of the WCPA, who described landscapes as the meeting ground between people and nature,tangible and intangible. In the variety of places that classify as a protected area, landscapes represent themeeting ground between nature and culture. She talked about the inspiring power of landscapes, which we
can see in arts, but also their sacred dimensions, which have influenced the conservation of natural areas
90

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Maya Ishizawa, the CBWNCL Programme Coordinator, explaining the questions for the group discussions.

Dr. Yadav Uprety, Research Center for Applied Science and Technology (RECAST), Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu,
Nepal, presenting the results of the group discussions of the second day.

around the world. She also mentioned that even though the ideas of nature conservation are perceived as
being focus on strict nature conservation, agricultural landscapes are also significant sources of biodiversity
representing long-term interactions between human communities and nature. She recalled the discussion
around the concept of protected areas and how it has evolved from Yellowstone, the first National Park of
the USA, to the conservation of not only nature but also cultural heritage. She reminded participants that91

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

some cultures do not see the separation between nature and culture as we discuss it in this context and thatmany areas have been protected from time immemorial by communities and Indigenous groups. Ms. Brown
explained that the inclusion of the cultural dimension of protected areas had been a long process inside
the nature conservation field because many scientists with strict conservation ideas have felt threatenedby a weaker concept of nature. She added that this also relates to the IUCN definition of protected areas
where “other effective means” (other than legal) are recognized, mostly to include community-based
conservation and Indigenous peoples’ knowledge systems. With this, she explained how IUCN has beenworking in a standard nomenclature for more than 40 years, in order to establish a common language andexcellent communication among all members and experts, where the names used for protected areas andmanagement systems differ widely. She clarified that this works for standard nomenclature, and the focus of
IUCN on providing guidance is the foundation and backbone for the definition of protected areas categories(https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories) and governance types(https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/governance-equity-and-rights) which resulted
in the management categories/governance types matrix. She asserted that the matrix is a useful tool todescribe and understand the diversity of stewardship systems existing in the world. This work has been done
based on the ground situation and how conservation is being implemented by its extensive membershipnetwork and commissions experts. She also stated the difference between the protected areas networkand the World Heritage system. She said that unlike the World Heritage system, which is a global process,protected areas refer to anything that is happening on the ground and covers all the diverse ways thatexist for protecting nature. She mentioned that another important concept in protected areas context isgovernance, which has arisen prominently since the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, in 2003.
She explained that this concept focuses on who makes the decisions and on how power is exercised. She
distinguished between management and governance. Management is the ‘what’ and the particular actions
performed on the ground. In contrast, governance is about the ‘who’ and about power and decision-making.
She described governance as the relationships between the different actors, and that management andgovernance are interwoven. She believes that the interlinkages between management and governancecould be comparable to those of nature and culture and that it is difficult to separate them.
The discussion regarding management and governance was active, especially distinguishing how thenature sector defines governance differently from the culture sector, and as well, how these concepts
are understood differently from country to country. It illustrated the challenges of connecting nature
conservation and cultural heritage conservation, which in many cases are related to management andgovernance systems.
Ms. Buckley mentioned that this discussion is a constant between ICOMOS and IUCN because theseorganizations use the terms differently. She clarified that governance is not used in the World Heritage
system. Even though there has been advocacy for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in protecting their sites, withthe use of the free, prior and informed consent, the relationships between the World Heritage Advisory
Bodies and Secretariat are focused on State Parties. It is at this level that they give recommendations.
Professor Yoshida added that in the World Heritage list, we could find that the natural sites are protectedareas Category I or Category II (Strict nature reserve or National park). In contrast, cultural landscapes could
be Category V or Category VI (Protected landscapes and seascapes or Sustainable use of natural resources).
Ms. Brown confirmed that there were overlaps between Category V and cultural landscapes. She made clearthat IUCN guidance work is focused on being as inclusive as possible, and that tools such as the matrix should
be used for guidance and not as limitations. She gave some examples of protected areas which followed adiversity of models with different objectives, in order to illustrate the combination possible with the matrix,
and going from agricultural landscapes to marine protected areas. She added that the principles of good
governance are legitimacy and voice, direction, performance, accountability, fairness, and equity. All theseelements should support the governance vitality; namely, governance is adaptive, resilient, empowering,and supported by intergenerational activities and transmission. She mentioned some of the tools developed
by IUCN and finalized by saying that conservation should be based on the broader landscape, following theconcept of connectivity and that intergenerational transfer is vital. She concluded that an inclusive approachto conservation in management and governance is also bringing nature-culture linkages.
Subsequently, Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas, representative of Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, gave a lecture about
the nomination process of the ancestral territories of the Anishinaabeg First Nations to the World Heritage
92

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

List. She introduced Pimachiowin Aki with a promotional video that was prepared in the context of thenomination process. She narrated how, under her role as a community coordinator and spokesperson, she
experienced the long journey to inscribe Pimachiowin Aki as World Heritage in 2018. She explained thather job focused on interpreting the concepts used in the World Heritage system to her language so thecommunity could understand how to engage in the process. She said that in the process, the government
had a different set of values, and in order to negotiate, they had to be very careful in their planning. She
mentioned that her role was to keep communities informed of the process, which took more than fifteen
years. She described her homeland, which is a very remote area in the Manitoba province, 400 km.
from Winnipeg, which is the closest urban centre. She explained that the project was held by four First
Nations (Poplar River, Pauingassi, Little Grand Rapids, and Bloodvein River), which became partners withthe provincial governments in charge of the surrounding protected areas and committed to protecting
the boreal forest. The combined traditional territories represent 3,000 square kilometers, which areused for trapping, hunting, fishing, and harvesting. She explained that archaeologists confirmed that theAnishinaabeg used these lands for 6,000 years, giving them the support to speak as right holders anddecision-makers for their territories. She stated that their people’s existence is the interrelationship between
their culture and their land where they have lived for thousands of years. Their people believe that the
responsibility of taking care of the land came from the creator, and they feel it is a very sacred responsibility.
She added that the name Pimachiowin Aki means ‘land that gives life’ which was chosen by their elders who
continue to remind them that they are inseparable from the land that was given to them. She indicated thatthe messages she carries come from her father and grandfather and many other elders. They taught her torespect all life and the importance of protecting the environment. She recalled that Anishinaabeg people
have been enduring the effects of colonization and assimilation, in the brink of losing language, culture, andidentity, or even lose their traditional lands as some other Indigenous nations have. She talked about theprocess of healing her communities have to go through, healing from the policies which disenfranchised theIndigenous groups in Canada, taking their culture and their land. She expressed that their vision has always
been to protect the boreal forest for future generations, and she mentioned that this was the purpose of
the World Heritage listing. The process started with the signing of the First Nations Accord, an agreement
to protect the traditional territories. The elders of her communities believed that it was important to follow
such initiatives. They considered that this would allow them as First Nations, to leave a lasting legacy to theworld from their people, that this was their contribution: to protect and preserve this area for the benefitof the planet. She explained that these motivations coincide with a call for proposals for potential World
Heritage sites within the boreal forest released by IUCN.
In April 2004, Canada’s Minister of Environment endorsed the First Nations’ nomination for the World
Heritage by including it on Canada’s updated Tentative List. In 2006, the First Nations Committees and thetwo provinces established the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, with the main purpose being to coordinate
and complete the nomination for the inscription of Pimachiowin Aki for the UNESCO World Heritage list.
They received suggestions from the government on how to use the criteria. However, it was difficult forthem to think about separating themselves from the land in order to fit in the World Heritage categories.
She said that it took them ten years to complete the nomination following the Operational Guidelines tothe World Heritage Convention. However, the research and studies that were completed throughout the
project helped the community understand the rich history of the Anishinaabeg people. She added that there
were problems with their nomination evaluation in regards to the cultural criteria justification, the conceptof Outstanding Universal Value, and the comparative analysis. As their elders asserted, they did not wantto make judgments about the relationship of other First Nations with their lands nor to make comparisons.
Together with deferral to their first proposal for nomination, the World Heritage Committee requested that
the World Heritage Centre, in conjunction with the Advisory Bodies, examine options for changes to thecriteria and the Advisory Bodies’ evaluation process. She clarified that the Committee wanted to address
the many outstanding concerns resulting from the Pimachiowin Aki evaluation process. The next step wasto engage in an upstream process with the Advisory bodies, which was held in October 2013. She declaredthat the process was beneficial and that compared to the 2012 nomination dossier, the 2014 nomination
document better described and illustrated the Anishinaabeg relationship with the land. She added that theAnishinaabeg cultural tradition of “keeping the land” was the central theme of the new nomination. The
new nomination included a justification for inscription based on two cultural criteria, (iii) and (iv), and retain
the concept of a Mixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage site, which had to be deferred again in 2016
because one of the communities involved in the process withdrew. After much frustration, she said that they93

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

finally could inscribe Pimachiowin Aki in the 42nd World Heritage Committee session held in the Kingdomof Bahrain in 2018. She assured that many benefits have come out of this process, including healing. She
said that they do land-based education for the community, besides some tourist activities, and many otherinitiatives based on World Heritage recognition. In order to close her presentation, she showed anothervideo that was developed to show and promote the qualities of their World Heritage site.

Ms. Jessica Brown (IUCN/New England Biolabs Foundation) presenting the management and governance of protectedareas.

Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas (Pimachiowin Aki Corporation), presenting about Pimachiowin Aki, Mixed Cultural and Natural
World Heritage, Canada.
94

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

After these lectures, four participants presented their case studies:
1) Sonila Kora, head of the Development Programs unit at the Directorate for Culture, Ministryof Culture, Albania, presented “Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region, Albanian
Extension.” She explained that Lake Ohrid is located in the Balkan region, and it is in the border
between Albania and North Macedonia. North Macedonia inscribed the lake first as a natural
World Heritage site in 1979 when the country was part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. One
year later, they extended the property to inscribe also cultural criteria, and Lake Ohrid became aMixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage property. She said that the World Heritage Committee
recommended in 2009 to extend the property to include the Albanian side of the lake. After along process, in July 2019, the property was extended to include the Albanian National Park.
She explained that the nomination dossier was the final result of a four-year project, “Towards
strengthened governance of the shared transboundary natural and cultural heritage of theLake Ohrid region.” It was co-financed by the European Union and the Government of Albania
coordinated by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ICCROM. The basis for the nomination
were the same criteria used for the North Macedonian part, considering the cultural values related
to archaeological sites, Christian architecture of towns and churches, and the natural values related
to the lake, with rich biodiversity and birdlife. The entire extension and buffer zone around it
include the whole of the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid, Lin Peninsula, the coastal strip north to theNorth Macedonian border, and Drilon Springs with the watercourses linking them to the lake. The
process was composed of a long series of management planning workshops, thematic workshops,
transboundary meetings, technical working group meetings with the production of essential
documents and assessments, which allowed to establish a dialogue with different level stakeholders
from local to national and regional. She concluded that this process was beneficial for involving
local communities and for establishing intersectoral and transboundary cooperation.
2) Joshua Mwankunda, cultural heritage manager at Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority(NCAA), Tanzania, presented the “Ngorongoro Conservation Area, The Land of Natural Fortunes.”
He started his presentation with a video that promotes the values of the World Heritage property.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) was created in 1959, but it became a natural World Heritage
in 1979, due to its important wildlife and animal migrations. It later became mixed with theinscription of cultural values related to the archaeological remains, which are testimonies of human
evolution. He said that the oldest evidence of humans starting walking, the Laetoli footprints,
as well as the crucial remains found in Olduvai Gorge are located in the NCA. He explained thatNCA was created as multiple land use area that combines wildlife, community development, andtourism. This protected area has also been recognized as a global Geopark (2018) and belongs to
the Biosphere Reserve Serengeti-Ngorongoro established in 1981. He expressed that with all therichness of the area, they confront many challenges, socio-economical and environmental. The
population of Maasai pastoralists living in the protected area has increased from 8,000 in 1959
to 100,000 at present. At the same time, the cattle, which is their primary source of economic
sustain, is reducing. Therefore the land is under pressure in the context of a changing climate. In
terms of management, the local communities are represented by the Pastoral Council, which isconsulted regularly and is part of the management and decision-making process of the protected
area. He added that balancing all designations in their day to day activities is quite challenging. He
believes that the multiple land use needs to be explored further in order to create benefits to thepeople because he said that so far, it has mostly benefit scientists and tourists. He also commented
that because the archaeological remains are very sensitive, they remain covered, and they havenot found yet a way to protect them adequately if these were openly shown. He concluded that
if local people could access and understand better the value of those sites, they could probably
see the potential benefits. He concluded that extending the boundaries of the property is being
contemplated, which would help with the carrying capacity of the landscape.
3) Le Hoang Lien, programme assistant for culture at UNESCO Ha Noi Office, Vietnam, presented“Trang An Landscape Complex Mixed Heritage Site: Unfolding Natural-Cultural Linkage.” Shesaid that Trang An Landscape Complex is the only mixed property of Vietnam to date, and wasinscribed in the World Heritage List under criteria (v), (vii) and (viii). She explained that the property
95

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

is composed of three protected areas, the Hot Lu Ancient Capital, the Trang An-Tam Coc-Bich Dong
Scenic Landscape where a vital temple is found, and the How Lu Special-Use Forest. One of themost important values is the scenic beauty of the landscape composed of limestone karst peaks,
cliffs, forests, caves, and paddy fields. She noted that the inscription of Trang An led to the increaseof tourism in the province, mainly because the area is very popular for the caves’ boat tours. She
further explained that 50% of the property is under a public-private partnership where tourist
companies are allowed to perform activities, mostly boat tours. She explained that the interlinkages
between the natural and cultural values of Trang An are very evident as the cultural identity andthe biodiversity of the area are interconnected. Moreover, she mentioned that also sacred valuesof nature are enacted in the pagodas and temples. She added that handicrafts also expressed
the relationship between nature and culture, as well as the traditional festival held every year.
She asserted that after five years of inscription, the impacts of rapid tourism growth bring several
challenges that require timely remedial solutions as well as revisited tourism development targets ina long term strategy for the conservation of heritage and sustainable development. She explainedthat the management system contemplates intersectoral cooperation, but more work at that levelis needed. She concluded that more capacity building, a visitor management plan, exploring theimpacts and benefits from tourism, empowering locals with a long-term conservation vision are
essential tasks to be developed.
4) Ziyan Yang, deputy director of China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites (CNPA),
China, presented “The Study of Nature-Culture Linkages of World Heritage Mount Wuyi.” Sheexplained that Mount Wuyi was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1999 under criteria(iii), (vi), (vii), (x), and that the original nomination included only the southern side of the Wuyi
mountain ecosystem. She presented this landscape of intact forest, subtropical, and rainforest
as being populated by cultural relics and archaeological sites. She mentioned that in 2014, theWorld Heritage Outlook undertaken by IUCN concluded that there was a need to expand thearea to include Jiangxi sections and that inter-provincial and intersectoral coordination should
be considered. As a result, she said that the State Party sent the Minor Boundary Modification
proposal, which was approved in 2017 during the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee.
However, she added that in this opportunity, ICOMOS suggested to study further and address theconcerns about the cultural values of the property, and consider extending further the property
to include elements representing the development of Confucianism and neo-Confucianism in
the region. She explained how these suggestions bring challenges, primarily due to the distance
between those sites and the Mount Wuyi protected area. She mentioned that China is building anational park-based protected area system that will have some impacts on the management ofMount Wuyi and World Heritage sites in China in general. She explained that the system would
be composed of only three categories: national park, nature reserve, and natural park. She notedthat this is due to the complicated system in China, with several categories such as Scenic site andForest parks, which make the coordination and management complicated since different ministries
and different nomenclatures are used. The new protected areas system will be managed by the
Ministry of Ecology and Environment only. She mentioned that in terms of nature-culture linkages,
the connection was evident in Mount Wuyi through the excellent state of conservation of naturalfeatures and ecosystems.
Following these presentations, participants discussed the following question in groups:●●

How could nature-culture linkages be applied in Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage?

Each group presented the results of their discussions. The first group was represented by Lien Le from
Vietnam, who mentioned that the question was difficult to answer, because the World Heritage criteria
system to which it is needed to adhere, represents the division between nature and culture for mixed sites.
She expressed that because of this, the nature-culture linkages are difficult to apply on nominations, which
includes integrity and authenticity. However, the group believed that the nature-culture linkages could beapplied in the management and governance processes through inter-sectoral cooperation. She mentioned
the example of Trang An in Vietnam, where the governance systems are based on inter-ministry cooperation
between the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural
96

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Left: Ms. Sonila Kora, Ministry of Culture of Albania, presenting the case of Natural and Cultural heritage of the
Albanian extension of the Ohrid Region. Right: Mr. Joshua Mwankunda, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority,
Tanzania, presenting the case of Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Mixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage.

Left: Ms. Le Hoang Lien, UNESCO Ha Noi Office, Vietnam, presenting the case of Trang An Landscape Complex Mixed
Cultural and Natural World Heritage. Right: Ziyan Yang, China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites (CNPA),
China, presenting the case of Mount Wuyi, Mixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage.

Resources. So the group concluded that governance could bridge nature and culture.
The second group, represented by Anuranjan Roy from India, concluded that the question needed to be
reframed as to how nature-culture linkages could be linked to criteria, authenticity, integrity, protection,and management. He explained they discussed examples of nature-culture linkages, such as the case of the
Kailash Sacred Landscape where the Indian butter tree is found and used in the local culture, to produce
medicine and other products. He said that this tree grows naturally in the landscape, and now it is becoming
over-extracted. He added that thatch is a good example of the linkages between culture and nature, thecultural usages of the tree as a natural element. He noted that the Wildlife Institute of India, where heworks, has done a survey and concluded that the use would need to be restricted. Mr. Warong Wonglangka
from Thailand added an example of the reforestation of an area where local people burn the area as a tool
to protect it. Sonila Kora from Albania added examples of her country where there is traditional knowledge
for the usage of some plants for their healing properties or the usage of stones for construction and rods forcarving decorative materials.
The third group, represented by Eulalie Dulnuan from the Philippines, came with the idea to apply thenature-culture linkages through intangible cultural heritage. She explained that they discussed examples of
the use of herbs, for medicinal, ethnomedical uses, which would connect the natural heritage, which are theplants, and the cultural heritage, which is the people.
Ms. Brown commented that if the IUCN governance types/management categories matrix would beapplied in this context, the proposal of the first group stayed in the first column, namely, governance by
the government through inter-sectoral cooperation at the level of ministries. However, she believes thatthe more one moves towards the right side of the matrix, namely shared governance or governance by the
Indigenous peoples or community-based other dimensions such as the traditional knowledge can be more
97

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

used. Dr. Wijesuriya added that from the OUV point of view, which was mentioned by the first two groups,
the examples of the trees were fascinating. However, if we talk about World Heritage, one wonders whatis the place of the tree, when you need to prove the OUV of your property. He concluded that with thecriteria as they are, the nature-culture linkages are not possible. Ms. Brown noted that the voices of the ones
who can see nature and culture together go beyond the OUV. Ms. Buckley commented that the problem
is that some State Parties will only ask managers to focus on the OUV. Professor Yoshida agreed with theidea that Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage do not necessarily need to be focused on OUV and that theWorld Heritage nomination process focuses on selecting OUV and meeting the criteria. However, he called
the attention to Ms. Rabliauskas’ presentation, where she explained how every creature has a purpose.
Everything is interconnected, and therefore, we do not need to focus on OUV but focus on the linkages
which are essential to maintain the cultural and natural systems in the World Heritage sites, including thisidea in the management plan. He added that the government of Japan refused to include cultural values
on the management plan of World Heritage Natural Heritage in the 1990s, but that now they understandthat this is important, and they do. Ms. Rabliauskas expressed how the provincial government and otheradvisors tried to convince them to apply only for natural criteria in their nomination. However, it was clear
and, in their holistic worldview, where everything is interconnected and that their spiritual connection to
the land is tied up with everything in their life, their territory needed to be recognized as Mixed Cultural andNatural Heritage, which is the first in Canada. Dr. Wijesuriya commented on how important it was that in
Pimachiowin Aki’s case, they were convinced about this inseparability, and how it is an excellent example.
Ms. Brown said that this case shows how far the World Heritage system needs to go in order to become
more inclusive.

Working group discussions during the third day.

During the fourth day of lectures, Professor Nobuko Inaba, from the World Heritage Studies, focused on
the conservation of cultural heritage in Japan. She started explaining that before globalization and in the
pre-modern period, nature-culture were inseparable in Japan. She pointed out that before globalization,
people would rely on the products available on their territories. She described her ancestral landscape,explaining that Japan is a very mountainous area, where nature is composed of steep mountains and deep
forests. In between mountains, there are very narrow valleys that are the places Japanese people inhabited.
She said that people have always been dependent on mountain forests, rivers, animals, and others forfood and provisions. However, the water in the mountains also provokes landslides and other risks. Hence,
mountains have been seen as sacred, respected, and used as grounds for developing ascetic practices,98

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Anuranjan Roy, Wildlife Institute of India, India, presenting the results of the group discussion of the third day.

which were a combination of Shinto beliefs and Buddhist rituals. She noted that in Japan, it is challenging
to find pristine nature, primeval forests. Most of the land is being used, and landscapes have testimonies
from human inhabitation almost everywhere. She said that the classical scenery from Japan is the mountaintemples, the villages, and towns, which are expressions of Japanese people and their relationship with thenatural environment. She mentioned that Japan is a very humid country, and the architecture of the houses
reflect these natural conditions. Moreover, she talked about Japanese gardens and their quality to express
the feelings to nature through gravel and stone. She added that all participants could find this kind of
relationship in their own countries, especially in Asia. Next, she focused on the concept of cultural landscapeand landscape and where the words come from, and their relation to the World Heritage system. She said
that it is important to look at the concepts more than the words because the concept can be expressed andfound in other cultures and non-Latin or Western European languages. She recalled her work on the concept
of authenticity, which is one of the pillars of the OUV, and she said that the concept of authenticity can befound in Japanese culture, as well as in other Asian cultures, but that this is not necessarily a literal translationfrom the word authenticity. She said that for the words culture, nature, governance, or management that wewere dealing with during the workshop, it was necessary to look to the concept behind in order to translatebecause probably in every language, there will be a word which expresses the same concept. She affirmedthat landscape is a concept invented to express the connection between oneself and nature. She noted that
‘Keikan’ ( 景 観 ) is a Chinese and Japanese word for translating landscape, but that this is a modern word,
invented by a Japanese geographer that brought it to China. However, this is an academic word and does not
express the cultural concept. She believes that ‘Fukei’ ( 風景 ) is an ancient word that came from China toJapan, and it is a historically old word that corresponds better to the concept of landscape, more appropriate
to depict the relationship between nature and culture. She added that ‘Keikan’ was a term created totranslate the European word ‘Landschaft’ (German) or ‘Landscape’ (English) in the 19th century. She recalled
the definition of cultural landscapes in the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Convention andthe sub-categories of designed, organically evolved, and associative, which also differ from the academictranslation and other definitions, like the popular one from Carl Sauer, American geographer that coined theterm. She remarked that the IUCN concept of protected areas also changed from 1978 to 1994, and thenin 2008 again. She believes that IUCN is trying to integrate the ideas from cultural landscapes in the World
Heritage system, and also the sacred values in nature. Other definitions she has been looking at are thedefinitions from Parks Canada, US National Park Service, Australia, and the Council of Europe, which all havedifferent understandings of landscape and cultural landscape. Then she moved to explain the application
99

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

of the World Heritage concept of cultural landscapes in the Japanese system. In Japan, in 1919, through the
influence of Europe, a law was established to protect scenic beauty and gardens that would be associatedwith the concept of the designed and associative cultural landscape. However, in 2004, with the influenceof the World Heritage Convention, they included the protection of agricultural landscapes, as organically
evolved. She clarified that the Japanese Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties contemplates theprotection of artistic heritage, built heritage, historical sites, gardens, and natural monuments, as well as
intangible cultural heritage. She mentioned that while in many countries of Europe such as Germany, Italy,
or France, where there was a law to protect scenic beauty that was later absorbed by nature conservation
laws, in Japan, this category remained in the cultural heritage protection law. She added that the criteria for
selecting properties are based on their significance for understanding Japanese culture, people, and theirlivelihoods, which is stated in the definitions of categories as “indispensable for understanding Japaneseculture.” She mentioned that there is not a comparative analysis. She recalled what Ms. Rabliauskas
mentioned regarding the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki, where elders of the First Nations would notwant to make distinctions and comparisons. The protection of natural monuments such as certain plants
or animals is not based on they being endangered or being rare but on their historical significance to theculture which is connected to their special characteristics. She gave several examples of all these categories.
For instance, she talked about Mount Fuji, which has been designated as a place of scenic beauty and isalso a sacred mountain where pilgrimages have been made for centuries. She mentioned the category ofpreservation districts, which was included in 1975 in a context of rapid development and where people
became more conscious about their local heritage. She pointed out that this category requires a bottom-up
approach because it needs that the population does not oppose the designation of their group of historicbuildings. She noted that this category was related to the machinami-hozon movement of the 1960s, where
community associations had a leading role. She said that the interlinkages are workable at local levels, wherein municipalities there are a small staff and more possibilities to integrate. She said that intangible andtangible are integrated through festivals which are done in temples and that the sustainable development
concept can also be integrated better at that level. She stated that the main challenges in Japan are the aging
society and depopulation, especially with the decreasing population in rural areas. Now, many initiatives
are focused on the revitalization of rural areas, the empowerment of local governments, and defining
their cultural resources and how to utilize them. She said that the latest development of the Law for theProtection of Cultural Properties includes the provisions for municipal level plans where municipalities
are in charge of mapping their cultural resources and propose plans for their conservation and utilization.
The Landscape Law of 2004 is an earlier example of how faculties have been given to local municipalities.
Another example is Japan Heritage, a project that was started in 2015, where locals are asked to create
narratives, local stories based on their heritage sites. She concluded by insisting that the integration workneeds to be done at the local level, where there is more space for innovation.
Subsequently, Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chair of the World Heritage Studies at the University of Tsukuba,presented the Japanese system on the conservation of nature with the example of the history of theconservation of Mount Fuji. First, he introduced how Mount Fuji and its natural elements were createdthrough geological processes. He clarified that several of the components of the World Heritage property
are natural elements. He said that the conservation of Mount Fuji has around 100 years and that Mount
Fuji is one of the first national parks in Japan. He described the values of Mount Fuji as being part of theinterrelationship between its different natural and cultural layers. The base is the geological feature, while
the biological aspects come from above with the forests and birds, and over it all are the religious elements,
the aesthetical appreciation inspiring the arts through the natural beauty. He described how Japan is
located in a unique position in the meeting point of four tectonic plates: North American, Philippines Sea,
Pacific, and Eurasian. He noted that Mount Fuji is located where three of these tectonic plates meet. He
explained how the process of formation of Mount Fuji started 15 million years ago when the Pacific plate
collided with the Philippines plate forming the Izu Ogasawara arc. Later, the Izu peninsula was formed andconnected to Honshu island (the largest island of the Japanese archipelago), and 500,000 years ago, theKomitake volcano erupted where currently the 5th station of the pilgrimage to Mount Fuji is located andwhere a shrine of the same name stands. One hundred thousand years ago, Komitake erupted, and 10,000
years ago, the new Mount Fuji erupted over the old Mount Fuji. These are the three most important layersof Mount Fuji, which is a very young volcano and still active. He explained how the combination of lava,
rocks, and intense snowfall produced water channels that flow as springs at the base of the mountain.
Pilgrimage traditions started 200 to 100 years ago, and pilgrims used to clean themselves in the springs in100

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

order to purify themselves before climbing the mountain. Several eruptions created the system of the Fuji
lakes, and the lava soil was appropriate for the emergence of mountain forests, such as Aokinohara. These
places are designated either as natural monuments or places of scenic beauty. Moreover, he said that lava
tree molds and lava tubes, created by subsequent eruptions, had been designated as natural monuments.
Compared to other mountains, he mentioned that Mount Fuji is not especially biodiverse, but it contains
alpine and evergreen vegetation. Professor Yoshida proposed three periods to explain the conservation
history of Mount Fuji, starting with the period from 1910-1930, before the Second World War. He explained
how at the beginning of the 20th century, efforts to protect natural monuments and creating nationalparks emerged and were discussed. Although these initiatives differed in form, the essence was the needto conserve the beauty of nature and provide recreation. Professor Yoshida highlighted that at that time,
biodiversity and ecosystems were not discussed. In 1919, the Law for the Preservation of Historic Sites,
Places of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments was enacted, and the natural elements of Mount Fuji, suchas the lava tubes, forests and springs were designated under this law, as well as its scenic beauty. The second
period goes from 1930 to 1950, which starts with the National Park Law enactment in 1931, when Mount
Fuji was also designated as a National Park, in charge of the Ministry of Health. In the 1940s, all conservation
efforts were stopped because of the war. However, the areas surrounding Mount Fuji became attractive fordevelopment after the war to promote high economic growth. From 1950 to 1980, there is a new period
when in 1971, the Environmental Agency was founded and took over the administration of national parks.
From 1990 onwards, it starts a new period with the signing of Japan of the World Heritage Convention
in 1992, which was an important year in terms of environmental conservation with the Conference on
Sustainable Development held in Rio, Brasil. Locally, Professor Yoshida explained that a movement to inscribe
Mount Fuji as a World Heritage started, with the idea of inscribing it as natural or mixed heritage. Later on,
the National Parks administration was transferred to the Ministry of the Environment, which delineated a
special protection area from the 5th station to the top of Mount Fuji. Professor Yoshida explained that thenature conservation system of Japan is composed of the national parks system and the nature conservation
areas. In total, all protected areas in Japan cover 20% of the territory, which contributes to the Aichi target
11 from the Convention on Biological Diversity. He said that Mount Fuji (Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park)
corresponds to IUCN Category V. At the same time, places like Shiretoko, which are inscribed as a natural
heritage in the World Heritage List, are IUCN Category II. He mentioned that a characteristic of the National
Park system in Japan is that it includes agricultural land and pastures, which could be defined as culturallandscapes. The private land is also part of national and natural parks. For example, he mentioned that ashrine owns the area above Mount Fuji’s 8th station (of 10). Subsequently, he described the main debatesover the conservation of Mount Fuji between the advocates of the national park for natural beauty andrecreation and the advocates of the national park as a strict nature reserve for scientific and conservation
purposes only. Until a resolution of this debate, Mount Fuji foothills were under development, and several
infrastructure development projects were proposed. However, only the access road for the Tokyo Olympics
in 1964 was carried out. He explained how these developments, the different designations of Mount Fuji,
governmental agencies’ perceptions, and locals’ interests interrelated in nominating Mount Fuji as a culturalproperty under criteria (iii) and (vi) and not as natural heritage or mixed. He concluded by mentioning thecurrent challenges of the management of the property, which are visitors management during the threemonths climbing season and waste management.
After this presentation, Mr. Tim Badman, Director of the Nature-Culture Initiative at IUCN, introduced the
ICCROM-IUCN World Heritage Leadership Programme. He explained that the main idea of the programmeis to focus on ground-level support to World Heritage sites, primarily focusing on capacity building andproviding resources to World Heritage site managers, developing conservation that is grounded in practice.
He presented the language exercise that they started working on the programme workshops, which is morethan just translating words into English: landscape, management, governance, heritage, nature, culture. He
said that as an English anglophone who used to be a World Heritage site manager, there are two working
languages for the World Heritage Convention and related Operational Guidelines: English and French. He
noted that 1 in 2 World Heritage sites are neither English nor French-speaking places, and therefore, theinformation is not being delivered in the language people use. Three words convey the sense of this language
project: Ipji (Korean, to define place), Kelo (Finnish, to describe a standing dead pine tree that is going to be
used for building), and Samfunn (Norwegian, that defines the society related to a particular geographicalspace). He remarked that the word Ipji ( 입 지 ) refers to the word place but means ‘to stand on the land,’and it brings the whole idea of everything that one can see and experience physically and also the feeling of101

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

connection to the cosmos. He thinks it is a Korean concept for a landscape that people can understand, but
it is not an exact translation. The second word Kelo in Finnish is a simple word that transmits a complex idea,
which shows that a language can have a lexicon that can describe things that there are not in English. Finally,
the third word Samfunn in Norwegian translates as a society, but he said that when talking to Norwegians,
this word can only be used when the geography that the specific society relates to is known. He mentionedthat in many languages, there is not a word for management, and the word used is something that sounds
like ‘management.’ He noted that in some languages, the translation of ‘manager’ only refers to company
business managers, for example. Lastly, he mentioned that there might be no words in a community or sitewhich refer to the same concept. However, the idea is to expand and diversify the Word Heritage practice by
including different concepts. He said that this is a conversation that has been going in the academic circles ofdiverse disciplines regarding cultural diversity and language diversity, but not necessarily at the practitioners
level which he believes would be exciting and enriching.
After this thought-provoking intervention, Dr. Maya Ishizawa, CBWNCL Programme Coordinator, explained
the itinerary and content of the field trip to Mount Fuji in Yamanashi and Shizuoka prefectures. She first
introduced the field trip team: Ms. Namiko Yamauchi and Dr. Mariko Ikeda. The field trip would focus oncomponents that belong to the serial property inscribed in the World Heritage List as ‘“Fuji-san, sacredplace and source of artistic inspiration,” as well as museums and research institutes related to the study,
conservation, and interpretation of Mount Fuji values. The visit included nationally protected culturalproperties such as important cultural properties, natural monuments, places of scenic beauty and historicsites in the area, and parts of the Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park. The first day of the visit would focus on
the natural and pilgrimage values of Mount Fuji. The first places to be visited were the Mount Fuji ResearchInstitute and the Mount Fuji Biodiversity Center where the geology and biodiversity characteristics of themountain were to be presented. Then, in the Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre in Yamanashi prefecture,
the narratives of the pilgrimage and the sacred values of the mountain were to be understood. Participants
would stay in the northern part of Mount Fuji, near the Fujiyoshida town, in Yamanashi prefecture, where
one of the most important historical pilgrimage routes starts. The second day of the visit would be focused
only on the pilgrimage traditions, exploring Fujiyoshida town, the Umagaeshi, or where the horses wereleft by pilgrims in the past, an example of pilgrims houses called Oshi houses’ and important temples andshrines. The third day of the visit would tackle the visitors’ management issue by taking participants tothe 5th station of Mount Fuji, where tourists start their ascent towards the summit, as well as a pilgrimage
route bordering the mountain at that level. On the last day of the visit, participants would go to the World
Heritage Centre of Shizuoka prefecture, which presents a different side of the mountain and its values. Dr.
Ishizawa further gave instructions about the schedule, activities, and necessary materials. The field trip teamprovided some final remarks.
After these lectures, two participants presented their case studies:
1) Anuranjan Roy, World Heritage assistant at the Wildlife Institute of India, India, presented “Sacred
Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes: Nature, Culture and Borderless Beliefs.” He focused on
the perspective from India of the transnational Sacred Landscape of Mount Kailash, which is spread
across China, India, and Nepal. The place has religious importance for Hinduism, Buddhism, andJainism. Pilgrimage around the area has been historically significant for two millennia. The Indian
portion is predominantly a forested area and includes heritage routes to the sacred mountain,
where pilgrimage is limitedly allowed. The Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes that
constitute the Indian portion of the Kailash Sacred Landscape has been included in the Tentative Listof India as a Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage site under criteria (iii), (vi) and (x). He commented
that there are several regional and national legal instruments and policies that are on place tocontrol the conservation and use of this area. However, there are a series of challenges posed in thiscase: lack of livelihood options, climate change affecting sustainable lifestyles, poor infrastructure,vulnerability to geological instability and extreme climatic conditions, and human-wildlife conflict.
He mentioned that some solutions developed include capacity building and outreach on traditional
techniques for local development, assessment of adventure tourism potentials, and participatory
and community-based strategies in management, incorporating traditional knowledge.
2) Yadav Uprety, the programme coordinator of the Research Center for Applied Science and102

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Nobuko Inaba, World Heritage Studies at the University of Tsukuba, explains the Japanese system on theconservation of cultural heritage.

Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chair of World Heritage Studies at the University of Tsukuba, explains the Japanese systemon the conservation of nature.

Technology (RECAST), Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, presented “Nature and Culture
Linkages in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area: a potential World Heritage Site in Nepal.” Hestarted his presentation by saying that he believes that the conservation of significant places,
either cultural or natural, is a common duty of the international community, and not only a103

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

national responsibility. He explained that Kangchenjunga Conservation Area in Nepal is neighborto the Kanchendzonga National Park in India, which is already a World Heritage site since 2016,a Biosphere Reserve since 2018 and that this Mount Kanchenjunga environment is one of thebiodiversity hotspots in the world. The Nepali side has been proposed as a potential World
Heritage Site because of its natural and cultural significance, but the challenge of nominating thisarea is significant. He discussed the possibilities of being a transboundary property, together with
India and China. However, he explained that the political will is missing, and the proposal has not
succeeded so far. He discussed how national boundaries separate these two sides but that they areculturally connected, through values, and also as one vast ecosystem. Some of the most importantfeatures are the snow leopard and the red panda, which are important species. The local people’s
practices include a variety of livelihood options, such as agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, andtrade, resulting in a vibrant cultural tapestry. The human settlements within the area are probably
the highest altitude settlements adapting traditional systems for coping with a harsh environment.
He concluded that there is a need for an integrated and coordinated approach with multiplestakeholder participation and transboundary collaboration.

Mr. Anuranjan Roy, Wildlife Institute of India, India, presenting the case of Kailash Sacred Mountain Landscape andHeritage Routes.

At the end of the last day of Module 1, participants reflected on the following question:●●

How do the questions of previous days relate to the specific context of the Asia-Pacific region?

The first group represented by Kimberley Wilson from Australia found that at first when they talked
about the region as one, they found a diversity of languages and very distinctive cultures and geographies.
However, they noticed that in many of the Asia Pacific cultures, there is not a distinction between natureand culture. For instance, they discussed the existence of animist religions and spirituality, which is linking
nature and culture. Moreover, many Asia Pacific countries have gone through colonization and later postcolonization processes. These processes also influence the way they needed to build back their identities,
reflecting on what makes them who they are and that in this search, nature-culture linkages have been
integrated with the formation of heritage.
The second group represented by Ziyan Yang from China compared Asia and the Pacific region with other104

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

regions. They found how, in the Asia Pacific, they have many similarities, not only protected areas but sitesthat combine people, land, mountain, scenic spots, scenic sites. They also found that many countries share
the rice culture, which also establishes a special relationship between people and land. Moreover, theyrealized that at the local level in many countries, they could find healthy community development that has
resources in their language. Besides, they relate to certain habits and religions. They concluded that theshared nature-culture characteristics existing in Asia and the Pacific could be the foundation for building
cooperation.
The third group represented by Sonila Kora from Albania discussed various issues that connect people within
Asia and the Pacific, and they stressed that there is room for exploration of nature-culture cooperation andcollaboration. She mentioned that they discussed how, through cooperation and collaboration, we could
extend our knowledge from our neighbors, how they live and share how we live, and find out how we may
have similarities. They talked about exploring more on examples of transboundary cooperation. She said
that in this connection, it is possible to emphasize those values that unify the regions, without borders, andemphasize cultural landscapes. One example the group discussed was the Sundarbans between Bangladesh
and India, which are inscribed as different World Heritage sites though they are neighboring and one vast
ecosystem. They mentioned how materials and customs are shared beyond political boundaries and how
cultural boundaries go beyond political boundaries by sharing the same ancestors.

Ms. Ziyan Yang, China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites (CNPA), presenting the results of the group
discussions of the fourth day.

Dr. Wijesuriya commented that the three points that they developed are valuable; the relationship withthe land, the religious beliefs, and the cosmologies are important perspectives to look at the natureculture linkages. Ms. Brown highlighted the idea of bottom-up work, which means visiting the communities,
exchanging, and that from there, an interesting exchange can happen at many scales and across boundaries.
She mentioned that even though the workshop focuses on Asia and the Pacific region, it is crucial to haveperspectives from Africa and Europe, and find commonalities. She added that the power of exchange isvital and builds support for all different levels. Ms. Kora mentioned that starting from the bottom is very
important, and she recalled to the group that Albania used to be under a communist regime where no
relationship with Yugoslavia was allowed. After 1992, the communist regime fell, and for Albanians, it was
like exploring a new world that had once been scary. They had to start slowly with simple visits and how they
were finding out how they had so much in common. This work was a useful base for the World Heritage
105

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

extension process that started in 2009 because the people of Lake Ohrid had already started to exchange.
Ms. Rabliauskas said that in the case of Pimachiowin Aki, they would not have done anything without the
support of the local communities. Through the process, she said they found out how important it was, forworking together, to strengthen the relationships they already had. Recognizing that they are a bit different,
even though they share the same language. Do not create divisions, including the neighbors, even the ones
that were not going to be part of the nomination, and acknowledge that people have the right to have asay on the future of the areas they inhabit. Ms. Buckley mentioned that this reminded her of the latest
inscription of an Australian site, Budj Bim cultural landscape. She said that the communities also talked totheir neighbors even if they were not going to be part of the nominated property to communicate theirplans. She insisted that talking is an investment and would support a good and strong management capacity
in the future.
Finally, Module 1 closed with Professor Yoshida’s farewell and thanks to Ms. Jessica Brown for her
participation in the workshop as a resource person. Ms. Brown said that the workshops are always a learningspace, from colleagues and all participants, and for sharing experiences. She added that she felt inspired andhopeful, especially considering the challenges ahead, such as climate change. She highlighted that there is astrong potential for collaboration.

106

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE TWO:MANAGEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION,
AND GOVERNANCE IN MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

Module 2 lasted for four days, where the participants visited four of the twenty-four components1
composing the serial World Heritage property “Fujisan, sacred place and source of artistic inspiration,”
located in the prefectures of Yamanashi and Shizuoka. During the four-days field visit, participants could
learn about the different systems of protection of the property and the values considered at the national
and international levels. The diverse components of the World Heritage property are protected under
different categories and legal frameworks at a national level: Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park, Places of
Scenic Beauty, Historic sites containing National Treasures, Natural Monuments, and Important Cultural
Properties. Participants also could then understand the complexity of the property and the challenges of thenomination process to the World Heritage List.
It was clarified that Mount Fuji is located within two very distinctive prefectures. Yamanashi prefecture
to the north is a mountainous area with a landscape of lakes, which has maintained the rice culture andtraditions of pilgrims climbing the mountain. Shizuoka prefecture, in the southern part of Mount Fuji slopes,
connects the mountain to the sea and shows highly developed urban centers. In this area, it is possible
to observe the influence of the ecosystem services provided by Mount Fuji, especially water provision,
which supported the development of industries and economic development. The visits included research
institutes, museums, temples, pilgrimage routes, and the Two World Heritage visitors’ centres. The visits
illustrated how an area can have cultural and natural values, recognized at local and national levels, but thatthese do not necessarily meet the World Heritage criteria. Nevertheless, it was understood that all values
need to be considered to manage and maintain the OUV of a World Heritage property. Themes that werediscussed during the visits were the biodiversity and geological values, the beauty and aesthetic dimensionsof nature, the historical significance, and the sacred values of the mountain, as well as its significance as
artistic inspiration. Moreover, issues regarding tourism and visitors management, as well as interpretation,
were debated. During the visits, participants were able to discuss with local managers, researchers, andtourist guides in the different places visited.
The first place visited was the Mount Fuji Research Institute in the prefecture of Yamanashi. Participants
listened to a lecture from Dr. Takashi Nakano, Head of the Division of Ecological Education andCommunication at the Mount Fuji Research Institute. Dr. Nakano explained the history of the formation of
Mount Fuji volcanoes. He said that these are aligned from northwest to southeast due to the configurationof the tectonic plates. He also talked about the characteristics of Mount Fuji, starting with the distributionof plants and vegetation according to factors such as altitude, temperature, and humidity. He mentionedthat since Mount Fuji is a young volcano (around 10,000 years), there are no endemic species registered inits ecosystems. The soil has few nutrients, and the alpine vegetation mostly migrated from other mountains.
Moreover, he introduced the conservation challenges of Mount Fuji, which mainly refer to tourism,
development pressures, the introduction of alien species, and climate change. He commented that tourism,
which brings around 3 million visitors per year, is of particular concern due to the limits of carrying capacity
and the need for intensive waste management.

1

The State Party of Japan nominated 25 components, however the World Heritage Committee, inscribed
only 24 of the 25 components proposed.
107

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Takashi Nakano, Head of the Division of Ecological Education and Communication, Mount Fuji Research Institute,
explaining the natural history of Mount Fuji.

During the afternoon, the group visited the Biodiversity Center of the Ministry of the Environment, where
Mr. Kazuo Somiya, Director of the Center, gave a lecture on the biodiversity of National Parks in Japan.

Mr. Kazuo Somiya, Director of the Biodiversity Center, Ministry of the Environment of Japan, giving a lecture on thebiodiversity of National Parks in Japan.

Then, the group moved to the Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre of Yamanashi Prefecture, where they108

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

were guided by Mr. Naoki Takayama, Assistant Director, Fujisan World Heritage Division, Resident Affairs
Department, Yamanashi prefecture.

Mr. Naoki Takayama giving an introductory talk in the World Heritage Centre of Yamanashi Prefecture.

Group photo at the Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre of Yamanashi Prefecture with Mount Fuji in the background.

On the second day of the field trip, the group visited Umagaeshi, known as the place where pilgrims left theirhorses, located in Yoshidaguchi in the northeastern slope of Mount Fuji. They were received and guided by
Mr. Makoto Horiuchi, researcher of the Prefectural Government of Yamanashi. Mr. Horiuchi explained about
the history of the pilgrimage routes ascending to the summit of Mount Fuji and mentioned the different
stages. He also commented on the reconstruction works conducted after archaeological excavations withthe use of historical records. Participants were able to experience the ascent through the route surroundedby forests until the 1st station of 10.
109

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Makoto Horiuchi, a researcher of the Prefectural Government of Yamanashi, commenting on the buildings androutes identified in historical records.

Then, the group traveled to Kitaguchi Hongu Fuji Sengen-jinja Shrine, the first place where pilgrims used
to stop before starting the ascent. Mr. Horiuchi commented that pilgrims used to purify themselves in the
Shrine waters, as well as pray, before their ascent to Mount Fuji.

Mr. Makoto Horiuchi commenting on the purification rituals conducted by pilgrims in the Shrine.

110

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Group photo at Kitaguchi Hongu Fuji Sengen-jinja Shrine.

After this experience, the group visited one of the Oshi Houses, which were the places where pilgrims arrived
from all over Japan and rested the night before starting the ascent.

Mr. Makoto Horiuchi explains about the reception of pilgrims in an Oshi House.

The last visit of the afternoon was to the Fujisan Museum, a local museum of Fujiyoshida city, whereparticipants could learn through multimedia and interactive tools about the cultural and natural values
associated with Mount Fuji. In the entrance area, participants could explore through touch screens thehistory of Mount Fuji from the ancient pilgrimage practices to the first climbing by foreign visitors since thesecond half of the 20th century. The participants also could appreciate exhibitions of artifacts related to thespirituality of Mount Fuji’s pilgrimage practices and some audiovisual resources of contemporary traditions
111

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

and celebrations. In the last section of the museum, there was a projection mapping on a 1/2000 scalemodel of Mount Fuji, where its geological history and ecological features were introduced.

Participants experiencing the interpretation tools of Mount Fuji Museum.

After returning to the accommodation, participants received a lecture by Mr. Kouichi Warashina, Assistant
Director General, Resident Affairs Department Yamanashi Prefecture, and representative at the Mount
Fuji World Heritage Management Board. Mr. Warashina explained the management of the World Heritage
property. He talked about four stages of worship of Mount Fuji: first, the worship from far away, related
to the continuous eruptions through time. Later, the second stage was when Mount Fuji was assigned
historical importance for Japanese people becoming a symbol of unification and national worship, and it
also inspired arts and poetry. After this, he mentioned a third stage related to the pilgrimage developmentby the ascetic followers of Shugendo. Finally, the fourth stage related to ordinary people starting to climb
the mountain for recreation. He explained the 25 components of the serial nomination. He mentionedthat three components are the most important: the main body of the mountain, the pilgrimage path, theshrines and temples, and the unique natural elements surrounding the site, such as the lava caves andlava trees. He described two views as the source of artistic inspiration: one from the Lake Motosu and thesecond from the seashore. He stressed that appropriate management is the most important and that all of
the components are protected by the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties of 1950. Besides, themountain is protected as a National Park by the National Park Law. He highlighted that one of the issues isthe establishment of the buffer zones because these are not protected by the Agency for Cultural Affairs orby the Ministry of the Environment and that local governments are in charge through prefectural ordinancesand land control plans. He added that the governors of the prefectures are the heads of the coordination.
He mentioned the recommendations from the World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription, among
them, the development of an appropriate tourism management strategy, to strengthen the monitoring
system, to control development, and to establish risk preparedness plans. He said that one of the mostchallenging aspects of this site is to interpret the mountain connection with sacredness so visitors can grasp
the significance of Mount Fuji. Another challenge he mentioned is to conserve the beauty of the landscape.
Following the recommendations, he explained that they are doing studies on carrying capacity andevaluating how to reduce the impacts of visitors. Some of the strategies are to persuade visitors to ascend
until the 8th station only and to request visitors to take a longer time for the ascent, and not do it in one go.
Currently, he explained that specific processes are being undertaken, such as a Landscape Control and a
Heritage Impact Assessment.
112

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Kouichi Warashina, Yamanashi Prefecture, giving a lecture about the management of Mount Fuji as World Heritage
property at FujiCalm.

On the third day, participants visited the 5th station of Mount Fuji, which is the usual starting point for
climbing by tourists. They visited the Komitake area, which represents the summit of the old Fuji volcano.
Participants received an introductory talk by Mr. Warashina on the history of the design of the area of the 5thstation, where the prefecture divided the facilities for tourism and appreciation of sacredness. After that, thegroup walked the Ochudo pilgrimage route led by local tourist guides. This route surrounds the mountainat the tree line level, and participants learned about the ecosystem services provided by Mount Fuji to thewhole area. They understood the dynamics of the forests, the different species, and other characteristics ofthe ecosystems at this level of Mount Fuji, where the volcano becomes barren land. At the end of the visit,
participants watch a video in the 5th station Visitors’ Center, where they learned about the essential featuresof Mount Fuji World Heritage.

Group photo at the Komitake summit with Mount Fuji in the background.
113

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Participants walking the Ochudo pilgrimage route with local guides.

Back at FujiCalm, participants received a lecture by Mr. Tim Badman, Director of the Nature-Culture Initiativeof IUCN, about the tools being developed in the framework of the World Heritage Leadership Programme
led by ICCROM and IUCN. He mentioned that they are working on the World Heritage resource manuals,
looking for a common approach. He added that they are working on the Guidance on Impact Assessments
for World Heritage Places and on the Knowledge Framework, which consists of a shared vocabulary for what
it is thought to be essential to know about a World Heritage property. He explained that they are working on
a holistic structure, which includes a landscape and a people-centered approach and resilience. He said thatthey are preparing a glossary of concepts and terms used and directing it to resources on a web platform.
Another aspect Mr. Badman talked about was the testing of toolkits, such as the ‘Enhancing our Heritage,’which was initially prepared for protected areas, but that is being adapted to be used for both natural andcultural heritage sites. He added that the work is also focusing on the revision of the Operational Guidelines
on Management (paragraph 112), in order to work on more accessible translation to local languages, while
also creating a set of tools to support the implementation.
The last stop of the field visit, on the fourth day, was the Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre of Shizuoka
prefecture. There, participants received an introductory lecture by Mr. Toru Ochiai, Vice Director, Mount
Fuji World Heritage Centre, Shizuoka Prefectural Government. Mr. Ochiai talked about the design andconstruction of the centre, inaugurated in 2013, when Mount Fuji was inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The mission of the centre is the protection and transmission of the values of Mount Fuji as a World Heritage
site, but also to do research and generate interaction with visitors through educational activities andinteractive exhibitions. After the presentation, participants could visit the exhibitions of the Visitors Centre,
where they learned about the influence of the mountain in the development of the seashore area.

114

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Tim Badman giving a lecture on the World Heritage Leadership Programme.

Mr. Toru Ochiai, Vice Director, Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre, Shizuoka Prefecture, introduces their mission.

115

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Group photo at the entrance of the Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre of Shizuoka Prefecture.

116

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE THREE:REFLECTION ON THEORY AND PRACTICE

Module 3 comprised of two days of reflection on the theory and practice gained during the workshop.
Participants were divided into groups, including graduate students of the University of Tsukuba, to work on
an assessment using the case study of Mount Fuji. Participants were invited to reflect on both the naturaland cultural values of the site visited during the field trip. Finally, each of the groups gave a presentation.
The structure of the presentations included firstly, a group reflection based on the following points:●● Mapping values and the interrelations of nature-culture in Mount Fuji●● Draft a Statement of Significance for Mount Fuji●● Assessment of the management of the site concerning:-- Nature-Culture-- Visitors and interpretation-- Top-down/Bottom-up approaches●● Lessons learned and recommendations
Secondly, each of the participants was required to give an individual reflection about the lessons learned
that could potentially be applied in their home country or heritage site. The final reports were delivered as
20 minutes presentations followed by discussions with other groups, resource persons of the workshop, andguest speakers of the international symposium.

Group 1
Members:
Laze Deqing, China
Wanda Listiani, Indonesia
Joshua Mwankunda, Tanzania
Yadav Uprety, Nepal
Wenchao Deng, China
Lorena Oliveira, Brazil
Mapping values
The group started by enumerating the identified values of Mount Fuji. First, they referred to the aestheticalvalues. They noted that natural beauty is based on its majestic form as a solitary strata-volcano. Moreover,they mentioned that Mount Fuji is widely known as the symbol of ‘Oriental Japan.’ Secondly, they mentioned
the spiritual values of Mount Fuji related to the religious: a sacred place and object of worship, the deep
adoration, and inspiration for Shugendo, the religious practice linking Shintoism and Buddhism. They recalledthat Shugendo is a combination of traditional Japanese mountain worship synchronized with Buddhism.
Thirdly, they mentioned the artistic value as a source of inspiration to artists such as Katsushika Hokusai, andthe literary works which depict Mount Fuji and the life connected to the mountain. They added that Mount
Fuji also inspired Western modern art. Next, they identified the interrelation between nature and culture
in Mount Fuji, starting by explaining the historical interactions between people and the mountain. They
mentioned that according to Shinto beliefs, the deity Asama no Okami, god of fire, resides in the summitof the mountain, in the crater. People believed that the repeated eruptions represented the anger of thedeity, and in order to placate it, they started to worship the deity from afar - not climbing. Later on, shrines
117

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

were built in the foothills to pacify the deity living in the mountain. Finally, people started a pilgrimage tothe mountain, purifying in their lakes and springs, and developing spiritual powers through the climbingof the mountain. This practice developed, routes were established, more shrines built, Buddhist facilities,
and temples, as well as Oshi houses for the pilgrims. They concluded that this development resulted in thecomponent parts of the serial Mount Fuji World Heritage site.
Statement of significance
Mount Fuji is a sacred, majestic, solitary, stratovolcano mountain, rich in biodiversity, as well as an object ofworship and manifesting harmonious and interdependent existence of people, culture, and nature located in
Honshu, Japan.
Important heritage values are its majestic form, widely known as a symbol of Japan, and a sacred place ofdeep adoration and source of artistic inspiration.
The character-defining Mount Fuji is that people and nature coexist through the realms of religious belief
and art.
Management assessment and lessons learned
The group identified 5 points:
1. Different legislation, institutions, or levels of management effectively working together in tightcollaboration: Yamanashi and Shizuoka prefectures, National Parks, Research centers, information centers,
museums, local communities, and private owners. They were wondering why this is possible and why they
can collaborate so well. They had three hypotheses: the Japanese system, the culture of discipline, andthe culture of following the rules.
2. How they tell the story: a proper identification combined with the utilization of the history and rightexperts, its importance for their culture and tradition.
3. Proper allocation and utilization of resources, such as the proper use of volunteers and financial resourcesin projects.
4. Management of values: active monitoring and restoration; engagement of religious people andorganizations; keeping and engaging all the stakeholders close to the values (ex. hoteliers).
5. Visitors and Interpretation: the architecture speaks about the value (especially in the Shizuoka World
Heritage Visitors centre).
Recommendations
1. Presentation and interpretation of the values (culture and nature) should be made simultaneously (fullunderstanding of how everything is connected).
2. Review proper orientation of some exhibits.
3. Limit the number of visitors per day (e.g., through a registration system for the maximum number allowed
per day/time slot). The group noticed that too many visitors during the climbing season works against
spirituality.
4. Video instructions: make them shorter and more available in different channels (e.g.outdoors, safety
instructions).
5. Enhance resources-sharing and coordination.

118

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Yadav Uprety (Nepal), Wanda Listiani (Indonesia), Laze Deqing (China), Wenchao Deng (China), Lorena Oliveira (Brazil),and Joshua Mwankunda (Tanzania) taking notes during the preparations for the presentation.

Group 2
Members:
Eulalie Dulnuan, Philippines
Le Hoang Lien, Vietnam
Anuranjan Roy, India
Kimberley Wilson, Australia
Yue Cao, China
Congcong Liu, China
Ami Masuichi, Japan

Mapping values
The group identified the following values and respective attributes:●●
Unique Flora and Fauna: vegetation banding, atypical fauna●●
Geological and Geomorphological: volcanic, lakes and spring●●
Research monitoring: biodiversity, geodiversity, evolution, cultural diversity●●
Scenic beauty: views from afar●●
Recreation: leisure and exercise●●
Sacredness and Spiritual: pilgrimage, nature worship●●
Symbolism: Japanese identity●●
Artistic inspiration: works literature, poetry, and fine art●●
Economy: tourism, ecosystem services
Statement of significanceThe Mount Fuji cultural landscape is an iconic mountain, and the surrounding area in the central region ofJapan is of natural and cultural significance to local, national, and international communities.
Mount Fuji has been praised as an object of worship and beauty since ancient times and is renowned
worldwide as a symbol of Japan. The mountain is Japan’s highest (3,776 m.) and was formed by many
subsequent volcanic eruptions that have occurred over millions of years. The stratovolcano was actively
erupting until about 1,000 years ago, leading to its worship from afar. As eruptions became less frequent, a
traditional pilgrimage towards the summit began.

119

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

The altitudinal zones and unique volcanic environment enables various types of vegetation andwildlife, which have adapted in the conditions that each band presents. This vertical distribution of flora andfauna across deciduous broad-leafed, evergreen conifers, and volcanic desert zones, also carries cultural
significance in that the highest alpine zone is considered to be the Kusayama - the grass mountain andsource of waters, the evergreen conifer zone is considered to be the Kiyama-the tree mountain and theregion of the woods, and the barren zone is considered to be Yakeyama - the burned mountain and abodeof the gods.
There are many significant geological and geomorphological features within this volcanic landscape,including tree lava molds, scoria, lava tunnels, evidence of lava flow, lakes, hot springs, and waterfalls.
Culturally for Mount Fuji worship communities, the lava tree molds were considered to represent ‘bloodvessels,’ and the journey through them has come to signify a process of rebirth. The lakes and surrounding
springs are known to as the ‘eight oceans of Mount Fuji,’ and some have historically served points on thejourney up the mountain where pilgrims would cleanse and purify their bodies before continuing.
Mount Fuji and the surrounding areas are important for scientists and researchers who monitor andstudy the biological, geological, evolutionary, and cultural diversity of the unique cultural landscape. A rangeof museums and research centers provide information, films, data, and educational resources that enable
the community to learn about the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Continuing scientific monitoringis undertaken by experts and citizens, particularly concerning biodiversity and seismic activity, and thisinformation aids in evidence-based decision-making around disaster risk preparedness and sustainable
management.
The scenic beauty of the mountain and surrounding area is of direct value to Japanese communities
who enjoy views of it from afar. The imposing and picturesque landscape has shaped the aesthetic
consciousness and beauty standards held by Japanese people and international visitors.
The mountain and surrounding area are used recreationally for leisure and exercise activities,
including water activities, trail walking, and forest bathing.
Mount Fuji is a deeply sacred and spiritual place for Japanese people and continues to be
worshipped through the practice of ‘Fujiko,’ which has foundations in Shinto and Buddhist beliefs. Pilgrims
continue to ascend the mountain - following sacred routes, visiting the shrines, bathing in the lakes andsprings, staying in ‘Oshi’ lodging houses, participating in festivals, and watching the sunrise from the summit.
The journey ascending the mountain is understood to be worship and meditative practice in itself.
Mount Fuji has become an iconic symbol of Japan that has been transmitted globally. The mountainis an important part of Japanese identity and is believed to be the home of deities, including the god
Ohoyamatsumi and goddess Konohanasakuyahime.
An important source of artistic inspiration, Mount Fuji, has been the subject of many famous poems,
paintings, written work, and photographs throughout history including ‘Manyoshu’ (poem), ‘Ukiyo-e’(woodblock printing as seen in Hokusai’s paintings), and theatre (Noh and Kabuki). These works have been
central to the development of the style of Japanism, and have promoted universal respect for this naturalsubject matter.
Management assessment
For the assessment, the group focused on two areas: Visitors’ experience and Community engagement.
From the point of view of the Visitors’ experience, they concluded that:
1. The number of visitors during the peak season affects sacredness: Yamanashi prefecture has a numberof excellent visitor management strategies, such as, avoid crowded days (weekends), avoid crowded
hours and avoid crowded areas; organize a range of different activities to diffuse the crowds while still
understanding the values of Mount Fuji.
120

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

2. Responsive research:-- How many visitors seek sacredness? Purpose of visit: education, fresh air, exercise, recreation.
-- What is the carrying capacity of certain spaces? Physical carrying capacity, social car-cap.
3. Responsive monitoring:-- Safety: excellent documentaries, voluntary orientation.
-- Products: ethical consumerism (who regulates?); canned Mount Fuji air, Myths/Stories/Narratives.
-- Limits of acceptable change.
4. Visitor Interpretation:-- Museum exhibits use innovative ways of engaging.
-- Management has engaged with the public and among prefectures for research and monitoring.
-- A shortage of non-Japanese content in displays.
In terms of Community engagement, they concluded that:
1. Bottom-up: Citizen science; Voluntary cleaning of Mount Fuji; Donation campaign; local community andprivate owners consultation on the development plan.
2. Volunteer guides, Information Center and Safety control center: local people; local knowledge; welltrained; abundant information and communication material.
3. Top-down: The different approaches of Yamanashi and Shizuoka prefectures and inter-prefectural
cooperation.
4. Adaptive management: volcanic sediment counter and erosion counter structure; adaptive
infrastructures, more suitable for the environment.
5. Lack of input from different perspectives on museum displays and communication materials.
Recommendations
Theoretical:-- Reflection changes made to World Heritage criteria-- Consider going back to 1992?
Pragmatic:-- Use a passport system to get visitors to go to the whole property, and its 25 components in order to help
distribute the visitors and lessen overcrowding, and increase appreciation of the values of the property.
-- Require the bus companies to display documentaries regarding Mount Fuji in order to promote thevalues of Mount Fuji, to provide safety measures/lessen accidents, and to improve visitors’ behavior.

Congcong Liu (China), Yue Cao (China), Kimberley Wilson (Australia), Anuranjan Roy (India), Eulalie Dulnuan (Philippines),and Le Hoang Lien (Vietnam) discussing their ideas for the presentation.

121

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Group 3
Members:
Bina Gandhi Deori, India
Sonila Kora, Albania
Warong Wonglangka, Thailand
Ziyan Yang, China
Jermphiphat Natnitcha, Thailand
Daisuke Sato, Japan
Philip Semaha, Ghana
Mapping values
The group identified the following values:●●
Symbolic: Shape of Mount Fuji; Perfect cone shape, highest, symmetry, view from the mountain;
Mount Fuji is an iconic symbol of Japanese identity●●
Spiritual: Mount Fuji is the place of god in Japanese culture, an epitome of sacredness●●
Aesthetic: The beauty of Mount Fuji is the perennial source of joy and inspiration. Stunning setting,great scenery, and historic routes●●
Artistic: the solitary, often snow-capped Mount Fuji, rising above villages and tree-fringed sea andlakes becomes a source of art inspiration●●
Biodiversity: The forest around Mount Fuji can boost ecosystem productivity that can ensure thenatural sustainability of the environment and illustration of the important natural habitat. Numberof species +2,000/ Vertical distribution●●
Geological: Mount Fuji has a significant volcanic geology surrounded by ongoing processes in thedevelopment of landforms. Plate movement/Volcano eruption/accumulation●●
Education: Numerous cultural and natural evidence around the mountain can transmit theknowledge by generation to generation of humanity. The special environment around the mountain●●
Historical: The history of Mount Fuji can allow us to understand the past, turn to understand thepresent of Japan. Route for pilgrimage and traveler/Japanese samurai training base/archaeologicalremainStatement of significance
Mount Fuji is an important component of Japanese culture deeply rooted in people’s souls, fostering
Japanese identity as reflected in the spiritual culture, traditions, arts, and creativity since prehistoric times.
Geological occurrences over centuries and its rich flora and fauna have shaped the Japanese culture andenriched humankind, inspiring spirituality and creativity that transcended physical boundaries as reflected inJapanese religious practices, traditions, and artistic expressions through different mediums worldwide suchas paintings, literature, printing, poems, folklore, and crafts. Mount Fuji holds a special place of reverencein the hearts and minds of the Japanese community. It is an epitome of sacredness and has spiritual values,
represented by natural formations like lakes (Fuji Five Lakes) and lava tree molds, monuments like numerous
shrines and temples scattered over the landscape, lodging and pilgrimage routes.
Mount Fuji, apart from being an object of worship for the pilgrims and source of inspiration for
artists, has also been the means of sustenance for life in all living forms. Water from its springs, lakelandwaterfalls have nurtured plants and animals and is channelized for cultivation, supporting the livelihood of
the local communities through centuries. The pilgrim ascetics and believers are also using it for cleansing
their bodies before their spiritual quest.
A water tank is located in every shrine, where devotees clean their hands and mouth as an act of
purifying themselves before entering the shrine. Donning a white garb by the pilgrims during the journey isa constant reminder of life, death, and rebirth.
The spiritual connection with Mount Fuji continues and is celebrated through festivals such as
Yoshida Fire Festival, folk dances, songs, and performances.
122

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Management assessment and Recommendations
The group divided the assessment under three different categories: people, place, and system.
For the people, they analyzed the current situation, the problem, and gave recommendations as follows:
1. The tour guides focused more on the nature component of Fuji (almost no reference to culture in climbingFuji). The problem identified was a lack of linkage in nature-culture meaning. They found it affected theeducational value. They recommended integrating cultural and natural aspects of Mount Fuji in the
explanations.
2. The museums did not showcase much about lives and stories around Mount Fuji. They found the problem
was that the experience of visiting the museums is not compelling enough and that the archaeologicallinkage is missing. They recommended displaying archaeological and historical artifacts in the museums—
for example, real houses, real environments in Fuji, and not just the museum experience.
For the place, they analyzed the current situation, the problem, and gave recommendations as follows:
1. The Yoshida trails are used by 80% of tourists. They found that the problem is that some important areas
around Mount Fuji might be overlooked. They recommended encouraging people to visit other routes.
2. The information building location is “hidden” compared to the souvenir shop. They found thatsome visitors feel no obligation to visit the information desk and can have dire consequences. They
recommended that the information desk be the first point for all visitors. Visitors should be able to accessrelevant information online before embarking.
Finally, for the system, they analyzed the current situation, the problem, and gave recommendations asfollows:
1. Visitor control during open and closed periods on Mount Fuji is useful management for holding capacity
on Fuji to protect the integrity of nature-culture. They found that it was difficult to manage the climbers
effectively. There was a loss of the sense of sacredness due to crowdedness and loss of the solemnity
needed in climbing. They recommended using the physical and social capacity to manage visitors at
Mount Fuji.
2. The souvenirs of Mount Fuji are the same everywhere. They found that it is monotonous, and there is no
meaning of difference in the place around Mount Fuji, bringing a loss in the significance of the experience.
They recommended that the souvenirs should be unique to each site (different stations with uniqueitems), not the same from the bus station, the museums, the different stations, and trails. For example,
different animals, tree types, snow mountain, the mushrooms, the landscape, etc
3. Top-down is used to manage the development plan of Mount Fuji. They found that the top-down
approach may not sufficiently represent local interest (but it gets things done quickly). They recommended
to comprehensively integrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches.
4. The structure of governance in Mount Fuji relating to cultural and natural heritage representationis centralized (by the prefectural government). They found that local people have less influence on
preserving. They recommended that local people decide what the museum should showcase as their wayof life, in order to make it more authentic for the visitors. Introduce local routes used by the local people
for the daily life, local food served in traditional-styled restaurants with local recipes unique to Mount Fuji.

123

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Philip Semaha (Ghana), Daisuke Sato (Japan), Bina Gandhi Deori (India), Ziyan Yang (China), Warong Wonglangka(Thailand), Sonila Kora (Albania) and Jermphiphat Natnitcha (Thailand) preparing their presentation and discussing
ideas with Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya.

Group photo of participants and resource persons after they received their Certificate of Completion of the Workshop.

124

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE FOUR:
International Symposium

On October 4, 2019, the Fourth International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation, Asia and the Pacific, Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage took place within the framework of
the Tsukuba Conference 2019.
The Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, University ofTsukuba, Professor Masahito Yoshida and the President of the University of Tsukuba, Professor Kyosuke
Nagata gave respectively an opening address and especially welcomed the honoured guest speakers Dr.
Mechtild Rössler, UNESCO, Dr. Webber Ndoro, ICCROM, Mr. Takahiro Okano, Ministry of the Environmentof Japan, and Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan, and the roundtable guests: Ms.
Kristal Buckley, ICOMOS, Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, WHITRAP/ICCROM, Mr. Tim Badman, IUCN, and Ms. Sophia
Rabliauskas, Pimachiowin Aki Corporation. The achievements of the CBWNCL organized by the UNESCO
Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation based on the University of Tsukuba wereacknowledged. It was pointed out that the University of Tsukuba, along with the Certificate Programme on
Nature Conservation and the World Heritage Studies Program, has worked closely with the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM in the development of this novel curriculum.

Professor Kyosuke Nagata, President of the University of Tsukuba, inaugurating the International Symposium.

125

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation,
University of Tsukuba, inaugurating the International Symposium.

Subsequently, Dr. Mechtild Rössler, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, gave a speech on‘The challenges of nominating Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage sites to the World Heritage List.’ She
began introducing that the World Heritage Convention is the only legal instrument in heritage conservationthat covers both natural and cultural heritage, underpinning the existence of linkages between nature andculture already since 1972. However, the definition of mixed sites was only included in the Operational
Guidelines to the WH Convention in 2005, following a major revision that took place over five years since
2000. She commented that after forty years, the World Heritage List only has 39 mixed sites, which points
at a certainly underrepresented category and a challenge for State Parties. She explained that the reasonsare detailed in a document presented to the World Heritage Committee on mixed sites in 2014, but one ofthem is that until 1992 there were cultural references under natural criteria. This explains, for example, why
a number of natural sites today would be mixed or even mixed cultural landscapes. She commented that asshown by statistics, cultural landscapes outreached mixed sites almost three times since 1992, and only 10
cases are categorized as both of them. Moreover, as evidenced by a selected group of sites, some criteria aremuch more often used for mixed sites than in other cases, as noticed for the criteria (iii) and (vii); the latter
relates to ‘beauty,’ a cultural concept inexistent for cultural criteria.
Dr. Rössler continued explaining the challenges of mixed sites by showing concrete cases from the World
Heritage List. She first introduced the case of the recently inscribed Ennedi Massif in Chad (2016), a desert
landscape with unique geological features and one of the most crucial rock art sites of the Sahara in theWorld Heritage List. She commented that due to the discovery of oil and gas in the area around, the State
Party reduced the boundary of the site, leaving the essential rock art outside. She focused on seven points:
early nominations, changes in the interpretation, extension, re-nominations, inscriptions that were not fully
recommended, and the work with Indigenous peoples and local communities in understanding mixed sites
and Outstanding Universal Value.
Dr. Rössler reflected on the notion of mixed sites in early nominations, which were foreseen in terms ofusing the articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, often with a similar composition to the one in Ennedi: a mixedsite of geological features, natural features, and archaeological sites. She mentioned the case of Tassili n’Ajjer
in Algeria (1982), where mixed is also a linkage between people and the landscape, as the rock art depicted
126

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the diverse flora and fauna of the environment when the Sahara was still green, together with the ways oflife of people. She further mentioned that on the other side of this area is located the natural site of Air and
Ténéré in Niger, inscribed only under natural criteria despite the presence of rock art showing giant giraffes.
She highlighted the importance of rock art for the scientific discovery of species, which inspired them. Next,
she presented the case of Machu Picchu (1983), one of the most emblematic mixed sites, noting that naturaland cultural were separate in early nominations. In Machu Picchu, the Inca archaeological site is well known,
but the area is also a critical habitat for flora and fauna (e.g., spectacle bear). She mentioned a personal
anecdote of her visit to the site in 1998, where she noticed one of the main problems when it comes tomixed sites: despite being one World Heritage property, the boards in charge of nature conservation andcultural heritage were not working under one property-based management. The site managers from the
National Service for Protected Areas and the then National Institute of Culture, respectively, had nevermet before. Then, Dr. Rössler introduced another case of early nominations: Göreme in Turkey (1985).
In the inscription of this site, which displays a spectacular landscape and rock formations, natural beauty
predominated over geology, as the only criterion (vii) and not (viii), was used. Cases like this one, raisequestions about the interpretation of the criteria: ‘would this be nominated today as a cultural landscapeand not a mixed site?’ –she commented. She pointed out that, since 1984, the Bureau and the Committee’s
discussions on the notion of mixed sites were linked to the question of rural landscapes. However, it was not
until 1992 that the category of cultural landscapes was introduced, and, in 1993, Tongariro National Park
(1990-1993) was extended to become the first cultural landscape. Inscribed as a natural site for its geologicalfeatures in 1990, Tongariro was of utmost importance for Maori Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’
claims for the world recognition of their sacred mountain as a cultural heritage posed a challenge to theWorld Heritage Committee. However, they resulted in the inscription of the first mixed site and culturallandscape.
Afterwards, Dr. Rössler presented the case of St. Kilda in Scotland (1986-2004-2005), which entailed a renomination and an extension. Saint Kilda is an outstanding fossil or relict cultural landscape where thehuman-nature organic evolution stopped on 29 August 1930 when all the residents were moved out fromthe island. She explained that this site was extended to cover the marine area to include as well the marine
biodiversity, which was the food source for birds that sustained the subsistence of local people. She thencommented on the case of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania, a key natural area in Africa.
This site was inscribed as early as 1979 and extended in 2010, in order to cover both natural and cultural
criteria. Dr. Rössler proceeded to talk about another case of extension: Maloti-Drakensberg shared property
between South Africa and Lesotho, which is also one of the few transboundary mixed sites. Inscribed firstin 2000 and extended in 2013, the park shows an exemplary initiative in terms of interpretation, as thecreation of the visitor’s centre involved local communities’ especially in the interpretation of the site. She
then discussed the case of Lake Ohrid, which was an early inscription of 1979 by Northern Macedonia andwas extended to Albania in the last session of the World Heritage Committee (2019). This is a threatened
mixed site, but it was not immediately put on the List in Danger as recommended by the Advisory Bodies(IUCN and ICOMOS), given the adjustments needed due to the recent involvement of Albania in the property
management. She then called attention to the case of Wadi Rum, Jordan (2011). This site was inscribed by
the World Heritage Committee despite the two separate recommendations of referral and deferral by IUCN
and ICOMOS, respectively. She mentioned that she visited the site after the inscription and found out thatnone of the recommendations of the WH Committee were implemented, not even the inventory of rockart sites that are exposed to threats like mass tourism, which is of critical concern. She commented that it isnecessary for State Parties to know and get the data before the inscription, so the WH Committee would notinscribe sites that are not ready.

127

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Mechtild Rössler, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, during the International Symposium.

Dr. Rössler continued her presentation with the case of the Rock Islands Southern Lagoon, Palau (2012),
which is a testimony of different stages of life and contains values beyond its biodiversity, as it is crucial forthe identity of people. She highlighted the importance of working with communities if nominated sites are of
critical importance for them, their identity, and their spiritual life. She also commented that there are many
associative values found in nominations of mixed sites, including mountain areas such as Mount Wuyi in
China (1997-2017). She mentioned that in the 1990s, UNESCO organized a seminar in Wakayama prefecture(Japan) on sacred mountains, where they discussed how many mountains in the world have associativevalues. This explains why several mixed sites are mountain areas, as it is the case of different types ofassociative values in Blue and the John Crown Mountains in Jamaica, where people have strong spiritual
links to the natural environment. She then talked about the case of Papahanaumokuakea in Hawaii, USA(2010), a mixed site inscribed due to its marine environment and the native Hawaiian culture. She mentionedthat Hawaii shows how different parameters of nomination can happen in the same area. While this site wasrecognized as mixed, the natural site of Hawaii Volcanoes was inscribed just for the geological values despite
the association with the Hawaiian culture and belief system. She then commented about Chiribiquete
National Park, Colombia, inscribed in 2018, which is one of the critical biodiversity sites of this country. Thisis a case of a protected area where the government worked for many years with Indigenous peoples who
considered this site a sacred place. Dr. Rössler highlighted that the leadership of Indigenous peoples andlocal communities also led to the inscription of Pimachiowin Aki, Canada in 2018, after a referral and lengthy
process of consultations.
Dr. Rössler then commented about the case of the World Heritage cultural landscape of Pico Island in
the Azores, Portugal (2004), in which nomination she collaborated with the Portuguese government. She
explained that the uniqueness of this vineyard landscape was based on the viñas surrounded by volcanicstone walls; however, the nomination underwent a series of reformulations after a mission with IUCN andICOMOS until the requirements for the inscription in the World Heritage List were met. She then focusedon the case of Easter Island, Chile (1995), which was initially considered as a mixed site but inscribed byevaluating only its cultural values. She reflected this on retrospective, as today such inscription would not be
possible because the system was formalized differently.
Dr. Rössler remarked that since 2014, a document for the recognition of mixed sites was presented to128

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the World Heritage Committee, but there has not been much increase in the nomination of mixed sites.
However, she mentioned that there had been a significant evolution in the preparation of nominations
for mixed sites: Countries are working more closely between the cultural and the natural heritage sectors,
Advisory Bodies (IUCN and ICOMOS) are interacting more on mixed sites through the Connecting Practiceproject, joint missions and Nature-Culture Journeys as shown by the IUCN Hawaii Congress and the ICOMOS
Delhi General Assembly; and the recognition of the World Heritage Committee to the complexity of mixed
nominations. She also commented that she has been discussing with the Advisory Bodies in the World
Heritage Centre on upstream and on the changes in the nomination process. She believes that upstream
is a great opportunity to identify the potential of mixed sites; early advice of potentials for mixed would
be beneficial for State Parties but also in the review of Tentative Lists. She observed that at the national
level, institutions could be encouraged to work more closely and to involve all stakeholders, including
local communities, as they may hold the knowledge of these systems that may not be known by national
authorities. Moreover, she strongly recommended working with local communities and Indigenous
peoples, especially for the nomination of mixed sites. She asserted that integrated management plans
and management systems in place are requirements for the nomination. In the future, she expects a joint
resource manual on management of cultural and natural World Heritage with a strong component on how
to manage mixed sites in terms of capacity building, presentation, and promotion of this heritage. Dr. Rössler
finally said that mixed sites could also be an opportunity to present the genuine feature of the Convention,
which covers both natural and cultural heritage.
Next, Dr. Webber Ndoro, Director General of ICCROM, presented “Nature-Culture Linkages in World Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage in Africa.” He first clarified that the focus of his presentation would be placedon the perspective of Africa and its diverse site-specific cultures and their links between culture and naturein general, rather than specifically related to World Heritage. He specified that the main focus was on theissues of governance and governmentality of cultural and natural heritage sites. He explained these startingwith a historical perspective on the African context, elaborating on the emerging issues about values
concerning World Heritage. He made a reflection on the African experience, especially on the implications
for communities related to the identification of values and their involvement in management. Furthermore,he highlighted the place of communities in the framework given by the United Nations through the ideaof wellbeing and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To illustrate these ideas, he used two World
Heritage sites: the mixed site Maloti-Drakensberg in South Africa and the cultural landscape of Matobo Hills
in Zimbabwe.
Dr. Ndoro introduced the historical development of heritage management in Africa from pre-colonial times,
where he locates a ‘traditional and customary heritage management.’ He commented that the conceptionof heritage management did not necessarily come with colonization, as there was cultural and natural
heritage stewardship before. However, most sites were looked after from a religious point of view but also
in an attempt to try and harness nature. As in the case of Mount Fuji, heritage management in Africa did not
see a clear division between nature and culture or even religious heritage; there was a sense of wholeness,and many examples show this. He pointed out that, as addressed by the literature, the introduction ofheritage management into the African continent brought a new administration, authorities, as well as
the notions of national parks, protected areas, monuments, museums, and objects to be curated. These
introductions happened after the Berlin Conference in 1884 and the division of the African continent among
European empires. The idea in those days was to ‘save Africa from the Africans,’ and much of the protected
heritage was not presented to the Africans but rather to foreign tourists. He stressed that some of thesemanagement systems had continued today, as shown by protected areas like Zulu and Kruger National Park,
where animals were moved to certain areas in order to be protected, and barriers impede the inclusionof local communities into the management and the benefits from it. He called attention to the fact thatmost protected areas have cultural heritage, and this indicates the presence of people living in those areas.
However, most natural heritage sites in Africa, Eastern, and Southern Africa particularly have no people living
within.

129

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Webber Ndoro, Director General of ICCROM, presenting about Nature-Culture Linkages in World Mixed Cultural
and Natural Heritage in Africa.

Dr. Ndoro highlighted the efforts of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN in order to move awayfrom these approaches generated by a top-down scheme, trying to include much more effective andencompassing heritage management. He mentioned that since divisions between natural and cultural
heritage in his continent are not clear, it is not always the case that what is referred to as a cultural site does
not have any natural elements; they may not be of Universal Value, but their protection must be considered.
To provide an example, he mentioned the case of South Africa, where almost all World Heritage sites areprotected areas, and communities were left outside the national parks with no chance to benefit fromthem. He remarked that the situation is not the same in other African countries, as shown by Ngorongoro
Conservation Area in Tanzania, which has a population living inside the protected area, although thechallenge remains the same. He commented that issues like these and the concept of values need to be
unpacked in Africa, as they also affect the management regimes and governance. He further reflected on
the so-called ‘Big Five,’ which represents an attraction for tourists but not a concept most Africans identify
with. He explained the origins of these protected areas, which were royal protected areas of the Zulu nations
or King Chakra, with established taboos, rules and restrictions about animal hunting, and was preserved asa royal game. This situation changed with the introduction of guns as it increased the uncontrolled hunting,while a sense of protection of nature started to be promoted. More issues about the natural or culturaldefinition of a site can be evidenced by cases like the Victoria Falls, transboundary World Heritage property
shared by Zimbabwe and Zambia, or the Zambezi River, which hold spiritual values for the communities
around and are places for their ceremonies. Conversely, in some cases, natural phenomena are overlookedin cultural sites, as shown by Robben Island, World Heritage property in Cape Town, South Africa, which ismostly valued for having been the prison of Nelson Mandela. Nevertheless, it is also an important habitat for
penguins.
Subsequently, Dr. Ndoro emphasized the issue of governance in heritage, which has various levels of nonuniform demands; the national level deals with political agendas, and then these have to be articulatedwith the local level and its demands. He stressed that the identification of values in these levels does
not always coincide, as each can emphasize a different aspect. Although it differs from one country toanother, he pointed out that different management systems are imposed on World Heritage sites bydifferent government institutions with different mandates and priorities. He brought up the case of
Maloti-Drakensberg, a transboundary World Heritage property, one of the best examples of effective
130

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

management in his opinion, but which also evidences some management issues. The governments of South
Africa and Lesotho put in place systems for trans-frontier management; however, as the Drakensberg islargely understood as a natural site, there was no room for a cultural expert even though there is a relevant
presence of rock art. He observed that the issue of identification of values is revealed here on the absenceof cultural criteria, despite the well-known rock art; ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholders because we lookat beauty from cultural lenses’ - he said. He commented that it is necessary to discuss the recognition ofrock art as universal in the World Heritage system, as in Africa, it is ubiquitous from Gabon to Mozambique.
He pointed out that another contentious issue about rock art sites as heritage, particularly on the
Drakensberg, is their function as sacred sites, which often lead to confrontations with science. Rock art sites
are associated with the religion of the Zulus, and thus, it is a part of their living culture, while scientists tellthat hunter-gatherers made rock art. Developing more on the same case, he then focused on the ‘naming’as another issue of the dynamics of governance, where the local interests are sometimes sacrificed: As atourism marketing tool, Maloti-Drakensberg changed its name from ‘uKhahlamba-Drakensberg’ to solely‘Drakensberg’ after becoming a joint World Heritage, as the latter is well known worldwide. At the sametime, uKhahlamba means the most religious place to the Zulus in their native language. Furthermore, hementioned that the issue of governance here is multiple because of the number of institutions, structures,and perspectives involved. On the one side, in South Africa, the site is not governed by the Department ofEnvironment as other World Heritage sites, but by the provincial authority of Ezemvelo, which looks after
protected areas within the province. However, cultural values are not dealt with by Ezemvelo but instead by
the provincial authority of Amafa. By culture, they do not mean sacred sites but only archaeological sites,
including rock art sites. On the other side, in Lesotho, the protected area is governed by the Department ofEnvironment, which is a national authority.
These governance structures reverberate on traditional practices of local communities. He commented that
there is a notorious absence of considerations about the implications of the local community on the sacredsite. If a ritual is to be performed at the rock art site, or in the river of this place, they have to consult the park
manager who is in charge of monitoring the impacts. He reflected that issues like these need to be tackled
in order to foster communication among government and local institutions. To add more to the complexityof this case, the provincial authority of Amafa in South Africa also has SAHRA, which is an overall umbrella
body for sites nominated at the national level. The trans-frontier management system is trying to bring all
together. However, these institutions are attached to different ministries and departments, and particularly
for South Africa, it also involves a provincial authority. He commented that a similar case is represented by
the Matobo Hills cultural landscape in Zimbabwe, where its conception as a national park overshadows thepresence of rock art in the public perception. Paradoxically the site was nominated to the World Heritage
List as a cultural landscape as its natural features could not justify the Outstanding Universal Value. The
most sacred cave in Zimbabwe, related to the cult of the Shona God Mwari, is located outside of thenational park but now is being incorporated into the park boundaries, as part of the World Heritage site. Thismeans a series of constraints for the local communities that carry out ceremonies, as they would require
the permission and supervision of the park manager who protects the natural heritage. As in the case ofuKhahlamba-Drakensberg, there are various institutions involved in the Matobo Hills cultural landscapeas well: National Museums of Zimbabwe look after the rock art sites, National Parks look after fauna andForest reserves looks after vegetation. Dr. Ndoro emphasized that synergies and holistic management are
difficult to ensure in these contexts as different mandates come from different legislations and governancestructures.
Approaching the end of his presentation, Dr. Ndoro stressed the importance of considering the difference
between the needs of local communities and what experts believe these needs are. There are particular
structures and dynamics within the former that make a transparent negotiation necessary, as a heritage
place for them must bring life, benefits, and cohesion. He pointed out that these encounters of views derivein a series of challenges. One of them is the issue of ceremonies and religious activities at heritage sitesthat are either mixed, cultural or natural, considering that the scientific community refuses to recognize thevalues of such practices for local communities. Another one is illustrated by areas of heritage values thatare under agriculture, which management can include aspects of the agricultural practice. He remarked
that ultimately, heritage sites might be looked at as places, as a resource for communities rather than justsomething to put on the World Heritage List. He pointed out that World Heritage listing is important, but
it should be most beneficial for communities. He mentioned that it is important to look for more holistic
131

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

approaches to heritage management, as with the cultural landscape approach. He expressed the importanceof making sure that nobody is left behind. Dr. Ndoro finally highlighted the need to engage communities
and to overcome the centralization of decision-making on the government and the scientific community toensure all the stakeholders see the benefits.
Subsequently, Mr. Takahiro Okano, Deputy Director of the Biodiversity Policy Division at the Nature
Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment of Japan, presented “Toward the integrated
management of nature and culture in Natural World Heritage sites.” He talked first about the characteristics
of Japan’s environment: the Japanese archipelago runs along North to South with a variety of ecosystems,
from subtropical to subarctic. There are mountainous areas for over 3,000 meters in altitude, precipitations,and forested areas that cover two-thirds of the land. Because habitation started in ancient times and the
population became relatively large in the modern era, the utilization of natural resources was meticulously
planned, so the second nature and the natural environment were formed with human involvement. Mr.
Okano mentioned that because of the confluence of three crustal plates in the national territory, there
is a strong sense of awe and worship towards nature, which becomes intertwined with the Japanesereligion, as shown by shrines, temples and sacred places throughout Japan. National Parks, nowadays
inscribed as Natural World Heritage sites, have from the onset been highly valued for its secondary natureand cultural scenery, featuring temples and shrines, with a backdrop of Japanese nature and culture. Mr.
Okano commented that Japan’s National Park system started in 1931. National Parks aimed at protecting
outstanding landscapes, which were not limited to primitive nature, and promoting their utilization. In theaesthetic atmosphere of these landscapes, not only the visual scenery is considered, but also invisible objects
and non-permanent things such as the cleanness of air and bird songs. When shrines, temples, churches,remains, settlements, agricultural forestry, fishery, grazing, events, folk songs, and festivals occur, these
are considered cultural landscapes. Mr. Okano pointed out that there are many temples and sacred places
located within National Parks: Itsukushima Shrine, Shrines and Temples of Nikko, Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage
Routes in the Kii Mountain Range, and the Mount Fuji Sacred Place and Source of Artistic Inspiration are all
World Heritage cultural properties which cover partly or wholly National Parks.
Mr. Okano talked about the zoning system, another characteristic of Japanese National Parks. Regardlessof the land ownership, whether national, public, or private, outstanding landscapes are legally designated,
under the development of the area, and are restricted. In addition to the core area, the surroundings aredesignated as the buffer zone, allowing a wide range of areas in National Parks: from pristine areas tosecondary forests, agricultural lands and settled villages. He said that one advantage of the zoning systemis that there is no need to acquire the land when designating National Parks; therefore, a wider area canbe protected, and cultural landscapes can also be included. Furthermore, landowners and surrounding
communities are necessarily considered. Mr. Okano stressed that strict natural conservation could be
difficult with multiple stakeholders and layers of land management. However, conversely, it may also be
an advantage for both environmental conservation, use, and overall park management. In any case, theunderstanding and cooperation of the local community are essential. He remarked that the cultural valuesof the designated sites and the mutual relationship with the local community must always be taken into
consideration. This is why cultural elements are incorporated in the management plans of National Parks,
and local livelihoods and traditions or folklore are included in the visitor’s center exhibitions. Mr. Okano
introduced the case of Taketomi Island, which is part of the Iriomote Ishigaki National Park, known for its
traditional houses and culture. Here, the visitor’s center received the name of ‘Yugafu ,’ which in native
Okinawan language means a divine blessing of a good harvest, as proposed by the people of the island. The
center introduces nature through the lives of the peoples of the island, and the exhibits use the local native
language instead of standard Japanese. Its management is in charge of an NPO (non-for-profit organization)
established to preserve local culture, and they promote a series of activities conducted by local people, suchas guided barefoot walk tours and workshops for handicrafts.

132

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Takahiro Okano, Ministry of the Environment of Japan, presenting about the integrated management of natureand culture in Natural World Heritage sites.

Mr. Okano also commented that there are four Natural World Heritage sites in Japan. Although thesecan be considered the most pristine nature found in Japan, the utilization of their natural resources andtheir conservation as sacred lands are also part of their history. He mentioned the case of Yakushima
National Park, inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1993 by meeting the criteria of natural beauty (vii)and ecosystem (ix). In the evaluation of criterion (vii) for natural beauty, the old Jomonsugi cider forestof several thousand years played a crucial role. As for the criterion (ix), the vertical vegetation distributed
from subtropical to subarctic according to the elevation of the land was highly valued. Mr. Okano, however,mentioned that while these are the values from the perspective of the World Heritage Convention, thesemountains have a different set of meanings to the local residents. The central mountainous area called‘Okudake,’ which is not directly visible from the village, is an important sacred place where deities live
according to the mountain worship that has long been part of local peoples’ lives. Mr. Okano explained the
tradition of ‘Takemairi,’ or mountain worship, where representatives of the village purify their bodies withthe ocean river water, bring offerings from their sea and land productions to their first climb to ‘Maetake’and then ‘Okudake,’ and pray to the God of the mountain called ‘Ipponhojudaigongen.’ Mr. Okano said thatsuch local views of nature had maintained Yakushima’s nature pristine over the years. He further pointed
out that the engagement of the island’s people with nature mutually influencing, forming, and acquiring a
set of awareness and life production styles can be called environmental culture. Some projects utilize thisenvironmental culture for the preservation of nature and the activation of tourism. He mentioned that inYakushima, the concept of environmental culture was formulated in 1992, before its inscription on the World
Natural Heritage List, and it divided the island into three zones reflecting the traditional views of nature andthe utilization of resources, therefore influencing the conservation policy. Mr. Okano also informed about
the ecotours for learning environmental culture in the village at the foot of the mountain. In the planningof this tour, the people of the island relearned their environmental culture and confirmed the sense ofgratitude and awe towards nature. This initiative also aimed at dispersing the tourist visits and its economic
effects on the villages rather than just to the Jomonsugi forest.
Mr. Okano stated that currently, the Japanese government is nominating Amami Oshima Island, TokunoshimaIsland, the northern part of Okinawa island, and Iriomote island to be inscribed as a Natural World Heritagesite. This area’s biodiversity is considered as of Outstanding Universal Value from the lens of criterion (x);there are unique terrestrial species, many of them endemic due to the geographic and historical background133

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

of being small remote islands. Although only 6.5% of the forest is pure primeval rainforest, it is assumed
that the diversity of endemic species survived because of the environmental culture, which worships andrespects nature, or the sustainable harvesting and utilization of nature coupled with the regenerative partof nature. These islands have a vibrant community that has carried on traditional rituals and supported thecontinuity of this tradition; therefore, passed on from generation to generation, the value of World Natural
Heritage. This mutual interaction between nature and culture is essential and should be protected. Mr.
Okano commented that they conducted a survey about environmental culture in two villages of Amami
Oshima in 2013, part of the nominated area for the World Heritage site. This survey was based on thehandbook by the Nature Conservation Society, which focuses on communities and nature. Local residents
participated and collaborated with questionnaires, events, site surveys, and interviews, to elucidate how
traditional agriculture and fishery utilized nature and how people’s livelihoods engaged with nature. He
mentioned they were able to confirm that local residents fostered ways to use natural resources, including
endemic plants and animals, over a very long period of time, which shaped their awareness of nature andlandscape, the ways they interact with nature and the culture and lifestyles handed over generation to
generation. He also said there is a strong sense of sharing the resources of the village and the forest in
the community, which avoids any kind of monopolization and has led to the sustainable use of nature. In
addition, there was a strong sense of gratitude and awe towards nature and ritual sites, mountains, andpathways, where Deities reside; they were held in high regard, and there was a belief that a Deity whobrings both blessings and disasters appeared between nature and culture. According to Mr. Okano, suchan environmental culture allowed the survival of many rare and indigenous species; thus, the cooperation
with local communities is crucial for gaining a more in-depth understanding to integrate this culture in theprotection and management of the National Park.
Mr. Okano continued explaining that environmental culture can also be a source of tourism. He considers
that having local guides showing nature through their local daily activities could be very appealing for
tourists. In the nomination document, they set a ‘peripheral management zone’ around the nominatedarea and the buffer zone to manage and maintain the value of the site. He commented that in thecandidate site, rules and restrictions would be implemented to minimize the impacts on the heritage
values, such as the control of visitors to enable a more profound experience of nature. In the case of theperipheral management zone, tourism for sustainable local development and the continuation of culture,such as walks in the village, historical and local experiences of local goods, will be promoted with properconsideration to residents. Mr. Okano commented that they hope these initiatives to reduce the burden
on the natural environment would provide a highly satisfying tourism experience. He asked himself ‘what is
World Heritage?’, ‘what is the value of World Heritage to local residents?’ For him, these are questions thatmanagers always have to consider. He finally mentioned that in Japan, management plans are elaborated
with the synergies of the scientific committee and the communication coordination committee in order toinclude not only the scientific values but also the cultural values or the natural values of the local community.
After this presentation, Dr. Kumiko Shimotsuma, Chief of the Cultural Landscape Unit at the Agency
for Cultural Affairs, Japan, presented “Cultural Landscapes as an approach to local development.” Sheintroduced herself and commented that her presentation would center on the need for integration amongcultural properties and the potential solutions provided by cultural landscapes, considering her experiencein the protection of groups of traditional buildings and cultural landscapes in the Agency for Cultural Affairsof Japan. In her presentation, she also aimed at showing how this issue can be tackled with the integrationof culture and nature. She explained that the Japanese law for the protection of cultural properties entails
the classification of six types of cultural properties: tangible cultural property, intangible cultural property,
folk cultural property, monuments, cultural landscapes, and groups of traditional buildings. In addition,‘tangible cultural properties’ are divided into buildings, crafts and arts; ‘folk cultural properties’ are divided
into tangible and intangible; and ‘monuments’ include ancient sites, places of scenic beauty and naturalmonuments, the latter covering minerals, geology and also flora and fauna. Over the last two decades, they
faced the challenges of integrating local communities, as it was necessary to manage cultural properties
with multiple designations, to enhance the use of cultural properties for better development of local
communities, and to involve more people in heritage conservation in the face of depopulation. She talked
about Nijo castle in Kyoto as a representative example of multiple designations: the area is a special historicsite; however, a garden is a special place of scenic beauty, the building is an important cultural property, andnational treasure, the paintings in sliding doors inside the building are arts and crafts, and the sliding doors
134

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

themselves are also important cultural properties and national treasures. In cases like this, legal procedures
become complicated for the owners, and explanations to visitors are fragmented.
Dr. Shimotsuma stressed that the methods for the protection of cultural properties could vary according
to their values. While in the case of World Heritage, the attributes to be evaluated in a nominated property
are defined in the Operational Guidelines, in the Japanese classification, the protection may show someparticularities. She said that in case of the restoration of buildings that are tangible cultural properties
and buildings that constitute historic sites, both give priority to the shape, design, materials, and quality ofmaterials. However, they considerably differ in terms of location and settings. In the case of tangible culturalproperty, since the traditional technology shown by the components and joints are the foundations ofvalues, when it becomes challenging to conserve it in the same location, the property can be dismantled
and transferred to a different place as long as there is a license to change its status quo. However, it is not
the same with historical sites, as their relationship with the history of the area is important; their values canbe lost if they are dismantled and transferred to a different place. Dr. Shimotsuma also compared the houses
that are tangible cultural properties with those that are folk cultural properties: the former is restored to theoriginal form that best shows the building’s most salient features; while the latter does not allow restorations
because the conditions resulting from the continuous use by people are considered important. Whenconsidering such classification is very important to develop methods for protection according to the values.

Dr. Kumiko Shimotsuma, Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, presenting about the cultural landscapes as an approach
to local development.

Dr. Shimotsuma remarked that academicians did not establish the concept of classification; it was developedwith a social background requiring heritage protection during the modernization and introduction ofWestern Culture in the late 19th century Japan. Dr. Shimotsuma explained that heritage protection emergedin this context in response to the loss of antiquities, the destruction of temples, and the threats to historicalplaces and places of natural scenic beauty posed by the construction of railroads and roads. She commented
that the first law for the protection of historical sites, places of scenic beauty and natural monuments was
enforced in 1919. Due to an economic recession that happened in the early 20th century, the legal framework
expanded the category of tangible cultural property from temples and shrines to modern houses. In 1950,
after the Second World War, the previous legislation advances were unified into the Law for the Protectionof Cultural Properties. It first considered tangible cultural properties, then monuments and sites, and thenintangible cultural properties. By 1975, the category of folk cultural property included traditional buildings,
135

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

villages, and townscapes, as people’s values became more diversified amid the rapid development ofurban areas, depopulation of rural areas, and developments on transportation and communication. Dr.
Shimotsuma added that, as depopulation and aging are the major contemporary social problems in Japan,
farming and fishing communities, as well as landscapes of primeval scenes of Japan, were left in a vulnerable
condition. These issues were attempted to be solved by the creation of the category of cultural landscapesin 2004. She stressed that, compared to those of World Heritage, the Japanese cultural landscapes are
based on historical background, and their scope is limited to continuous landscapes that have evolved
organically. She explained that groups of traditional buildings and folk cultural properties were introduced
in 1975 in response to a social trend that gave priority to spiritual, rather than material, fulfillment in thecontext of Japanese economic growth. These reactions of the public arose within a need to counterbalance
the destructions and transformations caused by the large-scale development. Dr. Shimotsuma mentionedthat in the last three decades, the depopulation and the reduction of people involved in the conservation ofcultural properties prompted a revision of the methods for the protection of cultural properties.
Dr. Shimotsuma further talked about the future of the protection and administration of cultural properties.
She mentioned that cultural properties mean that values are perceived; they can be recognized througha survey, objectively evaluated through comparison, designated through a screening process, and finally,
few of them become subjects of protection. Despite the multiple valuations resulting from individuals orcommunities, this is a process where only a few become designated as the use of taxpayers’ money needs
to be justified with objective reasons. Dr. Shimotsuma said that although this is the current method, itshould not be taken for granted. People involved in the protection of cultural properties should not identify
only limited values and forget the values of the local community. She pointed out that the need for theprotection of cultural properties in Japan is changing, but there is also an underlying problem of integration.
She placed the questions: ‘how to remove the negative effect of sectionalism of cultural properties withmultiple designations?’, ‘how to successfully protect cultural properties with the surrounding environment?’;and ‘how to link the varieties of cultural properties of the region?’. She commented that now local features
are evaluated, and cultural properties are reevaluated in the regional scale through the lens of culturallandscapes. She brought up the case of the farming and fishing village of Kakehama, which is designated as
an important cultural property by the government and is known because of the production of mandarinorange. Although there are no cultural properties designated by the national government in this area, it was
declared an important cultural landscape as the limited number of other cultural properties comprehensively
represent the local livelihood. Here, the beautiful landscape and environment are a result of a corporate
strategy where the region is autonomously in charge of food, energy, and welfare, and a company fully
manages the organic cultivation since 1970. Dr. Shimotsuma also showed the case of the Tsuji irrigationwater system and rice terraces of Shiraito highlands, where a bridge of the mid-19th century is located. The
irrigation system was designated as an important cultural property since the 1960s as it represented the
local technology. However, problems of conservation arose after this designation as local farmers assumed
the bridge could not be touched and stopped managing the area. After a revision of the management planwith the residents, their practices were also included as part of the essential cultural landscape. These local
management and conservation methods proved to be crucial in the recovery of the area following the 2016
earthquake.
Dr. Shimotsuma commented that the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties was revised in 2018, andthe revisions enforced a year after. She mentioned that one of the revisions contemplated that municipalities
are now compelled to formulate a plan for the conservation and use of cultural properties. When culturalproperties are listed, their management projects might motivate the involvement of organizations that cancontribute to the conservation and use of the cultural property and the engagement of the local community.
Dr. Shimotsuma stressed that the integration of heritage is an ideal that generates unanimous agreement,
but its purpose requires reflection before making any plan. She asked herself, ‘what is the purpose of
integration, and what kind of social objectives should be made?’ She expressed that the need for integration
itself is changing alongside the changes in the era. If the integration of culture and nature, and securing
integration of categories in cultural properties, are acknowledged on the challenges and objectives, thismay lead to a good administration. Dr. Shimotsuma reflected that ultimately, the objective is to achieve thecommon interest of local residents and government, as well as the common interest among the relevantorganizations of the government.

136

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. Maya Ishizawa invited Professor Yoshida to chair the Panel Discussion. Professor Yoshida discussed thepresentations of Dr. Rössler, Dr. Ndoro, Mr. Okano, and Ms. Shimotsuma. He first commented that under theWorld Heritage Convention, mixed heritage requires meeting at least one natural and one cultural criterion.
However, there is no consideration of nature and culture interrelations. However, there is a category ofcultural heritage that relates to ‘combined works of nature and man,’ but this applies only for cultural ormixed heritage, and not for natural heritage. He then reminded the Recommendation concerning theprotection at the national level of cultural and natural heritage, which was adopted in the same General
Assembly of UNESCO in 1972. In this recommendation, ‘combined works of nature and man,’ or natureand people, are both placed in natural and cultural heritage. In that sense, at the national level, there is nodivision between nature and culture. Based on these considerations, he formulated the question, how can
we increase the number of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage on the World Heritage List? Moreover, how
can we improve the procedures of mixed heritage nominations? Professor Yoshida mentioned that somesuggestions were made by the presentations of Dr. Rössler and Dr. Ndoro. He reflected that Mount Fuji could
be thought already as a mixed site, considering that its protection as heritage at the national level integrates
the National Parks system and the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. Another question would be,
how can we integrate natural and cultural values or elements in a domestic management plan, either at anational or a regional level? He remarked that Mr. Okano and Dr. Shimotsuma gave some suggestions.

Professor Masahito Yoshida, UNESCO Chairholder on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, University ofTsukuba, chairing the Panel Discussion.

After the lunch break, Dr. Maya Ishizawa, coordinator of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation, University of Tsukuba, presented ‘Exploring Nature-Culture Linkages in Asia andthe Pacific through Capacity Building: the CBWNCL Project 2016-2019’. Dr. Ishizawa first mentioned that
the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation was established at the University ofTsukuba, Japan, as part of a larger movement of heritage practitioners working on the exchange between
nature and culture sectors in the context of the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
The UNESCO Chair was established with the collaboration of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICCROM,
IUCN and ICOMOS, which are the secretariat, and the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Convention.
She stressed that their comprehensive approach to conservation looks for overcoming the division between
nature and culture and implies a strong focus on rural areas where linkages between cultural and naturalvalues can be identified in cultural landscapes. She explained that the objectives of these workshops were tocontribute to the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy in developing new approaches towards integrated
137

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

conservation of cultural and natural heritage, to build capacities in theory and practice of conservation andmanagement of landscapes, while exploring nature and culture linkages with heritage practitioners from
Asia and the Pacific, from both nature and culture sectors, as well as with the post-graduate students of the
University of Tsukuba. Dr. Ishizawa mentioned that the landscape approach was used in these experimental
workshops. At the same time, the main core activities focused on visiting Japanese sites to look at theimplementation and management of the conservation systems, by approaching local managers andcommunities and learn from the Japanese conservation system. She expressed that this series of workshops
also aimed at creating networks among natural and cultural heritage practitioners, and among people fromthe region of Asia and the Pacific. However, it was also open to participants from other regions. She said that
this programme was possible because the World Heritage Studies Programme of the University of Tsukuba
has both faculty dedicated to natural and cultural heritage, and because this programme has a partnershipwith the Department of Life and Environmental Sciences with whom the Certificate Programme on Nature
Conservation was created. Moreover, she mentioned that the Japanese conservation system is exemplary
as it contains nature and culture interlinkages already in the designations of places of scenic beauty, culturallandscapes, satoyama, and National Parks.
Dr. Ishizawa continued explaining that this program started with four main questions: 1) How to adapt thenature-culture approach to international and national legislation?; 2) What are the skills required for heritage
practitioners under this approach?; 3) How should this approach be applied in the protection, management,
and conservation of natural and cultural heritage sites?; 4) How to develop a didactic curriculum for the
training of heritage practitioners in this new approach? She commented that they created a curriculum
composed of four modules: Module 1: ‘Understanding Nature-Culture linkages’ where theory and concepts
were explored, as well as case studies from the participants of the workshops; Module 2: ‘Management,
implementation, and governance,’ which consisted on the practical experience with a field trip to Japaneseheritage sites; Module 3: ‘Reflection on theory and practice,’ where all lessons learned from the lectures
and the field visits were distilled, and recommendations were elaborated, with ideas for applying a natureculture approach in the Japanese heritage sites, and in the participants own sites. Finally, Module 4
corresponds to the International Symposium, where the organizers have invited renowned international andJapanese experts to share their experiences and contributions to linking nature and culture in their work.
Dr. Ishizawa further introduced the four themes selected for this first series of experimental workshops:
Agricultural Landscapes in 2016, Sacred Landscapes in 2017, Disasters and Resilience in 2018, and Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage in 2019. She also mentioned the sites visited in Japan during the field trips:
Shirakawa-go and Gokayama, and Noto peninsula in the first workshop, the Kii Mountains in the second
workshop, Tohoku region in the third workshop and Mount Fuji in the fourth and last workshop. The focus inthese areas was satoyama and satoumi systems, National Parks, and the interlinkages of nature and culture
in historical sites, temples, places of scenic beauty, and natural monuments. She pointed out that after every
workshop, they published the proceedings in a special issue of the Journal of World Heritage Studies of
the University of Tsukuba, where they reported the outcomes of the workshop and the case studies of theparticipants.
Following in her presentation, Dr. Ishizawa commented about the perception of the problems ofdepopulation and aging population in rural areas where the interlinkages of nature and culture exist. She
said that in these workshops, they tried to create a community of heritage practice of nature and culture.
Participants represented different stakeholders, from academics to representatives of government agencies,
international organizations, grassroots, or local-level heritage management, and these multiple perspectives
enriched the discussion on how to bring together nature and culture for the better management of heritage
sites. Dr. Ishizawa said that the results of the people trained in these four years reveal an equal number ofparticipants from nature and culture sectors, and participation from not only Asia and the Pacific, but also
Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, North America and Europe. She further presented the numbers:
50 heritage practitioners representing 18 different countries from Asia and the Pacific, eight practitioners
from other regions, who shared their work on 29 World Heritage sites, eight sites in Tentative Lists, 12
sites protected under national legislation and nine sites protected under other types of systems. From the
University of Tsukuba, 20 students from 13 different countries participated as observers.

138

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Maya Ishizawa, coordinator, UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, University ofTsukuba, opening the session focused on Key Issues on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation: Progress andChallenges.

Dr. Ishizawa remarked some of the lessons learned from these years: First, that the separation lies atinstitutional levels, as the community level shows a holistic vision that includes times, seasonality, and theirpractices. Second, the links between nature-culture are people and their practices, where there is a strongrole of local leaders; the conservation of nature and culture is grounded in everyday life, and sometimes,
cultural practices and nature conservation do not go well together as in the case of pilgrimage and overtourism. Third, Indigenous and local knowledge, traditional knowledge, and community-based conservation
systems are fundamental for sustainability and the integrative understanding of heritage. Fourth, thelandscape approach is important for both natural and cultural heritage practitioners as it helps to identify
and analyze the interrelations of values. Fifth, interdisciplinary work is essential to think about heritage
conservation, and sustainable development, based on the exchange between heritage practitioners,
managers, and locals as all of them are related to the management of a heritage site. Finally, the exchange
between professionals and students framed in a university benefits the disciplinary and cultural diversity but
also brings a constrain because of the language of different countries, disciplines, and roles, and therefore
the need to share some concepts and terms is evident. She added a reflection on a fragment of a reportfrom a student of the university that summarizes well the fundamental interlinkage between nature andculture:‘In some tribes of DRC Congo, the use of cola acuminata nuts for traditional weddings as a symbolof hospitality gives cultural importance to this tree; in case the tree is in danger, it would mean for
those tribes that their culture is in danger as well. The tree is at the same time an element of natureand culture, and villagers do not really make a difference; their culture has been shaped by thatnatural element’ (from the report of CBWNCL 2018 by Yllah Okin).
Dr. Ishizawa presented some conclusions related to the first questions mentioned before. First, shementioned that international and national systems could not be changed easily; therefore, it is necessary
to work at the local level and site level. Second, that since these nature-culture emerges from the local
understanding, trained natural and cultural heritage practitioners can be facilitators in site management;
and therefore, instead of creating a curriculum, a facilitation guide to help practitioners to develop thisrole would be more appropriate. Third, a nature-culture based conservation is people-centered andtransdisciplinary. It relates to seasonality, time, and cycles and emerges from the local, requiring a territorialand ecosystems perspective that integrates the Indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge. It also calls forthe reinforcement of local-based management and local leadership, investing in resilience, and developing
139

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

a comprehensive approach to vulnerability and risk preparedness. Moreover, she highlighted the need for
an integration of bottom-up and top-down approaches and to develop a base for intersectoral cooperation.
Furthermore, she said that this approach needs to be integrated at the policy level in order to allow these
heritage sites to be managed more effectively. Dr. Ishizawa added that an interdisciplinary network is
being created in this process in order to foster exchange and mutual learning and introduced some of theinitiatives of former participants that are multiplying the experience they had in Japan.
Dr. Ishizawa finally added the next steps, as this is the last workshop of a series of four. She commented thatan evaluation phase and the creation of a connecting platform of former participants and students would
be on the agenda of next year, besides the publication of the special issue on the Journal of World Heritage
Studies with the case studies of the participants of this year. This ultimately may lead to the creation of the
facilitation guide or an instrument that can help practitioners to continue their work at local or national
levels. She said next year is an important one because of the IUCN World Conservation Congress andICOMOS General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, where Nature/Culture and Culture/Nature Journeys
will happen, and they hope their results can be shared if they participate and hold sessions there.
After her presentation, Dr. Ishizawa invited Professor Nobuko Inaba, from the World Heritage Studies
Program. Professor Inaba was in charge of chairing the panel discussion with partner institutions titled ‘Key
issues on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation: Progress and Challenges.’ Professor Inaba first
introduced herself and commented that the 4-year program of Capacity Building Workshops on NatureCulture Linkages in Heritage Conservation was a plan approved by the UNESCO Chair system. She continued
explaining that what follows is a year of reflection on the outcomes and balances, intending to make theseexperiences on nature-culture linkages into a contribution to the works of the international arena. She
reflected on the questions: What is the role of universities in the future? Moreover, how can we work withother international organizations and institutes? These aspects were going to be discussed together withrepresentatives of partner institutions that are also Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee: Tim
Badman from IUCN, Kristal Buckley from ICOMOS, and Gamini Wijesuriya from ICCROM. In an attempt tolocate the activities of the UNESCO Chair at the University of Tsukuba within their system, Professor Inaba
requested the representatives to comment on the ways the Capacity Building Workshops on Nature-Culture
Linkages in Heritage Conservation contributes to their work, as well as to provide their observations. She
further asked them to share their current activities as well as the personal and institutional projects framedin the international nature-culture linkage initiatives.

Professor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba, chairing the session on Key Issues on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation: Progress and Challenges
140

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Tim Badman, Director of IUCN Nature-Culture Initiative, first thanked the University of Tsukuba andthe organizers of the workshop on behalf of IUCN. He commended the efforts for the four-year cycle ofworkshops, for engaging international organizations represented by IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM, withheritage practitioners from diverse backgrounds and experiences on the field, and students from the
University. In response to Professor Inaba’s question, Mr. Badman mentioned that the way to help is tocontinue making these connections. According to him, the workshops were able to transmit and discuss theglobal concepts on nature and culture among practitioners from Asia and other regions. He remarked theimportance of tackling the problem of the lack of connection between the global and the local system, by
including the diverse understanding by countries, societies and communities from the ground. He reflectedon the importance of working on the interconnectedness, following the example of Pimachiowin Aki that
became a significant catalyst for a better connection between nature and culture, and between Indigenous
perspectives and the World Heritage system in recent years. Mr. Badman referred to all of these efforts asmomentum. He called attention to continue the role of the University of Tsukuba in contributing to these
initiatives, as universities are capable of achievements that Advisory Bodies and UN organizations are not.
Ms. Kristal Buckley, Lecturer at Deakin University and ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor, also first thanked theorganizers and sent greetings from the President of ICOMOS International, Professor Toshiyuki Kono, andthe International Secretariat in Paris. She commented that it was a privilege to be involved in the programme
and asked the organizers not to stop their initiatives there. She mentioned that it is essential to mark how
far the shared agenda has come over four years and how these workshops have contributed and built fromthat progress. She commended the efforts for integrating different places, ways, people, and programmes.
From her point of view and ICOMOS, some of the strong elements of the programme are the focus on
emerging professionals and scholars, and the platforms for learning and echoing voices from colleagues, sitemanagers and local communities in the field. She recognizes a catalyst on what they have done together
by learning in place and from a place, as they have not only been in a classroom but meeting people,
listening, experiencing, using their bodies and senses entirely to appreciate what was needed to learn. She
highlighted the learning experiences through networking, bonding, and encountering each other in different
opportunities, but also the lessons learned from Japan. Moreover, she stressed that Japan’s unusual,
remarkable, and inspiring system and experiences are sources for learning. Ms. Buckley also mentioned thework that ICOMOS is involved with, such as the Connecting Practice Project, which has some resonance withthese workshops.
Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, a Special advisor for the Director-General of ICCROM, thanked the organizers for theirwork and for inviting him to participate and help on the design of the four workshops. He commented that
he met Professor Inaba for the first time at a meeting where the topic of nature and culture was addressed.
He mentioned that in his keynote speech at the meeting of sacred mountains in Wakayama, he had along-term expectation of overcoming the division of nature and culture in future generations of heritage
practitioners. He also aimed for new generations to bridge the gap created by the misconception that natureand culture were divided because of the implementation of the World Heritage system. Dr. Wijesuriya
further added that these concerns about the division of nature and culture were already present in 2001
and 2002 when he made a joint contribution with Dr. Rössler on a chapter about culture for the Millenium
Ecosystems Assessment, a publication mainly oriented for the nature sector. He said that when he entered
ICCROM in 2005, another element that was ignored in the main international heritage discourse was thecommunities or people. In his first years in ICCROM, he worked with Dr. Ndoro in a programme focused oncommunities in Africa, and with Professor Inaba and Dr. Shimotsuma in the living heritage sites programme.
Dr. Wijesuriya pointed out that since 2011, as part of the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy, they
worked collectively with people from nature and culture sectors and fostered the exchange of ideas
between them. He added that in 2013, they started developing this curriculum on the theme of linking
nature and culture, being the first time for ICCROM to organize this, and the University of Tsukuba then took
the initiative to implement it. He remarked that programmes like this one are needed. This is because it isimportant to bring heritage practitioners from both nature and culture sectors to address issues of culturallandscapes, communities, people-centered approaches, the use of traditional knowledge systems, andto reflect on case studies from Japan and Asia. He also said that from the current themes on AgriculturalLandscapes, Sacred Landscapes, Disasters and Resilience, and Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage, perhaps
the latter stressed more the promotion of nature-culture linkages. In conclusion, he highlighted that
141

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the issue of interlinkages is not about World Heritage, but about people, understanding their creations
and holistic management. He reflected that what can be done is to understand these aspects and try toincorporate them in the perspective of management.
Professor Inaba thanked the panelists for their comments and asked them to talk about their current andfuture projects.

Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM/WHITRAP), Ms. Kristal Buckley (ICOMOS/Deakin University), and Mr. Tim Badman(IUCN) taking part of the session on Key Issues on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation: Progress andChallenges.

Mr. Tim Badman expressed that the collaborative programs among IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM arerecent, and two of them are the Connecting Practice developed by ICOMOS and IUCN, and the World
Heritage Leadership Programme by ICCROM and IUCN in partnership with Norway, Switzerland, and Korea.
He commented they are working on a Knowledge Framework that they would like many partners to use
and join, as well as the IUCN Nature-Culture Initiative, where they are seeking to overcome the limitationand fragmentation in the understanding of culture in the nature conservation sector. He mentioned that
the World Heritage Leadership Programme aims to be a place where people can build links and empowerothers to act, just in the same way as the initiative of the University of Tsukuba. He said that the Universityof Tsukuba in the future could be actively a part of the World Heritage Leadership Programme, concretely
networking participants, both practitioners and across the university sector. Mr. Badman further addedthat it is important to translate out the work and lessons learned in these spaces to the administration of
the national and subnational levels. While they have been learning from the leadership and inspiration thatcomes from Japan, there are also challenges and issues at the international level that need to be addressed.
Mr. Badman pointed out there are two other spaces to mention: the forthcoming Nature-Culture Journey
and Culture-Nature Journey to be held during the IUCN World Conservation Congress in June 2020 and theICOMOS General Assembly in October 2020.
Mr. Badman further indicated that two other events not necessarily related to World Heritage and nature
conservation provide a broader picture of how nature and culture linkages started to become the primaryconcern. First, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) produced aglobal scientific assessment responding to major challenges and threats for natural places, the Aichi targets,and the Sustainable Development Goals. According to Mr. Badman, the report by IPBES speaks about
142

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the transformative change to place-based approaches that are integrative, informed and inclusive, giving
importance to the diversity of what a ‘good life’ involves: values, people’s values in taking action, justice,inclusion, education, and knowledge. He stated that culture is central to any diagnosis of the challenges
and solutions in nature conservation. Second, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is promoting
natural and cultural places in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework towards the 2020 UN Biodiversity
Conference in Kunming, China. Mr. Badman mentioned that they expect a culture-nature summit at thatevent. Moreover, they are working towards the integration of UNESCO, the Convention of Biological
Diversity Secretariat, the IUCN, and other international organizations into more extensive international plansof nature conservation. These plans will support the connections of nature and culture, and the solutions
needed to scale up with some urgency (International Alliance for Nature and Culture). Mr. Badman stressed
this might be an opportunity of much bigger partnerships where ICOMOS, ICCROM, and representatives ofthe Ministry of the Environment could directly participate.
Ms. Kristal Buckley stressed that ICOMOS as an organization has more to do than just World Heritage, as
it has a comprehensive programme. She expressed that the World Heritage system gives a platform todevelop inspiring initiatives, but change can be slow. She said that change certainly does not emerge frominaction and complain, but from self-change; otherwise, we would still be part of the problem. Regarding
this, she commented that the Connecting Practice Project originated following such idea, as an initiativefrom representatives of advisory bodies to provide a space to think, experiment, make mistakes, and learn
from the place and colleagues, and much similar to the work of the UNESCO Chair at the University ofTsukuba. She said that the Connecting Practice Project is now on a third phase, where they started to workwith a greater diversity of partner organizations, such as FAO’s GIAHS, and to focus on terminology suchas resilience. She further remarked that ICOMOS is looking at growing a family, not just numerically to get
more people in, but also on the diversity and collaborative dimensions, ensuring many other voices informthe directions of the organization. Ms. Buckley added they are working much more with Intangible Cultural
Heritage and rights-based approaches, which just thrived from the nature-culture issues to find new ways
to achieve multiple outcomes. In conclusion, she stated that even though we live in an imperfect and rapidlychanging world, individuals and organizations can be prepared on approaches, mindsets, and practices. She
pointed out that a perfect World Heritage system would have to acknowledge that the collection of culturallandscapes and mixed heritage is far too small. In the face of this, more creative and courageous reflection isrequired.
Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya commented that World Heritage-related activities are just a small portion of
ICCROM’s programs. He pointed out that while working in the field in the global picture, heritage and people
need to be looked differently as this is the first time that there are people representing other worlds andlands, as well as informing the vision of the new Director-General. A focus on Sustainable Development isplaced entirely in the strategic directions of the organization which have been established in such a way towork for people. Dr. Wijesuriya said that Dr. Ndoro, the Director-General of ICCROM, would explain moredetails.
Professor Inaba thanked the panelists and reflected on current collaborative initiatives. She expressed that
institutional synergies are necessary and that she is learning from them. She invited the attendees to join thegeneral discussions of the session after the coffee break.
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
Professor Inaba invited the roundtable guests to join the general discussion. She first introduced threequestions that would address important discussion points. The first one was about the fragmentation or
separation between nature and culture, its origins, consequences, and expressions, as this is evidenced
in areas of expertise, heritage conservation, and institutions at the national and international levels, but
not necessarily in local settings. The second one was how these issues can be tackled, and who might be
the target groups and what would be the methodology if the contribution comes from capacity building
programmes such as the one of the University of Tsukuba. The third question would be if the number of
mixed heritage sites should be included in cultural landscape projects, considering that before 1992 thenatural heritage also had cultural values in the World Heritage criteria. Professor Inaba invited Ms. Sophia
Rabliauskas to comment on her experience in working with local communities and adapting to the World
143

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Heritage system in the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki.
Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas, a representative of Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, thanked the invitation to speak
about her experience in working with their communities in the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki. She firstcommented that they opted for the designation as a mixed heritage site based on their intention to have thearea recognized for both its cultural and natural values, and their culture that believes these two aspects are
inseparable. This project was decided on for the generations to come, in agreement with the community’s
beliefs about taking care of the land as a sacred responsibility, and their intentions to continue their millenary
traditions adapted to modern ways. Many community members had not heard of World Heritage when theworks for the nomination started and, therefore, it was necessary to assume that the time and process until
the fulfillment could be lengthy because of their understandings of the world and the mechanisms involvedin this initiative. The communities joined and committed to protect the traditional territories in the vast areaof boreal forests where they live in isolation and to preserve them from any development. One of their main
goals was to seek support and recognition of their network of protected areas in the form of UNESCO World
Heritage site listing. She said this would give them a unique international opportunity to demonstrate thevalue of the traditional knowledge of First Nations in protecting and caring for the land, and open venues
to work with other First Nations and countries. She mentioned the starting point was the IUCN’s call for
proposals for potential World Heritage sites within the boreal forest. They invited other First Nations who livearound the area, speak the same language and have the same values and beliefs, and developed a proposal.
However, considering that, at the same time, the provincial governments of Manitoba and Ontario werepreparing their proposal for the provincial parks, and these were partially in the communities’ traditional
territory, they managed to reach an agreement to submit a joint single preliminary proposal for a naturaland cultural site. In 2004, with the release of the Report of the 2003 IUCN workshop in Saint Petersburg,
Russia, and the Saint Petersburg Declaration, they supported the Manitoba declaration on the First Nation’s
nomination for the World Heritage. In April of the same year, the Canada Ministry of Environment endorsed
the First Nations’ nomination for the World Heritage by including it on Canada’s Tentative List.
Ms. Rabliauskas said this partnership between the government and First Nations was a crucial point in theirwork, and they were fortunate to receive funding from the Province of Manitoba to complete the project.
She explained the nominated area was conceived as a cultural and natural site, integrating traditional
territories from five First Nations and two provincial parks. She further mentioned that they have a board
in their Pimachiowin Aki Corporation representing each of their communities, and the structure allows all
partners to have a say. She explained that Parks Canada advised their nomination bid. Consequently, they
considered that Pimachiowin Aki qualified as a World Heritage living cultural landscape, as it encompasses
fully the tangible and intangible elements of the living Anishinaabe cultural landscape that is resilient but
vulnerable to irreversible changes.
Ms. Rabliauskas also talked about the difficulties in understanding some concepts of the documents of
the World Heritage nomination due to language issues and conceptual barriers. She explained that theytranslated these documents for the communities and that the elders had a pivotal role in giving guidanceand direction to the project. She remarked that one of the terms that demanded more time to understandwas ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ and to explain the ‘special’ about the area they were trying to nominate.
She commented that defining what was ‘exceptional’ for them in comparison to other Indigenous groups
was problematic as they do not conceive themselves as being better than other people. They had to change
the wordings to define Pimachiowin Aki as exceptional because of what it has to offer and has been done
and recognized, that is, the pristine boreal forest and the healthy ecosystem cared for thousands of years
by the people that lived there. These evidenced the challenges of translations of the wording, but also
reminded how different their worldview was from the World Heritage system. Ms. Rabliauskas said that theylook at the world holistically: everything is interconnected, everything has a purpose in life, and the sacredplace they call home is a gift from the Creator. Moreover, she mentioned that Pimachiowin Aki translates as‘the land that gives life,’ therefore the land is the origin, it covers from animals to trees, and everything is aliving thing according to their cosmovision. For them, the land is also sacred, essential to their lives, and theywould not survive as a community without it. Because of these conceptions, the communities kept in mind
that while doing the nomination work, they would not separate nature and culture.

144

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas, Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, commenting in the Roundtable.

Ms. Rabliauskas continued commenting about the discordances they experienced with the national andinternational levels in their efforts for the protection and recognition of their land. The government had
conflicting views towards the space, as the traditional territory of the communities is seen as prime landand, therefore, as a ground for extractive or infrastructure projects. She stressed that they had to conduct
scientific studies in order to prove their occupation there long before any treaties and the continuity of theircultural tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan. According to her, Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan,or ‘way of life,’ represents for them what in other languages can be referred to as culture; it has moremeaning and makes more sense in their language. She then focused on their nomination package that wascompleted and delivered to the World Heritage Committee in 2012. They hosted a three-day visit to theirterritory by IUCN and ICOMOS evaluators. To foster a mutual understanding of the community’s history andvalues, the nomination project, and its consequences, the elders took part in the process. They expressed
their hopes and dreams for the World Heritage designation. During the visit, there were misunderstandings
between the communities and the evaluators. This derived in the deferral of their first nomination. She
expressed they understood that more information was needed as the report they received evidenced aconsiderable degree of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of their cultural identity. However, theICOMOS report did consider that First Nations do not want to see their property as exceptional or makejudgments about this relationship. The nomination was presented again, but this time it was supported
by more work and research. However, the result was a referral. The communities did not understand thereasons behind this decision. Determining the continuity of their project was challenging. This was becausesome partners proposed to just proceed with a nomination as a natural site, even though they thought there
was a mutual understanding already about Pimachiowin Aki as a mixed site based on their beliefs and valuesof nature and culture being inseparable.
Professor Inaba thanked Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas for her intervention. She pointed out that ‘outstanding’ and‘exceptional’ are also tricky words for them in Japan, and she said that particularly for her, it does not meanbetter nor worse from others.
Dr. Mechtild Rössler also thanked Ms. Rabliauskas for sharing her perspective. She observed that several
points are crucial. One of them, as confirmed by Ms. Rabliauskas, is the recurrence of the complexity ofthe translation of some terms. She commented from her experience how the word ‘cultural landscape’does not exist in many cultures. When she was working in Iran, during a debate about cultural landscapes,
the interpretation from Farsi was ‘Panorama,’ which, to her, is not the meaning of cultural landscapes, as
it is understood in the World Heritage context. The other point was, as mentioned by Professor Inaba, thecomplexity of understanding Outstanding Universal Value as a linkage between the local and the universal.
She stressed that in the case of Pimachiowin Aki, there is an exceptional linkage of over thousands of years
145

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

between people and their land. However, the local understanding does not see this exceptionality in the
global comparison.
Professor Inaba thanked their efforts and patience. She mentioned the World Heritage system is a catalyst
and stressed that without the inscription of Pimachiowin Aki, we would not further hear or learn from theirexperience. She then gave the floor to the Japanese experts: Dr. Shimotsuma and Mr. Okano, representativesof agencies working as an interface between the international and local levels.
Dr. Kumiko Shimotsuma first observed that there is a complexity in understanding terms like ‘outstanding’and ‘exceptional.’ She said that in the Japanese conservation system, the concepts of ‘designation’ and‘selection’ are used. The first contemplates heritage elements considered of high significance and in needof preservation, without necessarily having the agreement of the owner. The second refers to heritage
elements valued and managed locally, which can also be considered significant at the national level, involving
villages, protected districts, and cultural landscapes.
Dr. Shimotsuma asserted that if we think about the origins of the protected townscapes and landscapesin Japan, it all began in a context where state-led development projects and rapid urban development
emerged. The Japanese conservation system, therefore, originated when local people felt compelled toraise their voices to protect the heritage places that were important to them but had no chances to survive
amid the fast-pace development. She commented that, at some point, the conservation of these heritage
elements as a whole was not a possibility if it was based solely on the efforts from the state: it had to startwith valuing and planning at the local level, to then be elevated to the state level.
Dr. Shimotsuma also remarked about the difference between the World Heritage and the Japanese culturallandscape concepts. She said that the first relates to an assessment based on the standards of culture,and from there, the classification as a cultural landscape and the outstanding or exceptional features are
discussed. In regards to the second, she commented that the Japanese system evaluation considers from the
beginning if these landscapes are important to understand the cultural diversity of Japan. Their designation
is not solely based on comparisons. She stressed that these designations happen because of the importancegiven to these landscapes by local communities. She pointed out that the number of cultural landscapes
designated will increase as long as they show the diversity of Japan, and this is a fundamental difference
despite the usage of the same term of ‘cultural landscape.’ She further said that because of this gap, it isimportant to increase the designation of cultural landscapes not only in the World Heritage system but alsoin each country or each region, recognizing and valuing them.
Professor Inaba thanked the intervention and highlighted that the decision-making power given to local
communities in Japan, shows the need for working with different layers in the system.
Mr. Takahiro Okano first acknowledged the differences in the selection of natural heritage or World Natural
Heritage by the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Forestry. National Parks and were conceived
to protect critical natural landscapes and for the use of national citizens. The decision-making was entirelyin the hands of the state, and the experts pointed out what was important to conserve. He said this system
had strong regulations, and the designation historically did not depend on the ownership of the land. He
mentioned that the government developed policies in that context to promote international tourism, andthus accelerated the designations. Due to changes in time, the current legal system allows designations
without the agreement of the landowner. However, designations happen after discussions and exchange ofideas among representatives of the Ministry of the Environment and the local community, and sometimes
villages or municipalities. He noted that the participation of the community is considered in the process ofdesignation of National Parks. Their opinions are included in the elaboration of management plans. He used
as an example the nomination of Amami Island in Okinawa, where he took part in the process of creationof the National Park five years ago. Ten years ago, the locals expressed their rejection for the National Park
proposed by the Ministry of the Environment. However, now they are supportive of the nomination to theWorld Heritage List. They understood that through a designation as a National Park, they could protect aplace highly important to them.
Mr. Okano then observed that if we go back to the talk of World Heritage and think about Outstanding
146

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Universal Value, the assessment is based on the criteria of UNESCO. At the national level, Japanese sites
are evaluated in a comparative analysis with other protected areas from around the world by a panel ofexperts from the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Forestry. Then it is defined if they meet theconditions of the OUV. This is how sites are selected. They cannot become candidates based on the report ofvalues by local communities. Mr. Okano said that in the case of Amami Island in Okinawa, the panel selected
it first, and then, considering the support and acceptance of the local community, the viability of designatinga National Park was assessed. From his point of view, the site does meet the criteria of Outstanding Universal
Value for World Heritage from the natural heritage point of view. However, he considers that cultural values
could also be taken into account. For Mr. Okano, if natural criteria for Outstanding Universal Value areabsent, but instead there are notorious potential to fulfill cultural criteria, there is still consideration of thesites in the Japanese system. However, the definition of the Outstanding Universal Value may need to be
critically assessed together with the Agency for Cultural Affairs.
Professor Inaba thanked the interventions and noted that the World Heritage system could notaccommodate all the wishes from local peoples. However, as she has been working on the implementationof the World Heritage Convention in Japan, she finds that it is a critical catalyst for learning processes. She
then presented follow-up questions on this issue, to continue the reflection, such as, how to find a balance
between the World Heritage Convention and local systems, and what becomes the best model among
local sites. She observed that each government and every governance process is crucial to create a bridge
between the World Heritage Convention and local systems. She then called attention to the next point:
capacity building. She asked about the role of international and local institutions, and she asked to clarify
which are the target groups and what would be considered as an effective methodology. She requested Dr.
Gamini Wijesuriya to start with his reflection as an expert on capacity building.
Dr. Wijesuriya referred first to the importance of continuing capacity building and talked about theperspectives of World Heritage and ICCROM. He recalled that back in 2011, two important themes emerged:a unified vision for nature and culture and the inclusion of capacity building for different stakeholders that
support heritage conservation. He mentioned that for the design of a strategy, they highlighted the needto address these different audiences and layers. However, while the practitioners themselves are currently
receiving more attention, the ways the concerns of other actors can be addressed by the capacity building
strategy and the World Heritage Leadership Programme is still being defined. He pointed out that there
are emerging issues, like the Disasters Risk Management (DRM), that are being included in the curriculum.
Then, he said that these capacity-building programs relate to the activities of the University of Tsukuba
since the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation picked up important themes
and brought together practitioners and academics to address heritage issues from the perspective of thecurriculum developed. He remarked that the publications of the participants’ case studies contributed
enormously to building the capacities of people as they learned from the rich traditions of Japan. He
considered that such workshops need to be continued.
Dr. Webber Ndoro first commended the organizers for their efforts on the capacity building workshops
and commented on the capacity building issues and the role of ICCROM from his experience. He said he
has worked with universities and capacity building in Africa since 2009. He mentioned a ten-year capacitybuilding program in Africa, carried out by Sweden that connected both academics and practitioners, which
worked on the topic of aboriginal archaeology. Trained alumni, included him, are now working in different
important positions related to the archaeology of Africa. He stressed that this is the reason why he thinks
the capacity building programme of the University of Tsukuba is essential and is in the right direction eventhough it is not sure if four years is enough as this is a long term process. He further remarked that one of
the significant issues of capacity building is the intergenerational approach, as the same trainers cannot lastfor ten years. He thinks that the people trained need to graduate to become trainers as well, in order tocontinue the capacity building process. He asserted that for capacity building is also important to take into
consideration the place of academic research in addressing issues, such as management; it is not only aboutpassing on information into others but also working on publications. Dr. Ndoro also elaborated on what
Ms. Rabliauskas said in her presentation. He also experienced how local people are not listened to whenevaluations for nominations take place: He thinks evaluators must gain capacities for their work in the field,
especially to understand the dynamics of heritage in those places. He referred that in many evaluations in
the African context, the first recommendation is to grow trees in order to cover the erosion of the land, but
147

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

growing a tree in Africa takes 50 years. Because of issues like that need to be understood in that context, heagain highlighted the significance of capacity building at multiple levels.
Dr. Rössler also had a brief comment on capacity building. She asserted that for her, it is about listening tothe other and mutually learn. She mentioned that when she started working in World Heritage in 1991,
they could only count on two schools focused on natural heritage: Mecca and Garua in Africa, and ICCROM.
She commented that today there are a variety of workshops on the ground, different practices, Connecting
practice, the Leadership programme, UNESCO Category 2 Centres, different Chairs that were created after
the first one inaugurated in 1998. She called attention to the fact that even though they have come along
a long way, it may not be enough for today’s needs. She highlighted that their discussion needs to be taken
into account when evaluating the global capacity-building strategy, as new skills are needed, especially on
nature-culture. She also recommended that in this continuously evolving system, site managers need tohave new skills to work with communities and Indigenous peoples.

Dr. Webber Ndoro, ICCROM, commenting during the Roundtable.

Professor Inaba thanked Dr. Ndoro for his comments. He agreed that capacity building is ‘training thetrainers.’ She asked the participants of this year for their opinions on capacity building and the needs of local
communities, considering their positions as site managers and experts and their prospects of leadership in
their home countries.
Mr. Anuranjan Roy, World Heritage Assistant of the Wildlife Institute of India, India, introduced his case study
in the workshop: the Kailash Sacred Landscape, a cultural landscape, which extends across India, China,
and Nepal. He commented that not only the heritage professionals or site managers should be the focus of
capacity building programs but also local people, as in the case of Lake Ohrid in Albania. He remarked theimportance of opening the doors of what is taught, learned, and shared with local people so that World
Heritage would be helpful for them.
Professor Inaba thanked the intervention and mentioned that the UNESCO Bangkok Office once worked
on awareness among monks, considering that monks and priests have an important role in the societies
in many Asian countries. She said this was conducted in the local language, not in English, and this is whatshould be done in the local institutions.
Dr. Kimberley Wilson, Historic Heritage Coordinator of Parks Victoria, Australia, mentioned that she
presented the Alpine National Park and the sacred mountains in Australia. Following the previous
148

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

intervention, she asserted that it is necessary to listen to colleagues in different disciplines as their interest
is on transdisciplinary sharing. From her perspective as a heritage professional working on interpretationand site management, she said that while there are many responsibilities, it is also necessary not to forget toshare the expertise in cultural and natural heritage management with colleagues from those fields who canhelp and work as one team.
Dr. Wijesuriya clarified the programme in Lake Ohrid in Albania referred to previously, as it was organized by
ICCROM and supported by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. He thanked the comments and agreed on
the need to bring all other stakeholders and not only practitioners.
Mr. Badman added a comment about the language and target audiences. He pointed out that two different
things need to be done in terms of language in the capacity-building strategy. First, for World Heritage, it is
to find a way to make contacts and have discussions at the site level in the local language. He stressed that
the World Heritage Convention has only two working languages, which is very limited compared to UNESCO
that has six, and about 85% of the local realities of World Heritage sites speak neither English nor French. For
him, even if people have a good understanding of English or French, words do not convey what people feel
about their places. He then highlighted that if the gap between the Convention and global places is big, itshows the current strategy is not sufficient and makes evident the need to not only translate but to interpret
practice. Second, Mr. Badman called attention to the fact that the words used in the international languagesof the World Heritage system do not necessarily correspond to how particular countries or cultures work.
He commented that he discussed with Ms. Kristal Buckley about the four categories of cultural landscapesin the World Heritage system. While reflecting on the effectiveness of the term, they concluded that insome cases, they mean cultural landscapes, but in others, they mean something else. He asserted that it isnecessary to discuss the next steps on cultural landscapes, in how it is understood as a term to describe aparticular heritage site or as approaches for work. He reflected that a better international understanding of
the words used in English is needed in order to give more options to interpret in different languages and tounderstand why some concepts make sense in particular countries and cultures, as it is demonstrated by theapplicability of landscape approaches in English or place-based approaches in other languages.
Moreover, regarding the target audiences, Mr. Badman mentioned that the World Heritage Leadership
Programme focused on two target audiences and in different ways of mediating the World Heritage
system and the action on the ground. One of them is the nature-culture focal points at national levels,
who sometimes do not know each other, and the other is the people at the site level, i.e., site managers,
coordinators, or communities. He further remarked that in doing capacity building programs for years, it
had been acknowledged that in working with site managers, it is not about teaching or training, but mutual
learning and enhancement of the system. Mr. Badman stressed that the World Heritage has to serve thesites rather than vice versa, and to see the outcome in the real world, it is important to discuss this withsite managers and national focal points. He reminded us that the capacity building strategy made a change
for nearly ten years. However, one of the next practical challenges is to develop capacities not only ofpractitioners and institutions but also of networks.
Dr. Wijesuriya also made a point on the language issue mentioned by Mr. Badman. He said it is important toemphasize that it is just translation and that other languages can enrich World Heritage concepts. He thenstressed that it is not just one-way traffic, but an issue of dialogue and enriching experiences with World
Heritage. He further pointed out that also fragmentation and separation militates in the end against proper
effective management or local communities. According to him, in the case of the latter, sometimes they takeadvantage of the separation and fragmentation for political means. He particularly reminded the audiencethat it is important to understand that people are not static, unaware, or uncritical about internationalorganizations like IUCN or ICCROM.
Professor Inaba commented that it is necessary for people to understand all those issues, what is behindcommunities, the power balance in communities, the power balance in the politicians and internationalorganizations, and how to connect them and communicate. She added that what is in front of us are allthings, either natural or cultural, but it is the people who have voices. She further asked about the World
Heritage system and the number of mixed sites. She reminded the audience that from Dr. Rössler’spresentation, it was noticed that until 1992 some natural sites had cultural values, but after 1992, cultural
149

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

landscapes have been very influential in the world; however it is located in cultural heritage. She asked whatshall be done from now and requested Ms. Kristal Buckley to start the discussion on cultural landscapes.
Ms. Kristal Buckley first noted that World Heritage and heritage designations at the national level, in general,
would always present a tension. She said this tension is located between a standardized universal set ofideas that may or may not resonate at the local level, but recognizing it is very important for finding a way
to accommodate a localized expression on culture and nature. She called attention to the awareness of thedivision of nature and culture as part of the Western culture, which may not apply to other cultures. She
commented that the introduction of the cultural landscapes category in 1992 was a courageous and serious
attempt to build a bridge. At that moment, there was already an acknowledgment that the World Heritage
system was not as inclusive as it was meant to be, and it was not representing the diversity of the world.
However, cultural landscapes showed that there was a desire to repair the problem. She stressed that thedevelopment of different types of cultural landscapes, embedded today in the Operational Guidelines, wasmeant to be an enabling, stimulating and inviting way to recall the different meanings of cultural landscapesfor people: It attempted to be an opening for the cultural diversity and the many ways in which people
experience special places to be recognized in the World Heritage List. She asserted that reviews on thesituation are important but have not been done since 2004. She pointed out that the criteria are still stuck
on one side of a very tall fence, which has not helped to make the bridge as expected. In her opinion, now
is an excellent time to look again at how the cultural landscapes category is servicing our needs in orderto make the bridges. Ms. Buckley further made a point on the landscape approach, which should apply toall heritage, not just the ones in the landscape category. She remarked the applicability of the landscapeapproach to urban areas, to urban sites and pieces of cities that count half of the World Heritage List today,
and the massive challenges they are presenting to all the people interested in those places. She observedthat the landscape approach might not mean the entirety of the World Heritage List and everything classed
as heritage, but somehow it makes it clear that the language needs to be renovated. She concluded thatconservation management plans and cultural landscapes are needed.
Professor Inaba thanked Ms. Buckley for her intervention and recalled that at the introduction of culturallandscapes, they called it rural landscapes. She said ‘rural landscapes’ is a typology while cultural landscapes
are everything and means place. She then asked Dr. Rössler to share her perspective as a geographer and as
an expert involved in the history of the inclusion of cultural landscapes in the World Heritage system and therevision of the Operational Guidelines.
Dr. Rössler said that this type of heritage aimed to solve one of the biggest problems in the mid-1990s: theoverload of nominations from Europe and the underrepresentation of different areas of the world. She
commented that the first nominations for cultural landscapes were from Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific,
and the Philippines, and they thought it would go in the right direction. Still, then the Europeans proposed
one vineyard landscape after another, however increasing the diversity of landscapes that are more than
100 at the moment. She stressed that the category of cultural landscapes made a greater awareness about
the integrated management of natural and cultural values: While in cultural landscapes the Outstanding
Universal Value lies in the interaction between people and their environment, other site managers becameaware that there are natural values in cultural sites and vice versa. Then, she reminded the audience thatfor the 30th anniversary of the Convention, there was a review and evaluation in a workshop in Ferrara. She
asserted that one of the biggest questions revolves around the need for categories in urban areas. Currently,
Annex 3 of the Operational Guidelines has a traditional definition of cities, or urban ensemble, which is not
adapted at all to what is needed today, and does not integrate the Historic Urban Landscape Approach (HUL)adopted in 2011 by the UNESCO General Conference.
Based on the questions made by Ms. Buckley, Dr. Rössler reported on two other issues. One was about theresults of a meeting in Oman about the management of large-scale archaeological sites and landscapes,
where she participated with Dr. Ndoro. She commented that a document is under elaboration to help sitemanagers, especially under the current climate crisis, as cases have been reported on coastal archaeologicalareas washed away in the Arctic. The second issue was concerning the comments made by Mr. Badmanon the biodiversity crisis and the search for different approaches in terms of connectivity and area-based
conservation. She stressed this is the big debate happening outside the World Heritage and other heritage
discussions, which congregates results of the meeting of 8 biodiversity-related conventions leading to150

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

COP 15. She observed that there is a whole world out to be considered and to be linked-up with, while
the cultural landscape debate has a critical role to play, as there are areas with traditional practices forbiodiversity protection.
Professor Inaba thanked Dr. Rössler and commented that cultural landscapes are combined in different
discussions, not only in those of World Heritage issues.
Professor Masahito Yoshida commented on two points: First, the distance between the protected areasof international level from those at national and local levels; and second, the landscape issue. He said
that regarding the first, the separation between nature and culture at the site and institutional levels had
been discussed. However, there are big gaps between the international and national designations to beconsidered. As mentioned by Ms. Rabliauskas, the local communities do not separate nature and culture.
However, according to the rules and the categories of the Convention, it is necessary to identify what meetsthe criteria of Outstanding Universal Value. He stressed that this evaluation is essential because otherwise,
the numbers of World Heritage would be increasing eternally. However, it is also important to notice that
all the natural and cultural elements to be conserved at the national level are interrelated. He suggested
that before starting a nomination for the World Heritage, States Parties should analyze the candidate asa national level property, considering the many special values for the country or the community in therecommendation, instead of the Outstanding Universal Value. He said that even if the State Party does
not recognize these as Outstanding Universal Value, they have value for them. He remarked that this kindof upstream process is critical because it calls to not forgetting the special values to the local communities
or people. As for the second point, he pointed out that he agrees with Ms. Buckley regarding the different
ways of using cultural landscapes. The first way is the ‘cultural landscape’ defined in the World Heritage
Convention, which has Outstanding Universal Value. The other way is the landscape used by Mr. Okano,where the management of the surrounding area was set up, even out of the buffer zone. He observed that
if this idea of landscape is used for a wider area, life and culture can be integrated into the World Heritage
properties. For him, thinking about a broader landscape approach is essential to link nature and culture.
Professor Inaba thanked the comments and stressed that Outstanding Universal Value is not a hierarchy.
She mentioned they have been discussing what is Outstanding Universal Value since the 1998 Amsterdam
meeting and in the 2005 Kazan meeting. She stressed this is an essential point because the meaning of‘outstanding’ or ‘exceptional’ should not exclude other things from the World Heritage system. She pointed
out that, as said by Professor Yoshida, it is necessary to think about facilitating the national system to enter
the World Heritage system. However, she was asking herself why to limit the number of World Heritage
sites.
Ms. Rabliauskas raised her opinion about ‘exceptional,’ as it was necessary to change the wording to develop
a local interpretation. She said that Pimachiowin Aki represents the exceptional case of how people still use
the land. She asserted that sometimes it is the wording that needs to change a bit and not to stay stuck inquestions that do not make sense to local communities. She added that this was the work done with the
upstream process, and they received excellent advice from the Advisory Bodies.
Dr. Wijesuriya mentioned that cultural landscapes were a lost opportunity to look at the nature-culture
linkages, but at the same time it has done a great service; some sites as the Hani rice terraces would never
have come to be recognized as cultural heritage. He said that, as highlighted by Dr. Ndoro, many people lookat all the values, not only the tangible attributes but the people, the traditional knowledge systems, andthe livelihood. He suggested thinking about conservation by considering it as continuity. He also suggested
revisiting the concept of conservation and how it is considered in, for instance, the Venice Charter.
Professor Inaba called for the closing remarks. She asked for comments or questions from the audience orparticipants.
Dr. Shimotsuma commented on the definition of cultural landscapes as heritage. She asserted that thefact that UNESCO considers cultural landscapes not necessarily as heritage but as an approach is very wise.
She pointed out that Japan considers cultural landscapes as cultural heritage, and this can bring somecomplexities. The reason is that cultural landscapes relate to a land-use system established in a space, and151

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

how it has continued or changed constitutes a landscape with particular features. She observed that thefirst thing to be done should be to think about how the system can be restored. In that sense, ‘heritage
conservation’ is an approach that is more suitable and easier, but more than often, it is necessary to discuss
if a landscape can subsist as heritage or if another arrangement is necessary. She stressed that, basedon the restoration of that system, both the landscape and the community could find ways to continue inmodern society. For instance, the global cases of agricultural landscapes can be systems of verification. She
suggested that instead of strict heritage assessments, the increase of landscape subsistence systems thatbring fulfillment to people could provide more wellbeing. She said that if the global society looked again at
cultural landscapes, she would be grateful if they consider these aspects.
Professor Inaba added that they introduced cultural landscapes into the Japanese system and did notchange the name, but it refers to people’s lives and livelihoods. She also mentioned that the World Heritage
system is about Outstanding and Cultural Landscapes categories.
Mr. Badman agreed with the need to revisit the concept of landscape in the World Heritage Convention.
He remarked, as exposed by Professor Yoshida, that there are several different intersecting questions. One
is what sort of places are recognized as having Outstanding Universal Value in terms of the interaction
between nature and people. The second is the question of taking either a landscape approach or maybe aplace-based approach in order to integrate different concerns around management systems, governance,
and the need to situate a World Heritage area within the valuation and use of communities. The third, forhim, would be that there are other different types of landscapes spaces that are important, to mention
some: the place Indigenous Peoples have in the World Heritage Convention due to innovations such as theInternational Indigenous Peoples Forum, the place of culture-nature in urban landscapes, the coastal marine
situation and the forest landscape.
Mr. Badman also called attention to what the International Satoyama Initiative refers to as socio-ecologicalproductive landscapes or rural production landscapes. These places produce food, and this production isbased on a long association between people and nature. He expressed concern about the threats manyrural landscapes are receiving from multiple sources, including environmental plans, the degree to which
subsidies distort production systems, the pressures on the ways of working from powerful actors in themarket, and the sustainability of growing with chemicals use. He reflected that the answer to the question
might be the needs of a broader concern for the future of rural landscapes. Depending on the country,
sometimes recognition of places as heritage might be part of the solution but not in all to a considerable
degree. He suggested that much more recognition is needed towards the crisis that is affecting biodiversity,
the loss of traditional knowledge and cultural diversity. He stressed that rural landscapes are the places
where these aspects are seen in many situations, and the support by national policies needs to be adapted.
He commented there are very significant nature conservation and biodiversity values, but traditionallymanaged productive landscapes are threatened by change, as it happens with the region he comes from.
The policy of the European Union towards the subsidies for farmers is seen as extremely damaging tonature conservation because of the way it is being employed and the significant threat it represents to notintensively managed farming systems. He noted that the European Union is continually trying to reform that,
but the market issues are significant. Mr. Badman pointed out that this is a place where nature and culture
need to get together: Mainstream food security and how food production is supported, which is very
challenging and a big issue. He observed that World Heritage cultural landscapes that are food-producing
could be assessed and inform about the challenges and the alliances with other conventions that aretrying to act on the impacts of the better management of food systems. He added World Heritage is very
engaged in food systems through UNESCO, CBD, and FAO, trying to make a more focused collaboration. He
mentioned the International Satoyama Initiative in Japan as one very interesting and important partner theyshould work more closely with.
Professor Inaba reflected how the cultural landscape approach or the cultural landscape issues in theWorld Heritage Convention largely influenced the field. If the landscape approach should be implemented
at the local level, then it needs to focus on management. She made the question of how to strengthen the
management process and how to give local communities the capacity to be able to manage. Then, she
wondered how to develop the national system to support these systems, considering that this differs fromcountry to country. She added their work is to ask each participant to think about how it is in each country,152

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

in Kailash, Tibet, and many other places, and she expressed her hope that this was a good chance for all tothink about these relevant aspects. She closed the discussion session and thanked the panelists, participants,
and the public.
Professor Yoshida thanked everyone and closed the symposium and the four-year programme of Capacity
Building Workshops in Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation. He said the year 2020 would
be a year for reflection, where the team will use the precious opportunity given by the discussion of this
symposium and the four years of experience to think about the future directions and the possibilities of the
University and themselves. He remarked this is an excellent step for the future and thanked all the speakers,
the participants of the workshop, the audience of the room, and the organizing staff of the symposium.

Group photo of the Fourth International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation during the
Tsukuba Conference 2019.

153

Annexes

154

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Annex 1: CBWNCL 2019
Participants Abstracts
The Apatani Valley of Arunachal Pradesh, India by Bina Gandhi Deori
The Apatani Valley is a well-known cultural landscape noted for its unique topography and Indigenous
traditional cultural practices. Over centuries, the tribes of the region, the Apatanis, have developed
Indigenous methods in response to adapt to their environment in a better way. This can be seen in different
spheres of their cultural life and this has also defined their relationship with nature. Therefore, this paper
attempts to feature this unique interface of nature-culture linkages that can be seen in the Apatani Valley.
Ancient Heritages in Kham Minyag by Laze Deqing
Many precious cultural heritages in Tibet have been left behind in remote areas. Some of the powerful tribes
in history have fallen down. The Minyag tribe is one of these tribes that has disappeared after a long history.
In today’s Minyag region, in addition to the well-known Gongga Mountain, fortunately a few fortified towers
and private chapels that are over hundred years old remain and are the pride of the Indigenous people. In
this vast and sparsely populated area, the key of nature-culture heritage conservation is the Indigenous
people and their participation. For instance, in Kegyap lhakang, the safeguarding of traditional construction
skills together with cultural heritage awareness-raising and education of the younger generation will ensure
the sustainability of this site and its surrounding natural reserve area. Therefore, in search for the sustainable
protection of cultural and natural heritage in this rural area, the most effective way is the involvement ofIndigenous people and the transmission of their talents.
Nature-Culture Interaction at the Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province, Philippines by Eulalie Dulnuan
The Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) in the Philippine Cordilleras is the epitome of nature and culture interaction ina heritage site. It showcases the Ifugao peoples’ harmonious co-existence with nature. As a World Heritage
Site and a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS), the IRT is a living cultural landscapeand a biodiversity haven. Management of these cultural and nature treasures should be done in tandem tooptimize efforts and resources. The changes being experienced at the IRT and the corresponding responses
should all be documented in an Ifugao Rice Terraces Assessment, which will help in scenario planning for theconservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces.
Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region, Albanian Extension by Sonila Kora
Albania and North Macedonia share a mixed World Heritage Property. The “Natural and Cultural Heritageof the Ohrid region” was first inscribed into the WH List for its natural values in 1979 and for its cultural
heritage ones a year later for the part of the lake located in North Macedonia. The property was extended
to include the Albanian part of the Lake Ohrid region in July 2019. The paper will give an overview of the site
in the Albanian part of the region, its values and their significance and linkage focusing mainly on the culturalcomponent of the extended property. The overview will also cover issues related to legislation, national
management system in place, conservation, institutions and other stakeholders involved in the site as well as
aspects of intangible heritage and community belonging too. The paper builds upon the work done so far by
155

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

the national experts and institutions involved with the assistance of the advisory bodies ICOMOS, IUCN and
ICCROM. The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the four years of the project, reporting an assessmenton the progress achieved today, challenges and opportunities for the site.
Trang An Landscape Complex Mixed Heritage Site: Unfolding Natural-Cultural Linkage by Hoang Lien Le
Trang An Landscape Complex is the only mixed property of Vietnam inscribed in the World Heritage
List under the criteria (v), (vii) and (viii). The inscription of Trang An Landscape Complex is an importantfactor which has led to the increase of tourism in the province. After five years of inscription, impacts of
rapid tourism growth bring a number of challenges which require timely remedial solutions as well as
revisited tourism development targets in a long term strategy for preservation of heritage and sustainable
development. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic overview of the available evidence-based
literature concerning the site and to answer the question on how the nature-culture linkages reflect in theheritage and what are the challenges and opportunities for the joint management, for sharing the knowledge
and tools from both nature and culture sector. The research methodology involves a combination of desk
reviews, field-visits, consultations with provincial authorities and the management board.
Galunggung’s Bamboo and Eternal Sound Healing by Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage in Cipari Village
Tasikmalaya and Djuanda Forest Park, West Java, Indonesia by Wanda Listiani
Djuanda Forest Park in Bandung and Galunggung Mountain in Tasikmalaya are the sites having potential as
mixed cultural heritage and natural heritage in West Java Indonesia. The beauty of the forest, the singing
bird, and the spattering sound of water harmonize the body, mind, and spirit. The vibration of the sound is
the future healing. The research method is qualitative with descriptive analysis approach. The article aims toreveal the mixed cultural heritage and natural heritage in West Java Indonesia.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, The Land of Natural Fortunes by Joshua MwankundaThis paper examines potentials of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area nationally and worldwide in terms of
ecology, understanding human evolution and its identity and economic contribution to local communities
living around the property and the nation at large. Ngorongoro Conservation Area has global significancenaturally, culturally and globally. It has multiple UNESCO recognitions as Mixed World Heritage and global
Geopark. Ngorongoro Conservation Area has been established through state ordinance NO.413 of 1959
and is managed by a public institution known as Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). The
objectives of establishing the institution are to promote the conservation of natural, cultural and geologicalresources, safeguard the interests of NCA Indigenous residents and promote tourism.
Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes: Nature, Culture and Borderless Beliefs by Anuranjan Roy
The Indian portion of the Kailash Sacred Landscape (KSL) represents a timeless example of natureculture linkage where the exquisite terrain is an integral part of the cultural practices of the region. With
the inclusion of scores of generations of pilgrims passing through the same scenery, adding continuous
layers of interpretation and memories, it is a living heritage which builds upon its own legend. The paper
endeavours to look at how the geological, biological and cultural facts make the Indian KSL unique while
also acknowledging the role it plays in the larger whole of what is one of the most definitive mixed sites ofcultural and natural importance.
Nature and Culture Linkages in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area: a Potential World Heritage Site in Nepal
by Yadav Uprety
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area in Nepal is a potential World Heritage Site because of its uniquecharacteristics and strategic location. The exceptional range of 7km from 1,200m to 8,586m at Mt.
Kangchenjunga (world’s third highest peak) within an area of only 2,035km2 has created pristine habitats forflora and fauna. The local people practice a variety of livelihood options, including agriculture, pastoralism,
156

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

forestry, and trade, resulting in a vibrant cultural tapestry. The human settlements within the area areprobably the highest altitude settlements adapting traditional systems for coping with harsh environment.
The area holds both challenges and opportunities from conservation and development perspectives. In
order to translate challenges into opportunity there is a need for an integrated and coordinated approachwith multiple-stakeholder participation. The recognition of the area as a World Heritage Site will provide aplatform to bring stakeholders together to better manage the natural and cultural entities of this “Gift to the
Earth”.
Managing cultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities in Alpine National Park by Kimberley Wilson
There are many natural and cultural layers that make Alpine National Park significant, and there are strong
linkages between these values. It is important to recognize such mixed heritage places as socio-ecologicalsystems, whereby changes in the natural environment have cultural ramifications – and vice versa. Alpine
National Park is recognized for both its natural (including rare alpine and subalpine flora and fauna) andcultural values (including tangible and intangible Aboriginal heritage, and over 60 Alpine Huts constructed
after European settlement) and is therefore afforded heritage protection through state and federal
legislation. Balancing these natural and cultural imperatives is often complex and challenging, particularly
in relation to sustainably managing the dynamic ecosystems, and directing rehabilitation efforts following
bushfires. However, there are also opportunities to embrace the synergies and multifaceted narratives,
particularly in relation to celebrating shared heritage, and acknowledging lessons learned from past land
management practices.
Doi Suthep Mountain, The Living Sanctuary by Warong Wonglangka
Doi Suthep is one of Thailand’s significant mountains due to its natural qualities as it is a centre forbiodiversity, and to its long history related to Chiang Mai old City. Doi Suthep Mountain is a sacred place
and the centre of Chiang Mai’s soul. Also, Doi Suthep is regarded as an essential component of Chiang Mai
World Heritage nomination. The inseparable linkage between Doi Suthep Mountain, Chiang Mai Old City,
and Chiang Mai people can support their sustainability. This article tries to describe the importance of Doi
Suthep Mountain in terms of nature and culture and give some example of some cultural practices that
could enhance the sense of belonging and be connected to the conservation process.
The Study of Nature-Culture Linkages of World Heritage Mount Wuyi by Ziyan Yang
Mount Wuyi (Fujian) was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1999 under criteria (iii), (vi), (vii), (x). The
original nomination included only the southern, albeit larger, side of the Wuyi mountain ecosystem. The
World Heritage Outlook undertaken by IUCN in 2014 concluded that there was a “great need for better
coordination across the province divide and Mount Wuyi would be greatly strengthened if Jiangxi sections
could be added”. As a result, the State Party sent the Minor Modification report which was evaluated,
amended and approved during the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee, where ICOMOS suggested
to further study and address the concerns in relation to cultural values. This paper details cultural andnatural heritage values and linkages as well the management of the property. In addition, it provides ananalysis and research on the potential cultural values mentioned in the latest evaluation and decision.

157

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Annex 2: List of participants*
International Participants• Deori, Bina Gandhi (Culture), Assistant Professor, Visva Bharati University, India• Deqing, Laze, Researcher (Culture), Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage International ResearchCenter (JUWHIRC), China• Dulnuan, Eulalie (Culture), Director GIAHS Center, Ifugao State University, Philippines• Lien, Le Hoang (Culture), Programme Assistant for Culture, UNESCO Ha Noi Office, Vietnam• Listiani, Wanda (Culture), Lecturer, Bandung Institute of Art-Cultural, Indonesia• Mwankunda, Joshua (Culture), Heritage Manager, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Tanzania• Roy, Anuranjan (Nature), World Heritage Assistant, Wildlife Institute of India, India• Uprety, Yadav (Nature), Programme Coordinator, Research Center for Applied Science and Technology(RECAST), Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal• Wilson, Kimberley (Culture), Historic Heritage Coordinator, Parks Victoria, Australia• Wonglangka, Warong (Culture), Lecturer, Chiang Mai University, Thailand• Yang, Ziyan (Nature), Deputy Director, China Association of National Parks and Scenic Sites (CNPA), China• Kora, Sonila (Culture), Head of Unit, Directorate for Culture Development Programs, Ministry of Culture,
Albania
Nature Sector: 3 (25 %) – Culture Sector: 9 (75 %) - Total: 12 (100 %)Graduate students of the University ofTsukuba• Cao, Yue (Culture), Master Student, World Heritage Studies• Deng, Wenchao (Culture), Master student, World Heritage Studies• Liu, Congcong (Culture), Master student, World Heritage Studies• Masuichi, Ami (Culture), Master student, World Heritage Studies• Natnitcha, Jermphiphat (Culture), Master student, World Heritage Studies• Oliveira, Lorena (Nature), Doctoral student, Life and Environmental Sciences• Sato, Daisuke (Nature), Master student, Life and Environmental Sciences• Semaha, Philip (Nature), Master student, Life and Environmental Sciences
Nature Sector: 3 (37.5 %) – Culture Sector: 5 (62.5 %) - Total: 8 (100%)* By alphabetical order
158

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Guest speakers and resource persons• Badman, Tim, Director, IUCN Nature-Culture Initiative• Brown, Jessica, Executive Director, New England Biolabs Foundation and Chair, IUCN WCPA Specialist
Group on Protected Landscapes• Buckley, Kristal, Lecturer, Deakin University and World Heritage Advisor, ICOMOS• Horiuchi, Makoto, Yamanashi Prefectural Fujisan World Heritage Center• Horiuchi, Toru, Yamanashi Prefectural Government• Nakano, Takashi, Director of Education Division, Mount Fuji Research Institute• Ndoro, Webber, Director General, ICCROM• Ochiai, Toru, Vice Director, Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre, Shizuoka Prefectural Government• Okano, Takahiro, Deputy Director, Biodiversity Policy Division, Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of theEnvironment, Japan• Rabliauskas, Sophia, Pimachiowin Aki Corporation• Rössler, Mechtild, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre• Shimotsuma, Kumiko, Chief Cultural Landscape Unit, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan• Somiya, Kazuo, Director, Mount Fuji Biodiversity Center, Ministry of the Environment, Japan• Takayama, Naoki, Assistant Director, Fujisan World Heritage Division, Resident Affairs Department,
Yamanashi Prefecture• Warashina, Kouichi, Assistant Director General, Resident Affairs Department, Yamanashi Prefecture• Wijesuriya, Gamini, Former Project Manager, ICCROM – Sites Unit
• Yamauchi, Namiko, Lecturer, Keisen Jogakuen University

Organizing Team• Inaba, Nobuko, Professor World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation,
CBWNCL Programme co-Director• Ishizawa, Maya, Visiting Lecturer, World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature
Conservation, CBWNCL Programme Coordinator• Yoshida, Masahito, Professor and Chair World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature
Conservation, CBWNCL Programme co-Director

Faculty of World Heritage Studies• Ikeda, Mariko, Assistant Professor, World Heritage Studies• Shimoda, Ichita, Assistant Professor, World Heritage Studies• Uekita, Yasufumi, Professor, World Heritage Studies

Staff of the World Heritage Studies/Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation• Suda, Maiko, Research Coordinator, Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation• Uribe Chinen, Claudia, Research Assistant, World Heritage Studies• Yasojima, Chitose, Administrative Assistant, Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation
159

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

Annex 3:
Program of the CBWNCL 2019
MODULE 1: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
Venue: Humanities and Social Sciences Building Seminar Room B218
Tuesday, 24 September
THEME: ROUNDTABLE
10:00 - 11:00

11:00 - 13:00

13:00 - 14:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:30

15:30 - 16:30
15:30 - 16:00
16:00 - 16:30
16:30 - 17:00

Welcome of the UNESCO Chair holder Professor Masahito Yoshida, University of Tsukuba
Introduction to the CBWNCL 2019: Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage by Dr. Maya
Ishizawa, CBWCNL Programme Coordinator
Roundtable Discussion
Chair: Dr. Maya Ishizawa, University of Tsukuba
Interventions:- The case of Japan, Professor Nobuko Inaba, CBWNCL Co-Director, University of Tsukuba- The case of Australia, Ms. Kristal Buckley, ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor, Deakin
University- The case of Sri Lanka, Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, former ICCROM, WHITRAP- The case of the United States of America, Ms. Jessica Brown, IUCN, New England Biolabs
Foundation
Interventions of the Participants of the CBWNCL 2019
Lunch BreakLECTURE 1: World Heritage Concepts, Processes and Issues
Lecturer: Ms. Kristal Buckley, ICOMOS/Deakin University
Q&A + Discussion
Presentations by participants
The Apatani Valley of Arunachal Pradesh, India by Bina Gandhi Deori, India
Nature-Culture Interaction at the Rice Terraces of Ifugao Province, Philippines by Eulalie
Dulnuan, Philippines
Wrap-up
Wednesday, 25 September
THEME: THE WORLD HERITAGE SYSTEM ON NATURE AND CULTURE

10:00 - 11:45

11:45 - 13:30

13:30 – 14:30
14:30 - 16:45
14:30 - 15:00
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 15:45
15:45 - 16:15
16:15 - 16:45

LECTURE 2: Nature-Culture Linkages in the context of World Heritage
Lecturer: Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM/WHITRAP
Q&A + Discussion
Management in the context of World Heritage
Lecturer: Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM/WHITRAP
Q&A + Discussion
Lunch Break
Presentations by participants
Doi Suthep Mountain, The Living Sanctuary by Warong Wonglangka, Thailand
Managing cultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities in Alpine National Park by
Kimberley Wilson, Australia
Coffee Break
Ancient Heritages in Kham Minyag by Laze Deqing, China
Galunggung’s Bamboo and Eternal Sound Healing by Mixed Cultural and Natural
Heritage in Cipari Village Tasikmalaya and Djuanda Forest Park, West Java, Indonesia by
Wanda Listiani, Indonesia
160

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

16:45 - 17:10
17:10 - 17:30

Participants’ report
Wrap-upThursday, 26 September
THEME: MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

10:00 - 11:30
LECTURE 3: Management and Governance of Protected Areas
		Lecturer: Ms. Jessica Brown, IUCN/New England Biolabs Foundation
Q&A + Discussion
11:30 - 13:00
LECTURE 4: An Indigenous perspective: the case of Pimachiowin Aki, World Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage, Canada
		Lecturer: Ms. Sophia Rabliauskas, Pimachiowin Aki Corporation
Q&A + Discussion
13:00 - 14:00
Lunch Break
14:00 - 16:45
Presentations by participants
14:00 - 14:30
Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region, Albanian Extension by Sonila Kora,
Albania
14:30 - 15:00
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, The Land of Natural Fortunes by Joshua Mwankunda,
Tanzania
15:00 - 15:15
Break
15:15 - 15:45
Trang An Landscape Complex Mixed Heritage Site: Unfolding Natural-Cultural Linkage by
Le Hoang Lien, Vietnam
15:45 - 16:15
The Study of Nature-Culture Linkages of World Heritage Mount Wuyi by Ziyan Yang,
China
16:15 - 16:40
Participants’ report
16:40 - 17:00
Wrap-up
Friday, 27 September
THEME: JAPANESE EXPERIENCE
10:00 - 11:30

11:30 - 13:00

13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:00
15:00 - 16:45
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 16:00
16:00 - 16:25
16:25 – 16:45

LECTURE 5: Japanese system on the conservation of nature – From beauty tobiodiversity
Lecturer: Professor Masahito Yoshida, University of Tsukuba
Q&A + Discussion
LECTURE 6: Japanese system on the conservation of culture – Places of scenic beauty,
natural monuments and cultural landscapes
Lecturer: Professor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba
Q&A + Discussion
Lunch BreakLECTURE 7: Introduction to the Field visit and Participants Working Groups’ Task
Lecturers: Dr. Maya Ishizawa, Dr. Mariko Ikeda, University of Tsukuba
Presentations by Participants
Sacred Mountain Landscape and Heritage Routes: Nature, Culture and Borderless Beliefs
by Anuranjan Roy, India
Nature and Culture Linkages in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area: a potential World
Heritage Site in Nepal by Yadav Uprety, Nepal
Participant’s report
Wrap-up

MODULE 2: Management, Implementation and Governance in Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
Venue: Mount Fuji, Yamanashi Prefecture
Saturday, 28 September
THEME: FUJISAN, SACRED PLACE AND SOURCE OF ARTISTIC INSPIRATION
07:20

Departure from Tsukuba by bus
161

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

11:00

Expected arrival to Mount Fuji Research InstituteMorning activity:
Visit to Mount Fuji Research Institute, Yamanashi Prefecture
Afternoon activity:-Visit Biodiversity Center, Ministry of the Environment, Japan-Visit to Fujisan World Heritage Centre, Yamanashi Prefecture
Stay at FujiCalm
Sunday, 29 September
THEME: FUJISAN SACRED PLACE AND SOURCE OF ARTISTIC INSPIRATION
Morning activity:-Visit Umagaeshi (Starting of Pilgrims Route to Mount Fuji)-Visit Kitaguchi-Hongu-Fuji-Sengen-Taisha (Shrine)
Lunch
Afternoon activity:
Visit Oshi House (Pilgrims House)
Mount Fuji Museum
Stay at FujiCalm
Monday, 30 September
THEME: FUJISAN, SACRED PLACE AND SOURCE OF ARTISTIC INSPIRATION
Morning activity:-Visit to Mount Fuji 5th Station (Start of the ascending by tourists)-Walk to Ochudo pilgrimage route (Optional)
Lunch
Afternoon activity:-Visit the Tourist Center of Mount Fuji
Stay at FujiCalm
Tuesday, 1 October
THEME: FUJISAN, SACRED PLACE AND SOURCE OF ARTISTIC INSPIRATION
Morning activity:
Mount Fuji World Heritage Centre, Shizuoka Prefecture
Lunch
Afternoon:
Return to Tsukuba
Stay at Okura Frontier Hotel Tsukuba Epochal
MODULE 3: Reflection on Theory and Practice
Venue: Humanities and Social Sciences Building Seminar Room B218
Wednesday, 2 October

14:00 - 17:00

Free morning
Working groups
Thursday, 3 October

10:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 17:00

Working groups
Lunch
Working groups’ presentations
Q&A + Discussion
162

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2020・MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ISSN 2189-4728

17:00 - 18:00

Feedback from Resource Persons
Delivery of Certificates
MODULE 4: International Symposium
Venue: Tsukuba International Congress Center

Friday, 4 October
THEME: IV INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON NATURE-CULTURE LINKAGES IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
09:30 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:10

10:10 - 10:30

10:30 - 10:50
10:50 - 11:10

11:10 - 11:30
11:30 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 13:45

13:40 - 14:00
14:00 - 15:30

15:30 - 16:00

Open doors
Opening Addressby Professor Masahito Yoshida, UNESCO Chairholder on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation, University of Tsukuba
Opening Addressby Professor Kyosuke Nagata, President of the University of Tsukuba
The challenges of nominating Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage sites to the World
Heritage Listby Mechtild Rössler - Director UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Nature-Culture Linkages in World Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage in Africa
by Webber Ndoro - Director General ICCROM
Toward the integrated management of nature and culture in Natural World Heritage
sites
by Takahiro Okano - Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Cultural Landscapes as an approach to local development
by Kumiko Shimotsuma - Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Panel Discussion chaired by Masahito Yoshida, UNESCO Chair holder on Nature-Culture
Linkages in Heritage Conservation, University of Tsukuba
Lunch Break
Exploring Nature-Culture Linkages in Asia and the Pacific through Capacity Building: the
CBWNCL Project 2016-2019
by Maya Ishizawa - UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation,
University of Tsukuba
Key Issues on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation: Progress and Challenges
by Tim Badman - IUCN, Kristal Buckley - ICOMOS, and Gamini Wijesuriya - former
ICCROM/WHITRAP
Chaired by Nobuko Inaba, UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation, University of Tsukuba
Coffee BreakRoundtable Discussion with
Tim Badman, IUCN
Kristal Buckley, Deakin University/ICOMOS
Webber Ndoro, ICCROM
Takahiro Okano, Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Sophia Rabliauskas, Pimachiowin Aki Corporation
Mechtild Rössler, UNESCO
Kumiko Shimotsuma, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Gamini Wijesuriya, former ICCROM/WHITRAP
Masahito Yoshida, University of Tsukuba
Maya Ishizawa, University of Tsukuba
Chaired by Professor Nobuko Inaba, UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation, University of Tsukuba
Q&A/Conclusions and Closing Remarks

163

University of Tsukuba,
Degree Program in Comprensive Human Sciences
Degree Program in Heritage Studies
1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
Tel: 029-853-7099

http://www.conservation.tsukuba.ac.jp/UNESCO-Chair/