INTERNATIONAL CONCEPTS 

IN PROTECTED LANDSCAPES

Exploring Their Value for Communities in the Northeast

Proceedings of a Public Forum and 

Workshop on Landscape Stewardship

18 June 1999

Shelburne Farms

Shelburne, Vermont, USA

Co-Sponsored by:

Conservation Study Institute

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Shelburne Farms

In Cooperation with:

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park

University of Vermont 

IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

US/ICOMOS – International Council on Monuments and Sites

National Park Service

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 2

Published by Conservation Study Institute

in cooperation with IUCN – The World Conservation Union

and QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Woodstock, Vermont, USA

2001

i

CONTENTS

iii Foreword

v Acknowledgments

vii Introduction

PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

3 New Directions for Protected Areas: The Context for Category V, 

Adrian Phillips

5 The Quijos River Valley: A Prospective Protected Landscape in the Andes, 

Jack Rodriguez and Fausto Sarmiento

6 The Use of the Protected Landscape Category in St. Lucia, 

Giles Romulus

8 Establishing an International Heritage Corridor in the Champlain-Richelieu Valley, 

Anne Drost 

10 Professional Challenges in the Conservation of Working Landscapes: Where are we Now? 

Michael Beresford

13 Summary of Small Group Discussions

16 For Further Reading

APPENDICES

21 A. Agenda for Public Forum

23 B. Biographies

26 C. IUCN Protected Areas Management Categories

27 D. IUCN Category V Protected Landscape/Seascape Definition

28 E. World Heritage Convention Definition of Cultural Landscapes

29 F. Outcomes from the International Working Session

30 G. Participant Contact Information
ii
iii

FOREWORD

On Friday, June 18, 1999, 60 conservation practitioners from across the northeastern

United States gathered at Shelburne Farms on the shore of Lake Champlain in Vermont to

discuss the idea of protected landscapes. They were joined by a group of 20 international

conservation professionals who had just concluded a two-day working session on this topic

at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. The working session, a special meeting of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, had been convened by the U.S.

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute and QLF/Atlantic Center for the

Environment. These groups cooperated with Shelburne Farms to offer the public forum as

part of the University of Vermont’s Summer Land Conservation Program. 

The public forum, “Protecting Working Landscapes: An International Perspective,”

explored practical ways to conserve working landscapes—places where people live and 

work. This new model of landscape conservation is becoming increasingly relevant in a

world where many stewardship challenges are found close to home. The concept of

Protected Landscape, Category V in the IUCN system of management categories, provides

an approach for integrating biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage protection, and

sustainable use of resources while providing a way to support leadership by local people in

the stewardship of these resources. 

Shelburne Farms, located in the Lake Champlain–Richelieu Valley, was an ideal setting

for the gathering. The Valley has innumerable cultural resources from a rich historical past,

fertile agricultural land beside the northeastern United States’ one “great lake,” and a

growing population looking for economic opportunities and a high quality of life. As with

other distinctive regional landscapes—the Northern Forest, the Adirondacks, and the

Connecticut River Valley—it is a “working landscape” where nature and culture are inextricably intertwined to create a sense of place. 

Our intention in convening this public forum was to foster an exchange of ideas among

practitioners from diverse regions, and to provide an opportunity to draw upon international experience for efforts to protect working landscapes in Vermont and elsewhere in

New England. The forum was also an opportunity to explore the protected landscapes

approach: what it means, how it is applied, and why it is of value. 

The public forum provided participants the chance to learn about conservation work

being done in other regions of the world, to exchange ideas and lessons learned from their

own experience, and to renew their own commitment to the protection of our natural and

cultural heritage here in the northeastern United States. For many participants engaged 

in stewardship at the local and regional levels, this international viewpoint was new and

offered a fresh perspective on their own work. We were delighted by the enthusiastic participation at this meeting and by the high level of interest in protecting working landscapes.

We look forward to future gatherings and further dialogue.

Nora Mitchell Jessica Brown

Director Vice President, International Programs

Conservation Study Institute QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Barbara Slaiby Megan Camp

Program Coordinator Vice President and Program Director

Conservation Study Institute Shelburne Farms
[iv]
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Conservation Study Institute and QLF/Atlantic Center for the 

Environment would like to thank the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for 

supporting the attendance of European participants through a grant 

to US/ICOMOS-International Council on Monuments and Sites. 

Further financial support for the event was provided through grants from 

the Moriah Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We also thank our 

gracious hosts at Shelburne Farms. Nora Mitchell, Jessica Brown, 

Richard Carbin, Brent Mitchell, and Barbara Slaiby, editors of this 

report, offer a special thanks to all of the participants. 
[vi]
The public forum, “International Concepts in

Protected Landscapes: Exploring Their Value

for Communities in the Northeast,” was

designed to explore successful experiences

with conservation of working landscapes, to foster an

exchange of ideas among practitioners from diverse

regions of the world, and to define future challenges

and international collaboration in support of protecting

working landscapes. A series of presentations of

international conservation in the morning was followed

by discussion among all participants in the afternoon.

Participants in the public forum were welcomed by Alec

Webb (Shelburne Farms), Destry Jarvis (National Park

Service), and Nora Mitchell (Conservation Study

Institute). These three speakers set the stage for the

day’s discussion by highlighting the challenges of conservation today and the need for exploring new

approaches. Adrian Phillips (IUCN World Commission

on Protected Areas) presented an overview of the protected landscapes concept: its history, its role relative to

other management categories, and its application in

other parts of the world. 

These opening presentations were followed by three case

studies in which the presenters highlighted the opportunities and challenges they are experiencing in their

home regions. Fausto Sarmiento (Center for Latin

American and Caribbean Studies, University of Georgia)

and Jack Rodriguez (FUNDRAE, Ecuador) described

conservation efforts in the Quijos River Valley of

Ecuador, a proposed protected landscape that is home

to diverse cultures. The Valley is surrounded by three

national protected areas, creating a biosphere reserve

with human occupation in the core surrounded by protected areas. Giles Romulus (St. Lucia National Trust,

St. Lucia) presented the case of the Praslin Protected

Landscape on the small Caribbean island of St. Lucia.

Here the local communities are being engaged in a

participatory process to develop a strategic plan for the

area and to design projects that meet the community’s

immediate economic needs while protecting the land

and its resources. Anne Drost (QLF/Atlantic Center for

the Environment, Canada) and Ann Cousins (Preservation Trust of Vermont and the National Trust for

Historic Preservation) described heritage conservation

initiatives in the Champlain-Richelieu Valley, an

international region spanning Vermont, New York, and

Quebec. The morning concluded with a panel discussion, moderated by Jessica Brown (QLF/Atlantic Center

for the Environment, USA), on the challenges ahead for

land managers, with the audience participating with

questions and comments.

Michael Beresford (International Centre for Protected

Landscapes, Wales) opened the afternoon session with a

presentation on professional challenges to conserving

working landscapes. His presentation explored the

importance of community involvement and maintaining a viable local economy, and the new skills needed to

be effective conservation leaders. Participants then

broke up into small discussion groups of six to eight

people. Their charge was to discuss the protected landscape concept and ways this approach might be applied

in the Northeast. They also discussed grounds for hope

in the conservation field, and explored opportunities for

international cooperation. The day ended with John

Elder (Middlebury College) facilitating a discussion of

the major points from the day’s presentations and small

group discussions. 

In the following pages we have provided short papers

summarizing each of the day’s presentations and have

summarized important points from the group discussions. We have also included information on Protected

Landscapes, Category V in the IUCN system of management categories: its definition and key features. The

appendix includes a contact list of forum participants to

encourage further communication.

The proceedings of the International Working Session

on Stewardship of Protected Landscapes, held at MarshBillings-Rockefeller National Historical Park earlier in

the week, feature 11 summary papers presented there,

and is also available from the Conservation Study

Institute.

[vii]

INTRODUCTION

PRESENTATIONS 

AND DISCUSSIONS

ADRIAN PHILLIPS

New Directions for Protected Areas: The Context for Category V

JACK RODRIGUEZ AND FAUSTO SARMIENTO

The Quijos River Valley: A Prospective Protected Landscape in the Andes

GILES ROMULUS

The Use of the Protected Landscape Category in St. Lucia

ANNE DROST 

Establishing an International Heritage Corridor 

in the Champlain-Richelieu Valley

MICHAEL BERESFORD

Professional Challenges in the Conservation of 

Working Landscapes: Where are we Now? 

Summary of Small Group Discussions
[2]
[3]

Adrian Phillips

Chair, IUCN/WCPA; Cardiff University, UK

New thinking on conservation generally, and

on protected areas in particular, is driving

the growing interest in Category V protected areas. While the global community

emphasizes the conservation of biodiversity, notably

through the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is

now widely recognized that:

• The relationship between people and the rest of

nature is complex and interdependent, and therefore

the pursuit of nature conservation and natural

resource management has to take many forms and

involve many stakeholders;

• Cultural and natural perspectives are often intertwined, and nature conservation and the safeguarding of traditional values, etc., are therefore mutually

interdependent—and instruments that can achieve

both aims, and encourage a sense of stewardship

towards place, are especially valuable;

• Conservation will only succeed where it is pursued as

a partnership involving local people and is seen to be

relevant to meeting their social and economic needs;

• Traditional top-down approaches to nature conservation focused exclusively on natural and near-natural

environments are essential, but they are not sufficient: they cannot do the job of conserving biodiversity alone, they are not suited to all situations, and

indeed they have sometimes failed;

• Many landscapes previously thought of as “pristine”

are in fact the product of interaction with people over

long periods of time; and 

• There is a need to identify places where people live in

some kind of harmony with nature and use its

resources more or less sustainably, since these are

valuable in themselves and can serve as “greenprints”

for other places as well. 

As a result, thinking on protected areas has undergone a paradigm shift. Whereas protected areas were

once planned against people, now it is recognized that

they need to be planned with local people, and often for

and by them as well. Where once the emphasis was on

setting places aside, we now look to develop linkages

between strictly protected core areas and the areas

around them: economic links that bring benefits to

local people, and physical links, via ecological corridors,

that provide more space for species and natural

processes. Earlier language justified the creation of

parks on aesthetic grounds; we now advance scientific,

economic, and cultural rationales as well. Park visitors,

engaged in recreation and tourism, were once seen as

the protected area’s principal customers; increasingly,

the local community is most often recognized as the

key stakeholder. Formerly, each protected area was seen

as a unique investment in conservation; now we seek to

develop networks and systems of protected areas so

that the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem

functions can be secured at the bioregional scale. Fifty

years ago protected areas were almost entirely a national responsibility; now many are seen at least partly as an

international concern. Historically, protected areas were

about protection; now there is also a need to focus on

ecological restoration. And, most relevant to Category

V, where previously most protected areas were strictly

protected as national parks or nature reserves, now

park planners argue that they should be complemented

by other kinds of protected areas in which people live,

biodiversity thrives, and natural and cultural resources

are used sustainably. 

Category V areas are central in this new paradigm.

They can:

• Demonstrate durable resource use;

• Buffer or link more strictly protected areas;

• Conserve not only wild biodiversity but also agrobiodiversity;

• Conserve human history in structures;

• Support sound local economies in rural areas;

• Support and reward the stewardship of natural and

cultural resources;

• Help generate tourism revenue;

• Provide scope for restoration ecology; and

• Be used to set standards, and to develop management

skills, for application elsewhere.

At present the distribution of Category V protected

areas is regionally skewed towards Europe, but a significant number of such areas have been established in

other parts of the world and have far greater potential

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PROTECTED AREAS: 

THE CONTEXT FOR CATEGORY V
[4]

application. What has hitherto been lacking is the

imagination to see how this approach to the protection

of “working landscapes” can complement and reinforce

traditional parks and reserves and make a strong linkage between the conservation of nature and support for

durable rural livelihoods.

EXCERPTS FROM ADRIAN PHILLIPS’

PRESENTATION

The new paradigm for protected areas:

• from planning against local people to working

with, for, and through them

• from “setting aside” to linkages 

• from aesthetic reasons to science, economics, and

cultural rationales

• from a concern with visitors to local people

• from sites to systems 

• from islands to networks

• from protection to restoration

• from the national to international

In 1994, IUCN set up the protected areas management category system. It is based on a definition of

protected areas: “an area of land and/or sea especially

dedicated to the protection and maintenance of

biodiversity, and of natural and associated cultural

resources, and managed through legal or other

effective means.”

Protected Areas are categorized by the primary

purpose of management. Categories are as follows:

• IA strict protection of nature

• 1B wilderness protection

• II ecosystem protection and recreation

• III natural feature protection

• IV habitat management

• V landscape conservation and recreation

• VI sustainable use of natural resources

History of Protected Areas Category V:

• European origins

• 1950s to 1970s: Commission for National Parks

and Protected Areas focuses on national parks and

nature reserves

• 1978: first categories system recognizes Category V

• 1987: Lake District Symposium sees these areas as

“living models of sustainable use”

• 1988: IUCN General Assembly follow-up resolution

• 1992: Caracas World Parks Conference takes more

interest in lived-in protected areas

• 1992: World Heritage cultural landscapes adopted

• 1994: new categories system published by IUCN

• 1996: Montreal IUCN World Conservation

Congress resolution

Key features of a Category V Protected Landscapes:

• Primary aim of protected area is landscape protection and recreation

• “Landscape” = nature + people

• These are lived-in, worked landscapes

• But with special natural and cultural values

• Management should be with and through local

population

• With economic and social and environmental aims

Category V areas can:

• demonstrate durable use 

• buffer or link other protected areas

• conserve wild and agricultural biodiversity

• conserve human history

• support sound rural economies

• support and reward stewardship of natural

resources

• help generate tourism income

• provide scope for restoration ecology

• develop management skills and set standards for

application elsewhere (“greenprints”)

See Appendix C for Definitions of IUCN Protected

Areas Management Categories.

See Appendix D for a more complete description of

Category V, Protected Landscapes/Seascapes.
[5]

Fausto O. Sarmiento

Associate Director, Center for Latin American and

Caribbean Studies, The University of Georgia, USA

(Ecuador) 

Jack Rodriguez

Technical Director, Fundación para el Desarrollo de la

Región Amazónica Ecuatoriana (FUNDRAE), Ecuador

BACKGROUND

Surrounded by three major protected areas in Ecuador,

the Quijos River Valley harbors two distinct cultural

features: the Baeza area of colonist mestizo culture and

the Oyacachi area of indigenous transhumantic culture.

The sites are adjacent, separated by a ridge that divides

the watersheds of the Quijos and the Oyacachi rivers.

They are nested in deep valleys and gorges now affected

by oil pipeline and road construction.

The town of Baeza, one of the three towns founded by

the Spaniards under the Royal Seal of Spain and

demonstrating the important indigenous hegemony in

the area, has survived through the centuries as the gateway to the Oriente, or the Amazon region. Recently designated as a National Cultural Heritage Site, old Baeza

still offers a glimpse of the colonial culture through the

town’s design and architecture. The first agricultural

settlers exploited first wood, then naranjilla (a tropical

fruit), and then several different crops and pasture.

Today, eco-tourism is developing rapidly. All of these

factors have created effects on the surrounding protected areas, areas that are worth studying and conserving.

The Oyacachi River Valley also harbors indigenous

communities that migrate with their cattle and other

animals from the lowlands to the highlands. They have

created a patchwork mosaic of montane forest and

paramo, which is maintained as a working landscape

precisely because of associated activities such as the

burning of grasslands.

OPPORTUNITIES

The Quijos initiative is the first protected landscape in

Ecuador and will be the first time humans have been

included in the conservation scope of protected areas.

Areas untouched by human presence are no longer

available to set aside as national parks or pristine

reserves. Quite the contrary, it has been demonstrated

that even areas that were thought to be pristine have

actually been modified or influenced by human activity.

Therefore, new political winds in the country may help

establish protected landscapes as a workable strategy to

conserve and restore the core area (completely anthropogenic) and to maintain the buffer area (completely

“natural”).

This is totally opposite to the older idea of a

“Biosphere Reserve,” where the core area is pristine and

untouchable but a buffer zone is open to human intervention. This new approach will gradually gain acceptance as the Quijos River Valley program becomes what

is expected to be a textbook example of communitybased conservation in the tropical mountains.

CONSTRAINTS

The area has suffered extensively from mountain-related natural phenomena, particularly deadly landslides,

flooding, and earthquakes. It also faces significant pressure from a milk distribution center for pasture management and forest conversion into grassland. People

have frequently heard from conservation groups that

seem to have dubious purposes and achieve very limited

results. The people are now hesitant to accept foreign

advice and are more suspicious of the goals of conservation and development. They also lack financial

resources and comprehensive information on the

potential biodiversity richness of the area.

THE QUIJOS RIVER VALLEY: A PROSPECTIVE

PROTECTED LANDSCAPE IN THE ANDES
[6]

Giles Romulus

Director of Programmes, 

St. Lucia National Trust, St. Lucia

THE CONTEXT 

The island of St. Lucia is located at 14°N 61°W and is

part of the archipelago that stretches from the island of

Cuba off the southern tip of Florida to the island of

Trinidad off the northern coast of South America. With

a geographical area of 616 square kilometers and a population of just over 146,000 people, the island is small,

with most of the population inhabiting the coastal

areas. The rugged and mountainous interior is forested,

uninhabited, and the main source of the island’s water

supply. 

By any international standard the island is a small,

developing country with a number of developmental

and environmental problems. These problems include

high unemployment and underemployment, dependence on an export economy with bananas as the cash

crop, and tourism as the fastest growing economic sector. Environmental problems vary from deforestation,

soil erosion, increasingly high turbidity rates in coastal

waters, land and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity

in terrestrial and marine areas. All these internal problems are exacerbated by an international global system

that is based on “globalization” and “trade liberalization” and is less sympathetic to small island developing

states. More than ever, therefore, the reality of survival

at the international, national, and community levels is a

critical factor which forms part of the drive towards

sustainable development. 

It is within this context that conservation and development strategies must be developed. Conservation in St.

Lucia’s Protected Areas Plan is therefore advocated as an

indispensable requirement for a form of development

that is “...equitable, sustainable and harmonious.”1

Natural and cultural resources in the Plan are regarded

as the capital upon which St. Lucia’s development strategy can be built, as the economy is based on natural

resources. The System of Protected Areas developed

through a four-year participatory planning process was

presented to the Government of St. Lucia as a mechanism for the maintenance of that capital, which includes

forest, plants, animals, the landscape, water, and the

culture. With these premises in mind, a protected area is

defined in the Plan as:

...portions of the national territory of a country which

are placed under special management status to ensure that

the resources they contain are maintained and made

accessible for sustainable uses compatible with conservation requirements. 

THE PRASLIN PROTECTED LANDSCAPE

The Praslin Protected Landscape is one of 27 management areas in St. Lucia’s Protected Areas Plan that

covers 874 hectares of low-lying coastal lands with

xerophytic vegetation, three offshore islands, coral reefs,

sea grass beds, mangroves, mudflats, and a delta.2 The

area is of outstanding natural beauty and contains

several species of plants and animals of which many are

endemic. Traditional uses of the natural resources by the

inhabitants of the coastal communities of Praslin and

Mamiku continue. The Praslin Protected Landscape also

has the longest coastal nature trail in St. Lucia, the

Frégate Islands Nature Reserve, and Praslin Island where

a recent scientific experiment on the translocation of

the endemic lizard (Cnemidophorus vanzoi) has proven

successful. 

Over the last five years the St. Lucia National Trust has

engaged the community in a participatory planning

process that has resulted in the identification of community needs, the preparation of a community strategic

plan, and the design and implementation of projects to

meet those needs. Concurrently a Development

Committee was established, which has become nationally known and, in recent times, has grown in stature to

negotiate on behalf of the community with the prime

minister of St. Lucia for development projects. The

Development Committee is looking to develop and market the Praslin Protected Landscape as a nature/heritage

tourism site. Meanwhile, traditional canoe building

continues, and in the coastal waters seaweed cultivation

is now a thriving industry. The farmers have the reputation of producing the best seaweed in St. Lucia, a

product that has a national and regional market. The

Praslin Protected Landscape, though not formally

designated, has provided St. Lucia with a working

example of how multiple-use activities can go on without compromising the integrity of the environment. 

THE USE OF THE PROTECTED LANDSCAPE CATEGORY

IN ST. LUCIA: WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES TO ESTABLISH

THE PRASLIN PROTECTED LANDSCAPE
[7]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE USE OF 

THE PROTECTED LANDSCAPE

MANAGEMENT CATEGORY

Based on the experience and the ongoing process of

establishing the Praslin Protected Landscape, there are

several opportunities that this management category

provides:

• It provides a planning mechanism for maintaining

ecological integrity and protecting biological diversity

where plants, animals, and people can live in

harmony. 

• It is particularly valuable in areas where land is in

short supply and the optimal use of land is required

for development. 

• It is very useful where most of the land is in private

ownership and acquisition is not an option because of

financial constraints. The protected landscape

category allows for protection through the use of

other land stewardship techniques. 

• It is a more publicly and politically acceptable management category because the land is not frozen from

sustainable development activities, and traditional

activities are not eliminated but encouraged where

they are sustainable. 

• It provides an opportunity for using an integrated

approach to sustainable development where environmental considerations and socio-economic development needs can be addressed simultaneously. It is

therefore most relevant in a developing country context where there are many developmental constraints. 

• It provides the opportunity for illustrating the power

of “participatory planning” and “co-management” of

resources, which leads to community empowerment. 

• It allows communities and resource users an opportunity to continue to make a living off the land and/or

sea and even create new economic sectors (e.g., in the

case of the Praslin and Mamiku communities, seaweed

cultivation, and nature/heritage tourism). 

MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR ADVANCING 

THE PROTECTED LANDSCAPE APPROACH

IN ST. LUCIA

The major challenges are many and include the

following:

• Lack of trained professionals who understand and are

armed with the knowledge and skills from both the

natural and social sciences. 

• Insufficient published and accessible case studies on

ways and means of establishing protected landscapes

and other protected areas.

• Inadequate fiscal and other incentives that can help to

persuade landowners to protect their lands as part of

a protected landscape. 

• Though less common, there is still resistance by state

authorities to share or delegate management authority to CBOs (community-based organizations) and

NGOs (non-governmental organizations) with the

capacity and capability to co-manage protected areas. 

• Inadequate legal basis for the use of many of the protected areas management categories in St. Lucia’s

Protected Areas Plan. The Plan, though widely used by

Government and private institutions, which testifies

to its usefulness, has not been formally adopted. This

can prove a stumbling block, particularly where there

are difficult landowners who question the validity of

the plan despite the well-publicized and participatory

process leading to its development. 

• Governments tend to judge the success of a protected

area by its economic usefulness, which can lead to the

destruction of the resource base. A more balanced

approach, which also considers the intrinsic value of

the resource base, is required. 

• Raising funds for establishment and management of

protected landscapes is becoming a bigger and bigger

problem. 

1 Leslie Hudson, Yves Renard, Giles Romulus. 1992. A System of Protected Areas for St. Lucia. St. Lucia: St. Lucia National Trust.

2 The 27 management areas include 10 protected landscapes, four national parks, two national landmarks, three nature reserves, one forest reserve, and seven historic areas/sites.
[8]

Anne Drost

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

BACKGROUND

Throughout history, people have created routes for

exploring new territories and for moving goods between

different trading regions and settled communities.

Examples of such routes include the Silk Road of the

Far East, the pilgrimage route from Rome to Lourdes,

and the Mayan Trail through Central America. River and

lake systems provide ready means of transport in and

across many countries. The Nile, the Jordan River to the

Dead Sea, the Ganges, and the Danube are examples of

water routes that play a central role in the history and

culture of societies. In recent years, there has been a

growing interest in recognizing and preserving the natural and cultural values of these linear landscapes and in

linking events and sites to better understand history as a

dynamic and interrelated process. This interest is manifested in the increasing numbers of heritage corridors

that are being recognized in many parts of the world,

and more particularly, in North America.

A proposal initially put forward by Senator Jeffords of

Vermont to recognize an international heritage corridor

along the historic waterway and the adjacent lands of

the Upper Hudson River, Lake George, Lake Champlain,

and the Richelieu River (the “Champlain-Richelieu

Valley”) is currently being studied by the U.S. National

Park Service. A heritage corridor includes sites and landscapes that are both geographically and thematically

related, and provides unique frameworks for understanding the historical, cultural, and natural development of communities and their surroundings, as well as

for encouraging economic tourism development. The

rich cultural landscapes and historic sites in the

Champlain-Richelieu Valley recount an important part

of the formative history of the United States and

Canada and the relationships among early French and

English explorers and settlers, First Nation peoples, and

the natural landscape.

The cultural resources in this region, both on land and

underwater, provide a tangible link to a rich and diverse

past. They include important sacred aboriginal sites

dating from as early as 10,000 B.C. Lake Champlain and

its rocks are integral to the Abenaki traditions and are

central to their creation stories. The Lake and its tributaries have long served as important transportation

routes for Abenakis, Mohawks, and Mohicans. Samuel

de Champlain sailed into Lake Champlain in 1609. This

marked the beginning of European exploration and

settlement, which intensified over the next two centuries. Forts, shipwrecks, and historic landscapes

throughout this region recount the history of French

and English conflict in North America. This region may

be considered as the birthplace of both the United

States and Canada. Infrastructures, such as mills,

bridges, and railway stations, represent early development of industry, transportation, and recreation.

DESIGNATION & MANAGEMENT 

AS A PROTECTED LANDSCAPE

Heritage corridor designation is a relatively new concept

in the United States. At present, a general Congressional

enactment respecting heritage corridors and heritage

areas does not exist. Draft legislation has been before

Congress during the past two sessions but has not yet

been passed into law. However, since 1984 approximately 17 heritage corridors and heritage areas have been

designated by Congress through the passing of specific

bills for each designated area.

Heritage areas and corridors are defined in the draft

legislation as follows:

A place designated by Congress where natural, cultural,

historic, and recreational resources combine to form a

cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising from

patterns of human activity shaped by geography. These

patterns make National Heritage Areas representative of

the national experience through the physical features that

remain and the traditions that have evolved in the areas.

Continued use of National Heritage Areas by people whose

traditions helped shape the landscapes enhance their

significance. 

The broad purposes of formally designating a heritage

corridor are three-fold: (1) to enhance and protect

cultural landscapes, historic sites, and important natural and cultural resources; (2) to improve historical

understanding and heritage appreciation; and (3) to

stimulate community and economic development. The

ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR

IN THE CHAMPLAIN-RICHELIEU VALLEY
[9]

steps involved in designating and managing a heritage

corridor may, in general, be divided into four stages: 

(1) a feasibility study and site inventory are prepared; 

(2) the corridor is formally designated; (3) a management plan is prepared and adopted; and (4) the plan is

implemented and ongoing monitoring is put into place.

CHALLENGES

Preliminary discussions among government officials at

the federal and state/provincial levels in New York,

Vermont, and Quebec and among community organizations throughout the region regarding this crossboundary initiative have met with great interest. The

international corridor initiative clearly has great potential for improving the promotion and protection of

cultural and natural resources and further solidifying

cross-boundary relations. However, a project of this

nature including such a large geographical area that

includes two countries, two states, and one province as

well as hundreds of local governments faces many

challenges. 

These challenges include communication barriers,

administrative difficulties (defining a strategy to coordinate management effectively), political obstacles, and

adequate funding. Communication barriers, such as

different languages, are relatively easy to overcome

through technology and tolerance. Work is currently

being carried out to examine options for effective coordination of management within the corridor. Clearly,

building partnerships with existing organizations is the

key to success. Some collaborative efforts among the

different levels of government in the region already

exist, and initial funding for the project has been provided by both the public and private sector.
[10]

Michael Beresford

Director, International Centre 

for Protected Landscapes, UK

INTRODUCTION

We are fortunate to have a rich global network of protected areas representing a key component in conserving

global biodiversity. The significance and value of the

world’s large national parks—areas set aside for conservation purposes—remain undiminished. However, it is

increasingly apparent that future attention will be

focused on extending the coverage of protected areas

into areas of working landscapes. This approach is based

on safeguarding and enhancing the diversity of biological and cultural resources within viable programs of

social and economic development, with a “communityled” approach to conservation management. This is the

heart of the protected landscape concept, based on The

World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) Category V. 

PROTECTED LANDSCAPES

Protected landscapes are lived-in, working landscapes.

The planning and management of these areas must be

carried out in partnership with the local community.

Local economic initiatives and the promotion of the

local economy will shape conservation objectives.

Community participation should be legally secured, and

education and awareness-building about the objectives

of the protected landscape within the community will be

a priority. Without the support of the majority of the

local community, the conservation objectives will not be

realized.

Protected landscapes are about achieving conservation

objectives in working landscapes. The concept of stewardship is fundamental to this approach. Stewardship

means managing privately owned land on behalf of society as a whole, with future generations in mind. At the

heart of the stewardship process lies the need to enter

into agreements with landowners to secure and manage

the land in the best interests of long-term environmental conservation. This interaction between people and

the land in an environmentally, economically, and

culturally sustainable relationship is beyond the reach of

government alone. Stewardship programs must involve

landowners, local communities, commercial operators,

non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government agencies.

There is no one model to be followed in designing

stewardship programs. Rather, they must take account

of the pattern of land use and ownership, the social

structure of the area, the current state of the economy,

the cultural and political organization, and the history

and religion of the region.

Two factors are central to the success of the protected

landscape:

• Effective conservation of the natural and cultural

environment; and

• Continued viability of the local economy.

The concept of sustainable development underpins

this approach. The challenge is to define sustainable

development within the context of the protected

landscape approach. To be meaningful, the definition

must be expressed in clear, identifiable terms that reflect

both conservation values and the community’s social,

economic, and cultural interests. 

A sustainability strategy needs to be based on a series

of measures or indicators that:

• Express the state of the quality of the present

environment;

• Identify limiting factors or different types of carrying

capacity

• Assess the impact of the policies of the management

authority; and

• Measure the impact of development proposals.

The local community must have access to relevant

information and be totally involved in all the significant

stages of the process. For many of us, planning and

managing protected landscapes present a series of new

challenges as we enter the 21st century.

NEW CHALLENGES 

Protected areas have a long history of exclusive management activity. Management plans were developed with

the effect, in most cases, of decoupling the interests of

local people. In protected landscapes, management

activity must be inclusive, where the interests of the

PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGES IN THE CONSERVATION

OF WORKING LANDSCAPES: WHERE ARE WE NOW?
[11]

local communities are central to the future of the area,

enabling them to share in the responsibility and benefits

of the designation. Although many valuable initiatives

are in place, this challenge of inclusion represents a substantial change in direction and a re-ordering of priorities for many protected landscape managers, requiring

the acquisition of a range of new skills and knowledge.

We must now be seen to be implementing successful

programs on the ground that achieve conservation

objectives and visibly improve the social and economic

conditions for people living within, or just outside, the

area’s boundaries. Increasingly, the management

challenge of these special areas will be focused on that

difficult point where conservation requirements and

community needs diverge. As the front-line conservation

professionals, protected landscape managers find themselves placed at the center of this challenge.

Building co-management capacity, supported by active

community participation, will become more and more

important. Significantly, the point at which many of the

key decisions about the management of these areas are

made is moving to the community level, where the protected landscape manager is centrally involved.

There is growing recognition internationally that

managing a protected landscape is now akin to managing a very special business enterprise, with responsibilities for some of the most important natural assets on

the planet. Increasingly, protected landscape agencies

are looking to industry and commerce as sources of the

necessary skills.

Static or diminishing budgets from governments

require innovative responses from protected landscape

managers to develop new sources of revenue from environmentally compatible activities. New types of agencies

are emerging, with non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) and the private sector becoming more significant players. There is a strong emphasis on partnership

and collaborative management arrangements. We are

witnessing a growing transfer of responsibilities from

the traditional public sector model. This shift requires

changes in the funding and operational management

processes.

To respond to these changes and address the challenges ahead, we need to improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of protected landscape managers by building

on traditional experience and knowledge and placing a

range of new management skills at the core of their

activities.

NEW SKILLS 

As increasing levels of management effectiveness are

required by communities, governments, and aid

agencies, so we need effective managers to rise to the

challenges. In addition to the traditional environmental

skills—most commonly based in the natural sciences—

there is a need to link to a new range of skills with a

strong management culture as a core element.

Such skills are required to:

• Prepare and present management plans based on principles of partnership where local community interests

are central;

• Prepare corporate financial plans containing detailed

cost and budget proposals to achieve conservation

objectives; and

• Develop efficient and effective management systems

and structures.

More specifically, such skills are likely to include:

• Communication, presentation, negotiation, and

mediation techniques;

• Conflict management and resolution—the ability to

prepare an assessment of a conflict situation and to

develop a strategy to manage or resolve the conflict;

• Consensus building—developing participatory

decision-making techniques, understanding the

dynamics of group decision-making, and reaching

inclusive solutions;

• Collaborative management—understanding and

investing in co-management activities, developing

processes, and facilitating agreements;

• Organizing, directing, and managing participation

programs, defining key principles of good practice,

and engaging interest groups and stakeholders;

• Incorporating social concerns into management

plans—organizing community appraisals and participatory action research;
[12]

• Integrating conservation and development programs—

designing environmental strategies and action plans,

running Integrated Conservation and Development

Projects, understanding Environmental Impact

Assessments, Environmental Audits, policy appraisal,

and policy evaluation techniques;

• Directing environmental education, information, and

interpretation programs—raising awareness, building

support, organizing campaigns and marketing, seeking partners in provision, and understanding different

models, concepts, and contexts; and

• Organizing information management—gaining access,

prioritizing, managing and dissemination, Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) and Information

Technology (IT) techniques.

CONCLUSION

Protected landscapes are about achieving conservation

objectives in working landscapes, based on agreements

with landowners to secure and manage the land in the

best interests of long-term environmental conservation.

The management challenge will be focused on that difficult point where conservation requirements and community needs diverge. To respond to this challenge we

need to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and professionalism of protected landscape managers so they can

draw on a wide range of new management skills. 

EXCERPTS FROM MICHAEL

BERESFORD’S PRESENTATION

As the rights and responsibilities of local

communities are increasingly valued, building

co-management capacity, supported by active

community participation, will become more

and more important. Significantly, the point

at which many of the key decisions about the

management of our protected areas are made

is moving to the community level.

Static or diminishing budgets from governments require innovative responses from

protected area managers to develop new

sources of investment from environmentally

compatible activities. Additionally, new types

of protected areas agencies are emerging, with

non-governmental organizations and the

private sector becoming more significant with

a strong emphasis on partnership and collaborative management arrangements. We are

witnessing a growing transfer of responsibilities from the traditional public sector model,

requiring changes in the funding and operational management process.

INDICATORS OF CHANGE

There is now widespread and unchallenged

recognition that management activity must be

more inclusive, where the interests of the 

local communities are central to the future of

the area.

This challenge of inclusion represents a substantial change in the direction and a reordering of priorities for many protected area

managers, requiring the acquisition of a range

of new skills and knowledge.

To respond to these changes and address the

challenges ahead we need to improve the

effectiveness, efficiency and, above all, the professionalism of protected area managers, by

building on traditional experience and knowledge and placing a range of new management

skills at the core of their activities.
[13]

SUMMARY OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Session facilitated by:

John Elder 

Discussion groups facilitated by:

Jessica Brown

Rolf Diamant

Anne Drost

Virginia Farley

Phil Huffman

Destry Jarvis

Michaela Stickney

Jackie Tuxill

Jennifer Waite

After a series of presentations on the protected

landscape approach as applied to different

landscapes around the world, and a panel

discussion exploring the challenges ahead for

landscape conservation, forum participants

broke into small groups of six to eight individuals. Their charge for the afternoon was to

discuss ideas for advancing the protected landscape approach, grounds for hope for the

future of conservation, and opportunities for

international cooperation.

The following summary describes the key

points that came out of these discussions. We

compiled these points from the notes provided

by facilitators, and regret any omissions or

misinterpretations.

SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO HELP 

US MOVE FORWARD

Developing a description of 

the protected landscape concept

Participants suggested that a clear, readily accessible

description of the protected landscape approach and its

principles is needed to establish a common understanding among practitioners and the public. The importance

of protecting the cultural as well as natural values of the

landscape needs to be emphasized. As an example, in

conducting studies for heritage corridors and heritage

areas, inventories should take into account factors that

are more human-oriented (not just flora, fauna, and climate). Models need to serve human needs. The collaborative nature of this approach is critical.

Developing a public outreach strategy

It is important to develop a strategy that delivers a message about protected landscapes to the public. This will

help diminish fears and overcome the anxieties of those

who misunderstand the concept. It is important to communicate the message clearly and avoid using professional jargon. One suggestion for delivering the message

was to publish a series of opinion-editorial pieces. 

Developing skills to prepare professionals 

for the changing nature of conservation

Participants felt that skills development for land managers and other conservation professionals will be critical in the coming years. As an example, it will be important to integrate conflict resolution techniques into

landscape conservation programs so that all parties benefit. Facilitation training is needed for many conservation practitioners. Listening skills are also important;

professionals in the conservation field need to become

better listeners. It is particularly important to listen to

those who are living and working in the landscapes. 

Encouraging exchange among practitioners

Participants felt that an exchange of ideas among conservation practitioners will be extremely important in

the coming years. This includes creating avenues for collaboration and coalition-building (both horizontally
[14]

and vertically — that is, within the region, country, and

globally. The impetus for this should come from the

bottom up. It is important to recognize the diversity

within and among various organizations.

The conservation community needs to create periodic

opportunities for face-to-face dialogue, for sharing

experiences and success stories, and for shared problemsolving. These discussions should include both successful models and those that have been less successful, as

we can learn from our mistakes. One method suggested

for doing this would be through the sponsorship of

more fellowship exchanges as well as other opportunities such as this public forum.

Also important are the promotion of networking

among conservation organizations and the utilization of

the many already existing connections.

Working at the community level

Several suggestions were made for pursuing conservation work at a community level:

• Promote community visioning models such as Vital

Communities developed in White River Junction,

Vermont. This process helps people develop a vision

and goals for their community. Part of the success of

this process is to specifically assign responsibility for

follow-up actions to pursue these communityidentified goals. 

• Encourage and help communities to make maps

based on their community’s vision before a developer

draws the map for them. One participant noted,

“Whoever makes the maps sets the agenda.”

• It is critical to encourage community selfdetermination.

• Celebrate “sense of place.” It is important to help

people make strong connections to the places where

they live, work, and play. They are then more likely to

protect those places.

• Promote the value of cultural diversity within a

community or a region.

• Help local organizations find their power base.

Considering the local economy

It was suggested that rural economic development be

included in any landscape protection plan. Finding ways

to enhance “value-added conservation products,”

drawing on the traditions of a place can increase the

economic return to communities within the region.

It is important to address the needs of the business

community, bringing businesspeople into coalitions and

including them in the visioning process.

Other points to remember

• This must not become an elitist model.

• Don’t ignore conflict; conflict is an important part of

a collaborative process.

• Build trust. People are suspicious of top-down initiatives. The government agencies involved in these

initiatives need to put their cards on the table and

work effectively with other organizations and with

communities. 

• Recognize that projects perceived as “simple” (a trail, a

protected piece of land) can be very effective in community-building. Collaboration on these projects

touches upon many issues of community, science, and

personal values.

Potential role for the Conservation Study Institute

Participants suggested the Conservation Study Institute

at the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical

Park could play several potential roles in collaboration

with other organizations, such as:

• Convener

• Informer

• Continuity-provider

• Bridge-builder
[15]

THOUGHTS ON THE 

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Many participants felt that we should explore ways to

communicate the ideas and thinking of the international conservation community more effectively here in the

United States. Currently within the conservation movement in both the United States and internationally,

there are many shared values and goals, but not a shared

understanding of methods. 

In a discussion of globalization, participants recognized a paradox in the global push towards competition

whereas conservation work requires collaboration. The

pressures of globalization or westernization are especially strong in developing countries and should be countered with an increased emphasis placed on the value

and credibility of other cultures.

There were several suggested areas where non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as IUCN could provide assistance, especially in developing countries. Many

countries need help in establishing a legislative framework for creating protected areas. These countries, and

especially the responsible government offices in these

countries, often need technical support for managing

protected areas as well.

Many people felt that the international community

should explore ways to share information about successful projects more frequently.

OTHER QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

Finally, there were several additional observations made

in the small groups. These ideas are included here for

further thought.

• Is there a way to pursue the protected landscapes

approach without using a “designation?” How can we

build in flexibility when we are talking about the legal

designation of protected landscapes? Traditionally,

legal models are not very flexible.

• What voices are not represented at this meeting?

Artistic community; Religious/spiritual community

(Green Cross, etc.); Tribal preservation officers (cultural resources officers for Native American tribes)

• How do we as an international community learn to

understand that what we see as “natural” landscapes

are actually “cultural” landscapes in many countries

(that they are a product of man’s working of the

land)?

• How do we as a culture celebrate the products of our

working landscapes? How do we make a direct connection between our community and the creation of

its food? 

• Can we change ethics and perspectives at the community level regarding public (or common) land and private property by emphasizing ownership as a responsibility as well as a right?

• What is the most effective way to change decisionmaking at the highest levels of governments and of

corporations? 

• How do we obtain an invitation for involvement from

local communities when the area in question is very

large?

SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR HOPE 

ON WHICH WE CAN BUILD

Participants found numerous reasons to be positive

about the future of conservation worldwide. One of the

most important is that there is an increased public

recognition that we are losing valuable landscapes.

Recognizing this problem is the first step towards doing

something about it.

There are now 30,000 different protected areas worldwide. There has been an increase in trans-border cooperation in conservation, creating a viable role for the

“peace park” model. At a country-specific level, the

Peruvian government has recently passed legislation

that is more inclusive than traditional land protection

models in incorporating local people into the decisionmaking process.

Participants also found hope in a growing movement

worldwide that shifts power and responsibility away

from national and state governments toward the local

community. This shift does not represent an abdication

of power by governments, but more a willingness to

share that power. More people and organizations are

working at the community level, with an increase worldwide in the number of NGOs. NGOs are a powerful

force to effect change, and were described at this session
[16]

as an “icon of hope” because people who work with

them are willing to invest their time, money, and energy

to make a difference.

There is hope with the global growth in communication and exchange. The rise of internet linkages and

global communication allows individual project managers to feel a part of an international conservation

community. People don’t work in a “data vacuum,” simply looking at one resource type alone. “Everyone is connected to everyone else’s map layers,” meaning that a

map can contain information on a wide variety of

resources including heritage sites, conservation areas,

farms, and trails. Increasingly, more than one community, state, or country is entering jointly into dialogue

about issues that affect us all. 

Many people found hope in the fact that, more often,

we are linking natural and cultural issues rather than

keeping these concepts separate. Parallel constituent

groups concerned with cultural resources and land conservation are interacting. And we are learning to involve

the people who live within landscapes. Also, there is a

growing recognition of the importance of cultural diversity and different cultural perspectives, with a growing

respect for native communities.

Finally, participants found grounds for hope in the

high quality of conservation professionals working in

the field today. Professionals rooted in the land offer a

wealth of talent, commitment, and understanding.

These professionals are being tapped by a wider variety

of initiatives, building a sense of “let’s learn together.”

Projects continue to become more complex, making this

cooperation essential. And, there is a positive change

taking place in leadership internationally. It has become

more flexible and innovative, including younger people

and more women.

The convenors of the public forum—the Conservation Study

Institute, QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment, and

Shelburne Farms—would like to thank all of the facilitators

for their help in guiding these small group discussions, and

everyone for their thoughtful participation. 
[17]

Arendt, Randall, and Robert D. Yaro.

"Rural Landscape Planning in the

Connecticut River Valley of

Massachusetts." APT Bulletin 21, no.

2 (1989): 13-20.

Bernard, Ted, and Jora Young. The

Ecology of Hope: Communities

Collaborate for Sustainability. Gabriola

Island, BC and East Haven, CT: New

Society Publishers, 1997.

Bray, Paul M. "The Heritage Area

Phenomenon, Where it is Coming

From." Cultural Resource Management

17, no. 8 (1994): 3-4.

Brown, Jessica L., and Brent A. Mitchell,

eds. "Stewardship: An International

Perspective." Environments 26, no. 1

(1998).

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and

Fausto Sarmiento, guest eds.

Landscape Stewardship: New Directions

In Conservation of Nature and Culture,

The George Wright Forum 17, no. 1

(2000).

Conzen, Michael P., ed. The Making of

the American Landscape. Boston:

Unwin Hyman, 1990. 

Council of Europe, UNEP and European

Centre for Nature Conservation. The

Pan-European Biological and Landscape

Diversity Strategy. Strasbourg: Council

of Europe, 1996.

Countryside Commission. The Lake

District Declaration. Cheltenham:

Countryside Commission, 1987.

Cronon, William, ed. Uncommon

Ground, Toward Reinventing Nature.

New York and London: W. W. Norton

& Company, Inc., 1995. 

Diamant, Rolf. "National Heritage

Corridors: Redefining the

Conservation Agenda of the '90s." The

George Wright Forum 8, no. 2 (1991):

13-16.

Foster, John, ed. Protected Landscapes:

Summary Proceedings of an

International Symposium, Lake District,

United Kingdom, 5-10 October 1987.

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1988. 

George Wright Society. Research in

Protected Areas. Papers from IV World

Congress on National Parks and

Protected Areas. The George Wright

Forum 9, nos. 3 and 4 (1992).

Gordon-McCutchan. R. C. The Taos

Indians and the Battle for Blue Lake.

Santa Fe: Red Crane Books, 1991.

Groth, Paul, and Todd W. Bressi, eds.

Understanding Ordinary Landscapes.

New Haven: Yale University Press,

1997.

Hiss, Tony. The Experience of Place. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

Holdgate, M., and A. Phillips. "Protected

Areas in Context," in New Practices in

Integrated Protected Areas Management.

London: Chapman and Hill, in press.

Hough, Michael. Out of Place: Restoring

Identity to the Regional Landscape. New

Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1990.

IUCN. Categories, Objectives and Criteria

for Protected Areas. Morges, IUCN,

1978.

_____. Guidelines for Protected Area

Management Categories. Gland and

Cambridge: IUCN, 1994.

_____. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth

World Congress on National Parks and

Protected Areas. Edited by Jeffrey A.

McNeely. Gland: IUCN, 1993.

_____. Protected Landscapes, Experience

Around the World. Gland and

Cambridge: IUCN, 1987.

IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. Caring for the

Earth. Gland: IUCN, 1991.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. A Sense of

Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven: Yale

Univ. Press, 1994.

Jacques, D. "The rise of cultural landscapes." International Journal of

Heritage Studies 1, no. 2 (1995): 91-

101.

Kemf, Elizabeth, ed. The Law of the

Mother, Protecting Indigenous Peoples in

Protected Areas. San Francisco: Sierra

Club Books, 1993.

Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and

Stephen C. Trombulak, eds. The

Future of the Northern Forest. Hanover,

NH: University Press of New England

(Middlebury College Press), 1994.

Knight, Richard L., and Peter B. Landers,

eds. Stewardship Across Boundaries.

Washington, D.C. and Covelo, CA:

Island Press, 1998.

Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography

of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of

America's Man-Made Landscape. New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Lewis, Connie, ed. Managing Conflicts in

Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN, 1996.

Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle

Mile: American Roadside Architecture.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,

1985.

Lippard, Lucy R. The Lure of the Local:

Senses of Place in a Multicentered

Society. New York: The New Press,

1997.

Lucas, P. H. C. Protected Landscapes, A

Guide for Policy-Makers and Planners.

London: Chapman & Hall, 1992.

MacKaye, Benton. The New Exploration:

A Philosophy of Regional Planning.

Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,

1962.

Mastran, Shelly S. Rural Conservation.

Washington, D.C.: National Trust for

Historic Preservation, 1993.

FOR FURTHER READING
[18]

McMahon, Edward T., and Sara S.

Hollberg. Better Models for

Development in the Shenandoah Valley.

The Conservation Fund and the Valley

Conservation Council, 1999.

McNeely, Jeffrey A., ed. Expanding

Partnerships In Conservation.

Washington, D.C. and Covelo, CA:

Island Press (for IUCN), 1995.

McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R.

Miller, eds. National Parks,

Conservation, and Development, The

Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining

Society. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984. 

McNeely, Jeffrey A., and David Pitt.

Culture and Conservation: The Human

Dimension of Environmental Planning.

London and New York, Croom Helm,

1985.

Mitchell, John Hanson. Walking towards

Walden: A Pilgrimage in Search of Place.

Reading, MA and New York: AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Inc.,

1995.

Montana Land Reliance and Land Trust

Exchange. Private Options: Tools and

Concepts for Land Conservation.

Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1982.

Munasinghe, Mohan, and Jeffrey

McNeely, eds. Protected Area

Economics and Policy: Linking

Conservation and Sustainable

Development. Washington, D.C.:

World Bank and IUCN, 1994.

Russell, Emily W.B. People and the Land

through Time: Linking Ecology and

History. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press,

1997.

Stevens, Stan, ed. Conservation Through

Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples

and Protected Areas. Washington, D.C.

and Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1997.

Stokes, Samuel N., A. Elizabeth Watson,

Genevieve P. Keller, and J. Timothy

Keller. Saving America's Countryside-A

Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore:

The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989.

Stolton, Sue, and Nigel Dudley, eds.

Partnerships for Protection: New

Strategies for Planning and Management

for Protected Areas. London: Earthscan

Publications Ltd. for WWF and IUCN,

1999.

Thompson, George F., ed. Landscape in

America. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press,

1995.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., et al., The Landscape

of Conservation Stewardship: The Report

of the Stewardship Initiative Feasibility

Study. Woodstock, VT: Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National Historical Park,

Conservation Study Institute, and

Woodstock Foundation, 2000.

UNESCO. Convention Concerning the

Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage. (adopted by the

General Conference of UNESCO at its

17th session, Paris, 16 November

1972). Paris: UNESCO, 1972.

_____. Operational Guidelines for the

Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage (WHC/2/revised:

February 1996). Paris: UNESCO,

1996.

U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. National

Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for

Evaluating and Documenting Rural

Historic Landscapes, by Linda Flint

McClelland, J. Timothy Keller,

Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z.

Melnick. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, 1990.

_____. National Register Bulletin 38:

Guidelines for Evaluating and

Documenting Traditional Cultural

Properties. by Patricia L. Parker and

Thomas F. King. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, 1990.

_____. Preservation Brief 36. Protecting

Cultural Landscapes: Planning,

Treatment and Management of Historic

Landscapes. by Charles A. Birnbaum.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service,

1994.

United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development

(UNCED). Agenda 21—Action Plan for

the Next Century. Rio de Janeiro:

UNCED, 1992.

von Droste, Bernd, Harold Plachter, and

Mechtild Rossler. Cultural Landscapes

of Universal Value, Components of a

Global Strategy. Jena, Stuttgart, and

New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag in

cooperation with UNESCO, 1995.

Western, David. In the Dust of

Kilimanjaro. Washington, D.C. and

Covelo, CA: Island Press, Shearwater

Books, 1997.

Western, David, and R. Michael Wright,

eds. Shirley C. Strum, assoc. ed.

Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Proceedings

of a workshop held in Airlie, VA, Oct.

18-22, 1993. Washington, D.C.:

Island Press, 1994.
APPENDICES

A. Agenda for the Working Session

B. Participant List

C. Participant Biographies

D. Participant Contact Information

E. IUCN Protected Areas 

Management Categories

F. IUCN Category V Protected

Landscapes/Seascapes Definition

G. World Heritage Convention

Definition of Cultural Landscapes 
[20]

Friday, June 18, 1999

Shelburne Farms, Shelburne, Vermont

AGENDA

The broad aims are to:

• Explore successful experiences with conservation of working landscapes; 

• Foster an exchange of ideas among practitioners from diverse regions of the world; and

• Define future challenges and international collaboration in support of protecting working landscapes.

PUBLIC FORUM

9:00 Welcome and Introduction to the Public Forum

Alec Webb, President, Shelburne Farms

Destry Jarvis, Assistant Director, External Affairs, National Park Service

Nora Mitchell, Director, Conservation Study Institute

9:30 Panel of Presentations

Moderator: Jessica Brown, Vice President for International Programs, 

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Adrian Phillips, Chair of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas

An International Perspective on Protecting Landscapes: Experience from Around the World 

Fausto Sarmiento, Associate Director, Center for Latin American 

and Caribbean Studies at The University of Georgia and

Jack Rodriguez, Technical Director of FUNDRAE, Ecuador

The Quijos River Valley of Ecuador: A Proposed Protected Landscape in the Andes

Giles Romulus, Director of the St. Lucia National Trust

The Praslin Protected Landscape: Working with Communities to Establish Protected Areas

Anne Drost, Lake Champlain Heritage Corridor Coordinator 

for QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment and

Ann Cousins, Consultant, Preservation Trust of Vermont and 

the National Trust for Historic Preservation

International Heritage Conservation Initiatives in the Champlain-Richelieu Valley

11:30 The Challenges Ahead: Panel Questions and Answers

Moderator: Jessica Brown

12:00 Adjourn Public Forum

APPENDIX A

INTERNATIONAL CONCEPTS IN PROTECTED LANDSCAPES: 

EXPLORING THEIR VALUE FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTHEAST

A Public Forum and Workshop on Landscape Stewardship
[21]

WORKSHOP ON LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

12:30 Introduction to the Workshop 

Nora Mitchell, Director, Conservation Study Institute

1:30 Michael Beresford, Co-Director, International Centre for Protected Landscapes, Wales

State of the Art: Professional Challenges in the Conservation of Working Landscapes

2:00 Small group discussion on current challenges, advancing the protected landscape approach, 

and exploring opportunities for international cooperation 

Facilitator: John Elder, Professor of English and Environmental Studies, Middlebury College

3:15 Share observations from small group discussions 

Facilitator: John Elder

4:15 Closing Comments

4:30 Adjourn 
[22]

Michael Beresford

Michael Beresford trained as a land

manager, landscape architect, and environmental planner. He has over 25 years

of experience as a working professional

in protected landscapes management,

culminating as Director of the Brecon

Beacons National Park in Wales—a protected landscape. 

In 1991, with Professor John Aitchison,

he established the International Centre

for Protected Landscapes (ICPL) at

Aberystwyth in Wales. ICPL is an advisory, training, and research agency linked

to the University of Wales. Its mission is

to safeguard and enhance both cultural

and natural facilities within viable programs of economic and social development—the heart of the protected

landscape approach.

During the past eight years, he has

written widely on protected landscape

issues and established training and

research programs with Moi University

in Kenya, the Kenya Wildlife Service, the

University of the South Pacific, and the

South Pacific Regional Environmental

Programme.

Michael has been an active member of

IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas since 1991. He is also a member

of the Commission on Economic, Environmental and Social Policy. He sits on

the Collaborative Management Working

Group.

Jessica Brown

Jessica Brown is Vice President for

International Programs at QLF/Atlantic

Center for the Environment, where she

is responsible for training, technical

assistance, policy research, and peer

exchange programs focusing on land

conservation and stewardship. The program, in partnership with local institutions in northeastern North America

and abroad, has reached over 350 conservation professionals and community

leaders in target regions of Latin America, the Caribbean, Central Europe, and

the Middle East.

Before joining the QLF staff in 1985,

Jessica spent three years in the Turks

and Caicos Islands working with local

conservation and community development projects. During 1993 she spent a

sabbatical leave in Central Europe

researching trends in stewardship of

rural landscapes. More recently, her

international work has included training

and research projects in Costa Rica, the

Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and St. Lucia. She has worked as a

consultant for clients including the

National Park Service, WWF-International, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the German

Marshall Fund of the United States.

Jessica is a member of the IUCN World

Commission on Protected Areas and the

IUCN Collaborative Management Working Group, and serves on governing and

advisory boards for several nonprofit

organizations. She has a master’s degree

from Clark University and a bachelor’s

degree from Brown University. Her

recent publications focus on topics related to stewardship, private land conservation, and the changing role of protected

areas in society. 

Megan Camp

Megan Camp is Vice President and

Program Director of Shelburne Farms, a

1,400-acre working farm and nonprofit

environmental education center whose

mission is to cultivate a conservation

ethic by teaching and demonstrating the

stewardship of agricultural and natural

resources. Megan is currently on the

boards of the Statewide Environmental

Programs (SWEEP), Vermont Ag in the

Classroom, the State of Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Advisory Council,

the University of Vermont Extension

Service Advisory Council, and the Preservation Trust of Vermont. She has been

involved since 1990 as a lead consultant

in partnership projects with the Institute for Sustainable Communities working in community-based environmental

education projects in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia.

Ann Cousins

Ann Cousins is a Field Representative

for the Preservation Trust of Vermont

and the National Trust for Historic

Preservation. In this shared-staff position, she represents the resources of

both organizations in providing direct

assistance to organizations, municipalities, and individuals involved in historic

preservation or community development

projects. The Vermont Field Service program is a pilot project developed under a

grant to the National Trust from the

National Endowment for the Arts and

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Prior to working for the Preservation

Trust of Vermont, Ann was the Cultural

Resources Coordinator for the Lake

Champlain Basin Program, where she

supported local heritage tourism initiatives in the New York and Vermont

Champlain Valley. Ann serves on the

Board of Preservation Action and on the

Advisory Committee for the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve.

Anne Drost

Anne joined QLF in February 1999 to

work primarily on the Champlain-Richelieu Valley Heritage Corridor project.

Since 1994, she has worked as a lawyer

at the firm of Martineau Walker in Montreal. Her legal practice is concentrated

primarily in the areas of land use, environmental, municipal, and property law.

Anne teaches environmental law and

municipal law in the McGill Faculty of

Law. She is the President of the Heritage

Legislation Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites

(Canada) (ICOMOS). She is also a member of the Lake Champlain Basin Program’s Cultural Tourism Advisory

Committee and is an active board member of the Organizing Committee for the

Canadian Rowing Championship. Anne

has published several articles, including

“Ecosystem Management in Lake Champlain” in the Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law; “Sustainable

Development and Aboriginal Rights in

Canada” in the International Journal of

Comparative Law; and “Developing Sustainable Tourism for World Heritage

Sites” in International Tourism Research. 

Anne received a B.A in art history from

the University of Victoria, a Diploma in

French Language Studies from the

Sorbonne University, Paris, and a combined Civil and Common Laws Degree

from McGill University, Montreal. In

APPENDIX B

BIOGRAPHIES
[23]

1998, she completed a Masters Degree in

Environmental Law from the Vermont

Law School.

John Elder

John Elder has taught since 1973 at

Middlebury College and the Bread Loaf

School of English. His special interests

as a teacher and writer include environmental education, Romantic and

contemporary poetry, Japan’s haiku

tradition, and American nature writing.

John holds a split appointment in

English and environmental studies at

Middlebury. He has served as Director of

Environmental Studies and has played a

role in developing the interdisciplinary

character of that program.

Among John Elder’s publications are

Imagining the Earth: Poetry and the Vision of

Nature, Following the Brush (essays about

classical Japanese culture), and Reading

the Mountains of Home. This last volume,

published by Harvard University Press in

1998, connects Robert Frost’s great

poem “Directive” with the human and

natural history of Vermont. It is organized as a series of hikes from Bristol,

where John and his family make their

home, up the ridge to where Frost had a

house.

John has also edited or co-edited a

number of volumes, including The Norton Book of Nature Writing (with Robert

Finch), Spirit and Nature (with Steven

Rockefeller), Family of Earth and Sky:

Indigenous Tales of Nature from Around the

World (with Hertha Wong), and American

Nature Writers. His essays frequently

appear in such periodicals as Orion and

Wild Earth.

John serves as advisor to Stories in the

Land, the Orion Society’s program in

environmental education. He has been

active in the formation of a grassroots

environmental group in Bristol called

the Watershed Center. He has also

enjoyed participating in the Stewardship

Initiative—an outreach program and

dialogue sponsored by Vermont’s first

national park, the Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National Historical Park in

Woodstock.

Nora Mitchell

Nora Mitchell is the Director of the

National Park Service’s recently established Conservation Study Institute. The

Institute provides a forum for the

National Park Service and the greater

conservation community to discuss the

history of conservation, the practice 

of conservation today, and future directions in the field. Institute programs

encompass training and education,

research, and sustaining knowledge networks within the conservation community. Nora is currently developing the

program agenda for the Institute in

partnership with the Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National Historical Park, the

Woodstock Foundation, the University

of Vermont’s School of Natural

Resources; Quebec Labrador Foundation’s Atlantic Center for the Environment, and Shelburne Farms. 

For eight years prior to this, Nora

served as founding director of the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation,

the National Park Service’s technical

center for research, planning, and preservation stewardship of significant cultural landscapes. Based at the Frederick

Law Olmsted National Historic Site, the

Center fields teams of landscape professionals to work on cultural landscape

projects across the country. 

In her 18-year career with the National

Park Service, Nora has worked on both

the natural and cultural resource management of many national parks and on

the development of national policy and

guidelines. As a 1988 Dewitt Wallace

Fellow in Historic Preservation, Nora

spent a four-month sabbatical with the

United Kingdom Countryside Commission studying cultural landscape

programs. Since then, Nora has actively

promoted the recognition and protection of cultural landscapes internationally. She is currently a member of the

IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, sits on the board of US/

ICOMOS—the national committee of

the International Council on Monuments and Sites—and served as the first

chair of the Historic Landscape Committee of US/ ICOMOS. She also serves

on the board of the Alliance for Historic

Landscape Preservation, a US/Canadian

organization. Nora has also worked with

cultural resource agencies in Canada

and Norway on landscape preservation

projects. Nora is the author of numerous papers, including a recent article on

stewardship in Environments and a

chapter in two books, Cultural Landscapes

of Universal Value and Nara (Japan)

Conference on Authenticity. 

Adrian Phillips 

Adrian Phillips has worked in national

and international organizations in the

environmental and countryside fields

for nearly 40 years. Trained as a geographer and planner, he has worked for

UNEP in Kenya and IUCN in Switzerland. He was Director General of the

Countryside Commission for 11 years

until 1992. He now holds a part-time

chair at Cardiff University, United

Kingdom. Since 1994, he has been Chair

of IUCN’s World Commission on

Protected Areas (WCPA).

In his time with the Countryside

Commission, he worked to promote the

ideas of protected landscapes internationally and organized the seminal 1987

Lake District Symposium. In WCPA, he

has consistently argued for greater use

of Category V approaches, believing that

this is a means of linking conservation

and sustainable use of natural resources.

Jack Rodríguez

In 1982, Jack Rodríguez graduated

from San Gabriel High School with a

diploma in chemical biology. His background is in the field of rights and

administration from the Universidad

Central and in hotel management and

tourism, but he has always been connected with ecosystem conservation.

From 1985 to 1990, Jack worked for the

Agency Samoa Turismo. In 1990, he

became the secretary of FUNDRAE

(Fundación para el Desarrollo de la

Región Amazónica Ecuatoriana), and in

1995, the manager of HOTURIS, Inc. He

has been a delegate to several international ecotourism meetings.

For 10 years, FUNDRAE has worked

with communities in the Ecuadorian
[24]

Amazon region, running sustainable

development programs. FUNDRAE was

the driving force for the creation of the

Greater Sumaco Ecological Reserve,

which is approximately 300,000

hectares, located in the province of

Napo, Ecuador. It was also the backbone

for the declaration of the city of Baeza as

a Cultural Heritage Site, established in

1995 in Ecuador. Jack and his colleagues

at FUNDRAE have been monitoring the

zones of influence of the Papallacta

Project, which provides drinking water

for the city of Quito. FUNDRAE has

been promoting ecotourism in a rational

form in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Its

future project will be the establishment

of a protected cultural landscape within

IUCN’s Category V in the Quijos River

Valley. They are working with Dr. Fausto

Sarmiento at the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of

Georgia, who has helped with various

projects in sustainability. In December

of 1998, Jack, representing FUNDRAE,

participated in the International

Symposium of Mountain Sustainable

Development (Andean Mountain Association symposium) in Quito, where he

led a field trip to the Quijos River Valley.

Giles Romulus

Giles Romulus is currently the Director of Programmes at the St. Lucia

National Trust. He is also a member of

IUCN’s Commission on Protected Areas;

a member of the Caribbean Conservation Association; a member of the St.

Lucia Naturalists’ Society; a member of

the Folk Research Centre in St. Lucia; a

Director of the St. Lucia Tourist Board;

the Chairman of the Ministry of

Tourism’s Product Development Committee in St. Lucia; and a member of the

National Commission for UNESCO’s

Sub-Committee on Science. He is currently leading the planning process for

the designation of the world-famous

Pitons as a World Heritage Site and is

participating in the establishment of

one national park and one protected

landscape in St. Lucia. 

Giles holds a Bachelors degree with

honors in Geography and a PostGraduate Diploma with distinction in

Environmental Studies and Resource

Management from the University of the

West Indies. He also holds a PostGraduate Diploma in Latin American

and Caribbean Studies and a Master in

Environmental Studies (Environmental

Planning and Resource Management)

from York University in Canada. Giles

was the Project Coordinator/Planner for

the project, which resulted in the publication of St. Lucia’s protected areas

plan. 

Fausto Sarmiento

Fausto Sarmiento is adjunct graduate

faculty of Ecology and Associate Director of the Center for Latin American and

Caribbean Studies. His research focuses

on restoration of neotropical montane

landscapes. He is President of the

Andean Mountain Association (AMA)

and organized the III International

Symposium on Sustainable Mountain

Development; also, he was inaugural

keynote speaker at the IV Latin American Congress of Ecology in Peru, and

chaired the workshop on Mountain

Protected Areas for the first Latin American Congress of National Parks, in

Colombia. 

In Ecuador, his native country, he was

Executive Director of the National

Museum of Natural Sciences and was an

ecological/environmental consultant. He

is on the board of several conservation

organizations and has served as a

regional expert for issues of biodiversity

conservation and sustainable development. In April 1999, the Honor Society

for International Scholars Phi Beta

Delta, Tau Chapter, recognized him as

the “Outstanding Faculty of the Year.”

Fausto is author of several articles on

restoration of Tropandean landscapes

and books on Ecuadorian ecology. He

has recently been engaged in a multidisciplinary research project for comparative ecology of the highland-lowland

continuum of Andean equatorial forests.

Preliminary results of his work are

summarized in Desde la Selva hasta el Mar:

Antología Ecologíca del Ecuador, published

in 1987 by the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, Quito. 

He holds a BS degree from Catholic

University of Ecuador, Quito (1988), an

MS degree from Ohio State University,

Columbus(1991), and a PhD from the

University of Georgia, Athens(1996). 

Barbara Slaiby

Barbara Slaiby is the Program Coordinator for the Conservation Study

Institute at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller

National Historical Park in Woodstock,

Vermont. In this capacity, she helps to

plan and coordinate a variety of trainings, workshops, and publications.

Concurrently, she works as a ranger at

the Park, interpreting conservation and

land stewardship in the context of American conservation. Previously, Barbara

worked for QLF/the Atlantic Center for

the Environment for several years as the

Northern New England program coordinator. During this time, she developed

environmental education programs in

Vermont and New Hampshire schools

focusing on local rivers. Working with

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S.

Forest Service, and local consultants,

students learned about river ecology,

water quality, land-use issues, and the

reintroduction of Atlantic salmon.

Barbara also wrote publications on

Vermont agriculture and fisheries and

represented QLF on a fellowship

exchange in Scotland. 

From 1983-1985, Barbara worked as a

fisheries extension agent in rural Nepal

with the U.S. Peace Corps. She has also

worked as an associate producer for

Connecticut Public Television, and from

1996–1997 as a researcher and writer in

developing a script for a documentary

on the Northern Forest. Barbara received

a BS degree from Duke University in

zoology, and an MS from the University

of Michigan in natural resources policy

and education.
[25]

Protected areas are categorized by the primary purpose of management. Categories are as follows:

IA Strict nature reserve/wilderness: protection area managed mainly for science of wilderness

protection

IB Wilderness area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features

IV Habitat/species management area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through

management intervention

V Protected landscape/seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape

conservation and recreation

VI Managed resource protected area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable 

use of natural resources

From: IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

APPENDIX C

IUCN PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
[26]

DEFINITION

Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where

the interaction of people and nature over time has

produced an area of distinct character with significant

aesthetic, ecological, and/or cultural value, and often

with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance, and evolution of such an area.

OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT

• To maintain the harmonious interaction of nature

and culture through the protection of landscape

and/or seascape, and the continuation of traditional

land uses, building practices, and social and cultural

manifestations;

• To support lifestyles and economic activities that 

are in harmony with nature and the preservation of

the social and cultural fabric of the communities

concerned;

• To maintain the diversity of landscape and habitat,

and of associated species and ecosystems;

• To eliminate where necessary, and thereafter prevent,

land uses and activities that are inappropriate in scale

and/or character;

• To provide opportunities for public enjoyment

through recreation and tourism appropriate in type

and scale to the essential qualities of the areas;

• To encourage scientific and educational activities that

will contribute to the long-term well-being of resident

populations and to the development of public support for the environmental protection of such areas;

and

• To bring benefits to, and to contribute to the welfare

of, the local community through the provision of

natural products (such as forest and fisheries products) and services (such as clean water or income

derived from sustainable forms of tourism).

GUIDANCE FOR SELECTION

• The area should possess a landscape and/or coastal

and island seascape of high scenic quality, with diverse

associated habitats, flora and fauna, along with manifestations of unique or traditional land-use patterns

and social organizations as evidenced in human settlements and local customs, livelihoods, and beliefs.

• The area should provide opportunities for public

enjoyment through recreation and tourism within its

normal lifestyle and economic activities.

ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

• The area may be owned by a public authority, but is

more likely to comprise a mosaic of private and public

ownerships operating a variety of management

regimes. These regimes should be subject to a degree

of planning or other control and supported, where

appropriate, by public funding and other incentives to

ensure that the quality of the landscape/seascape 

and the relevant local customs and beliefs are maintained in the long term.

APPENDIX D

CATEGORY V PROTECTED LANDSCAPE/SEASCAPE:

Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation
[27]

A. Cultural Landscapes

(1) Cultural landscapes represent the “combined works

of nature and of man” designated in Article 1 of the

World Heritage Convention. They are illustrative of the

evolution of human society and settlement over time,

under the influence of the physical constraints and/or

opportunities presented by their natural environment

and of successive social, economic, and cultural forces,

both external and internal (sec. 36). 

“The term ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of

manifestations of the interaction between humankind

and its natural environment” (sec. 37). 

Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of

sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and

limits of the natural environment they are established

in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection

of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land use and can maintain or

enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued

existence of traditional forms of land use supports

biological diversity in many regions of the world. The

protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore

helpful in maintaining biological diversity (sec. 38).

“The clearly defined landscape designed and created

intentionally by man” (sec. 39 i), largely concentrated on

parks and gardens.

Organically evolved landscape. “This results from an

initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious

imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment.

Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in

their form and component features. They fall into two

sub-categories:

• A relict (or fossil) landscape [such as an archaeological

landscape] is one in which an evolutionary process

came to an end at some time in the past, either

abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form;

and

• A continuing landscape is one which retains an active

social role in contemporary society closely associated

with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time

it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time” (sec. 39 ii).

The associative cultural landscape derives its significance from “the powerful religious, artistic or cultural

associations of the natural element rather than material

cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even

absent” (sec. 39 iii).

APPENDIX E

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTE GUIDELINES DEFINITION OF “CULTURAL LANDSCAPES”

From: UNESCO. 1996. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.
[28]

• A mission for the global program to develop an integrated approach for the protection of biodiversity, cultural diversity, and the sustainable use of natural

resources; 

• An outline for a three-year WCPA global program to

promote and demonstrate the use and value of protected landscapes. Key elements of the program are to

create a partnership network, evaluate and research

existing protected landscape areas, organize and develop case study material, help to develop training and

build professional skills, and work closely with specific regional protected landscape projects;

• An initial pilot project on protected landscapes for the

Andean region, focusing on themes that recognize the

great diversity and integration of cultural and natural

resources of the region; and

• An international working group to move this program

forward. As conveners of the working session, the

Conservation Study Institute and the QLF/Atlantic

Center for the Environment, in collaboration with

WCPA and other partner organizations, plan to participate actively in this evolving effort.

APPENDIX F

OUTCOMES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING SESSION
[29]

Nancy Bell

Vermont Representative

The Conservation Fund

RR#1, Box 1080

Shrewsbury, VT 05738

Tel: 802-492-3368

Email: <rill@together.net>

Michael Beresford

Co-Director

International Centre for 

Protected Landscapes

PO Box 15

Machynlleth, Powys

SY20 8WP

Wales

UNITED KINGDOM 

Tel/Fax: 44-1654-703-838

Email: jmberesford@hotmail.com or

<beresford@icpl.freeserve.co.uk>

Thomas Berry

Natural Resources Coordinator

Office of Sen. James Jeffords

30 Main Street, Suite 350

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-658-6001

Email: <TOM_BERRY@JEFFORDS.SENATE.GOV>

Preston Bristow

Vermont Land Trust

The King Farm

3117 Rose Hill

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: 802-457-2369

Jessica Brown

Vice-President for International Programs

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

55 South Main Street

Ipswich, MA 01938

Tel: 978-356-0038

Fax: 978-356-7322

Email: <jbrown@qlf.org>

Nancy Brown

Historical Landscape Architect

Philadelphia Support Office

National Park Service

200 Chestnut Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Tel: 215-597-8863

Fax: 215-597-5747

Email: <nancy_j._brown@nps.gov>

Paul Bruhn

Executive Director

Preservation Trust of Vermont

104 Church Street

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-658-6647

Email: <Bruhnpa@vbimail.champlain.

edu>

Susan Buggey

Landscape and History

470 Laurier Ave. West #1002

Ottawa, ON K1R 7W9

CANADA 

Tel: 613-230-9144

Fax: 613-230-8661

Email: <susan.buggey@sympatico.ca>

Megan Camp

Vice-President and Program Director

Shelburne Farms

1611 Harbor Road

Shelburne, VT 05482

Tel: 802-985-8686

Fax: 802-985-8123

Email: <megan_camp@together.org>

Gina Campoli

Agency of Natural Resources

103 S. Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671-0301

Tel: 802-241-3600

Rick Carbin

PO Box 1102

Barnard, VT 05031

Tel/Fax: 802-234-6444

Email: <mthunger@sover.net>

Elizabeth Courtney

Executive Director

Vermont Natural Resources Council

9 Bailey Ave.

Montpelier, VT 05602

Tel: 802-223-2328

Email: <vnrc@together.org>

Ann Cousins

Preservation Trust of Vermont

and National Trust for Historic

Preservation

253 Valley View Extension

Richmond, VT 05477

Tel: 802-434-5014

Prof. Don DeHayes

Associate Dean

School of Natural Resources

George D. Aiken Center

The University of Vermont

Burlington, VT 05405

Tel: 802-656-4280

Rolf Diamant

Superintendent

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller 

National Historical Park

PO Box 178

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: 802-457-3368 ext.15

Email: <rolf_diamant@nps.gov>

Michael DiNunzio

Director of Research and Education

Adirondack Council

PO Box D-2

Elizabethtown, NY 12932

Tel: 518-873-2240

Anne Drost

1253 ave. McGill College

Bureau 680

Montreal, PQ H3B 2Y5

CANADA

Tel: 514-395-6020

Email: <adrost@qlf.org>

John Elder

Environmental Studies Program

Farrell House

Middlebury College

Middlebury, VT 05753

Tel: 802-443-5281

Email: <Elder@middunix.middlebury.edu>

Dana Farley

Vermont Forum on Sprawl

110 Main Street

Burlington, VT 05401-8451

Tel: 802-864-6310

Email: <sprawlvt@together.net>

Virginia Farley

Vermont Land Trust

PO Box 850

Richmond, VT 05477

Tel: 802-434-3079

vfarley@together.net

APPENDIX G

PARTICIPANT CONTACT INFORMATION
[30]

Tricia Foster

Cultural Res. Coordinator

Lake Champlain Basin Program

RR 1, Box 220

Crown Point, NY 12928

Tel: 802-372-3213

Daniel Gade

Professor

The University of Vermont

Department of Geography

Old Mill Building

PO Box 54170

Burlington, VT 05405-4170

Tel: 802-656-3060

Fax: 802-656-3042

Email: <dgade@zoo.uvm.edu>

Larry Gall

NPS

15 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Tel: 617-223-5122

Email: <larry_gall@nps.gov>

Ibit Getchel

University of Vermont 

Natural Areas Center

153 South Prospect Street

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-656-0176

Larry Gobrecht

NY State Office—Parks, Recreation 

& Historic Preservation

Bureau of Historic Sites

PO Box 219

Peebles Island, NY 12188

Tel: 518-237-8643

Jennifer Grimm

c/o Lyme Timber Co.

PO Box 266

Lyme, NH 03768

Tel: 603-795-2129

Felix Haibach

Protected Areas Program

IUCN World Conservation Union

Rue Mauverney 28 

CH – 1196 Gland

SWITZERLAND 

Tel: 4122-999-02-94

Fax: 4122-999-00-15

Email: felixhaibach@hotmail.com

or <feh@iucn.org>

Lawrence Hamilton

Vice-Chair for Mountains

IUCN World Commission 

on Protected Areas

342 Bittersweet Lane

Charlotte, VT 05445

Tel/Fax: 802-425-6509

Email: <LSx2_Hamilton@together.org>

Linda Hamilton

Islands and Highlands 

Environmental Consultancy

342 Bittersweet Lane

Charlotte, VT 05445

Tel/Fax: 802-425-6509

Email: <LSx2_Hamilton@together.org>

Jeffrey Harris

Maine, New Hampshire and 

Vermont Program Associate

Northeast Regional Office

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace 

Fifth Floor

Boston, MA 02109

Tel:617-523-0885

Phil Huffman

82 Church Street, 3rd floor

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-865-4523

Email: <phuffman@sover.net>

Destry Jarvis

National Park Service

Office of the Director

1849 “C” St, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Email: <destry_jarvis@nps.gov>

Karen Jessup

Associate Professor

Historic Preservation Program

School of Architecture

Roger Williams University

Bristol RI 02809

Tel: 401-254-3415 

Fax:401-254-3501

Email: <klj@alpha.rwu.edu>

Janet Kennedy

Project Coordinator

Lake Champlain Byways

79 Court Street

Middlebury, VT 05753

Tel: 802-388-3141

Email: <jken@sover.net>

Steve Kesselman

Salem Maritime NHS

174 Derby Street

Salem, MA 01970

Tel: 978-740-1680

Lindsey Ketchell

Principal Contact

Vermont AG in the Classroom Partners

Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets

116 State Street, Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Tel: 828-3833

Email: <lindsey@agr.state.vt.us>

Bob McCullough

Historic Preservation Program

University of Vermont

Wheeler House

Burlington, VT 05405

Tel: 802-656-9773

Nora Mitchell

Director

Conservation Study Institute

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National

Historical Park

PO Box 178

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: 802-457-3368 ext. 17

Fax: 802-457-3405

Email: <nora_mitchell@nps.gov>

Mireya Muñoz

Nogales & Asociados

Consultore Internacionales

PO Box 5240

La Paz

BOLIVIA 

Tel: 591-2-745209

Fax: 591-2-721145

Email: <mireya@ceibo.entelnet.bo>
[31]

Linda Neal

Northeast Field Area Landscape

Architect

National Park Service

US Customs House

200 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Tel: 215-597-1587

Email: <linda_neal@nps.gov>

Jennifer Nelson

Agricultural Policy Advisor 

to Rep. Bernard Sanders

1 Church Street

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-862-0697

Email: <jennifer.nelson@mail.house.gov>

Xavier Nogales

Nogales & Asociados

Consultore Internacionales

PO Box 5240

La Paz

BOLIVIA 

Tel: 591-2-745209

Email: <asesoria@caoba.entelnet.bo>

Patricia O’Donnell

Landscapes

PO Box 321

Charlotte, VT 05445

Robert Paquin

Legislative Assistant

United States Sen. Patrick Leahy

Box 933 Federal Building

Montpelier, VT 05601

Tel: 802-229-0569

Fax: 802-229-1915

Email:

<robert_paquin@leahy.senate.gov>

James Pepper

Assistant Field Director

Legislative Affairs

Northeast Field Area

200 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Tel: 215-580-2122

Martha Perkins

Charlotte, VT 05445

Adrian Phillips

Chair

IUCN World Commission 

on Protected Areas

2 The Old Rectory

Dumbleton, near Evesham

WR11 6TG

UNITED KINGDOM 

Tel/Fax: 44-386-88-20-94

Email: <adrianp@wcpa.demon.co.uk>

Carl Powden

Atlas Timberlands Partnership

Vermont Land Trust

8 Bailey Ave.

Montpelier, VT 05602

Tel: 802-472-3208

Email: <carl@vlt.org>

Jeff Roberts

President

Cow Creek Creative Ventures

6 Woodrow Ave.

Montpelier, VT 05602

Tel: 802-223-0248

Email: <Cowcreek@ibm.net>

Guillermo Rodriguez

Project Coordinator

Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa

Marta

Calle 74

Numero 2-86

Santafé de Bogotá

COLOMBIA 

Tel: 57-54-310551

Fax: 57-54-211746

Email: prosierra@rnd.net or

<snevada@uniandes.edu.co>

Jack Rodriguez

Technical Director

FUNDRAE

Torbio Montes No. 766 y Cuero y

Caicedo

Quito

ECUADOR 

Tel: 528578-502067

Fax: 528578-502066

Email: <hoturis@interactive.net.ec>

Giles Romulus

Director

St. Lucia National Trust

PO Box 595

Castries

ST. LUCIA 

Tel: 758-453-1495

Fax: 758-453-2791

Email: <natrust@candw.lc>

Ben Rose

Executive Director

Green Mountain Club

RR 1 Box 650

Waterbury Center, VT 05677

Tel: 802-244-7037

Email: <gmcben@sover.net>

Chuck Ross

Office of Sen. Patrick Leahy

199 Main Street, 4th Floor

Burlington, VT 05401

Tel: 802-863-2525

Ann Ruzow Holland

Executive Director

Friends of the North Country

1A Mill Street

PO Box 446

Keeseville, NY 12944

Tel: 518-834-9606

Fausto Sarmiento

Associate Director

Center for Latin American and

Caribbean Studies 

University of Georgia

G-40 Baldwin Hall

Athens, GA 30602-1619

Tel: 706-542-9079

Fax: 706-542-8432

Email: <fsarmien@arches.uga.edu>

Barbara Slaiby

Conservation Study Institute

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National

Historical Park

PO Box 178

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: 802-457-3368 ext. 25

Fax: 802-457-3405

Email: <barbara_slaiby@nps.gov>
[32]

Michaela Stickney

Lake Champlain Basin Program

RR 1, Box 220

Crown Point, NY 12928

Tel: 802-372-3213

Guy Swinnerton

Professor of Parks and 

Outdoor Recreation

Faculty of Physical Education 

and Recreation

E-401 Van Vliet Centre

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H9

CANADA 

Tel: 780-492-5602

Fax: 780-492-2364

Email: <gswinner@per.ualberta.ca>

Sarah Tischler

Attorney

Heilmann, Ekman & Associates

PO Box 216

Burlington, VT 05402-0216

Tel: 802-864-4555

Email: <tischlsg@together.net>

Miriam Torres Angeles

Huascaran-Huayhuash Director

The Mountain Institute—Andes Program

Apartado 01

Psje. Ricardo Palma #100

Pedregal Alto – Huaraz – Ancash

PERU 

Tel: 5144-72-3446

Fax: 5144-72-6610

Email: <miriamt@mountain.org>

Jackie Tuxill

Chair

The Watershed Center

1490 Elder Hill Road

Lincoln, VT 05443

Tel: 802-453-5401

Dr. Thomas Visser

Director

Historic Preservation Program

University of Vermont

Wheeler House

Burlington, VT 05405

Tel: 802-656-0577

Email: <Histpres@zoo.uvm.edu>

Emily Wadhams

State Historic Preservation Officer

Vermont Division for Historic

Preservation

National Life Building, Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05633-0501

Tel: 802-828-3211

Email:

<Ewadhams@gate.dca.state.vt.us>

Jennifer Waite

Vermont Director

Rivers & Trails

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller 

National Historical Park

PO Box 178

Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: 802-457-3368

Email: <jennifer_waite@nps.gov>

Alec Webb

President

Shelburne Farms

1611 Harbor Road

Shelburne, VT 05482

Tel: 802-985-8686

Virginia Westbrook

Director

Champlain Valley Heritage Network

Route 2 Box 8

Crown Point, NY 12928

Tel: 518-597-3983

Keith Wheeler

Director

Center for a Sustainable Future

1611 Harbor Road

Shelburne Farms

Shelburne, VT 05482

Tel: 802-985-0789

Email: <keith@concord.org>

Eva (Lini) Wollenberg

Center for International Forestry

Research

PO Box 6596

Jakarta 10065

INDONESIA 

Tel: 62-251-622-622

Fax: 62-251-622-100

Email: <L.wollenberg@cgiar.org>