Nature-focused concepts - The Advisory Bodies

Step 3: The Advisory Bodies

3.2 Nature-focused concepts

in 2015 (UNESCO, n.d.g). Japan urges the trans- parency and fairness of the screening and registration process of MoW (Japan Times, 2017).

Historical Awareness Research Committee (2017) claims that the IAC blindly accepted the conclusion made by the Register Sub-committee, and MoW must not be used as a political item. Re- garding this, Japan temporarily suspended the payment of its 2016 financial contribution to UNESCO, although it paid in December 2016, aiming to advance the improvement in the selec- tion and inscription process of MoW (Sankei News, 2016). Concerning the documents associated with Japan, moreover, Voice of Comfort Women was jointly submitted by eight NGOs of different countries, including South Korea, Chi- na and Japan, in 2016, to be added to MoW (His- torical Awareness Research Committee, 2017).

In October 2017, however, IAC shelved the decision on the registration of Voice of Comfort Women (Hankyoreh, 2017). The Emirati chair of IAC asked for steps to be taken so that the eight NGOs would be encouraged to discuss their application with related countries (Hankyoreh, 2017). The views of the eight NGOs and those of the Japanese government and conservative civil groups are in sharp conflict with each other in terms of how comfort women should be understood (Sankei News, 2017).

The other issue in MoW is that it has not attained status as a UNESCO Convention as of October 2017. The principle for implementation of the concept of WHSs is the WH Convention, and for the idea of ICH the ICH Convention;

while MoW does not have an associated UNES- CO Convention (Heaney, 2016). Having a status as UNESCO Convention could attract greater support, and human and financial resources (Harvey, 2007). The MoW programme would need at least several years to work effectively as one of the three key schemes for cultural heritage conservation adopted by UNESCO.

(2010) investigate Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Langkawi) in Malaysia through interviews with key village informants and local people, and conclude that public education pro- grammes are needed to utilize Langkawi’s status as a UGG. Local residents’ awareness of UGG Langkawi should be raised through education to ensure community engagement within the development of the UGG and to generate local community’s actions for stewardship (Azman et al., 2010). Regarding education, Henriques et al.

(2012) examine Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Arouca) in Portugal as an educational resource for young students. The visit to UGG Arouca can enhance students’ understanding of geodiversity and the geological value of a geopark and can promote geoconservation (Henriques et al., 2012). Burlando et al. (2011) investigate Beigua UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Beigua) in Italy and assert that the UGG plays an essential role in encouraging sustainable development at local and regional levels. This can be achieved, because UGG Beigua could provide its stakehold- ers with plentiful services by connecting landscape, cultural heritage and sports facilities with distinctive geological and geomorphological characteristics (Burlando et al., 2011).

On the other hand, Farsani et al. (2011) focus on the role geoparks play in improving the economy of local inhabitants by analysing the strategies adopted by diverse geoparks. Their research displays that geoparks can create opportunities for local economic development through geotourism, and it would be especially beneficial for local communities in rural areas.

The significance of geotourism for economic development of local communities is also noted by Halim et al. (2011) in their research on UGG Langkawi. The empowerment of local residents and their involvement in the development and planning process are crucial for economic development through geotourism, and a bottom- up approach is required for such development (Halim et al., 2011). The magnitude of a bottom- up approach in heritage management is noted in Section 3 in Chapter 2, and its significance in the UGG initiative is emphasized by UNESCO (2017a).

Farsani et al. (2011) also assert that bonds between local people’s lives and geoparks appear to be limited compared to those between local inhabitants and natural, national or regional parks. Their assertion endorses the significance

of local residents’ awareness of geoparks and their involvement in the activities associated with geoparks suggested by Azman et al. (2010).

3.2.2 Biosphere Reserves

BRs is one of the terms adopted by UNESCO concerning its strategies for the conservation of natural environment in the world. Generally, the term ‘nature reserves’ is used in academia and practice to signify the places whose natural environments are protected at a national level. For instance, Wolong National Nature Reserve (WNNR) in China is a famous example of a national nature reserve. Like many other national nature reserves, WNNR is also a BR. Together with WHSs and UGGs, BRs form three main pil- lars of the UNESCO’s initiatives for conservation of natural heritage. UNESCO (2017e) defines BRs as ‘areas comprising terrestrial, marine and coastal ecosystems’, and BRs encourage solu- tions that reconcile conservation of biodiversity with their sustainable use. BRs are nominated by national governments, and designated by the In- ternational Co-ordinating Council (ICC) of the Man and Biosphere Programme, following Arti- cle 5 of the 1995 Statutory Framework of the World Network of BRs (UNESCO, 2017e, 2017f).

The Director-General of UNESCO informs the nominating country of the decision of ICC (UN- ESCO, 2017f). National governments regard BR designation as a crucial approach to improve conservation of the natural environment and ecosystem as indicated by the case of Tonlé Sap Biosphere Reserve in Cambodia (Bonheur and Lane, 2002).

As of November 2017, there are 669 BRs in 120 countries, including 20 transboundary BRs:

•

75 in 28 countries in Africa;

•

31 in 11 countries in the Arab states;

•

147 in 24 countries in Asia and the Pacific;

•

287 in 36 countries in Europe and North America;

•

129 in 21 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

(UNESCO, 2017e) This information shows that BRs are relatively evenly distributed across different regions of the world. As UGGs shape the GGN, BRs also form the World Network of Biosphere Re- serves (WNBR), which encourages collaboration

between developed countries and LDCs, and among LDCs, and signifies a unique way to enhance international cooperation by sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences, building capacity and promoting best practices (UNESCO, 2017g). BRs consist of three interconnected areas that intend to serve three complementary and mutually reinforcing functions:

•

The core area(s): it comprises a strictly protected ecosystem that contributes to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation.

•

The buffer zone: it surrounds or adjoins the core area(s), and is used for activities com- patible with sound ecological practices that can reinforce scientific research, monitoring, training and education.

•

The transition area: it is the part of the BR where the greatest activity is allowed, fostering economic and human development that is socioculturally and ecologically sustainable.

(UNESCO, 2017e) The studies looking at BRs emerged in the 1980s, and such early studies (e.g. Batisse, 1982) enhanced people’s awareness of the concept of BRs. The amount of research on BRs seems to have increased since the early 1990s, especially after 2000. The topics investigated are diverse, but some of them match key themes of this book (i.e. heritage management and conservation activities, tourism and local communities). For instance, conflicts between the needs of local communities and conservation of protected areas is one of the common issues in LDCs (Maikhuri et al., 2000). Maikhuri et al. (2000) examine this issue in two villages near to and another two far from the core area of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India. In this case, the conflicts occur in various ways, including the impact of local wildlife on crop planting. BRs also have a close relationship with tourism due to their natural resources, which can attract visitors. Jiuzhaigou Valley Biosphere Reserve in China is one of such BRs. Li et al. (2005) ex- plore the impact of tourism and hiking trails on the BR and conclude that artificial mainte- nance, including wooden and flagstone trails, could effectively protect vegetation roots from exposure. This finding is beneficial for the

future trail design and visitor management at BRs (Li et al., 2005) and other protected areas, including natural WHSs and UGGs.

4 Conclusion

This chapter examines contemporary developments in and around WHSs. Concerning those in the concept of WHSs, three essential developments, the LWHD, Cultural Landscapes and HULs are discussed. Of these, the LWHD was developed and has been updated constantly to in- fluence the alarming conditions of WHSs, which can seriously damage their OUVs and can lead to deprivation of their WH status, and to promote a series of corrective actions. On the other hand, the concepts of Cultural Landscapes and HULs were employed to make the concept of WHSs and the profile of the WHL as comprehensive as possible. It can be achieved by valuing excellent interactions between humans and the natural environment, and utilization of historic urban environments in the context of dynamic and ever- changing people’s lifestyles in contemporary society.

Contemporary developments around the concept of WHSs are categorized into culture- focused and nature-focused concepts. Regard- ing the former, WHSs, ICH and MoW can be understood as three major initiatives taken by UNESCO for conservation of cultural heritage at an international level, and can supplement each other to ensure conservation of diverse types of cultural heritage in different regions of the world. Regarding WHSs, intangible elements of nominated properties such as cultural traditions are assessed when they are considered for designation as WHSs. In principle, WHSs are tangible properties that people can visit; although what human beings have developed throughout their history contains both tangible and intangible cultures. Thus, both kinds of cultural heritage must be conserved and passed on to future gen- erations. To this end, the idea of ICH is really important. According to UNESCO (2016), the concept of ICH contains: Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the ICH; performing arts; social practices, rit- uals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and

traditional craftsmanship. On the other hand, the concept of MoW focuses on conservation of

‘documentary heritage’. The MoW programme and register aim to facilitate preservation of the world’s documentary heritage; to support uni- versal access to documentary heritage; and to raise awareness worldwide of the presence and significance of documentary heritage (UNESCO, n.d.d). Compared to WHSs and ICH, however, MoW has not been developed enough as a key scheme for cultural heritage conservation as of 2017. Overall, two culture- focused contemporary developments around WHSs, IHC and MoW, appear to have been working relatively well with WHSs for conservation of varied cultural heritage in the world. Regarding IHC and MoW, there does not seem to be an apparent imbalance in various aspects such as the number of heritage and documents designated and between the west, the east and other regions of the world, although there is room for further improvement in these three schemes, particularly MoW, to solve or at least mitigate ongoing issues and to respond to future dangers caused by human activities and/or natural disasters.

Concerning nature-focused concepts, WHSs, UGGs and BRs can be regarded as three main schemes adopted by UNESCO for conservation of natural heritage at a global level, and they supplement each other to certify conservation of diverse natural heritage in different regions of the world. The concept of UGGs sheds light on ‘geological’ heritage that is not covered in

other UNESCO schemes for natural heritage conservation. Creation of GGN is notable since this network could give opportunities to partici- pants from different countries to exchange and share their national schemes for conservation of geological heritage and enhance mutual support and cooperation. On the other hand, BRs focus on conservation of biosphere where life on earth exists. Due to the complex nature and ex- tensive size of such areas, cooperation across national borders and a holistic approach at an international level are particularly significant for conservation of BRs. To this end, BRs all over the world also form a global network, WNBR, which promotes cooperation among different countries and demonstrates an approach to enhance international collaboration via sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences, building capacity and encouraging best practices (UNESCO, 2017g). Overall, two nature-focused contemporary developments around WHSs, UGGs and BRs, seem to have been working well with WHSs for conservation of wide-ranging natural heritage in the world. Concerning UGGs and BRs, there does not seem to be an obvious imbalance in various dimensions, including the number and distribution of areas listed, between the west, the east and other regions of the world, although these schemes and WHSs would need to be reviewed regularly and enhanced further to respond to hazardous human and natural threats that are ongoing or can occur in the future.

References

Abid, A. (1997) Memory of the World: preserving our documentary heritage. Museum International 49(1), 40–45.

Asogwa, B.C., Umeh, J.C. and Okwoche, V.A. (2012) The sociological and cultural significance of the Argungu International Fishing and Cultural Festival in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(11), 243–249.

Azman, N., Halim, S.A., Liu, O.P., Saidin, S. and Komoo, I. (2010) Public education in heritage conservation for geopark community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 7, 504–511.

Batisse, M. (1982) The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management. Envi- ronmental Conservation 9(2), 101–111.

Bennis, P. (1997) The United Nations and Palestine: partition and its aftermath. Arab Studies Quarterly 19(3), 47–76.

Bonheur, N. and Lane, B.D. (2002) Natural resources management for human security in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Science & Policy 5(1), 33–41.

Burlando, M., Firpo, M., Queirolo, C., Rovere, A. and Vacchi, M. (2011) From geoheritage to sustainable development: strategies and perspectives in the Beigua Geopark (Italy). Geoheritage 3(2), 63–72.

Farsani, N.T., Coelho, C. and Costa, C. (2011) Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism Research 13(1), 68–81.

Gaillard, B. and Rodwell, D. (2015) A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 6(1), 16–40.

Galla, A. (1999) Transformation in South Africa: a legacy challenged. Museum International 51(2), 38–43.

The Guardian (2017) Unesco: Israel joins US in quitting UN heritage agency over ‘anti-Israel bias’. Avail- able at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/us-withdraw-unesco-december-united-nations (accessed 7 November 2017).

Halim, S.A., Komoo, I., Salleh, H. and Omar, M. (2011) The geopark as a potential tool for alleviating community marginality. Shima 5(1), 94–113.

Hankyoreh (2017) UNESCO’s International Advisory Committee delays review of comfort women documents. Available at: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/815479.html (accessed 29 October 2017).

Harvey, D.R. (2007) UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme. Library Trends 56(1), 259–274.

Heaney, M. (2016) The UNESCO Memory of the World programme. Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues 26(1) 46–55.

Henriques, M.H., Tomaz, C. and Sá, A.A. (2012) The Arouca Geopark (Portugal) as an educational resource: a case study. Episodes 35(4), 481–488.

Historical Awareness Research Committee (2017) Statement of scholars of Japan opposed to the joint registration of the ‘Voices of the “comfort women” of the Japanese military with UNESCO’s “Memory of the World” ’. Available at: http://harc.tokyo/en/?p=135 (accessed 29 October 2017).

Japan Times (2017) UNESCO may weigh opposing views on Memory of the World submissions in light of Japan’s ire. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/20/national/unesco-may-weigh- opposing-views-heritage-register-drawing-flak-japan/#.WfWcBY-0O01 (accessed 29 October 2017).

Jokilehto, J. (2014) Evolution of the normative framework. In: Bandarin, F. and van Oers, R. (eds) Recon- necting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 205–220.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004) Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum International 56 (1–2), 52–65.

Li, W., Ge, X. and Liu, C. (2005) Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 108(1–3), 279–293.

Lowenthal, D. (2005) Natural and cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(1), 81–92.

Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R. and Saxena, K.G. (2000) Analysis and resolution of protected area–people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environ- mental Conservation 27(1), 43–53.

McKeever, P.J. and Zouros, N. (2005) Geoparks: celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities.

Episodes 28(4), 274–278.

Mead, S.M. (1983) Indigenous models of museums in Oceania. Museum International 35(2), 98–101.

Minzhigdorj, B. and Erdenebaatar, B. (1993) Why Mongolians say sheep herders are lucky. Nomadic Peoples 33, 47–49.

Moufti, M.R. and Németh, K. (2013) The intra-continental Al Madinah Volcanic Field, western Saudi Ara- bia: a proposal to establish Harrat Al Madinah as the first volcanic geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 5(3), 185–206.

Nafziger, J.A. (1975) UNESCO-centered management of international conflict over cultural property. Hast- ings LJ 27, 1051–1068.

NPS (2017a) About us. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm (accessed 20 October 2017).

NPS (2017b) Understand cultural landscapes. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturalland- scapes/understand-cl.htm (accessed 20 October 2017).

Phillips, A. (1998) The nature of cultural landscapes – a nature conservation perspective. Landscape Research 23(1), 21–38.

Rössler, M. (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Land- scape Research 31(4), 333–353.

Sankei News (2016) Nihon ga UNESCO Buntankin 38-okuen wo Shiharai (Japan paid 2016 financial contribution to UNESCO) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sankei.com/politics/news/161222/

plt1612220010-n1.html (accessed 29 October 2017).

Sankei News (2017) 8-kakoku no Ianfu-shiryo wa Toroku-handan Miokuri (Register of ‘Voice of Comfort Women’ has been suspended) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sankei.com/life/news/171031/

lif1710310002-n1.html (accessed 18 November 2017).

Sirisrisak, T. and Akagawa, N. (2007) Cultural landscape in the world heritage list: understanding on the gap and categorization. City & Time 2(3), 11–20.

Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds) (2008) Intangible Heritage. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Taylor, K. and Lennon, J. (2011) Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature? International Journal of Heritage Studies 17(6), 537–554.

TCLF (2017a) About TCLF. Available at: https://tclf.org/about-tclf (accessed 20 October 2017).

TCLF (2017b) About cultural landscapes. Available at: https://tclf.org/places/about-cultural-landscapes ( accessed 20 October 2017).

UNESCO (2016) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: 2016 edition. Avail- able at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf (accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017a) UNESCO Global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/

environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017b) Fundamental features of a UNESCO global geopark. Available at: http://www.unesco.

org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/fundamental- features/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017c) List of UNESCO global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017d) Top 10 focus areas of UNESCO global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/

new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/top-10-focus-areas/

(accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017e) Biosphere reserves – learning sites for sustainable development. Available at: http://

www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

( accessed 3 November 2017).

UNESCO (2017f) Designation of biosphere reserves. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ natural- sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/designation-process/ (accessed 3 November 2017).

UNESCO (2017g) Main characteristics of biosphere reserves. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/

natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/main-characteristics/

( accessed 7 November 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.a) Browse the lists of intangible cultural heritage and the register of good safeguarding practices. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists (accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.b) Capoeira circle. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/capoeira-circle-00892 ( accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.c) Traditional craftsmanship of the Mongol Ger and its associated customs. Available at:

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditional-craftsmanship-of-the-mongol-ger-and-its-associated- customs-00872 (accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.d) Memory of the World. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/programme/mow (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.e) Memory of the World register. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication- and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.f) Memory of the World: International Advisory Committee (IAC). Available at: http://www.

unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/about-the-programme/

international-advisory-committee-iac/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.g) Memory of the World: documents of Nanjing Massacre. Available at: http://www.unesco.

org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered- heritage/registered-heritage-page-2/documents-of-nanjing-massacre/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

U.S. Department of State (2017) The United States withdraws from UNESCO. Available at: https://www.

state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274748.htm (accessed 29 October 2017).

van Oers, R. (2006) Preventing the goose with the golden eggs from catching bird flu –UNESCO’s efforts in safeguarding the historic urban landscape. Available at: https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2015/02/

Istanbul-2006-_TXT_Ron-van-Oers.pdf (accessed 21 October 2017).

van Oers, R. (2007) Towards new international guidelines for the conservation of historic urban landscapes (HULs). City & Time 3(3), 43–51.

Dalam dokumen World Heritage sites : tourism, local communities and conservation activities (Halaman 161-169)