How Might World Heritage Status Support the Protection of Sacred Natural Sites? An Analysis of Nomination Files, Management, and Governance Contexts

This study provides an overview of how sacred natural sites are given recognition within the World Heritage system. It offers an analysis of the extent to which sacred natural sites that are part of nine World Heritage sites are recognised in site nomination files, management plans, and governance of these sites. The World Heritage sites are located across all continents except for Antarctica. We analysed sites in Australia, Greece, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand and the Russian Federation. We found that the cultural and spiritual significance of sacred natural sites is under-recognised, especially in natural World Heritage sites. In addition, Indigenous and religious custodians are frequently excluded from site management and governance. We make four recommendations for improving the recognition of sacred natural sites and the involvement of their custodians in the World Heritage process and in site nomination, governance, and management: (1) identification and recognition of sacred natural sites including their associated cultural and spiritual values; (2) recognition of, and articulated roles for custodians of sacred natural sites in the governance and management of World Heritage sites; (3) increased uptake of religious groups and Indigenous Peoples’ conservation approaches to the joint management of World Heritage sites that contain sacred natural sites, and (4) prevention of exclusion of custodians and ecological migration by applying inclusive conservation practices through rights-based approaches.

Adaptive Heritage: Is This Creative Thinking or Abandoning Our Values?

Protected areas, such as natural World Heritage sites, RAMSAR wetlands and Biosphere Reserves, are ecosystems within landscapes. Each site meets certain criteria that allow it to qualify as a heritage or protected area. Both climate change and human influence (e.g., incursion, increased tourist visitation) are altering biophysical conditions at many such sites. As a result, conditions at many sites are falling outside the criteria for their original designation. The alternatives are to change the criteria, remove protection from the site, change site boundaries such that the larger or smaller landscape meets the criteria, or manage the existing landscape in some way that reduces the threat. This paper argues for adaptive heritage, an approach that explicitly recognizes changing conditions and societal value. We discuss the need to view heritage areas as parts of a larger landscape, and to take an adaptive approach to the management of that landscape. We offer five themes of adaptive heritage: (1) treat sites as living heritage, (2) employ innovative governance, (3) embrace transparency and accountability, (4) invest in monitoring and evaluation, and (5) manage adaptively. We offer the Australian Wet Tropics as an example where aspects of adaptive heritage currently are practiced, highlighting the tools being used. This paper offers guidance supporting decisions about natural heritage in the face of climate change and non-climatic pressures. Rather than delisting or lowering standards, we argue for adaptive approaches.

Adaptive Heritage: Is This Creative Thinking or Abandoning Our Values?

Protected areas, such as natural World Heritage sites, RAMSAR wetlands, and Biosphere reserves are ecosystems within landscapes. Each site meets certain criteria that allow it to qualify as heritage or protected. Both climate change and human influence (e.g., incursion, increased tourist visitation) are altering biophysical conditions at many such sites. As a result, conditions at many sites are falling outside the criteria for their original designation. The alternatives are to change the criteria, remove protection from the site, change site boundaries such that the larger or smaller landscape meets the criteria, or manage the existing landscape in some way that reduces the threat. This paper argues for adaptive heritage, an approach that explicitly recognizes changing conditions. We discuss the need to view heritage areas as parts of a larger landscape, and to take an adaptive approach to management of that landscape. We offer five themes of adaptive heritage: 1) treat sites as living heritage, 2) employ innovative governance, 3) embrace transparency and accountability, 4) invest in monitoring and evaluation, and 5) manage adaptively. We offer the Australian Wet Tropics as an example where aspects of adaptive heritage currently are practiced, highlighting the tools being used. This paper offers guidance supporting decisions about natural heritage in the face of climate change and non-climatic pressures. Rather than delisting or lowering standards, we argue for adaptive approaches.

IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3

IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3 builds on three cycles of Conservation Outlook Assessments undertaken since 2014. It presents the main results for 2020, but also some longer-term trends based on a comparison of three data sets now available. As such, it can ser ve as an indicator of the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas at a time when the international community seeks to measure progress towards global biodiversity targets and defines the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Focusing on the natural values for which sites are inscribed, threats to these values, and the effectiveness of actions to protect them, the IUCN World Heritage Outlook assesses the conservation prospects of all natural World Heritage sites. These sites are globally recognised as the most significant natural areas on Earth and their conservation must meet the high standards of the World Heritage Convention. Our ability to conserve these sites is thus a litmus test for the broader success of conservation worldwide. Securing a positive outlook for these sites is a priority, as expressed in the Promise of Sydney carried by IUCN’s World Parks Congress in 2014.