The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

15. The evolution of landscape conservation in Australia: reflections on the relationship of nature and culture Jane L. Lennon Introduction Australian landscapes represent wild nature, are the product of Indigenous 1 peoples, and have been extensively shaped by Europeans. This landscape heritage is complex, woven by the interaction of people and their environment over time. The development of Australia’s land - scape conservation has been influenced by changing perceptions of the relationship between nature and culture and has, for many years, placed a higher value on natural heritage. The development of heritage protection has been dramatically altered by the World Heritage Convention, which ushered in many nominations of natural sites of global significance. Recognition of cultural landscapes in the guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 1992 enhanced the value placed on cultural sites, including those with intangible values and on the importance of recognising management by Indigenous people. This chapter examines the history of landscape protection and changing attitudes in three case studies – Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Kosciuszko National Park, Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park – and contributions from urban parks and the Landcare movement. These examples illustrate an evolution of environmental thought and development of conservation strategies at the local, state and national level. National characteristics and their influence on shaping Australia’s landscape heritage Australian landscapes are the product of 80 million years of evolution of the land and its flora and fauna since separation of the current land mass from Gondwana, and of at least 60,000 years of Indigenous occupation and more than 200 years of European occupation (Lennon et al., 2001). Australia, the only nation to occupy a whole continent, is biologically diverse and the undisputed world centre for marsupials and Eucalyptus vegetation. The first Australians, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, modified the environment through the use of fire and hunting, changing the species composition of flora and fauna, and may have driven the Pleistocene megafauna to extinction as well (ASEC, 2001). They also gave the landscape its creation stories and peopled it with heroic ancestors; and they created non-architectural but spectacular evidence of their culture in rock art, occupation sites and sacred landscapes. They made the whole of Australia a cultural landscape, a fact not well recognised in heritage management practice in Australia. 1 The term “indigenous” is capitalized in this chapter to reflect conventional usage in Australia where it applies to Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people. 205
The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community The impact on the indigenous landscape of the waves of European migration since the 1788 settlement of Sydney has been dramatic. Within a few generations, large tracts of the country were irreversibly modified by the introduction of sheep and cattle. Today, Australia’s popu - lation of 20 million is highly urbanized, with 62% living in the five largest cities and 85% living within 50km of the coastline. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed through the federation of the six separate British colonies in 1901. Under the constitution, the States and Territories are responsible for management of the environment including national parks and heritage places while the Commonwealth is responsible for other national matters like defence, quarantine, taxation and matters associated with international treaties and conventions. History of protected area management From the 1860s, public lands were reserved from sale to protect scenic wonders such as waterfalls, volcanic features and lakes. In 1915, the Scenery Preservation Board was estab - lished in Tasmania, the first authority in Australia created specifically for the management of parks and reserves (Lennon, 2003a). For most of the last century landscape conservation was linked to the English ‘garden city’ movement or to the national parks and wildlife protection movements. Natural heritage was long considered separate from cultural heritage. This dichotomy has its origins in European philosophy imported with the settler society of the nineteenth century (Griffiths, 1996). Cultural heritage legislation was introduced in the 1960s, and the concept of heritage was broadened to recognise Indigenous places and sites significant to non-British Australians. There were efforts to protect certain landscape types such as coastal scenery through State government and municipal planning scheme controls. Protection of natural resources was part of a much wider global movement. Following the adoption in 1972 by UNESCO of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, identifying landscapes with outstanding universal values and inscribing them on the World Heritage List became a priority for Australian nature con - servation agencies. In 1976, the Australian Heritage Commission was established to identify and conserve the National Estate, which was defined as: ...those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia, or the cultural environment of Australia that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community (section 4 (1), Australian Heritage Commission Act, 1975). Soon after, Australia ICOMOS developed its Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance, the Burra Charter, to assist in assessing the significance of cultural heritage values present at a place (www.icomos.org/australia/charters). Creating the Register of the National Estate has kept Australians aware of heritage landscapes due to the many controversies about listing these places. Some places such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta have iconic status, but listing others has been very contested. Where States had inadequate land-use protection, conservation advocates used the listing process to draw attention to threatened 206
Page 1 and 2:
IUCN World Commission on Protected
Page 3 and 4:
The Protected Landscape Approach Li
Page 5 and 6:
Dedication This publication is dedi
Page 7 and 8:
The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Part I Introduction and global over
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
3. World Heritage Cultural Landscap
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
4. From pre-assumptions to a ‘jus
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
5. Conserving “unprotected” pro
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Part II Case studies from around th
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
8. Pastoralists, conservation and l
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
9. Protected landscapes in the Unit
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
10. Sustaining rural landscapes and
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
11. Cultural landscapes of the Ande
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174: 12. Protecting landscapes and seasc
Page 187 and 188: Colour plates The terraced landscap
Page 189 and 190: Colour plates Sagarmatha National P
Page 191 and 192: Colour plates Ebey’s Landing Nati
Page 193 and 194: Colour plates Artisan, Mata Atlanti
Page 195 and 196: Colour plates Forest of Bowland Are
Page 197 and 198: Colour plates Fruit orchards are a
Page 199 and 200: 13. Protected landscapes and seasca
Page 211 and 212: The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 223: The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 237 and 238: Part III The way forward
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Appendix 1 IUCN Protected Area Mana
Page 281 and 282:
Appendix 3 Guidelines for Category
Page 283 and 284:
Appendix 5 Evaluation of Cultural L
Page 285 and 286:
Appendices Country Title of World H
Page 287:
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
show all

The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?