Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? - Rainforest ...

Sandra Pannelland twentieth century scientific reports as ‘out dated’ or ‘ill informed’, as Elizabeth Povinelliargues, in Australia these ideas about Indigenous subjects and societies are the “liberalmulticultural legacy of colonialism” (2002).Thus, although the Australian Government identified the wet tropical forests of north-eastQueensland as both a ‘cultural’ and ‘natural’ property in its nomination to the World HeritageCommittee, it comes as no surprise, particularly in the absence of information to the contrary,that the IUCN evaluation recommends listing on the basis of the area’s ‘natural values’. Inthis scenario, and in keeping with the many references to Aboriginal history as ‘prehistory’,Aboriginal culture is portrayed as pre-cultural in contrast to Anglo-European culture, which ispresented as both a threat to and saviour of nature. Either way, Anglo-Australian culture ispresented as something that exists outside of nature but within history. This is certainly theview presented on the Wet Tropics information sheet compiled by the World ConservationMonitoring Centre on behalf of UNESCO, and in the RCSQ report (1986: 78-79), where‘Aboriginal rainforest culture’ is portrayed as a part of the ‘regional ecosystem’. As such, it isidentified, along with the region’s fauna, flora, and features of ‘outstanding natural beauty’, ascontributing to the ‘conservation value’ of the World Heritage site (WCMC 1992: 6).It is difficult to avoid the social and political implications of the discursive placement ofAboriginal people as either ‘in nature’ but ‘out of time’, or ‘out of nature’ but ‘in time’. In thefirst scenario culture is collapsed into nature, while in the latter situation, as discussed in thefollowing section, culture is replaced by politics and the threatening image (for Anglo-CelticAustralians at least) of the Aboriginal political activist.THE HEGEMONY OF NATUREThe listing of the Wet Tropics as a solely natural artefact, and the associated depiction ofAboriginal occupation and history as ‘in nature’ and ‘out of time’ set in place a geography ofpractices and beliefs, which effectively excluded contemporary Aboriginal people from anactive role in the cultural and political activities called ‘management’.This exclusion occurred despite:1. The IUCN’s expressed desire to see the ‘Aboriginal owners’ of the various titles includedin the boundaries of the ‘wet tropical rainforests of north-east Queensland’ involved inand endorse the “aims of the Convention in their area” (IUCN 1988: 11);2. The World Heritage Bureau’s request for more information on and clarification of “landownership by Aboriginal people” (WHC 1988: 2);3. The Australian Government’s numerous assurances at the time that it would “involve theAboriginal communities in future management of the area” (IUCN 1988: 11); and4. The preamble of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993,which clearly states that “it is also the intention of the Parliament to acknowledge thesignificant contribution that Aboriginal people can make to the future management ofcultural and natural heritage with the property, particularly through joint managementagreements”.‘Which Way Our Cultural Survival’, the 1998 ‘Review of Aboriginal Involvement in theManagement of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area’ (Review Steering Committee 1998),identifies ten factors ‘constraining’ Aboriginal involvement in management. These rangefrom issues arising from ‘legislation’ to ones stemming from ‘insufficient resources’ (RSC1998: 24-29). Three of the ‘constraints’ identified in the Review, namely ‘differences in worldview’, ‘World Heritage listing and cultural values’ and ‘bias towards natural values protection’,directly relate to the arguments presented here on how powerful and pervasive ideas about14