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

Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage List‘ignited a row’ that involved national politicians, the Northern Territory Government, local andinternational tourism operators, and regional Aboriginal organisations. The 2001 closurehighlighted the conflict that exists between satisfying the demands of a multi-million dollartourism industry and maintaining the listed Indigenous cultural values of the National Park.The 2001 closure of the Park, together with previous closures for ceremonial ‘ business’,alerts us to the fact that some cultural values and activities are often seen as unacceptableor unintelligible to a wider audience 68 . It is also apparent here that not all forms of culture arecompatible with the World Heritage ideal and management of culture, in the same way thatsome forms of nature don’t easily fit within the definition of outstanding natural propertiesunder the Convention. In Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park, for the 200,000 visitors each year,cultural heritage is a performance consumed by way of ‘guided bush tucker tours’, ‘sacredsite walks’ or multi-media presentations at the Park’s ‘cultural centre’. For Anangu living inthe community of Mutijulu, located within the National Park but off-limits to Park visitors,these highly orchestrated and public forms of heritage performance are not a part of whatpasses as culture for them on a day-to-day basis (pers. com. Daniel Vachon).For Indigenous people and minority groups, World Heritage listing of their traditional estatesas a cultural landscape raises serious issues about the relationship between local autonomyand global intervention. As the example of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park illustrates, forsome groups and peoples maintaining World Heritage-listed landscape values may involvecreating new opportunities for the transmission of traditional skills and knowledge orrevitalising customary cultural activities. In either situation, effective management of anassociative cultural landscape will need to address those social problems and economicpressures, which impact upon the cultural viability of the group. This issue of culturalviability, accentuated by the growing realisation that the way of life of many Indigenouspeople is “now under severe threat”, begs the question as to whether “‘preserving’ small,essentially non-Westernised Indigenous populations in their ‘natural’ habitats is the properbusiness of those implementing the World Heritage Convention” (Fowler 2003: 56). This is apertinent question, particularly given the historical fact that many of the state parties to theConvention have woefully neglected their fiduciary duty to their Indigenous citizens. Thisquestion also highlights the fact that ultimately the protection of cultural landscapes, heritageand values pivots upon the sustainable involvement of, and support for, those groups andcommunities who are the traditional custodians of the cultural values expressed in thelandscape. With this acknowledgment comes the realisation that the production andprotection of heritage, whether natural or cultural, is a highly politicised process that oftenhas very stultifying effects.All too often under the auspices of the World Heritage Convention, cultural landscapes andnatural properties are depicted as living ethnographic displays or zoological exhibits,disturbingly reminiscent of nineteenth-century museological traditions. The many cultural68 In an interesting twist to the issue of intelligibility, the Federal Court of Australia found in March 2006that a group of Aboriginal Native Title Applicants, many of whom were identified in the 1979 Uluru(Ayers Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus / Luritja Land Claim under the Aboriginal LandRights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and in the 1985 ‘handback’ of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Parkas ‘traditional Aboriginal owners’, did not acknowledge and observe the laws and customs ofWestern Desert Aboriginal people at sovereignty (FCA 2006: 2). In other words, many of theIndigenous cultural values inscribed on the World Heritage List with the renomination of Uluru KataTjuta in 1994, are not, according to Sackville J, the ‘traditional’ laws and customs of the WesternDesert bloc. While the Australian Government’s renomination document describes theestablishment of “contemporary Anangu culture” some 5,000 years ago (1994: 15) and states thatthe landscape of Uluru Kata Tjuta is the “outcome of millennia of management using traditionalAnangu methods governed by the Tjukurpa (the Law) (ibid: 21), Sackville J concludes that thecontemporary Anangu laws and customs of the Native Title Applicants are not related to thoseobserved at sovereignty in the early 1820s (FCA 2006: 30). One wonders what will be the responseof UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee in light of the ‘Jango’ Native Title determination.75