(eds) (2009). The Sacred Dimension of Protected Areas - IUCN

264

The Sacred Dimension of Protected AreasProceedings of the Second Workshopof the Delos Initiative

The designation of geographical entities in this book and the presentation of the material do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or Med-INA concerning the legal status of any country,territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, Med-INA, or the other participatingorganizations.Published by:Copyright:Citation:IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and the Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos(Med-INA), Athens, Greece© All the authors for their respective contributions, International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources and Med-INAPapayannis, T. and Mallarach, J.-M. (eds) (2009). The Sacred Dimension of ProtectedAreas: Proceedings of the Second Workshop of the Delos Initiative – Ouranoupolis2007. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Athens, Greece: Med-INA. pp. 262ISBN: 978-2-8317-1166-9Cover design:Cover photos:Layout:Pavlina AlexandropoulouClockwise from top: Holy Convent of Chrysopigi, A. Davydov, K.K. Han, R. Wild, I. Lyratzaki,Archives of the Monastery of Poblet, J.M. Mallarach, B. Verschuuren, S. CatanoiuBack: J. M. MallarachPavlina AlexandropoulouTranslation into English: Michael EleftheriouIUCN and the other participating organizations do not take any responsibility for errorsor omissions occurring in the translation into English of parts of this document whoseoriginal version is in Greek.Ôext editing:Produced by:Printed by:Available from:Michael EleftheriouMediterranean Institute for Nature and AnthroposI. Peppas A.B.E.E.IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)Publications ServicesRue Mauverney 281196 GlandSwitzerlandTel +41 22 999 0000Fax+41 22 999 0020books@iucn.orgwww.iucn.org/publicationsA catalogue of IUCN publications is also availableMed-INA23, Voukourestiou Street106 71 AthensGreeceTel+30 210 3600711Fax+30 210 3629338secretariat@med-ina.orgwww.med-ina.orgThe publication was funded by the Bodossaki Foundation and Med-INA.The text of this book has been printed on 125g matt coated environmentally-friendly paper.

The Sacred Dimension of Protected AreasProceedings of the Second Workshopof the Delos InitiativeOuranoupolis, Greece, 24-27 October 2007Edited by Thymio Papayannis and Josep-Maria Mallarach

table of contents7 Opening messageHAH The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I9 Opening statementsDimitrios TziritisFather Gregorios13 IntroductionThymio Papayannis and Josep-Maria Mallarach25 Part One: Analysis of case studies27 Indigenous peoples27 Power on this land; managing sacred sites at Dhimurru Indigenous ProtectedArea, Northeast Arnhem Land, AustraliaBas Verschuuren, Mawalan II Marika and Phil Wise47 Sacred versus secular in the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona, USAJeneda Benally and Lawrence Hamilton61 Mainstream faiths61 The National Park of the Casentine Forests, ItalyGloria Pungetti, Franco Locatelli and Father Peter Hughes67 ‘Abd al-Salâm ibn Mashîsh and Jabal La‘lâm Site, Northern MoroccoZakia Zouanat77 Sacred Mountain of Ganghwa Island, South KoreaKyung-Koo Han89 Solovetsky Islands: a holy land surrounded by the Arctic Ocean,Russian FederationAlexander N. Davydov, Ivan N. Bolotov and Galina V. Mikhailova105 Part Two: Management of monastic lands and facilities107 Mount Athos (Greece)107 The protected area of the peninsula of the Athos Holy Mountain, Halkidiki, GreeceIoannis Philippou and Konstantinos Kontos127 Landscape conservation actions on Mount Athos, Halkidiki, GreecePetros Kakouros

137 other case studies137 Buila-Vânturarit,a National Park, Valcea county, RomaniaSebastian Catanoiu153 An integrated ecological approach to monastic land:the case of the Holy Convent of Chrysopigi, Chania, Crete, GreeceMother Superior Theoxeni161 Initiatives taken by the Cistercian Monastery of Poblet to improve theintegration of spiritual, cultural and environmental values, Catalonia, SpainJosep-Maria Mallarach and Lluc M. Torcal173 Rila Monastery Natural Park, BulgariaJosep-Maria Mallarach and Sebastian Catanoiu177 The inclusion of a Tibetan Buddhist perspective in the managementof the property of the Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery in Garraf Park,Catalonia, SpainIsabel Soria García191 towards ecological management191 Reflections on the management of monastic lands and facilitiesJosep-Maria Mallarach and Thymio Papayannis201 Part Three: Achieving synergy between spiritual and conservation concerns203 IUCN-UNESCO Guidelines for protected area managerson Sacred Natural Sites: rationale, process and consultationRobert Wild225 Sacred natural sites in developed countriesThymio Papayannis235 Some thoughts on sacred sites, faith communities and indigenous peoplesGonzalo Oviedo241 Environmental action by the Ecumenical PatriarchateTheodota Nantsou249 The Ouranoupolis Statementon sacred natural sites in technologically developed countries255 Appendices

Opening messageHAH The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I

Opening statementsDimitrios TziritisFather GregoriosWelcome speech,Dimitrios TziritisDear participants,On behalf of the Prefect of Halkidiki, thePrefectural Board and the people ofHalkidiki, it is my pleasure to welcomeyou all to Halkidiki. I would also like tosay that we are delighted to see the 2 ndDelos Initiative Workshop being organisedin Halkidiki.After years of unsustainable practices,the Greeks have realised the most selfevidenttruth: that nature is our society’smain resource base and that our futurewell-being depends on the harmoniousrelationship between nature and humans.We really need to look back, learnfrom past lessons and realise how verydependent we are on nature. We have todo that if we are to enhance our qualityof life now and build more sustainablecommunities for the future.Now is the time to act and introduce environmentalmitigation —wherever thatis possible— and preservation measuresand techniques whose ultimategoal, of course, is our current and futuresustainability.As the Vice-Prefect responsible for EnvironmentalIssues, I understand that oursociety has continuously and robustlydemanded that its decision —and policy-makers—establish new and attainabletargets, introduce new initiatives andboost its efforts to achieve the goals thatwe have collectively set.< The Tower of Ouranoupolis, Halkidiki, Greece

Nevertheless, there are several stagesin the struggle for environmental sustainability,which requires careful planning,informed decisions and dynamicimplementation. Several areas of concernhave distinct characteristics of theirown, which give rise to specific and diverseproblems that should be managedaccordingly.Mount Athos, the world’s oldest monasticstate, a unique site of historic, environmentaland cultural importance, theexceptional and dominant ‘Garden ofthe Virgin Mary’, is located on theHalkidiki peninsula. The conservationand management of Mount Athos’ naturaland cultural heritage requires theconsideration of several topics, reflectionon many important issues, contemplationof distinct aspects of sustainabilityand, ultimately, careful management.In the days ahead, we will have the opportunityto progress on many vital issuesregarding the conservation of thenatural environment. Your ideas, reviewsand criteria are important, and thismakes the Delos Initiative a scheme ofparticular importance; we are glad, asthe Prefecture of Halkidiki, to be activelyparticipating in this initiative.I would like to thank you again for hostingthe event in Halkidiki and to wish youall the best. I look forward to seeing theresults of your efforts.Iviron Monastery, Mt Athos10

IntroductionThymio Papayannis and Josep-Maria MallarachSacred natural sites and theDelos InitiativeAs environmental problems continue toincrease at an ever more rapid rate, exacerbatedby the major threat of global climatechange, the need for widespreadremedial action is becoming ever morepressing. Scientific consensus on boththe root causes of these problems andthe measures required to tackle them isgrowing, while mass media and public interesthas reached fever pitch. Of course,while this has put pressure on decisionmakersto take positive action, the realisationof the gravity and extent of the environmentalproblems has encouraged allthose concerned about the state of ourworld to search for partners around it: onesuch significant partnership to emerge inrecent years is between those concernedwith the conservation of nature –and of itsbiodiversity– and the custodians of sacredsites, representing both indigenousbeliefs and mainstream faiths.Natural sites are defined as those that maintaina significant degree of biodiversity andtherefore merit protection status, whetherlocal, national or international. Such sitesare usually part of protected areas and benefitfrom active management of some kind;although this can be applied through a widerange of means, in technologically developedcountries such management tendsto be in the hands of special managementbodies –whether governmental servicesor NGOs– or even local communities . As is often the case in Community ConservedAreas (CCAs).< Ouranoupolis, Halkidiki, Greece13

However, the existence of protected areasis probably as old as the history of humanity.In many parts of the world, naturalsites have acquired spiritual significancethrough the ages for indigenouspeoples, local communities or particularmainstream faiths and groups of believers.In addition, some sites which weresacred to now defunct societies, whilestill meriting a degree of respect, havemaintained only their historical and culturalvalue.As a result, most technologically developedcountries have a multitude of diverseand complex natural sacred sites,which connect ancient and modern spiritualtraditions through history: sacredlandscapes relating to prehistoric cultureswith tangible traces, like rock paintingsor labyrinths, or without them; sacredsites related to ‘dead’ historic culturesfrom megalithic civilisations onwards,some of which have been revivingin recent times in certain regions orare well-documented by traditional literarysources like epics or sagas; sacredsites relating to living indigenous spiritualtraditions; sacred sites and pilgrimageroutes related to long-established livingmainstream religions; and new sacredsites related to either recently-establishedmainstream religions or mainstreamreligions recently established in anew geographical location: e.g. Buddhismin Europe.Characteristic examples of natural sacredsites related to prehistoric culturesinclude Stonehenge in England, Carnacin France and the megalithic structureson the islands of Malta and Minorca. Sacredsites related to indigenous livingtraditions are markedly present acrossNorth America (First Nations), Australia(Aborigines), New Zealand (Maoris), Russia,northern Scandinavia (Sami) and afew other European countries like Estonia.Sacred sites related to ancient historicreligions occur frequently in the MediterraneanBasin, with examples includingDelos, Delphi and the Parthenon on theAthens Acropolis . Sacred natural sitesrelated to Christianity are still frequent inmost countries where the Orthodox and /or Catholic faiths are or have been theprinciple religions, and usually relate toplaces where holy people lived or weretouched by celestial beings. There are alsoa number of related examples of livingpilgrimages, including the Camino deSantiago de Compostela (Way of StJames) in northern Spain, France andPortugal; the Via Laurentana in Italy; ElRocßo in Spain and Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in the Rhône Delta, France.The sanctity of a site is usually related tothe integrity of its natural features, whichis to say that it is normally compatiblewith the requirements of nature conservation.In fact, many countries firstsought to establish natural protected areasbecause of sacred sites or pilgrimagepaths. For instance, the largest concentrationof Biosphere Reserves in Europeis related to the Camino de Santiagoin Northern Spain. However, this canlead to conflict stemming either from thepressure put on the natural environmentby large numbers of pilgrims and / or visitors,or from protected area managersaffording insufficient recognition to spiritualor religious values and their require- Dedicated to the goddess Athena.14

The participants at the Delos2 Workshopments. In old sacred sites located withinmodern protected areas, the lack of acommon language shared by custodiansand managers has proven to be anobstacle to co-operation.Preventing and resolving such conflictsis one of the missions of the Delos Initiative,which attempts to encourage synergythrough collaboration between custodiansof sacred sites and managers ofprotected areas. Established in 2004within the framework of the Cultural andSpiritual Values of Protected Areas(CSVPA) Specialist Group of the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature(IUCN), the Delos Initiative focuses onsacred natural sites in technologicallydeveloped countries. As such, it concernsitself with sites that are significantfor indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada,the United States and elsewhere,as well as sites recognised by mainstreamfaiths including Buddhism, Christianity,Islam and Judaism.The Delos Initiative was named after theAegean island of Delos, a spiritual centreof the ancient Greek world. Jointly coordinatedby Thymio Papayannis andJosep-Maria Mallarach and supportedby Med-INA and Silene, its core methodologyis the study and analysis of carefullyselected case studies from aroundthe world from which experience can begained and lessons learned. Its firstWorkshop was organised in October2006 at the Monastery of Montserrat,which is located within a nature reservein Catalonia, Spain. The Workshop’s proceedingswere published in 2007. Ouranoupolis WorkshopIn October 2007, the 2 nd Delos InitiativeWorkshop was held in Ouranoupolis , alocation chosen for its proximity to Mt.Athos, Eastern Orthodox Christianity’s Mallarach, J.-M. and Papayannis, T. (eds.) (2007),Protected Areas and Spirituality, Proceedings ofthe First Workshop of the Delos Initiative, Montserrat2006, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Publicacionsde l’ Abadia de Montserrat. Held at the Eagles Palace Hotel, on 24-27 October2007.15

most celebrated monastic centre for overa thousand years. Ouranoupolis is asmall town in the North of the Athos Peninsulabut outside the borders of theHoly Mountain territory, to which womenare not permitted entry.The 22 participants at the Workshop includedreligious leaders, academics andconservationists from 11 countries andfour continents (see Appendix 1).The Workshop was divided into threeparts: The first concerned the presentationand critical discussion of new casestudies relating to both the spiritual traditionsof indigenous peoples and to mainstreamfaiths which were not presentedat the first Delos Workshop. The secondtheme focused on the management ofmonastic lands, with examples drawnmainly from the Northern Mediterranean.Finally, the last day of the Workshop wasdedicated to examining and discussinggeneral issues relating to the provision ofguidance to sacred natural sites, and tothe future orientation and planning of Delosactivities.The main results of the presentationsand discussions were summarised in theOuranoupolis Statement (p 249), whichwas subsequently translated into theIUCN’s other official languages and widelydisseminated through the appropriatenetworks and the Delos Initiative webpageat http://www.med-ina.org/delos.Workshop participants then visited monasteriesin Meteora, Thessaly, theOrmylia Monastery in Halkidiki, the Verginaarchaeological site and the ByzantineMuseum of Thessaloniki.The Delos2 WorkshopproceedingsThe proceedings are organised in thesame way as the Workshop.They start with the blessing of His AllHoliness the Ecumenical Patriarch andopening statements made by the representativesof the Holy Community of Mt.Athos and the Prefecture of Halkidiki.These are followed by three distinct sectionsdealing with i) the presentations ofthe new case studies, ii) the managementof monastic lands, and iii) generalissues and the future orientation of Delosactivities.Part One:An overview of the case studiesIndigenous sacred sitesFollowing the introduction and openingspeeches, Part One of the Workshopproceedings includes two case studiesrelating to indigenous peoples in Australiaand the United States of America respectively,and four case studies relatingto mainstream faiths (Buddhism, Christianityand Islam) in Italy, Morocco, theRussian Federation and South Korea.The Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Areais located in Northeast Arnhem Land,Australia, and is comprised of severalsmaller sites. Yolngu, the Aboriginalpeople that inhabit the area, have a culturalobligation to manage their landswith respect to their ancestral traditions,applying effective conservation techniquesthat have in all likelihood ensuredtheir existence for more than 50,000years. The highly complex practices are16

Meteora, Greecehanded down from one generation tothe next through cultural transmission.Dhimurru is an example of a protected,sacred natural area for which indigenouspeople have sole management responsibility.They have chosen to educatethe public through paintings, storiesand songs.The Sacred San Francisco Peaks havebeen held sacred and accessed for specificreligious purposes for many centuriesby 22 Native American Nations.Commonly known as Dooko’oo’sliid,these peaks are recognised by the Navajopeople as a female life form, asource of medicinal and ceremonialplants and minerals, and a place of spiritualnourishment. High precipitation,several altitudinal vegetation zones, itsvarying directional orientation and a myriadof microhabitats make the mountainrange a haven of biodiversity. The mostserious threat to the natural and spiritual/ cultural values of the Peaks is posedby plans to build a ski resort on its southernslopes, which include the use ofwastewater for effluent snow. In an effortto save the Sacred Peaks from profanation,13 tribes have formed the Save thePeaks Coalition to fight unwanted developmentprojects in the courts.Sites sacred to mainstream faithsThe National Park of the Casentine Forests,Mount Falterona and Campigna,extends along the ridge of the Tuscan-Romagna Appenine in Italy. The CasentineForests are part of a National Parkthat covers around 36,000 ha. The Parkhosts a large number of plants and herbaceousspecies and is also rich in fauna,both mammals and birds. The area’smain sacred sites are the BenedictineHermitage and Monastery of Camaldoli,and the Franciscan Sanctuary of La Verna.People have lived and worked in thislandscape for many centuries, and ruinsand abandoned villages are still frequentwithin the park. Tourism has become animportant source of revenue for the area,but has also had a major impact both onthe forest and on the religious values of17

the park. Marked benefits would thus accrueto forming and supporting an integratedapproach for the entire area,which would protect the region’s natural,cultural and spiritual heritage withoutcompromising the future of its touristindustry.Jabal La‘l âm[Mount of the Signal] is situatedat the heart of the Jabal Bouhachemregion in the Rif mountains ofMorocco. The spiritual importance of thesite derives from the presence at its peakof the famous tomb / sanctuary of ‘Abdal-Salâm ibn Mashîsh, a holy man whowithdrew there eight centuries ago. Nationalforest legislation and the existenceof a ‘hurn’ —an Islamic traditional protectedarea— guarantee to a certain degreethe conservation of the natural heritage.The oak forests as well as the numerousspecies of mammals and birds,quite a few of them endemic or endangered,attest to the site’s biological andecological significance. Degradationcaused by the vast number of pilgrimswho visit the open-air sanctuary to prayis apparent. Some environmental damageis also a result of the traditional marketsthat operate in the locality.Mount Mani-san on the island of Ganghwa-donear the capital of South Koreais considered one of that country’s mostsacred mountains due both to its beautifullandscapes and magnificent views ofthe sea and –still more significantly– tothe fact that Dangun (the legendaryfounder of the Korean nation) allegedlyconstructed a stone altar on Mani-san’sChamseongdan peak over 4,000 yearsago and performed the first celestial offering.While Mount Mani-san has aunique ecosystem –it is the home ofmany migratory birds, well preserved forest,etc.– its tideland is in great danger.The most serious conservation threatsare posed by the large number of visitorsand by several development projectsplanned for the region. The local governmenthas announced several ambitiousplans to reclaim the tideland, to build athermal power plant and to transform thearea into a tourist resort.Orchards in Vatopedi Monastery, Holy Mountain18

The Solovetsky Islands lie in the middleof the White Sea, 165 km South of theArctic Circle in Northern Russia. Theunique archipelago in the European Partof the Arctic Ocean is comprised of overone hundred islands. The Solovetsky archipelagocontains sub-tundra and forest-tundraecosystems, crooked forests,numerous endemic species and a complexof small lakes. Many different cultureshave regarded the Solovetsky Islandsas sacred down the ages, whilesome of the islands number among OrthodoxRussia’s most sacred places.The monasteries, which were restoredafter the Communist era, and the increasingnumber of pilgrims who visit theislands every year, are gradually becominga significant factor in the life of the localcommunity.Part Two:Management of monastic landsand facilitiesPart Two includes case studies relatingto Mount Athos and other monasticcommunities in Rila (Bulgaria), Catalonia(Spain), Crete (Greece) and theSouthern Carpathians (Romania).At the end, a short paper attempts todraw conclusions and lessons fromthese presentations.The Athos Peninsula is the Easternmostof the three peninsulas in Halkidiki,Greece; it is roughly 60 km long. The HolyMountain is inhabited by a society ofMonks who have devoted their lives tothe worship of God and is a sacred siteof global significance. It is a Natural andCultural World Heritage Site and part ofEurope’s Natura2000 network. The HolyCommunity of Mount Athos has successfullyimplemented a LIFE project relatingto the rehabilitation of coppiceQuercus frainetto and Quercus ilex tohigh forest, and has conducted a strategicSpecial Environmental Study to identifyand list the management measuresrequired to protect and restore the entirepeninsula with all its biotic and abioticconstituents, while promoting a developmentmodel compatible with the environmentaland economic concerns of thelocal community. Athos’ mountain landscapefeatures diverse vegetation and acomplex and profoundly beautiful topography,which has been preserved byan orthodox Monastic Community forover a millennium. The monastic lifestyle is characterised by temperance, silence,the careful use of natural resourcesand a concern for conservation. Theneed for special landscape conservationactions emerged after the wildfire of1990 and the road network that hassince been developed.Buila V ânturarit,ais a small Romaniannational park in the Southern Carpathians.The Park has three levels of vegetation–the deciduous, the boreal andthe sub-alpine– and boasts flora includingmany endangered, rare and endemicspecies. Carpathian fauna is also wellrepresented. The area is also known asthe ‘mountain of the monks’, and thereare six Orthodox monasteries and sketeswithin the Park, its only permanent humansettlements. The monasteries, situatedat the start of the tourist trails, forma circle around the National Park andare considered its spiritual guardians.The cultural values of the area are19

strongly related to the presence of theseChristian Orthodox monasteries of whichthe Bistrita Convent, built by the Craiovestiboyars, is the most famous. Librariesand museums dating back to the15 th century can also be found there.The main economic activities are woodharvesting and stock raising. An integratedapproach is, perhaps, the mosteffective strategy for preserving the naturaland cultural character of the areaand maintaining strong spiritual links betweenMan and Nature.The Monastery of Chrysopigi in Chania,Crete is dedicated to the Mother of God,the Life-Giving Spring. Since the 16 thcentury, it has been a source of spiritualand social support for the people of theisland. The land around the Monasteryis currently given over to cultivation usingorganic farming methods. The monastery’sestate has been designated aprotected area and is home to a varietyof plants and trees, some of which areused in pharmaceutics. Apart from itsenvironmental significance, the archaeologicaland historical value of this biotopeare substantial. Further plans forthe conservation of the area should focuson both its natural and spiritualheritage.The Cistercian Monastery of Santa Mariade Poblet is located in Southern Catalonia.It was well known throughout WesternEurope during the 13 th -15 th centuriesfor promoting advanced sustainable techniquesin agriculture, forestry and animalhusbandry. The monastery was severelydamaged and its forest razed to theground during the social turbulence ofthe 19 th century, but the monastery andits surrounding forest were restored duringthe 20 th century. More than 150,000people visit Poblet Monastery every year,the majority of whom are attracted by itscultural heritage. The main natural significanceof the Park is linked to the surroundingMediterranean forests. In 1984,the area around the Monastery was declareda Natural Site of National Importance.The monastic community has undertakenseveral initiatives which aim:i) to improve the environmental managementof all the Monastery’s facilities andlands, ii) to promote the effective protectionof the rural landscape around theMonastery and iii) to develop a strategyfor raising its visitors’ environmental andspiritual awareness.Rila Monastery was founded by SaintIvan Rilsky in the early 10 th century. Rila,which lies in the heart of a magnificentmountain massif, is Bulgaria’s holiestsite. Several other sacred placesare located around the Monastery, includingholy springs, the sacred caveof the founder and five hermitages. TheNatural Park, which nestles within alarger national park, is home to a varietyof distinct ecosystems and spectacularmountain landscapes, lakes, oldforests, and a number of endemicplants. The local fauna is extremely diverseand includes significant wolf andbrown bear populations. The maingoals of the 2003 management plan includeconserving the area’s spiritual,cultural and natural heritage; managingnatural resources in relation to tourism;raising awareness through educationalschemes and co-ordinating the activitiesof the Orthodox Church and state20

institutions. These goals, which underlinethe strong relationship between themonastic community and the naturalenvironment, seek both to sustain themultifaceted role of the nation’s mostimportant cultural and spiritual centre,and to preserve the unity between themonastery and nature.Sakya Tashi Ling is a modern Buddhistmonastery located in El Garraf Park nearBarcelona in Catalonia, Spain. The propertyof the Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery isof significant natural, cultural and spiritualvalue. The monastic community’s repeatedlyexpressions of interest in improvingthe management of the naturalarea surrounding the Sakya Tashi LingMonastery have resulted in the draftingof a management plan, which seeks tointegrate the scientific conservationistand traditional Tibetan Buddhist worldviews.The Buddhist monastery is currentlythe Park’s main attraction, with visitorsattracted by the activities and coursesoffered by the monastic communityand by the cultural significance of thePalau Novella building, in which the communitylives.Part Three: Achieving synergybetween spiritual and conservationconcernsPart Three begins with a summary of theefforts made to provide guidance to themanagers, custodians and administratorsof sacred natural sites. The specificitiesof sacred natural sites in developedcountries are explored in a second paper,which is followed by ‘Some thoughtson sacred sites, faith communities andindigenous peoples’ and concludes witha presentation of the ecological activitiesof the Ecumenical Patriarchate across alarge part of the globe.Working under the auspices of the IUCNWorld Commission for Protected Areas(WCPA), the IUCN Cultural and SpiritualValues of Protected Areas SpecialistGroup has prepared a set of Guidelinesfor Protected Area Management on SacredNatural Sites. The guidelines emergedout of a number of meetings organisedsince 1998 by UNESCO andthe IUCN in India, Mexico, China, SouthAfrica, Japan, the United Kingdom and–now– Greece. The drafting processbegan in 2003, and a preliminary set ofworking guidelines was posted on the Internetin 2005 and subsequently publishedby UNESCO. Although the guidelinesfocus on sacred sites relating to indigenouspeoples, they are just onemanifestation of the greater recognitionbeing afforded to historical and contemporaryconservation efforts rooted in anappreciation of the natural world initiatedby numerous communities across theglobe. The Guidelines were launched inBarcelona at the IUCN World ConservationCongress in 2008 .The next paper examines the specificitiesof sacred natural sites in technologicallydeveloped countries. The specificcharacteristics of these sites are significantfor both mainstream religions andindigenous peoples, and as such theirmanagement and conservation are examinedwithin the context of broader globalsocio-economic and spiritual trends. Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008) SacredNatural Sites: Guidelines for protected AreaManagers. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.21

Several general recommendations areput forward, which are relevant to both.The complex issue of indigenous andtraditional peoples and communities indeveloping countries is addressed bythe paper Some thoughts on sacredsites, faith communities and indigenouspeoples. Through many years of IUCNwork around the world, it has becomeobvious that indigenous faiths suffersubstantially less in developed than indeveloping nations, where the traditionalpeoples and cultures are more numerous,the areas involved much larger andthe scale of the problems consequentlymuch larger. As a result, the prospectsfor traditional spirituality are anything butbright. In addition, there are frequentconflicts between indigenous groupsand institutionalised religions that resultin the harassment and persecution ofthe former, which can jeopardise thevery survival of traditional cultures. Moreover,the critical issue of indigenouspeoples having lost their rights of tenureand of managing indigenous sacredsites remains unsolved in the majority ofdeveloping countries. Since all landswithin protected areas in Latin America,Asia and Africa are state lands, the rightsof indigenous and traditional peoples totheir sacred sites cannot be restored.The ongoing degradation of traditionalinstitutions in developing countries,which began during the colonial era isanother major problem, exacerbated bya refusal to recognise indigenous spiritualityas legitimate. It is thus absolutelycrucial that mainstream religious institutionsbecome more open, ecumenicaland tolerant and abandon their colonialattitudes towards indigenous spirituality,which include their continued efforts toconvert indigenous people to institutionalisedreligions.In recent years, numerous environmentalorganisations have turned to religions insearch of allies in their nature conservationand environmental action. Environmentalaction by the ‘green’ EcumenicalPatriarch has been particularly notedand appreciated. The Ecumenical Patri-The Delos2 Workshop22

Part OneAnalysis of case studies- Indigenous peoples- Mainstream faiths25

Indigenous peoplesPower on this land; managing sacred sitesat Dhimurru Indigenous Protected AreaNortheast Arnhem Land, AustraliaBas VerschuurenMawalan II MarikaPhil WiseIntroductionThis case study outlines Dhimurru’s experiencewith the management of their sacrednatural sites which, in this article, willbe referred to as sacred sites. It begins witha general introduction and then proceedsto explain in greater detail Dhimurru’s experiencewith managing sacred sites usingthe two examples of Nhulun and Muruwirri.Nhulun provides a good exampleof fostering cross-cultural learning andsignifies the importance of sacred sites tothe land rights movement. Muruwirri highlightslessons learned from sacred art andmodern science-based exercises for mappingthe coastal and marine environmentwhich is also termed the ‘sea country’.Like all aboriginal cultures, Yolngu aboriginalculture is rich in spiritual values.Just as the Yolngu make no distinctionbetween ‘land’ and ‘sea’, there is no separationbetween these values and theenvironment. Hence their use of the termsea county for the coastal habitats oftheir clan estates, and their referring tothemselves as saltwater people (Memmot2004, Verschuuren 2006, Yunupingu2007). This unique integrated approachto cultural and natural values is betterunderstood when cultivating a deeperunderstanding of the tangible and intangibleimportance of Yolngu values.The cultural connection with the land is asacred one encompassed by the relationshipsbetween Rom (law / protocol),Manikay (song / ceremony) and Miny’tji(art) (see glossary). This may be easierto understand in the light of Graham’s in-< Sign at Yalangbara, Northeast Arnhem Land, Australia27

sights into the philosophical underpinningsof Aboriginal worldviews (2008):“The land, and how we treat it, is what determinesour human-ness. Because land issacred and must be looked after, the relationbetween people and land becomes thetemplate for society and social relations.Therefore all meaning comes from land.”Learning from Dhimurru’s experienceswith managing sacred sites entails familiarisingoneself with the endogenous approachDhimurru has taken. It involvesmaking an effort to understand managementfrom within a culture. Based onthis, Dhimurru has developed the BothWays approach which will be detailedfurther throughout this article, as we illustratehow cultural and spiritual significancehelp guide management actionsfor the conservation and protection ofsacred sites.Map of the Intigenous Protected Area with sacred sites marked28

LocationThe Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area(IPA) is located in Northeast ArnhemLand Australia. Located on Aboriginalland, the Dhimurru IPA surrounds Nhulunbuy,the Northern Territory’s fourthlargest city. It is named after the sacredhill of Nhulun at whose base the miningtown is built. The IPA also includes Dhambaliya(Bremer Island) off the shore to theNorth of Nhulunbuy. The IPA covers a totalterrestrial area of c.92,000 ha with anadditional 9,000 ha of coastal watersbounded by Nanydjaka (Cape Arnhem),Yalangbara (Port Bradshaw), Djuwalpawuy(Mount Dundas) and Dhambaliya(Smyth 2007). To the North and East, theDhimurru IPA is bordered by the sea; tothe South, its sea estate and lands arebordered by Laynhapuy IPA and managedby the Yirralka rangers at LaynhapuyHomelands who, like Dhimurru,have united the management of theirHomelands.The sites referred to throughout this articlehave been indicated on the map (inp. 28). They cover both land and sea andare populated in varying densities. Thesesites are known to Yolngu as: Nhulun(Mount Saunders) and Muruwirri andDhambaliya Channel (Lonely Rock andBremmer Channel).Dhimurru, the organisationYolngu cosmology is divided into twomoieties called Yirritja and Dhuwa. LikeYing and Yang, Yirritja and Dhuwa includepeople, plants, animals and land. Yirritjaand Dhuwa are part of Dhimurru throughthe collaboration of Yirritja and Dhuwaclans. Dhimurru itself was founded in 1992and is governed by the Dhimurru ExecutiveBoard, which consists of 20 representatives—mostly Traditional Owners(see glossary)— from the traditional clanestates that comprise the Dhimurru IPA(officially declared in 2000). The DhimurruExecutive board is advised by the DhimurruAdvisory Group, whilst the Dhimurrustaff implement the management planand related conservation projects.Natural and cultural heritage values withinthe Dhimurru IPA are managed fromwithin the cultural worldview of theYolngu people, and therefore strive to betreated inclusively. From this position,the Yolngu people have developed partnershipsand working relationships withvarious conservation, government andscientific institutes. Although the managementapproach to the land is alwaysbased on a Yolngu perspective, Dhimurrufosters different ways of understandingthe unique natural heritage in the IPA.To this end, a unique Both Ways managementapproach has been established.The Both Ways management approachstems from the need of Yolngupeople to seek greater recognition fortheir culture than that which could be assertedthrough a joint managementagreement of the sort initially proposedby the Australian Government. Dhimurruprovides an example of a protected areawhose management is entirely the responsibilityof Indigenous people, whohave chosen to exercise that responsibilityby negotiating partnerships with governmentaland non-governmental organisations(NGOs) to produce an alterna-29

tive to joint management (Smyth 2007).The IPA is a voluntary managementagreement with the Australian government,which closely resembles Indigenousand Community Conserved Areas(ICCA) or the World Conservation Unions’(IUCN) Category V. The YolnguPlan of Management recognises Yolnguvalues, natural heritage values and othercommunity values (Dhimurru 2000).Natural valuesAs explained earlier, the meaning of naturalheritage is defined from a Yolngucultural perspective, in which culturaland biological values have been inextricablylinked since time immemorial (Posey1999, Hutcherson 1995, Dhimurru2006a). To Yolngu people, the reciprocityof these values is evident. Yolngu peoplehave always been concerned with educatingBalanda in this interconnectivity,as illustrated by a statement in Dhimurru’ssea country management plan:“We have always known that we havesome of the most culturally and ecologicallysignificant shores and sea countryin Australia. Finally, it seems the non-indigenousworld has caught up”.The Plan further describes Yolngu’s intimateknowledge of the sea from theirperspective as saltwater people:“Our marine estates include islands, rockyand coral reefs, inlets, bays, estuaries,mudflats, underwater springs, sea grassmeadows, mangrove forests, the sea bedand open ocean. We share our sea countrywith marine creatures including fish,whales, dolphins, crustaceans, corals,dugongs, turtles, shellfish, crocodiles andsea and water birds. We can describeand name in detail coastal, underwaterand offshore features. We know and understandin detail the behaviour and habitatof marine life”. (Dhimurru 2006a)Yolngu have a rich culture with a profoundunderstanding of nature. Theyhave been exposed to European valuessince 1935, when a Christian missionwas established at Yirrkala: the youngpeople of that time are the elders of today.Since then, they have seen modernscience explore their culture and the naturalenvironment of their clan estates. Afterearly explorers like Charles Darwinand Matthew Flinders mapped watersand coastline, various overland expeditionssurveyed the natural environment ofNortheast Arnhem Land. The collectionsof such expeditions are on display in museumsaround Australia. One such collectionis the Donald Thompson Collectionat the Victoria Museum (Thomson1983) from the 1948 American-AustralianScientific Expedition to Arnhem Land.The Yolngu are interested in deepeningscientific understanding and integratingit into the day-to-day cultural managementof their land and sea estates. Severalscientific studies have been undertakenin collaboration with Dhimurru.Both Dhimurru and the Northern TerritoryParks and Wildlife Service (PWNT) hassuccessfully applied the Both Ways approachin training Yolngu to assist in inventoryand monitoring programmescovering macropods, insects (notablythe endemic Gove butterfly), mammals,fish, reptiles and plants. However, theunique and pristine environment remains30

elatively unexplored by modern science.Two weeks of collecting insects generatedextensive material including the discoveryof species previously unknown tomodern science. In addition, the YolnguPlan of Management (Dhimurru 2000)recognises specific natural heritage valueswhich, following Smyth (2007), include:high plant diversity and intact faunalassemblages; coastal regions notrepresented in any other protected area—the largest Quaternary dune systemon the Northern Territory mainland, forinstance; and significant feeding habitatsand nesting sites for seabirds, migratorybirds and threatened species ofmarine turtle and dugong (Smyth 2007).The marine turtle and the dugong are ofparticular cultural interest to Yolngu people.Seven species of turtle occur inDhimurru IPA, six of which are known tonest there: the Olive Ridley (LepidocheliysOlivaces), Hawksbill (Eretmochelysimbricate), Leatherback (Dermochelyscoriacea), Loggerhead (Caretta caretta),Flatback (Natator depressus) and Greenturtle (Chelonia mydas). Marine turtlesare in decline in most parts of the worldand are included in the IUCN Red List.Dhimurru has learned from other monitoringstudies how to put effective managementpractices in place to help decliningpopulations recover. Such managementpractices include protectinghabitat (through Dhimurru’s permit systemand patrols), advocating the use ofTurtle Exclusion Devices in fisheries andensuring that the traditional harvest ofeggs and turtles is sustainable (throughthe Sea Country Management Plan). Thedugong (Dugong dugong: the sea cow)also occurs in the Dhimurru IPA, althoughnumbers are known to be keptlow by the limited availability of seagrass(Halophila ovalis and Haloduleuninervis) feeding grounds.Cultural and spiritual valuesSince Dhimurru is an Aborigine-ownedorganisation looking after aboriginalland, their management practices aresubsequently based on cultural values.To Dhimurru, therefore, the whole landscapeis regarded as culturally significant,with specific sacred places andspecies on it, which can be said to embodyspecial spiritual connections to theancestral beings that created the land ina period called ‘the Dreamtime’. Accordingto Rose (1998), the concept ofDreamtime is very real to Aboriginal peopleand often hard to understand forEnglish-speaking people, because thereis no adequate translation into English.The ancestor beings —Wangar— createdthe landscape and sang it —with therocks, lakes, trees, sea and animals alivewithin it— into being. This means thatAboriginal people are spiritually connectedto the landscape, but also to specificplants and animals. The Manikay songsof the ancestors are records of their travelsas they created the land, and theyhave been passed on from one generationto the next since time immemorial(Morphy 1991, Chaloupka 1993, Memmot2004). As the ancestors laid downthe law (Rom), the songs, stories(Dhawu), art (Miny’tji), dance and musicalinstruments form a unique and powerfulmedium through ceremony (whichoutsiders call corroboree) and guideYolngu life (Morphy 1998). This means of31

Newspaper clipping relating to the first protest ceremony in the 1960scommunicating cultural and spiritual valuesis widely recognised by society as ahighly influential and powerful mediumfor educating and influencing people.Yolngu people today still practice theirheritage in this traditional way, using it toenrich and strengthen their land and seamanagement practices. The followingsections will detail the cultural significanceto the Yolngu of the two sacredsites, and the role Dhimurru plays inmanaging them.A history of land rights atNhulun (Nhulun lookout)Nhulun is a natural hill and a sacred siteenclosed on three sides by the NhulunbuyTownship, which is home to over4000 residents. It was at the centre of thefirst legal claim made for Aboriginal traditionalownership of land and customarylaw, a legal action which ultimately resultedin the passing of the AboriginalLand Rights Act (ALRA, 1976). It canthus be said that the struggle for landrights began when this sacred site wasdamaged by road works (see image inp. 32). A protest ceremony (the GalthaBunggul) was held on the damaged site(Dhimurru 2007) prior to the Yolngu peoplecreating a statement of their ‘titledeeds’ glued onto a bark painting (commonlyknown as the Bark Petition) andpresenting it to the Australian House ofRepresentatives in 1963. The Bark Petitionmade particular reference to the sacrednessof the land:“...That the land in question had beenhunting and food gathering groundsfor the Yirrkala tribes from time immemorial.That places sacred to the Yirrkalapeople, as well as vital to theirlivelihood are in the excised land. Thatpeople feel that their needs and interestswill be completely ignored as theyhave been ignored in the past.” (fromHutcherson 1995).The Federal Court initially rejected theclaim, upheld the hypothesis of TerraNullius (meaning ‘empty land’, a Latin32

Re-enactment of the Galtha Bunggul in 2007dictum legally applied to claim a territoryunder public law) and did not recogniseYolngu law or the Yolngu people as Australiancitizens. However, the Royal Commissionadvised that the Nabalco miningcompany and the Commonwealth hadwrongfully entered Aboriginal land on thebasis of leases initially granted by theCommonwealth. This ruling resulted inthe ALRA, which has allowed approximately50% of Northern Territory land tobe handed back to Traditional Ownerssince 1976.Traditionally, Nhulun is a sacred site relatingto a ‘sugarbag’ dreaming, the maternalbirthplace of the wild honey orsugarbag produced by native bees andconsidered a delicacy among Yolngu.Nhulun is a registered sacred site underthe 1989 Northern Territory Sacred SitesAct (1989) as well as a recreational area.A sealed road provides access for motorvehicles to a steel watch tower (Nhulunlookout) overlooking the surroundinglands. The lookout has been providedwith signs explaining the cultural andspiritual values of the sacred site as wellas its importance to the land rights movement.The signs include a timeline coveringthese events chronologically from aYolngu perspective, and is a good exampleof Dhimurru’s strategy of promotingreconciliation and cultural understandingthrough the interpretation ofYolngu beliefs and values to visitors(Smyth 2007).Nhulun is of high cultural significance toYolngu people, who still carry out a ceremonyat Nhulun. The last ceremony tookplace on 1 May 2007 and was a commemorativere-enactment of the GalthaBunggul held in 1969 (see image in p.32). The re-enactment was timed to coincidewith the opening of the interpretivedisplay at Nhulun, which describes its importanceto Australian history and culture(see image in p. 33). The re-enactmentbrought together Yolngu as well as nonindigenouspeople including governmentofficials and schoolchildren to celebrateYolngu culture and the recognition of landrights. However, despite this legal recog-33

nition of Yolngu land rights, the Yolngupeople continue to fight for the willingand cooperative recognition of theserights by non-indigenous people. This isreflected in the Dhimurru permit systemand in the restoration activities Dhimurruhas had to carry out as a result of the undesirableimpact of visitors.The Sacred Paintings of Muruwirriand Dhambaliya (Lonely Rockand Bremmer Channel)The Dhambaliya Channel and Muruwirriare both good examples of sacred sitesin the marine environment commonlycalled the sea country by the Yolngu,who also refer to themselves as ‘SaltwaterPeople’ (National Oceans Office2004). Djawa Yunupingu, the director ofDhimurru explains the Yolngu connectionto the sea country when talkingabout the sea country management planDhimurru has been working towards:“For Yolngu, sea country is very importantculturally. When we sit, when wethink, when we sing and when we dream,we have visions about sea country.Yolngu sing about the winds coming infrom the ocean. The sacred sites fromthe Dreaming stories are there, too. Wesing some animals from the sea, whichare sacred to us, passed down from onegeneration to the next. Yolngu have sacredsites in sea country because storiesare tied up with that land underneath it.That’s why we paint and we explainthose drawings and paintings. It is not apainting; it is a map, a map of the Dreamingand sea creatures and sacred sites.There are many stories behind it. Dhawu,or stories, are very important to Yolngu”.(Yunupingu and Muller 2007).The paintings of Muruwirri shown in thischapter illustrate how the site is interconnectedwith the broader seascape commonlyknown as the Dhambaliya (Bremmer)Channel.Muruwirri is a single rock protruding outof the sea in the Dhambaliya Channel.The Channel is sacred to the Riratjinguand Djambarrpuyngu clans, and in anarea influenced by the Djambawal, theThunderman and Daymirri, the ancestralwhale. This place, song and significanceextends to knowledge about featuresand landmarks that are at the bottom ofthe ocean floor but were dry land some10,000 years ago (Buku-larrngay MulkaCentre 1999). This sea country is alsoimportant culturally, because the storiesrelate to heritage dating back to theDreamtime and the testimony of famousturtle hunters. Turtle hunting is still regardedas a very important part of Yolnguculture. Although most of the pressureon turtle populations are due to the activitiesof Balanda (non-Aboriginal people),sacred places and cultural heritage canhelp conservation practices to generateYolngu acceptance of potential regulationssuch as hunting limits which renderthe harvest sustainable.The two paintings (images in p. 35) telldifferent stories, but the stories relate tothe same place: Dhambaliya Channeland Muruwirri. The Painting by MawalanII Marika shows Muruwirri at the bottomwith the white of the bird droppings on itstop. The two king browns also refer to thesacred digging sticks called Mawalan34

that point to a well of freshwater thatsprings from the ocean floor and is surroundedby patterns depicting the sacredcurrents of the sea. All these features existin the Dhambaliya Channel. As theyare painted through sacred design, theyrefer to stories that contain a rich sourceof information about the ecosystem. Thepainting by Mawalan Marika (Mawalan IIMarika’s grandfather) was designed toreveal some of these stories to two anthropologists(Ronald and CatherineBerndt) in the late 1940s. According toMawalan II Marika, the detailed informationdepicted in the painting (Muruwirribeing the yellow circle surrounded by animalsin the bottom left corner) by hisgrandfather is also present in his ownpainting, and those who are initiated inthe knowledge can see it. According toMawalan II Marika, “It is the easiest wayto explain what we know about what is inthe sea and what is in the land”. MawalanII Marika also comments on the Balandamap (meaning geographical maps): “It’sreally hard, I look at it and I can’t evenfind it [the place and the story]. Thesemaps don’t match”.Yolngu artwork has many levels of meaningthat are revealed to people in accordancewith their status, gender and level ofPainting of sea country. Gunda MuruwirriPainting of sea country. Dhambaliya myth map35

initiation. Their meaning ranges along acontinuum from ‘inside’ or secret (oftensacred) to ‘outside’ or public knowledge(Hutcherson 1995). The explanationsalong this continuum are also referred toas ‘open’ or ‘closed’ stories. There is agrowing awareness of the importance ofsaltwater paintings since the 80 barkpaintings painted by Yolngu toured Australianmuseums in the course of gainingrecognition for indigenous sea rights in1997. The cultural information containedin such paintings is of paramount importancein the understanding of ecosystems,and even more important for successfulconservation practices. Anotherkey to understanding the importance ofthe Yolngu perception of nature to conservationis Yolngu’s intimate spiritual relationswith the sea country and the speciesin it. Throughout North-eastern ArnhemLand and the Gulf of Carpentaria,anthropologists have documented whatis called ‘calling up’ or ‘dreaming up’marine resources, or ‘talking to country’,which related to applying that spiritualrelationship to land, the sea and the speciesin it (Chaloupka 1993, Cordell 1995,Memmot 2004). Yolngu people assertthis relationship in their sea country managementplan thus:“We call up the names we have for importantplaces in our sea country for differentreasons and purposes —someare deep and secret” (Dhimurru 2006a).Pressures and impactsYolngu people have a cultural responsibilityto manage the land in accordancewith spiritual obligations owed to theirancestors. This way of managing theland has sustained Aboriginal peoples’presence on the land for what could beas long as 50,000 years (Chaloupka1993, Memmot 2004, Yunupingu 2007).Although some Aboriginal practices ofland management such as fire managementmay seem detrimental to the unaccustomedeye, they are in fact highlycomplex practices that are widely creditedas being successful in managing,sustaining and enhancing ecosystem biodiversity.The continuity of caring forthe country handed over from one generationto the next is also part of a processcalled ‘cultural transmission’. Onefeature of attention with fire-managementis that the healthy ecosystem that resultsfrom it is directly related to cultural integrity.For example, if Aboriginal people donot have their traditional cultural firemanagementin place, the country receivesless attention, the intervals betweenfires become too long, and fireevents are inevitable too hot and prolonged,thereby having a negative impacton biodiversity and the area’s carbonsequestration capacity (Muller 2007).Maintaining traditional practices thus dependson keeping culture strong andcentral to the management of DhimurruIndigenous Protected Area.The Yolngu people have had to adapt tothe permanent residence of non-indigenousAustralians —referred to collectivelyas Balanda by the Yolngu people—since the mid 1930s. However, it wasthe impact of Balanda living at Nhulunbuysince the 1960s which promptedTraditional Owners to establish Dhimurruto better control and manage the in-36

creasing threat posed to the land. Tohalt unlawful access to land and potentialdamage to sacred sites, Dhimurrumanages an access permit system thatis at the forefront of the movement forgetting their rights recognised. Dhimurru’spermit system is an attempt at regulatingvisitor experience and impactwithin areas allocated for this purpose.The permit provides access to areasappointed by Traditional Owners as recreationalareas. Apart from regulatingthe impact of, for instance, four-wheeldrive access to beaches or campingand fishing, these recreational areashave been selected on the basis ofYolngu concern for visitor safety asmuch as safeguarding the sacred sitesoutside their perimeters.Not surprisingly, most of the pressureson the natural (and often, indirectly, cultural)values of the IPA originate elsewhere.Of course, some of the factorswhich impact on the environment are beyondDhimurru’s scope of management.Some of these pressures are of internationalsignificance and caused by globalprocesses such as climate change (e.g.greenhouse gas emissions), overfishing(e.g. bycatch and habitat destruction)and marine debris (e.g. ‘ghost nets’)washing up on stretches of coastlinewithin the Dhimurru IPA. Dhimurru aimsto address the forces behind those pressuresthrough its cooperation with otherinstitutions such as the CarpentariaGhost Nets Programme, the WorldwideFund for Nature (WWF) and the AustralianQuarantine Inspection Services(AQIS) and Customs. An example ofsuch collaboration being put to gooduse is in the drive to address the declinein sea turtle and dugong populations(both IUCN Red-Listed species) due toboat strikes, overfishing, ghost net entrapmentand habitat destruction outsidethe Dhimurru IPA on a national and internationallevel. Other activities on the partof the residents of and visitors to Nhulunbuy—such as increasing numbers oftourists, the behaviour of recreationaland commercial fishermen and the activitiesof the Rio Tinto-Alcan mining company—impact directly on Dhimurru.Conservation perspectives andsustainabilityAs cultural and spiritual values are increasinglyintegrated into new conservationmanagement approaches, they becomean integral part of the benefits natureprovides to society. These benefits(which include hunting, fishing and recreation)are termed ‘ecosystem services’and contribute to the socio-economicdevelopment of Dhimurru IPA and thewell-being of the Yolngu and Balandawho enjoy the cultural and natural richnessof the area. A promising opportunityto integrate cultural and spiritual valuesinto management approaches wouldbe to establish historic baselines, whichdocument species density over timebased on cultural memory, song and artas well as other sources of cultural information.As relatively little scientific informationexists on species abundanceand behaviour, information of this sortderived from a cultural basis may be regardedas crucial to the defining of managementobjectives.37

From traditional culture tomodern scienceDhimurru manages two ends of thespectrum from traditional culture to modernscience. This entails that what tomap and what not to map should bebased on a cultural basis. From a scientificperspective, it may be argued thatmaps are commonplace and well-developedfor the terrestrial areas of theDhimurru IPA, but that no accurate mapsexist for its marine areas. From a culturalperspective, however, we have seen thatthis assumption is not entirely correct asdetailed maps do exist (see images in p.35). When negotiating the means bywhich mapping exercises are to be conducted,the assessment of a comprehensivesystem for storing these differentinformation types will have to be considered.It has been suggested that aGIS database be developed with layersfor each information source. These layersand the information sources containedin them could then be passwordprotected.It would thus be possible todevelop points on a map linked to a videowith password protection. In suchcases, there is a need for a committee todecide on what is acceptable and whatis not in terms of mapping and data storage.This would also win cultural approvalfor the process and legitimacy for itstools and modus operandi.Dhimurru is uniquely placed to integratemanagement objectives into a culturalperspective. Coordinating the mappingexercise thus includes forming synergiesbetween the interests of the parties involvedand ensuring this is done in amanner respectful to cultural and spiritualvalues. The intended cooperationgoes beyond science working with culturalconservation projects: it is an opportunityto include and unite the qualitiesof Yolngu institutions such as theBuku-larrngay Mulka Centre, the NorthernLand Council and Dhimurru LandManagement Corporation itself. The contributionof spiritual values to the conservationefforts that could be supportedthrough the mapping process could alsoprovide a vehicle for developing potentialmeans of safeguarding the spiritualvalues of those sites through their inclusionin patrolling programs, data storagesystems and cultural databases kept atthe Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre.Mapping DhambaliyaSynergies between the conservation ofnatural heritage and the protection ofspiritual and cultural values are beingdeveloped thought the mapping exercise.Both Yolngu traditional knowledgesystems and their perceptions of natureare of critical importance for conservationmanagement and planning. Muruwirriis an excellent example of this becausethe site including the DhambaliyaChannel has been earmarked for futureconservation work. Dhimurru and partnerssuch as the Aboriginal Areas ProtectionAuthority (AAPA) and Natural ResourcesEnvironment and the Arts (NRE-TA) are planning a mapping exercise tobetter understand the cultural and naturalheritage in the area. This mapping exerciseis part of the programme to workon the sea country plan, and combinesand builds on existing management pro-38

Establishing plots for coral reef monitoringgrammes at Dhimurru such as turtle recoveryand satellite tracking, marine debrissurveys, participation in the CarpentariaGhost Nets Programme, ethno-botanicalsurvey of Melville Bay, coral monitoring,informal surveillance and the provisionof expert advice (Yunupingu &Muller 2007). As efforts turn towardsmapping the seabed, due care has to betaken to ensure that sacred sites andother cultural values are respected (seeimage in p. 39).One of the ways of adapting to culturalconditions is to test equipment and approachesin less culturally sensitive areasfirst, showing people the proposedtechniques so they can see if they areacceptable or not (see image in p. 35).As mapping also involves the consentand cooperation of the 20 clans representedby Dhimurru, reaching consensuson the work may not be an issue,though bureaucratic issues such as signingan agreement between all the organisationsinvolved may prove virtually impossiblefor practical reasons. In moderntimes, companies and government departmentsneed documents to sign offthe job, and establishing a Memorandumof Understanding (MoU) signed byfacilitators and key staff rather than theTraditional Owners of all 20 clans usuallyserves as a solution. In addition, Dhimurruhas developed a scientific protocoloutlining the responsibilities of the researchersand partner organisations interms of sharing the benefits of their researchand addressing issues of IntellectualProperty Rights (IPR). The agreementalso enforces cultural protocolsand can be seen as induction training forBalanda to learn about proper behaviourin working and communicating withYolngu culture.Talking about sacred sites, NhullunThrough experience, Yolngu are politicallyaware of the importance of fosteringeffective ways of achieving reconciliationand cultural understanding. The Dhimurruhomelands are the birthplace of Aus-39

tralia’s most famous Aboriginal musicband: Yothu Yindi. At the height of itspopularity, the band was instrumental inbringing issues such as recognition forculture and land rights to the forefront ofmainstream Australian society. The bandproduced songs in Yolngu and Englishwith titles like “Treaty”, “Tribal Voice” and“Mainstream”. The band has an internationalreputation, having toured extensivelyabroad, establishing relationships withother indigenous people’s organisationsaround the world and forming the YothuYindi Foundation. Another example ofmainstream musical exposure for theDhimurru community was the recent cooperationwith popular Australian folk rockartist, Xavier Rudd, which brought the reenactmentof the Galtha Bunggul and theimportance of Nhulun as a sacred site tothe attention of the Australian people.Xavier Rudd visited Northeast ArnhemLand and recorded a song called “LandRights” with outstanding Yolngu artistsand musicians which was included on his2007 album White Moth. The song, whichwas inspired by the history and culturalsignificance of Nhulun, has once againcarried the message of Yolngu people tothe broader Australian public in a very effectiveand engaging way.Culturally, Nhulun is an interesting exampleof the ongoing need to engage in publicoutreach and cross-cultural education,as the interpretive signage is regularly vandalised.This need is felt and recognisedas a priority by each generation of Yolngupeople, and expressed thus by Dhimurru’sdirector, Djawa Yunupingu:“Here in Northeast Arnhem Land wehave a very strong culture. We feel thepain of the land as it was felt through theeyes of the elders and we feel stronglyagain because the land is important tous; we feel the land, we sing the landwhen we care for the land and respectthe land” (Dhimurru 2007).From a management perspective, Nhulundemands continuous attention. Therefore,Dhimurru is considering takingmeasures against the destruction of thesignage. The management options underconsideration range from replacingthe signage with more sturdy and damage-resistantsignage to installing a permanentdigital surveillance camera. Anotheroption would be to make effectiveuse of policy measures —for example,by penalising trespassers with the $AUS1000 fine foreseen by the Sacred SitesAct. Less rigorous options might includelimiting access by excluding vehiclesfrom the top of Nhulun. This could becombined with increased surveillanceand patrols which would enable offendersto be reported to the police.Conclusions andrecommendationsDhimurru has acquired extensive experienceof managing sacred natural sitesfrom a Yolngu and Western perspective.As Dhimurru’s management is guidedby perspectives central to Yolngu culture,spiritual and cultural values are alwaysof primary concern to natural values.A number of universal lessons canbe extracted from this broad experiencewhich could be of use to indigenouspeoples, managers and policy makersdealing with sacred sites:40

Enabling equitable conservationpractices:1. Empowerment. Empower custodiansand responsible community membersto take appropriate care of their sacredsites. Ensure local custodians are assistedand their concerns addressed.2. Preserve culture as a whole. Sacredsites are part of a rich cultural traditionwhich intertwines the land andthe sea. They can be used to enforcetraditional responsibilities in takingcare of these areas.3. Living culture. Cultural concepts suchas law, song, art and ceremonyshould be treated as part of a livingculture. Any of these aspects relatingto sacred sites are usually part of adynamic system, which is governedand practiced by Yolngu people andincludes taking care of sacred sites.Information management:4. Sacred sites and secrecy. Sacredsites can be protected and registered,but they may also be kept secret fromother parties for cultural reasons.Some of the different knowledge setsattached to them may need to be accessibleto certain groups only.5. Access. Access to sacred sites maybe regulated based on zoning andpermit schemes which can operateconcurrently and in synergy with oneanother. Zoning schemes, in particular,may be a good way of conservingcultural and natural values.6. Sacred site information systems. Onceincluded in information systems, variousdigital media and references tophysical media can be stored in a(GIS) database. Information can belabelled and password-protected toregulate access and catalogue culturalsignificance.7. Intellectual Property. Cultural protocolsand intellectual property rightsshould be taken into account with regardto sacred sites and the culturaland spiritual values related to them.This can be important for visiting scientists,commercial operators, companiesand other outside parties.Communicating interests:8. Appropriate media and communications.Consider media and othermeans of communication that are culturallyacceptable and functional. Theuse of still images and film can be avery effective aid in protecting sacredsites. Such media can also be linkedto existing information systems.9. Perceptions of nature. Recognisingdifferent perceptions of nature is thekey to understanding the importanceplaced on prioritising conservationoptions. This perception typically concernsthe intimate Yolngu spiritual relationswith the sea country and thespecies it contains.10. Aspirations and rights. Communicateaspirations and rights to otherorganisations and institutions. For example,press decision makers (andgovernments, in particular) to recogniseand implement the United NationsDeclaration of the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, and share practi-41

cal management experiences withother conservation organisations.11. Reconciliation. Promote reconciliationand cultural understanding throughthe interpretation of Yolngu culturalbeliefs and values for visitors. Thismay be of particular use in establishinggood working relationships withother parties using indigenous landand sea areas.The Yolngu people of Northeast ArnhemLand have chosen to share their experiencesin the management of sacred sitesand cultural and spiritual values, becausethey believe their extensive experience inmanaging sacred sites may be of valueto other peoples, and that other people’sexperiences may be valuable to them.They recognise that the sharing of suchexpertise is dependent on a willingnessand an ability to communicate openlyand to respect different worldviews. Naturally,highlighting cultural differencesgoes hand in hand with respecting andunderstanding different perceptions. Ifsufficient conceptual space is left for amutual understanding of the importanceof taking care of sacred places togrow, we can look after the power onthis land together.AcknowledgementsThe authors deeply respect the wisdom,the rich culture of the Yolngu people ofNortheast Arnhem Land. They acknowledgethat the true value of this text isrooted in the cultural and spiritual relationshipthat Yolngu people have withtheir land. In addition, much value hasbeen derived from the interaction ofYolngu cultural traditions with contemporaryconservation and management approaches.The authors are indebted toLea Ezzy, Mathew Zylstra, Daryl Guse,Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation’s staff,especially Steve Roeger and Larpan forproviding guidance on earlier versions ofthis article. Thanks, too, to the MarineConservation Biology Institute for supportingthis research.Land rights protest image, 196942

GlossaryBalanda: Non-Aboriginal people.Dhawu: Creation stories from the dreamtime connecting people, place and spirit.Dreamtime: A mythological Creation time (very real to Aboriginal people) in which ancestralbeings created the landscape by singing it into being and gave everything inthe world its meaning.Ghost nets: Redundant fishing nets cut loose from fishing vessels and left in the opensea to trap and kill marine life until they wash ashore.Manikay: Song connecting people, place and spirit. Manikay, like roads, are known toform a network across the Australian landscape and are also called songlines.Amongst other things, they contain information needed to navigate through the land.Miny’tji: Sacred art and painting or sacred design connecting people, place and spirit.Ngapaki: see Balanda.Rom: Traditional law or protocol directing culturally correct behaviour.Sacred site: The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act (2000, formerly 1989) definesa sacred site as a site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance accordingto Aboriginal tradition, and includes any land that is declared to be sacred to Aboriginalsor of significance according to Aboriginal tradition under a Northern Territory law.Traditional Owners (TOs): The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1997 defines TO as localdescent group of Aboriginals who: (a) have common spiritual affiliations to a site onthe land, being affiliations that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibilityfor that site and for the land; and (b) are entitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as ofright over that land.Wangar: Ancestral beings from the dreamtime which created the landscape —includingthe rocks, lakes, trees, sea and animals alive within it— and sang it into being.Yolngu: Aboriginal people of Northeast Arnhem Land Australia.ReferencesALRA, (1976), Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre (1999), Saltwater. Yirrkala Bark Paintings of Sea Country.Recognizing Indigenous sea rights, Collection of the Australian National Maritime Museum,Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre in Association with Jennifer Isaacs Publishing.Chaloupka, G. (1993), Journey in time: The world’s longest continuing art tradition,Reed, Sydney.43

Dhimurru (2006a), Dhimurru Yolnguwu Monuk Gapu Wanga Sea Country Plan. AYolngu Vision and Plan for Sea Country Management in North-east Arnhem Land,Northern Territory, Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, Nhulunbuy.Dhimurru (2006b), Mawalan filming for new land rights, Video footage, Dhimurru files.Dhimurru (2000), Indigenous Protected Area Management Plan, Dhimurru Land ManagementAboriginal Corporation, Nhulunbuy.Graham M. (2008), “Some Thoughts about the Philosophical Underpinnings of AboriginalWorldviews”, Australian Humanities Review, 45, pp. 181-194.Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia (2007), FCAFC 23, Federal Court of Australia.Darwin.Howitt, R. (2001), “Frontiers, Borders, Edges: Liminal Challenges to the Hegemony ofExclusion”, Australian Geographical Studies, 39 (2), pp. 233-245.Hutcherson, G. (1995), Djalkiri Wanga, the land is my foundation: 50 years of AboriginalArt from Yirkala, Northeast Arnhem Land, The University of Western Australia, BerndtMuseum of Anthropology, occasional paper No.4.Marika, II M. (n.d.), Gunda Muruwirri, natural pigments on bark (93x52 cm), MaritimeMuseum Collection, Image courtesy of Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre and Mawalan IIMarika.Marika, M. (1947), Myth-map of Dhambaliya, crayon on paper (115x74 cm), BerndtCollection, Image courtesy of Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre and Mawalan II Marika.Marika, W. (1995), Life story: as told to Jennifer Isacs, University of Queensland Press,St Lucia.Marquis-Kyle, P., Walker, M. W. (1992), The illustrated Burra Charter: making good decisionsabout the care of Important places, ICOMOS Australia, Australian HeritageCommission.Memmot, P. (2004), Living on Saltwater Country, Southern Gulf of Carpentaria, Seacountry management, needs and issues, National Oceans office (NOO), Hobart.Morphy, H. (1998), Aboriginal Art, Phaidon Press, London.Morphy, H. (1991), Ancestral Connections: Art and Aboriginal System of knowledge,University of Chicago Press, Chicago.44

Muller, S. (2008), “Indigenous Payment for Environmental Service (PES) Opportunitiesin the Northern Territory: negotiating with customs”, Australian Geographer, 39:2, pp.149-170.National Oceans Office (2004), Living on Saltwater Country. Review of literature aboutAboriginal rights, use, management and interests in northern Australian marine environments,Hobart.Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act (2000, formerly 1989), Aboriginal AreasProtection Authority, Northern Territory Australia.Posey, D.A. (1999), “Culture and nature, the inextricable link” in Posey (ed.) Culturaland Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, a comprehensive contribution to the UNEP GlobalBiodiversity Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.Rose, B. (1998), Attitudes and Perceptions amongst Aboriginal People in Central Australia,Central Land Council, Alice Springs.Smyth, D. (2006), Dugong and marine Turtle Knowledge handbook. Indigenous andscientific knowledge of dugong and marine turtles in northern Australia, North AustralianIndigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance.Smyth, D. (2007), Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area Case Study, Two-ways management:sole management with partners (draft report).Thomson, D. (1983), Donald Thomson in Arnhem Land, Melbourne University Publishing,Melbourne.United Nations (2007), Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations,General Assembly, 61 st session, agenda item 68, Report of the Human RightsCouncil.Verschuuren, B. (2006), “Socio-cultural Importance of Wetlands in northern Australia” inT. Schaaf and C. Lee (eds.), Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role ofSacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes, IUCN/UNESCO, Chapter 6, 141,150.Verschuuren, B. (2007), Believing is Seeing, Integrating cultural and spiritual values inconservation management, Foundation for Sustainable Development, Wageningen,IUCN, Gland.Yunupingu, D., Muller, S. (2007), Dhimurru’s sea country planning journey: opportunitiesand challenges to meeting Yolngu aspirations for sea country management inNorthern Territory, Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, Nhulunbuy.45

Sacred versus secularin the San Francisco PeaksArizona, USAJeneda BenallyLawrence HamiltonYou must always be careful with something that is greater than you are.Shoshone Native American ProverbLook there! You see a mountain. We see the spirits of our ancestors.Kuka Yalangi, Australian Aboriginal, 2002IntroductionSince time immemorial, more than 22Native American Nations have reveredthe Sacred San Francisco Peaks as adinstictively vital site that has consistentlybeen accessed for specific religiouspurposes. This unique biome is an ecologicalisland that provides refuge to amultitude of different life-forms, some ofwhich are rarely found elsewhere in thesurrounding dry region and, in somecases, the world. Rising from the semiaridColorado High Plateau in NorthernArizona (US), the San Francisco Peaksare a volcanic massif. Mount Humphreys,the highest peak, has an elevationof 3,851 metres and is the highestpoint in Arizona. Although the San FranciscoPeaks are comprised of six peaksin all (four of which are the highest individualpeaks in Arizona), the 22 tribesacknowledge the massif as a single livingentity. Each tribe has a unique relationshipwith the San Francisco Peaksthat leads to it bestowing a distinct tribalname on the mountains and a specific< The San Francisco Peaks from the East, Arizona, USA47

Location of San Francisco Peaksrole in their tribal tradition. In the 1600s,Spanish colonists, disregarded the NativeAmerican place names and namedthe prominence after Saint Francis of Assisi,who many now consider the ‘patronsaint’ of ecology.Called Dooko’oo’sliid by the Navajo(Dine’) Tribe, the San Francisco Peaks arerecognized as a female life-form by theNative American tribes that regard her asholy, and by the 22 tribes for whom she isa source of medicinal and ceremonialplants and minerals as well as a place ofspiritual nourishment. Called the ‘Peaks’locally, the complex is an icon to most residentsand visitors; a dominant landscapefeature that greets them daily. The Peaks,which are only 16 kilometres to the Northwestof the small city of Flagstaff, are managedby the United States Forest Service.Although the tribes have always beenstewards of the land, their role is now constrainedto being consulted in decisionspertaining to land use; this tribal consultationrarely, if ever, provides protection forthe sanctity of this Holy Site.The green forested slopes and snowy summitsof Dook’oo’sliid stand in marked contrastto the ochre-coloured, sparsely-vegetatedlandscape around them. Due to thephysical features and positioning of themountains, the Peaks capture rain andsnow and thus help nourish the dry landsaround them (including the city of Flagstaff)with streams, springs and groundwater aquifers.This green oasis provides a varietyof habitats not found elsewhere in the vicinity.In 1869, a biologist named C. Hart Merriamstudied the San Francisco Peaks anddiscovered six of the seven life-zones usedto classify climate zones (Merriam 1890).Dooko’oo’ sliid is an extremely importantland —and spirit-scape that has helped todefine people’s identity and history.Natural valuesMost of The Peaks is public federal landunder the jurisdiction of the United StatesForest Service as The Peaks District ofthe Coconino National Forest (728,400ha). It is an IUCN Category VI Managed48

Coconino National Forest: Peaks District, showing San Francisco PeaksResource Protected Area. Under the ForestService’s multiple-use policy, the areahas over the years hosted timber harvesting,some grazing, pumice mining, aski development and general public outdoorrecreation activities including hiking,riding, hunting, camping, crosscountryskiing and picnicking. There is alarge designated Kachina WildernessZone (7,670 ha). On the western flank ofthe Holy Mountains, the Nature Conservancyowns and manages the Hart PrairiePreserve (100 ha), a nature-based facilityfor educational programs.This mountain complex is a haven of biodiversity,at the regional level at least,thanks to its higher precipitation, severalaltitudinal vegetation zones, directionallyvariedorientation and myriad microhabitats.Major communities include theRocky Mountain upper montane coniferforest, intermontane grassland, alpinetundra and important seasonal wetlands.The bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata),which is famous for its longevity, occurson the upper slopes, while the endangeredSan Francisco Peaks groundsel(Senecio franciscanus), a remarkableplant of the Asteraceae family endemicto the San Francisco Peaks (US Fish andWildlife Service 1983), occurs above thetree line. The most common tree is theponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), fivevarieties of which grow in the Peaks. Thisforest, which stretches from the Peaks tothe White Mountains, is the largest blockof the widespread ponderosa pine forestof the North American continent (Grahameand Sisk 2002). From these variousnatural communities, a wide varietyof medicinal and ceremonial plants, mineralsand materials (including feathers)are harvested by tribal spiritual leaders.The golden-leaved aspens (Populustremuloides), which stand in a gloriouscontrast to the adjacent dark green conifersin autumn, provide additional scenicsplendour. The peaks are also home toanimals seldom found on the surroundingplateau, including the black bear,mountain lion, deer, peregrine falcon,bald eagle and birds endemic to forest49

View of the Peaks from the Flagstaff urban areaand alpine habitat. Tthe endangeredMexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalislucida) also finds sanctuary in the SanFrancisco Peaks (Defenders of Wildlifeweb site, undated).The Peaks’ most valuable natural product,in monetary as well as non-monetaryterms, is its high quality water. It is the mainwater source for the city of Flagstaff (population65,338), and recharges groundwaterfor the dispersed residents, ranchers andfarmers who use the Coconino aquifer.Further, the presence of snow on their upperslopes, though increasingly unreliabledue to global warming, has given rise to askiing enterprise: the Arizona Snowbowl.The opportunity for forest hiking with spectacularviews has led to the creation ofa substantial network of trails, some withan elevation gain of over 1,000m. In thesummer, the Scenic Skyride (a Snowbowllift) carries people to a 3,500m highview, above the tree line.The presence of volcanic pumice led tosmall-scale mining, which expanded inthe 1990s and resulted in a major confrontationwith those who regarded themines as wounds on the sacred body ofthe Earth. Environmentalists, the Tribesand the Forest Service worked togetherand, joining forces with Former Secretaryof the Interior Bruce Babbit, succeededin having the pumice mine shut down.Spiritual and cultural valuesTwenty-two Tribal Nations, each with distinctlinguistic, historic and lifestyle characteristics,have found commonality inthe holiness of the Sacred San FranciscoPeaks. Some tribes have specificshrines on the mountain while others recognizethat the entire mountain is integralto continue their cultural and spiritualsurvival. The sanctity of the mountainaffects the spiritual, emotional, mentaland physical aspect of these traditionalpeople. For some tribes, every ceremonyand each of their prayers are directlytied to this unique mountain icon. Boththe fate of the individual tribal members50

and the survival of these ancient livingcultures are bound to the purity of theirholy mountainous Mecca.Medicinal plants are also gathered on thissacred mountain, and traditional medicinehas remedies for ailments for which modernmedicine has no known cure includingcancer, arthritis, AIDS and heart disease.Given that the San Francisco Peaks is anoasis in the high desert, there are manyplants that are only to be found on themountain. If the ski area is allowed (withthe concurrence of the Forest Service) tointroduce 681 million litres of treated sewageeffluent per season to this mountainecosystem, Traditional Medicine practitionersinsist that the ceremonial materialsthey have gathered for generations will bephysically and spiritually contaminatedand that, consequently, they will no longerbe able to treat their patients effectively.The Forest Service cannot guarantee thatplants outside the ski resort’s Special UsePermit area would not be contaminatedwith wastewater. The sanctity of the SacredSan Francisco Peaks is of the utmostimportance to the continuation of theseancient healing practices and living faiths.The San Francisco Peaks is the home todeities: The Hopi Tribe believe the Kachinaslive here and journey to bring rainsto the distant dry mesas for the cultivatableseason; for the Apache Tribes, themountain is home to the Mountain Spirits;for the Navajo, it is home to the HolyPeople. Consequently, tribal people makeofferings, say prayers and perform ritualsand ceremonies to ensure balancein the tribes’ relationship with these naturaldeities and with each other.For the many tribes that perceive the SanFrancisco Peaks as Holy Mountains,there is a duty and responsibility not onlyto protect the land, but also to preservetheir traditional knowledge; traditionalknowledge that is a privilege. Tribes reverethe Sacred San Francisco Peaks forsome of the following reasons:• Dine’ (Navajo): for Dooko’oo’sliid, theWestern Sacred Mountain that controlsthe adulthood of people’s life, and forbeing the home of the Holy People;• Acoma: for Tsii Bina, the SacredWestern point that represents completeness,health and well being;• Hopi: for Nuvatukyaovi, home to theKachinas, rain makers;• Havasupai: for Wi’ i Hanginbajah as aplace of purification and the emergencepoint during the water world,when the world became unsafe andflooded with water;• Hualapai: for Wi’hanbacha, the historicalpoint at which the creation story beginsfor this world, being the 4 th world.Offerings are carried to this site whentribal members need help and healing;• San Carlos Apache, White MountainApache, and Yavapai-Apache: DsilLigai Sian Nahokos Biyaayu, a portalinto the spirit world and as the homeof the Mountain Spirits and the Originof Changing Woman;• Zuni: as Sunha kyabachu yallane,which is significant to the on-going traditionsand practices of the Zuni people,and for its ties to ancestral Zunifrom their time of emergence.51

These beliefs are core elements of theoral cultural traditions of the tribes.The traditional medicine men and womenare responsible for their tribes’ culturaland spiritual heritage. Each tribal nationhas its own historians and medicine peoplewho devote their lives to their traditionalart. When one learns a particular ceremony,one must learn all the traditionalstories that are interconnected with it, andthe spiritual leaders often begin learningat an early age accompanying a familymember with the knowledge. Today, becauseof mandatory schooling in the publiceducation system and its materialisticemphasis, there are fewer young peoplelearning the traditional ways.Tribes have continuously appealed to thecity of Flagstaff, the Forest Service and theSki Resort to stop desecrating their SacredMountain. The 22 tribes are part of acoalition to protect the Sacred San FranciscoPeaks, which has received the supportof a number of ‘local’ people in theFlagstaff area and the State of Arizona, includingbusiness owners, tourists and theSierra Club (a nation-wide environmentalNGO). Several faculties of Northern ArizonaUniversity have also helped by integratingthe controversy into their classes.However, the Chamber of Commerce andother organizations within the tourist industryhave favoured the further developmentand exploitation of the region, despitethe Forest Service issuing an EnvironmentalImpact Statement, which makesit clear that the ski resort is not the mostsignificant driver of the Flagstaff economy.Unfortunately, most visitors and touristsare unaware of the cultural and spiritualsignificance of the San Francisco Peaks tothe 22 tribes, and there is no central facilityor information centre to raise their awarenesson this subject. Most people who areaware of the controversy have learnedabout the area’s natural, cultural and spiritualheritage from the media outreach andevents organized by the Save the PeaksCoalition. Informative articles have alsobeen published in international journals includingMountain Research and Development(Hamilton 2006) and Scottish Mountaineer(Hamilton 2007), while the controversyhas been covered by leading USnewspapers. However, although the Savethe Peaks Coalition receives letters of supportfrom all over the world, the ForestService has not altered its ruling.Pressures and impactsSmall-scale mining activity was formerlypermitted by the Forest Service for theextraction of pumice and cinders, but thedemand for stone-washed (faded) bluejeans in the mid-1990s greatly increasedthe profitability of, and demand for, pumice.Until 1998, the White Vulcan Mine(Tufflite Inc.) managed both to ignore theprotests of the local Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai,Zuni and White Mountain Apachecommunities, but also to expand the extentof its operations from 2 to 36 ha.However, when Tufflite Inc. filed for a further12 ha under the obsolete 1872 MiningLaw, its actions did not go unchallenged:rather, it galvanized 13 tribesand the Sierra Club to work together tobring the mining company’s expansionto a halt through a series of well-conductedcultural events and protest rallies.At the same time, the Forest Service52

Map of the Kachina Wilderness Zone showing the location of Snowbowlrequested the Secretary of the Interior towithdraw 29,500 ha of the national forestfrom mining claims. In 2000, the Secretary,calling the mining “a sacrilege”,signed an agreement at the site to closedown the mine within 6 months and forrestoration work to begin. Although thetribal coalition proposed at this time thatthe Peaks be declared a Traditional CulturalProperty and be listed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places, the ForestService has still to designate it assuch. The success of this joint effort ledto the coordinated support of 13 tribesagainst the current threat posed by theproposed Snowbowl development.53

The history of logging, grazing and miningin Northern Arizona goes back to thearrival of the first Europeans in the area. In1898, the Forest Reserve now known asthe Coconino National Forest was set upto control forest exploitation activities inthe area. Timber harvesting centres onthe ponderosa pine and is a major economicactivity which impacts on the site(though not in the Kachina Wilderness Area).Over the years, timber harvesting hasbecome less significant as recreationaldemands have increased. Prescribed burningto reduce fuel loads is now a commonpractice in National Forest management.Hunting occurs, mainly during thewinter. Although mountain bikes and all-terrainvehicles are prohibited from the KachinaWilderness Zone, the forest (logging)routes are available to them elsewhere.That the Forest Service requires tribalmedicinal gatherers to file a permit and,in some cases, to pay a fee for collectingplants, minerals and any other materialfrom the Forest Service land / Sacred SanFrancisco Peaks is a source of culturalstress. Failure to comply with the law canresult in a fine of up to $5,000 fine and / ora 6-month jail sentence. Although, to thebest of our knowledge, no one has everbeen prosecuted for failing to complywith this regulation in this specific area, itserves as a deterrent and places a burdenon traditional practitioners’ ability toobtain the ceremonial herbs they need.A serious threat to the natural and spiritual/ cultural values of the area is attributedto the ski resort on the South-westernflank, approximately 16 kilometres fromthe small city of Flagstaff. A small, rusticski development was permitted by theForest Service c.1938 without consultingthe tribes, who have always opposed skidevelopment on the mountain. In 1983,despite protests made by several NativeAmerican tribes, especially the Hopi andthe Navajo, permission was granted toexpand the ski resort by including morepistes, four ski lifts, a lodge and an expansionto the parking facility. The Courtsruled such protests out on the groundsthat a development of this kind did notimpede the religious rights guaranteedunder the 1978 American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act; however, it did infact impact adversely on Native Americanreligious practices relating to the SacredMountain. The ruling claimed thetribes could still access their spiritual sitefrom other places on the Peaks. However,for the tribes, access was a non-issue;what they were protesting in favourof was protecting the physical integrityand virtue of the wholeness of the naturalstate of the Peaks —something thecourts had failed to fully recognize. In1998, the Navajo Nation Council passeda resolution calling for the immediatedismantling of the ski area in order to restorethe Peaks to their natural state.Late in 2002, however, another threatmanifested itself to the sanctity of thePeaks: a further proposed expansion ofthe Snowbowl, which had been sufferingfrom declining snow cover and henceprofits. With the support of the ForestService, the Snowbowl ski resort proposeda development plan that wouldsignificantly alter the southern slope,where the ski resort is operational atpresent, by expanding the parking facilitiesand adding new ski lifts. The Snow-54

View of The Peaks with a list of affected tribes on a map of Arizonabowl developers also signed a contractwith the City of Flagstaff by which theywould use the city’s wastewater to makeartificial snow (to supplement the limitednatural snowfall) and construct forthwithan immense open-air wastewater tankwith a capacity just short of 38 million litres.Signs would then be posted advisingpeople not to eat the snow, andsnowmaking guns would be brought intoservice which would —under normalconditions —be operational 24 hours aday. A single snowmaking gun can beheard over a radius in excess of 1.6 kilometres;the ski resort has not disclosedhow many snowmaking guns they intendto use. Despite considerable public outrage,the City Council and Mayor of Flagstaffhave agreed to allow Snowbowl touse wastewater for snowmaking. Itshould be noted that the ski business inoperation on the San Francisco Peakshas changed hands many times due tothe unreliability of its profits.Quite apart from the extension of the skiresort’s built facilities, the use of wastewaterin a sacred area is, in itself, anathemato the Native Americans. For theirpart, the Hopi fear that if man makessnow at the home of the rain-makingKachinas —who are essential to theHopi way of life— the deities will abandontheir homes in the mountain, but alsothe Hopi people. The Navajo andApache Bands have a deep understandingof their own traditional sciences andknow that wastewater can never be fullycleaned. Water used in hospitals andmortuaries, as well as women’s menstrualblood, will have severe effects on thehealth of the environment. For the Navajo,the health of Dooko’oo’sliid is mirroreddirectly in the health of the Navajopeople. For its part, western science hasfound that water treatment cannot removeall the contaminants, which includechemicals, hormonal compoundsand antibiotics. In an appeal to the UnitedNations, Navajo President Joe Shirleystated that “the hearts of my people willagain be broken, their health will inevitablysuffer, and we will again witness the55

View of the Peaks from the Navajo Reservationcontinued erosion of one of the oldest indigenouscultures in North America at thehands of the US Government”.Thirteen tribes have re-united with theSave the Peaks Coalition, and have beenjoined by several environmental NGOsincluding the Sierra Club. In April 2005,despite two years of petitions and negotiationswith the Coalition, the ForestService made an announcement in favourof the development proposal. TheCoalition secured the services of an attorneyand lodged an appeal against theForest Service in August 2005. In January2006, a District Court judge rejected theappeal, indicating, it would seem, thatthe economic interests of the ArizonaSnowbowl Resort, a single for-profit business,are more important than the beliefsof hundreds of thousands of NativeAmericans. This decision was appealedin turn in September 2006 before a CircuitCourt of Appeals in San Francisco,which ruled in favour of the Coalition inMarch 2007. The ruling states that the USConstitution affirmatively mandates theaccommodation, and not merely the tolerance,of all religions, and declined toauthorize the use of wastewater treatmentfacilities for snow-making purposes.The Forest Service and Arizona SnowbowlSki Resort filed for a rehearing andtheir request was granted. On 11 December2007, the case was reheard en bancby the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals of theUnited States of America. The en banccourt consists of the chief judge and anotherten randomly-selected judges.The en banc reached a divided decisionon 8 August 2008 with the majority overturningthe decision of March 2007. Thecourt based on their interpretation of theReligious Freedom Testoration Act, statedthat the “diminishment of spiritual fulfilment—serious though it may be— is nota substantial burden on the free exerciseof religion”. The Federal Administrationand land management agencies understand,as do the Tribal Nations, that thisprecedent-setting ruling will affect policywherever Native Americans have sites ofspecial spiritual value on public land. The56

Tribes, individuals and several grassrootsorganizations filed a petition on 5 January2009 for the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates to hear their appeal. It is not clearwhether the Supreme Court will decide tohear the case; until a decision is reached,however, the Snowbowl is legally barredfrom further development on the sacredSan Francisco Peaks.On June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court ofthe United States denied the petition tohear the appeal case of Navajo Nation etal. vs. United States Forest Service. Thecase was based on the Religious FreedomRestoration Act (RFRA). Since theSupreme Court refused to hear the case,the RFRA becomes virtually unavailableto protect sacred places on Federallands in the United States. Although thiscase was denied, the Save the PeaksCoalition continues its work to protectthe Holy San Francisco Peaks. It maytake work in the US Congress to revisethe RFRA to make more explicit the completeintent of what religious freedom entailsi.e. that it involves much more thanaccess to a site -it involves loss or impairmentof sanctity values as well. SeeAddendum for latest development.Conservation perspectivesand sustainabilityThe natural resources of the Peaks aremandated for conservation and sustainabilityunder the legislation governing thefoundation of the National Forest System.The threat of mining claims on public landhas been removed from this area by virtueof the decisive action of closing downthe White Vulcan mine in 2000. Policy rulingsover the years under a ‘multiple use’mandate have led to different interpretationsof ‘conservation’, which have givenrise to conflict. The Forest Service in generalhas been criticized by environmentalgroups for assigning priority to logging,and there have been some problems inrecent years relating to the satisfactorynatural regeneration of the forest. The useof better silviculture and use of controlledfire seems to have put the area undercommercial harvesting onto a more sustainablepath. The designation of theKachina Wilderness Zone also bodes wellfor conservation, although it could be removedby an administrative ruling. Increasingly,the Coconino is being managedto give priority to recreational use.However, to protect fragile natural communities,off-trail hiking and campingabove the tree line are prohibited, as iscamping in the Inner Basin.A physical enlargement of the Snowbowlinto the forest is still a possibility, sincethe ski centre has received Forest Serviceapproval for a 29-hectare expansioninvolving the felling of old-growth foreston the allotted leased land. If snowmakingis no longer a possibility under thecourt ruling, the whole enterprise wouldhave to continue operating as it hasdone to date. For instance, during thewinter of 2001-2002 it was only open for4 days due to poor snowfall; conversely,the winter of 2008-2009 was one of itstop ten years.It is clear that the spiritual / cultural valuesof the Peaks are in need of greater protection.One measure already being advocatedby the Coalition is the designationof the Peaks as a Traditional Cultural57

Property. Some recognition of ‘nationalsignificance’ by the President or Congressmight reduce the threat of harmfullocal administrative decisions.There is even potential for internationalrecognition if the Peaks District, or theentire Coconino, were to be designateda Biosphere Reserve. The core zone ofsuch a Reserve could afford protectionto the less disturbed high elevation area(including the Kachina WildernessZone) and to any lower-altitude specificsites of spiritual / cultural value. In thelowland peripheral zone, regular sustainablemultiple use could continue,along with sustainable private land management.With a new and more environmentally-friendlyadministration in powerin 2009, such a scenario seems morelikely than previously.RecommendationsAs far as the Peaks are concerned, thedecision- and policy-makers need to takethe spiritual, cultural and natural values ofthe area into account along with its extractiveand recreational activities. Theymust recognize the customary religiouspractices, healing powers, sacredness,and traditional history relating to suchareas. In line with the above, a broad setof recommendations focuses on:• The need for greater consultation withthe original Native American ownersand users of this land during the differentphases of the planning and managementprocess (strictly speaking,Native Americans do not regard themselvesas ’owners’ of Mother Earth);• The importance of granting a decision-makingrole to Tribal Governmentsand Tribal Spiritual Leaders inissues relevant to the land managementof special Tribal Sacred Sites;• The benefits of co-managing areas ofpublic land or public trust. A recognized,increasingly common and sociallyjust arrangement for includinglocal traditional users, this has provedto be the best method of avoidingconflict, and should thus be taken intoconsideration here, too;• The designation of the area as a TraditionalCultural Property by the Presidentor Congress, which would give itnational significance;• The inclusion of the Kachina WildernessZone in the National WildernessPreservation System, which would removethe possibility of its being declassifiedlocally;• The investigation of the area’s designationas an International BiosphereReserve by a future federaladministration;• The need to increase public awarenessof the San Francisco Peaks as asacred site and its significant impacton the everyday lives of Native Americansand the continuation of their ancientways of tribal life.• The establishment of a Living CulturalCentre that would serve as a resourcecentre for educating visitors about thecultural and spiritual significance ofthe Sacred San Francisco Peaks.58

AddendumOn September 21, 2009 the Save the Peaks Coalition and nine citizens filed suitagainst the U.S. Forest Service under the National Environmental Policy Act. Thisis based on inadequate consideration of the possibility of human ingestion ofsnow made from treated sewage effluent. The Forest Service is obligated to considerthese types of potential impacts on the quality of the human environment.ReferencesBenally, J. (2006-2007), “Our sacred mountain is in danger”, Wilderness Magazine, pp.41, 58.Defenders of Wildlife, “Wildlife and Habitat Fact Sheets: Mexican Spotted Owl”. www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/spotted_ owl_mexican.phpGrahame, J.D. and Sisk T.D. (eds.) (2002), Land use history of North America, BioticCommunities of the Colorado Plateau, Ponderosa Pine Forest.Northern Arizona University. www.cpluhna.nau.edu/biota/ponderosa_forest.htm.Hamilton, L.S. (2006), “Sacred vs. profane: conflict over the San Francisco Peaks”,Mountain Research and Development 26(4), pp. 366-67.Hamilton, L. (2007), “Sacred vs profane: conflict over the San Francisco Peaks”, ScottishMountaineer, Issue 34, p. 33.Merriam, C.H. (1890), “Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountainregion, and the desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona”, North American fauna, US Departmentof Agriculture 3, pp. 1-136.Save the Peaks Coalition home page. Various links to the issue. Updated with new developments,www.savethepeaks.org.US Fish and Wildlife Service 1983. Federal Register 48(226), pp. 52743-52747.US Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, US Government Official Web Portalwww.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino.Information on the San Francisco Groundsel, http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3928.Information on the Mexican Spotted Owl,http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/mexican_spotted_owl.php.59

Mainstream faithsThe National Park of the Casentine ForestsItalyGloria PungettiFranco LocatelliFather Peter HughesIntroductionThe National Park of the Casentine Forests, Mount Falterona and Campigna extendsalong the ridge of the Appenine dividing Tuscany and Romagna. It descendssteeply into the valleys on the Romagna and eases gently into the Tuscanslopes in the Casentino area. It reaches the springs of the Arno River, and graduallyslopes down into the broad valley of the Arno. The Park contains three sites ofgreat interest and spiritual importance: the Sanctuary of La Verna, the Monasteryof Camaldoli and the Hermitage of Camaldoli.Natural valuesThe Casentine forests are part of the national park which includes the Casentineforests, Mount Falterona and Campigna. The park, which spreads over the provincialterritory of Forlì and Cesena in Romagna and Arezzo and Florence in Tuscany,covers an area of roughly 36,000 ha on both sides of the Apennine. The bodyresponsible for the protection of the park’s natural heritage is the National ParkAuthority. From an environmental viewpoint, the park stands out as one of themost precious forested areas in Europe, being home to rich vegetation including< Camaldoli Monastery, Tuscany, Italy61

woods of pine (Pinus spp.), silver fir (Abies alba), beech (Fagus sylvatica) andmountain maple (Acer spicatum), as well as mixed woodland with an incrediblevariety of species.Over 1,000 species of flora have been recorded to date in the National Park area(Cavagna and Cian 2003), with a particular concentration in the meadows, gladesand crags of Mount Falterona.The Park also abounds with fauna, with species including the Apennine wolf(Canis lupus italicus), wild boar (Sus Scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallowdeer (Dama dama), common deer (Cervus elaphus) and mountain sheep(Ovis ammon). The birdlife includes some 100 nesting species, some native tocentral Europe —the alpine tree-creeper (Certhia familiaris), bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula),ring ouzel (Turdus torquatus)— and others to the Mediterranean —the Sardinianwarbler (Sylvia melanocephala), whitethroat (Sylvia communis) and blackheadedbunting (Emberiza melanocephala). Birds of prey include the sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Moreover, the Park is home to 13amphibian and 12 reptile species and to a large number of insect types (ibid.).As a tourist attraction, the Park provides recreational and outdoor sports opportunitiesincluding mountain biking, horse-riding and cross-country skiing along anetwork of paths which extend for roughly 600 kilometres.Spiritual and cultural valuesThe artfully constructed stone bridges and ancient roads, which still enable visitorsto reach towns and villages, are of great historical interest, as are the area’shermitage and monasteries, its Etruscan settlements and the Roman Way, whichran from Rome to Germany.Country cottages, isolated or in clusters, ruined castles and small stone shrinesalso form part of the area’s natural and cultural heritage.The area’s main sacred sites are the Benedictine Hermitage and Monastery ofCamaldoli and the Franciscan Sanctuary of La Verna, whose religious communities—along with groups of pilgrims— form the area’s spiritual social groups. ThePark is also visited by nature-lovers, cyclists, horseback riders and culturaltourists.The bodies responsible for the preservation of the area’s cultural and spiritual valuesare the Hermitage and Monastery of Camaldoli, the Sanctuary of La Vernaand the National Park Authority of the Casentine Forests, Mount Falterona andCampigna.62

The first two bodies are primarily concerned with spiritual values and conductworkshops and seminars on relevant religious and spiritual topics, as well as providingpersonal individual retreats, in addition to hosting formal worship. Culturalvalues are primarily the preserve of the municipalities, particularly those of SantaSofia and Poppi whose “Baroque and the Casentino” art exhibitions include worksby local monks. The local population and visitors alike have always held both themonasteries’ spiritual values and the Park’s cultural values in high regard.Pressures and impactsThere are innumerable ruins and abandoned villages in the designated Park area,which are largely a result of the domestic migration to urban centres that beganduring World War Two. The actual inhabitants of the National Park number 1,500people at most.Their activities relate to the religious orders, culture, nature and the forests and includepilgrimage, forest management, hiking and tourism. Tourism aside —a constantlygrowing industry with a growing impact on both nature and culture— thereare no other major economic or industrial activities with an adverse environmental,cultural or other impact. Nonetheless, the monoculture-based forest management,which traditionally favours the silver fir, is not in sympathy with nature conservationas it serves to reduce biodiversity.The Constitution of the Hermitage of Camaldoli (1080) sheds light on past landuse in the area, since it highlights the date when land use regulations began. TheForestry Code of Camaldoli was passed in 1520 and remained in force until 1866,when the forest became state property and part of the national park administeredby the State Forestry Body.Conservation perspectivesThe Hermitage of Camaldoli, which was founded in 1024 by Saint Romuald, issurrounded by white firs (Firgerio 1991), while La Verna, which became the Hermitageof Saint Francis in 1213, is surrounded by firs and beech trees (Catoloni etal., 2003). Both the heritage and the forest have been venerated and respectedfor centuries by both the monastic and secular communities in the area, who continueto conserve its spiritual heritage; the task of conserving its natural and culturalheritage is now undertaken by the National Park Authority.Past and present synergies between conserving the area’s natural heritage andprotecting its spiritual and cultural values are evident in the monastic communities.The contribution of spiritual values to the conservation of the natural environ-63

ment in the Casentine Forests —in the case of the orders of saints Romuald andFrancis, in particular— is closely interwoven with the area’s natural and religioushistory. Down the centuries, the spiritual values of these two monastic orders haveplayed an important role in the management of the forests and they continue tocontribute to the conservation of the natural environment today. Safeguardingthese values is thus the key to preserving and managing the area; this could beachieved by a campaign to raise awareness of them coupled with a clear sitemanagement policy.Although both orders have played a leading role in this effort for centuries, our erarequires a new and more pro-active management strategy including strong partnershipsand efficient collaborations, particularly between stakeholders —the NationalPark Authority, the local authorities and local communities— who should beinvited and encouraged to participate in the management process.ConclusionsThe preservation of the natural, cultural and spiritual wealth of the area is linked tobalanced socio-economic development which depends, in turn, on the local authorities,the local population and visitors. Although all three are aware of the area’snatural, cultural and spiritual heritage, problems arise when open spaces areused as a public amenity —visitor parking, for instance— where better planningand management is required if conflicts between the needs of the spiritual communitiesand the tourists are to be minimised.In order to overcome these problems, local communities should be involved in theplanning and management process. There is also a need for campaigns to raiseenvironmental and cultural awareness among local communities. Finally, the area’snatural, cultural and spiritual heritage should be linked to —and embracedby— the local planning authorities for the sustainable development of the CasentineForests.64

Forest around Camaldoli MonasteryBibliographyCavagna S. and Cian S. (eds.) (2003), The National Park of the Casentine Forests:Where the trees touch the sky, Giunti, Florence-Milan.Cetoloni, R., Bernacchi, F. and Locatelli, F. (eds.) (2003), The Sanctuary of La Verna,La Verna — Pazzini Editore, Villa Verucchio (RN).Frigerio, S. (1991), Camaldoli: Historical, Spiritual and Artistic Notes, Edizioni Camaldoli— Pazzini Editore, Villa Verucchio (RN).65

‘Abd al-Salâm ibn Mashîshand Jabal La‘lâm SiteNorthern MoroccoZakia ZouanatIntroductionJabal La‘lâm, the mount of the banner orsignal, is a place of outstanding spiritual,cultural and natural importance in the heartof the Jabal Bouhachem massif in Morocco’sRif Mountains. The site is well-knownin North Africa and elsewhere in the SunniMuslim world because of its associationwith the life and death of Sîdî ‘Abd alSalâm Ibn Mashîsh, the spiritual master ofthe founder of the Shâdhilî Sufi order.There is no exact Islamic equivalent forChristian and Buddhist monastic communities,because the example of the lifeof its founder, the Prophet Muhammad,does not encourage it. The closest equivalentare the Sufi orders or brotherhoods,which usually consist of married peopleliving in society.This sacred site is exceptional for four reasons:firstly, it has been a significant livingpilgrimage centre for five centuries; secondly,its custodians are the descendentsof the holy man buried there, Ibn Mashîsh,who was himself descended from theProphet Muhammad; thirdly, political andmilitary resistance against invaders fromthe north has centred on this holy site;and lastly, respect for the simplicity of IbnMashîsh’s life has kept human interventionin the holy site to a minimum, makingit one of the important Islamic shrines thathave remained close to nature.Spiritual and cultural significanceMany of the dramatic natural features of theMediterranean’s mountains —special rocks,< Divine names painted on large rockson the road leading to the Jabal La‘lâm custodians village, Morocco67

Jabal La‘lâm site mapforests, monumental trees, springs, cavesetc.— have been afforded sacred statussince ancient times. This was the casewith the Rif mountains in general and JabalLa‘lâm in particular. Written referencesto the spiritual values of the site go back tothe 9 th century. Ibn ‘Arabî, the famous Sufimaster who lived in the 12 th and 13 th centuries,notes in his biography of the SufiDhû-l-Nûn al-Misrî that al-Misrî encounteredgroups of saints in this region wholived near water sources and slept underoak trees, as many pilgrims do to this day.Over the last seven centuries, however,Jabal La‘lâm’s significance has been relatedto one of Morocco’s most famoussaints: Mawlây ‘Abd al-Salâm ibn Mashîsh,known as the patron or head of the Jbala,which means ‘the people of the mountain’.Ibn Mashîsh, who died in 1228, wasthe founder of the Shâdhilî Sufi orderthrough his disciple and the inheritor of his‘spiritual secret’, Abû-l-Hasan al-Shâdhilî,a member of the local Bani Zeroual tribe. Today, the Shâdhilî order is spreadthroughout the Eastern and WesternMuslim world. Flourishing initially in Tunisiaand Egypt, it returned to its nativeland three centuries later via two important16 th -century saints: al-Jazûlî andZarrûq. Since then, pilgrims and people Ibn Zâkûr, ‘Abd al-Rahmân, al-istishfâ’ min al alalamfâ ma’âthir Sâhib al-‘Alam, BH, 3585. Ma’lamat al-Maghrib [Encyclopédie du Maroc]:entries on ‘Al-Jazûlî ’ and ‘Zarrûq’.68

of different backgrounds, from kings andreligious authorities (‘ulama) to simpleshepherds, have visited the site and thetomb of Ibn Mashîsh.Two main pilgrimages have been institutedthrough the centuries: the Naskha,a religious feast which falls on the 15 thday of the Islamic month of Sha‘bân, anda Hajj as important as the sacred pilgrimageto Mecca. The pilgrimage to thetomb of Ibn Mashîsh has been called‘the pilgrimage of the poor’ (hajj al fuqarâ’),meaning that those without themeans to make the pilgrimage to the holycity of Mecca go there instead. In additionto the main pilgrimages, however,there is a year-round influx of pilgrimsbringing alms to the custodians, the descendantsof the saint who moved theirvillage from the foot of the mountain tothe area of the shrine at its top about acentury ago, when the path to the shrinewas built.Ibn Mashîsh left a unique piece of writingbehind: a wonderful prayer of love andpraise for his ancestor the Prophet Muhammad—the Mashîshiyya. This prayerhas been commented on over 70 timesby Sufi masters in view of its essentialcontent: the doctrine of MuhammadanReality. The sacred components of thesite are the sanctuary, the cavern (whichwas the saint’s retreat during his yearson the mountain), the mosque of angels,the miraculous rocks, the sacred places—witnesses of the saint’s martyrdom, A widespread traditional belief and practice inMorocco. For the commentaries on this prayer, see ZouanatZ. (1998), Ibn Mashîsh, maître d’al-Shâdhilî,n.p., Casablanca.the sources of holy water and a village—al-Sukkân, whose name means the ‘heirsof the holy man’. The shrine is an old oak tree, its walls arethe magnificent mountain landscape, itsvault the sky, the carpet pieces of corkbark from the nearby cork forest. In additionto these holy places, all of them nearthe top of the mountain, Jabal La‘lâmboasts numerous other holy places includingthe sanctuary —Sîdî Mashîsh—of Ibn Mashîsh’s father, and those of hisancestors. It also has some importantsubsidiary villages and towns, includingTazrut and Chefchaouen, which are locatedsome distance away. A number ofpilgrims have left prose and verses behindwhich, along with the heritage of religioussongs, add a rich cultural legacyto the sanctuary of Ibn Mashîsh. The firstsignificant manuscript concerning thissite —“Healing illnesses by tasting thetraces of the Master of al-‘Alam”, a titlethat explains the function of the pilgrimageand the main attraction of the site—dates from four centuries ago.Jabal La‘lâm also plays a highly significantrole in the political history of Morocco.During the 15 th and 16 th centuries,facing danger of invasion from the North,the Banî ‘Arus and other Rif tribes gatheredat the shrine of Ibn Mashîsh topledge to intercede and defend thecountry and its sacred values with theirlives; their efforts proved successful. Al-Rhûnî A. (1953), Tàrîkh Titwàn, n.p., Tétouan. Ibn Raysûn, al-Hasan (1985), Fath al-ta’yîd fîmanâqib al-jadd wa-akhîh wa-l-wâlid, n.p., Tétouan.69

Natural valuesJabal La‘lâm is located in the Jbel Bouhachemregion, part of the ultra Rifan foldof Numidian sandstone. Limestone rockformations constitute most of the uppersections of the mountain, whose slopesare covered with cork oak forests, withsome glacis and rocky crests occupiedby dwarf vegetation.This area has the highest levels of precipitationin Morocco, with more thanone meter of rain per year, although thelimestone soil means the water drainsquickly. The area has a range of sub-humidto humid temperate thermo-Mediterraneanbio-climatic domains, dependingon a particular area’s degree of exposureand altitude.The area’s natural values include rich forestflora and fauna as well as an interestingcultural landscape on the lowerslopes consisting of a mosaic of agriculturaland pasture lands dotted with smallvillages sited on extensive forest matrixdominated by cork oak formations containinga high proportion of old trees.Variations in altitude, slope and orientationallow for different types of oak forests(zeen, tauzin, cork-oak) and evenpines and cedars and numerous strataof vegetation including several hundredvascular plant species.The region’s fauna is also diverse and includes32 species of large mammal —the hyena and the panther disappeared inhistorical times. Over 100 species of birdsnest on the site or in nearby areas, ofwhich 32 are either endemic or endan- Les Eaux et Forêts report.gered. Seventeen species of reptile havealso been identified along with 11 amphibianspecies, six of which are endemic. Pressures and impactsThis holy site has been under attack severaltimes down the ages for political,military, cultural or spiritual reasons.The relations between the sanctuary andthe surrounding villages are varied, withbenefits accruing to one or both sides,open dialogues and claims made by oneside on the other; the property, however,concerns only the traditional custodians,who are all descendants of the saint. Forhistorical and political reasons, relationsbetween the Park administration and itstraditional custodians are also verycomplex.The Jabal La‘lâm area is subject to anumber of traditional uses by the localpopulation, the main ones being tripsand grazing in the forest over the entiremassif (95% caprine), harvesting corkoak,and harvesting firewood.The main impact on the mountain forestsare the uprooting of trees (cork oak) forillegal sale and insufficient cork oak forestregeneration due to overgrazing. Anotherissue is the sale of some holdingsin Sukkân village to non-Sharif people, anon-traditional practice which may leadto social disturbances in the near future.The uprooting of tree stumps, mainly inbasins for the benefit of agriculture, isanother real danger against which the‘Eaux et Forêts’ department struggles. Les Eaux et Forêts report.70

The current risks with regard to the basincan be summarised in a worrying progressionof uprooting in the presence ofundefined land status.The flow of pilgrims to the Jabal La‘lâmshrine has been steadily increasing in recentyears, and this precious naturalspiritual site is currently at risk from theenvironmental pressures placed on it bypilgrims coupled with extremist religiousinterpretations, poverty and ignorance.As Regato & Salman (2007) point out:“While the spiritual value of sacred sites inmountain areas is generally well-recognised,the environmental value which sometimesgoes with the spiritual characterof the sites is often ignored or damaged”.During the year, people visit the sanctuaryto attend special spiritual events.Different social class from all over theworld ‘ascend’ to the holy place. Pilgrimscome by bus and car, but also onmules when their route takes them overdifficult mountain paths. Some branchesof the Shâdhilî order abroad also organisemassive annual pilgrimages.The summer is the season for mass visits,especially by Moroccan citizens livingabroad (mainly in Western Europe),who visit the site on their way in or outof Morocco.A serious environmental threat is alsoposed by various disrespectful practicesensuing from the operation of the smalllocal traditional market as well as by pilgrimswho cut branches off trees, uprootplants or take stones or soil from thesanctuary. Due to a lack of an efficientcleaning service, litter also mars themost heavily visited areas.Visitors who decide to stay in the housesof the Sukkân (the custodians or inhabitants)usually insist on paying, which providesthe traditional custodians with anothersource of income. The pilgrims,who come wanting to make contact withthe sacred, generally spend their time inspiritual recreation, singing and prayingto God, His prophets and saints.A number of infrastructure projects haverecently been completed by the ‘Agencede Développement des provinces duNord’ to provide facilities for the pilgrims.The majority, however, have failed to integratewith the cultural and spiritual valuesof the site: a large concrete watertower next to the small old mosque ofthe angels, for example, or distributionpipes for drinking water which do nottake into consideration the sanctity of thesites, and new buildings (houses and arestaurant) very close to the sacred fountainof ‘Aún al-Qshûr within the sacredprecinct where the pilgrims perform theirablutions.Conservation perspectivesJabal La‘lâm was declared a protectedsacred place (hurm) five centuries ago bya royal decree (Dahîr) issued by king al-Mansûr of the Saadid dynasty. Today,the site is a communal property which belongsto the community of the descendantsof ‘Abd al-Salâm ibn Mashîsh, thecustodians of this holy place.In Moroccan culture and history, a hurm isan inviolable space, which is normally Ibn Sûda, S. (1994), al-rawda al-maqsûda fîma’îthir Banî Sûda, n.p., Casablanca.71

linked to a shrine, and no violence or exploitationof any kind may take placethere. The shrine normally contains thetomb of a holy person and the hurm encirclesthis tomb. According to local ancientbeliefs, the holiness is transferredfrom the exceptional human being to naturethough the fact that “the saint chosea natural site as a retreat (khalwa) shrinewith the remains of honoured local figureslocated in forest groves”. Basset(2004) suggests that nature is also acentral component in this site of religioussignificance. Jabal La‘lâm covers approximately8,000 ha and is located inthe Jbel Bouhachem, itself a core areaof the Mediterranean IntercontinentalBiosphere Reserve established in October2006 between Andalusia (Spain)and Morocco. Roughly a quarter of thisarea (2,300 ha) is considered a domanialbiological reserve for which stricterprotection is planned. 10 Morocco’s naturalheritage is also protected by forestlaws drafted under the French Protectoratewith some recent modifications.These regulations aim to protect the vegetation,fauna and flora of designated areas,which are placed in the charge ofthe Haut Commissariat aux Eaux etForêts et à la Lutte contre la Désertification.However, this legislation largely failsto address current challenges, and Moroccolacks an appropriate legal frameworkfor protected areas. It is hoped thenew law on protected areas currently inpreparation will cover this need.There is also a discrepancy with regardto the size of the hurm: the Eaux etForêts department includes only 131 ha10 Les Eaux et Forêts report.around the shrine in it, while the saint’s inheritorsclaim the historical hurm (propertyof the sanctuary) to be 1,186 ha andhave taken the matter to court. 11 TheEaux et Forêts department is urging agentlemen’s agreement, since the territoryis covered with precious oak trees.The Directing Plan of Protected Areasin Morocco recommends that the Bouhachemsite: (i) establish a means ofsupervision, (ii) reinforce the human resourcespresent at the site, (iii) create arapid-response apparatus in case offire, (iv) organise a campaign to raiseawareness of habits and uses, (v) establisha partnership to protect areaswhich are not totally protected, (vi) valorisethem by a rational ecotourismscheme, (vii) assist and regenerate thefailing sectors, and (viii) maintain regularmonitoring. 12 The village council wasalso urged to introduce measures toprotect against littering and squattersand to prevent unsanctioned land useson the site, while the traditional custodianswere charged with preserving customsrelated to traditional building, includingthe ancestral use of oak peelas a floor covering.Conclusions and suggestionsAlthough both the holiness and significanceof the holy site are widely acceptedand understood by both the local populationand pilgrims and other interestedvisitors, and although the significance ofIbn Mashîsh is established throughout11 Les Eaux et Forêts report.12 Les Eaux et Forêts report.72

Custodian reciting the call to the prayer over the hermitagethe Sunni Islamic world, the Jabal La‘lâmsite is facing new and unprecedentedchallenges and impacts which require acoordinated reaction if future damage isto be prevented, recent impacts restoredand the quality of the site preserved as ithas been for centuries.Following the project undertaken in conjunctionwith Gonzalo Oviedo (IUCN)and Josep-Maria Mallarach (The DelosInitiative) in June 2008, the following suggestionscan now be made:- Promoting sustainable cork forest management;regeneration hinges onlimitations being placed on caprinegrazing;- Promoting the effective and respectfulmanagement of the needs of pilgrimsand other visitors in terms of park ground,water, food, lodging, toilets, etc.;- Promoting the restoration of historictrails to make pedestrian access easierand more pleasant;- Incorporating environmental criteria intothe custodians’ village, includingwater recollection from roofs;- Proposing boundaries for the hurmwhich are accepted to all the stakeholders;- Revising the project based on a holi -stic participatory approach that takesthe full spectrum of values into account,finding the most suitable andsustainable solutions to present needs;- Implementing effective rubbish collection;- Informing and educating custodians,pilgrims and visitors on ecological issues;- Improving trails and access paths.The implementation of these actionswould require improved cooperation betweenthe institutional stakeholders at alllevels, and the protection of the custodiansand their legitimate rights.73

ReferencesBasset, H. (2004), Le culte des grottes au Maroc, Jasmin, Clichy.Beck, H. L. (1989), L’image d’Idrîs II, ses descendants de Fâs et la politique Sharifiennedes Sultans Marînides (656-869/1258-1465), Brill, Leiden.Beck, L. & Cable, T. T. (2002), Interpretation for the 21 st century. Fifteen Guiding Principlesfor Interpreting Nature and Culture, Sagamore, Champaign.Carson, C. (1995), “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, whose history is the fairest of themall?”, The Public Historian, vol. 17/4, pp. 61-67.Colin, G. S. (1955), Chrestomathie marocaine, Adrien-Maisonneuve, Paris.Dermenghem, E. (1954), Le culte des saints dans l’Islam maghrébin, Gallimard, Paris.Drague, G. (1951) Esquisse d’histoire religieuse du Maroc, “Cahiers d’Afrique et d’AsieII”, Peyronnet & Co, n.p.Fisher, A. (1917), “De grosse Marokkanische Heilige ‘Abdesselam ben Mesis”, ZD-MG, pp. 209-222.Foltz, R.C., Denny, F.M. and Baharuddin, A. (2003), Islam and ecology: a bestowedtrust, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Lévi-Provençal, E. (1926), “Religion, culte des saints et confréries dans le Nord Marocain,Rif et Jbala”, éditions du Bulletin de l’Enseignement Public du Maroc, janvier,N° 71, pp.71-74.Large oak tree enclosed inside the wall around the tomb of ‘Abd al Salam Ibn MashishOn the right, the entrance of the hermitage cave74

Massignon, L. (1906), Le Maroc dans les premières années du XVIème siècle, tableaugéographique d’après Léon l’Africain, Jourdan, Algiers.Mouliéras, A. (1899), Le Maroc inconnu, Challomel, Paris.Schwartz, F. (1988), Le Lieu du temple, géographie sacrée et initiation, Question de,N° 73, éd. Albin Michel.Snow, S. E. (1993), Performing the Pilgrims, University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.Westermarck, E. (1935), Les survivances paúennes dans la civilisation mahométane,(English trans. Robert Godet), Payot, Paris.Xicluna, M. (1905), “Quelques légendes relatives à Moulay Abd as-Salam benMachîch”, Archives Marocaines, vol.III.Zachrisson, S. (1991), “The guardianship of our live cultural heritage. On living plantsand animals in the museum context”, Tagungsberichte, pp. 189-194.Zouanat, Z. (2005), “Des origines de la Shâdhiliyya chez le shaykh ‘Abd al-Salâm ibnMashîsh” in Eric Geoffroy (ed.) Une voie Soufie dans le monde, la Shâdhiliyya, Maisonneuve& Larose, Paris.Zouanat, Z. (2008) “Jabal La‘lâm, a sacred mountain in Northern Morocco”, in Mallarach,J.M. (ed.) Protected Landscapes. Cultural and Spiritual Values, IUCN, GTZ,Obra Social Caixa Catalunya.Mediterranean Intercontinental Biosphere Reserve http://www.juntadeandalucia.es75

Sacred Mountain of Ganghwa IslandRepublic of KoreaHan, Kyung-KooThe siteAlthough Mount Mani (or Mani-san) onGanghwa Island, Korea, is only 469mabove sea level, it is still consideredone of Korea’s most sacred mountainsthanks to its beautiful natural sceneryand because Dangun, the mythicfounder of the Korean nation, is said tohave constructed the stone altar ofChamseongdan on its peak and performedthe first celestial offering thereover 4,000 years ago. It is said that theliteral meaning of Mari-san, the oldname for Mani-san, is ‘head (of all themountains)’.The sacred torch has been lit on its peakfor the National Athletic Games since1953, and a special ritual has been performedevery year on October 3 to commemoratethe National Foundation ofKorea. Mount Mani, in close proximity toSeoul, is surrounded by many ancientand contemporary historic and culturalsites, while more than 500,000 peopleclimb to its top every year, making it thesecond most visited mountain in Koreaover several years.Its popularity and symbolic importancefor the Koreans are indicative of a deeprootedneed to preserve the mountain,but increased tourist numbers can havenumerous adverse environmental effectson the soil, landscapes, fauna andflora. Public support for the preservationof the natural, cultural and spiritual valuesof Mount Mani, as well as the cancellationof any unsustainable developmentprojects, is of key importance.< Walls of Samrang Fortress, Mt. Jeongjok, Republic of Korea77

Natural valuesMount Mani is located on the Southwesterncoast of Ganghwa-do, Korea’sfifth largest island. Long and thin, Ganghwa-dostretches from Northwest to Southeast,offering tremendous scenic beauty.Mount Mani was originally an islandcalled Goga-do [Goga Island] which remainedseparate from Ganghwa-do until1706, when the two were connected by alarge-scale reclamation project initiatedby the government to increase availablearable land. Ganghwa-do lies in the estuaryof the Han River on the West coastof South Korea, and is separated fromthe mainland by a narrow channel, whichis bridged at several points. Approximately65,500 people live on the island,most of whom are farmers (ginseng andrice) and fishermen. Covering 302.4 km 2 ,the island accounts for most of Ganghwacounty in Incheon City, which consistsof 29 islands in the Yellow Sea.At the foot of Mount Mani, an area of tidelandis home to cranes and other migratorybirds including wild duck, the spotbilledduck, the shelduck (Tadorna tadorna),the sheldrake, the greater white-frontedgoose (Anser albifrons) and a greatmany others. The total area of the tidelandis 11,217 ha, or up to 10.5% of Korea’s totaltideland. According to both the WWF(World Wide Fund for Nature) and IUCN(International Union for Conservation ofNature), the Southern tideland (80 km 2 )and its ecosystem are in grave dangerand need to be designated a preservedarea under the Ramsar Convention. Thistideland is extremely important, becauseit is home to endangered migratory speciesincluding the black-faced spoonbill,cranes and the white-fronted goose.The forests of Mount Mani are relativelywell-preserved, with climax communitiesof Japanese Red Pine (Pinus densiflora),Korean Hornbeam (Carpinus coreana)and Japanese loose-flowered Hornbeam(Carpinus laxiflora) that are considered tobe of significant value, as well as deciduousbroadleaved large trunked trees coveringits slopes. Sagi-ri, Hwado-myeon,near Mount Mani provides habitat for thetrifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata), whichSoil erosion caused by increasing visitor numbers78

has been designated a Natural Heritagespecies by the Korean government. Accordingto a survey conducted by the NaturalEcology Division of the Korean Ministryof the Environment in 1999, the floraof Mani-san includes 245 genera and 90families. The Korean Hornbeam has beendesignated a protected species.The institutional framework for protectingthe area seems in need of strengthening.The whole mountain area was designateda National Tourist Resort in 1977,but this has often been criticised for beingdevelopment —rather than preservation-oriented.Coordinated efforts areneeded for the sustainable conservationand development of the area.The natural habitat of Ganhwa Island hasbeen generally well-preserved until recently,thanks to its proximity to the DemilitarisedZone. As the channel to the Northof the island serves as the de facto Westernborder between South Korea and NorthKorea, much of the island was designatedan Area Preserved for Military Use.Tension between North and South discouragedreal estate development on theisland, while other environmental regulationscontributed to the protection of theenvironment. However, with the improvementin relations between North and SouthKorea, land prices on the island have risen.As more and more people want tovisit and stay in the area, Ganghwa-dohas attracted real estate developers andbusinessmen involved in tourism. Assuch, numerous hotels, restaurants, countryhouses, etc. have been constructedthere, while the local agricultural economyis on the way to being transformed intoan urban / tourist society. The preservationof the landscape and environmentis thus both a crucial and a current issue.Spiritual and cultural valuesAt 469m, Mount Mani does not numberamong Korea’s highest mountains,though it looks considerable higher becausethe mountain rises from the sealevel. As mentioned above, Mani-san wasoriginally called Mari-san ( 摩 利 山 ), andwas also called Maru-san and Duak-san( 頭 嶽 山 ), all these names being derivedfrom ‘meori’, which means ‘head’ or ‘top’,and denoting the ‘head mountain’. Accordingto popular belief, the name of themountain was changed by the Japaneseas part of its policy of symbolic aggressionand manipulation. However, somepoint out that the name of Mani-san wasalready current in the late Joseon period(1392-1910), and others that, applying thepronunciation rules of Korean, Mani-sanand Mari-san would be read in the sameway —which is also true of Mt. Hannasanand Mt. Halla-san on Jeju Island.Mount Mani is thought to be equidistantfrom the country’s other two most sacredmountains: Mt. Baekdu (Changbai-san inChinese) on the Korea-China border, thehighest mountain in the North, and Mt.Halla on Jeju Island, the highest mountainin the South.Specialists in geomancy or pungsu ( 風水 , Feng Shui) generally agree that the ki(force 氣 ) on Mount Mani is the strongestin the whole of Korea, which is yet moreproof of the mountain’s sacred nature.Thanks to the Koreans’ increasing interestin health and well-being in general79

and recent media coverage in particular,Ganghwa Island and the Mount Mani areahas become a popular spot for ‘wellness’tourists, and one can see newlyconstructedpaths on the mountainsideof Mount Mani along which tourists walkbarefoot to receive the strong ki (force)from the soil of Mount Mani and regaintheir spiritual and physical health.Legend tells us that Dangun, the mythicfigure who founded the first Korean stateat the foot of Mt. Baedu, chose this placeto make sacrifices and had Chamseongdanbuilt by Baedalshin (Wunsa:he who governs the clouds) in the 51 styear of his reign (i.e. 2283 BC). A granitealtar on the North side of Mount Manisanwas designated a Historical Site in1964. The altar is not in its original condition,having been repaired in 1270 duringthe reign of King Wonjong of Goryeoand again during the Joseon period in1639 and 1700. Its current appearancewith the rounded bottom and square uppersection, which seem to symbolicallyreverse the natural order by placing theearth (squared in East Asian cosmology)on top of heaven (which is rounded), isthus the result of these repairs. The altaris 10 cheok (3.03m) high with sides 6cheok 6 chon long (1.99m); the circle hasa diameter of 15 cheok (4.55m). Thereare twenty-one stone steps to the East.Unfortunately, no reliable information canbe found on the symbolism of this altar.Since time immemorial, Koreans haveenjoyed a special relationship with theirmountains. As places close to heavenand as embodiments of sacred beings, 1 cheok = 30.3cmmountains have always been importantreligious areas. For example, the Kingdomof Shilla had five mountains designatedas the Five Holy Mountains andsent state officials to perform annual servicesin appreciation of the protectionprovided by the celestial and mountaingods. Since the Chinese emperor claimedthe exclusive privilege of direct communicationwith heaven in traditional EastAsia, the Korean myth of Dangun buildingthe altar on Mount Mani and performingrituals is tantamount to a Korean declarationof independence in the Chinacentredworld order. The ceremony of sacrificingto the heavens was stopped duringthe colonial period (1910-1945) butrevived after liberation. The Korean governmentin Seoul designated October 3Gaecheonjeol, meaning ‘Celestial Opening’or ‘National Foundation’ Day, and officiallynamed Mount Mani the most nationallyimportant mountain in South Korea.As a sacred place for national identityand a symbol of a celestial mandate,Mount Mani is also visited by ambitiouspoliticians. For example, former presidentialcandidate Mr. Sohn Hak-Kyuclimbed Mount Mani on New Year’s Day2007 to confirm his promise of nationalunification and welfare.The Samrang Fortress, a designated HistoricalMonument on Mt. Jeongjok somefive kilometres to the Northeast of MountMani, was allegedly constructed by thethree sons of Dangun. In the fortress, onecan visit the famous Jeondeung-sa fortresstemple and the State Archive building,which was used to store copies of thehistorical records of the Joseon Dynasty incase the originals were destroyed. A num-80

er of other historical sites are also in closeproximity to Mount Mani, including theJanggot Battery (designated a Monumentof Incheon City) and several Buddhisttemples, including Jeongsu-sa (designateda National Treasure), Jeokseok-sa,Baengnyeon-sa and Cheongnyeon-sa.Ganghwa Island is full of historical andcultural remains. Prehistoric dolmen arefound in large numbers on the island, indicatingthat the island has been inhabitedsince time immemorial. The reclamationwork has, however, changed thecoastline of the island, while is now hometo a large number of rice fields.Ganghwa Island also symbolises Korea’sheroic but tragic struggles againstforeign invasion. Before the constructionof bridges, the channel separating GanghwaIsland from the mainland was extremelydifficult to cross because of the largedifference between high and low tide,which served as an invincible natural defenceagainst invaders. It was on this islandthat the court of Goryeo (918-1392)took refuge in 1232 when the Mongolsinvaded again, and the island served asthe Goryeo capital for thirty-six years duringthe struggle against Mongol domination.When Goryeo finally capitulated tothe Mongols, the elite forces on the islandrose up, starting the four-year Sambyeolchostruggle against the Mongols.In the early 17 th century, when the Manchurianinvaders succeeded in crossingthe channel and captured the royal refugeeson the island, Ganghwa Island lostits strategic significance as an invinciblefortress, though it continued to constitutean important defence for Seoul.When the disturbing news of the OpiumWar reached Korea, Ganghwa-do Islandwas fortified as one of Seoul’s outer defences.In 1866, the French fleet attackedthe island, supposedly in protest at thesuppression of the Christian religion butreally to force Korea to open up, and aFrench landing party burned and plunderedKorea’s Royal Library as well as itsdefence facilities. The island was attackedagain in 1871 by the US fleet,when gunboat diplomacy failed to openKorea’s doors (as it had done in Japan).The US navy inflicted heavy casualty onPath with hand rails to ensure walkers’ safety81

Path to be walked barefoot to receive Ki forcethe Korean defence forces, but could notpersuade the Korean court to change itspolicy. In the end, it was the Japanesewho forced Korea to open up by despatchinga warship to deliberately enterKorean territorial waters near the islandand provoke the coastal battery into firingand then exploiting the Ganghwa IslandIncident, as it was known. The resultingGanhwa Island Treaty of 1876was designed to open Korea up for Japanesetrade by forcing the nation to openthree ports and grant Japanese many ofthe rights and privileges Westerners enjoyedin Japan. The Ganghwa Treatymarks the start of Korea’s tumultuousjourney toward modernisation, and theother treaties that followed with othermajor powers would ultimately lead tothe tragic loss of Korea’s independence.Pressures and impactsGanhwa Island and the Mount Mani areahas been a centre for human activity sinceprehistory. Dolmens, rice fields reclaimedfrom the sea, Buddhist temples, the remainsof the Goryeo and Joseon palaces,fortifications and coastal batteries all indicateintense human activity. The new infrastructuresand tourist facilities are also conspicuousthat serve a great number of visitorsattracted by the area’s relatively pristinenature, its close proximity to Seoul andits cultural and spiritual values. It is importantto note that the symbolic significanceattributed to the area by the public couldplay a key role in conservation efforts.The huge number of tourists has proveddamaging to the soil, flora, fauna andscenery. The two most serious conservationissues facing Mount Mani areoveruse and overcrowding. The numberof visitors did not exceed 95,000 in 1983,but increased steadily during the late1980s and 1990s as a result, in part, of risingstandards of living and increasedcar ownership. In 2003, more than413,000 people purchased admissiontickets at the foot of the mountain. Mostof these visitors were not pilgrims in thestrict sense of the word, though, as Ko-82

eans who adhere to the Dangun myth,many of them express feelings of awe intheir accounts of the visit. Although thenumber of visitors stopped increasing after2004, the damage was already done:trampled by the feet of over 400,000 visitorsper year, many trees on Mount Manihave had their roots uncovered, and thesoil has suffered from erosion and hardening;like many other mountains, Manisanis also littered with garbage left bycareless visitors.Several years ago, the local authoritiesenraged many conservationists by sinkinghundreds of iron poles into the rockand installing a safety rail to ensure visitorsafety. Some visitors welcomed thesesafety measures, though others believedthe agency had unnecessarily damagedthe natural environment. Of course, therail would also allow more people to visitthe remote paths and areas, and thusposed a further threat to the area’s alreadyfragile ecosystem.There is a good deal of pressure for development.The local authorities have announcedseveral ambitious plans to reclaimthe tideland, to build a power plantand to develop the area into a tourist resort.For example, the Hwabuk Project,announced in 1995, sought to reclaimand develop the vast tideland along theSouthern shores of Ganhwa Island, whilethe government and the Korea Hydroand Nuclear Power Company announceda plan to build a thermal powerplant on Seokmo-do, an island locatedjust 1.5 km to the West of Ganghwa Island,in 1996. In 2006, the Municipality ofIncheon announced plans to develop theMani-san area by investing more than$56 million in redeveloping an area of645,388 m 2 . The initial plan also includedschemes to develop the Hamheo-Doncheon sector as an accommodationand camping zone, and the Sangbangsector as a culture and sightseeing zone—which would involve the constructionof a Local History Museum, a DangunMyth Centre and a Recreation Park. Thelocal authorities’ attempts to secure financialsupport from the national governmentand to attract private investorsdid not, however, prove successful.It is ironic that the environment of GanghwaIsland should be threatened byplans for the ‘peaceful’ use of the DemilitarisedZone presented by presidentialcandidates in 2007. Although theseplans were supposedly environmentallyfriendly and designed to win UNESCOBiosphere Reserve status for the zone,they have been criticised for containingunsustainable development practices.Conservation effortsMany of these planned developments raninto strong opposition. The Hwabuk Projectwas finally cancelled in 1999 due tostrong public protest in favour of conservingthe tideland, while the plan to build athermal power plant was also cancelled,both because of the rising price of liquidnatural gas, the fuel on which it was tohave run, and due to protests voiced byenvironmental activists and concernedcitizens. This protest movement providedthe impetus for the birth of the GanghwaIsland People’s Network (Ganghwa-doSimin yeondae) in May 1997. Concernedcitizens, local opinion-makers, feminists,83

eligious groups and students joined forcesto compile a report critical of the shortsightedpolicies espoused by GanghwaCounty local government, which soughtto increase revenue from tourist resort developmentby destroying the tideland andthe forest. The ‘Ganghwa-do GreenProject’, as it is called, also proposedthe drawing up of a tideland ecosystemand landscape preservation programmewhich would take the ecology of each villageinto account, employ environmentally-friendlyagriculture and offer environmentally-friendlytour programmes focusedon local cultural traditions (festivals,rituals, lifestyles, cultural remains,etc.), migratory bird watching and the explorationof the tideland ecology (includingmud packs and shell gathering).There have also been some hopeful developments:In an effort to conserve nature,Ganghwa County designated 45 haof the Sangbang sector as a MountainousRegion Protection and PurificationZone, while Incheon municipal governmentdesignated 24 protected speciesof animals in 2006. These measures includethe observation and analysis of thechanges to the Mount Mani eco-system,as well as the protection of the animalsin the area.However, it has become clear that conservationefforts cannot succeed if theyfail to take the socio-economic wellbeingof the people who live in the area intoconsideration. For example, the attempton the part of the Ministry of Marine Affairsto designate 300m 2 of tideland onthe Southern coast of Ganghwa Island, aMarine Ecosystem Preservation Zone,ran into strong opposition from residentsand local businesses, most of whomwere motivated by a fear of restrictionson further development and an interestin short-term financial gains. More thanseven years have passed since then, butthe government has only succeeded indesignating some 60 m 2 as a preservationzone.RecommendationsSix recommendations can be made toimprove the conservation of Mount Mani’snatural, cultural and spiritual heritage.The basic ideas, which are in needof further elaboration, are:• Supporting the local initiative aimedat developing an effective conservationgovernment system. A number ofscholars and NGO leaders (includingthe members of the Ganghwa-doPeople’s Network) have gathered todiscuss the future of Ganghwa Island,the problems inherent in developmentand the conservation of nature. Althoughundoubtedly a positive development,their concerns have yet to resultin a systematic approach. Theresidents of the island are vulnerableto the temptations of the short-termbenefits generally expected to accrueto development plans, while the limitedexperience of the local authorities,which pay lip service to and support inprinciple the conservation of the environment,renders them unable to foreseefuture concerns. The combined effortsof scholars, experts and the localcommunity have proved successful inpersuading the local authorities to putin place a network for the exchange of84

ideas and the building of consensusin the formation of strategic plans forthe wise use of natural resources.This may evolve into some kind of administrativebody regulating the scopeand speed of development.• Raising environmental awareness at anational and international level. If thislocal initiative is to succeed and developinto an effective form of administration,national and international supportis vital, since it would greatly enhancethe position of local and national activistsin their efforts to conserve nature.• Establishing a new regime in the area.The area should be designated part ofthe National Park. Although there aremany people who are not satisfied withthe lax rules in force in Korea’s nationalparks (which are, for instance, vagueabout land use practices), such ameasure would contribute to the conservationcause. Special attention isrequired for the protection of tideland.• Drawing up and implementing an entirelynew approach to the sustainableconservation of the Ganghwa-do Islandas a whole. Such an approachwould consider issues such as protectingthe ecosystem and tideland,preserving historic sites and culturalremains, promoting alternative formsof tourism (i.e. ecotourism and culturaltourism) and large developmentprojects in an integrated manner.• Conducting interdisciplinary researchinto the spiritual, symbolic, social, andcultural characteristics of the area. Historians,cultural anthropologists, sociologistsof religion and political scientistscould join forces and contributesignificantly to understanding and conservingthe site’s distinct values. Suchstudies will constitute an important contributionto the conservation of the naturalenvironment and cultural remains,which are vital for the environmentally-friendlydevelopment of ecotourismand cultural tourism envisaged in theplans for sustainable development.• Making serious efforts to give due considerationto the people affected. It isimportant to provide compensationand / or feasible plans for environmentfriendlydevelopment as well as financialand technical supports for the residentsof the area to be affected by theproposed conservation measures.Mount Mani-san and Ganghwa Island aresymbols of Korea’s ancient history, mythicnational origin, national identity andstruggle for spiritual and political independence.They are closely related to theancient traditions of mountain worship,hermits and ascetics and remind everyoneof the battles Koreans have wagedagainst the invading forces of old empiresand modern imperialists. Its tidelands andmigratory birds are now under threat fromtourist development, while the entire areais at the centre of ambitious developmentplans and political controversies (e.g. thethermal power plant), which are not inkeeping with the effective conservation ofthe natural and cultural environment.Mount Mani-san and Ganghwa Island is aplace where empowered local citizenscan develop a new system of governancefor conservation with the help of committedscholars and professionals.85

GlossaryGeomancy ( 風 水 , Pungsu in Korean, Feng Shui in Chinese)Pungsu or fengshui, literally ‘wind and water’, is a method of divination developedin East Asia for locating favourable sites for cities, residences and burial grounds.The practice maintains that the happiness and prosperity of a person, family or entirenation is favourably or adversely influenced by the positioning of the burial placeof ancestral bones, residential buildings or the capital city. Geomancy is underpinnedby the belief that vital energy forces (‘ki’) flow under the ground, and thatauspicious nodes are formed where the vital energy accumulates. Since parentsare the main bodies of their children (like the trunk of a tree with branches growingout of it), their bones —when enveloped in vital energy in their burial site— can exercisean auspicious influence on the fortunes of their children.Force ( 氣 , Gi or Ki in Korean, Qi in Chinese)Gi is a vital force that underlies the functioning of the body, mind, and spirit. Theconcept, together with ‘li’ ( 理 , pattern, form, order, regularity, reason) is fundamentalto philosophical thoughts and various practices in East Asia, including architecture,art, traditional medicine, magic and the martial arts. Excessive loss of gi forceor disharmony in the balance of gi can lead to loss of life or health, or misfortuneand disorder in society.ReferencesBooksBak, Su-jin (2007), “Yeonan seupji ui chegyejeok boseon eul wihan jedo gaeseonegwanhan gochal”, Wolgan Haeyangsusan No. 277, October 2007.Ganghwagun (1983-2007) Ganghwado tonggye yeonbo.Hwangyeongbu (2007), Seupji bojeon gibon gyehoek, Korean Ministry of theEnvironment.Hwangyeongbu & Gukrip hwangyeong yeonguwon (2002), Jeonguk mu’in doseojayeon hwangyeong josa: Incheon gwangyeoksi ganghwagun ongjingun, Korean Ministryof Environment and National Institute of Environmental Studies.Jayeonsaengtae-gwa (1999), Ganhwa eui jayeon hwangyeong, Ministry of Environment(Natural Ecology Division), Gwacheon.Kim, Mun-Sook (1999), “Saengtae gwangwang eul tonghan jangso panchok e gwanhanyeongu: Ganghwa-do janghwa-ri ui saryero”, MA Thesis.Lee, Gyeong-su (2002), Yeoksa ui seom ganghwa-do, Sinseowon, Seoul.Lee, Hyeong-gu (1994) Ganghwa-do, Daewonsa, Seoul.86

Lee, Won-Hee (1999) “Ganghwa-do janghwa-ri gaetbeol saengtae gwangwang gyehoeke gwanhan yeongu”, MA Thesis.Newspaper and magazine articlesKiho ilbo, 26/06/2007.Hangyeore sinmun, 01/01/2005.Incheon sinmun, 08/04/2005.“Ganghwa-do, saengmyeong ui seom eul geotda”, Hangyeore 21. No. 685, 15/11/2007.WebsitesGanghwa munhwawon [Ganghwa Institute of Culture] http://www.ganghwacc.or.krGanghwagun [Ganghwa County] http://www.ganghwa.incheon.krGanghwa-do simin yeondae [Ganghwa Island People’s Network] http://www.ghpn.or.kr/ver2/index.phpGanghwa-do gajok yeohaeng ui giljabi — ganghwa sarang [Guide for Family Tour ofGanghwa Island — Love of Ganghwa] http://www.kanghwado.netMai ganghwa dat keom [My Ganghwa Dot Com] http://ganghwa.tistory.comHistoric Archives Building87

Solovetsky Islands:a holy land surrounded by the Arctic OceanRussian FederationAlexander N. DavydovIvan N. BolotovGalina V. MikhailovaIntroductionThe essential features of the SolovetskyArchipelago are similar to those of otherholy places. During the 13 th and 14 th centuries,the holy islands of Russia’s Northernterritories were considered a hospitableplace for saints and hermits. The remoteareas of the Solovetsky Archipelagobecame a symbol for the Russian OrthodoxChurch in much the same waythat Mount Athos came to symboliseGreek Orthodoxy. However, recent researchand archaeological remains indicatethat the archipelago was sacredlong before the appearance of the firstOrthodox Christians in the area —for instance,the largest collection of prehistoricstone labyrinths in Russia are to befound in the Solovetsky Archipelago.Between the 15 th and early 20 th century,the Solovetsky Islands were governed byone of the most famous Russian Orthodoxmonasteries: the Saviour-TransfigurationMonastery (or Solovetsky Spaso-Preobrazhensky Stavropigial’ny muzhskojmonastyr’ in full, with Solovetsky beingthe name of the archipelago on whichthe monastery is located [it comes fromthe indigenous Finno-Ugric name for theislands —“suola vesi”— which means“salt water”]; Stavropigial’ny referring tothe fact that the monastery is under thedirect supervision of the Patriarch of theRussian Orthodox Church rather than theBishop of Archangel; and Spaso-Preobrazhenskybeing the name of its maincatholicon, which is dedicated to OurSaviour of the Transfiguration). (image inpp. 90-91). The monastery was founded< Church of Ascension, Sekirnaya gora, Bol’shoy Solovetsky Island, Russian Federation89

Solovetsky Monastery: general viewby three hermits, German, Savvaty andZosima, who are all saints of the RussianOrthodox Church.The Solovetsky Islands are located in themiddle of the White Sea, 165 km southof the Arctic Circle in the land of theNorthern Lights, long dark winters andwhite summer nights. They encompassover than 100 islands and cover 300 km 2in total. The largest islands are BolshoySolovetsky, Bolshaya Muksalma, MalayaMuksalma, Bolshoy Zayatsky, MalyZayatsky and Anzer. The islands have awide range of landscapes despite theirproximity and limited extent, includingtaiga forests where spruce and pinedominate (60% of the total territory), foresttundra (10%), tundra (5%), marshes(12%) —including aapa mires— andsome 500 lakes (13%). The highestpoints of Solovetsky Arcipelago (Sekirnayaand Golgofa Mountains), are under100 metres in height. The islands’ uniqueclimate permits species of flora and faunanot normally found at this altitude.Natural valuesThe Solovetsky Archipelago containsecosystems of sub-tundra forests andforest-tundra crooked forests, which areconsidered to comprise a zonal ecosystem.The islands are intersected by the12 o C isotherm for July, which marks theboundary between the Northern taigaand forest-tundra zones of Northern Europe.The formation of extrazonal tundrason the islands can be attributed tothe cooling effect of the sea and to theprevalence of cold North-easterly windsduring the growing period. Herbaceousand herb bilberry shrubs similar to theirmiddle-taiga counterparts grow in thisregion due to an intense convective heatflowanomaly whose source is probablya diapir fold involving the upward movementof the mantle.The archipelago is rich in flora, with 378native spices including 11 rare orchids.A number of rare bird species are alsopresent, including the cormorant (Phalacracoraxcarbo), whooper swan (Cyg-90

nis cygnis), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetusalbicilla), marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus),merlin (Falco columbarius),hobby (Hypotriorchis subbuteo) andkestrel (Cerchneis tinnunclus). There isa unique colony of Polar tern (Sternaparadisea) on Malaya Muksalma island;occasionally exceeding 800 nestlingcouples, it is one of the largest coloniesin Europe.Rare ecosystems are represented by coastaltundra (4.5% of the total territory)as well as herbaceous and herb bilberryareas. The coastal tundra is concentratedon the small islands of Bolshaya Muksalma,Malaya Muksalma, Zayatskie (Hares)and the Eastern part of Anzer island.Reindeer have been successfully introducedonto Cape Kolguy, thanks to theunique species of tundra mosses whichcan also be found on the South-easternpart of Bolshoy Solovetsky island. Thecentral and Northern part of this islandare covered in spruce, mixed and smallleavedforests. Areas of motley grass resemblethose found in middle taiga. Thisherbage is the main characteristic ofmotley grass forests, e.g. forest geranium,oxalis, forest peas, etc. These ecosystemsare not in keeping with the localclimate and would not be able to survivewithout geothermal heating.Bolshoy Solovetsky Island: 45 speciesof flowers grow on the dry meadowsof Saint Isaac’s Hermitage (Isakovo).These species are listed in the Red DataBook for the Archangel region andamount to 30% of the total number ofspecies identified in the area. Isakovo isalso a nesting place for a number ofbird species, which are also listed. Everyyear, approximately 90 white whalesreproduce off Cape Belushy (which actuallytranslates as ‘White Whale Cape’)on Big Solovetsky Island during Julyand August.The Solovetsky Islands have hundredsof lakes, with most of the smaller lakesbeing of the deep reservoir type. Thebottom of the lakes in the Solovetsky Archipelagoare located below sea-level91

(Krugloe Orlovo Lake, for example, hasa bottom 6m beneath sea-level) due totheir hollows being crypto depressions.Nonetheless, all the lakes have superfresh,very soft water. The aapa-typemires, which provide habitat for severalrare birds species, are scattered acrossthe Solovetsky Islands, and can befound in the Pechakovskoe and Berezovo-Topskoeareas of Bolshoy SolovetskyIsland and in a large mire complex(1200 ha) in the Eastern part ofBolshaya Muksalma Island (maps inpp. 92 and 93).Cultural landscapesThe unique reclaimed meadows on theSekiro-Voznesensky, Savvatyevsky andIsakievsky Hermitages on Bolshoy SolovetskyIsland, the Golgofo-Raspyatskyand Svyato-Troitsky Hermitages on Anzerisland and the Svyato-Sergievo RadonezhskyHermitages on Bolshaya MuksalmaIsland are significant examples ofman-made landscapes created and sustainedby the monastic population for hay.During the 16 th -19 th centuries, the monkson Bolshoy Solovetsky Island beganVegetation map of the Solovetsky Islands (based on remote-sensing data from the Landsat 7 satelliteand the results of geo-botanical studies in the field; generalisation at a 15-pixel level)1 – Spruce forests6 – Crowberry tundras with fragments of crooked birch2 – Sphagnum pine forests and bogs with pine stands (Betula tortuosa) forests and bogs3 – Lichen pine forests7 – Dwarf shrub, sphagnum bogs without trees4 – Birch (Betula pubescens) and aspen forests 8 – Birch/spruce forests (Picea obovata and Betula pubescens)5 – Crooked birch (Betula tortuosa) forests with fragmentsof crowberry tundras and bogsformed biocenoses9 – Areas with a prevalence of anthropogenic trans-10 – Lakes92

The Wild Rose in the Bothanic Garden: a present from Panchen Lama to the Solovetsky MonasteryDiagram comparing the location of (I) Sosnovskaya and (II) Central CHF anomalies with the zoneof distribution of extrazonal forests on Bolshoy Solovetsky Island1 – Morainic plain (with large stones brought here by glaciers)2 – Marine plain3 – Heat flow anomaly according to data from the NOAA satellite (provided by V.I. Gornyi)4 – Relative (%) anomalies in summer bedrock temperatures5 – Zone of the highest prevalence of extrazonal forests (remote-sensing and field studies)6 – Forest biocenoses (cluster analysis of geo-botanical descriptions): middle taiga7 – Forest biocenoses (cluster analysis of geo-botanical descriptions): Northern taiga8 – Forest biocenoses (cluster analysis of geo-botanical descriptions): sub-tundra biocenoses93

The labyrinth on Bolshoy Zayatsky Island. In the background the Church of St. Andrew, built byTsar Peter the Greatconnecting the lakes with canals whichhelped drain the marshland and contributedsignificantly to the formationand maintenance of the area’s meadowsand forest complexes. These formermires need human intervention toremain as meadows. Nowadays, thisunique meadows complex is being degradedsince the lake and channellingsystems are no longer fully functionalafter a century of neglect. The systemcontains 65 lakes connected by 69channels, 16 dams (bunds), six lashersand four locks.The Makarievskaya Hermitage on BolshoySolovetsky Island is the Northernmostbotanical garden in Europe. Thegarden was started in 1822, and its collectionof plants includes 426 species.Surprisingly, these plants have thrived inthese extreme climatic conditions.Bolshoy Zayatsky [Big Hare] Island is aunique natural and cultural complex andhome to the largest complex of labyrinthsand sacred places in Russia’s EuropeanNorth; they date back to the 1 st -2 nd millennium BC. The island has a tundra-typeextra-zone natural complex withnesting places for birds listed in the RedData Book for the Archangel region.Spiritual and cultural valuesThe Solovetsky Archipelago was a sacredplace for prehistoric and early historiccultures. The Archipelago contains about1,000 sacred stones (dolmens, seeds,stone works) dating from between the Neolithic/ Early Metal Age and the Mediaevalperiod. The Solovetsky Islands are theEasternmost site of Northern Europe’sstone labyrinths (more than 30 labyrinthshave survived) (image in p. 94). The SolovetskySaviour-Transfiguration Monasterybegan as a wooden hermitage for threemonks —German, Zosima and Savvaty—in the 15 th century (these initialwooden buildings have not survived).The monks later became the patronsaints of the White Sea (image in p. 95).94

The icon of Saint Zosima and Saint Savvaty holding Solovetsky MonasteryIn 1429, the Solovetsky Monastery wasestablished and significantly affectedthe spiritual and economic life of NorthernRussia. In 1552, the construction ofthe Uspenskaya Church (church of theDormition of the Mother of God), refectoryand cellarer’s chambers began.The Arctic Ocean’s ‘fortress of the spirit’resembles a real fortress with its fivemonumental towers constructed out oflarge boulders. Its main catholicon,built in 1558-1566, is the cathedral ofthe Saviour-Transfiguration. The idea ofTransfiguration is conveyed in Russianwith a word synonymous with ‘transformation’,and the idea of the Holy Landof the Russian Orthodox Church ispresent here in site names like Golgofa-Calvary, in the transformation of landthough the construction of a system ofchannels, dams, fish ponds, and in thehermitages created on different islandsin the Archipelago. In the Makarius Hermitage,for instance, a botanical gardenwas created with herbs, apple trees,roses, shadberries, etc. in 1822, whilemonks of the Solovetsky Monastery whovisited the Pamir Mountains in the 19 thcentury were given the large-fruiteddog-roses, lilacs and bergenias in theSolovetsky botanical garden as gifts byPanchen Lama (image in p. 93). Surroundedby the cold waters of the WhiteSea, the Archipelago came to symbolisethe Garden of Eden. The monasteryhas been a popular destination for touristsand pilgrims since the late 18 th century;indeed, the holy community introduceda tourist information office forpeople visiting the area in the early 20 thcentury, along with accommodation (ahotel) and transportation. The monasterystill receives thousands of pilgrimson an annual basis.The place names in the Solovetsky Archipelagobear witness to the traditionof the Holy Islands. For instance, thereis the Svyatoe ozero [holy lake] near themonastery, while the highest mountainon Bolshoy Solovetsky Island is namedSekirnaya from the legend of the first95

monks who settled on these islands andtheir conflict with a family of fishermenthat had lived there before them. Thewife of the fisherman was angry with themonks and did not recognise the specialspirit of the Holy Islands until shemet two angels that descended out ofthe luminous sky and whipped her onthe mountain —Sekirnaya gora means‘mountain of whipping’. The name ofthe holy mountain on Anzer Island, theNorthernmost island in the SolovetskyArchipelago, is Golgofa, which means‘Calvary’ and echoes the holy site in theHoly Land (Jerusalem). The local toponymyis thus indicative of the special spiritualstatus of the Solovetsky Islandsand serves to highlight that this is a landfor monks, not common folk.The islands further impinged themselveson the European consciousness withthe publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’sGulag Archipelago —SolovetskyMonastery was one of the first Sovietprisons (1920-39), in which context itwas also known as Solovetsky SpecialPurpose Camp (image in p. 96 [left]).The Solovsky settlement was also establishedon the archipelago during theSoviet era in 1944; it now has around1,000 residents.The Solovetsky Historical, Cultural andNatural Museum / Reserve was establishedin 1967. Restoration works inSolovetsky Monastery started in the late1960s. Since 1992, the Cultural and HistoricEnsemble of Solovetsky Islandshas been a UNESCO World CulturalHeritage site (map in p. 97). The timehas come to re-designate the Solovetskyarchipelago a “site of mixed culturaland natural heritage”.After the Holy Synod of the Russian OrthodoxChurch of 25 October 1990, SolovetskyMonastery opened its gatesagain. The monastic community currentlyconsists of 60 people (20 celibateThe iron star, a symbol of the GULAG, whichwas added to Solovetsky Monastery maincampanile during its service as a prison. Itwas removed on July 27, 1984A group of experts who hung the bells in 1992under the leadership of Alexander N. Davydovand Vladimir M. Petrovsky96

priests, 20 monks and 20 novices). Themonastery plays an important role in theRussian Orthodox Church. In 1992, therelics of the creators of the monastery,saints Zosima, Savvaty and Germanwere returned to the monastery by a delegationheaded by Patriarch Aleksij II ofthe Russian Orthodox Church. The bellswere re-hung in the main campanile forthe occasion, and the relics returnedhome to the sound of their chimes (imagein p. 96 [right]).The monastery was visited by some6,000 pilgrims in 2004; the number ofpilgrims has been steadily increasing inrecent years.Map 3: The spiritual heritage of the Solovetsky Islands.1.Solovetsky Monastery of the Saviour-Transfiguration. The monastery complex contains the catholicon of theTransfiguration of the Saviour, the Church of the Assumption, the Church of Saint Nicholas and the Church ofthe Annunciation. There used to be a large labyrinth complex near the monastery.2. Herring’ Cape with Holy Cross.3. The Saint Savvaty Hermitage.4. Sekirnaya gora [Mountain of Whipping], where the Church of the Ascension also serves as a lighthouse.5. The Saint Isaac Hermitage.6. The Saint Macarius Hermitage with the Archimandrite’s summer residence and the botanical garden).7. Bolshoy Zayatsky [Big Hare] Island with Saint Andrew’s Church and a large labyrinth complex.8. The Jesus Hermitage on Muksalma Island.9. The Holy Trinity Hermitage and Anzer island’s large labyrinth complex.10. The Calvary-Crucifixion Hermitage on Golgofa [Calvary] Mountain on Anzer Island.11. Cape Kolgui with its large labyrinth complex.97

The Solovetsky Historical, Cultural andNatural Museum / Reserve is financed bythe Russian Ministry of Culture, which isresponsible for managing and conservingthe site, but is administered by numerousmuseum, monastery and forestryservices whose actions are not coordinatedby a centralised body. Thus, whilethe forestry service is responsible for theprotection of forests (which account for90% of the territory of the archipelago),Cape Belushy, which needs to be assignedmaritime reserve status as quicklyas possible, falls beyond its ambit.Pressures and impactsThe history of Solovsky testifies to the heterogeneityof the archipelago’s community.Humans began to impact on the archipelagoin the Neolithic period when thefirst tribes came to the islands. Archaeologicalsites discovered by Anatoly Kuratovand Alexander Martynov show thatbetween the 2 nd and 1 st millennium BCand the 1 st –early 2 nd millennium AD, theeconomy of these tribes was based onhunting in the forest, fishing in the lakesand sea and hunting walrus and seals.The people also used forest materials tobuild temporary constructions (which resembledthe kota of the Sami people)and collected firewood. They gatheredstones for labyrinthine tumuli and seida.It is ironical that fires during the 20 th centurywould contribute to the discovery ofmany of these artefacts.In the 15 th century, monks felled trees tobuild the first wooden churches and cells.The settlers were poslushniks, inoks andmonks. The most intensive impact on theislands’ nature came in the 16 th century,when the stone fortress, churches andchannels were constructed (Uspenskyand Preobrazhensky cathedrals, etc.).This was the time when many workersand craftsmen (trudniki) gathered on theislands to help build the fortress and themonastery. In the 16 th century, a dike wasbuilt to transform one of the archipelago’sbays into a fishpond (Filippovskie sadki);Festival in Solovetsky Monastery in 2006,dedicated to the return of the relics of St. Zosima, St. Savvaty and St. German98

a second dike was built and served as aroad connecting Bolshoy Solovetsky andMuksalma Islands. Reindeer were broughtto the Archipelago at this time from themainland and set free in the forest.The siege of the monastery by troops sentby the tsar (1668-1676) also had a majorimpact on nature. At that time, the monasterywas the leader of Northern dissentwithin the Russian Orthodox Church.Since the late 17 th century, timber to coverthe monasteries’ heating needs has beenimported from the Onega Peninsula.The increasing population of the islandduring the 1920s following the establishmentof the gulag and later, in the 1940s,following the founding of the settlement,put pressure on the archipelago’s naturethrough practices connected with thenatural economy of the region: gatheringberries and mushrooms, collecting firewood,stock breeding, hunting and fishing.Pressures on the natural habitat increasedsignificantly during World WarTwo (1941-1945).In September 2005, the Institute of EcologicalProblems of the North (Uralbranch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)Laboratory of Nature ProtectedAreas and Ecology of Culture organisedan expedition to the Solovetsky Islandsto research the historical and culturalheritage of the region and to analyse thecomplex relations and conflicts betweenthe different stakeholders.Monastery — Local communityIn 1479, Ivan the Terrible offered the islandsof the Solovetsky Archipelago tothe monastery as a gift. The monasterywould own the islands until 1920, whenthe civil war ended in the North. The arrivalof monks on the Solovetsky Islandswas connected to their oppositionto the Pomors (the local inhabitantsof the shores of the White Sea) alludedto in the legend about the ‘mountain ofwhipping’.The restored monastery is gradually becomingthe most significant factor in thecontinued existence of the local community.A source of employment for locals,the monastery conducts spiritual andcultural educational activities in the region,which are coordinated by localleaders and businessmen in collaborationwith the monastery. Disagreementswith the local population arise in thesummer as a result of the traditionalpractices of pilgrims: entire areas wheremushrooms and berries grow are devastatedby the pilgrims, depriving local residentsof the opportunity to gather thosegifts of the forest.The monastery traditionally does not overexploit natural resources. The populationof the settlement has a greater environmentalimpact on nature, mainly as a resultof its unsanctioned activities in the forests.Increasing pollution caused by wastearound the settlement and on the roads isanother major environmental burden.Monastery — MuseumSolovetsky Museum is a federal institutionunder the jurisdiction of the Ministryof Culture of the Russian Federation. TheSolovetsky Monastery is under the directjurisdiction of the Patriarch of Russia.99

The problem of managing the archipelago’sheritage stems from ambivalencesurrounding ownership of the SolovetskyIslands: given that the law statesthat the cultural heritage of the archipelagois the responsibility of the museum,it is not clear whether the islands belongto the museum or to the monastery. Theissue has become still more complicatedfollowing a statement by the formerPresident and current Prime-Minister ofRussia, Vladimir Putin, concerning the illegalityof past confiscations of churchproperty. This has been perceived bysome as an appeal for restitution.The museum has now commercialisedits activities, which itself creates environmentalproblems largely stemming fromthe sometimes inappropriate behaviourof the islands’ increasingly numeroustourists. The museum allows tour operatorsto buy or rent land in the archipelagofor long periods of time.Museum — Local communityAccording to a resolution authorised bythe government of the Archangel regionin 1980, the entire territory of the archipelago,including its cultural and natural heritage,belongs to the museum. The samelegislation states that the territory of thearchipelago comprises a single administrativeunit: the Solovetsky district of theArchangel region. In practice, the localgovernment administrates only the settlementarea.Forestry — Local communitySome 95.6% of the archipelago’s territoryis under the jurisdiction of the Solovskyforestry commission. The commissionlimits several activities on the part ofthe territory’s local community, which isprotected by the Forest Fund (Federalorganisation).Forestry — MuseumThe jurisdiction of the forestry commissionoverlaps in parts with the museum’sjurisdiction over the archipelago’scultural and natural landscape. The subjectof the ownership of the forests ishighly sensitive. Even if the problem ofthe recreational use of the forests is resolved,the overlapping authorities meanthat the museum seems to be infringingon the commission’s jurisdiction. Themuseum has proposed leasing the entireforest area to the forest commissiongratis as a solution to this problem. Theforestry commission has refused thisproposal.Forestry — MonasteryAs Archimandrite Joseph has stated:“The natural environment around theSolovetsky Monastery must be carefullymanaged by the monks as it has beenfor five centuries”. The question of rentingpart of the forest to the monasteryhas not been discussed at all.Concerning the protection status of thearchipelago’s natural heritage values,the situation can only be described asparadoxical. The Solovetsky Culturaland Historical Ensemble enjoys the statusof a UNESCO World Cultural Heritagesite, but the archipelago has yet tobe declared a protected natural area, althoughits unique eco-system indubita-100

ly deserves effective protection; the areaaround the archipelago does notbenefit from any form of protection status.Five areas / complexes appear tobe ‘protected’ at the local level: thelakes-and-channels system, Filippovskiesadki, Isakovo, the Cape Belushy areaand Bolshoy Zayatsky Island. All inall, there are 54 natural heritage elementsin need of protection (10 geologicaland geo-morphological [lithosphere]elements, 16 hydrological, 18 species offlora and five animal species).RecommendationsThe monastic complex has been aUNESCO World Cultural Heritage sitesince 1992 (by dint of a resolution atthe 16 th Session of the World HeritageCommittee, nomination ‘Cultural Heritage’,UNESCO Certificate 14.12.1992).It has been proposed that the SolovetskyArchipelago be re-classified as a‘site of mixed cultural and natural heritage’,but while the proposal was finalisedin 2002, approved by the Ministryof Natural Resources a year later andpresented at the UNESCO Conferenceon ‘Conserving Cultural and BiologicalDiversity: The Role of Sacred NaturalSites and Cultural Landscapes’ inTokyo in 2005, the re-classification hasyet to take place.There is also a clear need to assist theholy community in issues related to theefficient management of natural resources,environmental protection, transfer ofknow-how (e.g. the relevant experienceof the Holy Community of Mt. Athos) andother related fields.Finally, the Delos Initiative should aim atestablishing a strong network in Russiawith experts and specialists in the field ofcultural and environmental management.A network of this sort could support theexchange of ideas, strategies and experiencesand raise awareness of the currentand long-standing issues facing theSolovetsky Islands through internationalconferences, joint fieldtrips and otherforms of cooperation on a bilateral andmultilateral basis.ConclusionsThe importance of conserving the naturaland spiritual heritage of the SolovetskyIslands is undisputable, given theraised interest expressed in recent yearsby the Russian regional and federal authorities,the Russian Orthodox Churchand the wider community. It is of the utmostimportance that the site be awarded‘protected area’ status, as this wouldprotect the cultural and natural identity ofthe region and its values, as well as definingwhich of them are in need of urgentprotection and who the users of thisheritage are.The steps that follow should focus oncontinuous and concrete efforts with regardto ensuring that the spiritual andcultural values of the Solovetsky Islandsare managed in a harmonious and integratedmanner. It may well be that thiswill only happen when Russia has chosenthe course it is to steer in the newcentury: studying Solovetsky’s spiritualand social condition may afford us an insightinto the phenomena and processesthat may impact on this.101

A Holy Cross in the White Sea near Solovetsky MonasteryGlossary of local termsGuberny (gouberny): a region of the Russian Empire governed by the governorEparchy: a region of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by a bishop; formerly comparableto a gubernyGora: in Russian ‘mountain’, in the local, North-Russian dialect ‘a hill’ or even ‘a highbank of a see (river)’Inok: a coenobite monkPoslushnik: a novice, a lay brotherPustyn’: a hermitageTrudnik: a person who travelled to a monastery to pray but also to work for a long orshort period of time (trud means “work”).ReferencesÀðõumåêmóðíî-õó îæåñmâåííûå ïàì míuêu Ñîëîâåöêuõ îñmðîâîâ,Moscow, 1980.Èñmîðè Ïåðâîêëàññíî î ñmàâðîïuãuàëüíî î Ñîëîâåöêî î ìîíàñmûð..,Saint-Petersburg, 1899.ásDavydov, A., Vostryakov, L., (1995), The “Barents Region Sails 1996” Project in theLight of Eco- and Ethno-Tourism, 2 nd International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences(ICASS II), IASSA, Rovaniemi, p. 20.ss102

Davydov, A. (2004), “Spiritual Habitat – The Role of Folk Traditions and Beliefs in LocalPopulation Involvement in Nature Conservation Activities” in T. Lindholm and E. Keinonen,(eds.), Proceedings of the 3 rd Meeting of the International Contact Forum onHabitat Conservation in the Barents Region, Helsinki, pp. 66-67.Davydov A. (2009), “Solovetsky green meridian” and SNS “Svyatye roshschi”, in T.K.SpidsØ and O. J. SØrensen (eds.) The last large intact forests in Northwest Russia.Protection and sustainable use, - TemaNord 2009: 523. Nordic Council of Ministers,Copenhagen. pp. 26-36.sDosifey (1853), Ãåî ðàôu÷åñêîå, uñmîðu÷åñêîå u ñmàmuñmu÷åñêîå înuñàíuåÑmàâðînu uàëüíî î nåðâîêëàññíî î Ñîëîâåöêî î ìîíàñmûð , Ìoscow.sKuratov A.A. (2008), Kàìåííûå ëàáèðèíòû â ñàêðàëüíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâåÑåâåðíîé Åâðîïû, Pomor University, Archangel.Meletij (1881), Èñmîðu÷åñêîå înuñàíuå ñmàâðînu uàëüíî î nåðâîêëàññíî îÑîëîâåöêî î ìîíàñmûð , Moscow.Shvartsman, Yu. and Bolotov, I. (2005), “Mechanisms of Formation of Extrazonal Biocenoseson the Solovetsky Islands”, Russian Journal of Ecology 36 (5), pp. 312-319.Shvartsman, Yu. and Bolotov, I. (eds.) (2007), Ïðuðî íà ñðå à Ñîëîâåöêî îàðõunåëà à â óñëîâu õ ìåí þùå îñ êëuìàmà., Ekaterinburg.Skopin V.V. (1990), Íà Ñîëîâåöêuõ îñòðîâàõ, Iskusstvo, Moscow.sViken, A., Vostryakov, L. and Davydov, A. (1995), “Tourism in Northwest Russia” in C.Hall and M. Johnston, (eds.), Polar Tourism – Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions,Chichester, pp. 101-114.sssssáásssWebsitewww.solovky.ruwww.solovky-monastyr.ru103

104

Part TwoManagement of monasticlands and facilities- Mount Athos (Greece)- Other case studies- Towards ecological management105

106

Mount Athos (Greece)The protected area of the peninsulaof the Athos Holy MountainAthos Peninsula, Halkidiki, Central Macedonia, GreeceIoannis PhilippouKonstantinos KontosIntroduction The Athos Peninsula or Holy Mountain isthe Easternmost of Halkidiki’s three peninsulas(image in p. 108 [top]) and differssubstantially from the other two interms of morphology, climate, geologyand history. Over its thousand-year history,the area has acquired variousnames that convey both its cultural andnatural / environmental importance: theHoly Mountain (or simply ‘the Mountain’),because of its dominating position;the Community of the Holy Mountain;the Ark of Orthodoxy; and, the Gardenof the Virgin (Theotokos). This study was conducted by an interdisciplinaryteam of 20 scientists under the guidance of ProfessorNikolaos Stamou, Dr Stefanos Fotiou andKonstantinos Kontos.In 1988, the Holy Mountain was designateda mixed World Heritage site, followingsignificant efforts made and actions takenrelated to the protection of both its culturaland natural heritage. The entire areaof the Holy Mountain has also been includedin the Natura2000 network. Furthermore,the Holy Community has successfullyimplemented a EU LIFE-Nature projectcalled the ‘Rehabilitation of CoppiceQuercus Frainetto & Quercus Ilex Woodsto High Forest’, and has conducted astrategic Special Environmental Study(SES) entitled ‘Protected Area of the Peninsulaof the Athos Holy Mountain’.The main goals of the SES were to identifyand list the management measuresrequired to preserve and protect thewhole of the Holy Mountain area with its< Sheer slopes rising up from the sea, Athos Holy Mountain, Greece107

Prefecture of Halkidiki - Athos PeninsulaMount Athos: the Holy Mountainbiotic and abiotic constituents, while promotinga development model compatiblewith the environmental and economicconcerns of the local community.The objectives of the study were:• The preservation, improvement andsustainable management of naturalhabitat types and species of flora andfauna, particularly those protected byinternational conventions;• The modulation of principles andrules of usage for natural resources,so as to ensure species preservationand the sustainable and integrateduse of resources;• The drafting and developing of a setof measures designed to maintainand protect the natural and humanenvironments; and• Planning land use to resolve problemsarising from the conflict betweenthe need for protection, on the onehand, and production and other activitieson the other.Characteristics of the areaInitially, the study aimed to identify andquantify the various characteristic elementsof the area, assessing their functionsand interactions and their significancefor the environment. The maincharacteristics analysed included the topography;flora, vegetation, forests andtheir management; fauna; climatic condi-108

tions; natural and social functions; the effectsof humankind and the surroundings.Topography and landscapeThe area presents a variform terrain (imagein p. 108 [bottom]). There is a mildlywavy row of hills in the central part of thepeninsula with a gradually increasing altitudethat varies between 450 and 990mbefore climbing to an altitude of 2,033m(the summit of Mount Athos) to theSoutheast.The relief consists of deep, steeptraverse gullies alternating with steeperfolds. The intense relief of the Athos Peninsulais the result of the great differencein altitude between areas and bythe steep slopes that rise up almostfrom sea level (image in p. 109). Thewide variety of habitats in the area hasmanaged to sustain itself thanks to thediverse and distinct geographical, geologicaland climatic characteristicsfound on Mount Athos.It is these unique features, coupled withthe almost complete absence of adverseeffects on the environment (e.g. therehas been no grazing for centuries) thathelp explain the rich and extremely interestingvegetation, flora and fauna to befound on the peninsula.The special characteristics of the surroundings,the monasteries and their architecture,the relatively limited humanactivity and the singular and isolated locationof the peninsula have combinedto make Mount Athos one of the mostunique and important coastal landscapesin Greece and the Mediterraneanarea as a whole.Flora and vegetationThe flora found on the Holy Mountain isanother feature of its singularity. It is oneof the richest areas in Greece in this respect,according to the bibliography detailingthe wealth of plant life and the variousendemic, rare and endangered speciesto be found there.The flora of the Holy Mountain includes1,453 plant species and subspecies,which represent 539 genera and 109Steep slopes rising up from the sea109

families. Of these taxa, 26 belong to pteridophyta,12 to gymnosperms and 1,415to angiosperms. The flora of Mount Athosincludes local, national and Balkan endemicsfound in pockets or throughoutthe entire Balkan Peninsula. It is composedof Mediterranean (70%), Northeastern(15%), Balkan (9%), central European(4%) and local (2%) endemics.The existence of 58 important taxa atteststo the significance of the region in termsof its biodiversity. Of these taxa, 22 speciesare endemic to Greece (14 are localendemics) and six have been included inAnnex II of Directive 92/43/EEC. A furtherfive species have been listed with theUNEP World Conservation MonitoringCentre (WCMC) and are also on the EuropeanRed Data List, 10 species are protectedby Greek Presidential Decree 67/1981, and three species are consideredrare, reaching the limit of their geographicalspread in northern Greece. Finally, sixspecies are endemic to the Balkan Peninsulaand extend as far as Turkey.The Athos Peninsula is also very importantfor the protection of the Quercusfrainetto (Hungarian Oak) and Quercusilex (Holm Oak), which have been includedin Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC.The human and natural environments areinterdependent on the peninsula, and thetwo exist in harmony. This can be seen inthe species of vegetation found there,their structure and composition, the waythey are cultivated and managed, themethods used for harvesting forest productsand the policy in place on clearanceand opening up cultivable regions.ForestsThe area is dominated by forest habitatsand all the natural processes that ensuretheir ecological and environmental maintenanceand survival. Forests cover mostof the peninsula (image in p. 111), withchestnuts (Castanea sativa) dominatingits central and southern parts. The Northof the peninsula is home to sclerophyllousevergreen (mostly Quercus ilex) vegetationin tree form, mixed oak forests(Quercus frainetto) and chestnut andpine forests (Pinus halepensis). TheSouthern section also contains somepatches of primitive forms of vegetation,with forests of beech, fir and black pine.Forest managementUp to 1990, the monks managed thechestnut forests of the Holy Mountain onan ad hoc basis. The non-intensive characterof the forestry practices in placeand the prudence of the monks helpedpreserve the forests. However, themonks’ lack of silvicultural knowledgeand scientific management skills led toreduced profits from forest products.Clear-cutting was the most commonform of management practice in the caseof chestnut forests. When the monasteriescould not cover their needs (day-todayliving, heating, construction, etc.),they applied up to three treatments ontheir chestnut forests (two for cultivationthinning and one final clear-cutting) overa 23- to 25-year period at the longest. Inaddition, for some two decades (1970-90), a reduction in the number of monksmade it necessary to call in professionalsto exploit the forests. The tradesmenpaid the monasteries a percentage of110

Forest map of Mount Athoswhat they received from their buyers.However, this had an adverse effect onthe structure of the forests and on productivity,as most logging was carriedout only in places that offered these merchantsand lumberjacks the greatestprofits. Mixed-aged coppice forests werecreated in these areas as a result.The era of unsustainable practices cameto an end in the 1990s. The new, rationalexploitation of chestnut forests wasbased on 10-year management plans,which marked the first efforts to convertthe irregular coppice forests into highforests. At the same time, the existingmethod of managing the chestnut forestswas improved upon through the additionof one or two extra cultivation stagesand an extension of the final loggingtime-frame (rotation period) by 10 yearsfrom 23-25 to 32-35 years.111

This management practice, which becameknown as the ‘Holy MountainMethod’, is based on periodical interventionsin the chestnut stands every sevento 10 years. The first intervention, whichtakes place in the seventh year and is intensive,results in the production of sticksand poles. The second intervention occursafter 13-15 years and results insmall chestnut products. A third cultivationstage, again intensive, is carried outafter 20-25 years and produces medium-sizedlogs. The final clear-cutting isdone when the trees are around 35 yearsold and offers thicker (and more valuable)timber. The chestnut cultivationmethod applied on the Athos Peninsulawas later adopted in the managementplans of all Greek chestnut forests. Themethod is also used —with some variations—in other European countries.The chestnut forests of Athos are highlyproductive. Their production capability(volume increment) begins at two andreaches 10 m 3 of timber per year, whilethe chestnut forest timber stock rangesfrom 40 m 3 / ha in young stands to 210m 3 / ha in more mature stands and higher-qualitysites.The evergreen broadleaf forests —andin particular the Holm Oak (Quercus ilex)forests— are financially exploited bymost Athonite monasteries, especiallythose located far from the chestnut forests.Holm Oak stands are exploitedthrough clear-cutting in a 20- to 30-yearrotation. However, the wood harvested issuitable only for firewood and charcoal.The forests surrounding the monasteries,sketes and cells were usually excludedfrom the production process and exploitation,mostly to protect soil from erosionor something similar, but also onaesthetic grounds. In recent years, selective/ conversion thinning projectshave been implemented, in part throughopportunities afforded by the LIFEproject (LIFE 03 NAT/GR/000093 ‘Rehabilitationof coppice Quercus frainetto(9280) and Quercus ilex (9340) woods tohigh forest’). Today, these areas are managedas coppice forests. The projectcovered an area of 500 ha.FaunaAs many as 173 species of birds havebeen identified in the Holy Mountain area(Poirazidis 1992, Chandrinos 1992, Chandrinos& Akriotis 1997, Vavalekas 1997).It is estimated that 102 of these are seasonal,and most are rare or endangered.Specifically, 29 species are included onthe IUCN Red List, 40 species on the listsincluded in Directive 79/409/EEC, 134 inAppendix II of the Bern Convention, 80 inAppendix II of the Bonn Convention andtwo species are endangered worldwide.Some 23 species have a population locatedmostly in Europe, while the populationsof 43 species are to be found mainlyoutside Europe.In addition, 41 species of mammals havebeen recorded on the peninsula (Vavalekas1997). The vast majority of these aresmall mammals living entirely or partly inforests (rodents, in particular). Vavalekas(1997) also reports the presence of sixcarnivorous species, while the largestherbivorous terrestrial mammals are thewild boar and the roe deer.112

There were reports until 1980 of a finalpair of wolves in the area, but they wouldseem to have perished owing to illness.The absence of wolves stems mainlyfrom the geographic isolation of the peninsula,which is connected to the mainlandonly through a narrow strip of landin the area of Nea Roda (where there hasbeen intense construction and tourist activityin recent years). Another reason behindthe disappearance of the wolf couldbe the absence of livestock farming andlivestock animals in the area.Nine species of chiroptera (bats) and sixmarine species (cetacean and seal) havealso been sighted in the area. The Monkseal has been spotted in specific areasof the Holy Mountain —particularly in itsSouth-eastern part (however, no furtherresearch has been carried out into thepresence of this species).In sum, 22 mammals found in the HolyMountain area are included on the RedList. Of these, 10 are in category E (‘endangered’),9 in category V (‘vulnerable’)and 3 in category R (‘rare’). In addition,some 24 species have been included inPresidential Decree 67/81 (on the protectionof wild flora and fauna and thecoordination and research processes relatedto these). Finally, 18 species are listedin Annexes II, IV & V of Directive 92/43/EEC, 16 in Appendix II of the Bern Conventionand 10 in Appendix II of the BonnConvention (one is also included in AppendixI).Natural and social functionsThe natural and social functions thatcharacterise the region are spiritual, cultural,productive and protective:Spiritual functionsThe Holy Mountain has been classifiedby the Orthodox Church as an ecumenicallysacred place where the uniquetruths of Christ’s Gospel and His Churchhave been experienced. The mountainhas been a site of spiritual creation forthe last 14 centuries (image in p. 113).The exceptional beauty of the area’s naturalenvironment enhances its spirituality.Monastery of Simonopetra113

Cultural functionsThe Holy Mountain is home to a pricelesscultural treasure composed of artefactsbut also accumulated culturalknowledge, tradition and a unique wayof life. The various religious ‘heirlooms’—the architecture of the building complexesand their style, the Byzantine musicaltradition and the traditional way ofusing natural resources— are all constituentparts of its cultural importance andcontribution to world heritage.Productive functionsThese functions refer to the productivecapacity —of the local forests, in particular.They are characterised by a relativelyhigh productive capacity in various sectors,such as timber, foraging (regardlessof the lack of livestock breeding), agriculturepracticed using traditional methods(and a few modern organic ones), apiculture,herbs and aromatic plants, fishingand water resources. All of these constitutevaluable sources of income that helpcover the monks’ living needs and expensesas well as the cost of upgradingand restoring the monastery buildings.They also contribute to the local economyon and around the peninsula, and especiallywithin the prefecture of Halkidiki,both directly (people employed by theHoly Monasteries) or indirectly (religioustourism, as in the case of Ouranoupolis).Protective functionsThe protective operations are mainly focusedon:• The conservation of the forests of theHoly Mountain;• The preservation of natural landscapesof outstanding natural beauty;• The conservation of a large numberof species of flora and special formationsof forest vegetation, as well asbeaches and other coastal habitats;• The conservation of the large numberof species and populations of fauna,including the wild boar, roe deer andjackal as well as marine species. TheHoly Mountain is a designated wildliferefuge;• Hydrology and fire protection. This involvesthe protection and maintenanceof forest soils and springs, the cultivationof forests using fire-resistant speciesand efforts to develop a systematiccontrol mechanism for the preventionand avoidance of forest fires.Anthropogenic effectsThroughout the greater part of its history,the Athos environment has not been adverselyaffected by human intervention.There are accounts of there having been50,000 monks and a large number ofmules living on Mount Athos at one pointduring the Ottoman period, and of intenselogging having taken place overan extended period of time, especially inthe areas around the monasteries andsketes. Fortunately, the Holy Mountain’sforests have always been able to regeneratethemselves naturally owing to theabsence of grazing and large infrastructureprojects (roads, water supply anddrainage networks, large hydro-electricdams, irrigation or water-supply). Forover a thousand years, the monasteriesand sketes have been the only infrastruc-114

ture in the area; indeed, they could perhapsbe thought of as an extension ofthe natural and cultural environment. Themost recent —and important— humanintervention on the peninsula was theconstruction of a dense forest road networkconsisting mostly of technicallysimple and relatively narrow dirt roads;however, the project also included a fewlarge roads which have had a highly negativeeffect on the landscape, in particular.The construction of this networkmainly arose out of the need to protectthe forests from fire, particularly those areaswhere flammable forest species,such as pine and evergreen hardwoodshrubs, grow in close proximity.A great fire broke out on the Holy Mountainin 1990, incinerating 2,200 ha of forestand threatening the monasteries andsketes with complete destruction.Secondary roads have also been openedto exploit natural resources —especiallychestnut and Holm Oak trees. This decisionwas taken in a bid to satisfy themonasteries’ heating, food, constructionwork and financial needs, since the income—which is derived mostly fromchestnut trees— covers a large part ofthe cost of restoration work. Most ofthese roads were constructed in the lasttwo decades of the 20 th century.Over the past decade and out of respectfor the area, the monks of Athos havestudied the environmental impact of theconstruction of forest roads and, perhapsmore importantly, examined past mistakes.As a result, their primary concernis now to maintain and improve the existingnetwork of forest roads with minimalintervention rather than adding furtherroads to the network. New roads are constructedonly where it is deemed absolutelynecessary and always within the frameworkof the area’s fire protection plan.Both the improvement and constructionof roads are now based on environmentalstudies; potential projects are examinedand approved by the Holy Community(Forest Board) and public bodies, andare approved or rejected in view of theirnecessity, feasibility and functionality.Any new developments should not beviewed as threats, however, and not everyintervention has had negative consequenceson the environment and the appearanceof the area. The monks’ way oflife, their dietary habits , the limitedamount of construction and the non-intensiveexploitation of the environmenthave all contributed to the sustainablemanagement of the area’s natural resources.Economic activity today is verylimited because financial profit has notbeen the primary goal behind the exploitationof these natural resources.The high quality of the local ecosystemshas emerged through the interaction betweentheir special features and the mannerin which they have been managedover time. This interaction has substantiallyshaped the dynamics of these ecosystems,which have enjoyed the mostfavourable prospects for sustainable, The monks of Athos adhere to the traditionalMediterranean diet, which alternates betweendays with and without the consumption of oliveoil. This diet also promotes the avoidance of animalproteins in favour of fish-sourced proteins(twice a week, except during periods of fasting).In addition, vegetables, fruit and other naturalproducts are only consumed in season.115

multifunctional management. As a consequence,these ecosystems have beenclassified as ‘exceptional’.It is apparent that the Holy Community’swise and prudent approach has beenexpressed not only in spiritual terms, butalso in the management and exploitationof the area’s natural resources. The sustainablemanagement of these resourcesis something that all monks take intoserious consideration. It is essential thatthis practice is maintained and supportedin order to safeguard inter alia the traditional/ cultural element in this specialapproach to managing the peninsula’sforests and ecosystems.Proposed environmentalmanagement measuresUndoubtedly, the general strategic goalof any management method for the HolyMountain must be the preservation of theintegrity and authenticity of the peninsulaas a place of religious and spiritual importance.By extension, this overridingaim incorporates and includes the protectionand conservation of the greatwealth of both the cultural and environmentalelements of the area.A. The evaluation of the naturalenvironmentAn examination of the local natural environmentreveals the existence of particularlyimportant features related to theconservation of the biodiversity and naturalenvironment in general (both speciesand habitats). This fact makes theregion one of the most significant andvaluable natural biogenetic reserves inGreece. This is particularly importantand relevant now that habitats are experiencingproblems of degradation, disruptionand discontinuity and being affectedby widespread changes in landuse. These problems beset most Greekforests and forest ecosystems today.The evaluation of landIn order to facilitate the evaluation of thelocal environment, the study area was dividedinto four groups based on landuse and morphological characteristics:• Mountainous landscapes;• Semi-mountainous / residential landscapes;• Stream and riverside landscapes;• Coastal landscapes.Evaluation criteriaThe area was evaluated in terms of itsenvironmental value and the threats itfaces, as well as with reference to itscontribution to the financial, social andcultural development of the broader region.The large quantity of data assessedin the evaluation process wasgathered from the management plansfor the forests of the Holy Monasteries,and included information on timberstock, increment, age, site quality, silviculturaltreatments, management history,a cartographic depiction of habitatsand the existing bibliography. The evaluationcriteria were rareness, vulnerability,extent of disturbance, representativeness,social and financial value, geographicextent, rehabilitation and res-116

Zoning on Mount Athostoration prospects, diversity and landscapequality.The local flora and fauna were evaluatedaccording to their population dynamicsand conservation and managementneeds. For this reason, international conventions,existing Greek legislation andthe EU directives and regulations in forcewere all taken into account.B. ZoningThe zoning and demarcation of the areaconstitute a basic tool in the effort toachieve the objectives laid down for itsprotection and management. This zoningserves three main domains: environmental,institutional and socio-cultural.The protection zones are mainly of afunctional nature, meaning that they organise,regroup, classify and facilitatethe implementation of protection andmanagement measures. Specific principlesare applied in each zone and theydetermine the framework to be used toimplement the protection and managementmeasures.The area classified as the ‘Protected Areaof the Peninsula of the Athos HolyMountain’ consists of the entire regionwithin the administrative boundaries ofthe Autonomous Monastic State of theHoly Mountain plus a marine zonestretching 500m out to sea.Three protection zones were proposed(image in p. 117), based on the analysisand evaluation of present conditions:Zone I: An area of complete protection;Zone II: A nature protection area subdividedinto:117

IIa Biogenetic reservesIIb Protected landscape featuresIIc Protected coastal and marine regions;and,Zone III: An area of sustainably managednatural resourcesZone I: An area of complete protectionZone I includes the rocky slopes of MountAthos and has an altitude ranging from1,500 to 2,033m. This area is composedmainly of bushy and herbaceous vegetationand includes most of the plants endemicto Mount Athos. It is likely that it alsocontains some endemic insect species,but no relevant studies have beenpublished to date to verify this.This zone remains intact, and any—smallscale—interventions will be aimed at improvingand maintaining the light infrastructurealready in place, such as pathsto the summit.Some of the restrictions that should beobserved include:i. The avoidance of any kind of exploitationof natural resources;ii. The avoidance of construction of newroads;iii. The avoidance of construction oflarge-scale structures and installations,e.g. dams, photovoltaic powerstations, etc.;iv. The avoidance of mass tourism andthe unrecorded visitor access (i.e.there is a need for visitor managementschemes), the prevention of organisedrecreational and / or sportingevents such as climbing; andv. The prevention of the collection of alltypes of local plants and minerals.This zone is the most characteristic,representative and significant regionof the Holy Mountain. Collecting minerals,rocks or other geological formationscontravenes the Athonite religiousphilosophy.However, it is permitted to:i. Carry out work that seeks to protectand conserve the region’s features;ii. Improve the access roads / paths usingenvironmentally-friendly materials;andiii. Improve and maintain infrastructuresof religious interest.Zone II: A nature protection area:biogenetic reserves; protectedlandscape features; and, protectedcoastal and marine regionsThis is divided into three sub-zones:IIa Biogenetic reserves;IIb Protected landscape features; andIIc Protected coastal and marine regions.Sub-zone IIa (biogenetic reserves)includes:a) Areas with the remains of primitivevegetation containing beech, fir andblack pine forests, as well as the forestsat Krya Nera and near the Sketeof Ayia Anna; andb) The steep regions near and along thecoasts of the peninsula.For this sub-zone, the following restrictionsshould be observed:i. Maintenance, improvement and restorationprojects are to be implement-118

ed only in the case of existing infrastructure;ii. Forest exploitation aiming at the productionand trade of goods are to beprohibited, with the exception of necessaryforestry maintenance andpreservation projects and restorationwork on the monasteries;iii. Construction of new forest roads isnot to be permitted; and,iv. Access is to be denied for installationsrelated to quarrying activities.However, it is permitted to:i. Carry out projects (research or practicalforestry work) aiming at protectingand maintaining the features of the region;ii. Improve and maintain the existing forestroad / paths network in order topromote permitted activities;iii. Construct small structures and otherbuildings adapted to the particularfeatures of the area and aimed at‘mild’ forms of forest recreation thatcater to the needs of religious pilgrims;iv. Implement low-intensity cultivationmeasures aimed at preserving thecontinuity of important types of vegetation;andv. Collect stones and rocks for any useon the grounds.Sub-zone IIb (protected landscape elements)includes the 20 monasteries, 14sketes, ‘kelia’ (cells), ‘kalyvia’ (huts), seatsand hermitages located in monastic areas,and the towns of Karyes and Dafni. Ingeneral, this sub-zone encompassesevery extant historical and religious complexwithin the properties belonging tothe 20 monasteries (image in p. 121).Any restrictions concerning Sub-zone IIbare in accordance with the rules andspecifications laid down in the ConstitutiveCharter of the Holy Mountain. Theactivities permitted in this sub-zone arethose practiced to date. Since the late1980s —a decade that saw many mistakesmade in relation to the constructionof forest roads— the monks andcompetent authorities (KEDAK, ForestAdministration) have been promoting themaintenance and reconstruction of historicpaved paths.Sub-zone IIc (coastal and marine area)covers a 550m zone around the coastlineof the entire peninsula. In Sub-zoneIIc, the Holy Community is allowed topractice only small-scale fishing aimedat satisfying the dietary needs of themonks and pilgrims (fish is eaten twodays a week, except during fasts).In this Sub-zone, it is forbidden:i. For ships and boats, except thosetransporting passengers to and fromthe Holy Mountain, to approach withoutspecial authorisation; andii. For any economic activity —especiallyrelated to fishing— to be carriedout by inhabitants of the wider region.Zone III: An area of sustainablymanaged natural resourcesThe remaining areas of Mount Athosare included in Zone III. These areascontain forests of chestnut, evergreen119

oadleaf trees and Pinus halepensis.The natural resources of this area areexploited by the Holy Community tocover the monasteries’ needs for goodsand to generate the income necessaryfor financial independence. It is worthnoting that there is a limited level of exploitationof natural resources, which isbased on the capacity of the region andaccords with the fundamental measuresfor the sound environmental managementof the area.The specific management measures proposedfor this zone include:1. Minimising the number of new managementplans —which should havea 10-year implementation period—for all forests;2. Preserving timber stocks at high levels;2.1 In the case of chestnut forests,the third cleaning must be appliedas a general principle, meaningthat the rotation age (the finallogging of the stands) shouldbe increased to 35-40 years;2.2 The view that evergreen broadleafforests —particularly Holm Oakunions— and mainly those aroundand near the built environment ofthe Holy Mountain (as well as thosevisible from the sea), should beincluded in the process of conversionto high forests;2.3 That the Pinus halepensis forests inthe northern part of the peninsulashould be managed by implementingcultivation and regenerationlogging within an 80-year rotation;3. Intact sites (natural reserves) shouldbe created and established as forestdeposits (permanent pilot units). Eventhough these sites have yet to be selected,the total area of the permanentpilot units is to vary between 5and 20 ha. These will be establishedfor all forest habitat types present onthe peninsula, with priority given tomature forests of beech, fir and oak;4. Special protective measures for priorityhabitats and water resources areto be taken;5. Financial assistance is to be providedto the monasteries to cover the environmentalcost of applying the aforementionedmeasures;6. Restrictions are to be placed on theconstruction of new forest roads; theprimary forest road transport networkfor forest products and the main forestroad network for fire protection areto be selected; habitats and the landscapeaffected by the construction ofexisting road networks are to be restoredby implementing proper horticulturaland technical projects; and,special attention is to be paid to therehabilitation of the landscape alongroads visible from the sea;7. Large-scale infrastructure projectsshould be carried out and installationsconstructed in cases where these arejustified because they are energy-saving(hydroelectric dams and solar energyproduction stations, for instance).In any event, these should be basedon detailed planning which seeks toestimate their effects. Small-scale infrastructureworks, such as water res-120

Agios Pavlos Monasteryervoirs for the supply of drinking waterand underground water tanks, areacceptable when the location is selectedwith care and deemed compatiblewith the environmental characteristicsof the area; in general, theuse of renewable sources should beprogressively promoted;8. There is a need for the establishmentof a waste disposal or landfill site aswell as a waste treatment centre nearKaryes; any such projects should includeplans for further action to betaken concerning the wider consequencesand effects of such works(the transportation network, aestheticconsiderations, the physical landscapeand other areas affected);9. The implementation of rational rulesgoverning agricultural practice , suchas cultivation in ranks, the prohibition In recent years, some monasteries have begunparticipating in organic cultivation projects,mostly in the form of vineyards and the revival ofold olive groves.of clearances, the reinforcement ofcrop rotation and fallowing, a reductionin the use of agricultural pesticides,the optimised use of water resourcesfor agricultural needs, wastereduction and the promotion andsafeguarding of agro-biodiversity —especially of old species varieties;and10. Intensifying control over illegal huntingand the entry of hunting dogs.Hunting is forbidden within the entireHoly Mountain region.C. Environmental Management BodyAccording to the SES, a basic tool forachieving the strategic goals in themanagement of the cultural and environmentalfeatures of the Holy Mountainis the establishment of a new administrativebody. The creation of thisbody will take into account the particularitiesof the governance of the HolyMountain and the self-administration ofthe Holy Monasteries. The new body, to121

e called the Environmental and ForestBoard of the Holy Mountain, will be createdmainly through upgrading the existingForest Board commission.The main goals the Environmental andForest Board will be:• The development of a common actionframework for all Holy Monasterieswithin the peninsula of the Holy Mountain,that is, within the entire area designatedas part of the Natura2000network; and,• The coordination of the accumulatedexperience and sensitivity of theAthonite monks towards nature, forestsand the environment for thepromotion of the protected area, itsdevelopment, renewal and sustainableuse through the implementationof modern plans, new studiesand actions, and organisationalprojects. Such actions will focus onthe multifunctional sustainable managementof the terrestrial and coastalecosystems and, generally, onthe natural heritage of Holy Mountainwith an emphasis on all its naturalresources.The Environmental and Forest Board willalso be expected to monitor the actionsof the monasteries, with a view to:• Protecting, promoting and enhancingall the outstanding values of the area;• Increasing the environmental awarenessof the monks, pilgrims, visitorsand other institutions / organisationsat the local, national and internationallevels; and• Promoting the environmental educationof the monks, pilgrims, visitorsand other parties working on MountAthos, and assisting the Holy Communityin achieving the goals statedin the SES.The Environmental and Forest Board willconsist of an Administrative Council (sevenmembers to be appointed by the HolyCommunity), and will collaborate withfive scientists (permanent staff) and severalother external advisors. The initialwork of the Environmental and ForestBoard will focus on:a. Protecting against forest fires;b. Restoration techniques concerningthe area’s cultural and natural heritage;c. The maintenance and improvementof the forest road network; and,d. The multifunctional sustainable managementof forests and the naturalenvironment.Following this, the remaining stages ofthe Environmental Management Plan areto be completed within seven years(2007-2013), and are to include thesemeasures:• The issuing of a regulative provisionallowing for the incorporation of theSpecial Management Authority (thatis, the Environmental and ForestBoard of the Holy Mountain) into theexisting legal framework of the selfadministratedMonastic Community;• The ratification of the regulative provisionby the Ministry of Environment,Energy and Climate Change;122

• The securing of the necessary fundsfor the operating costs of the Environmentaland Forest Board as well asfor the compensation of the monasteries(owing, for example, to the lossin income stemming from the implementationof restoration and conservationmeasures);• The exploitation of all possible alternativesources of funds in order toprotect the integrity and authenticityof this special area and the rehabilitationof degraded forest habitats;and,• Ensuring the viability of the SpecialManagement Authority for sevenyears and implementing an evaluationsystem for its effectiveness in orderto make necessary adjustmentsafter this seven-year period.Appointing the Environmental and ForestBoard as the management, protectionand development authority of theprotected area has indisputable advantages.Firstly, it is an authority based inthe area being protected. It is also composedof members with sensitivity,knowledge and special experience,who are familiar with the specific featuresof the area. They have a personalinvestment in safeguarding the HolyMountain, since they have taken monasticvows and living ascetic livesthere. Moreover, the fact that the membersof the board are appointed by theHoly Community —which represents all20 Holy Monasteries— ensures that theboard and its decisions are viewed asauthoritative and valid by the peopleand institutions / authorities with whichthe board cooperates. Finally, this willraise the prestige of the body, which isimportant when taking the necessaryaction for funding management measures,structures and plans, and also inthe context of cooperative efforts withnational or international institutions andorganisations.EpilogueThe monks of the Holy Mountain havededicated their lives to worshipping theDivine, and this is also expressed throughthe preservation of the natural environmentin which they live. The Holy Communityrespects the natural surroundingsof the area and is aware of the importanceof nature, which it considers a giftfrom God. Thus, in its own special way,the Holy Community has repeatedly expressedits intention to continue to activelycontribute to the conservation andpreservation of the natural and culturalheritage of Mount Athos.123

BibliographyÁntonopoulou, Í. (1958), Ç ÓõíôáãìáôéêÞ Ðñïóôáóßá ôïõ Áãéïñåßôéêïõ Káèåóôþôïò,Áthens, 1958.Babalonas, D. (1997), “Ç ×ëùñßäá ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò” in S. Dafis, D. Babalonas & Ê.Âabalekas (1997), Öýóç êáé Öõóéêü ÐåñéâÜëëïí óôï ¢ãéïí ¼ñïò. ÉåñÜ Êïéíüôçò Áãßïõ¼ñïõò, Athos, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Thessaloniki, Cultural Capital of Europe1997, Thessaloniki.Birdlife International (2004), Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservationstatus, BirdLife Int. Conservation Series no 12, Cambridge.Bourdakis, S. and Vareltzidou S. (2000), “Greece” in M.F. Heath & M.I. Evans (eds.)Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation. Vol 2: Southern Europe,“BirdLife Int. Conservation Series no 8”, Cambridge, pp. 261- 333.Chandrinos, G. (1992), “ÐïõëéÜ” in M. Êarandeinos & Á. Legakis (1992), Ôï ÊüêêéíïÂéâëßï ôùí ÁðåéëïõìÝíùí Óðïíäõëüæùùí ôçò ÅëëÜäáò, Greek Zoological Society andHellenic Ornithological Society, Athens, pp. 123-243.Chondropoulos, Â. (1992), “ÊáôÜëïãïò ôùí Aìöéâßùí êáé Eñðåôþí ôçò ÅëëÜäïò” inM. Êarandeinos & Á. Legakis (1992), Ôï Êüêêéíï Âéâëßï ôùí ÁðåéëïõìÝíùíÓðïíäõëüæùùí ôçò ÅëëÜäáò, Greek Zoological Society and Hellenic OrnithologicalSociety, Athens, pp. 92-96.Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21/05/1992 on the conservation of natural habitats andwild fauna and flora.Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 02/04/1979 on the conservation of wild birds.Dafis, S., Babalonas D. & Âabalekas K. (1997), Öýóç êáé Öõóéêü ÐåñéâÜëëïí óôï¢ãéïí ¼ñïò, Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain, Athos, Hellenic Ministry of Cultureand Thessaloniki, Cultural Capital of Europe 1997, Thessaloniki.Dafis, S. et al. (1997), Ïäçãßá 92/43/ÅÏÊ. Ôï ¸ñãï Ïéêïôüðùí óôçí ÅëëÜäá: ÄßêôõïÖÕÓÇ 2000.. Óõìâüëáéï áñ. Â4-3200/84/756. Ãåí. Äíóç ×É Å.Å., Ìïõóåßï ÃïõëáíäñÞÖõóéêÞò Éóôïñßáò- ÅÊÂÕ, ó. 932.Diamantis, S., & Sparlerou C. (1997), Ç Ìõêï÷ëùñßäá ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò. Sacred Communityof the Holy Mountain, Athos, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Thessaloniki, CulturalCapital of Europe 1997, Thessaloniki.Doris, Å. (1994), Ôï Äßêáéïí ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò, Vol. I, Sakkoulas.Frantzis, A., Alexiadou, P., Paximadis, G., Politi, E., Gannier, A. & Corsini-Foka, M.(2003), “Current knowledge of the cetacean fauna of the Greek Seas”, J. CetaceanRes. Manage. 5(3): 219-232.124

Giannatos, G. (2004). Conservation Action for the Golden Jackal (Canis aureus) inGreece, WWF Greece.Ganiatsas, K. (1963), Ç âëÜóôçóéò êáé ç ÷ëùñßò ôçò ÷åñóïíÞóïõ ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò,n.p., Thessaloniki.Hagemeijer, W. and Blair M. (1997), The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds,EBCC and T.A.D, Poyser, London.Handrinos, G. and Akriotis T. (1997), The Birds of Greece, Helm, London.Hȯ . lzinger, J. (1989), “Vertikale Verbreitungmuster des Steinhuhns (Alectoris graeca) inverschiedenen Raumen Griechenlands als Abbild der Verfolgung durch den Menschen”,Kartierung mediterr, Bru .. tvogel 1: 25-28.Hȯ . lzinger, J. (1992), “Su .. dliche Arealgrenze und Vertikalverbreitung des Baumpiepers(Anthus trivialis) in Griechenland”, Orn. Beob. 89: 231-234.Hȯ . lzinger, J. and M. Rȯ . sler (1990), “Vorkommen des Auerhuhns (Tetrao urogallusmajor) am Athos (Griechenland)”, J .Orn. 131: 95-96.Êarandeinos, Ì. & Legakis A. (1992), Ôï Êüêêéíï Âéâëßï ôùí ÁðåéëïõìÝíùíÓðïíäõëüæùùí ôçò ÅëëÜäáò, Greek Zoological Society and Hellenic OrnithologicalSociety, Athens.Legakis, Á. & Paraschos L. (1992). “ÊáôÜëïãïò ôùí Èçëáóôéêþí ôçò ÅëëÜäïò” in Ì.Êarandeinos & Á. Legakis (1992), Ôï Êüêêéíï Âéâëßï ôùí ÁðåéëïõìÝíùí Óðïíäõëüæùùíôçò ÅëëÜäáò, Greek Zoological Society and Hellenic Ornithological Society, Athens,pp. 254-258.Lensch, A. (1976), “Ornithologische Beobachtungen auf der Halbinsel Halkidiki / Nordgriechenland”,Orn. Mitt. 28:123-126Pamperis, L. (1997), Ïé Ðåôáëïýäåò ôçò ÅëëÜäïò, Bastas-Plessas, Athens.Pentzikis, N. (2003), ¢ãéïí ¼ñïò, Vol. 1, Explorer, Athens.Poirazidis, Ê. (1992), Ç ïñíéèïðáíßäá ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò, Ademos Meleti, Thessaloniki.The Berne Convention (1979): Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlifeand Natural Habitats which came into force on 01/06/1982.The Bonn Convention (1979): Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals which came into force in 1983.Vavalekas, Ê. (1997), H Ðáíßäá ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò, Sacred Community of the HolyMountain, Athos, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Thessaloniki, Cultural Capital of Europe1997, Thessaloniki.125

126(photo)

Landscape conservation actionson Mount AthosAthos Peninsula, Halkidiki, Central Macedonia, GreecePetros KakourosAbstractThe Athos Peninsula / Holy Mountain is amountainous landscape characterisedby diverse vegetation and a complex topographywhose profound beauty anddiversity is preserved by an orthodoxmonastic community whose history goesback over 1,000 years. The Holy Mountainis a World Heritage Site.The need for special landscape conservationactions emerged after the wildfireof 1990 and the road network that hassince been developed. The Holy Communityand the monasteries launchedseveral landscape conservation initiativesaimed at restoring the forest andassessing the impact of infrastructuraldevelopment on the environment andoverall ecological management of thearea. The first such study concerned theecological management of the Simonopetraarea and the management plansfor the forest of each monastery. An importantstep towards assessing the impactof the forest road network and therequisite restoration work was the studyon the ‘Rehabilitation of slopes along theforest road network in Mount Athos’.The next important step towards rehabilitatingthe landscape was the spiritualand economic support from the HolyCommunity provided for Professor Dafis’call for the gradual abandonment of thecoppice management of oak forests(Holm oak and Hungarian oak). This wasimplemented through the Life-Natureproject ‘Rehabilitation of coppice Quercusfrainetto woods and Quercus ilexwoods’, which aimed to invert coppiceinto high forests.< The Holy Monastery of Agios Pavlos, Mount Athos, Greece127

IntroductionMount Athos and its 20 monasteries hasstood proud down the centuries, a loftysymbol on the Athos Peninsula denotingthe Ark of Orthodoxy and Faith, a guardianof the history and cultural heritage ofthe land that cherishes a priceless partof society’s natural riches with suchdevotion.The blue sea and gentle coastline, thewild beauty of the ravines and cliffs andthe dense green vegetation alongsidethe monasteries and sketes that seem tohover in mid-air compose a representativepicture of the timeless and close-knitrelationship between Man and Nature.This is a landscape of rare beauty andmajor ecological significance, exquisitearchitectural achievements andoutstanding historical and religious value.When, during the 20 th century, thisunique landscape suffered a widespreaddegradation of its natural qualitiesfor the first time, the monastic communityresponded with several initia-Mount Athos is the highest peak on the peninsula of the same name, which forms the easternmostpart of Halkidiki in North-eastern Greece128

tives which sought to reduce the adverseimpact of road network projects,to enhance the ecological managementof the forests, and to supervisethe coppice oak forests.The natural settingMount Athos is the higher peak of thepeninsula of the same name and formsthe easternmost part of Halkidiki inNorth-eastern Greece (image in p. 128).Mount Athos is also known as the ‘AthosPeninsula’, the ‘Holy Mountain’ or –moresimple– the ‘Mountain’ (Oros), a termused mainly by people in Halkidiki andother nearby areas. Geologically, MountAthos is an extension of the Rhodopemountain range and consists of metamorphicrocks –gneiss, greenstone,schist and limestone– with a high mineraland structural diversity.Apart from its great geological diversity,Mount Athos has a complex topographydominated by its peak which soars to2,033 metres. The climate of the peninsulais affected by the North-westerlywinds and the mountain itself, whichacts as a major windbreak, creating aunique micro-climate.This geological diversity and topographiccomplexity combined with climatic variety,the isolation of the narrow peninsulaand the absence of grazing has resultedin a complex mosaic of severalvegetation types ranging from characteristicMediterranean to alpine habitattypes. Apart from the diversity of habitattypes, the area is also characterised bygood to excellent conservation statusand considerable species diversity comprising1,453 plant taxa (Babalonas2001) as well as 131 bird, 37 mammal,14 reptile and eight amphibians species(Vavalekas 2001).The rich vegetation and complex topographyof Mount Athos make for a profoundlybeautiful and diverse landscape.Soft coastal landscapes can be foundadjacent to deep gorges and alternatewith steep coastal rocks. The natural environmentis an integral part of the cul-The Holy Skete of Timiou Prodromou129

Mixed beech / fir forest on Mount Athostural heritage of Mount Athos, whichshould be protected with special care(images in pp. 129 and 130).Historical dataGrisebach (1841) reports that MountAthos was surrounded by thick oldgrowthforests with a great variety of speciesand vegetation. The same authorstates that the natural characteristics ofthe area were unique and could not befound elsewhere in Europe. However, afterthe Russian revolution of 1917, whichwas followed by the Greek rural reformationin the 1920s, the monasteries beganexploiting their forests in order to makeup for the revenues lost from expropriatedproperties and from donations fromthe Orthodox communities of Russia. Asa result, the majority of the forests wereturned into coppice.Rauh, who visited the Holy Mountain inthe 1940s, argued that the vegetationhad maintained the abundance andplenitude reported by Grisebach despitethe conversion of many forests to coppice,and that it constituted an oasis inthe Balkan Peninsula whose remainingforests were poor at best. Nevertheless,the available data are poor and it is possiblethat the transformation led to theloss of flora and fauna species which onlylive in old-growth forests.Nowadays, the only high forests onMount Athos are some beech (Fagussp.) and mountainous Mediterraneanconifer forests (Black pine), the forestsof Aleppo pine in the Northern part ofthe peninsula and a few remains of themixed forests in the forest of the HolyMonastery of Grigoriou and in remotelocations of the forests of the monasteriesof Simonopetra and MegistiLavra.The ecosystems of the broadleaved evergreentrees, which provided the monasterieswith fuel wood, were also severelyimpacted as fuel wood and charcoalremain an almost exclusive source130

of energy for many monasteries andsketes to this day. As a result, the mountain’severgreen deciduous formationsshow various levels of degradationaround almost all of its monasteries.Today, monks follow in the monastic traditionof ‘order’ and ‘sustainability’ andtry to live in harmony with their environmentalsurroundings, to manage the forestswith respect, care and a love for nature,and to apply the traditional monasticknowledge in parallel with modernscientific methods and techniques.Nature and monastic lifeOrthodox monastic life is characterisedby temperance, the careful use of naturalresources and a sensitivity towards natureconservation. The ultimate criteriafor the use of natural resources are symmetrybetween needs and use, and thepreservation of spiritual peace. The limitsof monastic life should serve the conservationof nature, and there are writtenrules dating back to the foundation of themonastic community of Mount Athos,which explicitly prohibit actions with thepotential to alter the balance of nature.Forest management is no exception.During the reign of the Byzantine emperorIoannis Tzimiskis (AD 972), limitationswere placed on the timber trade (Box 1),while later legislation specified that theforests could only be exploited to coverthe needs of the monasteries.Landscape conservation actionsReducing the impact of the roadnetworkIn August (14-18) 1990, a devastatingfire destroyed 2,230 ha of mainly chestnutand oak forests and threatened theMonastery of Simonopetra. The fire wasable to spread so widely for two mainreasons: the absence of forest roadsand the density of the coppice forests(Kailidis 1990). After this tragic incident,the Monastic Community realised thatfurther action was required for the soundmanagement of Athos’ forests and landscapes,and that:• Coppice management should bere-evaluated.• New road networks should be constructedfor the protection of the monasteriesand forests.Many new roads were constructed as aresult over the next few years. However,because the monks’ fearful state of mindBox 1Ioannis Tsimiskes’ Typikon [Rules of governance of the monastic community] ofAD 972 imposed strict limits on the trade in forest products, while a secondTypikon issued by Constantine VII Monomachos in AD 1045 states that trees mayonly be felled to provide for the needs of the monasteries.131

Forest road constructed in the early Nineties visible from the seawas not conducive to careful planning,this development left permanent scarson the Athonite landscape (image in p.132). When the monks became awareof the problem, they decided to investigatemethods for rehabilitating slopesalong their forest road network, resultingin a Special Environmental ManagementStudy conducted by the Greek Biotope /Wetland Centre (Dafis et al. 1999). Themain two objectives of this Study were:• To assess the impact of the constructionof the road network on nearbynatural landscapes; and• To evaluate potential restoration measures.The report concluded that for 11 of the20 monasteries, the road density washigher than the 15m/ha limit consideredappropriate for the environment. After almostten years, it is clear that theAthonite road network has to be thoroughlystudied as a whole. It is alsoclear that this study should consider theclosure of some roads and their returnto a natural state. New roads should onlybe opened after adequate deliberationand a careful environmental assessmentinto the appropriate drainageworks and restoration measures. Regardingthe rehabilitation of the roads,the study of 1999 concluded that naturalvegetation had successfully establisheditself on all low height (3-5m) slopes, butthat intervention was necessary for, andrestoration measures should applied to,slopes higher than 5 metres.Finally, it was suggested that maturetrees should not be removed, even ifthey are in close proximity to the roadnetwork, whereas further reforestationplans (involving mainly local species)should be drawn up and implemented.Subsequently, all new roads (image inp. 133) have been implemented in linewith these simple rules and the resultsare more than obvious, as can be seenfrom a comparison of images in pp. 132and 133.132

Newly-constructed road in which care has been taken to minimise the impact on the landscapeEcological management ofthe forest of SimonopetraMonasteryThe fire of 1990 adversely affected thelands of the Simonopetra Monastery,whose monks decided that the forestshould be managed ecologically to producewood to cover the monastery’sneeds and to render it better prepared inthe event of another forest fire. Accordingly,the monks invited Professor SpyrosDafis and his team to produce a detailedinventory of the monastery’s naturalenvironment and to make proposalsconcerning the ecological managementof their forest. In addition to these mainobjectives, the study also assessed thesituation after the forest fire of 1990.The study (Dafis 1993) covered an areaof 1260 ha and identified 14 fundamentalpoints relating to the ecological managementof the monastery’s forests,such as favouring mixed stands, increasethe minimum diameter of loggedtrees, conserving aged trees, introducingecologically-tolerable methods oftransportation and setting some standsaside as nature reserves. With regard tothe rehabilitation of burned areas, thestudy proposed felling all burned treesfor aesthetic reasons, protecting the soil,increasing its organic matter and the forest’sinversion to high forest. The studyalso proposed the stratification of theburned trunks along the contours of theslopes to help prevent soil erosion.These recommendations respected theintegrity of the site and were followed tothe letter. Today, 17 year on, it is very difficultto find evidence of the fire since thevegetation has fully recovered, Castaneawoods are now coppiced every 35-40 years,and 29 ha (which equates to 23% ofthe forested area of the Simonopetra Monastery)have been excluded from exploitationand set aside for nature conservation.More importantly, most of theother monasteries proposed their ownenvironmental management plans in thewake of the Simonopetra Monastery’s in-133

itiative; the 14 principles originally presentedto the Simonopetra Monasteryare now widely accepted across the HolyMountain.Inversion of coppice Hungarianoak and Holm oak woods tohigh forestThe coppice oak forests have been recognisedsince the fire of 1990 as a threatwhich could assist the spread of forestfires. At the same time, several monks responsiblefor forest management realisedthat Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto)could provide high-quality timber for constructions,that coppice management hadaltered the pristine landscape of MountAthos, and that several species typical ofhigh forests had become rare due to thealteration of their habitat. At the sametime, the income from Holm oak (Quercusilex) forests had fallen in significance.In this context, the Holy Community ofMount Athos implemented the LIFE-Nature‘Rehabilitation of coppice Quercusfrainetto and Quercus ilex woods to highforest’ project. The main scope of thisproject was to initiate the rehabilitation ofcoppice Holm oak and Hungarian oakwoods to high forest .The method selected for the rehabilitationof both types of oak forests was thatof selective inversion thinning, whichover the three-year period of the projectwas successfully applied to an area of500 ha (Kakouros and Dafis 2004). Otherkey objectives of the project included http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/countries/documents/greece_en_nov06.pdfthe training of forest workers and supervisors,the establishing of a monitoringsystem consisting of 45 permanent testplots, and the publication (with contributionsfrom associated Italian and Spanishnetworks) of Guidelines for the Rehabilitationof Degraded Oak Forests (Dafisand Kakouros 2006).The main results of the project can besummarised as follows:• Successful implementation of selectiveinversion thinning, especially inHolm oak, which will reduce the risk ofwildfires and enhance diversity of specieswhich prefer less dense forests.• The setting up of a monitoring systemallowing for a long-term ecologicaland economical assessment of themethod; and• The establishing of a demonstration areafor the sustainable management ofHolm oak and Hungarian oak forests inGreece and the Mediterranean ingeneral.One of the most important elements of theproject was the close cooperation with themonks, the exchange of experience on forestmanagement issues, and most importantlyof all the integration of the spiritualaspects of nature management –the beliefsthat the forest should be treated as avaluable and fragile gift from God; that forestmanagement should take it into considerationthat the forest should provideshelter for all God’s creatures; and thatwood and non-wood products of the forestshould be extracted only to benefit the spirituallife of monks and pilgrims– into theplanning and implementation of the project.134

ReferencesBabalonas, D. (2001), “Flora and endemism of Mount Athos” in S. Dafis, N. Tsigaridasand M. Fountoulis (eds.) Holy Mountain: Nature-Worship-Art, Thessaloniki: CulturalCapital of Europe – Thessaloniki 97, Thessaloniki, p. 7.Kailidis, D. (1990), Ç äáóéêÞ ðõñêáãéÜ ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò – 14-28 August 1990, Thessaloniki,p. 16.Kakouros, P. and Dafis, S. (2004), Ôå÷íéêÞ ìåëÝôç ãéá ôçí áíüñèùóç ôùí äáóþí ìåQuercus ilex êáé ôùí äáóþí ìå Quercus frainetto ôïõ Áãßïõ ¼ñïõò, Greek Biotope-Wetland Centre, Thermi, p. 59.Dafis, S. and Kakouros, P. (eds.) (2006), Guidelines for the rehabilitation of degradedoak forests, Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre, Thermi, p. 40.Dafis, S. (1993), The Forest Of Holy Mountain Athos, Thessaloniki, p. 66.Dafis, S., Goudelis, G. and Kontos, N. (1999), AðïêáôÜóôáóç ôùí ðñáíþí ôïõ äáóéêïýïäéêïý äéêôýïõ óôï ¢ãéïí ¼ñïò: áîéïëüãçóç - ðñïôÜóåéò, Greek Biotope WetlandCentre, Thermi, p. 111.Grisebach, A. (1841), Reise durch Rumelien und Brussa in jahre 1839, 1.2 Universityof Gȯ . ttingen, Gȯ . ttingen, p. 361.Rauch, W. (1949), “Klimatologie der Vegetationsverhȧ . ltnisse der Athos-Halbinsel undder ostȧ . gȧ . ischen Inseln Lemnos, Evstratios, Mytiline und Chios”, Heidelberger Akademieder Wissenschaften, Mathematisch – Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse (12), 511 – 615.Vavalekas, C. (2001), “The fauna of the Holy Mountain” in S. Dafis, N. Tsigaridas andM. Fountoulis (eds.) Holy Mountain: Nature – Worship - Art, Thessaloniki, Cultural Capitalof Europe – Thessaloniki ’97, Thessaloniki, p. 9.135

136

Buila-Vânturarit,a National ParkValcea county, RomaniaSebastian Catanoiuother case studiesIntroductionIn the Battle of Kalka (1223), a coalition of Slav princes and white Cumans (alsoknown as Kipchaks or Polovetsy) was severely defeated by the Mongols underSubotai. Word of this battle and the imminence of a Mongolian invasion persuadedthe black Cumans, who lived in what is now Romania outside the Carpathian Arch,to convert to Catholicism. Thus, in 1228 tens of thousands of Cumans were baptisedby the Hungarian Archbishop of Strigonium. In 1241, when the Mongols invaded,some of the Cumans escaped to Transylvania, within the Carpathian Arch,but some of them were to later contribute to the establishment of the first Romanianmediaeval state of Wallachia (or Muntenia) c.1290. The Cuman influence on thisregion was so strong that the earliest Wallachian rulers bore Cuman names. Theruling Cuman élite was gradually assimilated into the population they governed,becoming Romanian. The area in which Buila-Vânturarit,a National Park is locatedis renowned for the number of places still known by Cuman names (Djuvara, 1999),the two most famous of which are ‘Cozia’ (a copse of nut trees) and ‘Hurezu’ (anowl or night bird), because outstanding monasteries were built at both (HurezuConvent, for instance, is a World Heritage Site). Our story can now begin…< Arnota Monastery, the church, Valcea county, Romania137

Natural valuesThe Buila-Vânturarit,a National Park(BVNP) was established in 2004 as acategory II protected area. According tothe contract signed by the RomanianMinistry of the Environment and NationalForestry Administration (Romsilva), theBVNP is to be administrated by Romsilvain cooperation with the Kogayon Association,which will undertake administrativeissues. This cooperation is based on acollaboration protocol and is uniqueamong the Parks administrated by theNational Forestry Administration, becausethe Kogayon Association washeavily involved in the establishment ofthe Park. The Kogayon Association is anNGO established in 2004 by a group ofstudents interested in nature conservationand sustainable development in theBuila Vânturarit,a massif; it now has over120 members.The National Forest Administration is astate-owned company with a long anddistinguished history in forestry whichadministers a further 22 Romanian nationaland nature parks. It operates underthe aegis of the Ministry of Agricultureand Rural Development, which hasoverall responsibility for forestry in Romania.The Ministry of the Environmentand Sustainable Development is responsiblefor formulating environmental policyand strategies and administering ProtectedAreas in Romania. The NationalAgency for Protected Areas, which issupposed to administer the ProtectedAreas remains a ‘paper organisation’(announced in 2006, it had only two employeesin March 2009).The BVNP is the smallest national park inRomania, covering just 4,320 ha in theCapatinii Mountains in the South Carpathians.The Buila-Vânturarit,a Massifcovers the area between the westerncorner of the Bistrit,a Gorges and theEastern corner of the Olǎnes,ti Gorges,and rises up to a ridge 14 km long and0.5 to 2.5 km wide. The Park takes itsname from the two highest peaks alongthe ridge —Buila and Vânturarit,a— andvaries in altitude from the Vânturarit,aMare peak (1,885m) to the point at whichthe Bistrit,a River exits its gorges (550m).All in all, four rivers run through the Park:the Olanesti and Cheia Rivers runthrough the massif from the North-east,the Costesti and the afore-mentionedBistrit,a from the South-west (AsociatiaKogayon 2005). Running along a Southwestto North-east axis, the Buila-Vânturarit,a limestone ridge —which, dueto its altitude, its climatic conditions andbad weather, is known as the ‘kingdomof lightning’— forms a barrier for the riversthat collect their water from theSouthern slopes of the Cǎpǎt,ânii Mountains.The Cheia River forms a spectacularsystem of gorges, one of the deepestand wildest in the country, with 1 km ofwaterfalls, steps, bottoms as narrow as2m and vertical walls as tall as 300mcarved into the limestone between theStogu and Vânturarit,a Mica Peaks.While there are only a few small lakes,the underground waters have carved outover 100 caves: the most importantspring (as a water source) is the IzvorulFrumos [Beautiful Spring] near the PahomieHermitage.138

Romania and Buila-Vânturarit,a National ParkThe Buila-Vânturarit,a National Park hascertain characteristics, including its mildclimate and Mediterranean influences,that have aided the expansion of speciesnative to warm climates; its dramatichigh-relief fragmentation coupled withthe absence of human intervention hasalso resulted in a diversity of habitat. Dueto the different altitudes (550 to 1,880m),there are three main vegetation levels:the deciduous, boreal and sub-alpinelevels, each of which has specific vegetationand fauna. A wide range of speciescan be found in the Buila-Vânturarit,a139

National Park, including 28 species oforchids as well as numerous endemic(e.g. Centaurea pinnafida, Dianthus spiculifolius),rare (e.g. Taxus baccata: yewtree, Lilium jankae: mountain lily, Liliummartagon: martagon lily and Centaureaatropurpurea: thistle) and several endangered(e.g. Leontopodium alpinum: edelweiss)species (Baciu 2007).Carpathian fauna are also well represented,including (most representatively)the brown bear, the wolf, the lynx, thechamois and the red deer. As the Easternmostpoint of the Middle Carpathians,the Buila-Vânturarit,a Massif is also hometo the cave micro fauna native to thatrange; its multiplicity attests to the massif’sgreat biological significance. Thebat colony which has resided in the BatCave (or the Saint Gregory of DecapoliCave) for a considerable length of time(the cave bottom is covered in 1.7 metresof bat guano) is composed of 7distinct species. Many of the speciesfound in the Buila-Vânturarit,a NationalPark are protected by international conventionsratified by the Romania Government(i.e. the Convention of Bern, theBonn Convention, the Convention ofCITES, the Directives on Habitats andBirds). The Park is a Natura2000 siteand has been designated both a Site ofCommunity Interest (SCI) and a SpecialProtected Area (SPA), due to the mammal(14), bird (2) and plant (3) speciesof European significance to be foundthere. Scientific research in the area onlybegan in the 1950s, and the Park’s floraand fauna have still to be well documentedand described (Asociatia Kogayon2005).Monasteries and sketes aside, there areno permanent human settlements withinthe Park. Some sheepfolds are set upduring the summer months, especially inthe Southern part of the Park, which isclose to the villages of Costesti, Pietreniand Barbatesti. The local people are informedabout the Park, but the majoritydo not appreciate the importance of conservingits biodiversity, although theyagree that the area’s natural resourcescould form the foundation for prosperoussustainable development in the area.Spiritual valuesThe area now covered by the BVNP—which is also known as ‘the mountainof monks’— is famous for the six Orthodoxmonasteries and sketes that lie withinit or on its fringes. These monastic settlementsin the accessible part of thePark form a ‘monastic belt’ runningacross the Southern and South-easternsides of the Park. The religious foundationscan be considered the Park’s spiritualguardians, because the main entrancesand tourist trails start at or passclose by the monasteries and sketes.While it is not within the Park itself, theproximity of the Hurezi Convent meansthat its influence cannot be neglected.The monasteries adhere to the RomanianOrthodox faith, which is part of EasternOrthodoxy, the second largest Christiancommunion in the world. Holy Tradition(Sfanta Traditie) is very important for theRomanian Orthodox Church because itrepresents the faith as Jesus taught it tothe apostles and passed down uncorruptedto future generations. Witnesses to the140

Holy Tradition are the Bible, the liturgy andiconography, the rulings of the Ecumenicalcouncils and the writings of theChurch Fathers. The only way to correctlyunderstand the Bible is through theChurch, as only the consensus of the Fatherscan provide one with a profoundunderstanding of the Bible and Christiandoctrine.There are two types of monastic communitiesin the BVNP: coenobitic communitiessuch as Bistrit,a or Arnota, whosemembers live in monasteries under acommon rule, and semi-eremitic communitieslike Pǎtrunsa or Pahomie whosemembers live in sketes.Romanian churches are cruciform inshape and divided into three main parts:a pronaos (narthex), a naos (nave) andan altar (sanctuary). The nave and sanctuaryare divided by an altar screen oriconostasis. There is usually a dome inthe ceiling with an icon of Christ Pantocrator(Ruler of the Universe).Bistrit,a Convent (80 nuns) is the mostimportant of the Park’s spiritual institutions.Built by the Craiovesti boyars inthe 15 th century, it has housed the relictsof Saint Gregory of Decapoli (Asia Minor,780-842 AC) since 1492. The Conventhas been destroyed many times, but assumedits present form in 1855 when anew church was constructed. The churchis surrounded by a complex of buildings:a Royal Palace to its North and a belvedereto the East whose turrets were speciallydesigned to afford spectacularviews of the Bistrit,a Gorges and the Papusasketes. The church is in the neogothicstyle with a Gothic iconostasis,which is rather unusual for an OrthodoxChurch. Other sites in the vicinity includethe Bolnita (Hospital) Church (1520: theonly building to have survived from thefirst monasterial complex), the SaintArchanghels Skete (1633) and OvideniaChurch (14 th century), the Bibescu VodaBridge, two monumental crosses carvedinto the walls of the Bistrit,a gorges andthe bishop’s residence. There is an impressivefresco in Bolnita Church, thesecond oldest in Oltenia (an historic regionof Muntenia): the oldest is in CoziaMonastery (1388) and displays influencesof the Cretan school of iconography.The Saint Archanghels Skete and OvideniaChurch are situated in the Bat’s Cave,which is also known as the cave of SaintGregory of Decapoli. The bat colonywhich lives in the cave is guarded by thenuns, and access to the cave is onlypossible through Bistrit,a Convent with anun as a guide).Papusa Skete (1712) is a 15-minutewalk from Bistrit,a Convent. A dependencyof the Bistrit,a Convent, it was formerlyused as a tranquil place for study by thescholar-monks of Bistrit,a. Built in theBrancovenian style (which is known asthe Brancovenian baroque, reflecting theinfluence of the Western Renaissance), italso displays the influence of the Italo-Cretan school.Arnota Convent (30 nuns) was built in1633 by Matei Basarab (an important17 th -century ruler of Muntenia, the Romanianprovince between the Carpathiansand the Danube). According to a localstory, Matei Basarab was being pursuedby a Turkish army but escaped by swappingclothes with one of his soldiers in a141

swamp. Once crowned, he built a monasteryon the site; he was later buriedthere, beside his father. The soldier wascalled “arnǎut” in Romanian, and that ishow both the mountain and the monasterygot their names. The monastery’scatholicon is a small, simple buildingwith Brancovenian elements added inthe 18 th century. Although austere, thisbeautiful monastery is a representativehistorical and religious Romanian monumentwith typical painting, architectureand sculpture.Skete of the 44 Springs (also known as‘The Hermitage under the Stone’) wasbuilt by Abbot Steven of Bistrit,a Conventin 1701. It is a simple single-aisledchurch decorated on the outside by afew brick bands. However, the paintingsof the skete are deteriorating because ofcracks in the walls caused by explosionsin a nearby limestone mine.Pǎtrunsa Skete (30 monks) was built in1740 by a bishop in memory of his mother,who fled the invading Turks into thisarea. She went into labour (“pǎtrunsǎ dedurerile facerii” in Romanian) in one ofthe most isolated places in the country,known nowadays as Pǎtrunsa. Althoughthe skete has been destroyed many timesin the past, the current building —in theBrancovenian style with folk influences—dates back to the 19 th century. A largenew church was built nearby in 2006.Pahomie skete (10 monks: also knownas the ‘Pahomie Hermitage of the BeautifulSpring’) was built in 1520 by a Craiovestiboyar. The location of the church—beneath a large stone near a splendidwaterfall— is outstanding, and an exampleof the perfect integration of a monasticbuilding into the landscape.Hurezi Convent (70 nuns) was built byConstantin Brancoveanu 1690-1697 in aforested area whose charm was matchedby its loneliness, and whose peace wasdisturbed by the calls of owls (‘hurez’ is aword of Cuman origin meaning owl). Itwas added to the World Heritage List In1999 and declared an UNESCO monument.The convent is an important nationalmonastic centre, and plays a rolein preserving Romanian Orthodox cultureand spirituality. The Holy Convent of Hurezirepresents the largest collection ofsurviving mediaeval architecture in Muntenia,encompassing the convent itself,the infirmary church, and the sketes ofJohn the Theologian (1698), Stephen theArchdeacon (1703) and the Holy ApostlesPeter and Paul. The Convent of Hureziand its sketes are considered the epitomeof the Brancovenian style.It has to be mentioned that the monasteriesand sketes situated within or aroundthe Park form just the fringes of an importantmonastic area centred on HureziConvent. Apart from the six monasteriesand sketes and the Hurezi complex, thePark is also home to the Ursani Church(18 th century), Ramesti Church (17 th century),Peri Church (1689), Ciorobesti Church(1750), Gramesti Church (1664)—the secondolder wooden church in Oltenia—,Grusetu Church (1801), Romani Church,the Maldarasti Church of the Saint StevenHermitage (1790), the Lezer Hermitage(14 th century), the Bradu Hermitage(1784), the Saints Woivods Church (1722),Saracinesti Church and Monastery (1688),Jgheaburi Hermitage (1640), Frasinei142

Monastery (1860), Iernatic Church, MǎleniChurch, Vǎtǎs,es,ti Church, Mierles,tiChurch and Poieni church (Bǎrbǎtes,ti).A monastery is a settlement where a religiouscommunity of monks or nuns lives.They dedicate their life to prayer, poverty,chastity and obedience. The leader ofthe monastery is the abbot supported bythe monastic community, the spiritualcouncil and the economical council. Everymonastery has almost complete administrativeautonomy; in our case, theyare subordinate to the Bishopric of Ramnic,which is subordinate in turn to theMetropolitan Church of Oltenia, whichwas founded in 1370 and consists of onlytwo dioceses: the Archbishopric ofCraiova and the Bishopric of Ramnic.Cultural valuesThe cultural values of the area are stronglyrelated to the presence of the Orthodoxmonasteries. In medieval times, theBistrit,a Convent was Muntenia’s maincultural centre, and was thus comparablewith the Neamt Monastery in Moldovaor Rila Monastery in Bulgaria. Muntenia’sfirst printing press was housed hereand printed the first book (Macarie, 1508)printed on Romanian territory. The firstmonastic document written in the Romanianlanguage was printed here in 1573by Eftimie, and other books of significanceto Romanian culture were printedat the Bistrit,a Convent, including theCronica Universala (1620) and Pravila dela Govora (1640).The military school, which operated inthe convent for a short time, was establishedby Marshal Averescu and generalsDragalina and Grigorescu, nationalheroes of World War One. Marshal Antonescu,the Romanian dictator duringWorld War Two and a benefactor of theconvent, was also imprisoned here for ashort time. The Hurezi Convent owns avaluable collection of religious objectsas well as an interesting library. Duringthe reign of C. Brancoveanu, Prince ofWallachia (1688-1714), the convent functionedas an important cultural centre forMuntenia and the regions south of theTraditional pottery with the ‘Hurezu rooster’143

Danube. There are many museums here,including the Horezu Ceramics Museum,the Potter’s Workhouse in Olari, the ArtMuseum and Trovanti Museum in Costestiand the Popular Art Exhibition —Bǎrbǎtes,ti.Horezu is the most famous potterycentre in Romania and its stylisedrooster (the local potters use symbolsthat are of pagan as well as Christian origin[fish, trees, birds, snakes, etc.]) hascome to symbolise the entire region.The Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairsis responsible for protecting and conservingcultural, religious and historicsites of national importance. Though theMinistry does allocate funds to restorationprogrammes and schemes, they areusually inadequate. Local councils takecare of local sites of importance, but giventhe inadequacy of the funds provided,monasteries and churches are usually leftto use their own financial means. The ministriesof Public Works on the one hand,and Agriculture and Rural Developmenton the other, are also involved in other projectsin the area (roads, agriculture, etc.).Pressures and impactsPressuresThe main characteristics of the BVNP isits inaccessibility and the absence of humansettlements within its boundaries. Asa result, most human activity in the area isconcentrated on the mountain’s Easternslopes. For hundreds of years, the livelihoodof the local population —who aremostly engaged in wood harvesting andanimal breeding— has been closelylinked to the forest and the alpine meadows.Traditional lifestyles have been preservedin the area: horses, for example,are still used as a basic means of transportationand for working in the forestsand fields. Traditional animal breedingmethods, too (and sheep breeding, inparticular), are also still in use in the areaand while they may be relatively inefficientand have an adverse impact on thelocal economy in the form of low productivity,overgrazing etc., recent trends toreplace transhumance with the permanentuse of certain pasturelands and ashift to goat breeding pose a real threatto local biodiversity. Local traditions,customs and handicrafts remain closelylinked to the locals’ main occupations ofshepherding, wood and stone craft, fruitgrowing,apiculture, pottery, carpet weaving,weaving and the production of traditionalfruit drinks. Since these activitieshave no adverse affect on the environment,there is no source of major conflictbetween the locals and the Park Authorityobjectives (Asociatia Kogayon 2006).In the case of monasteries, the harsh livingconditions in the forested areas necessarilyled to a common and efficientuse of pasturelands, hayfields and forestclearings. Each monastic community stillengages in traditional activities such ascattle-raising, woodcraft, fruit production,mushroom and wild berry collection,apiculture, weaving, the making oftraditional fruit drinks and fish-farming inponds that have no significant negativeimpact on the environment. This model,characterised by sustainable consumptionand production, does not produce alarge volume of food and any surplus issold in the monastic stores or is used asalms on Orthodox feast days.144

This local husbandry is, however, expectedto suffer dramatic changes dueto the influx of goods from the EU which,produced by intensive agriculture and intensiveanimal breeding methods, arelower in price (even though the qualitycan often be lower).The forest represents 89% of the Park’stotal area; the remaining 11% is madeup of pasture land and hayfields. ThePark’s main landowners are the NationalForest Administration (around 48%, correspondingto 2,074 ha) and privateowners (around 52%, corresponding to2,246 ha). The main private owners arethe villages of Cheia, Barbatesti andOlanesti, which collectively own some1,900 ha, the Municipality of Costesti (60ha), Arnota Monastery (210 ha), Pietreniand Costesti churches and a few privateindividuals. Although major owners suchas the National Forest Administrationand village collectives are oriented towardsa sustainable use of resources,small owners tend to be orientated towardsextensive use. Although the forestarea owned by the Romanian OrthodoxChurch is currently limited, important areashave been claimed (50 ha by Bistrit,aConvent , another 250 ha by Arnota Monastery)so the Romanian OrthodoxChurch could well become an importantlandowner in the Park area.During the communist era, the lime pitbetween Bistrit,a and Arnota Monasterieswas exploited as an open quarry whichemployed a noisy belt conveyer. Accessto Arnota Monastery is only possiblethrough the lime pit, which is anythingbut in harmony with the monastery’s spiritualtranquillity and remarkable views.The significant increase in constructionhas translated into increasing demandfor raw material such as wood and cement,and the exploitation of timber andlime in the area is expected to increase.The BVNP can be seen as a transitionbelt between the monastic area centredon Hurezi Convent and the wild area representedby the Capatinii Mountains. Themedieval monasteries and the Horezupottery centre are the main attractions inthe BVNP area, and visitors are usuallyattracted by the area’s cultural heritage;also, while just a small proportion of theannual visitors can be considered pilgrims,during the main feast days of theOrthodox year and the monasteries’Hram [Saints’ days] the tourism is exclusivelyreligious. To a lesser extent, thetourists are also attracted by the naturalscenery of the outstanding Bistrit,a, Costesti,Cheia and Olanesti gorges, whichare accessible by car. The gorges andthe great number of caves are of greatinterest for climbers, cavers, etc. Furthermore,there are two spas famous for theircurative waters in the Baile Olanesti andGovora areas respectively. As far as tourismis concerned, the BVNP is the ‘endof the road’ for visitors to the area. Thereare many tourist trails and it is only amatter of time before the facilities requiredfor mass tourism are constructedin the Park. A number of pensions andtraditional farms have been built recently,while the Church has also developedor modernised its various facilities in orderto host a greater numbers of guests.At the community level, the Park’s educationaland awareness-raising initiativescontinue to have a positive impact145

on promoting the area’s image and values,paving the way for increased revenuesfrom recreational tourism and localattractions.Impact on the natural environmentThe animal husbandry economy of theregion is oriented towards self-sufficiency;no significant over-production is recorded,so these traditional activitieshave a low impact on the environment.However, lime exploitation and woodharvesting is expected to increase in intensityin the years to come; an area of16 ha inside the Park was approved forthe future exploitation of the lime pit beforethe Park was established, so the activitywill be continuing in the Park (AsociatiaKogayon 2005).Tourists are especially interested in themonasteries. The presence of the Horezupottery centre and the famous monasteriesof Bistrit,a and Arnota with theirsketes are the Park’s main tourist attractions.The Park Administration and KogayonAssociation promote and advertisethe spiritual and cultural values of thePark, which has led to increased visitornumbers. An ecotourism trail called ‘Thegates of BVNP: Nature and Spirituality’ isaccessible to all visitors, with all the necessaryinformation provided by informationpanels and tourist indicators. Thereare 18 tourist trails beginning in, or intersecting,the Park. These trails are short(4-5 hours) since the Park is small (14 kmlong, 0.5-2.5 km wide) and all start, endor pass close by a monastery or skete.Buila-Vânturarit,a is a paradise for climbers.There are 5 climbing areas and morethan 100 organised climbing trails. Sincesome of the waterfalls freeze during thewinter, the Park can also offer ice climbing.Extreme skiing and flying with deltawings are also possible, though neitherare particularly popular as yet. Mountainbikers appreciate the forest roads withinthe Park. The Park also boasts over onehundred caves and a number of astonishinggorges among its attractions, andsome —especially the gorges and cavesin the vicinity of monasteries— are easilyaccessed by tourists.Camping areas, mountain refuges, shelters,water reserves, rubbish collectionfacilities, information panels, towers forbird / animal watching are some of thefacilities that need to be established atappropriate points in the Park. Whilesuch facilities would assure good conditionsfor the tourists, they would also allowfor an increase in visitor numbers.The growing number of pensions, hotelsand traditional farms in the neighbouringarea will increase the average length ofstay in the area, which will give touristsan opportunity to visit the Park’s naturalattractions as well as its monasteries.If the Park’s visiting rules are not respected,biodiversity could suffer due to environmentalpollution caused by the waste,barbeque pits, and noise related to masstourism. Conflicts may then arise betweentourists and the traditional users / ownersof the forests, hayfields and pasture land.The main activity with a negative impacton the environment is lime exploitation.During the 40 years in which the locallime pit has been in commercial use, theregion has produced large quantities of146

Interior of Bistrita Conventlimestone and attracted large investmentsto ensure its efficient operation.Lime production also provides work bothin the immediate vicinity and in the localcement factory. However, the lime pitdoes impinge on the natural environment.The dust and the noise producedby the pit, the lime mill and the conveyerbelt have a significant negative impacton the neighbouring area. For their part,the quarry’s administrators consider limeexploitation a ‘traditional activity’ andthus not out of keeping with the Park.In the pursuit of greater efficiency, thetraditional methods of wood harvestingusing horses, oxen and carts to collectand transport small logs, which have alow impact on the environment, are nowgiving way to modern methods utilisingmodern tractors and trucks. This requiresan improved infrastructure, especiallysince larger quantities of wood are harvestedin the same period of time. Thisposes particular difficulties because theBVNP’s network of forest roads is notwell developed. Activities such as loggingon steep slopes and collecting andtransporting logs on river banks posefurther risks to biodiversity. The differenttypes of ownership (state, community,individual, monastic) make illegal loggingpossible, while ambiguities in ownershipstatus (areas that have beenclaimed but not restituted; areas whoseownership is being legally disputed) canin some cases encourage violations ofthe forestry regulations and result in irrationaland illegal timber exploitation.Impact on the spiritual and culturalaspects of the siteThe site’s main spiritual values are relatedto the Christian Orthodox faith and itsinstitutions, whose regimes vary from extremelystrict in the isolated Arnota Monasteryto more lax in Bistrit,a Monastry,which is situated close to the main roadand visited by more tourists. Mass tourismrepresents a double-edged swordfor monastic life, since the new facilities147

are not in keeping with the spiritual andcultural values of the area. In Arnota’scase, for instance, the new buildings(which resemble those of the Bistrit,acomplex) clash with the Brancovenianstyle of the old church, while in Pǎtrunsa,the new church, built in 2006, dwarfs theold historic one.That the lime quarry is positioned betweenthe monasteries of Bistrit,a and Arnotais nothing short of a disaster. TheEastern aspect of Bistrit,a Convent, whichwas designed to emphasise the surroundinglandscape, now affords a‘splendid’ view of the lime pit, while thedust and noise affect both monasteries.One can only travel from Bistrit,a to Arnotathrough the quarry along a route resemblingthe road from heaven to hell,due to the enormous contrast betweenthe tranquil spirituality of the monasteriesand the bare earth, noise and dust of thelime pit. The monasteries and the areasaround them are models of cleanlinessand good management, and could playan important role in environmental educationin the years to come.Conservation perspectivesand sustainabilityTrends in the conservation of thenatural heritage of the siteThe BVNP Administration and KogayonAssociation are responsible for conservingthe natural values of the area, and variousprojects have been implemented inthe Park area through Kogayon. After EUenlargement in 2007 and the granting ofNatura2000 status to the Park, it has beenpossible to obtain EU structural funds forthe environment. It is assumed that, given adedicated management team, the level offunds attracted by the BVNP will increase inthe years to come. Public interest is focusedon only the most spectacular andwell-known elements of Romania’s naturalheritage, such as the big carnivores, caves,gorges and animals considered importantby the Habitats Directive. These sites haveto be mapped, and specific managementmeasures must be applied.Governmental Decree 57/2007 introduceda new classification for zoning insideRomanian national parks. The strictly-protectedareas thus introduced —which accountfor 44% of the BVNP’s total area—are off-limits to all human intervention exceptfor research, education and ecotourism.In 74% of the buffer zone (whichrepresents the remaining 56% of the Park),only the special conservation harvestingof small quantities of wood is allowed. Inconclusion, normal logging is permittedon only 619 ha, which represents just16% of the Park’s total forested area. Inareas where logging is forbidden or restricted,the dysfunctionality of the compensationmechanism has left private ownersdiscontented with the restrictions andthe impossibility of obtaining a revenuefrom their woodland. As a result, the mainforest owners (the representatives of villagecollectives and the small owners, inparticular) are strongly contesting this legalprovision in the courts. Since no compensationis available for continuing tonot fell trees in the core zone, the representativesof the Barbatesti collective triedto obtain an injunction shifting the boundariesof the Park so that Barbatesti’s collectiveproperty was outside the BVNP.148

Fortunately, the Supreme Court’s rulingin 2009 emphasised the privileging of natureconservation measures over propertyrights, but the compensation problem remainsunsolved. Future legislation is expectedto ensure better protection whichaccords with the expectations of the NationalAgency for Protected Areas. Inany case, the precariousness of the lawrepresents a major obstacle to uniting allthe stakeholders in the area in support ofprotecting its natural heritage.Trends in the protection of culturaland spiritual heritageAfter fifty years of Communism, when theRomanian Orthodox Church was repressedand thousands of monks andnuns expelled and monasteries closed,the Orthodox Church is now entering areal growth period after an economicallyperilous period of transition lasting almosttwo decades. For example, in oneyear alone (1998), 145 churches werebuilt in Romania with a further 731 underconstruction. The Romanian OrthodoxChurch is arguably the second largestOrthodox flock numerically (with 19 millionRumanian Orthodox in Romania anda further 0.7 million in Moldavian Republic)after the Russian Orthodox Church.New churches are being built everywhere,along with new monasteries, hermitages,shrines etc. (some even insidesome protected areas), while the numberof clergy is also growing. Coupled withthe possibility of more EU funding, theprospects for the protection of the nation’scultural and spiritual heritage ispromising. The Orthodox Church is officiallyinvolved in cultural and social projects,and it is only a matter of time beforethis involvement is extended to environmentalissues, given the Church’s desireto tackle real challenges. Nowadays,the Church is the most credible institutionin the Romanian state, and its influenceis expected to remain at least at the samelevel in the future. The Kogayon Associationhas already developed a project entitled‘The gates of BVNP: Nature andSpirituality’ in order to emphasise the associationbetween cultural and spiritualheritage in the case of the BVNP.Several traditional events have also beenstaged to help preserve cultural heritageand traditional knowledge in the area, includingthe ‘Reel of Costumes’, a celebrationof popular costumes and music;‘Golden Honeycomb’, a day dedicatedto apiculture; the ‘Rooster of Hurez’, apottery trade fair; ‘Învârtita Dorului’, aday of celebration for and of shepherds;‘Strawberry Day’ and the InternationalRoma Festival. These events are expectedto be instituted as annual events andto be joined by several new ones.RecommendationsThe BVNP is a place where nature andspiritually interact in a specific way. Therole of ‘the mountain of monks’ with itscoenobitic and semi-eremitic communitiesliving inside or close to a truly wildarea should be recognised (especiallygiven the presence of a World HeritageSite —Hurezi Convent— nearby) as promotinga spiritual attitude towards natureand environmental protection at a nationaland international level.149

The management plan proposal for theBVNP has been approved by the ConsultativeCouncil (which represents thestakeholders) and the Scientific Council(the representatives of the scientific community).However, the law requires thatthe management plan be endorsed bythe Environmental Ministry. Regardingthe spiritual / cultural aspects of the siteand its natural heritage, both councilsagreed that the Park’s main objective is‘the conservation of biological, geologicaland cultural diversity for sustainabledevelopment in the area’. The internalzoning includes three areas specificallydedicated to developing the monasticcommunities (Arnota, Pǎtrunsa, Pahomie).An evaluation of the proposal’s impactin terms of conserving cultural diversityhas been conducted, and an actionplan drawn up.The natural heritage of the BVNP hasbeen extensively studied, but its culturaland spiritual heritage has not been asrigorously investigated; further and morefocused research is required to identifyand fill in gaps in our current knowledge.Detailed studies of the importance ofspiritual and cultural values have also tobe conducted by stakeholder groups.Moreover, religious activities and relatedtourist activities, as well as other activitiespermissible in the monastic areas,must be defined in the final version of themanagement plan.Education is one of the most effectivetools for developing an integrated approachto the conservation of the area’snatural, spiritual, and cultural heritage.Raise people’s awareness and they willbe far more willing to follow rules and respectbeliefs and practices. For this reason,public awareness and educationprogrammes must be implemented,which will focus jointly on the environmentaland the religious, in order to emphasisethe region’s wonderful mixtureof natural and spiritual features (informationcentres relating to both the park andthe monasteries; educating young peopleto appreciate the purity, beauty andsanctity of the site). A cultural interchangeis required between the monasticpopulation, local people and visitorswith regard to spiritual / cultural aspectsand natural heritage values if the site isto be seen as combining the spiritual /cultural and natural heritage.Efforts to protect the environment andencourage more sustainable developmentneed to show that conserving thecultural, spiritual and natural heritage ofthe site can enrich people’s lives. Themanagement plan has to emphasise thenecessity of a viable mechanism forcompensating the owners of strictly protectedareas where logging is forbiddenor limited. Certification is necessary forthe forest and the wood-processing industry,but also for agriculture (organicfarming), tourism, etc. The use of locallyadaptedcrops and livestock must be encouraged,and brands for local productsand services must be officially recognisedand promoted. Measures to reducethe impact of the lime pit (permanentmonitoring, reforestation of exploitedareas within the quarry, etc.) have alsoto be taken.150

ReferencesBaciu, C.I. (2007), Masivul Buila, maretie spirituala intr — un cadru paradiziac, Vacantesi calatorii.Administratia Parcului National Buila Vanurarita (2006), Buila-Vânturarit,a — Cel maimic pac national din Romania. Descopera-l pe tot!, Asociatia Kogayon.Asociatia Kogayon (2005), Parcul National Buila Vanturita- Studiu de fundamentare stiintifica,Asociatia Kogayon.Djuvara, N. (1999), O scurta istorie a romanilor, povestita celor tineri, Humanitas,Bucharest.WebsitesParcul National Buila-Vânturarit,a, 20 December 2007, http://www.buila.roRegia Nationala a Padurilor-Romsilva, 20 December 2007, http://www.rosilva.ro.Romanian Orthodox Church, 15 March 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Orthodox_Church.Hurezi Convent, main entrance151

152

An integrated ecological approachto monastic land: the case ofthe Holy Convent of ChrysopigiChania, Crete, GreeceMother Superior TheoxeniIntroduction - The history of theHoly Monastery of ChrysopigiThe Holy Monastery of Chrysopigi wasfounded in Chania towards the end ofthe 16 th century, during the last period ofVenetian rule. It is dedicated to the Motherof God, the Life-Giving Spring.Its founder was a Doctor of Medicine andof Philosophy from Chania, educated in Italy,known as John Chartophylax, who wasan important personality of his time and anactive member of the local community.During the latter period of Venetian rule,Chrysopigi became a spiritual centre forCrete with many monks and a rich library.During the period of Turkish rule the spiritualtradition of the monastery continuedand the monastery became a StavropegicMonastery . The monks participatedin the historic struggles of the peopleof the area, and in consequence themonastery itself suffered frequent retributionat the hands of the Turks whotorched the monastery for the last time in1821 at the time of the Greek revolution.During the Second World War the occupyingGerman forces converted the monasteryinto their headquarters, forcingthe monks to leave and causing greatdamage to the architectural structure ofthe buildings –except for the church. Aperiod of decline followed.In 1976 Chrysopigi Monastery was convertedinto a Convent. The new communi- Stavropegic (and Patriarchal) is a monasterywhich is directly dependent on the EcumenicalPatriarchate in Constantinople.< The Holy Monastery of Chrysopigi, Chania, Crete, Greece153

ty of the first three nuns restored the monasterybuildings from their foundationsand sought to give them new life. The firstabbess, Mother Theosemni (†2000), wasthe new founder of Chrysopigi Monastery.Today the Convent comprises a communityof 40 sisters. The sisters are involvedin icon-painting, the preservation of oldbooks and icons, the publication of books,bookbinding, church embroidery, the cultivationof land with organic methods etc.The monastery is visited by many pilgrimsfrom Greece and abroad, many ofwhom are young people who are rediscoveringthe life of worship and the traditionof the Orthodox Church.Natural valuesChrysopigi consists of two large monasticareas. The one includes approximately10 ha and is situated only 3.5 kilometresfrom the city centre. This land comprisesmainly olive and mandarin trees,along with orange, avocado, fig, apricotand carob trees, as well as vegetablegardens. The convent has succeeded inhaving this area designated as a greenbelt area (protection zone A). In this wayany danger of urban development on thesacred area which surrounds the monasteryis prevented. The land around themonastery buildings has been preservedand is a source of life for the city of Chania.In 1995 the Monastery received the1st ‘Habitat’ prize as the “best model forthe restorative and environmental regenerationin the wider area” . The prize was awarded by the UN Conference‘HABITAT II’, 1995.The second area of monastic land comprisesapproximately 30 ha and is situatedoutwith the city of Chania. This locationis an old monastic dependency of the Monasteryof Chrysopigi and the sisterhoodnow lives there in the monastic buildingsand sketes. It is situated in an area ofgreat natural beauty and operates as anopen museum for pilgrims and visitors. Itcomprises woodland and a small gorge,through which a torrent runs during thewinter months. The area contains manycaves, some of which are chapels, withstone footpaths to guide the pilgrims.This monastic land represents a very importantpart of the natural map of Crete.According to the “Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development” the ecosystemof Crete is one of the most sensitiveand fragile in the world. This specificbiotope has a very significant biodiversity,which has been the object of scientificresearch. Many of the plants indigenousto the area are valuable for the treatmentof illnesses. They have been known toconventional medicine for centuries andare used even in our day in pharmaceutics.Apart from the plants, some of whichare rare, there are all the trees characteristicof Cretan flora: the olive, carob, platanus,cypress, myrtle, oleander, caparis,cistus creticus, thyme etc.Spiritual and cultural valuesApart from its environmental value, the monasticarea of the caves also possessesan archaeological and historical value. Itincludes the Church of St. Kyriaki, a monu- See Agenda 21, ch. 18, United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development, Rio deJaneiro 1992.154

Ascetic hermitages in the cave areament from the Venetian period, which servesas the starting point for the pilgrim’sitinerary. Here the pilgrim or nature loverwill leave his car to continue on foot followingthe stone paths to the various hermitagesand chapels constructed in the caves.There is also a path that leads higherup to the ruins of a Byzantine fortress.This area was inhabited up until the firstdecades of the previous century, butwas destroyed by the Germans duringthe Second World War. The monasterythen became desolate, because thebuildings were turned into stockyardsand the natural environment was alteredby an uncontrolled grazing of flocks.Elder Porphyrios, a contemporary saintof the Christian Orthodox Church (†1991on Mount Athos), who had an exceptionallove for nature, a few years before hisdeath urged the sisterhood of Chrysopigito work towards the regeneration ofthis abandoned monastic area, which isthe property of the monastery, assuringthe nuns that by the grace of God he discernedthat the area was holy and thatwhen it would be regenerated and wouldbecome accessible to people it wouldfunction as a place of reconciliation withnature. Elder Porphyrios referred to natureas a ‘secret Gospel’ and used to saythat ‘all things around us are droplets ofthe love of God’ . “Droplets of the Loveof God” is the title of a children’s bookrecently published by the Convent andwhich has been translated into German,English and Korean. With the blessingand encouragement of the holy ElderPorphyrios the sisterhood regeneratedthe area of the caves. This area was inhabitedby ascetics for many centuriesand thus it was sanctified through theirprayer and worship. Important asceticfigures lived here, either permanently orperiodically. One of best-known is St.Gerasimos of Kefallonia who lived forabout three years in a cave of this area.The presence of holy ascetics on the landcontributed to the sanctification of the elementsof the natural environment such as See Wounded by love: the life and wisdom ofElder Porphyrios, 2005, Limni-Evia, p. 218.155

Walking on the stone pathsthe springs, to which people even to thisday flock in search of cures for illnesses.The conservation of the area’s biodiversityis therefore not only a matter of survival,but a spiritual issue. For this reasonsince 1997 environmental education programmeshave been organised by sistersof the community who have specializedin this subject. These programmes aredesigned for school and university students,camp leaders, young women, monasticcommunities etc. During the lastthree years secondary school pupils fromthroughout Greece have participated inthe programme in the context of educationalexcursions in cooperation with theEnvironmental Education Department ofthe local Secondary Education Authority.Young people are invited to participate inspecific experimental programmes, andspecifically in conferences and meetings,which take place in the restored monastery.The programmes, in addition to thetheoretical aspect, include:• The planting of trees and the releasingof birds in the monastic biotope• Participation in services of worship inthe cave chapels• A pilgrimage to the caves and hermitagesof the monastery with a walk onthe stone paths and steps• Exploration of the biodiversity of theflora, the springs and the holy watersources• Walking to the rain water tank and themonastery wine-press• A walk around the monastic buildingsthat are being restored• A visit to the hand-made soap workshopand the beehives with organichoneyIn addition, students are able to havecomputer access to information concerningthe sacredness of creation andthe management of the environment, ina restored building outside the mainmonastery next to an old cistern.The Monastery’s environmental programmeaims to raise awareness and educatethe young people who participate in it156

(approximately 1500 per year), in order torealise the importance of the conservationof creation. The close connection betweenthe Orthodox tradition and the protectionof the environment is fully perceivedand is well accepted by the students,as their ever increasing participationin the programme demonstrates.What emerges from these experiences isthe vision of a life of thanksgiving: Justas in the Divine Liturgy the bread andwine are transformed and offered backto God, so the whole of creation can beseen as something to be sanctified andoffered to God and indeed the inner beingof each individual may equally betransfigured and returned to God in amystery of thanksgiving.In accordance with the spirit of the OrthodoxChurch the aim of a true monastic isto seek sanctity through the transfiguringpath of asceticism, prayer and repentance.He lives in a self sufficient manner,in obedience to the Church, free from anypersonal wishes; for that reason he lives inpeace, without anxiety or stress. He understandsthe anguish of the world, notwith despair but with love and prayer. Thushis life becomes a witness to sustainabilityand an example of anti-consumerism andleavens the world with a new cast of mind,which is permanent, deep and definite.Conservation perspectives andsustainabilityThe sisterhood of Chrysopigi has restoredthe complex of buildings and preservedthe artifacts of the Monasterythrough the creation of an ecclesiasticaland folk museum.One of the main activities of the Conventis the cultivation of its land with organicfarming methods, which is in accordancewith the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s call(01/09/1989) for the protection of the Environment . From that time the Monasteryof Chrysopigi has closely followed the initiativesof the Ecumenical Patriarchate.On the monastery land, chemical fertilizershave been replaced with compostproduced from organic matter, i.e. leavesfrom the trees, manure from free-grazinganimals, grass, sawdust and raw wood,quick-lime, fruit and vegetable scraps etc.Vetch is sown for the general enrichmentof the soil. When the vetch is in flower, itis ploughed into the land thereby releasingorganic nitrogen into the soil.Harmful insects affecting the trees andthe vegetable gardens are also dealt withby using organic methods. That is, withthe use of special traps which capturethe dangerous insects while leaving thebeneficial ones unharmed. Diseases inthe vegetable gardens are dealt with byplanting basil and dwarf marigold flowersamong the plants. Because of theirstrong odour, they are excellent insectrepellents.The plants are also sprinkledwith sulphur for the same reason.Since the olive oil, the mandarins andthe avocados are produced in largerquantities, they are marketed with appropriatepackaging and labelling, which informsand educates the consumer aboutthe programme of organic cultivationand its exceptional importance for healthof mind and body. Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios, “Encyclical letter,September 1, 1989”, in Fr. John Chryssavgis(ed.), Cosmic grace – Humble prayer, Michigan/ Cambridge, 2003, pp. 379.157

Many efforts are made by the monasticcommunity of Chrysopigi to ensure theprotection of the monastic area of thecaves. Hunting is prohibited in the biotopeand consequently many speciesof birds find a refuge there, while the exclusionof grazing animals has helped inthe revival of the flora. At the same time,due to the organic agriculture, the areahas been chosen on a number of occasionsas a point for bird release by birdprotection organisations.In regarding to the areas with buildings,along with the restoration of the historicalmonuments, new stone buildings are underconstruction on a rocky prominencein the area in total harmony with the naturalsurroundings. In the new of monasticbuildings of Transfiguration, programmesto implement alternative forms of energy(such as solar heating and photovoltaic)are being studied and put into practice,while at the same time plans for watermanagement are being carried out. Inaddition, trees are being planted with theprospect of being watered by the outflowfrom biological cleansing installations.The aim of this environmental programmeis to serve as a model for othermonasteries on Crete –and indeedthroughout Greece– and also as a modelfor farms in the surrounding villages andon the whole island of Crete.In addition, the preservation of sanctityof the world is sought through the art ofOrthodox iconography. The painting ofthe icons of the Orthodox Church ofSaint Andrew in the city of Düsseldorf inGermany by the sisters of the monasterywhich was completed in 2002, constitutesa characteristic sample of orthodoxiconography, which combines the traditionalsynthesis of hagiological subjectswith the theological interpretation of social,ecological and eschatological concernsof contemporary man.In accordance with this spirit, subjectssuch as the creation of the world as itwas created by God as ‘very good’ aredepicted. All the mysteries which sanctifyand bless the path of human life as wellas material things, portrayals of Saintswho, with the grace of God obtained aParadise-like relationship with the naturalworld, as for example, Saint Seraphim ofSarov, who fed a wild bear with his ownhands or Saint John the Hermit of Cretewho walked on the sea (from Gavdos toCrete) and many others.Pressures and impacts -recommendationsIt is true that the world-wide ecologicalcrisis, which often turns into ecologicaldisaster, is frequently irreversable andthat man feels impotent in face of thispainful reality. As Christians, however,our criterion and ultimate destination isthe future Kingdom. We are called to experienceit every day as a foretaste ofeternity. For this reason we do not quailbefore the hopeless prognostications ofthe scientists concerning the future ofthe planet, since we have the certaintythat here ‘we have no enduring city, butlook for the city that is to come’ .In accordance with this spirit, an arduousdaily struggle is made by the sisterhoodof Chrysopigi for the preservationof the holy monastic setting with its richbiodiversity and rare flora and fauna. The Heb. 13. 14.158

The ascent to Transfigurationproblems are many. Today the childrenof the shepherds that live in the surroundingarea do not have animals butdream of how they might exploit commerciallythe pastureland which hasbeen given to them and which constitutesthe continuation of the area of thecaves. According to the new law governingarchaeological sites, the caves andtheir immediate environs constitute aprotected area. However, for the landbeyond the caves which have been givento the shepherds as pastureland, alegal framework for environmental protectionmust be found. For if this widerarea is not preserved environmentally,the environment around the monastery,the springs, the trees, the organic cultivation,the rare flora of the ravine, the animalsand the birds and indeed the monumentsthemselves, along with the historicaland cultural heritage and traditionwill all be endangered.We believe that when we work conscientiouslywith the conviction that God hasprovidential care for the world we preserveour self-consciousness as Christians:a monastery in its location, a priestin his parish, a bishop in his diocese, alayperson in his family or workplace, aGovernment Minister in his position of responsibility,a child in his class at school.In this way, each individual, doing the willof God with consistency and responsibilityin his or her everyday activities, canbecome aware of the sacredness of theworld and make his or her attendance atchurch an effective force. Our path onearth thus becomes a witness to hopeand joy; the things of this world cease tobe ephemeral and subject to corruptionand are transfigured into things immortaland eternal. The quintessence is the lovewhich the saints of our Church live andteach. Love for all things, even for thebasest and most insignificant things ofthis world, which, however, carry withinthem the breath of God. Because as thepoet Odysseus Elytis writes: ‘The earthneeds a caress and a whisper like that ofthe rider in his horse’s ear’ . Odysseus Elytis, The Light-Tree and 14 th Beauty,Athens 1999.159

160

Initiatives taken by the Cistercian Monasteryof Poblet to improve the integration ofspiritual, cultural and environmental valuesCatalonia, SpainJosep-Maria MallarachLluc M. TorcalPurposeBy means of a description of some of theactions already undertaken and some ofthe proposals suggested for the comingyears, this paper discusses the main initiativesaimed at improving the integrationof spiritual, cultural and natural valuesin the activities of the Monastery ofPoblet in Catalonia, Spain. The processbegan during the first Delos Initiativeworkshop, which was held in Montserratin 2006, and has continued to evolveduring the preparation of the Delos Initiativecase-study.BackgroundThe Monastery of Santa Maria de Poblet islocated in southern Catalonia, Spain, some130 km west of Barcelona in a mid-altitudeMediterranean landscape (image inp. 162). Founded in the 12 th century, thisimpressive monastic citadel complex is anoutstanding example of mediaeval Cistercianarchitecture. The Monastery was activefor 7 centuries, and had enormous spiritual,cultural and political influencethroughout most of its history; indeed, inits heyday, Poblet was one of the most importantCistercian monasteries in Europe.The Cistercian Order is a branch of theBenedictine family of Latin Christian monasticorders. Established in the 12 thcentury, it was well known in Western Europeduring the Middle Ages for inter aliapromoting advanced sustainable techniquesin agriculture, forestry and animalhusbandry, and, in particular, for its work< Inner court of Santa Maria de Poblet Monastery, next to the old dorms, Catalonia, Spain161

Summer view of the Monastery of Santa Maria de Poblet and surrounding landscapein reclaiming wasteland. It was also renownedfor its plain ascetic life-style, andthe simple but extremely beautiful architectureof its buildings. Although there weresome precedents in Europe, its farmbasedorganisation is a distinctive featureof early Cistercian agriculture (Lekai 1987).The place name ‘Poblet’ is a Catalan derivationof the Latin populetus, which refersto the riparian white poplar (Populus alba)forest that grows along a nearby stream.Since this tree has white bark, there mayalso be a symbolic relationship with thewhite habits of the Cistercians, who arealso known as ‘white monks’.As a result of donations, the Monasticcommunity came to own and / or managevast areas of land with distinct ecosystemsin the Eastern Iberian Peninsula,ranging from alpine meadows in thePyrenees, where sheep flocks spent thesummer, to productive croplands andforests in central Catalonia and the lagoonson the Mediterranean coast thatprovided the monks with fish during periodsof fasting. The basic productive andorganisational unit was the Cistercianfarm where a small number of lay brothersworked and followed a life-style similarto that of the fathers —i.e. the monkswho devoted themselves, above all, toprayer and contemplation.Monastic life at Poblet ended in 1835,when Spain’s ‘liberal’ government suppressedall the country’s monastic ordersfor a second time and the Monastery wasabandoned. The Spanish Governmenttook over all Church properties and in theyears that followed the forests of Poblet,which had been managed in a sustainablemanner for centuries, were overexploited.In just a few decades, this extraordinaryforest had been razed to the groundby people from nearby villages, while theold monastery and its facilities were completelydevastated (Altisent 1974).Fortunately, this lack of control lastedonly a few decades. Mindful of its outstandingcultural value, various governmentbodies slowly began to restore the162

Gothic cloister and bell towerMonastery’s buildings in the mid 19 th century.By 1871, most of Poblet’s forests hadbecome state property: the forestry departmentimplemented a very successfulrestoration process and the Monasteryhad regained much of its former splendoura century later (Martínez 2001).In 1940, a group of four Cistercian monksreturned to Poblet and revived the monasticcommunity: the community grewslowly, and there are currently some 30monks under an Abbot living in the Monastery.A brotherhood of the Monastery—whose numbers will soon reach 400—has also been established, and the key elementsof this great medieval monasteryare again being put to the very uses theywere built for six or seven centuries ago.Like most other historic monasteries inSpain, Poblet is currently the property ofthe Spanish government. The monks areallowed to use the buildings and arecharged with its maintenance, but the communityowns just 6 ha of gardens and vineyardsin the vicinity of the monastery, plusa further 25 ha of forestland within walkingdistance of the Monastery. The old Cistercianfarm, used by groups of monks at certaintimes of the year, is almost entirelypowered by solar energy, while water ispumped from a nearby mountain stream.Spiritual, cultural and natural valuesof the Monastery and the ParkThe Monastery of Santa Maria de Pobletis a unique artistic achievement and oneof the most perfect expressions of 12 th -,13 th - and 14 th -century Cistercian architecture(image in p. 163). The abbeycontains architectural masterpieces frommany historical periods, although its Romanesqueand Gothic elements are ofparticular note (image in p. 167). Poblet,one of the largest and most complete ofall Cistercian abbeys, also served overthe centuries as a royal palace and residence.It is a Royal Monastery, since itwas chosen by the kings of the ancientHouse of Aragon as home to their pantheonduring the 13 th and 14 th centuries.163

The important archives of Montserrat Tarradellasi Macià and the Casa Ducal deMedinaceli are kept in the former Abbot’sPalace, which was built outside the Monastery’sperimeter walls during the 17 th and18 th centuries. In addition, the Monastery’smuseums offer a virtual tour of the Monastery’spast and explain how the Monasteryoperates today. These museums alsoboast a large number of recovered exhibitsand bequests of great historical and artisticvalue. The Monastery archives, whichencompass almost eight centuries of itshistory, are still almost intact, althoughmost of the original documents are nowkept in the National Archive in Madrid.They include extremely interesting documentsrelating to every aspect of communitylife and details on how the Cistercianmonks managed their natural resources.Poblet Monastery currently receives over150,000 visitors per year (image in p. 168),the majority of whom are attracted by itscultural heritage. And while only a smallminority are drawn by its spiritual life, thenumber of people willing to go on retreatsin the Monastery is growing. As a result, anew and larger guest house is currentlyunder construction outside the walls whichwill supplement the limited capacity of thetwo male guest houses within the walls withaccommodation for another 50 families.The main natural values of the Park arelinked to the surrounding Mediterraneanforests, which include 2 types of evergreenoak forest communities, 3 differentdeciduous oak forest communities andone pine forest community. The dominanttree species are Holm or evergreen oak(Quercus ilex), various deciduous oaks —Lusitanian oak (Quercus faginea), (Q.x.cerrioides), Algerian oak (Q. canariensis),sessile oak (Q. petraea), Pyrenean oak(Q. pyrenaica)– and accompanying treessuch as the smooth-leaved elm (Ulmusminor), black poplar (Populus nigra), aspen(Populus tremula), large-leaved lime(Tilia platyphyllos), holly (Ilex aquifollium),common yew (Taxus baccata), hazel (Corylusavellana) and the true service tree(Sorbus domestica). Over 35 rare plantspecies are found in the forests of Poblet,including a number of Iberian endemics,while the forest fauna is quite diverse, thelargest mammals being the Roe Deer(Capreolus capreolus), Wild Boar (Susscrofa) and Badger (Meles meles).Natural and cultural heritageconservation and education effortsFollowing suggestions from the formerAbbot of Poblet, Father Maur Esteva ,the Catalan Parliament passed a law in1984 declaring the landscape aroundthe Monastery (c.2500 ha) to be a NaturalSite of National Importance . This protectedarea (henceforth: the Park) includesthe most valuable forests as wellas some vineyards in the lower-lying areasaround the Monastery. Four years later,a Decree established two managedforest nature reserves covering some900 ha, one of which includes the onlyPyrenean oak forest in Catalonia . Father M. Esteva is now the General Abbot ofthe entire Cistercian Order. Law 22/1984. A Paratge Natural d’Iinterès Nacional(PNIN) is a type of protected area createdby Catalan law 12/1985 in natural areas. Currentmanagement practices correspond either toIUCN categories IV or V, depending on the zone. Decree 279/1998 established the managed nature reservesof Barranc del Tillar and Barranc de la Trinitat.164

Partial map of the proposed larger protected area including the MonasteryAlthough 70% of the Park area is publiclyowned (a situation rare in Catalonia), activemanagement did not begin until1999. Since then, the protected area hasbeen looked after by a small managementteam of four people plus four rangers;its 2007 budget was €772,000. ThePark Board first met in 2001 and includesrepresentatives from the Catalan government,the two local municipalities, localNGOs and the Monastery itself. Theguiding service is used by around onethousand people a year .In 1991, at the behest of the Spanish government,UNESCO classified the entiremonastic complex of Poblet, including itssurrounding gardens, courtyards andwalls, as a Cultural World Heritage Site.According to Catalan legislation, the site isa National Monument of Cultural Interest . Source: minutes of Park Board meetings. Bé Nacional d’Interès Cultural.In summer 2007, the Catalan Ministry ofthe Environment and Housing presenteda long-awaited plan that will establish anew and much larger natural park in thearea, namely the Muntanyes de Pradesand Poblet Natural Park, which will includethe existing Park [Map 1]. A consultationprocess to which the Poblet monasticcommunity has made a number of contributionsbegan in the summer of 2007.In 1991, the Catalan Department of Educationlaunched a workshop on the ‘MediaevalCistercian Monasteries of Catalonia’in a youth hostel in the Park. This facilitywelcomes some 5,000 schoolchildrenaged 8 to 18 every year from all overCatalonia who stay for 3-5 days to learnin situ about the cultural, spiritual and–more recently— natural heritage of Cistercianmonasteries . They follow a very Camp d’Aprenentatge dels Monestirs del Cister.Alberg de Joventut l’Espluga de Francolí.165

thorough educational programme whichincludes a number of pre- and post-stayactivities. This facility is staffed by six teachers,four of whom are devoted to culturalheritage and two to natural heritage.Strategic aimsThe Poblet Monastery initiatives addressthree broad issues and seek to:i) Improve the management of all the Monastery’sfacilities and lands throughthe gradual application of criteria thatcomply with concepts of environmentaland social justice. This strategy hasto be based on both secular principlesof sustainability and Christian Cistercianprinciples. Only when every possibleeffort has been made to define,develop and implement these criteriawill the Monastery feel that it has themoral authority to tell others how to implementchanges in their life-styles.ii) Promote the effective protection of therural landscape around the Monasteryas well as quality forest managementthat seeks to improve the Monastery’secological integrity and standards ofsilence and beauty. The Monastery’sdirect responsibility is limited in thiscase, although its representatives caninfluence the Park Board and othergovernmental bodies.iii) Develop —whenever feasible— anoutreach strategy aimed at educatinginterested visitors in environmentalvalues relating to spiritual principles.This entails improving coordinationwith the existing Cistercian MonasteriesWorkshop and the Park educationalservices, as well as developingits own facilities and programmes.A number of meetings have been heldwith bodies including the Park Board andits management director, the NaturalHeritage Directorate, the Tarragona ProvincialCouncil (Diputació de Tarragona),the teachers employed in the educationfacilities, the University of Barcelona andthe Catalan Institute of Energy with aview to achieving these aims. The meetingshave opened up new vistas of potentialcooperation through which theMonastery can promote many of the actionsdiscussed in the following section.ActionsThe main actions carried out to date areas follows:• The Monastery has requested thePark Board for permission to profferitself as a case-study for the Delos initiative,and sought the Board’s cooperationin preparing the case-study.• The Monastery has insisted on a solutionto the long-standing problem ofthe sewage that spills into a streamdownstream of the monastery. As oflast summer, sewage has been pipedto the nearest municipal sewage treatmentplant (L’Espluga de Francolí).• A Memorandum of Understanding hasbeen drafted between the Monasteryand the Diputació de Tarragona forthe preparation of an environmentalaudit for the Monastery, which willcombine the methodology of the localAgenda 21 with Cistercian principles.The draft includes a detailed method-166

ology adapted to the monastic community,the first of its kind in Spain.• An agreement has been reached withthe University of Barcelona’s Instituteof Water Research to study the monastery’shistoric water systems (visibleand covered) and its water resources.A proposal for improving theMonastery’s water management (byrecycling waste water and collectingrain water) is to be prepared to allowthe Monastery to manage its water resourcesin a sustainable manner.• Several meetings have been held withthe authorities of the Directorate ofCatalan Natural Heritage to discussand explain the community’s concernover some current forest managementpractices. On July 4 th 2007, an agreementwas reached that will enable thePark’s management team to prepareguidelines for forestry activities.• In 2006, the Catalan Institute of Energy(ICAEN) prepared two proposalsfor the use of solar energy in the Monasteryat the Monastery’s request:- The first concerns solar photo-voltaicpanels for producing electricity,which are to be located discreetly inthe coach park outside the Monastery,where they will screen vehiclesfrom the sun. Some 2000 m 2 of photo-voltaicpanels will produce 250kW; any excess will be sold.- The second relates to thermal / solarpanels to produce hot water, whichare to be located in selected partsof the Monastery’s facilities (theguest houses and monks’ dormitory,for example) and cover most ofthe Monastery’s hot water needs.• The Monastery has petitioned the CatalanMinistry of the Environment andHousing regarding the draft plan forthe proposed Muntanyes de Pradesand Poblet Natural Park, addressingthe following issues:- The Park’s concept and name- The Park’s boundaries- The composition of the Park Boardand Steering CommitteeMain cloister, in which the Romanesque and Gothic styles are combined167

Group of students entering the monastery- The inclusion of intangible values inthe concept of cultural heritage- Park management goals and criteriarelated to spiritual values- Park facilities- Forest management in the ParkMore specifically, regarding the conceptand name, the Monastery supports thenew enlarged Natural Park (a IUCN categoryV protected area) and the inclusionof ‘Poblet’ in its title.Concerning the boundaries of the proposednew Natural Park, the Monastery hasincluded a report in its petitions, whichproposes an alternative boundary that willenlarge the new Park by including the areaunder greatest pressure from the growthof the nearest urban centre —l’Esplugade Francolí. Three criteria were identified:(i) the need for the Monastery to beprotected visually, (ii) landscape quality,(iii) the importance of equating theboundary with easily identifiable physicalfeatures (Mallarach & Albertí 2007).Another report has highlighted the importanceof including intangible culturaland spiritual values among the Park’sobjectives (Silene 2007). Three main themeshave been developed:1. A new definition of natural heritage thatincludes all significant intangible culturalvalues and, in particular, religiousand spiritual values. For seven centuries,these values have formed thebasis of the life of the monastic communityand the existence of the Monasteryand a number of shrines andhermitages found within the boundariesof the proposed Natural Park.2. Specific proposals aimed at includingspiritual and intangible culturalvalues in the draft plans at all relevantlevels: diagnoses, goals and objectives,management areas, facilities,educational programmes, public useand signposting.3. A set of proposals that will take thescope of the new definition of culturalheritage into consideration in all new168

legal and planning instruments developedby the Natural Park .Regarding the composition of the futurePark Board, the monastic communityhas requested to be formally representedon both the General Board and SteeringCommittee.The main current aims of the Monasteryinclude:• Preparing a strategic proposal for improvingthe integration of spiritual,cultural and natural values into the environmentaleducation and informationprovided by the Monastery ofPoblet. The Father Abbot has requestedthat the Silene Association formulatea proposal with regard to this aim,which will also include a draft plan fora new interpretation centre.• Including a new section on the Monastery’swebsite (www.poblet.cat) addressingnature, environmental conservationand sustainability.• Addressing the erosion in the gullythat crosses the Monastery’s propertyfrom north to south and —most importantly—restoring the white poplarriparian forest.The main actions to be undertaken overthe next five years include:• The gradual implementation of all theprojects and actions included in theenvironmental audit (ranging from so- The two key planning instruments for naturalprotected areas in Catalonia are the so-called‘Special Plan of Protection’ (Pla especial de protecció),which defines the zoning and regulationsapplying in each zone, and the Master ManagementPlan (Pla rector d’ús i gestió), whichdefines management strategies and goals.lar energy plants and waste-water recyclingto an organic vegetable garden)as soon as funding and otherconstraints allow.• Promoting the recovery of the riparianforest along the stream using nativeplant species.• Establishing an organic vegetablegarden using local organic seeds andlocal varieties of fruit tree once watershortages are solved. The garden willhelp conserve agro-biodiversity, producehealthy food for the monks andtheir guests, and provide tasks for interestedguests to undertake.• Preparing a forest management plan,which seeks both to restore the integrityof the forests that have been overexploitedin the past and to graduallytransform the forests into more maturestructures with greater biodiversityand scenic value.• Building two interpretation centres,one in the outer walls, the other insidethe Monastery. The former will be devotedto the history of the Monasteryand the management of its extensivenatural resources prior to the nineteenthcentury; the latter will focus onexplaining the meaning and significanceof monastic life and its relatedvalues (silence, beauty, serenity andinteriority) in today’s social context.• Establishing a botanical garden with128 plant species from the Holy Land,110 of which have been identified inthe Bible by Professor Michael Zohary(1982). The garden will include fruittrees, crops, forest grasses, shrubsand trees, wetlands plants and a169

number of species used in the preparationof medicines and perfumes.ConclusionsThe Poblet case-study could play a significantrole within the Delos Initiative asa good example of a monastic community’swillingness to undertake a series ofnature conservation and sustainabilityactions that enjoy the support of an internationalinitiative aiming to integrate intangiblevalues into nature conservation.Poblet also exemplifies the historical coherenceof a community of monks with itsChristian, Benedictine and Cistercian origins.The monks have a clear desire towork to foster respect for God’s Creationand appreciate the surroundings of theMonastery not only as a resource to be carefullyexploited, but also as a gift to bepassed on to future generations of monks.Seeking through its current and plannedactivities to encompass every area of interactionbetween the Monastery and thenatural world, from water to energy andforest protection to waste treatment, theMonastery has nurtured an array of collaborationagreements in all these aspects.In order to obtain support for theseactions, representatives of the Monasteryhave held meetings with bodies includingthe Poblet Park Board, the NaturalHeritage Directorate, the managing directorof the Protected Site, the Diputacióde Tarragona (provincial government),the teachers in charge of the environmentaleducation facilities, a research teamfrom the University of Barcelona and theCatalan Institute of Energy. As a result,new fields for cooperation with the Monasteryhave opened up, most of which willbe promoted in the years to come.It is worth underlining the fact that the implementationof these policies will satisfySpanish and international recommendationsthat intangible cultural and spiritualvalues should be taken into account in theconcepts, goals, objectives, managementareas / guidelines and facilities both of thecurrent natural protected area (especiallyvia the specific activities that the Monasterywants to promote) and the future Muntanyesde Prades and Poblet Natural Park.Of these planned activities, the most relevantto the Delos Initiative, apart fromconservation, is the education of visitorsto the Monastery, where the aim is to inculcatein visitors a greater respect fornature stemming from spiritual criteriaand values that seek to be consistentwith those deeply-held beliefs that givelife its essential purpose. We believe thatthis unobtrusive but ever-present missioncould be one of the greatest contributionsof monastic life to the men andwomen of our times.Since the Delos2 Workshop in 2007, theMonastery of Poblet has undertaken a numberof actions, so as to improve its environmentalcoherence, mainly as far as energyand water-use are concerned. However,the most significant action, perhaps,has been a binding Declaration, adoptedby the monastic community after a longtime of reflection during July 2009, whichsummarises both the theological and scientificreasons for the ‘ecological conversion’and details the strategic goals andpractical objectives. The Declaration, translatedin many languages, can be downloadedfrom the website of the Monastery.170

ReferencesAltisent, A. (1974), Història de Poblet, Impremta Monàstica – Abadia de Poblet.Associació Silene (2007), Informe sobre la consideració del patrimoni cultural intangible enl’Avantprojecte de parc natural de les Muntanyes de Prades i de Poblet (unpublished report).Lekai L.F. (1987), Los cistercienses. Ideales y realidad, Biblioteca Herder, Barcelona.Mallarach, J.M. & Albertí, A. (2007), Proposta alternativa de límit del Parc Natural de les Muntanyesde Prades i de Poblet al sector de l’Espluga de Francolí (unpublished report).Martínez i Garcia, M. (2001), El bosc de Poblet al llarg dels anys, Centre d’Estudis dela Conca de Barberà.Zohary M. (1982), Plants of the Bible, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Websites- Abbey of Poblet: http://www.poblet.cat/index.php?&&&&ZW4%3D- Poblet Protected Area: http://mediambient.gencat.net/eng//el_medi/parcs_de_catalunya/poblet/inici.jsp- Workshop of the Cistercian Monasteries [Camp d’Aprenentage dels Monestirs delCister] (only in Catalan):http://www.xtec.cat/cda-monestirs/- UNESCO World Heritage Sites: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/518/documents/The inner wall and royal towers in winter171

172

Rila Monastery Natural ParkBulgariaJosep-Maria MallarachSebastian CatanoiuThe Rila Monastery Natural Park, and the Rila National Park that surrounds it,constitute one of the largest and most significant protected areas in Europe. Thatthe area has received ‘natural park’ status is due to the efforts of a ChristianChurch, namely the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Rila Monastery Natural Parkprovides us with a paradigm for the effective conservation of an area’s natural,spiritual and cultural heritage, and for the efficient integration of spiritual, culturaland natural values into both the decision-making process and communicationwith the public.Rila Monastery was founded by Saint Ivan Rilsky in the early 10 th century. That itsfounder was a hermit may explain the ‘holy unity’ or synergy that has always existedbetween the monastery and its natural surroundings. The Monastery ownedand managed an extensive estate until 1947, when its properties came under thesupervision and management of Bulgaria’s Communist government. After the fallof Communism, the land was returned to the Bulgarian Orthodox church in sectionsbetween 1998 and 2002. In 1983, UNESCO included Rila Monastery amongits World Heritage Sites.The Bulgarian people consider Rila Monastery, snuggled as it is in the bosom ofBulgaria’s most majestic mountain, to be their country’s holiest site. It is the sec-< The landscape around Rila Monastery, Bulgaria173

ond largest monastery in the Balkans, with a history that goes back a millennium.There are several holy sites in and around the Monastery including sacred springs,the cave of the founder and five hermitages. Its small community of monks aredevoted to preserving their monastery.For many centuries, Rila Monastery was a stronghold of the Bulgarian languageand national culture and buttressed the Bulgarian people’s consciousness oftheir own identity. The first book on the history of the Bulgarian nation was writtenin Rila Monastery, which also houses one of the oldest and most important librariesin the Balkans.The Natural Park has healthy ecosystems and spectacular mountain landscapesranging in altitude from c.1,000 to 2,700 metres above sea level. It encompasses28 lakes, most of which are of glacial origin, and outstanding forests of varioustypes including beech, oak, spruce, and mixed forests, which number among theoldest in the country. Its forests and meadows are home to 36 native tree speciesand many endemic plants, 20 of which are unique to the area. The Park’s fauna isalso diverse, and includes —at the top of the forest food chain— large wolf andbrown bear populations.In 2000, a Bulgarian Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources decree formallycreated the Natural Park of Rila Monastery National Park. Of the 25,000 haincluded in the protected area, 19,000 are owned by the Church (Natural Park)and 3,600 are part of a state nature reserve.The Natural Park’s management plan was drawn up in 2003 by an interdisciplinaryteam following extensive consultation with the Park’s management team. Themain provisions of the management plan include a zoning system which incorporatesspiritual values and the prohibition of hunting and harvesting, excepting asmall quota to cover the needs of the monastic community. The main goals of themanagement plan relate to conserving the area’s spiritual, natural and culturalheritage; managing its natural resources in terms of tourism; and raising awarenessthrough educational schemes. It also assigns importance to the need to effectivelycoordinate the activities of the competent ecclesiastical and state organisationswith a view to preserving the unity that prevails between nature and the RilaMonastery, and to re-establishing the area as the epicentre of Bulgaria’s spiritualand cultural life.174

Inner court of Rila MonasteryAcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the Natural Park director, Mr Avramov, and his managementteam for the information they provided us with during our visit.Websitehttp://www.rilamonastery.pmg-blg.com175

176

The inclusion of a Tibetan Buddhistperspective in the management ofthe property of the Sakya Tashi LingMonastery in Garraf Park, Catalonia, SpainSakya Tashi Ling, El Garraf Park, Catalonia, SpainIsabel Soria GarcíaAcknowledgementsThe author would like to express hergratitude to Josep María Mallarach forhis guidance during the drafting stageof this paper and for reviewing it afterwards;to Jordi Sargatal, Miquel Rafaand Jordi Rofes from the Fundació Territorii Paisatge. Caixa Catalunya for providingthe opportunity to integrate Buddhistcultural and spiritual values into themanagement plan they have sponsored;to Lama Jamyang Tashi Dorje Rinpoché,Lama Dorje Dondrub and the monkJamyang Richen, management directorof the Monastery Trust, for proposingimprovements to the management planand for their invitations to the monastery;to the entire Sakya Tashi Ling communityfor their kind hospitality; to RamonEspinach and Xavier Roget of theBarcelona County Parks Service, and toSanti Llacuna, management director ofEl Garraf Park, for their willingness toparticipate in interviews and variousmeetings; to Jordi Romero of the consultingfirm X3 Estudis Ambientals forhis technical support and for the imageshe has provided; to the various stakeholdersinterviewed, in particular theHead Council of Olivella; and, finally, tothe Thubten Dhargye Ling BuddhistCentre, Madrid, for helping with the bibliographyand giving advice.IntroductionThe draft management plan for theSakya Tashi Ling Monastery property,< The Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery and the Garraf landscape, Catalonia, Spain177

Location of the Sakya Tashi Ling propertydrawn up within the framework of theDelos Initiative, went through variousstages before reaching its final form. Thispaper focuses on the process followedby the management plan and on the improvementsmade to it along the way.Sakya Tashi Ling is a Buddhist Monasteryfounded about a decade ago in themiddle of El Garraf Park near Barcelonain Catalonia, Spain. Improving the managementplan meant developing a newversion, one created from a perspectivein which spirituality and nature converged.This involved two different worldviews:the Western scientific conservationistvision and the traditional TibetanBuddhist view. The methodological approachadopted by this study mainly involvedconducting personal interviewswith the stakeholders of both the monasticcommunity and the natural park.The backgroundThe Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery propertypossesses significant natural, culturaland spiritual values. The monastic communityhad repeatedly expressed an interestin attaining a better and more efficientlevel of management of the naturalarea surrounding the monastery, andthis concern resulted in the creation of amanagement plan.At the first Delos Initiative workshop,which was held in Montserrat in 2006, amonk representing the Sakya Tashi Lingcommunity asked for guidance on howto incorporate the spiritual and cultural178

Aereal photo of the Sakya Tashi Ling propertyvalues of the Tibetan Buddhist traditioninto a management plan for the monasteryproperty. At the time, a draft managementplan had already been drawnup in cooperation with a local consultingfirm and sponsored by the FundacióTerritori i Paisatge . Subsequently, boththe consulting firm and the FundacióTerritori i Paisatge expressed their willingnessto contribute to efforts aimed atrealising the vision expressed by themonastery and its representative withinthe framework of the Delos Initiative. Theinitial management plan had focusedmainly on the physical and ecologicalaspects of the site. The Fundació Territori i Paisatge is a privatefoundation set up by the Caixa Catalunya SavingBank to support private or public organisationsinvolved in nature or landscape conservation.This initial plan followed the guidelinesestablished by the Fundació Territori iPaisatge, and was divided into the followingsections:• A description of the site: its natural,ecological, social and economic characteristicsplus its cultural and landscapeheritage;• An evaluation of the current situationand a definition of management goalsand objectives; and,• A definition of the projects and actionsto be adopted in order to achievethe goals and objectives laid down inthe separate working plans.However, the inclusion of the BuddhistTibetan worldview in any new managementplan would require the coordinated179

efforts of organisations concerned withnature conservation. Any attempt to synthesisethe actions of diverse organisationssuch as the Delos Initiative, theFundació Territori i Paisatge, Garraf Parkand the Sakya Tashi Ling Trust (PrevainTrust), would have to take into accountthe potentially differing views and perspectivesof these organisations.The frameworkThe monastery is located in the middleof El Garraf Park to the southwest of Barcelona.The park forms part of the greenbelt of protected natural areas in the BarcelonaMetropolitan Area, and is managedby the Barcelona County CouncilParks Service. The monastery property,which is 136 ha in area, is managed bythe monastic community according tothe guidelines set down in the SpecialProtection Plan for El Garraf Park (henceforthreferred to as the park managementplan) (Source: Consultant X3 EstudisAmbientals).The greater part of Garraf Park has a typicallydry, southern Mediterranean landscape.Its vegetation is garrigue, withtypical Mediterranean xerophytic florafound on limestone, and brolla, a varietyof scrub that grows on south-facingslopes. Both types of vegetation havedeveloped on top of a karstic morphology.Various forms of human activity overthe last three millennia have contributedto significant changes to the landscape.Today, a suburban residential area is be- According to Catalan legislation, this is the mostcommon type of management plan for naturalprotected areas in Catalonia, and includes azoning, regulation and action plan.ing built near the monastery. The bid tohalt the ‘Plana Novella’ project has provenunsuccessful, as the plan had beenapproved prior to the establishment ofthe park (see map in p. 179).One of the main reasons underlying themonastic community’s decision to selectthis area was that, with its almost completelack of tree cover, it was the onlyplace near Barcelona that bore a similarityto the Tibetan landscape. All the othercoastal sierras in the area were forested.The Buddhist monastery is currently oneof the park’s top tourist attractions, andwelcomes about 40,000 visitors annually.Most, attracted by the activities andcourses offered by the monastic community,are interested in taking part in culturaland spiritual tourism. Visitors alsocome to see the Palau Novella, a buildingof cultural importance in which mostmembers of the community actually live.The edifice, a typical Catalonian palacethat is both modernist and eclectic, wasconstructed during the 1890s and wassurrounded by a wall. It is now home to amuseum of Tibetan sacred art.The Sakya Tashi Ling community is madeup of seventeen permanent memberswho live at the monastery. They are nunsand monks who have devoted their livesto a common life, the aim of which is towork for other people’s well-being andfuture life, in accordance with the teachingsand beliefs of the Sakya School.It is worth noting that the monastic communityenjoys a distinctive relationshipwith the nature that surrounds it. The TibetanBuddhist teachings and worldviewpromote positive attitudes and activities180

towards nature conservation which differvery much from the prevalent views ofmainstream society in western Europe.As a general principle, the monastic communityrespects the rights of all beingsliving in the natural world. Consequently,a number of their proposals, such as onecalling for a stop to all forms of hunting(an activity that is allowed in the park atpresent), are not understood by parkmanagers or neighbours; in a few cases,their proposals are even viewed as athreat. It appears that the lack of awarenesson the part of the park managers regardingthese spiritual and cultural values,coupled with misinterpritation concerningthe relationship that the monksand nuns have with the natural world, oftenlead to such misunderstandings. It istherefore not surprising that the monasteryand some of its visitors have at timesbeen considered part of a problem ratherthan elements that could generate newand complementary values that wouldhelp lead to nature conservation.Goals and objectivesThe main goal underlying the efforts toproduce a new management plan was tocreate a plan that would be fully consistentwith the spiritual values of the SakyaTashi Ling community and the worldviewthat governs its relationship with nature.This perspective would be consistentwith the principles guiding western scienceas well, and as a result would bedeemed appropriate by the sponsorsand the park managers.This general goal would be achievedthrough the attainment of a number ofspecific objectives:- To understand the links between themonastic community and nature;- To draft a management plan basedon Tibetan Buddhist principles, supportedby western science;- To include new activities or projectsnecessary for the furthering of thecommunity’s aims;Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery and the main stupa surrounded by prayer mills181

Place of Naga´s offerings within the Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery- To produce a document useful formediation purposes among differentstakeholders;- To discuss the plan with all stakeholdersuntil a consensus is reached.MethodologyOne of the best ways to understand theunderlying values of the relationship betweenthe monastic community and natureis to become involved in the daily lifeof the community and share its everydayconcerns. Thus, after several preliminaryinterviews and drafts, it was deemedtime for a field trip. In the course of aone-week stay, a number of people wereinterviewed, including the leaders andmembers of the monastic communitywho had been given specific responsibilities.Various Buddhist texts were alsoexamined over the same period. In addition,the opportunity arose to further appreciatethe rationale behind the TibetanBuddhists’ relationship with the naturalworld. Two questionnaires were used atthis stage: one developed by the DelosInitiative for case studies that helpedevaluate the physical site, and a secondthat analysed spiritual values by focusingon people’s in-depth experienceswith(in) nature. This second questionnairewas prepared by the author whileconducting a case study of Holy Islandin Scotland, where another Tibetan Buddhistcommunity has settled (Soria 2007;see Appendix I).The openness of the members of thecommunity allowed for numerous conversationsto take place on some of thedaily environment-related habits of thecommunity. In addition, it offered the opportunityfor advice to be given on waysin which the development of the areacould become even more sustainable.One of the proposals included in themanagement plan is based on the useof the three R’s: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.Furthermore, it is recommendedthat several practices associated withwater use be changed, and that a sus-182

tainable approach be adopted concerningfood, energy, transport and waste(such as using local products, avoidingproducts without recyclable packagingand so forth). It is important to emphasisethat all of these recommendationshave been derived from and / or linkedto Tibetan Buddhist doctrines, such asthe principle of ‘Chi-Sen’ —the universalresponsibility or mindfulness, as this hasbeen explained by the Dalai Lama. Themembers of the community were very receptiveto all of these recommendations,and began to implement them shortlyafterwards.Once the spiritual values of the monasticcommunity had been sufficiently understoodby the author, other key stakeholderswere interviewed. These included thedirector of management at the park, variousneighbouring stakeholders withinthe park area (such as the mayor of theMunicipality of Olivella and the presidentof a neighbourhood association involvedin a dispute with the monastery) and anumber of visitors. Further data analysisrevealed the interdependent and interactiverelationships between the monasticcommunity and other local stakeholders.Relations between the parties involvedwere observed as ranging from goodand frank to indifferent and even conflictive.Whatever the case, all distinct views,ideas and concerns should ideally be fullyunderstood before being incorporatedand integrated into any improved versionof a management plan.After obtaining the necessary informationin situ, the author began working onthe management plan. At the outset, itwas believed that this process would belimited to a few modifications to the initialmanagement plan required to introducerelevant Buddhist values into the plan.However, when the author began draftingthe new chapter on the Buddhistworldview and started to examine thepossible implications of these values, itbecame evident that the whole plan wasin need of restructuring. Since the generalpurpose of the initial plan had beendefined according to other terms (seeTable in p. 184), it seemed logical that avariety of other, different managementobjectives would arise as a result, and itwas deemed necessary to broaden theplan to include new projects andactivities.As soon as a new draft of an integratedmanagement plan had been completed,it was presented to the main stakeholdersfor review and evaluation. It washoped that this new, extended planwould help build consensus between themain stakeholders and the monastery.ResultsThe initial management plan, like othersof its kind, had been based on ecologicalvalues and the constraints of theproperty, as well as on the park regulationsin force at the time. The improvedversion now included and incorporatedVajrayana cultural and spiritual valueslinked to nature conservation.The new, revised plan begins with a detaileddescription of the monastic communitybefore moving on to an expositionof the principles of Vajrayana Buddhismand an introduction to the tradi-183

tional Tibetan Sciences. This is succeededby an account of how these principlesare —or will be— applied to the managementof the monastic property, and aninterpretation of the relationship betweennature and the monastic community. Itcloses with an examination of principlesand guidelines derived from previousversions of the management plan.In keeping with the aforementionedpoints, the primary aim of the new andrevised management plan focuses on‘implementing and enhancing the religiousvalue of the site in order to have aspace to develop inner improvement anddisseminate the practice and teachingsneeded to achieve enlightenment’. Thisimplies that several modifications (seeTable in p. 186) will have to be made tothe monastery property to improve andfurther develop the spiritual practices ofthe monastic community. In Buddhism,nature conservation is completely integratedinto spiritual improvement: “TheBuddhist literature mentions the sanctityof the environment as inspiring and blessingthe practitioner, and in turn the practitioner’sspiritual realisation blessing theenvironment” (Dalai Lama 2004). Thus,the key principle of involving nature conservationin the inner improvement of themonastic community forms the foundationof the new management plan, whichfully addresses the main concerns of thecommunity in its key objectives, which includethe protection and improvement ofnatural values, the development of publicuse of the site in a respectful manner,Differences between the initial and final management plans184

and the recovery of certain traditionalland uses and activities. This last measurewill also provide a habitat for someendangered species like Bonelli’s Eagle(Hieraaetus fasciatus) and Hermann’sTortoise (Testudo hermanni).The table summarises the key aspectsof both the initial and final managementplans. It shows the improvementsoffered by the new integrated version.As is most likely evident from the table,a different set of guiding values has nowbeen drawn up. This includes both initialvalues and some new, complementaryones related to the Tibetan Buddhistworldview such as the ‘development ofmeditation in nature for spiritual improvement’.Specific management goals, underdistinct management schemes,have been set and will be implementedwith a view to promoting this new set ofguiding values.On 28 March 2007, a revised draft ofthe new management plan was presentedto the monastic community. Itwas discussed with the Abbot of themonastery, the heads of the FundacióTerritori i Paisatge and the consultancy,who all agreed with the manner in whichspiritual values were included and presentedin the new management plan.The participants expressed their satisfactionwith the new approach and endorsedit fully.The same document was presented tothe Barcelona County Parks Service, theagency responsible for Garraf Park. Themain aim was to build consensus andfind common ground between spiritualand conservation values in order to improvecooperative efforts targeted atconservation. Both the head of the ParkService and the management director ofEl Garraf Park exhibited a very open attitude,agreeing to review the managementplan and showing a willingness tofind common ground.After these meetings, the draft plan wasgiven to both the Fundació Territori iPaisatge and the Barcelona CountyParks Service for revision. A few weekslater, the Parks Service offered somesuggestions that took into account theconsequences of the actions proposedin the revised plan on the overall aims ofGarraf Park.ConclusionThe new integrated management planfor the property of the Sakya Tashi LingMonastery defines a set of conservationmanagement objectives that could befully supported and endorsed by boththe Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery and themanagers of Garraf Park.The table in p. 186 summarises the compatibilityand consistency of the key aspectsintroduced by the new managementplan.It appears that the attempt to improvethe management plan within the frameworkof the Delos Initiative has resultedin the successful integration of the requirementsand the spiritual and culturalvalues of the Buddhist community intothe Park’s nature conservation strategy.At the same time, cooperation betweenthe managers of the park and the monasticcommunity have also improved.185

GARRAFNATURAL PARKSAKYA TASHI LINGMONASTERYCONSISTENCYGENERALPURPOSEPREMISESMANAGEMENT OBJECTIVESEstablishment ofa regime designedto protect,conserve and improvethe Park’sphysical and ruralenvironment.Natural resourcesand artificial elements,generatedby human interventiondown theages have to beconsidered astwo parts of acomplex interrelationshipbetweenMan andthe NaturalEnvironment.Planning the useof resources; thedevelopment ofactivities involvingthe localcommunityDevelopment of the area’sspiritual value as a placefor inner improvement andthe diffusion of teachingsand spiritual practices.The main driving force—the spiritual values of thecommunities— must beconsidered; the spiritualvalues of the religiouscommunity must be acceptedin order to set naturemanagement guidelines;guidelines must beadapted to the requirementsfor the protection ofall living beings in the area.- The physical environment:The improvementof habitats and the locallandscape- Public use: The improvementand planning of visitorflows to and from themonastery and the impactof visitors, neighbours andnature- The recovery of some traditionalmanagement activities(e.g. beekeeping)- The spiritual aspect: Theimprovement of positiveenergy using various rituals,practices, sacred artetc.Buddhist religious values includethe sacred value of nature,resulting in respectful attitudestowards nature.Both the monastery and parkconsider the relationship betweenMan and Nature to beessential for nature conservation.For the monastery, this relationshipis not limited to thephysical environment— it alsoencompasses the sacred dimensionin which spiritual valuesplay the main role.- The management objectivesof the park can promote thedevelopment of local activitiessuch as agriculture and stockraising in addition to the publicuse of the park, as long asthese are compatible with natureconservation. The monasterymanagement plan hasbeen developed based on thispremise. The special relationshipbetween the communityand nature promotes conservationvalues.- The management objectivesof the monastery stem from theBuddhist principles and valuesthat guide daily life in the community.These principles supportland use zoning on theproperty. Different land usesare adopted according to themain objectives of protectingand restoring the natural andcultural values of the park.Compatibility and consistency of key aspects of the new Management Plan186

ReferencesDalai Lama (2004), “A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective on Spirit in Nature” in B. McDonald,(2004), Seeing God Everywhere: Essays on Nature and Conservation, World WisdomInc., Indiana.Soria, I. (2007), “Holy Island of Arran, Scotland, United Kingdom” pp. 219-236, in J. M.Mallarach & T. Papayannis (eds.), Protected Areas and Spirituality. Proceedings of theFirst Workshop of The Delos Initiative – Montserrat 2006, PAM – IUCN.Selected bibliographyDalai Lama (1997), El sentido de la vida desde la perspectiva budista, Colección Ecos,Barcelona.Dalai Lama (2006), El universo en un solo átomo, cómo la unión entre ciencia y espiritualidadpuede salvar el mundo, Random House Mondadari, Barcelona.Kalu Rinpoche (2005), Fundamentos del Budismo Tibetano, Editorial Koirós, Barcelona.Milton, K. (2002), Loving Nature: Towards an Ecology of Emotion, Routledge, Londonand New York.Palis, M. (1960), The Way and the Mountain, Peter Owen, London.Palmer, M. & Finlay V. (2003), Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religionsand Environment, The World Bank.Taylor, B.R. (2005), The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature, Thoemmes Continuum,Bristol.Velasco, J.M. (2006), Introducción a la fenomenología de la religión, Editorial Trotta,Madrid.AppendixQuestionnaire 1: Delos Initiative Initial Pilot Site Questionnaire1. Natural Values1.1 What are the main elements of the natural heritage of the particular site?1.2 Does the site enjoy institutional protection in view of its natural heritage values?1.3 Who is responsible for managing and conserving the site?1.4 What are the main activities related to its natural heritage values?1.5 Are the local population and visitors to the protected area aware of and concernedabout its natural values?187

2. Spiritual and Cultural Values2.1 What are the main spiritual and cultural values of the site?2.2 Do these values relate to specific natural or anthropogenic elements. If yes,which elements?2.3 Are the identified spiritual values related to a specific mainstream faith?2.4 Are these spiritual values more pertinent to specific social groups? Are theyrecognised / understood by the public at large?2.5 What body is responsible for conserving and enhancing the cultural and spiritualheritage in the area?2.6 What are the main activities related to the spiritual and cultural values?2.7 Is the population living in or visiting the protected area aware of and concernedabout its spiritual and cultural values?3. Development Pressures3.1 What are the major economic activities in the area at present?3.2 What human activities indicate a high degree of dynamism and expansion?3.3 How do the current and activities and those under development impact on thenatural environment?3.4 How do the same activities impact on the spiritual and cultural aspects of the site?3.5 Are there conflicts between conserving the natural heritage and protecting spiritualand cultural values?3.6 Does land use planning exist for the area. If yes, is it effectively enforced?4. Conservation Perspectives and Sustainability4.1. What are the trends in the conservation of the natural heritage of the site?4.2. What are the trends in the protection of the cultural and spiritual heritage?4.3. Could spiritual values contribute to the conservation of the natural environment? How?4.4 Could nature conservation legislation and management practices help safeguardthe spiritual values of the site? How?4.5. Is there cooperative action between the conservation of the natural heritage andthe protection of spiritual and cultural values? Who are the main champions ofeach cause, and who would champion a more integrated approach?4.6. How could a well-preserved natural and cultural / spiritual wealth contribute to abalanced socio-economic development of the area?5. Recommendations5.1 What gaps are there in our knowledge of the natural, spiritual and cultural heritageof the site, and how could these be filled?5.2 How could a synergy be created among those responsible for nature conservationand management, on the one hand, and those involved with spiritual and188

cultural heritage protection, on the other? How could such a collaborative effortbe enlarged to include those responsible for guiding the socio-economic developmentof the area, as well?5.3 Which legislative, planning, management and implementation tools could beused to facilitate an integrated approach to the conservation of both natural andcultural / spiritual heritage?5.4 How could an integrated view of the site — one combining both spiritual / culturalaspects and natural heritage values as well as perspectives regarding sustainabledevelopment — be created with local communities, decision-makers,visitors and the general public at large?Questionnaire 2: In-depth Interview1. Are you a person who often feels close to nature?2. Does this extend to a feeling that you belong to nature?3. Are there places to which you feel a special sense of belonging?4. Have you ever experienced a sense of belonging or connection to nature that youmight describe as ‘sacred’?5. Would you agree that a sense of belonging can be informed or inspired by a senseof sacredness?6. Why do you think hermits and recluses often retreat to nature for inspiration?7. Do you see Sakya Tashi Ling as a place where nature and the spiritual converge? Inwhat way does this occur?8. Do you think there is a relationship between nature and the spiritual? If so, does ithave implications on how nature conservation is understood and managed?Garraf landscape189

190

Towards ecological managementReflections on the managementof monastic lands and facilitiesJosep-Maria Mallarach and Thymio PapayannisMonastic landsand protected areasIn recent years, there has been a noticeabletrend towards the secularisation ofland in many parts of the world. In spiteof this tendency, monastic communitiescontinue to own and manage large tractsof land, many of which contain importanthabitats and species. This is commonlythe case in countries with Catholic or OrthodoxChristian traditions, as well as inthose where Buddhism is a major religion.Land management by monasticcommunities is less frequent in the caseof Hinduism, Islam or Jainism.A section of this land —which in most caseshad been bequeathed by pious rulersor wealthy landowners to monastic communities—was traditionally set aside tofulfil the monasteries’ everyday needs. Itincluded areas reserved for habitation,cultivation and the supply of timber, waterand other necessities. The rest of theland, which often covered a considerablearea, was left untouched and, inmany cases, remains in a state vergingon natural. Much of this land has sinceevolved into nature protection areas.In most European countries, monasticland has been expropriated at somepoint by the state for social and / or politicalreasons. An example of this wasthe mass confiscation of land belongingto religious institutions after the introductionof Socialism into many countries incentral and Eastern Europe. However,this changed with the demise of the SovietUnion in 1991, which was followed< Biological cleansing instalations, Holly Convent of Chrysopigi, Crete, Greece191

y a resurgence of religious worshipand a revival of monasticism in EasternEurope. At that point, efforts were madeto reclaim the land that had been lost,and in some instances these provedsuccessful. In another case, monasticlands in Greece were expropriated after1922 to house Greek immigrantsfrom Asia Minor; these, however, werenever returned.Regardless of what has happened tomonastic lands to date, they remain significantfor nature conservation for threemain reasons. Firstly, a large number ofprotected areas (usually IUCN categoryV) are to be found in Europe and Asia onformer or current monastic lands. Secondly,in many cases it was the monasticcommunities themselves that instigatedand promoted the safeguarding of manyareas that are now under protection. Inmany instances this occurred as a resultof concern about the deterioration of thenatural environment around their monasteries.Thirdly, many new monasterieshave been built on existing protected areas,usually natural parks —this is thecase in several natural regional parks inFrance, for example. A number of caseswere presented at the Delos workshopsat Montserrat and Ouranoupolis in 2006and 2007 respectively, which touchedupon noteworthy examples of these differentscenarios.Prerequisites for soundmanagementThe beliefs and practices of most monasticcommunities help prepare themfor, and guide them in, the sensitive andwise management of their lands and facilities.As a result, they often develop,implement and maintain practices favourableto nature conservation. Arguablythe most important of these is theprofound respect for tradition that characterisesmonasticism. This is relatedto a unique sense of time, which ensurescontinuity and stability since thepast is not lost and the future is to begained; this view makes change acceptable—but at a manageable rate.Specifically, monastic communities followtime-tested rules of living that ensuresustainability by cultivating a long-termvision. Christian monasticism, for example,is based on principles and rules laiddown by saints Basil and Benedict 16and 14 centuries ago respectively. In thecase of Buddhism, the seeds are to befound even further back, despite TibetanBuddhism being only six centuries old.One of the key principles involved is asceticism,which implies the use of naturalresources to cover only essentialneeds. It is often associated with theabsence of private property and, as aconsequence, is linked to poverty, thusencouraging the personal traits of sobrietyand temperance. In a number ofmonastic orders —particularly in OrthodoxChristianity— asceticism is reinforcedby the pursuit of self-sufficiency,which encourages the development ofskills for the frugal management of locally-availableresources. Consequently,in many countries of Europe, monasticcommunities have a long-establishedtradition of using natural resourcesprudently and of developing technologiesbased on renewable energy.192

One such example would be the Camaldolimonks of Foreste Casentinesi(a national park in central Italy), whodeveloped efficient, sustainable practicesfor the forests of the ApennineMountains, and in so doing laid thegroundwork for modern forestry regulationsin Italy (Hughes 2009).Monastic communities are usually vegetarian,although fish may be consumedon major feast days. In Catholic monasteries,meat is permitted for the weakand sick. Another benefit of a vegetarianfood regime is that it is generally acceptedthat it significantly reduces one’s environmentalfootprint.Most monastic communities take part insuch practices, and in doing so contributeto the sound stewardship of monasticlands. The majority of monasteriesare governed according to a judiciousand balanced decision-making systemrooted in ancient traditions. This systemusually applies the precautionary principle(the cardinal Christian virtue of prudentia),and procedures move slowly,thus avoiding haste and undesirable developments.A high level of disciplinecomplements this diligence in decisionmaking,and the entire undertaking isseen as an attempt to approach freedomthrough obedience. As a result,once a decision is taken, all members ofthe monastic community implement itwithout hesitation.A further principle shared by most monasticcommunities is hospitality toguests. By allowing personal contactwith pilgrims and visitors, this providesan opportunity to raise guests’ awarenessof environmental issues and to disseminatesound nature protection practices,mainly by example through thepractices and lifestyle adopted by monasticcommunities.In addition, many monastic communitiesinclude a number of hermits living in isolatedlocations outside the monasteries.Over the past two decades, hermitismhas experienced a revival in countries inWestern as well as Eastern Europe. InFrance, for example, which is considereda highly secularised country, therewere over 200 Catholic hermits and threeschools to prepare individuals for thiskind of lifestyle in 2001 (Muizon 2001).The hermit is the quintessential exampleof a deeply religious individual who livesand prays in solitude with minimal resourcesand in profound harmony withnature. St Francis of Assisi and St Seraphimof Sarov are well-known examplesof people who loved nature in general,and large mammals in particular.Monastic lands as protectedareasAs a consequence of this positive approachand its results, many of the Christianmonastic lands could be classified,along general lines, as protected landscapesfalling within IUCN category V(Mallarach 2008). Hermitic domains, onwhich most extractive and other land usesare not permitted, could be characterisedas nature reserves in most instances,as stipulated by IUCN category III.According to both the CBD and IUCNdefinitions of a protected area (Dudley2008), as long as the land is managed in193

Refectory in Megalo Meteoro Monastery, Meteora, Greeceadherence with the principles that applyto such protected areas (as laid downfor each category), it should be recognisedas protected land, even if the protectionstatus has not been formallyestablished.In contrast, in countries where monasticismhas been constrained or abolishedfor a period of time —as in the Protestantcountries of Europe , in France and inSpain— the impact on nature conservationhas been extremely negative. Forexample, there are cases of exceptionalforests managed wisely for centuries bymonastic communities being levelledwithin a few years of being transferred toprivate owners (as the case of the forestof Poblet illustrates [Altisent 1974]).In the USA, the Amish (Protestant Mennonite)communities established in Pen- For example, the Dissolution of the Monasteriesin England and Wales between 1536 and 1540by Henry VIII, and in Austria in 1782 by Joseph II,the son of Maria Theresa (Johnston 2000; Cannon2004).nsylvania, Ohio and Indiana present asomewhat different picture. These communitieshave systematically and prudentlyapplied the precautionary principleto new technologies and renewableenergy. What has emerged is a distinctive,rural society, which is both sociallyand economically resilient and veryclose to nature. Although they considerthemselves ‘plain people’, they use efficienttechnologies most of the worldwould consider advanced. The Amishcommunities have succeeded in conservinglarge areas of beautiful and diverselandscapes in the heart of theAmerican Corn Belt without receivinggovernmental subsidies or adoptingcomplicated strategies (Légeret 2000).Amish communities have even hostedUS national solar conferences in recentyears.In countries where Buddhist monasticcommunities have traditionally beensupported through alms provided bymembers of their local society, monastic194

Vineyards at Solan Monastery, Francelands tend to include high-quality livingquarters, which are usually very well maintained.Tibet and the area of Ladak areconsidered very fine examples of this.Bhutan, a country which has kept the TibetanBuddhist tradition alive, has oneof the best-planned protected area systemsin Asia.South Korea stands out among thecountries that have decided to createprotected areas in recent times. The nationalpark system in that country wasmostly established on monastic lands inagreement with monastic authorities (Kyun-KooHan, oral communication, 2007).Jirison National Park, the first such parkin the country, is considered to includethe birthplace of Korean Buddhism. Today,the park entrance fees go to themonastic communities involved.Many of the new Buddhist monasteriesestablished over the past forty years inEurope and North America also aim toserve as examples of sound environmentalpolicy (Semkyre 2008). A goodcase is that of the Zen Buddhist monasteryof Plum Village, where walking meditationin nature is taught.It should thus not come as a surprisethat several contemporary thinkers maintainthat monastic communities —throughtheir enduring principles and practices—can provide us with important lessons inhow to deal with the global environmentaland sustainability crisis, and that asceticismcould become one of the coreconcepts of the new ecology (Canon2004, Dubos 1974).Existing contradictionsAny objective assessment must, however,also take negative realities into account.One cannot fail to recognise thatnot all the land managed by monasticcommunities is in a sound state with effectiveprotection in place for its natural,cultural and spiritual heritage. The reasonsthis is so vary with the context, butit could be argued that the major prob-195

lems faced in such cases have comeabout as a result of adopting modernityin its various aspects without criticallyexamining it first. Thus, deciding to employmodern technologies, productionmethods or facilities may not always besuitable for the specific environmentalor landscape context or conditions, andmay lead, for example, to the abandonmentof traditional handcrafting practicesand their replacement by highlymechanised systems which often havea negative impact on the environment.Machines powered by fossil fuels, suchas automobiles, are perhaps the mostcharacteristic examples.These newly-introduced practices areoften encouraged by the temptation togenerate revenue quickly through theadoption of unsustainable managementpractices with regard to naturalresources (felling trees for timber, forexample) or through the sale of real estate.The temptation is stronger in countrieswhere religious organisations arerecovering after years of oppressionand funds are required for the restorationor construction of religious facilities.Such examples have been notedin Eastern Europe, and particularly inRomania .For similar reasons, a misinterpretationof the monastic duty of hospitality hassometimes opened the gate to an excessiveflow of visitors. In extreme cases,this can degrade the natural environment,debase the cultural heritage and “The churches have already begun to take stepsto use their new freedom to revitalise their communitiesand transform their nation in the light oftheir own particular perspectives” (Poppe 1991).even erode the spirituality of monasticestablishments, compromising the qualityof the visit for pilgrims and other visitorsas a result. Examples would includethe Monastery of Montserrat in Catalonia,Spain, where traffic jams mar majorfeast days, and the Meteora monasteriesin central Greece, which are crowdedwith hundreds of buses and thousandsof visitors at peak times.On another level, as monks are individualsdrawn from contemporary —and oftenurban— society, they may be temptedto yield to pressures exerted by thematerialistic society surrounding them.Some may even go so far as to adoptbehaviour patterns based on unnecessaryconsumption and unsound wastedisposal which have clear negative implicationsfor the environment.A careful look at these imprudent tendenciesreveals two major contemporaryweaknesses that may be responsiblefor this situation. The first is weakspiritual guidance within the monasticcommunity, which permits deviationfrom firm monastic principles. AbbotElissaios of the Simonopetra Monasteryon Mount Athos once remarked that amonastery is not a museum, but a contemporaryinstitution, which knows verywell what it needs from the modernworld and can adapt it to its spiritualneeds (Papayannis and Elissaios 1992).The second shortcoming is ignorance,which does not allow some monasticcommunities to fully understand thenegative environmental and social impactof their actions. An example of thiswould be the use of fossil fuels or nonrenewableresources and materials. The196

Delos Initiative and similar efforts canprovide help in this area.Contemporary challengesand responsesIt is clear that the custodians of sacrednatural areas and conservation leadersmust encourage and adopt a more seriousapproach to educating monasticcommunities in relation to the environment.Such an effort would have to takeinto account every aspect of environmentalmanagement, including monasteryfacilities and sustainable productionpractices like organic farming, the raisingof livestock, timber certification andfishing.On the positive side, there are a numberof monastic communities that have set afine example through the sound practicesthey have adopted from the outset.These include the Orthodox Monasteryof Solan in southern France, which specialisesin high-quality organic productslike wine and organises activities to promoteorganic farming methods; the OrthodoxMonastery of Chrysopigi onCrete; and the Catholic monastery ofRieunette, which is also in southernFrance. All three are also good examplesof monastic communities that show concernfor the environment.Many monasteries have responded tocontemporary challenges by increasingtheir production of high-quality, organicfood products (including beverages,cheese, jam and other goods) and traditionalhandicrafts. These products are increasinglybeing marketed under distinctmonastic labels, as in the case of itemsproduced by French and Romanianmonasteries. The excellence of monasticproducts has been widely acknowledgedin Europe; indeed, in Belgium, for instance,most beer and alcoholic beverageproducers market monastic brandsunder the name of abbeys that do noteven exist.Any environmental education in monasticcommunities should also be aimed atthe pilgrims and visitors to these areas.Vineyards near Iviron Monastery, Holy Mountain197

Ideally, it should teach them to respectnature and become prudent guardiansof the environment, employing spiritualcriteria and values related to deeply-heldbeliefs that give life its ultimate purpose.Such teaching by the monks themselveswould not only strengthen their own beliefs,but also promote the notion thatmonastic lands are not a ‘resource’ to beexploited, however carefully, but rather amanifestation of God —a gift to bepassed on in its entirety to future generationsof monks and the faithful. The activitiesorganised by the Monastery of Camaldoliin Italy provide a fine example ofthe influence that a committed monasticcommunity can have in this field (Hughes2009).It is very interesting to note that the thirdCatholic and Buddhist interreligious / intermonasticencounter held at the CistercianAbbey of Our Lady of Gethsemaniin Kentucky (where Father Thomas Mertonlived for many years) in 2008 wasdedicated to the environment. We canthus conclude that a large number ofmonasteries, especially ones located inprotected areas, could follow this path,and that in doing so they could foster awide-ranging, interreligious monastic dialogueon the ecological managementof monastic lands and facilities focusedon common principles, mutual supportand the dissemination of best practicesand know-how.It could be argued that a common aimfor monastic communities and visitorsalike should be to maintain —or restore,when necessary— the harmonious relationshipbetween monastic facilities,buildings and productive activities on theone hand, and the environment on theother. This would involve paying carefulattention to the integrity and beauty ofthe surrounding landscape, as well as tothe invisible impact of actions on the localenvironment.Thus, in order to become —or remain—respected role models in the sphere ofnature conservation in addition to carryingout their religious function, monasticcommunities need to strive to act in amanner which is fully consistent with theirbeliefs vis-à-vis nature and creation. Thisis even more challenging —and pressing—in the midst of a global environmentalcrisis exacerbated by contradictionson many levels. Such action shouldinclude not only sound land management,but also interaction between themonasteries and the natural world in areasranging from water to energy andfrom species protection to waste reductionand treatment. The fact that some ofthe most environmentally-aware monasteriesin Europe also number among theworld’s fastest-growing monastic communitiescan definitely be seen as an encouragingsign for the future.198

ReferencesAltisent, A. (1974), Història de Poblet, Publicacions Monàstiques, Abadia de Poblet.Archimandrite Alexander (1996), Ecology and Monasticism, Alexander Press, Montreal.Cannon, J. (2004), A Dictionary of British History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Johnston, W.M. (2000), Encyclopaedia of Monasticism, Taylor & Francis, Chicago & London.Dubos, R. (1974), Les dieux de l’écologie, Éditions Fayard, Paris.Hughes, P. Father and Pungetti, G. (2009), “Ecological and spiritual values of landscape: areciprocal heritage and study”, in G. Pungetti, G. Oviedo and D. Hooke (eds.) Sacred Speciesand Sites, Lessons in Biocultural Conservation, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008), Guidelines for the Categorization of Protected Areas, IUCN,Gland & Cambridge.Légerat, J. (2000), L’énigme Amish. Vivre au XXIème siècle comme au XVIème, LaborEt Fides, Geneva.Mallarach, J.-M. “Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values: An Overview,”in J.-M. Mallarach (ed.) (2008), Protected Landscapes and Cultural and SpiritualValues, IUCN, GTZ and Obra Social Caixa Catalunya.Marech, R. (2007), “Amish in Southern Md. Find Solar Power Plain Practical,” BaltimoreSun, May 18.Muizon, F. de (2001), Dans le sécret des ermites d’aujourd’hui, Ed. Nouvelle cité.Papayannis, T., and Elissaios, Archimandrite (1992), Maintaining Byzantine Traditionson Mount Athos (in Greek), Goulandris-Horn Foundation, Athens, GreecePope, E.A. (1991), “The Role of Religion in the Romanian Revolution,” InternationalConference on The Role of Religion in Newly Pluralistic Societies in Eastern Europe, Budapest,May 22-26, 1991.Semkyre, T. (2008), “Good Practices of Buddhist Monastic Communities in NorthAmerica,” Third Interreligious / Intermonastic Conference, Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani,May 27-31, 2008.WebsitesInterreligious Monastic Dialogue on the Environment (2008), http://monasticdialog.com/conference.php?id=117McDermott, M. (2008), Renewable Energy Begun to be Embraced by India’s Hindu Temples,Science & Technology (alternative energy), 07 September 2008, http://www.treehugger.com“National Parks of South Korea”, New World Encyclopaedia,http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/National_parks_of_South_Korea 08 April 2009.Plum Village Zen Monastery, http://www.plumvillage.org199

200

Part ThreeAchieving synergy betweenspiritual and conservationconcerns201

202

IUCN-UNESCO Guidelinesfor protected area managerson Sacred Natural Sites:rationale, process and consultationRobert WildAbstractThe IUCN Specialist Group on Culturaland Spiritual Values of Protected Areasworks under the auspices of the IUCNWorld Commission for Protected Areas(WPCA). Over recent years, it has beenpromoting the conservation and managementof sacred natural sites and collaboratingwith the Man and the BiosphereProgramme of UNESCO to developguidelines for protected area management,i.e. for managers and their agencies.The guidelines emerged out of anumber of meetings starting in 1998 whichwere organised by UNESCO and IUCN,often in collaboration. These meetingswere held in India, Mexico, China, SouthAfrica, Japan, the UK and now Greece(2007). Over a similar time period, relatedwork has also been carried out on sacrednatural sites by other organisations suchas the World Wide Fund for Nature andthe Alliance for Religion and Conservation.Also of relevance to sacred natural sites isthe large body of work on common propertyresource management and the collaborativemanagement of protected areas;the recent recognition of Indigenousand Community Conserved Areas as a legitimateform or protected area governanceis very much a reflection of the lessonslearnt from both.The drafting process of the guidelinesrelated to sacred natural sites started in2003, and by 2005 a preliminary set ofworking guidelines had been developed,made available on the internet and thenpublished by UNESCO (UNESCO 2003).< A mural by Fr. Boucher Chisale at the Ngoni Arts Centre,Mua Mission, Malawi, depicting an elder, Gule Wamkule characters and a grove203

During 2006-07, these guidelines weredeveloped further in preparation for theirpublication in 2008 as one of the volumesof the IUCN-WCPA ‘Protected AreaBest Practice Guideline Series’ (Wildand McLeod 2008). Draft versions werepresented for comment at meetings specificallyrelated to sacred natural sites inMongolia, the UK and Greece, as well asat the second Latin American Congresson National Parks and other ProtectedAreas held in Bariloche, Argentina in October2007. In addition to drawing onover 50 case studies relating to indigenousand mainstream faiths, the guidelineswere reviewed by indigenous parkmanagers and leaders as well as by individualsfrom the UN Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues.These guidelines, then, are one manifestationof a greater recognition of the historicaland contemporary conservationefforts of many communities across theglobe based on deep-rooted values thatstem from a deep appreciation of —andrelationship with— the natural world.Sacred natural sites:potential and threatsRecent research has shown that sacrednatural sites make a significant contributionto the conservation of both natureand culture (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998,Harmon and Putney 2003, Bhagwat andRutte 2006, Dudley et al. 2005, UNESCO2006, Mallarach and Papayannis 2007).At the same time, sacred sites face ongoingdegradation and loss (Malhotra etal. 2001 in Gokhale 2003), although thisis less well-documented. As such, theirdegradation implies a further loss of theirnatural and cultural heritage. Furthermore,the link between people and natureat sacred natural sites can be seriouslydamaged if the sites are degraded.Increasing efforts are being made to reducethe alarming loss of biodiversitythrough, for example, the CBD 2010 biodiversitytarget, which is now a recognisedtarget under Millennium DevelopmentGoal 7. At the same time, efforts toconserve aspects of human culture bothtangible (e.g. historic buildings, temples,cathedrals and mosques) and intangible(e.g. languages, customs, spiritual values,songs and dances) are being undertakenthrough, for example, the WorldHeritage Convention (1972) and the LivingHeritage Convention (2003). The recognitionof ‘cultural services’ along withprovisioning and regulating services inthe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) highlights the importance of natureto human cultures. The effective conservationof sacred natural sites providesa potential strategy for the conservationof both nature and culture; if these siteswere completely lost, it would representan incomparable tragedy for humankind.Models for a new Human-EarthrelationshipIt is now recognised by the scientificcommunity, and increasingly by somesectors within political leaderships, thatthe current pattern of development cannotbe sustained. For example, humanity’sfootprint is 21.9 ha/person, while theEarth’s biological capacity is, on average,only 15.7 ha/person: the ultimate re-204

sult can only be net environmental degradationand loss (UNEP 2007). For thefootprint of humanity to be brought backwithin the Earth’s productive capacity, anew Human-Earth relationship is urgentlyneeded (Brown and Garver 2009). Sacrednatural sites provide important insightsthat may enable society at large tounderstand how some human communitieshave lived in ways that have deeplyrespected nature. Often, these samecommunities have faced considerablechallenges in their efforts to continue tofollow these ways of life (see, for example,the paper on the San FranciscoPeaks pp. 47-60). These lessons from alternativecultural and developmentalmodels will assist in promoting a renewedand sustainable relationship betweenpeople and the planet.Until now, our global economic model presumesthat the human economy is the majorsystem and that human society and theenvironment are looked after if and when asociety (governed largely by economists)can seemingly afford it (image in p. 206).Expressed in extreme terms, our dominanteconomic view reduces animals, plants,places and people to different types ofcapital or units of production. In actual fact,however, the human economy is a subsetof human society which is itself a subset ofour environment and ecology. Brown andGarver (2009) share this view, which theypersuasively express as follows.“The current system operates on the assumptionthat the earth’s environment isa subset of the human economy, andthat the earth belongs to humans. If theseare the assumptions, it makes sense totransfer as much of the earth’s naturalcapital as possible into the engines ofthe industrial economy. These assumptions,though, are fantastically at oddswith scientific reality; human culture andits economic goals are, in pure scientificfact, a subset of the earth’s environmentand resources, and humanity is only oneof millions of species that depend onthem.” (Brown and Garver 2009).Many traditional societies around the worldrecognise this actual ‘natural order’ or rightrelationship between the human economyand natural systems, and can providemodels for a return to a right relationship.To take two examples from Mongolia andAustralia respectively which are includedas case studies in the guidelines (Wild andMcLeod 2008): in Mongolia, PresidentNambaryn Enkhbayar has shown nationalleadership by supporting the restitution andrenewal of many sacred sites and efforts torenew the Mongolians’ traditionally profoundrespect of nature. Regarding communityand the economy, he has written:“In Eastern societies, especially in societieswhere nomadic culture is still aliveand very much enriched by Buddhist culture,one can find very strong communityfeeling. It is interesting for us to approachthe question of a link between Buddhistphilosophy and economics from thispoint of view, because economics couldbe explained as a science which dealswith how human beings can live better incommunities.” Enkhbayar (2003).Mongolia is in the process of restitutingits large number of sacred natural sitesthat have been neglected, overexploitedand even abused for much of the lastcentury (UNESCO 2007). In the second205

example, the Yolngu people of NorthernAustralia have played a leadership role inthe recovery of Aboriginal land rights,and are increasingly reorienting managementto a traditional world view —whichmakes no distinction between spiritualvalues and the environment (Verschuurenet al. pp. 27-45)— through theDhimurru Indigenous Protected area.Since the concept of Indigenous ProtectedAreas was first championed in the early1990s, over 23 declared IndigenousProtected Areas have been established,covering close to 17 million ha or 23 perThe relationships between the ecological, social and economic system.206

cent of the National Reserve System(Australian Department of the Environmentand Water Resources 2007).Protected areasand communitiesSince the late 19 th century, many nationshave established legally protected areas.Currently, these cover over 12% ofthe global land area (Chape et al. 2005).With the widespread adoption of the ‘Yellowstonemodel’ of national park whichtypically excludes and even evicts indigenousand local communities, protectedarea agencies have largely overlookedor ignored the sacred natural sites establishedby these same communitieswhich existed, in many cases, for hundreds,if not thousands, of years prior tothe establishment of modern protectedareas. The world views held by dominantsocio-political entities have often discountedindigenous sacred values. Theseworld views include scientific, materialist,socialist and certain groupingswithin some mainstream faiths. As a resultof these dominant world views, protectedarea agencies within many sociopoliticaland national contexts across theglobe have not taken account of the sacrednatural sites of both indigenous peoplesand mainstream faiths. In the worstcases, protected area establishment hasbeen used as a tool for the repression ofminorities (West and Brechin 1991, Stevens1997). Restricting the access to anduse / management of these sites by theirtraditional custodians, has disconnectedcommunities from their history, cultureand landscape (San Francisco Peaks, thisvolume). The promotion of the internationaland national benefits of protected areasat the cost of local communities has led todeep conflicts between protected areaagencies and communities; conflictswhich have threatened the status —and,in some cases, even the existence— ofsome protected areas. The exclusion ofcattle from Lake Mburo National Park,Uganda, for example, led to this last relicof the ancestral pastoralist landscape becomingmeaningless to the pastoraliststhemselves (Infield et al. 2008). The AkageraNational Park in Rwanda was reducedin size by 70% following the 1994genocide to accommodate returning pastoralistsfrom a similar ethnic group tothose at Lake Mburo (Kanyambiwa 1998,Plumptre et al. 2001); this lack of meaningfor a cattle-free landscape is likely to havecontributed to a lack of support for AkageraNational Park itself.The last thirty years have, however, seena paradigm shift in the managementand establishment of protected areas,as well as a reconsideration of the conceptof protected landscapes (Phillips2003, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004,Brown et al. 2007, Mallarach 2008). Assuch, increasing attention has been paidto improving the livelihoods of communitiesassociated with protected areasand to involving them in the managementof these protected areas. Also, there-examination of the role of communitiesin protected areas has shown thatone of the main reasons these indigenouslocal communities have protectednature was to preserve the sacred values,which they recognised, of areas ofhigh biodiversity.207

Faith and natureThe greater acknowledgement of indigenousand local communities as potentialpartners in protected area management,coupled with a greater understanding ofthe significant biodiversity that sacrednatural sites often support, has led to are-evaluation of the contribution that sacredsites can make to the conservationof nature. The last ten years has seen anincreasing volume of literature and conservationwork focused largely on the sacrednatural sites established by indigenouspeople and local communities (Ramakrishnanet al. 1998, Harmon andPutney 2003, Bhagwat and Rutte 2006,UNESCO 2006). At the same time, sacrednatural sites are not the exclusive purviewof the faith traditions of indigenous and localcommunities. Nearly all the 11 mainstreamfaiths also have well-establishedsacred natural sites (Dudley et al. 2005,Mallarach and Papayannis 2007).Despite the existence of sacred naturalsites associated with mainstream faiths,the nature ethics of many of these faithshave been largely ignored or forgotten.During the 20 th century, the rise of Communismin Eastern Europe and Asia andsecularism in the West has fuelled a declinein the influence of mainstream faithsin many areas. In the Soviet Union, EasternEurope, Mongolia and China suppression—sometimes violent— has shatteredlong-established faiths, some withextensive sacred sites many of whichwere also damaged. Likewise, religion inthe largely secular West now exerts less As identified by the Alliance for Religion andConservation.of a hold over communities. Of late, therehas been a rediscovery of the nature ethicsof the mainstream faiths. A dialoguebetween representatives of the mainstreamfaiths and conservationists (primarilythe WWF and the Alliance of Religionand Conservation), which started in Assisiin 1986 has led to a renewed interest inthe environmental ethics contained withinall mainstream faiths, and led to declarationson nature and ecology by 11 mainstreamfaiths (Palmer and Finaly 2003).It should be noted that in some sacrednatural site situations the distinctions betweenindigenous, local and mainstreamspiritual traditions can be rather blurredas multiple groups share the same sacrednatural site, and there is often a layeringwith later spiritual traditions adoptingmany of the elements of earlier traditionsor existing alongside them and accommodatingthem in local practice (foran example from Sri Lanka, see Wickramsinghe2003, 2005).Culture, religion anddevelopmentAs a rule, development efforts sinceWorld War II have taken little considerationof culture or religion. The main presumptionhas been that Western-styledevelopment is superior to other developmentmodels, and that other culturesconstitute a block to development (Eade2002). While there has been increasingconsideration of cultural aspects of developmentin recent years, discussionsof spirituality have largely remained a developmenttaboo (Ver Beek 2002).208

There is a small but increasing awareness,however, that development anchoredin the culture and norms of individualsocieties is more likely to be sustainable(Verhelst and Tyndale 2002). At the sametime, the global impact of the unsustainableoveruse and consumption of resourcesengendered by materialist industrial societiesfollowing the Western developmentmodel can no longer be ignored. The currentimpact of human activity on the naturalworld indicates that many ecosystemsare being heavily over-used, and that somecomponents (e.g. global fisheries) arein the process of collapse (MillenniumEcosystem Assessment 2005). This hasled to the realisation of the need to comeup with a new development model.A new vision for protected areasand sacred natural sitesOne element of a new model might bethe greater integration of natural and culturalvalues in protected areas. The visionof sacred natural sites and legalprotected areas operating in concert iscloser to a reality than ever before. Harmonisationof the management of protectedareas and sacred natural sitescan be achieved by two main routes:• Sympathetic and supportive managementwithin protected areas: The adoptionof community supportive managementof sacred sites within government-protectedareas; and• Recognition and support outside protectedareas: The sympathetic recognitionand support of sacred sites lyingbeyond government-protected areaboundaries.Maintaining custodian autonomyAchieving this vision requires not onlythe free, prior, and informed consent ofcustodians, but also maintaining or enhancingthe autonomy of site custodians.At the international level, the recognitionof Indigenous and CommunityConserved Areas (ICCA) is a significantstep in this direction (Dudley 2008). AtMua Headman and Gule dancers at their sacred grove, Gule Wamkule, a UNESCO Masterpieceof Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity209

the national level, many protected areaauthorities have not fully embraced thenew protected area paradigm, and theirfailure to recognise community claimson sites within existing protected areasand their involvement in sacred naturalsites outside protected areas are likely toundermine custodian independence. Acareful situation analysis is therefore requiredbefore action is taken to harmoniseprotected areas with sacred naturalsites within them or nearby.Extent of the challengeNeither the total number of sacred naturalsites is known nor the number now withinthe 12% of land contained within legal protectedareas. It has been estimated, however,that there are between 150-200,000sacred groves in India alone (Gokhale2003, Chatterjee et al. 2004), while thereare an estimated 1,900 sacred groves inGhana and some 800 sacred natural sitesin Mongolia. Of course, several countrieswill have just one or two; if one acceptsthe lower figure for India and an estimatedaverage of 500 sacred natural sites for theremaining 191 countries on the UN list ofrecognised nations, this would give aspeculative global estimate in the regionof a quarter of a million sacred naturalsites —though this figure would, of course,require further research to validate. Whilemany of these sites are small, some arequite extensive. However, since manyhave already been incorporated into legalprotected areas, it is possible that theymay not contribute a substantial additionalarea of land under conservation management.Still, the importance of evensmall habitat patches for biodiversity conservationis now recognised, and long periodsof minimal disturbance means thatsacred natural sites outside protected areashave significant local biodiversity values,especially when they represent theremnants of more widespread vegetation.Sacred natural sites — guidelinesfor protected areas managersTurning to the guidelines themselves,which evolved 2003-2008. Over 50 casestudies on sacred natural sites havebeen presented at meetings organisedby UNESCO, the IUCN or collaboratinginstitutions. Specifically, these meetingshave been held in India (Ramakrishnanet al. 1998), China (UNESCO 2003),Mexico (Pumarejo and Berges 2005) Japan(UNESCO 2006), Spain (Mallarachand Papayannis, 2007), Mongolia(UNESCO 2007), Greece (Papayannisand Mallarach, this volume) and the UK.Other related work has also been referredto, particularly the important recentwork from the WWF and ARC relatingto protected areas including the report“Beyond Belief: Linking faiths andprotected areas to support biodiversityconservation” (Dudley et al. 2005) aswell as their earlier efforts relating to faithand nature (Edwards and Palmer 1997,Palmer and Finlay 2003).Also of relevance to sacred natural sitesis the large body of work on commonproperty resource management (Ostromet al. 2002) and the collaborative managementof protected areas (Borrini-Feyerabendet al. 2004), as well as the recentrecognition of Indigenous and Com-210

munity Conserved Areas - ICCA (Dudley2008) as a legitimate form of protectedarea governance which, as mentionedabove, is a reflection of the new lessonslearnt from both these spheres.The original focus of the IUCN-UNESCOguidelines was the sacred natural sites ofindigenous and local communities, andthis remains their primary scope. Someindigenous people have such a close relationshipwith their sacred natural sites thatthe deterioration or destruction of those sitesthreatens their very existence. In addition,sacred natural sites related to indigenousand local communities are, in general,more vulnerable and under greater threatthan sacred natural sites associated withmainstream faiths. During the draftingprocess, however, it was recognised thatmainstream faiths care for many sacrednatural sites and have teachings relatingto the relationship between humans andnature, and efforts were made to incorporatethe experiences of the mainstreamfaiths into the guidelines (to some extent),while retaining the focus on local communitiesand indigenous people.The Delos Initiative of the IUCN WCPASpecialist Group on Cultural and SpiritualValues of Protected Areas has engagedwith the task of analysing and understandingthe diversity of sacred naturalsites related to mainstream faiths towhich the majority of humankind are relatedin one way or another. It has madesignificant steps in this regard, particularlyin technologically-developed countries(see Mallarach and Papayannis2007 and Papayannis and Mallarach thisvolume for the Montserrat (2006) andOuranoupolis (2007) statements).The recommendations of Dudley et al.(2005) with regard to the IUCN-UNESCOworking guidelines (UNESCO 2007) clearlysuggested that:• The current guidelines are useful butremain general;• The guidelines should be based on a‘learning portfolio’ of protected areascontaining sacred sites.As published, the guidelines (Wild andMcLeod 2008) aimed to take these commentsinto account. It is envisaged thatthe experience of applying these guidelineswill be reviewed in a number ofyears, when the guidelines will be modifiedas required.Guidelines audienceThe guidelines are provided primarily toassist protected area managers, especiallythose concerned with sacred siteslocated within the boundaries of their legally-establishedprotected areas. Recognisingthe primacy of traditional custodiansin managing their sites, it would beinappropriate for IUCN or UNESCO toprovide management advice regardingsacred sites for which custodians havesuccessfully cared for many generations.It is anticipated that the guidelines willpromote cooperation between protectedarea managers and custodians of sacredsites with a view to the enhanced conservationof these special places. While managersof protected areas are the guidelines’main focus, it is hoped that they willbe of use to a wider group of stakeholders.The guidelines are thus aimed at:211

Rangers and co-workers of Dhimurru Indigenous PA, Australia and Director General of IUCN launchingthe IUCN Sacred Natural Sites Guidelines, during the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona• Managers of individual protected areaswith sacred natural sites locatedeither within them or nearby;• Managers of protected area systemswho have sacred natural sites withinor in the sphere of influence of theirnetwork of protected areas; and• Natural resource ministries responsiblefor protected area agencies andsystems.Other stakeholders that may find theseguidelines useful include:• Planning authorities responsible for landuseplanning outside protected areas;• Traditional custodians who wish toengage with environmental or protectedarea authorities to increase theprotection of their sacred sites andare either seeking or offering adviceon ecological management;• NGOs and other agencies that providesupport for the custodians of sacrednatural sites;• Other custodians, governments andbiological or cultural support organisationsthat wish to support the conservationof sacred natural sites.The managers of protected areas were atthe centre point of discussion when developingthese guidelines. In terms offlow, the guidelines develop from the specificto the more general, from the local tothe national level. For some of the broaderand national level issues, the main roleof site managers will be to advocate forpolicy changes based on the experiencesin their individual protected areas.It is also recognised that ‘technical guidelines’and ‘best practice’ themselves stemfrom a Western, scientific, reductionistconservation culture (MacDonald 2004),and that attempting to marry these withthe holistic and traditional-knowledgebased cultures represented at sacred naturalsites is ambitious. Increasingly, however,protected area managers are willingto learn from the experience of traditionalcustodians, while custodians of sacred212

natural sites have begun requesting advicefrom ecologists regarding theenvironmental management of their sacrednatural sites. A good example of thisis the Both Ways programme of theDhimurru Protected Area in Northern Australia(Verschuuren et al. pp. 27-45).Format of the guidelinesThe guidelines consist of 44 points (presentedseparately in Annex I for ease ofappreciation) arranged under six guidingprinciples to which the remainder of thispaper refers. The six principles of thecore guidelines are:1. Recognition ((5 guidelines)2. Planning (11 guidelines)3. Participation (5 guidelines)4. Knowledge and understanding(8 guidelines)5. Management (10 guidelines)6. Rights (5 guidelines)Brief outline of the six principles1. RecognitionThis section (five guidelines) discusses theimportant element of recognition. Appropriaterecognition and support by governmentsand other stakeholders is a criticalstep in the conservation of sacred naturalsites. The free, prior and informed consentof custodians is of the utmost importance.It also discusses the recognition of sacrednatural sites as archetypal models of relationshipsbetween Man and Nature.2. PlanningThe second principle addresses planning.This cluster contains 11 guidelinesconcerning aspects of protected areamanagement, planning and zoning (includingbuffer and support zones).One of the most challenging issues facingthe improved conservation of sacrednatural sites is secrecy versus publicity.In some cases, the sacred values arepredicated upon the site being kept confidentialfrom non-community, and sometimescertain community, members. Publicisingsacred sites in this context maylead to the unwanted attention of treasurehunters, tourists in search of indigenousrites, ‘new age’ celebrants seekinga closer relationship with nature andagents of proselytising faiths seeking converts.In contexts where secrecy is not anissue, biodiversity inventory and researchhas led to greater publicity and conservation.In the case of the Kaya sacred forestson the coast of Kenya, for example,it has lead to their official recognition asnational monuments and, in 2007, theirinclusion on the World Heritage Register(Githitho 2003, 2006). In some countries,the protected area agencies appear tolack the sensitivity to effectively recognisesacred natural sites. Incorporating themin protected areas systems may well thusbe counter productive.3. ParticipationThis principle (5 guidelines) refers to theimportant issues of voluntary participation,stakeholder inclusion, conflict resolutionand legitimacy. While participationis now well-established as conservationpractice, it has to be continually re-learnt,with the ideal end point being communityempowerment and site management.Government institutions, in particular, are213

often poor at participatory decision-making,especially at a national policy level.In some countries however, protected areaagencies use innovative contract andindigenous park models.4. Knowledge and understandingThis section deals with a wide range of issuesdealing with the knowledge and understandingof sacred natural sites. Sensitiveissues here include making sure custodiansare not forced to reveal knowledgeabout their sacred sites, especiallyduring the collecting of inventory data, andthe need to ensure that multi-disciplinaryteams are involved in the research.5. ManagementPrinciple five covers a wide range of managementissues ranging from access andtourism to the protection —and, where appropriate,the financing— of sacred naturalsites. Financing sacred sites is a sensitiveissue, and some have arguedagainst this guideline being included atall. It is, however, a critical issue in the survivalof sacred natural sites, especially inthose contexts where poverty and populationpressure give rise to livelihood needsand changes in community values whichbring with them significant new pressures.6. Respect of rightsThe final principle addresses overall rightsand an equity-based approach, includingfreedom of religion, and includes issuesranging from institutional analysisand rights-based approaches to tenure.Rights and tenure issues are often contestedareas, especially by indigenouspeoples. The recent UN Declaration ofthe rights of indigenous peoples is a welcomestep in that direction (UN 2007).Comments are invited onthe guidelinesThe guidelines were published in 2008.Having been tested in a number of representativeprotected areas worldwide, theywill be reviewed again in four years time.Any contribution to testing the guidelinesis welcome, and relevant informationshould be forwarded to the editors.Indigenous Ranger Marlangaj Yunupingu presents Julia Marton-Lefèvre with a Yidaki at the launchof the Sacred Natural Sites Guidelines, during the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona214

ReferencesBhagwat, S. and Rutte, C. (2006), “Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management”in Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 4(10): 519–524.Borrini-Feyerabend, G. Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. (2004), Indigenous and local communitiesand protected areas: towards equity and enhanced conservation, guidanceon policy and practice for co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas,IUCN - World Commission on Protected Areas, Best Practices Protected AreasGuidelines Series No. 11, IUCN, Gland.Brown, J., Mitchell, N. and Beresford, M. (eds.) (2005), The protected landscape approach:linking nature, culture and community, IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.Brown, P.G. and Garver, G. (2009a), Right relationship: building a whole earth economy,Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008), Guidelines for applying protected area management categories,IUCN, Gland.Enkhbayar, N (ed.) (2003), “Some thoughts on Buddhist philosophy and economics.Papers from the meetings of the Mongolian Buddhists Parliamentary Group and fromthe Mongolian Nomadics and Buddhist Economics Conference”, ARC Website http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=186 (16/05/2009).Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding M. and Lysenko, I. (2005), “Measuring the extent andeffectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets”,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 360: 443-455.Chatterjee, S., Gokhale, Y., Malhotra, K.C., Srivastava, S. (2004), Sacred groves in India:an overview, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhobal, in Dudley. etal. op.cit.Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib L. & Mansourian, S. (2005), Beyond belief: linking faiths andprotected areas to support biodiversity conservation, A research report by WWF, Equilibriumand the Alliance of religions and Conservation (ARC). Available at:http://assets.panda.org/downloads/beyondbelief.pdfDepartment of the Environment and Water Resources (2007), Growing up strong: thefirst 10 years of Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/publications/pubs/ipa-growing-up-strong.pdfEade, D. (2002), Development and Culture, Oxfam, Oxford.Edwards, J. and Palmer, M. (1997), Holy ground: the guide to faith and ecology, PilkingtonPress, Northamptonshire.Githitho, A. (2003), “The sacred Mijikenda Kaya forests of coastal Kenya and biodiversityconservation” in UNESCO (2003b), op. cit.215

Githitho, A. (2006). “The sacred Mjiikenda Kayas of coastal Kenya: evolving managementprinciples and guidelines” in UNESCO (2006), op. cit.Gokhale, Y. (2003), “Communicating the importance of sacred groves to a broader audiencefor conservation of biocultural heritage”. Presented at the CSVPA session at theWorld Parks Congress.Harmon, D. & Putney, A. (2003), The full value of parks: from economics to the intangible,Rowman and Lichfield, n.p.Infield, M., Mahoro Duli, E., Mugisha, A.R. and Rubagyema, P. (2008), “How protectiontook the beauty from the land; conflicting values and meanings of Lake Mburo NationalPark, Uganda”, in J. M. Mallarach (ed.), Protected landscapes and cultural andspiritual values, Volume 2 in the “Values of protected landscapes and seascapes” series,IUCN, GTZ and Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg.Kanyambiwa, S. (1998), “Impact of war on conservation: the Rwandan environmentand wildlife in agony”, Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1399-1406.MacDonald, K.I. (2004), “Conservation as cultural and political practice” in G. Borrini-Feyerabend, K. I. MacDonald and L. Maffi (eds.) (2004), History, culture and conservation.Policy matters No. 13, CEESP, IUCN.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and human well-being: a synthesis,Island Press, Washington DC.Malhotra, K.C., Gokhale, Y., Chatterjee, S. and Srivastava, S. (2001), SCOPE CommitteePublication, Indian National Science Academy and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya ManavSangrahalaya, New Delhi and Bhopal.Mallarach, J.M. and Papayannis, T. (eds.) (2007), Nature and spirituality. Proceedingsof the First Workshop Delos Initiative Montserrat 2006, IUCN, Gland & Publicacions del’Abadia de Montserrat, Montserrat.Mallarach, J. M. (ed.) (2008), Protected landscapes and cultural and spiritual values,Volume 2 in the “Values of protected landscapes and seascapes” series, IUCN, GTZand Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya. Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg.Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N. and Stern, P.C., Stonich, S. and Weber, U. (2002) Thedrama of the commons, Washington DC: National Academy Press.Palmer, M. and Finaly, V. (2003), Faith in Conservation. New Approaches to Religionsand the Environment, World Bank.Phillips, A. (2003), “Turning ideas on their heat: the new paradigm for protected areas.The George Wright Forum 20(2)” in Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G.(2004), op. cit.216

Phillips, A. (2005), “Landscape as a meeting ground: Category V protected landscapes/seascapesand world Cultural Landscapes” in Brown et al., op. cit.Plumptre, A.J., Masozera, M. and Vedder, A. (2001), The impact of civil war on theconservation of protected areas in Rwanda, Armed Conflict and the EnvironmentProject, Biodiversity Support Program, WWF.http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/145/Rwanda-English.htm#Imp,27/05/09.Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. and Chandrashkara U.M. (eds.) (1998), Conservingthe sacred for biodiversity management, UNESCO and Oxford and IBH Publishers,New Delhi.Stevens, S. (ed.) (1997), Conservation through cultural survival: indigenous peopleand protected areas, Island Press, Washington DC.UN (2007), United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, adoptedby General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html)UNEP (2007) GEO-4 Global Environment Outlook: environment for development assessmentreport, UNEP 2007, p. 202.UNESCO (2003) (Lee, C. and Schaaf, T. [eds.]), The importance of sacred naturalsites for biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the international Workshop held inKunming and Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve, China 17-20 February 2003.UNESCO (2006) (Lee, C. and Schaaf, T. [eds.]) Proceedings of UNESCO-IUCN ‘Conservingcultural and biological diversity: the role of sacred natural sites and culturallandscapes’, Tokyo, Japan (30/05-02/06/2005).UNESCO (2007), (Jayakumar, R., Kim, E. and Karolyi, B. [eds.]) The protection of sacrednatural sites; importance for biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the 10 thMeeting of the UNESCO-MAB East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network. Terelj NationalPark Mongolia, 1-5 September 2007.West, P.C. and Brechin, S.R. (eds.) (1991), Resident peoples and national parks: Socialdilemmas and strategies in international conservation, University of Arizona Press,Tuscon.Wickramsinghe, A. (2003), Adam’s Peak Sacred Mountain Forest, UNESCO, op. cit.Wickramsinghe, A. (2005), “Adam’s Peak in the cultural landscape of Sri Lanka: evidenceof a eco-cultural basis for conservation” in UNESCO, 2005 op. cit.Wild R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008), Sacred natural sites: guidelines for protectedarea managers, Best Practice Protected Areas Guidance Series No. 16, IUCN, Gland.217

Annex 1Principle and Guidelines for the Management of Sacred Natural Sites located in LegallyRecognised Protected Areas: Section 4 of: Wild, R.G. and McLeod, C. (eds.). 2008,Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN-UNESCO. IUCNBest Practice Guidelines 16: IUCN Gland.Principles and Guidelines for the Management of Sacred NaturalSites Located in Legally Recognised Protected AreasA working version of the guidelines (7 pages) was published in 2006 1 and has alsobeen available on the internet since then. The present version builds upon theinitial concepts and incorporates feedback received regarding the working version.It is envisaged that the current guidelines will be tested in field situationsand will be reviewed and revised over the next four years.In their current form, the guidelines are relatively detailed and prescriptive. The 44guidance points are grouped into six principles. In terms of flow, they generally developfrom the specific and local to the more general and national level. In relation tosome of the guidelines at the regional or national scale, it is recommended that individualprotected area managers advocate for appropriate, relevant policy changesthat will improve management of sacred natural sites locally, nationally and globally.1 PrinciplesPrinciple1Principle 2Principle 3Principle 4Principle 5Principle 6Recognise sacred natural sites already located in protected areas.Integrate sacred natural sites located in protected areas into planningprocesses and management programmes.Promote stakeholder consent, participation, inclusion and collaboration.Encourage improved knowledge and understanding of sacred natural sites.Protect sacred natural sites while providing appropriate managementaccess and use.Respect the rights of sacred natural site custodians within an appropriateframework of national policy.2 GuidelinesPrinciple 1: Recognise sacred natural sites already located in protected areas.Guideline 1.1 Natural and cultural values: Recognise that sacred natural sites are ofvital importance to the safeguarding of natural and cultural values forcurrent and future generations. UNESCO, 2006, pp. 326–331218

Guideline 1.2 Ecosystem services and human well-being: Recognise that sacred naturalsites have great significance for the spiritual well-being of manypeople and that cultural and spiritual inspiration are part of the ecosystemservices that nature provides.Guideline 1.3 Recognition: Initiate policies that formally recognise the existence of sacrednatural sites within or near government or private protected areasand affirm the rights of traditional custodians to access and play an appropriate,ideally key, role in managing sacred natural sites now locatedwithin formal protected areas.Guideline 1.4 Consultation: Include the appropriate traditional cultural custodians,practitioners and leaders in all discussions and seek their consent regardingthe recognition and management of sacred natural sites withinor near protected areas.Guideline 1.5 Holistic models: Recognise that sacred natural sites integrate social,cultural, environmental and economic values into holistic managementmodels that are part of the tangible and intangible heritage ofhumankind.Principle 2: Integrate sacred natural sites located in protected areas into planningprocesses and management programmes.Guideline 2.1 Park planning: Initiate planning processes to revise management plansto include the management of sacred natural sites located inside protectedarea boundaries.Guideline 2.2 Identify sacred natural sites: Where secrecy is not an issue and in closecollaboration and respecting the rights of traditional custodians, identifythe location, nature, use and governance arrangements of sacredsites within and around protected areas as part of a participatory managementplanning process.Guideline 2.3 Respect confidentiality: Ensure that pressure is not exerted on custodiansto reveal the location or other information about sacred natural sitesand, whenever requested, establish mechanisms to safeguard confidentialinformation shared with protected area agencies.Guideline 2.4 Demarcate or conceal: Where appropriate and to enhance protection,either clearly demarcate specific sacred natural sites, or alternatively,to respect the need for secrecy, locate sacred natural sites within largerstrictly protected zones so exact locations remain confidential.Guideline 2.5 Zoning: Establish support, buffer and transition zones around andnear sacred sites, especially those that are vulnerable to adverse externalimpacts.Guideline 2.6 Linkages and restoration: Create ecological corridors between sacrednatural sites and other suitable areas of similar ecology for connectivity,and in degraded landscapes consider restoring sacred natural sites asan important initial step to reviving a wider area.219

Guideline 2.7 Ecosystem approach: Adopt the ecosystem approach as the key strategyfor the integrated management of land, water and living resourcesthat promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable wayand also includes cultural and spiritual values.Guideline 2.8 Landscape approach: Take a landscape approach to sacred naturalsites, recognising their role in wider cultural landscapes, protected areasystems, ecological corridors and other land uses.Guideline 2.9 Support development planning recognition: Development planning authoritiesare the main planners of land use in areas outside many protectedarea systems. Seek their and other stake-holders’ support forthe recognition of sacred natural sites in the wider countryside.Guideline 2.10 Protected area categories and governance: Recognise that sacred naturalsites exist in all of the IUCN protected area categories and governancetypes, and that those that fall outside formal protected area systemscan be recognised and supported through different legal and traditionalmechanisms according to the desires of their custodians, includingas community conserved areas when appropriate.Guideline 2.11 International dimension: Recognise that some sacred natural sites, andthe cultures that hold them sacred, cross international boundaries andthat some may be within or may surround existing or potential transboundarypeace parks.Principle 3: Promote stakeholder consent, participation, inclusion and collaboration.Guideline 3.1 Prior consent: Ascertain the free, prior and informed consent of appropriatecustodians before including sacred natural sites within new formalprotected areas and protected area systems and when developingmanagement policies affecting sacred places.Guideline 3.2 Voluntary participation: Ensure that state or other stakeholder involvementin the management of sacred natural sites is with the consent andvoluntary participation of appropriate custodians.Guideline 3.3 Inclusion: Make all efforts to ensure the full inclusion of all relevant custodiansand key stake-holders, including marginalized parties, in decisionmaking about sacred natural sites, and carefully define the processesfor such decision making, including those related to higher leveland national level policies.Guideline 3.4 Legitimacy: Recognise that different individuals and groups have differentlevels of legitimacy and authority in decision making about sacrednatural sites.Guideline 3.5 Conflict management: Where relevant and appropriate, use conflictmanagement, mediation and resolution methods to promote mutual220

understanding between traditional custodians and more recent occupants,resource users and managers.Principle 4: Encourage improved knowledge and understanding of sacred natural sites.Guideline 4.1 Multidisciplinary approach: Promote a multidisciplinary and integratedapproach to the management of sacred natural sites calling on, for example,local elders, religious and spiritual leaders, local communities,protected area managers, natural and social scientists, artists, nongovernmentalorganizations, and the private sector.Guideline 4.2 Integrated research: Develop an integrated biological and social researchprogramme that studies biodiversity values, assesses the contributionof sacred natural sites to biodiversity conservation, and understandsthe social dimension, especially how culturally rooted behaviourhas conserved biodiversity.Guideline 4.3 Traditional knowledge: Consistent with article 8(j) of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), support the respect, preservation, maintenanceand use of the traditional knowledge, innovations and practicesof indigenous and local communities specifically regarding sacred naturalsites.Guideline 4.4 Networking: Facilitate the meeting of, and sharing of information between,traditional custodians of sacred natural sites, their supporters,protected area managers and more recent occu- pants and users.Guideline 4.5 Communication and public awareness: Develop supportive communication,education and public awareness programmes and accommodateand integrate different ways of knowing, expression and appreciationin the development of policies and educational materials regardingthe protection and management of sacred natural sites.Guideline 4.6 Inventories: Subject to the free, prior and informed consent of custodians,especially of vulnerable sites and consistent with the need for secrecy inspecific cases, carry out regional, national and international inventoriesof sacred natural sites and support the inclusion of relevant information inthe UN World Database on Protected Areas. Develop mechanisms forsafeguarding information intended for limited distribution.Guideline 4.7 Cultural renewal: Recognise the role of sacred natural sites in maintainingand revitalizing the tangible and intangible heritage of local cultures,their diverse cultural expressions and the environmental ethics of indigenous,local and mainstream spiritual traditions.Guideline 4.8 Intercultural dialogue: Promote intercultural dialogue through the mediumof sacred natural sites in efforts to build mutual understanding, respect,tolerance, reconciliation and peace.221

Principle 5: Protect sacred natural sites while providing appropriate managementaccess and use.Guideline 5.1 Access and use: Develop appropriate policies and practices that respecttraditional custodian access and use, where sacred natural sitesfall within formal protected areas.Guideline 5.2 Visitor pressures: Understand and manage visitor pressures and developappropriate poli- cies, rules, codes of conduct, facilities and practicesfor visitor access to sacred sites, making special provisions for pressuresbrought about by pilgrimages and other seasonal variations inusage.Guideline 5.3 Dialogue and respect: Encourage ongoing dialogue among the relevantspiritual traditions, community leaders and recreational users to controlinappropriate use of sacred natural sites through both protected arearegulations and public education programmes that promote respect fordiverse cultural values.Guideline 5.4 Tourism: Well managed, responsible tourism provides the potential foreconomic benefits to indigenous and local communities, but tourismactivities must be culturally appropriate, respectful and guided by thevalue systems of custodian communities. Wherever possible, supporttourism enterprises that are owned and operated by indigenous and localcommuni- ties, provided they have a proven record of environmentaland cultural sensitivity.Guideline 5.5 Decision-making control: Strong efforts should be made to ensure thatcustodians of sacred natural sites retain decision-making control overtourist and other activities within such sites, and that checks and balancesare instituted to reduce damaging economic and other pressuresfrom protected area programmes.Guideline 5.6 Cultural use: While ensuring that use is sustainable, do not impose unnecessarycontrols on the careful harvest or use of culturally significantanimals and plants from within sacred natural sites. Base decisions onjoint resources assessments and consensus decision making.Guideline 5.7 Protection: Enhance the protection of sacred natural sites by identifying,researching, managing and mitigating overuse, sources of pollution,natural disasters, and the effects of climate change and othersocially derived threats, such as vandalism and theft. Develop disastermanagement plans for unpredictable natural and human causedevents.Guideline 5.8 Desecrations and re-sanctifying: Safeguard against the unintended ordeliberate desecration of sacred natural sites and promote the recovery,regeneration and re-sanctifying of damaged sites where appropriate.222

Guideline 5.9 Development pressures: Apply integrated environmental and social impactassessment procedures for developments affecting sacred naturalsites and in the case of the land of indigenous and local communitiessupport the application of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Akwé:Kon Guidelines for minimizing the impacts of development actions.Guideline 5.10 Financing: Where appropriate, pay due attention to the suitable financingof sacred natural site management and protection, and developmechanisms for generating and sharing revenue that take into accountconsiderations of transparency, ethics, equity and sustainability. Recognisethat in many parts of the world poverty is a cause of the degradationof sacred natural sites.Principle 6: Respect the rights of sacred natural site custodians within an appropriateframe- work of national policy.Guideline 6.1 Institutional analysis: Understand traditional management institutionsand enable and strengthen the continued management of sacred naturalsites by these institutions. Make appropriate arrangements for theadoption and management of sacred natural sites that have no currentcustodians, for example by heritage agencies.Guideline 6.2 Legal protection: Advocate for legal, policy and management changesthat reduce human and natural threats to sacred natural sites, especiallythose not protected within national protected areas and other landplanning frameworks.Guideline 6.3 Rights-based approach: Root the management of sacred natural sitesin a rights-based approach respecting basic human rights, rights tofreedom of religion and worship, and to self- development, self-governmentand self-determination as appropriate.Guideline 6.4 Confirm custodians’ rights: Support the recognition, within the overallnational protected area framework, of the rights of custodians to theirautonomous control and management of their sacred sites and guardagainst the imposition of conflicting dominant values.Guideline 6.5 Tenure: Where sacred natural sites have been incorporated within governmentor private protected areas in ways that have affected the tenurerights of their custodians, explore options for the devolution of suchrights and for their long-term tenure security.223

224

Sacred natural sites in developed countriesThymio PapayannisSacred natural sitesSacred sites served as the world’s oldestmethod of nature protection, conservinghabitats and landscapes long before theestablishment of modern legally-protectedareas. Although no systematic inventoryhas been made of these sites, it isestimated that there are roughly thesame number of sacred sights in theworld as there are official protected areas—in India alone, for example, thereare over 100,000 sacred groves (Dudleyet al. 2005).Despite modernisation, most technologicallydeveloped countries have maintaineda high level of biodiversity and largeexpanses of natural areas. This is perhapsdue to the low population densitiesin large parts of big countries like Australia,Canada, Russia and the US. In smallercountries like Japan and most Europeannations where the population densityis considerably higher, only a limited numberof natural areas have been preserved,and these through appropriate policiesand active management, in the main.Most of the inhabitants of technologicallydeveloped countries are either agnosticor adhere to mainstream faiths. Most ofthe developed countries of the ‘NewWorld’ still harbour remnants of their indigenouspopulations, many of whichmaintain their traditional customs andbeliefs —examples would include theAboriginal peoples of Australia, the Inuitin Canada and Alaska, the Saami peoplein Scandinavia, remnants of Native Americansin the US and a large number of indigenouspeople in Russian Siberia.< Cantauque Monastery, Southeastern France225

In addition, immigrants leaving their owncountries for economic or political reasonshave introduced their religions andbeliefs into their developed host countries,creating cultural and religious‘pockets’ which can be concentrated inmajor urban centres or geographicallydispersed. Almost all of these spiritualmanifestations are related to specificplaces which have a sacred characterfor the believers, but which are also oftenrecognised and respected by membersof other faiths and the agnostic. Some ofthese sacred places maintain a high degreeof biodiversity.Within the framework of the Delos Initiative,all areas that merit a nature protectionstatus —on a local, national or internationallevel— are considered protectedareas , even if this protection status hasnot yet been legally confirmed in somecases . The focus is thus on areas thatare recognised as sacred by a mainstreamreligion or in accordance with indigenousbeliefs and which are of valuebecause of their natural heritage values(which include biodiversity, geodiversityand ecosystems).Mainstream religionsIn developed countries, many of the majorreligious establishments (such asarchdioceses, sees and the Vatican itself)are based in large urban centres. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity,a protected area is defined as “a geographicallydefined area which is designated or regulatedand managed to achieve specific conservationobjectives”. As in the case of the Chrysopigi Monastery onCrete and the Holy Island of Arran in Scotland.Traditionally, however, both Christianand Buddhist monasteries have beenestablished in remote natural areaswhich provide the monastic communitieswith a refuge from secular life and allowthem to focus on spiritual concerns.Monasteries are usually located in mountainousareas with forest cover, many ofwhich have now been granted protectionstatus; Mt Athos, for instance, with its 20monasteries is a World Heritage Site.The same is true of hermitages which, beingeven more remote and inaccessible,tend to be still more deeply embedded inprotected areas. Examples would includethe Agia Paraskevi monastery and relatedhermitages overhanging the VoidomatisGorge in Pindos in Eastern Greece,the scetes of Valaam Island in the Kareliaregion of the Russian Federation andeven the Pelgye Ling Gompa Monasterybuilt around Milarepa’s cave in Tibet.Small religious buildings are also foundin remote mountainous areas. Exampleswould include the chapels dedicated tothe Prophet Elijah (Profitis Ilias) atop highhills and mountains throughout the Greekmainland and islands, as well as the numerousRomanesque chapels devotedto St Michael in the Pyrenees.Pilgrimage routes such as the Via Lauretanain Italy, the ways to St James (Santiago)de Compostela in Southern Franceand Northern Spain and the routes in Japan’sKii mountain range are often relatedto or run through protected natural areas.Indigenous sitesWhile mainstream religions often expressthe sacredness of a place through the226

Loreto Hill Sanctuary and the Santa Casas olive grove, Scossicci, Italyconstruction of religious edifices, for indigenouspeoples sacredness is inherentin nature and in its elements (Possey1999) and is made manifest in mountains,lakes and rivers but also in individual rocks,trees and animals. There are also sacredaspects to transient climatic events or theperennial movement of the sun, moonand stars. Indigenous beliefs are thusvery closely related to nature; however,because they do not leave large-scale,profound and permanent marks on nature,they are hard to define and hence toprotect. Compared to the impressivemonuments left by major indigenous civilisationsin Central and South America,Asia and Africa, the Aborigine peoples ofAustralia, the Native Americans of the USand Inuits of Canada and Greenland haveleft light imprints on the earth. Moreover,the sanctity and right to respect and protectionof these sites are frequently contested—as in the well-known case of theSan Francisco Peaks in Arizona . See pp. 47-60.Current trendsSacred natural sites must be viewedwithin a broader context of the global social,cultural and economic developmentswhich can come together to transformor maintain the spiritual character ofa given place or community (Palmer andFinlay 2003).One such major development is thespread of multiculturalism in developedcountries. To a large extent, this is due toa large increase in immigration —mainly,but not only, from poorer developingcountries— which is expected to groweven more rapidly in the years to comedue to the inevitable repercussions ofpopulation growth, climate change andthe global economic crisis. A considerablepercentage of these economic andenvironmental immigrants are not absorbedinto the social web of their host countries,but tend to gravitate instead towardstheir own ethnic, cultural or socialgroups, initially for support, but later onas a way of preserving their ethnic and cu-227

ltural identity. There is thus a tendency forthese immigrants to retain their culturaland spiritual traditions, including their language;the spread of social liberalismmeans that this —except in cases where itleads to political unrest— is judged acceptableby the majority of the population.In these same developed countries,mainstream religions are challenged ona social level by various ideologies andbeliefs which capitalise on the distancesome of them maintain from contemporaryrealities, on their conservatism or ontheir misusing their spiritual mandate tofurther political aims (as in the case ofreligious fundamentalism).In turn, indigenous beliefs within developedcountries are usually limited tosmall minorities. Such minorities are ofteninfluenced by proselytising mainstreamreligions, which leads to a diversemixture of spiritual currents whichmay not be conducive to spiritual clarityor to the maintenance of the initial culturalheritage, although it establishes newpatterns of heritage and gains high anthropologicalinterest.Finally, one should take into account thegrowth of secularism, which is weakeningboth mainstream faiths and indigenousbeliefs. Although a resurgence of spiritualquests after the collapse of materialisticand hedonistic ideologies has been predicted , it is perhaps too early to assessthe importance of this trend. Furthermore,it is especially difficult to estimate thelong-term impact on spiritual matters of Thus, the resurgence of Orthodox Christianity informer communist countries, from Russia to Albania,is a significant development.the neoliberal system with all it entails interms of free markets, excessive consumptionand a lack of financial control .Mainstream religionsIf one takes a closer look at mainstreamreligions, it is reasonable to conclude thatthey have been stewards of an ancientand rich spiritual and cultural heritage formillennia . Most of these religions havemaintained their heritage intact as it is inextricablywoven into the fabric of theirinnermost beliefs. However, a few havemodernised their message and practicesand come closer to people today.In the not so distant past, mainstream religionsexerted a very powerful social(and political) influence, especially incountries (like Greece , Russia and Italy),which still had a state religion in someform or other. This influence is decliningbut still substantial, as churches still exerta guiding role in social and politicalmatters for a considerable part of thepopulation. This influence is clearly higherin less technologically developedcountries.The social role of mainstream religionsand their structures should be viewed inthe light of their effective organisation andthe considerable human and financial resourcesthey can mobilise. While thereare clearly differences between churches,they are all powerful social forces. This statement was written before the start of theglobal economic crisis in October 2008. From 1.3 millennia for Islam to 5 millennia forHinduism. In Greece for example, all clergy are public servantspaid by the state.228

Hermitage near Skitul Sihra, Vanatory Neamt Monastery, RomaniaOn the positive side, one must mentionthe increasing sensitivity of mainstreamreligions to social challenges includingmilitary conflict, genocide, poverty andfamine. Seeing themselves as stewardsof the Creation , they are also becomingincreasingly sensitive to threats, pressuresand impacts on the environment,which has led to positive action.Mainstream religions andthe environmentThe way in which the major religionshave viewed and interpreted the naturalenvironment have changed over time.The Qur’an, for example, is rich in ecologicalteachings and provides guidanceon carefully managing the earth and itsresources. Unfortunately, the Muslimfaithful have often ignored these admonitions,and only recently has there beena return to environmental prudenceamong some followers of Islam. As demonstrated by the Venice Declarationsigned in 2005 by Pope Jean-Paul II and theEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.Buddhism, too, has been particularly sensitiveto protecting nature and caring forthe natural environment, although thishas not improved the living conditionsfor the inhabitants of the countries whereit is practised.Early Christians displayed a profoundambivalence towards the material worldalong with suspicion of the naturalworld (Burton-Christie 2000). Later, followingthe spread of Protestantism andthe advent of mercantilism and, later,the industrial revolution, the accumulationof wealth —and, hence, materialism—were appraised more highly (Weber2002) and nature less so. Only recentlyhave the three main branches ofthe Christian Churches reconsideredtheir interpretation of Man’s right to‘conquer the earth’, a concept rooted inthe anthropocentrism of the EuropeanRenaissance, and begun collaboratingon a new position whereby any act thatdegrades or destroys nature —God’sCreation— is a sin. This is a good beginning,but concrete actions is now re-229

quired to implement this new environmentalsensitivity.Within the present-day context of dwindlingnatural resources and a burgeoningworld population, the lessons of monasticasceticism —as espoused by some ofthe mainstream religions— are gainingground. They consist of managing resources—and natural resources, in particular–frugally to avoid excessive consumption,and of living practices that are inharmony with nature. It is these lessonsthat make contemporary monasticism attractiveto many people in today’s society,or at least arouses their curiosity.Indigenous faithsIndigenous peoples found it extremely difficultto retain their cultural identity after thedisastrous impact of colonialism, and homogenisationbecame widespread throughforce or social / economic incentives. Economiccolonialism is, of course, still a realityin parts of the developing world.Most indigenous peoples have left alighter footstep on the earth than theircolonisers; and although this could beconsidered positive, it has made it extremelydifficult for indigenous people toindisputable proof their use and ownershipof their land and win the right to legallyadminister and manage it in theface of the pressures and challenges ofcontemporary development.Many sacred sites are also under threatdue to cultural breakdown and change—modern development, in particular, isendangering both their number and integrity.The protection of indigenoussites can thus lead to the protection ofentire cultural systems and the acknowledgmentof these cultures’ role in theprotection of the environment (Dudley etal. 2005).The situation has not been improved byinterventions on the part of public authorities;even when well-meaning, such interventionshave often been insensitiveand ‘paternalistic’, undermining the traditionalsocial structures upon which indigenouspeoples depend.Still, progress has been made. A numberof indigenous peoples have improvedtheir governance and organisation andacquired useful social skills, including theability to plead their case and defend theirrights. This has led to improved recognitionand acceptance, and the winning oflegal battles over property rights; thesepositive developments have, however,been more evident in Australia, Canada,New Zealand and South American countrieslike Bolivia and Columbia than theyhave been in Brazil or the USA.General recommendationsCertain suggestions can be made here inrelation to improving the management of sacrednatural sites in developed countries.There is an urgent need to establish anequitable partnership between custodiansof sacred sites and the managers of theprotected natural areas in which they areoften embedded. This partnership shouldbe based on a mutual recognition of thedifferent philosophies (and, perhaps, ideologies)espoused by the two sides andthe recognition that they are more often230

complementary than conflicting. A pragmaticapproach should also be adoptedto resolving practical problems in a mannerwhich avoids exclusion and conflict.Two of the main spheres of conflict betweenthe custodians of sacred sites andthe managers of protected natural areasare land ownership and public land useissues: such issues should be resolvedfairly and with a degree of broad-mindednessin a spirit of collaboration andjoint stewardship. Local communitiesmust also be involved in the process andallowed to protect their own interests, butthey must also realise the significantbenefits accruing to the existence of sacrednatural sites in their vicinity.That some of these sites have been globallyrecognised —by being designateda World Heritage, Man and Biosphere orRamsar site— must also be taken intoaccount, as it places them in a globalconstituency. Managing the flow of visitorsor pilgrims to these sites presentsmajor challenges that require careful andsensitive management.For mainstream religionsMainstream religions can only hope toachieve an optimal balance between natureprotection and spiritual considerationsif they become more interested and involvedin ecological matters. Within religiousstructures, the capacity for understandingenvironmental problems and participatingin their resolution must be deliberatelyand systematically developed —this is alreadyhappening in some monastic communities.Crucial issues concerning ecologicaljustice, responsibility and prudence,as well as the need to respect andprotect the environment, should be includedin sermons on a regular basis.On the other side, managers of protectedareas must also become sensitive tocultural and spiritual concerns. This isparticularly difficult, as most of themhave a background in the natural sciences.However, major multilateral organisationsdevoted to the natural environment(such as the Convention on BiologicalDiversity and Ramsar) and internationalconservation organisations (such as theIUCN and WWF ) are working to bridgethe gap between culture and nature,which will bear fruit in the long run. However,it is clear that much more publicawareness work is needed on the national,regional and local levels.The participation of custodians of sacredsites in the administrative processes ofprotected areas will help both sides comprehendthe issues, identify potential conflictsand work towards joint solutions.These benefits can be magnified still furtherif sacred site custodians are representedon the management body of the correspondingprotected area. This wouldboth equate to recognition of their statusas key stakeholders in the area, allow thema better understanding of the issues, andprovide a forum for their concerns.For indigenous faithsThe cultivation among society at large ofa profound respect for the spiritual, culturaland practical implications of the sacredsites of indigenous peoples is a International Union for the Conservation ofNature and the World Wide Fund for Nature.231

sine qua non for their fair treatment. Childrenmust be introduced to the conceptsat school level, while their conceptionshould be broadened and deepenedthroughout their education.Respect would lead to raised awarenessof the need to protect sacred indigenoussites from development pressuresand encroachment. It is evident thatsuch considerations must be incorporatedinto environmental impact assessmentsat every appropriate level, fromprojects to policies that may adverselyaffect indigenous sacred natural sites.Authorities and organisations responsiblefor environmental matters —and protectedareas management, in particular—must be open-minded with regard to indigenousbeliefs and traditions; theyshould view them as a source of knowledgeand not dismiss them as mere superstitions.Indigenous know-how in thesphere of natural resource management—e.g. aboriginal fire management techniques(Szabo and Smyth 2003)— mustbe viewed on a par with scientific conservationmeasures. The custodians of indigenoussacred sites could thus be invitedto participate in protected areas managementbodies on which they could bealloted at least a consultative role, andwhere the importance of their opinionscould be acknowledged during the takingof decisions impacting on the managementof their sacred lands (Lee andSchaaf 2003). In exchange, protected areamanagers should be willing to provideindigenous societies with the necessarytools and scientific / technical knowledgethey need to manage their land effectivelyand in an environmentally sensitive way(Mallarach and Papayannis 2007).Field experience must be acquired by applyingthe new Sacred Natural Sites Guidelinesfor Protected Area Managers, recentlypublished by IUCN (Wild andMcLeod 2008). Success between conservationand spirituality can be achieved if localsupport is given to conservation effortsand effective and trusting partnershipsamong all stakeholders are developed.After all, it is our common earth…Meiji Jingu Shinto shrine in Tokyo, Japan232

ReferencesBurton-Christie, D. (2000), Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Being of Earthand Humans, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.CBD (1992), Convention on Biological Diversity (with annexes), Rio de Janeiro, 5 June1992.Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L. and Mansourian, S. (2005), Beyond Belief, Linking Faithsand Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation, WWF, Equilibrium and TheAlliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), Gland and Manchester.Lee, C. and Schaaf, T. (eds.) (2003), The Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for BiodiversityConservation, Proceedings of the Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve, People’sRepublic of China 17-20 February 2003, UNESCO/MaB, Paris.Mallarach, J. and Papayannis, T. (eds.) (2007), Protected Areas and Spirituality. Proceedingsof the First Workshop of the Delos Initiative, Montserrat, 23–26 November2006, IUCN and Publicaciones de l’Abadia de Montserrat Gland and Montserrat.Oviedo, G. and Jeanrenaud, S. (2007) “Protecting Sacred Natural Sites of Indigenousand Traditional Peoples” in J. M. Mallarach and T. Papayannis (eds.) Protected Areasand Spirituality. Proceedings of the First Workshop of the Delos Initiative, Montserrat,23–26 November 2006, IUCN and Publicaciones de l’Abadia de Montserrat, Glandand Montserrat.Palmer, P. and Finlay, V. (2003), Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religionsand the Environment, Directions in Development, The World Bank, Washington D.C.Possey, D.A. (ed.) (1999), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, IntermediateTechnology Publications and UNEP, Nairobi.Szabo, S. and Smyth, D. (2003), “Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia: IncorporatingIndigenous Owned Land into Australia’s National System of Protected Areas”, in H.Jaireth and D. Smyth (eds.), Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communitiesand Protected Areas, New Delhi.Weber, M. (2002), The Protestantism Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Blackwell,Oxford.Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008), Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for ProtectedArea Managers, IUCN, Gland.233

234

Some thoughts on sacred sites,faith communities and indigenous peoplesGonzalo OviedoMany of the problems pertaining to thespiritual systems and practices of indigenouspeoples in developed countriesalso affect indigenous and traditionalpeoples in developing countries. However,it is important to understand and takeinto account differences in the scale andcomplexity of the problems in the contextof conservation programmes.I shall briefly discuss five points beforemaking some recommendations:1. In many developing countries, indigenousand traditional peoples and culturesare comparatively more numerousand represent a significant proportionof the population. This is a result ofmany factors, among them history anddiffering degrees of urbanisation andcultural / economic change. For example,the vast majority of indigenous andtraditional cultures live in the tropicalbelt, from which developed countriesare virtually absent and where most nationsare affected by poverty and lowstandards of human well-being. Froma conservation perspective, the majorityof conservation efforts occur in thetropical belt because of the levels of biodiversitypresent in these regions. Ona global scale, we can thus say that thepresence of indigenous and traditionalpeoples and their belief systems andpractices in developing countries in thetropics is also comparatively more significantfrom a conservation perspectivethan their presence in developedcountries in temperate regions.2. Numbers aside, the situation of indigenousand traditional peoples in de-< Patriarch Bartholomew in the Amazon, Brazil,where he shared the blessing of the river with an indigenous spiritual leader235

veloping countries is generally moredifficult and more complex than it isfor indigenous and traditional peoplesin many developed countries, as theformer face greater poverty and increasedmarginalisation as well asenjoying less of a voice and fewerrights. Of course, this does not meanthat indigenous peoples face no problemsin developed countries —thegrievances of the Aboriginal peoplesof Australia, the Maori of New Zealand,the Inuit of Canada and theDine’ in the US confirm that they, too,face major challenges. However, thethreat to cultural survival is comparativelygreater in developing countrieswhere indigenous and traditional peopleface a more complex mixture ofmarginalisation, discrimination, livelihoodinsecurity, conflict and poverty.Needless to say, this has tremendousimplications for the vitality and prospectsof traditional spirituality as it interrelateswith nature conservation. Ofcourse, every case in which a culture’sbelief system and practices arefacing erosion is cause for concernand a source of stress and sufferingfor the people in question, and comparisonscan only be relative at a globallevel. It should also be borne inmind that taken individually, despitemarginalisation and poverty, sometraditional cultures in developingcountries may be more vital than otherdeclining indigenous cultures in,for example, the US.3. One of the fundamental issues thatneeds to be addressed in the contextof sacred sites and indigenous andtraditional peoples in developingcountries is the problem of conflictwith religious groups and institutions,which can be a far thornier issue thanin developed countries and whichcontinues to be highly significant despitecertain advances made with regardto religious tolerance and legaland political arrangements that recognisefreedom of belief. This problemlargely originates in the associationbetween certain religious groups/ institutions and colonial powers.Thus, we have the role played by theCatholic church in Spain and Portugal’sconquest of the Americas and,in the modern era, the (mostly USbased)evangelical groups of variousdenominations which employ aggressivestrategies to ‘convert’ indigenouspeoples in developing countries toChristianity —the Wycliffe Bible Translators,for instance, who define themselvesas ‘World Missions for UnreachedPeople Groups’ and targetisolated indigenous peoples, or theNew Tribes Missions, a sect with asimilar fundamentalist approach which“plants tribal churches among unreachedpeople groups”. The ‘missionary’intentions of both the CatholicChurch, especially in the past, andthe present-day American evangelicalsects are grounded in the “extirpationof idolatry” and the “salvation” of indigenouspeoples who are believedto be “naturally condemned” becauseof their “paganism”. And while the levelof conflict may have diminished inrecent years as a result of progressivethinking on the part of various religiouscommunities of various affilia-236

tions, it remains a near intractableproblem in many places where indigenousand traditional peoples continueto be harassed and persecuted byreligious groups and sects, puttingtremendous strain on indigenous spiritualityand indigenous cultures, andsometimes on these groups’ very capacityto survive as cultures.4. The problem of the loss of rights oftenure and management in relation tosacred sites is extremely complicated,and proposals for restoring theserights need to be examined with greatcare. The loss of rights began in thecolonial era and was, in many cases,accompanied by acts of great violence.If one thinks of the many sacredsites that have been affected bythe loss of rights in developing countries,one can only ask oneself howmuch can be done to repair the damagedone. Ethics aside, this remainsa monumental question that needs tobe addressed in a realistic and pragmaticway which does not raise expectationsthat may never be met.This poses an especially difficult challengefor the conservation community,since, while we recognise the problemand are supportive of the rights ofindigenous and traditional peoplesand the need to restore rights andcompensate for losses, we also recognisethat the issue is more to dowith land tenure, politics and governancethan with conservation, whichlimits our capacity to offer advise orurge change. In developed countries,the process of settling land tenure issuesin relation to indigenous peopleshas made more progress, with manyclaims already settled and clearermechanisms and processes in place,as in the case of Aboriginal territoriesin Australia and New Zealand and ofthe Arctic. Conflicts and claims exist,of course, but are comparatively fewerand less intractable than in developingcountries.5. The loss of rights relating to the tenureand management of sacred siteswithin protected areas, and the potentialrestitution of these rights, remainsan issue with no clear solutionin most developing countries, wherethe legal situation is more difficult thanin developed countries. In the case ofEurope, for example, the legislationgoverning protected areas generallyallows for tenure rights exercisedwithin the limitations of managementregulations. With some exceptions,protected areas legislation in developedcountries does not conflict conceptuallyor philosophically with thetenure rights of the inhabiting communities.In most developed countries,however, sacred site ownershave not been disempowered primarilythrough tenure rights, but ratherthrough insensitive management approaches.In a sense, this makes iteasier to find solutions.In Latin America, Asia and Africa, protectedareas legislation does conflict asa rule with local tenure and governancerights. In most countries, the existing legislationgoverning protected areas explicitlystates that all lands within protectedareas are state lands, and mandatesexpropriation when legally-titled private237

lands lie within them. Legally speaking,it is therefore impossible under the currentsystems to restore the rights of indigenousand traditional peoples to their sacredsites or —more broadly— to their landsand territories within protected areas.So what is to be done? Of course, we believethat protected areas legislation shouldbe amended with regard to this matter,but given that this is not a priority for politicians,change can only come aboutslowly and on a small scale. So, giventhat changes are not easy to bring aboutand may have significant implications fora range of social groups, how can we improvethe effectiveness of initiativesgeared to promoting legislative change?Another key issue is the problem of theerosion of traditional institutions. The suppressionand oppression of traditional institutionsin colonial times, and laterthrough the imposition of class / caste /ethnic politics, has had profound consequencesfor traditional cultures. There areongoing political interests in keeping traditionalinstitutions weak —cosmetic façadesrather than instruments of real power.We are thus faced once again with a majorproblem of governance that goes beyondsacred sites or traditional spirituality.Cultural change, too, especially acrossgenerations, is a complex factor whichimpacts on traditional institutions. Whilewe certainly do not want to promote arigid approach to cultural and institutionalchange, as we have to recognise andaccept change as part of the dynamicand diversity of cultures, it is nonethelessa fact that the patterns of global changeare affecting traditional institutions in amore massive and rapid way than everbefore and that, in many cases, there isinsufficient time for traditional cultures toadapt in their own terms. This is a majorproblem of cultural change and governancethat goes beyond sacred sites ortraditional spirituality and impacts on theentire cultural and institutional context.If I may return to the comments made inpoint three above, there is still verystrong opposition on the ground —fromthe general public as much as from religiousinstitutions— to the recognition ofindigenous spirituality as legitimate andequal in value to the spirituality of theworld’s major institutionalised religions.The popularity of many dubious forms ofbeliefs and practices which are apparentlylinked to traditional spirituality (diviners,mediums, faith healers, etc.)makes the situation worse by reinforcingthe equating of traditional spirituality withsuperstition.Moreover, it is of critical importanceworldwide, but especially in developingcountries, that formal religious institutionsbecome more open, ecumenicaland tolerant and abandon their colonialattitude towards indigenous spiritualityand their belief that indigenous peopleshould ‘convert’ to a major world religion.If religious institutions continue touse the privileges they enjoy —wealth,public influence, access to politicalpower— to push through policies andpractices of benefit to them alone, therecan be no solution to this problem asindigenous and traditional spiritualitywill continue to be undervalued, abusedand condemned. Moreover, legislativeframeworks guaranteeing freedom of238

eligion have limited applicability totraditional spirituality in most developingcountries, where religious institutionsand sects use them to advancetheir aggressive proselytism against traditionalspirituality.However, when religious institutions andleaders have become open, ecumenical,tolerant and sensitive, they havemade highly significant contributions toa new ethics of respect and inclusion. In2006, HAH Patriarch Bartholomew of theOrthodox Church invited an indigenousspiritual leader of the Amazon to blessthe waters of the river where the ecologicalsymposium he had organised wastaking place. This gesture has immensesymbolic value in theological, ethicaland political terms, and shows that farfrom weakening the world’s religions,healing the wounds created by their colonialhistory actually gives the world’smajor faiths a new historical perspectiveby reconnecting them with the greatestchallenge of all: planetary survival. Religiousinstitutions and leaders should notbe afraid of becoming more ecumenicaland open —rather than ‘losing souls’,they will gain in respect and moralauthority.An ethical approach that fosters respectfor the spiritual values of all human communities,including the values of secular,non-religious spirituality, is critical for aplanetary vision of sustainability in whichpowerful bonds exist among differentcultures engaged in caring jointly for theplanet. The conservation communityshould thus be supportive of approachesthat:• Recognise the diversity of the world’scultures and spiritualities as part ofthe vitality of humankind and the vitalityof the planet;• Value all forms of spirituality, religiousor non-religious, because they connecthumans to nature;• Promote ecumenism among all faiths,religions and forms of spirituality aswell as with the secular world and encouragedialogue centring on commonvalues and approaches to improvinghuman living on a sustainable planet;• Recognise that all forms of spiritualityare susceptible to change;• Apply a rights-based approach whichrespects the rights of all peoples andindividuals to their own beliefs and spiritualvalues and practices, as long asthese practices do not harm others;• Recognise the universal rights of everycitizen of the world to a healthy environmentand sustainable development,regardless of their beliefs;• Promote equity and provide supportfor vulnerable or disadvantaged groupswhose cultures and spiritual valuestend to be ignored or discriminatedagainst;• Promote the integration of scientificknowledge and technical tools withtraditional management systems basedon local values;• Take an enabling approach to communitiesand people with a view tostrengthening local actions, institutions,processes and communitieslinked through spiritual traditions.239

240

Environmental actionby the Ecumenical PatriarchateTheodota NantsouReligions are organised and structuredsystems of faith that unite large numberof people who share the same spiritualbeliefs. It can be argued, therefore, thatreligions are potentially crucial ‘players’in dealing with several contemporary environmentalissues, since:• They address an ‘exclusive’ audience;• They can easily influence the faithfuland instil environmentally and sociallyresponsible behaviours;• Numerous important facilities (welfarefoundations, social care institutions,communications media, educationalinstitutions, etc.) are operatedon behalf of religious institutions;• They advocate an ethical stance andcaring for all creation;• Some of them own or manage areasor sites of great ecological value.The separation of religion from secularlife in modern societies means that religiousleaders are not actively encouragedto involve themselves in issues ofsocial concern beyond caring for the unprivilegedand the dispossessed. Manyenvironmental organisations have thussought to involve religion in their struggleto spread the word about natureconservation and environmental action.In the Christian world, the most prominentenvironmentally active Church leader isundoubtedly Bartholomew, the EcumenicalPatriarch of the Orthodox Church.< HAH Patriarch Bartholomew during a fieldtrip in the Amazon, Brazil241

The Orthodox connectionbetween faith and actionIt was in the mid nineteen eighties thatWWF International began to collaboratewith the Ecumenical Patriarchate. No oneat the time could have foreseen how astonishinglyactive the Ecumenical Patriarchate,which is based in Istanbul, wouldsoon become in environmental awarenessand conservation. Especially sincethe enthronement of Patriarch Bartholomewin 1992, the Ecumenical Patriarchatehas definitely set the pace for Christianenvironmental activism. “Patriarch BartholomewI, Archbishop of Constantinopleand New Rome, is the spiritual leader of300 million Orthodox Christians aroundthe world. He’s also extremely green, eachyear taking church leaders of all denominationsto areas of the world beset withenvironmental problems —including theAmazon, the Arctic and the Danube. Afterannouncing, on an island in the Aegean,that attacks on the environment should beconsidered sins, he called pollution of theworld’s waters “a new Apocalypse” andled global calls for “creation care”. Wayahead of his time, he has made the environmentan increasingly powerful strandof Christian thinking in Britain —and latterlythe US— where traditionally right wingchurches have followed his lead and nowopenly counter President Bush’s stance.Bartholomew, 67, is now heavily influencingthe Pope and has shared a greenstage with him several times in Rome. It allsuggests institutional Christianity is greeningup fast after centuries of ambivalenceand outright hostility” . John Vidal (2008).A number of important initiatives havegone on record as landmarks in themodern history of the Orthodox Church:• 1988: Ecological conference on Patmosto mark the 1900 th anniversary ofthe writing of the Apocalypse. Thepowerful symbolism of the Book ofRevelation and its environmental dimensionwas the starting point for themost important inter-faith conferenceon the environment to date.• 1989: Proclamation of Orthodox ‘Dayof Creation’ (Patriarch Demetrios) andthe introduction of a special liturgyblessing creation in its entirety.• 1989-present day: Annual celebrationof Orthodox Creation Day & patriarchalmessages.• 1991: Ecological conference at theOrthodox Academy of Crete. This wasthe first international environmentalconference co-organised by the EcumenicalPatriarchate and WWF.• 1994-1998: The Halki summer ecologicalseminars.• 1995-present day: International environmentalsymposia.• 1999: Establishment of the Halki EcologicalInstitute.• Instigation of training seminars aimingat building environmental conservationawareness among clergy andtheologians.• Nature conservation and organic farmingactivities in monasteries.• Collaboration with conservation organisationssuch as WWF. In this context,Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios decla-242

ed September 1 st the Orthodox Dayof Creation and was represented atthe Assisi meeting of religious leaders,which resulted in the Assisi declarationson Creation. Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew expanded the Patriarchate’scollaboration with WWF by meansof the Halki ecological seminars, whichthe two bodies stage in collaboration.The Halki ecological seminarsThe Theological School of Halki was forcedto cease its operations in the 1970sby legislation passed by the Turkish Government.However, the informal re-openingof the historic theological school as avenue for ecological seminars serves asa powerful symbol of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’sgenuine concern for the environment.Aiming to unite the Christianchurches in the battle against the globalenvironmental crisis, the Ecumenical Patriarchateorganised a series of summerseminars at the Theological School ofHalki in collaboration with WWF International.The seminars brought scientists,theologians, environmentalists and Churchleaders together to explore and promotecommonly acceptable solutions to a seriesof environment-related issues. Thefive Halki Ecological Seminars dealt withreligious education (1994), environmentalethics (1995), communications for theenvironment (1996), environmental justice(1997) and poverty (1998).International symposiaThe Ecumenical Patriarchate’s greatestcontribution to the global effort for environmentalprotection and conservationthus far has been its organisation of aseries of important international symposiaon ships sailing environmentally ‘troubled’waters in significant ecosystems.Through these high-profile symposia, thePatriarchate has addressed world leadersand brought together leading figuresfrom the scientific, academic, political,civic and religious communities. The internationalsymposia staged have beenas follows:1. ‘Aegean: Revelation and the Environment’,September 1995. Organisedunder the joint auspices of EcumenicalPatriarch Bartholomew and the InternationalPresident of the WorldwideFund for Nature, the Duke of Edinburgh,the symposium brought togethersome 200 scientists, religiousleaders, philosophers, economists,artists and policy makers to examinethe interrelation of religion and the environment,and to bring the insights,knowledge, inspirational abilities andmethods of religion and science togetherto protect the natural world onwhich all life depends from progressivedeterioration and, consequently,to boost human welfare. The participantswere from 32 countries and includedrepresentatives of the Christian,Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist,Jainist, Sikh, Zoroastrian and Bahaifaiths.2. ‘The Black Sea in Crisis’, September1997. This second symposium on thegeneral theme of Religion, Scienceand the Environment sought to identifyspecific actions that could be undertakenwith a particular focus on243

the Black Sea as a region and an environmentin crisis.3. ‘Danube, a River of Life’, October1999. The third symposium focusedits attention on the Danube in a timeof turbulence, tragedy and new opportunities.Three months after NATObombing of the area, Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew spoke on thebanks of the Danube at Novi Sad andstressed the human and the environmentaldimensions of war.4. Adriatic Symposium, June 2002. TheAdriatic Symposium addressed the ethicalaspects of the environmental crisis,with a special focus on the environmentalproblems facing the Adriatic.5. ‘The Baltic: A Common Heritage, AShared Responsibility’, June 2003.The symposium passed through fivecountries in eight days with stops inGdansk, Kaliningrad, Tallinn, Helsinkiand Stockholm. Plenary sessions andworking groups were held on boardship with numerous shore visits. Thesymposium brought together 250 participants—theologians, scientists,policy makers, environmentalists andjournalists— under the patronage ofHis All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarchand Romano Prodi, President ofthe European Commission.6. ‘Amazon: Source of Life’, July 2006.Staged under the joint auspices ofEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomewand Kofi Annan, Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, the sixth symposiumon Religion, Science and the Environmentconvened in Amazonia tofocus on the sensitive and globallysignificant ecosystems of the Amazonbasin and to stress their interconnectednessand interaction with the life oflocal communities.7. ‘The Arctic: Mirror of Life’, September2007. Staged under the joint auspicesof Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,Jose´ Manuel Barroso, President of theEuropean Commission and Kofi Annan,the former Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, this symposium focusedon climate change and the sensitiveecosystems of the Arctic Circle.These symposia have provided an evermore important platform for an enormousrange of public figures (includinglocal leaders in all the areas visited) toproclaim, share and develop a rich set ofideas regarding the fundamental causesof the environmental crisis confrontingcontemporary societies. The fact that thesymposia have been held aboard shipsand that local people have been warmlyinvited to attend has powerful affirmedthe principle that humankind is “all in thesame boat” regardless of race, belief orsocial status. In other words, no humanbeing will be able to avoid the consequencesof a general environmental catastrophe.The first five symposia tookplace in regions where different cultures,religions and political systems have interactedpeacefully or violently over manycenturies. They served to draw internationalattention to a number of acuteand growing challenges including chemicaldischarges into the Adriatic, dioxinsin the Baltic, the debris of war in the Danubeand the depletion of marine life inthe Black Sea.244

In the wake of these events, the Amazonand Arctic regions were specifically chosenfor the 2006 and 2007 internationalsymposia respectively with a view tomarking out new territory for the Patriarchand the environmental dialogue hehas spearheaded. Both regions are atthe centre of a global debate on thecauses and consequences of climatechange and rising sea levels. In both regions,indigenous people have reason tobe seriously concerned about their survivaland their cultural and economic future,and risk numbering among the firstvictims of an ecological crisis which theyhad no part in causing. The Patriarchused these symposia to initiate a profoundand searching dialogue with theindigenous peoples of the New World, inplaces where the arrival of organisedChristianity often went hand in hand withrapacious and brutal colonisation. Asthe Patriarch has pointed out, OrthodoxChristianity can discern in the culture ofindigenous peoples many indispensablevalues which have been forgotten in theheartland of ‘Christian civilisation’. Andlike many indigenous cultures, OrthodoxChristianity stresses that human beingsare themselves part of the material worldand the animal kingdom; in contrast,contemporary Western culture has oftenregarded the human being as a sort ofdisembodied brain which can modify thenatural world without fear of the consequences.The Patriarch’s concern for thefuture of the Brazilian rainforests and themelting of the Arctic ice cap was profoundlyappreciated by the elected leadersof those regions, and widely publicisedaround the world.The Orthodox paradigm ofenvironmental responsibilityThe importance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’sgreen activism is not restrictedto simply passing on the ‘right’ solutionsto a new audience. What is more significantis that the leader of the Orthodoxworld has developed a coherent andmodern —if not novel— theology for theconservation of Creation. The classifica-HAH Patriarch Bartholomew and symposium participants at sea in the Arctic245

tion, for example, of deliberate damageto Creation as a major sin has made aclear statement to the Orthodox faithfulthat environmentally responsible behaviourhas more profound existential dimensionsthat make it more than simplya personal choice. The Orthodox Primateis therefore promoting a new and greenerway of life for the world’s 300 millionOrthodox Christians which blends perfectlywith the oldest of the Orthodox traditionsand, in turn, facilitates a genuineand life-long association between Christiansand the environmental cause.It is worth quoting part of a recent messagefrom Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomewto WWF Greece concerning the globaldimensions of ‘ecological sin’: “Sincesin is disobeying the will of the Lord as wellas the cause of evil, then deliberate environmentaldamage is indeed a sin. Indeed, itis hard to think of any other sin that is asuniversally destructive in its impact as thedesecration of the sanctity of Creation.One need only consider the consequencesof deeds that undermine the environmentfor all the living creatures and notjust one or two individuals, since we arewell aware that the elements of our worldare all interdependent. Of course, ecologicaldestruction has another unique dimension,since it deprives future generationsof the chance to live in a healthy andbalanced manner in the beautiful worldGod has created. For this reason, it is exceptionallysignificant that the Church actto avoid any further abuse and corruptionof the world, which humanity has beencalled on to guard and not destroy” . Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople BartholomewI (2006).It is crucial that the leader of the OrthodoxChurch, the Ecumenical Patriarchate,should have led the way in involving theOrthodox world in addressing the globalenvironmental crisis. Given that nationalOrthodox churches, including the Churchof Greece, have been involved in scandalsinvolving the abuse of nature andhave failed to take any conservation initiativesof their own, the paradigm promotedby the Orthodox primate has setan environmentally responsible examplefor the Orthodox faithful.The active environmental concern embodiedby Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomewhas now become an integralpart of Orthodox church life. The conversionof monastic buildings into modelsof sustainability, organic farming in monasteriesand the incorporation of environmentalmessages into religious educationare practices that are now embeddedin the everyday life of the OrthodoxChurch. The Holy Convent of Chrysopigiin Chania, Crete has not only ledthe way in this respect, it has provided aparadigm for environmentally sustainablemonastic life.The Ecumenical Patriarchate has becomea global leader in promoting conservationand sustainability through religion.Orthodox Churches worldwide canand must become important stakeholdersin the global environmental movement,both as spiritual communities andas owners and managers of ecologicallysignificant lands and buildings. And whilethe Ecumenical Patriarch’s calls for environmentalaction have already borne fruit,there is still a long road to be travelled totheir application on a large scale.246

ReferencesJohn Vidal (2008), “50 people who could save the planet”, Guardian Unlimited05/01/2008.Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I (2006), “Our stance towardsthe environment is a spiritual issue”, Living Planet Magazine, issue 4, WWF Greece,pp. 12-16.Religion, Science and the Environment”, http://www.rsesymposia.org (Accessed13/04/09). Information on all the international symposia staged by the EcumenicalPatriarchate.Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1997), The environment and religious education:presentations and reports from the Summer Seminar at Halki, 1994, MilitosEditions, Istanbul.Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1997), The environment and ethics: presentationsand reports from the Summer Seminar at Halki, 1995, Militos Editions, Istanbul.Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1992), So that God’s creation might live:the Orthodox church responds to the ecological crisis: proceedings of the inter-Orthodoxconference on environmental protection held at the Orthodox Academy of Crete inNovember 1991, ICOREC-WWF-Syndesmos. n.p.Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1999), The Halki Ecological Institute workingwith the Black Sea Environmental Journalism Workshop: a handbook addressedto workshop participants, Istanbul.Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1990), Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis,WWF International / World Conservation Centre, Gland.247

248

The Ouranoupolis Statement 1on sacred natural sites in technologically developed countriesTAKING INTO ACCOUNT the inspiring messageof HAH the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomewto the Workshop participants; NOTING the positive content of the welcomingaddresses to the Delos2 Workshopby the representatives of the HolyCommunity of Mt. Athos and of the Prefectureof Halkidiki;CONSIDERING the contributions to theWorkshop of the 22 participants from 11countries in the form of case studies, papersand discussions;EVALUATING the work carried out in theframework of the Delos Initiative duringthe past year; Conclusions of a Delos Initiative Workshop held in Ouranoupolis(Greece) on 24-28 October 2007 within theframework of IUCN/WCPA and its Specialist Groupon Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas.The participants of the workshop arrivedat the following conclusions:Lessons from the case studiespresented at the WorkshopAll parties involved in sacred natural siteswithin protected areas should be encouragedto resolve in an equitable mannerlegal and land and resource ownershipand use problems, as a prerequisite toachieving collaboration and synergy.A rights-based approach and the empowermentof local communities shouldbe promoted in all cases.Through appropriate methods, the mutualawareness, sensitivity and capacity ofboth custodians of sacred sites and pro-249

tected area managers -as well as otherinterested parties- should be cultivated,leading to a common approach for conservingall relevant natural, cultural andspiritual values.In this context, the establishment of joint approachesof research and learning amongthe key sides should be promoted.The custodians of sacred sites shouldbe fully involved in the development ofmanagement plans for protected areas,as well as participation in theirmanagement structures, and their contributionshould be recognised andencouraged.The right of custodians of sacred sites tolimit access to certain areas should berespected and the appropriate measuresshould be included in managementplanning and public use, together withrestrictions to visitor access in highlysensitive natural areas.In addition, the participants of the Workshopagreed on the following specificpoints:- The efforts of the Native American nationsthat are fighting to protect theHoly San Francisco Peaks from skiresort development should be supported.- The Government of South Korea andthe Convention on Wetlands shouldbe encouraged to recognise the Mani-santidal flats as Ramsar wetland ofinternational importance, thus contributingto their conservation.- The efforts to designate the SolovetskyWorld Heritage Site both for culture(as it is already since 1992) and fornature should be encouraged, thusrecognising its integrated character.- The efforts of the Holy Convent ofChrysopigi in Chania, Crete, to protectits surrounding natural and cultural areafrom tourist and development pressuresshould be strengthened with thecollaboration of local authorities.International conventions and organisationscould play a positive role in supportinginternationally recognised sacrednatural sites and should be encouragedto intensify their efforts for this purpose.Management of monastic landsManagers of protected areas, as well asrelevant policy-makers, must be encouragedto respect the sanctity of Monasticsites and lands under their care and takethem into consideration in planning,management and evaluation.Monastic Communities must also be encouragedto manage their lands and facilitiesin an ecologically sustainable andequitable manner.For this purpose, a joint and integratedapproach to management planning andevaluation is required, which should bedeveloped with participation from bothsides.Monastic sacred sites can provide usefulinputs to education and public awarenessand their contribution should be encouragedin related protected areas.In addition, the principles and practiceof monastic asceticism may provideprofound lessons towards ecological250

life styles and the sustainable use ofnatural resources -as demonstrated bythe experience of the Holy Convent ofChrysopigi.In this context, the positive initiatives ofthe Holy Community of Mt. Athos in preparinga special environmental studyand a strategic plan for the entire autonomousterritory, as well as measures forits implementation, through the establishmentof a management body underthe Holy Monastic Community, with thesupport of competent scientists andgovernment agencies, were noted withappreciation.Guidance for sacred naturalsites in developed countriesEfforts should be strengthened to sensitisemainstream faiths -both authoritiesand followers- to nature conservationand broader environmental issues.The potential contribution of protectednatural areas to the conservation of sacredsites and vice versa should beenhanced.Particular respect and care should beaddressed to indigenous sacred sites indeveloped countries, which should besafeguarded from insensitive developmentpressures.The Delos Initiative towards WCC2 Priority should be given to the publicationof the proceedings of the Oura- IUCN Fourth World Conservation Congress, Barcelona,Catalonia (Spain), October 2008.noupolis Workshop, together with theproceedings of the Montserrat Workshop,for dissemination during the WCC,as a contribution of the Delos Initiative tothe ongoing dialogue on natural and cultural/ spiritual values and to the implementationof conservation approachesthat are sensitive to the cultures and valuesof all communities.The Delos Initiative should contribute tothe ongoing UNESCO / IUCN process forpreparing guidance on sacred naturalsites to be completed in 2008. In addition,the Delos Initiative should continueits systematic work for developing furtherguidance during the triennium 2008-2010on the specificities of sacred natural sitesin developed countries mainly for mainstreamreligions.Additional case studies of sacred naturalsites should be analyzed in theframework of the Initiative, with thegoals to obtain more balanced geographicaldistribution, greater representativityof faiths and the recognitionof successful examples, which can disseminatebest practices and inspireemulation.Naturally, the Delos Initiative is expectedto contribute substantially to the appropriateevents of the 2008 World ConservationCongress, within the framework ofthe WCPA Specialist Group on Culturaland Spiritual Values of Protected Areas.The Initiative should examine potentialsynergy in its work with related internationalconventions and organisations,and especially with the World HeritageConvention.251

AppreciationProfound recognition is due of the broadand creative role played by HAH theEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew inbringing together faiths in favour of theCreation and the conservation of the naturalenvironment, and sincere gratitudeis expressed for his message of adviceto the Delos2 Workshop.Appreciation is also due of the officialparticipation in the Workshop of the HolyCommunity of Mt. Athos, of the GreekMinistry of Environment, Physical Planningand Public Works and of the Prefectureof Halkidiki (Northern Greece).The hospitable and highly informative receptionof participants in the sacredmonasteries of Varlaam in Meteora (Thessaly)and of the Assumption in Ormylia(Halkidiki) is also appreciated.Special thanks are addressed to Med-INA(the Mediterranean Institute for Nature andAnthropos) for having organised the workshopwith efficiency and sensitivity andhaving covered its costs with the supportof the A.G. Leventis Foundation.252

Olive grove of the Holly Convent of Chrysopigi, Crete, Greece253

254

AppendicesAppendix I: Workshop participants and authorsJeneda BenallyP.O. Box 1744Flagstaff, AZ 86002USAIvan N. BolotovDr. Sc. (Biology),Deputy Director of Research,Institute of Ecological Problems of the NorthThe Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INEP UB RAS)nab. Severnoy Dviny, 23163061, ArkhangelskRussian FederationSebastian CatanoiuPark ManagerNational Forest Administration-RomsilvaVanatori Neamt Nature Park AdministrationRomania255

Christos ChryssomalisMinistry for the Environment, Energy and Climate ChangeGeneral Direction of EnvironmentMesogeion and Trikalon 36115 27 AthensGreeceAlexander DavydovHead of the Laboratory of Nature Protected Areas and Ecology of CultureInstitute of Ecological Problems of the NorthThe Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INEP UB RAS)nab. Severnoy Dviny, 23163061, ArkhangelskRussian FederationAngeliki FoutriPlanner-Sustainable DeveloperMed-INA Secretariat23, Voukourestiou Str.106 71 AthensGreeceFather GregoriosRepresentative of the Holy Community of Mt AthosGregoriou MonasteryKaryes 630 87Mt AthosLawrence HamiltonSenior AdvisorMountain Biome, World Commission on Protected Areas/IUCNCharlotte, Vermont, 05445USAKyung-Koo HANPh. D.Division of International StudiesKookmin University861-1 Jeongneung-dong, Seongbuk-guSeoulS. Korea 136-702Father Peter HughesOSB CamSacred Hermitage of Camaldoli52010 Camaldoli (AR)Italy256

Petros KakourosForesterGreek Biotope / Wetland CentrePo Box 6039457001 ThermiGreeceCharalampos KatsimpasMinistry for the Environment, Energy and Climate ChangeGeneral Direction of EnvironmentMesogeion and Trikalon 36115 27 AthensGreeceKonstantinos KontosProfessorSchool of Forestry & Natural EnvironmentAristotle University of Thessaloniki541 24 ThessalonikiGreeceFranco LocatelliNational Park of the Casentine ForestsMount Falterona and CampignaPalazzo NefettiVia Nefetti 347018 Santa Sofia (FO)ItalyIrini LyratzakiSocial AnthropologistMed-INA Secretariat23, Voukourestiou Str.106 71 AthensGreeceJosep Maria MallarachEnvironmental consultantSilene AssociationAv. Colòmbia, 7, 5è C 17800 Olot, CataloniaSpainMawalan II MarikaDhimurru Aboriginal CorporationPO Box 1551NhulunbuyNT, 0881Australia257

Galina V. MikhailovaPh.D.Senior Staff ScientistLaboratory of Nature Protected Areas and Ecology of CultureInstitute of Ecological Problems of the NorthThe Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INEP UB RAS)nab. Severnoy Dviny, 23163061, ArkhangelskRussian FederationTheodota NantsouPolicy OfficerWWF Greece26, Filellinon Street105 58 AthensGreeceGonzalo OviedoIUCN Senior Advisor - Social PolicyRue Mauvernay 28Gland 1196SwitzerlandThymio PapayannisArchitect, planner, environmentalistDirector of Med-INA (Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos)23 Voucourestiou Street, 10671 AthensGreeceIoannis PhilippouProfessorSchool of Forestry & Natural EnvironmentAristotle University of Thessaloniki541 24 ThessalonikiGreeceDr Gloria PungettiCambridge Centre for Landscape and People DirectorUniversity of CambridgeDowning Site,Cambridge CB2 3ENUnited KingdomIsabel Soria GarciaForestry Engineerc/ Diego de León 45, 3ºA28006 MadridSpain258

Sister TheosemniHoly Convent of ChrysopigiChania 73100 CreteGreeceMother Superior TheoxeniHoly Convent of ChrysopigiChania 73100 CreteGreeceDemetrios TziritisVice PrefectHalkidiki PrefecturePolygyros Halkididikis 631 00GreeceBas VerschuurenDeputy Leader CSVPA / TFResearcher Nature & CultureEarthCollective (FSD)PRESENCE FacilitatorWingerd 285667 AK, GeldropThe NetherlandsRobert WildChair, CSVPA, AmberleyKingsmuir Drive, PeeblesScottish Borders, EH45 9AAUKwww.csvpa.orgPhil WiseParks and Wildlife Northern TerritoryPO Box 1551Nhulunbuy, NTAustraliaZakia ZouanatPh Cultural and Social AnthropologyResearcher at the ‘Institute de Etudes Africaines’University Mohammed VRabatMoroccoFor further information please contact: secretariat@med-ina.org.259

Appendix II: Case studies presented during the WorkshopProviding guidance for sacred natural sites in developed countriesCase studies presented during the workshopCase-studyBuila VinturaritaChrysopigi ConventDhimurruForeste CasentinesiHoly San Francisco PeaksJabal La‘lâmMani-San MountainMt. AthosPoblet MonasteryRila MonasterySakya Tashi Ling MonasterySolovetsky IslandsLocationRomaniaCrete-GreeceAustraliaItalyArizona-USAMoroccoSouth KoreaHalkidiki-GreeceSpainBulgariaSpainRussian FederationAppendix III: AcknowledgementsThe editors of this volume wish to express their gratitude to HAH The Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew I for placing the Ouranoupolis Workshop under his aegis, as well asto the Holy Community of Mt. Athos and the Prefecture of Halkidiki for their moralsupport.Thanks are due to Med-INA for organising and funding the Workshop through privatedonations and to the Bodossakis Foundation in Athens for its financial contribution tothe publication of the workshop proceedings.The Workshop participants and authors of this publication merit commendation fortheir significant contribution. Thanks are also due to the following persons for theircontribution to the editing and publication of the book: Irini Lyratzaki and Stefanos Dodouras(Med-INA) for the initial review and editing of the texts, Michael Eleftheriou forthe final editing of the texts and edition supervision, Pavlina Alexandropoulou for designingthe publication and I. Peppas A.B.E.E. for printing and binding the book.The special role of Irini Lyratzaki in co-ordinating all the activities necessary for the realisationof this publication must be particularly mentioned.260

Photo credits by chapterOpening statement by the representative of the Prefecture of Halkidiki - Vice-Prefect Tziritisp 8 by Bas VerschuurenOpening statement by the representative of the Holy Community of Mt. Athos - Father Gregoriosp 10 by Josep-Maria MallarachIntroductionpp 12, 15 and 22 by Bas Verschuurenp 17 by Irini Lyratzakip 19 by Josep-Maria MallarachAnalysis of case studiesp 24 by Alexander DavydovPower on this land; managing sacred sites at Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Areap 26 by Bas Verschuurenp 28 Smith 2007pp 32 and 42 from the Daily Telegraph, 19 May 1969pp 33 and 39 from the Dhimurru filesp 35 by Buku-larrngay Mulka Centre and Mawalan II MarikaSacred versus secular in the San Francisco Peakspp 46 and 50 by Lawrence Hamiltonp 48 by Jeneda Benallypp 49 and 53 by the U.S. Forest Servicep 55 by the Save the Peaks Coalitionp 56 by Calvin JohnsonThe National Park of the Casentine Forestspp 60 and 65 by Gloria Pungetti‘Abd al-Salâm ibn Mashîsh and Jabal La‘lâm Sitepp 66 and 74 by Josep-Maria Mallarachp 73 by Zakia ZouanatSacred Mountain of GanghwaIslandpp 76-87 by Kyung-Koo HanSolovetsky islands – A holy land surrounded by the Arctic Oceanpp 88, 93, 95 and 102 by Alexander Davydovpp 90, 94 and 98 by Boris Shishlop 96 [right] by Valentina Davydovap 96 [left] by Yury BrodskyManagement of monastic lands and facilitiesp 104 by Josep-Maria MallarachThe protected area of the Peninsula of the Athos Holy Mountainpp 106, 109 and 121 by Ioannis Philippoup 113 by Thymio Papayannis261

Landscape conservation actions in Holy Mountainpp 126-133 by Petros KakourosBuila-Vânturarit,a National Park - The gates of heavenpp 136-151 by Sebastian CatanoiuAn integrated ecological approach to monastic land:The case of the Holy Convent of Chrysopigi, Cretepp 152-159 by the Holy Convent of ChrysopigiInitiatives taken by the Cistercian Monastery of Poblet to improve the integrationof spiritual, cultural and environmental valuespp 160, 162, 163, 168 and 171 from the Archives of the Monastery of Pobletp 167 by Josep-Maria MallarachRila Monastery Natural Parkpp 171 and 175 by Sebastian CatanoiuThe Inclusion of a Tibetan Buddhist, perspective in the management of the property ofthe Sakya Tashi Ling Monastery in Garraf Parkp 176 by Isabel Soriapp 178 and 179 Consultant X3 Estudis ambientals at www.dechen.org/mx/traditions/sakya.html; 2007pp 181, 182 188 by Josep-Maria MallarachReflections on the management of monastic lands and facilitiesp 190 by the Holy Convent of Chrysopigip 194 by Irini Lyratzakip 195 and 197 Josep-Maria MallarachAchieving synergy between spiritual and conservation concernsp 200 by Irini LyratzakiIUCN-UNESCO Guidelines for protected area management on Sacred Natural Sites:rationale, process and consultationp 202 by Robert Wildpp 209 and 212 by L. SladeSacred natural sites in developed countriespp 224 and 229 by Josep-Maria Mallarachp 227 by Chiara Serenellip 232 by Thymio PapayannisSome thoughts on sacred sites, faith communities and indigenous peoplesp 234 by Thymio PapayannisEnvironmental action by the Ecumenical Patriarchatep 240 by Ivy Nanopouloup 245 by Thymio PapayannisOuranoupolis Statementp 252 by the Holy Convent of Chrysopigi262

263

INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION OF NATUREWORLD HEADQUARTERSRue Mauverney 281196 Gland, Switzerlandmail@iucn.orgTel +41 22 999 0000Fax +41 22 999 0002www.iucn.org