World Heritage Cultural Landscapes –

An overview of the natural values

Adrian Phillips1

Introduction

This paper sets out to analyse what IUCN sees as the natural values of World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes, in a theoretical way, by reference to all 36
inscribed sites and with the help of four case studies.

The first section describes the emergence of a new paradigm in protected

areas. This attaches far greater importance than hitherto to the links between
cultural and natural values. IUCN, as the Advisory Body to the World
Heritage Committee on the natural side of the Convention, is therefore
becoming increasingly interested in the interface with cultural issues. One
such example is the involvement that IUCN has had in World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes: IUCN has played an important part in the conceptual
development and practical application of this type of World Heritage site until
its adoption by the World Heritage Committee in 1992. Since then it has
worked closely with colleagues in ICOMOS in developing and applying this
concept.

IUCN’s interest in Cultural Landscapes arises because of the important natural

values which many of them contain. As a result, many World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes coincide with protected areas recognised IUCN. The
second section of the paper analyses that relationship, site by site. It concludes
by suggesting a typology of relationships between the protected areas and
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

The third section of the paper looks at four existing or proposed World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes which are known to the author, from Hungary,
Iceland, the Philippines and Portugal (the Azores). This shows - by reference
to IUCN guidance on the identification of natural values in cultural landscapes
- how important natural values occur in sites that are treated formally as on the
cultural side of the Convention.

1: IUCN’s developing thinking about nature, culture and protected

areas2.

Introducing protected areas

Protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation, landscape

protection and for many other aspects of conservation and sustainable
development. IUCN has defined protected areas as “ areas of land and/or

1
Vice Chair for World Heritage of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPA).
2
the first part of this paper is an edited version of a section of a paper presented to the
Workshop on Cultural Landscapes, Ferrara, 2002 – Phillips (2003).

1
sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed
through legal or other effective means.” (IUCN, 1994).

Within this broad definition, protected areas are managed for many different
purposes. To help improve understanding in this area, and to promote
awareness of the range of protected area purposes, IUCN has developed a
system of categorising protected areas by their primary management
objective. It identifies six distinct categories (IUCN, 1994), which are set
out in Annex 1. This system is being increasingly accepted by national
governments as a framework to guide the establishment and management
of protected areas. A growing number of countries have integrated it within
their domestic legislation or policy relating to conservation and protected
areas. Only a few weeks ago, at the Seventh Conference of the Parties to
the CBD (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 2004) this IUCN system was
given intergovernmental support3.

Every few years, the United Nations Environment Programme’s World

Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP/WCMC) in Cambridge, UK and the
World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN produce the so-
called ‘UN List of Protected Areas’. This is a global assessment, first called
for by the United Nations, of the extent and distribution of protected areas as
defined above. The most recent published version of the UN list (Chape et al,
2003) was presented to the World Parks Congress held in Durban, South
Africa in September 2003. This version of the UN list records no less than
102,102 individual protected areas, totalling 18.8 million km2, the equivalent
of 11.5% of the world’s total land area but less than 1% of the marine
environment. This is an impressive achievement and represents a major
commitment by countries to protect their natural heritage. It is also a great gift
to the new century, giving peoples and governments development and
conservation options which would otherwise have been lost.

Threats, problems and a new paradigm for protected areas

But there are many shortcomings with protected areas coverage. In many
countries the coverage is far below the global average. Also a far higher
proportion of some biomes (such as tropical savannah) are protected than are
others (such as lake ecosystems and temperate forests). An even greater
problem is the many threats to protected areas around the world. The crude
total number and extent of protected areas tells us nothing about how well they
are managed. Thus, even when these areas exist in law, they often suffer from
encroachment, poaching, unregulated tourism, deforestation, desertification,
pollution and so forth. Most protected areas lack management plans, yet such
plans are essential if a national park or a nature reserve is to achieve its stated
aims. Many protected area managers lack the necessary sills - business skills for
example. Often these places are ignored in national and regional development
planning, and in sectoral planning. Most important, everywhere local
communities tend to be alienated from protected areas nearby or in which they

3
see CBD web site http://www.biodiv.org/

2
live - yet without winning the "hearts and minds" of the people directly affected,
conservation is at best a means of buying time.

Moreover, threats will increase in future: rising numbers of people, increased

demands for resources of all kinds, pollution of many sorts (often novel and
insidious), accelerating climate change, the effects of globalisation - all these
represent a new order of challenge to protected areas around the world.

Protected areas face ever-greater threats to their continued existence just when
their values are growing in importance to humankind. If protected areas indeed
have a growing value to society, and yet they are increasingly at risk, it would
appear that there is something badly wrong in the way in which we plan and
manage them. Only some of the answers, of course, are available to protected
area managers themselves. Issues like the global patterns of trade, war and
conflict, and climate change are matters for national governments, often
working together, to address. But it is also widely recognised among the
planners and managers of the protected areas themselves that a new approach
is needed. The main elements of this have been captured in a “new paradigm”
– see Table 1.

Table 1: Contrasting paradigms (from Phillips, 2003)

Topic As it was: protected areas were As it is becoming: protected
… areas are …
Objectives • Set aside for conservation
• Established mainly for
spectacular wildlife and scenic
protection
• Managed mainly for visitors and
tourists
• Valued as wilderness
• About protection
Governance Run by central government
Local people • Planned and managed against
people
• Managed without regard to local
opinions
Wider context • Developed separately
• Managed as ‘islands’
Perceptions • Viewed primarily as a national
asset
• Viewed only as a national
concern
• Run also with social and
economic objectives
• Often set up for scientific,
economic and cultural reasons
• Managed with local people
more in mind
• Valued for the cultural
importance of so-called
“wilderness”
• Also about restoration and
rehabilitation
Run by many partners
• Run with, for, and in some cases
by local people
• Managed to meet the needs of
local people
• Planned as part of national,
regional and international
systems
• Developed as ‘networks’
(strictly protected areas,
buffered and linked by green
corridors)
• Viewed also as a community
asset
• Viewed also as an international
concern

3
Management • Managed reactively within short • Managed adaptively in long
techniques timescale term perspective
• Managed in a technocratic way • Managed with political
considerations
Finance Paid for by taxpayer Paid for from many sources
Management • Managed by scientists and • Managed by multi-skilled
skills natural resource experts individuals
• Expert led • Drawing on local knowledge

The new paradigm and World Heritage

From the point of view of the World Heritage community4, this new paradigm is
interesting as – in a number of respects – it moves away from the marked
dichotomy between what is regarded as ‘natural’ and what is regarded as
‘cultural’. Or put another way, the new paradigm recognises the limitations of
the traditional approach to nature conservation, based largely on the strict
protection of mostly natural areas, an approach which - while still essential in
many places - is no longer sufficient. It overlooks the well-documented
evidence that many so-called wilderness areas have in fact been modified by
people over long periods of time. It ignores evidence that in many areas
disturbance of natural systems can be good for nature; and that many rural
communities have shown great respect for nature. It overlooks the rich genetic
heritage of crops and livestock associated with farming in many parts of the
world. Moreover, excluding people from the land (or water) on grounds of
nature conservation often meets with resistance from local communities;
collaborative approaches are needed instead. Finally, nature conservation has
to be concerned with the lived-in landscape because it cannot be achieved
sustainably within ‘islands’ of strict protection surrounded by areas of
environmental neglect.

One may conclude from this analysis that the aims of protected areas have
broadened out, and the means by which they are achieved have become much
more diverse. Most importantly, IUCN, and the nature conservation
movement generally, now recognise far more than they did only 10 or 20
years ago the importance of 1) the humanised, lived-in landscapes as well as
‘natural’ environments, and 2) the cultural dimension to conservation of
nature. It is thus easy to see in general terms why IUCN has taken an interest
in the development and implementation of the World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes.

Through a former Chair of its then Commission on National Parks and

Protected Areas, the late Bing Lucas, IUCN helped to draw up the
recommendations on Cultural Landscapes from La Petite Pierre which were
adopted by the World Heritage Committee at Santa Fe in 1992. Since then,
IUCN has worked with colleagues in ICOMOS to help implement the
Operational Guidelines relating to Cultural Landscapes in several ways:

4
A shorthand for the World Heritage Committee, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory
Bodies and others with an active interest in the World Heritage Convention.

4
• by carrying out joint evaluations with ICOMOS of nominated Cultural
Landscape properties where this is an important nature conservation
interest (see also Part 3),
• by undertaking State of Conservation reporting and evaluation missions
for inscribed World Heritage Cultural Landscape sites that are similarly
important for nature conservation,
• by providing technical input to a number of global and regional meetings
concerning the intellectual development on World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes,
• by promoting the concept of Cultural Landscapes, and its interest in them,
in its publications, advice etc.,
• by demonstrating in particular the degree of shared experience between
IUCN protected area management category V (Protected Landscapes/
Seascapes) and World Heritage Cultural Landscapes (see e.g. Phillips,
2002), and
• by developing guidance on how to identify the natural values of World
nominated Heritage Cultural properties.

The guidance referred to in the last item above is set out in Annex 2. It shows
the various ways in which natural values of concern to IUCN may be a feature
of Cultural Landscapes (and will be returned to in section 3 of this paper).

2: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes and Protected Areas

Prof. Peter Fowler undertook an excellent analysis of World Heritage Cultural

Landscapes which were inscribed up to 2002, examining a number of
attributes relating to their cultural significance (Fowler, in print). This section
of the paper examines the importance of these sites, plus five further World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes inscribed in 2003, from the standpoint of
natural values, and in particular the overlap with protected areas as defined by
IUCN. In the short time available to prepare this paper it has not been
possible to make the detailed boundary by boundary analysis which is
required, only to make an initial check of the names of World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes against those in the UN List of Protected Areas5.

The results (see Table 2) must be treated with caution because the boundaries
of the World Heritage site may vary considerably from those of the protected
area carrying the same name. In some cases, only a part of the World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes is also a protected area; in other cases, the World
Heritage Cultural Landscape contains several protected areas; in other cases
again, the protected area will be significantly larger than the World Heritage
site. Nonetheless, Table 2 already reveals a high level of coincidence between
the World Heritage Cultural Landscapes and nationally designated protected
areas.

5
Further analytical work of this kind, to establish the details of relationship between World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes and protected areas would be a possible task for UNEP/
WCMC. Such research might also include a survey of the coincidence between protected
areas and other World Heritage Cultural Properties that Prof. Fowler has identified as having
the characteristics of Cultural Landscapes but which have not been so designated. He
considers that there are at least another 70 of these, maybe as many as 100 sites.

5
Table 2: a Preliminary Analysis of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
and IUCN Protected Areas

Country Date Title of World Heritage Associated Protected Area PA

category
in- Cultural Landscape
(see
scribed Annex 1)
Afghanistan 2003 Cultural Landscape and none
Archaeological Remains of
the Bamiyan Valley
Australia 1987- Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Uluru-Kata Tjuta National II (also
1994 Park Park inscribed
as a
natural
WH site)
Austria 1997 Hallstatt-Dachstein Dachsteingebiet IV
Salzkammergut Cultural
Landscape
2000 Wachau Cultural Wachau und Umgebung V
Landscape
Austria/Hun 2001 Fertö/Neusiedlersee Ferto-tavi (H) II
gary Cultural Landscape Neusiedlersee und V
Umgebung (A)
Cuba 1999 Viñales Valley Viñales National Park II

2000 Archaeological Landscape none

of the First Coffee
Plantations in the Southeast
of Cuba
Czech 1996 Lednice-Valtice Cultural none
Republic Landscape

France 1999 Jurisdiction of Saint- none

Emilion

2000 The Loire Valley between Loire Anjou Touraine V

Sully-sur-Loire and Regional Nature Park
Chalonnes
France/ 1997- Pyrénées - Mont Perdu Pyrénées Occidentales (F) II
Spain 1999 Ordesa y Monte Perdido II (also
(S) inscribed
as a
natural
WH site)
Germany 2000 Garden Kingdom of none
Dessau-Wörlitz

2002 Upper Middle Rhine Valley Several Nature Parks V

Hungary 1999 Hortobágy National Park - Hortobágy National Park II
the Puszta
2002 Tokaj Wine Region Tokaj-Bodrogzug V
Historic Cultural Landscape Protection Area
Landscape
India 2003 Rock Shelters of Ratapani Wildlife Reserve IV
Bhimbetka
Italy 1997 Portovenere, Cinque Terre, Bracco-Mesco Cinque V
and the Islands (Palmaria, Terre Montemarcello

6
 Tino and Tinetto) Regional Nature Park
1997 Costiera Amalfitana none
1998 Cilento and Vallo di Diano Cilento and Vallo di Diano V
National Park with the National Park
Archeological sites of
Paestum and Velia, and the
Certosa di Padula
2003 Sacri Monti of Piedmont none
and Lombardy
Lao People's 2001 Vat Phou and Associated none
Democratic Ancient Settlements within
Republic the Champasak Cultural
Landscape
Lebanon 1998 Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy none
Valley) and the Forest of
the Cedars of God (Horsh
Arz el-Rab)
Lithuania/ 2000 Curonian Spit Kusiu Nerija National Park II
Russian (L)
Federation Kurshskaja Kosa National II
Park (R)
Madagascar 2001 Royal Hill of none
Ambohimanga
New 1990- Tongariro National Park Tongariro National Park II (also
Zealand 1993 inscribed
as a
natural
WH site)
Nigeria 1999 Sukur Cultural Landscape none
Philippines 1995 Rice Terraces of the none
Philippine Cordilleras
Poland 1999 Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: none
the Mannerist Architectural
and Park Landscape
Complex and Pilgrimage
Park
Portugal 1995 Cultural Landscape of Sintra-Cascais Nature Park V
Sintra

2001 Alto Douro Wine Region None

South Africa 2003 Mapungubwe Cultural Mapungubwe National II
Landscape Park (proposed)
Spain 2001 Aranjuez Cultural None
Landscape
Sweden 2000 Agricultural Landscape of Several areas IV and
Southern Öland V
United 2000 Blaenavon Industrial None
Kingdom Landscape
2003 Kew Gardens6 None

6
Kew Gardens is a special case: though inscribed as a Designed Cultural Landscape, it has (in
the rather understated words of the World Heritage Committee record) “contributed to
advances in many scientific disciplines, particularly botany and ecology”. In that sense it may
be said to be associative landscape as well. IUCN’s close and long standing interest in Kew
Gardens arises from its central place in plant conservation, its world wide scientific standing,

7
Zimbabwe 2003 Matobo Hills Matobo Hills National Park II

This analysis shows that many World Heritage Cultural Landscapes coincide
in whole or in part with established protected areas. In the case of three of
these, Tongariro, Uluru and Mt Perdu, natural values are so important that the
area has been inscribed as a World Heritage property for these as well for
cultural values. These three areas, and another 16 of the 36 sites on the list,
(see right hand column in Table 2) are recognised as national parks or
designated as other kinds of protected area under national legislation. In other
words, more than half of all World Heritage Cultural Landscapes currently
inscribed on the UN List have natural values that are considered sufficiently
important to merit their designation, by national or provincial authorities, as
protected areas (in the sense defined above by IUCN).

In addition, there may also be other Cultural Landscapes where the country
concerned has not yet taken action to identify and protect natural values in a
formal way at the site under protected area legislation, but where World
Heritage measures may have the same effect. The Philippines Rice Terraces
(see case study below) is a case in point.

A further analysis of the information in Table 4 relates the types of World

Heritage Cultural Landscapes as defined by the World Heritage Committee
(see Annex 3) to the IUCN management categories of the associated protected
areas: see Table 3.

Table 3: Categories of Cultural Landscapes and Management Categories

of Associated Protected Areas
Country Name of site Category of Management
Cultural Category of
Landscape Associated
(see Annex 3) Protected Area
(see also Table 2)
Afghanistan Cultural Landscape and 2a None
Archaeological Remains of
the Bamiyan Valley
Australia Uluru-Kata Tjuta National 3 II (also inscribed as
Park a natural WH site)
Austria Hallstatt-Dachstein 2b IV
Salzkammergut Cultural
Landscape
Wachau Cultural 2b V
Landscape
Austria/Hun Fertö/Neusiedlersee 2b II
gary Cultural Landscape V

Cuba Viñales Valley 2b II

Archaeological Landscape 2b None

of the First Coffee
Plantations in the Southeast

and the outstanding quality of its ex situ plant collection, even though the site is not a
protected area in the strict meaning.

8
 of Cuba
Czech Lednice-Valtice Cultural 1 None
Republic Landscape

France Jurisdiction of Saint- 2b None

Emilion

The Loire Valley between 2b V

Sully-sur-Loire and
Chalonnes
France/ Pyrénées - Mont Perdu 2b II
Spain (also inscribed as a
natural WH site)
Germany Garden Kingdom of 1 None
Dessau-Wörlitz

Upper Middle Rhine Valley 2b V

Hungary Hortobágy National Park - 2b II
the Puszta
Tokaj Wine Region 2b V
Historic Cultural
Landscape
India Rock Shelters of 2b IV
Bhimbetka
Italy Portovenere, Cinque Terre, 2b V
and the Islands (Palmaria,
Tino and Tinetto)
Costiera Amalfitana 2b None
Cilento and Vallo di Diano 2a/2b V
National Park with the
Archeological sites of
Paestum and Velia, and the
Certosa di Padula
Sacri Monti of Piedmont 3 None
and Lombardy
Lao People's Vat Phou and Associated 3 None
Democratic Ancient Settlements within
Republic the Champasak Cultural
Landscape
Lebanon Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy 3 none
Valley) and the Forest of
the Cedars of God (Horsh
Arz el-Rab)
Lithuania/ Curonian Spit 2b II
Russian
Federation II
Madagascar Royal Hill of 3 None
Ambohimanga
New Tongariro National Park 3 II (also inscribed as
Zealand a natural WH site)
Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape 2b None
Philippines Rice Terraces of the 2b None
Philippine Cordilleras
Poland Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: 1 None

9
 the Mannerist Architectural
and Park Landscape
Complex and Pilgrimage
Park
Portugal Cultural Landscape of 1 V
Sintra

Alto Douro Wine Region 2b None

South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural 2b II
Landscape
Spain Aranjuez Cultural 1 None
Landscape
Sweden Agricultural Landscape of 2b IV and V
Southern Öland
United Blaenavon Industrial 2a None
Kingdom Landscape
Kew Gardens 1/3 None
Zimbabwe Matobo Hills 2b II

This table shows that the most common category of Cultural Landscape is
Category 2b (Continuing Organically Evolved Cultural Landscape) and that
most of these areas coincide with a protected area, most commonly one in
Category V (Protected Landscape/Seascape). It shows too that only one
Cultural Landscape in Category 1 (Designed Cultural Landscapes) is also a
protected area. However, another Designed Cultural Landscapes is the special
case of Kew Gardens – see footnote 6.

Finally, the analysis in Table 2 may be taken a little further to tease out a
typology of relationships between Cultural Landscapes and protected areas.
Table 4 attempts to do this, though it too is a very preliminary exercise at
present.

Table 4: Suggested Typology of Relationships between World Heritage

Cultural Landscapes and Protected Areas

Type of Characteristics of World Heritage

relationship relationship
Mixed site Site is inscribed under both
natural and cultural values
CL with nationally Whole site or most of site has
important biodiversity recognition at national level
values primarily for biodiversity
conservation (Category II and
IV)
CL with nationally Whole or most of site has
important landscape recognition at national level
values primarily for landscape
conservation (Category V)
Cultural Landscapes
(abbreviated title)
Uluru, Pyrénées - Mont
Perdu, Tongariro
Fertö/Neusiedlersee (H),
Viñales Valley, Hortobágy
National Park, Curonian
Spit, Mapungubwe,
Matobo Hills
Wachau, Loire Valley,
Upper Middle Rhine
Valley, Fertö/
Neusiedersee (A), Tokaj
Wine Region, Cinque
Terre, Cilento and Vallo
di Diano, Sintra

10
Some coincidence of Part of site is designated for Hallstatt-Dachstein,
interest natural values Southern Öland

3: Case Studies

In this section of the paper, four case studies are briefly described to show the range
of interests that IUCN has in Cultural Landscapes. In each instance the nominated site
is analysed with the help of an IUCN paper “IUCN’s Procedures for Identifying
Natural Values in Cultural Landscapes”, which is referred to in the new World
Heritage Operational Guidelines (and reproduced in full in annex 2).

The four case studies are:

• the Philippines Rice Terraces (inscribed 1995)

• Fertö/Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape (inscribed 2001)
• Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture, Azores, Portugal
(nominated 2001)
• Þingvellir, Iceland (nominated 2003).

All four of these sites were nominated as Cultural Landscapes, and two of
them - Fertö/Neusiedlersee and Pico – were also nominated as natural
properties. However, in every case the field evaluation of the nomination was
undertaken jointly by IUCN and ICOMOS. In the case of the Philippines Rice
Terraces, the two Advisory Bodies also undertook a joint state of conservation
evaluation mission.

The Philippines Rice Terraces

The rice terraces were the first site to be included on the World Heritage
Cultural Landscape list under the continuing organically evolved category,
indeed they may almost be considered as a model example of this type of area.
They are dramatically beautiful, a superb physical creation and a living
example of the close links between culture and nature. But they are also an
exceptional demonstration of the sustainable use of natural resources (soil,
water and vegetation) and of an enduring balance between people and nature.
Indeed it is astonishing that the rice terraces have existed on very steep slopes
for an estimated 2,000 years old in a region affected by land-slips, earthquakes
and typhoons. There are lessons to be learnt from such land management,
underpinned by the cultural tradition of the Ifugao people, for wider
application in the rice-growing tropics and beyond. Although the rice terraces
are not recognised under national law as a protected area within the IUCN
system, in fact they manifest many of the characteristics of a Category V
protected area; indeed they are given as a case study in IUCN’s published
advice on this topic (Phillips, 2002).

Therefore IUCN and ICOMOS together carried out the original assessment of
the nomination of the site in 1995. They also undertook a joint state of
conservation evaluation mission in 2001, which led to their inscription on the
In Danger List at the Helsinki meeting (the first Cultural Landscape to be so
listed). IUCN will continue to take a close interest in the area. Strategies for
its future management should draw on experience in the management of many

11
Category V protected areas elsewhere in the world. Examples are: integration
of rice growing with ecotourism; the development of new markets for rice and
rice wine from the region; and capacity building among the local community
based on traditional values.

Fertö/Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape

The Fertö-Neusiedler Lake area, located on the Austrian-Hungarian border, is a

unusual and diverse ecosystem, which has had a very long tradition of a
harmonious interaction between people and nature. The lake itself, which has no
outlet, is the largest saline in Europe (309,000ha). The water surface and
surrounding lands are subject to a variety of climatic effects, and contain unique
assemblages of species from different regions, as well as a number of rare plant
endemics. It is a crucial habitat for many resident and migratory bird species.
Adjoining the lake proper is Seewinkel: its 80 shallow saline ponds attract
thousands of geese that arrive in the late autumn. Other natural habitats include
saline grassland and marshlands, steppe-relicts, bogs and xerotherm oak stands;
many of the modified habitats are also important for nature conservation, though
this depends on maintaining traditional land management practices. The area is
very beautiful, with contrasts between the lake and its reed beds, forests, dry
meadows, vineyards and orchards.

The lake and surrounding lands are already protected under both Hungarian and
Austrian law: they are also an important wetland under the Ramsar Convention
and a key site in the EU’s Natura 2000 system. The site was nominated both as a
cultural landscape and as a natural site. In its joint evaluation with ICOMOS,
IUCN recognised its great importance at the European scale but did not feel it
was quite as diverse as other World Heritage sites in the region, such as the
Danube Delta, nor as rich in birdlife as several other land-locked lakes in
temperate latitudes. Although therefore it did not suport the inscription of the site
on natural grounds, it acknowledged its great regionaland national importance,
supported its recognition as a Cultural Landscape and indicated its continuing
interest in the management of the site.

Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture, Azores, Portugal

The archipelago of the Azores is situated in the mid-Atlantic: Pico is the

second largest of the nine islands, dominated by Pico Mountain volcano
(2,351m). Two small coastal areas on the island were nominated in 2001 as
both cutural and natural properties. Both have been significantly modified for
agricultural use: one is an actively-farmed viticulture area, the other was
formerly used for growing vines and figs but has since been abandoned. Both
areas contain numerous very small fields (a few square metres only) each
surrounded by high lava walls, producing a unique humanised landscape.

IUCN recognised the extraordinary achievement of farming in these barren

areas of lava and the struggle between people and their environment that is
represented by this farmed landscape. However, in terms of natural values the
areas are far too small for recognition as World Heritage sites – and they
exclude those parts of the island (such as the volcano) which would be of
greatest interest. IUCN did not therefore recommend their inscription as

12
natural properties and indeed would have only a limited interest in how these
areas are managed, though it did indicate that there might be other parts of the
archipelago which could merit inscription as a natural site. For its part,
ICOMOS recognised that the area had the potential to be a cultural property
but asked the State Party to consider re-nominating a somewhat larger area of
the field system and made several other recommendations.

Þingvellir, Iceland7

Þingvellir National Park (IUCN Management Category II) is strikingly

situated on top of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which arises from the splitting of
the North American and European tectonic plates. The site is bounded on two
sides by parallel lines of faulted fissures, and on the other two by mountains
and Lake Þingvallavatn, Iceland’s largest lake. Its physical setting helps to
give the site its unusual and beautiful quality – as well as a distinct unity.
These qualities take on an added significance, as Þingvellir has been the place
where nearly all the great events in Icelandic history have taken place for well
over a thousand years. Its importance was recognised when it was made
Iceland’s first national park as early as 1928 - one of the earliest parks in
Europe. The area thus has a unique cultural significance to the Icelandic
people: it is, in effect, a national shrine.

Although Þingvellir was nominated only a cultural site, it is remarkable too

because of the very strong links between natural and cultural factors. Natural
values are certainly higher than in most other Cultural Landscapes on the
World Heritage List, and have been well documented. IUCN therefore took a
close interest in the nomination, and has made a number of recommendations,
jointly with ICOMOS, on the management of the site, that will be considered
by the World Heritage Committee this coming June. It concluded that the area
had very impressive natural qualities that are an integral part of the site’s
values. In particular:

• The nominated site shows inter-continental rifting in a spectacular and

readily understandable manner;
• The site is of great natural beauty, with an impressive variety of
landforms;
• There is a close interaction between natural and cultural/historical aspects
of the site; and
• Lake Þingvallavatn is of great limnological interest.

While Þingvellir National Park was not nominated under natural criteria, the
question whether it should be was raised during the evaluation and also by
some reviewers. It seems that the Icelandic authorities would like to nominate
Þingvellir as a natural site in due course. Without prejudice to the evaluation
of any such future nomination, the case may be made stronger if Þingvellir
were part of a serial nomination that illustrated the significance of the Mid-
Atlantic ridge as a whole – a global feature that occurs in several islands or
island groups other than Iceland.

7
‘Þingvellir’ is pronounced Thingvellir.

13
Analysis

These four cases show that IUCN’s interest in Cultural Landscapes varies
greatly. In Table 5 below, each site has been analysed against the natural
characteristics set out in Annex 2. It shows that the natural qualities that they
display are of several different kinds and that no one site is important in all
respects. Indeed the natural qualities of the four sites are as varied as the
cultural ones.

Table 5: Natural Characteristics of the Four Case Studies

World Heritage Important natural characteristics (see also Annex 2)

Cultural Bio- Agri- Sustain- Scenic Ex-situ People/ Site of
diversity bio- able use beauty cllction. Nature key
Landscape diversity model findings
Philippines Rice medium high very very no very no
Terraces high high high
Fertö/ very low medium high no high no
Neusiedlersee high
Cultural Landscape
Pico Island low medium medium medium no high no
Vineyard Culture
Þingvellir, Iceland medium no low very no low yes
high

Conclusions

The World Heritage Convention brings together cultural and natural values
and ‘constituencies’. But until the inclusion of Cultural Landscapes under the
convention in 1992, the two concepts and communities remained
operationally largely separate. The revision of the Operational Guidelines that
took place then provided a bridge between the cultural and natural elements of
the Convention.

This paper demonstrates:

• A direction of thinking on the part of IUCN towards greater engagement

in the cultural dimension of conservation,
• A significant overlap in the sites already inscribed as World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes and protected areas as recognised by IUCN, and
• That individual World Heritage Cultural Landscapes contain a wide range
of different kinds of natural values.

In light of this, it is inevitable that IUCN should be increasingly involved in co-

operating with ICOMOS in the evaluation of as World Heritage Cultural Landscapes,
helping to monitor the state of conservation within them and in developing improved
understanding of these areas and their management needs.

14
 Annex 1:
Definitions of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories

CATEGORY I Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: protected area managed

mainly for science or wilderness protection.

CATEGORY Ia Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science.
Definition: Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative
ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available
primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.

CATEGORY 1b Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness

protection
Definition: Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining
its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant
habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
condition.

CATEGORY II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem

protection and recreation
Definition: Natural are of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological
integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations,
(b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of
designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual,
scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of wh
ich must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

CATEGORY III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for

conservation of specific natural features
Definition: Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature
which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity,
representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.

CATEGORY IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly

for conservation through management intervention
Definition: Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management
purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the
requirements of specific species.

CATEGORY V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for

landscape/ seascape conservation and recreation
Definition: Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of
people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character
with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with
high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional
interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such
an area.

CATEGORY VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly

for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems
Definition: Area containing predominantly unmodified natural system, managed to
ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products
and services to meet community needs.
(Source: IUCN, 1994)

15
 Annex 2:
IUCN’s Procedures for Identifying Natural Values in Cultural Landscapes
(to be found on the IUCN web site)

1. Properties nominated as Cultural Landscapes are evaluated under criteria (i) -

(vi) and therefore ICOMOS carries out the technical evaluation. However, IUCN is
often called upon by ICOMOS to review the natural value (criteria (vii)-(ix)) and the
management of Cultural Landscapes. This has been the subject of an agreement
between the Advisory Bodies. In some cases, a joint mission is required. when
assisting ICOMOS in the review of Cultural Landscapes, IUCN is guided by the
paper "The assessment of Natural and Cultural Value in Cultural Landscapes" which
has been summarised below.

Background

2. The inclusion of cultural landscapes within the scope of the World Heritage
Convention in 1993 was an important step in recognising the complex and often
mutually-supportive role of nature and culture, and helped to bring the natural and
cultural elements of the Convention closer together. While cultural landscapes are
considered under the cultural rather than the natural criteria, IUCN nonetheless
played an important role in introducing this new concept to the Convention and
welcomed this development.

The assessment of Natural and Cultural Value in Cultural Landscapes

3. Cultural landscapes are designated under Article 1 of the Convention for

cultural properties. As defined in Annex 4 of the Operational Guidelines, cultural
landscapes embrace "a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between
humankind and its natural environment". However, while the criteria for assessing the
cultural value of this interaction are clear and explicit those for the natural ones are
not. Criteria developed specifically for natural properties are of limited value in
assessing nominations for cultural landscapes (although natural criterion (vii),
concerning "areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance", is relevant
to the assessment of cultural landscapes). The guidance below, developed by IUCN
is used to identify the extent of IUCN’s interest in cultural landscapes, which are
properties that will be formally inscribed only under cultural criteria.

16
Nature in Cultural Landscapes

4. The close interest that IUCN has in cultural landscapes derives from the
importance of many cultural landscapes for nature conservation and evolution of nature
and natural resources. While this may be a characteristic of any of the types of cultural
landscapes listed in Annex 4 of the Operational Guidelines8, in practice it is likely to be
most important in the case of continuing, organically evolved landscapes. On the other
hand, there will be some cultural landscapes in which IUCN's interest will be small, or
non-existent.

5. The various natural qualities of cultural landscapes are summarised in Annex

49:

"Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land use,

considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are
established in, and a specific spiritual relationship to nature. Protection of
cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land use
and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued
existence of traditional forms of land use supports biological diversity in many
regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is
therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity"

6. In addition to these important aspects, there may also be other natural qualities
apparent in a cultural landscape:

- outstanding natural beauty and aesthetic values. Some natural World Heritage
properties have been inscribed under natural criterion (vii) from the World Heritage
Operational Guidelines, as areas "of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic
importance". In the case of cultural landscape, such values would derive as much
from the contrast, and/or interaction, between the works of nature and of humankind
as from the intrinsic quality of the natural features,

- informative evidence of a uniquely significant past relationship between humanity

and nature. This may have been a balanced and sustainable relationship, but it might
also have been a negative relationship in which a civilisation collapsed after
unsustainable exploitation of natural resources,

- important biodiversity resources may be found both in wild species of fauna and flora,
and in domesticated animals and cultivated crops.

Natural Considerations for Assessing Cultural Landscapes

7. Against this background, IUCN have the following considerations in mind

when assessing cultural landscapes:

8
These appear as Annex 3 of this paper.
9
See Annex 3 of this paper.

17
a) conservation of natural and semi natural ecosystems, and of wild species of fauna
and flora and in particular whether the cultural landscape is an outstanding example
of how traditional land use patterns can:

• contribute to the protection of natural ecosystems (e.g. by providing for the

protection of watershed forests),

• help protect wild species of fauna or flora,

• help protect genetic diversity within wild species,

• create semi-natural habitats of great importance to biodiversity, i.e. manipulated

ecosystems with well-structured and functional interactions between its living
components.

b) conservation of biodiversity within farming systems and in particular whether the

cultural landscape is an outstanding example of how traditional farm systems can:

• develop and/or conserve a wide range of varieties of domesticated livestock,

• develop and/or conserve a wide range of varieties of cultivated crops, such as

cereals, fruit or root vegetables.

• respect the productive capability of land,

• conserve the quality and quantity of soil,

• manage and safeguard water quality,

• manage streams and rivers so as to reduce damaging floods and run-off,

• maintain plant cover,

• restore vegetation, soils and sources of water.

c) examples of sustainable land use and in particular whether the land use practices
are an outstanding example of how to

• respect the productive capability of land,

• conserve the quality and quantity of soil,

• manage and safeguard water quality,

• manage streams and rivers so as to reduce damaging floods and run-off,

• maintain plant cover,

• restore vegetation, soils and sources of water.

18
d) enhancement of scenic beauty: that is whether the cultural landscape has
outstanding scenic qualities, deriving as much from the contrast and/or interaction
between the works of nature and humanity as from the intrinsic quality of the
natural features themselves.

e) the presence of an outstanding ex situ collection of plants (herbarium, botanic

gardens) or of fauna (e.g. collection of waterfowl).

f) evidence of an outstanding example of humanity's inter-relationship with nature.

IUCN may be interested if there is evidence of either a successful or failed
relationship between a past civilisation and the natural resources on which it
depended.

g) the site of some historically-significant discovery in the natural sciences, i.e.

where the associative value derives from such a discovery.

8. The following table places each of the above considerations against the
categories of cultural landscapes set out in Annex 4, thereby indicating where they are
most likely to occur. The absence of a consideration does not mean that it will never
be relevant in the landscape type concerned, but that it would not normally be
significant.

Cultural Landscape type Natural considerations most likely to be relevant (see

paragraph 7 above)
Designed landscape (e)
Organically evolving (a) (b) (c) (d)
landscape - continuous
Organically evolving (a) (f)
landscape - fossil
Associative landscape (g)

9. Finally, it should be added that other factors, e.g. with regard to integrity, and
the existence of a management plan and of long-term legislative, regulatory or
institutional protection, are as relevant to IUCN in examining cultural landscapes as in
the assessment of natural properties. In other words, IUCN looks for evidence that the
integrity of the property is well protected, and that there are effective management
policies in place that can retain or restore the essential qualities of the cultural
landscape. However, the concept of integrity has a different application for lived-in
landscapes. It is integrity of the relationship with nature that matters, rather than the
integrity of nature itself.

19
 Annex 3: Categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
(from Operational Guidelines)
Category of
Cultural DEFINITION
Landscape

1 A clearly defined landscape is one designed and created intentionally by

man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes characteristically
constructed for aesthetic, social and recreational reasons which are often
(but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings
and ensembles
An organically evolved landscape results from an initial social,
economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed
2
its present form by association with and in response to its natural
environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their
form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories (labelled
a) and b) respectively in Table 3):
a). a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary
process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a
period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in
material form
b). a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social
role in contemporary society closely associated with a traditional way of
life. It is continuing to evolve while, at the same time, it exhibits
significant material evidence of its historic evolution
An associative cultural landscape is a landscape with definable
powerful, religious, artistic or cultural associations with the natural
3
element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant
or even absent.

20
References

• IUCN (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN,

Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK
• Fowler P (in print). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992-2002. UNESCO,
Paris
• Lennon J. (ed.), (in print). Management Guidelines for World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes, UNESCO, Paris
• Phillips A. (2002). Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas
– Protected Landscapes/Seascapes, IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK
• Chape, S.P., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox, M. Spalding (compilers) (2003), 2003
United Nations List of Protected Areas, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge, UK and IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland,
Switzerland.

21