Indigenous Applications to Canada's Tentative List

Updating Canada’s Tentative List: Environmental Scan of Indigenous Heritage in Canada October 14, 2016

submitted to:

Parks Canada Agency 111 Water Street East Cornwall, ON K6H 6S3 by:

R. Michael O’Flaherty Eco-‐Ant Research and Consulting

Updating C anada’s T entative L ist: E nvironmental S can o f I ndigenous H eritage i n C anada

Table of Contents A. Introduction: Purpose of this Report

1

Organization of this Report ......................................................................................................... 2

B. World Heritage Requirements

3 1. Outstanding Universal Value ................................................................................................... 3 2. World Heritage criteria ........................................................................................................... 6 3. Authenticity and Integrity ....................................................................................................... 8 4. Effective Protection and Management ................................................................................. 11 Summary: The Long Road to World Heritage Inscription .......................................................... 12

C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage

14 1. Identifying Appropriate Forms of Heritage ........................................................................... 14 2. Indigenous Heritage Themes ................................................................................................. 15 3. Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List ................................................................... 22 Summary: Indigenous Heritage as World Heritage ................................................................... 27

D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List

29 1. Selecting Appropriate World Heritage Criteria ..................................................................... 29 2. Gaps in the World Heritage List ............................................................................................ 41 Summary: Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage .................................................................... 48

E. Conclusions

49

F. References

51

Appendix A. Policy Supporting Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage

55

Appendix B. Methods

59

i


List of Tables Table 1. World Heritage cultural sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand with and without Indigenous heritage (2016) .............................................................................. 22 Table 2. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes on the World Heritage List (2016) ...... 27 Table 3. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes on Canada’s Tentative List (2004) ...... 28 Table 4. Cultural criteria used for World Heritage sites with cultural heritage (2016) ................ 35 Table 5. Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand with living and relict Indigenous heritage (2016) ................................................................... 42 Table 6. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes in living Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand (2016) ............................................. 43 Table 7. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes among all Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand (2016) ............................................. 60

Note on Validity of Web Addresses

In order to make use of more accessible resources, web-‐based resources are provided in this report wherever possible. All web addresses were tested for validity as of 14 October 2016. If a web address is broken or unavailable, readers should go to a higher-‐level address and search for the resource that was cited. For example, if the World Heritage Convention is not available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ then search for the Convention at http://whc.unesco.org/. Acknowledgements

Identification of Indigenous National Historic Sites (NHS) used as examples in this report was based on work done by Susan Buggey for the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation (2010–2011). An early version of this report was commented on by Tom Andrews (Territorial Archaeologist at the Prince of Wales Heritage Centre, Yellowknife, NWT). An expanded and more relevant report has been produced to reflect his input.

ii


Glossary The following are not official definitions but are provided as more plain-‐language explanation of their usage in World Heritage. Sources for official definitions of terms, but not all of the terms provided below, are: The World Heritage Convention (i.e. the 1972 UNESCO Convention

Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage). Ø

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/

The Operational Guidelines (i.e. the Operational Guidelines for the

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention). Ø

http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/

Note: Where a term used in a definition has its own definition in this glossary, that term is presented in underlined text.

Association The relationship between tangible heritage — the material or physical expressions of culture that are the primary concern of the World Heritage Convention — and intangible heritage such as ideas, knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Association is a form of direct and/or material linkage through which the meaning and significance of tangible heritage, whether physical features of a site or the site as a whole, relies on the existence and continuity of intangible heritage. At the same time, the site itself must clearly convey and be essential to the understanding of the associations. Authenticity Authenticity refers to the ability of a site to effectively reflect, to an outside observer, the specific heritage that is being proposed to be of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Demonstrating authenticity of a site requires gathering all information sources on the cultural heritage, including written and oral sources, that explain how the heritage features of a proposed site express the values being proposed to be of OUV. The requirement to demonstrate authenticity of a site applies only to cultural heritage nominations. Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis demonstrates: (1) there is no existing World Heritage site that already represents the specific form of heritage being proposed for inscription, and (2) there is no other site, whether on a Tentative List or not, that better represents that specific form of heritage being proposed for inscription. Cultural Landscapes Areas of land and/or water that demonstrate the interaction of culture and nature, including the history of change in that interaction over time. World Heritage cultural

iii


landscapes are a form of cultural heritage for which their Outstanding Universal Value is based on the interaction of nature and culture, and are therefore different from mixed sites (although a World Heritage site can be both a cultural landscape and a mixed site). ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) ICOMOS provides the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of World Heritage nominations for cultural heritage, produces comparative studies and other technical reports, and provides States Parties with assistance in the preparation of nominations and conservation of inscribed sites. Intangible Heritage The knowledge, beliefs, and practices that do not have physical form but are an important part of cultural heritage. Intangible heritage can be an integral part of the meaning, significance, and continuity of tangible heritage. For example, oral traditions are a form of intangible heritage, while a named place that is the subject of a traditional story is a form of tangible heritage. The World Heritage Convention addresses protection of intangible heritage by helping to prevent erosion or destruction of the tangible heritage on which intangible heritage depends. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) The IUCN provides the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of World Heritage nominations for natural heritage, produces comparative studies and other technical reports, and provides States Parties with assistance in the preparation of nominations and conservation of inscribed sites. Integrity Integrity refers to the wholeness and intactness of cultural heritage within a World Heritage site. Wholeness means having within the site all the required components that make up or represent the Outstanding Universal Value of the site. Intactness is the absence of adverse affects on the physical fabric of the site and the intangible heritage associated with the site. Mixed Site Mixed sites are inscribed under at least one of six cultural World Heritage criteria and at least one of four six natural World Heritage criteria. Mixed sites do not need to demonstrate the interaction or interdependence of cultural and natural heritage; they must make separate and equally effective justifications for Outstanding Universal Value under both cultural and natural criteria. Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) The Operational Guidelines define Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as being cultural and/or natural significance that is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. The term ‘universal’ refers to issues or themes that are faced by people across the world but experienced, understood, and addressed in ways that are highly context-specific or culturally unique. Outstanding means standing out or

iv


exceptional in comparison to other similar places. A World Heritage site is outstanding not because it stands alone, or is unique, but because no other site is able to better represent the specific values that make up the proposed OUV. Property A property is the area of land and/or water that has been inscribed on the World Heritage List for its Outstanding Universal Value. World Heritage inscription does not alter existing ownership of a Tentative List site. While many Canadian World Heritage sites are federal properties (e.g. National Parks) that are managed by the Parks Canada Agency, this is not a requirement for inclusion on Canada’s Tentative List. In this document the term ‘site’ is used rather than property. States Parties Countries (i.e. states) that have adhered to and are therefore parties to the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, or the World Heritage Convention. States Parties are expected to protect the World Heritage values of inscribed sites and are encouraged to report periodically on their condition. Tentative List A Tentative List is an inventory of important natural and cultural heritage sites located within the territorial boundaries of one of the States Parties. The Tentative List includes sites that a State Party may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years. Nominations for inscription on the World Heritage List will not be considered unless the site is included on a State Party's Tentative List. A Tentative List may be updated at any time. UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) A branch of the United Nations formed after World War II with the understanding that world peace requires not only political and economic agreements but also moral and intellectual solidarity across humanity. UNESCO promotes international peace and security through educational, scientific, cultural, and communication programs among its 195 member states. World Heritage Committee The World Heritage Committee consists of representatives from 21 of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention. The Committee is responsible for implementation of the World Heritage Convention and meets once a year to make decisions on inscription of World Heritage sites, action needed when World Heritage sites are not being properly managed, inscription or deletion of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and use of the World Heritage Fund. World Heritage Centre The World Heritage Centre is responsible for day-to-day management of all matters related to World Heritage. The Centre organizes the annual sessions of the World Heritage Committee, provides advice to States Parties in the preparation of site nominations, organizes international assistance from the World Heritage

v


Fund upon request, and coordinates both the reporting on the condition of sites and the emergency action undertaken when a site is threatened. The Centre also organizes technical seminars and workshops. World Heritage Criteria World Heritage criteria are a kind of general category of World Heritage under which specific forms of heritage are grouped for the purposes of assessing Outstanding Universal Value. All World Heritage sites are inscribed under at least one of either six cultural criteria or four natural criteria. Sites inscribed under both cultural and natural criteria are referred to as mixed sites. Values Values are the meaning and significance attributed to a place, its natural and cultural features, either directly or by association with some aspect of intangible heritage that is part of the meaning and significance of the site. Values that are shown to be outstanding through comparative analysis are the potential Outstanding Universal Value of a site.

vi


A. I ntroduction: P urpose o f t his R eport Inscription on the World Heritage List is the highest international recognition for a protected area. In order to become a World Heritage site, a place of natural and/or cultural heritage must first be placed on a country’s Tentative List. A Tentative List is an inventory of natural and cultural heritage places with good potential to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. As of July 20, 2016, six of the 11 sites that were on Canada’s 2004 Tentative List have been inscribed on the World Heritage List as World Heritage sites. This report was commissioned to assist Parks Canada in preparing for an update to the Tentative List through a process that allows members of the public to submit applications for inclusion on Canada’s Tentative List. The purpose of this report is to improve the readiness of Indigenous peoples and their partners to develop Tentative List applications that involve Indigenous heritage and/or Indigenous peoples. The specific objectives of this report are: (1) To identify those aspects of Indigenous heritage in Canada that have the greatest likelihood of success in developing an application to Canada’s Tentative List. (2) To clarify the interpretation of specific World Heritage nomination standards for applications to Canada’s Tentative List in which there is a significant Indigenous heritage component. Emphasis is placed specifically on issues and concerns for Indigenous cultural heritage, not cultural heritage more broadly. The term ‘Indigenous peoples’ is used here to refer to ‘Aboriginal peoples’ as identified in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982; that is, Inuit, First Nations, and Métis peoples. Emphasis is also placed on requirements for application to Canada’s Tentative List rather than the more rigorous requirements for preparation of a full nomination dossier for evaluation as a potential World Heritage site. However, this report will still be useful to anyone developing a nomination that involves Indigenous heritage and/or Indigenous peoples. In addition, although Indigenous peoples tend to see cultural and natural values as deeply interdependent, within World Heritage the two are treated separately (about which more is said in Section D); as a result, issues associated with natural heritage are only raised where they seem specifically relevant to Indigenous peoples. Finally, guidance provided in this report will rely on the guidance of other Parks Canada materials that outline the Tentative List Application process as well as guidance available from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and in particular the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

A. Introduction

1


Organization of this Report

Findings and discussion in the remainder of this report are organized under the following sections: B. World Heritage Requirements, with emphasis on issues related to Indigenous

heritage in Canada.

C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage, providing background on forms of

Indigenous heritage in Canada and on the World Heritage List. D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List, for which Canadian Indigenous heritage sites may be able to make a

strong contribution. E. Conclusions F. References Appendix A. Policy Supporting Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage Appendix B. Methods

Additional Resources: ¤ World Heritage Centre website: http://whc.unesco.org ¤ Parks Canada website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/spm-whs/sec06/f.aspx

A. Introduction

2


B. World H eritage R equirements To be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List, a Tentative List site must: 1. Be of exceptional international significance, or Outstanding Universal Value; 2. Satisfy the requirements of at least one of ten World Heritage Criteria under

which Outstanding Universal Value is assessed; 3. Meet the conditions of Authenticity and Integrity, which ensure the proposed Outstanding Universal Value is completely and accurately represented; and 4. Demonstrate effective Protection and Management is in place to ensure the long-‐term preservation of the proposed Outstanding Universal Value. Each of these four World Heritage requirements will be explained in turn, with specific attention to issues related to Indigenous heritage in Canada.

Additional Resources ¤ Operational Guidelines, the primary reference for World Heritage processes: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ ¤ Preparing World Heritage Nominations (UNESCO 2011), a UNESCO resource manual useful to anyone preparing a Tentative List application: http://whc.unesco.org/en/preparing-world-heritage-nominations/

1. Outstanding Universal Value

Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is the cornerstone of World Heritage and is defined as significance that is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity (UNESCO 2015b: 11, Art. 49). The term ‘universal’ refers to issues or themes that are faced by people across the world but experienced, understood, and addressed in ways that are highly context-‐ specific or culturally unique (Jokilehto 2008: 48). For example, the struggle for survival in the face of a harsh environment is a common general theme in many Statements of OUV (although most Indigenous peoples see the land as bountiful rather than inhospitable). The general theme is universal but the specific expression of a general theme is the basis for potential OUV. For example, the shrines and stone figures found on the islands of Papahānaumokuākea (United States of America) represent a culturally specific expression of the human/universal search for meaning in life and death. B. World Heritage Requirements

3


For ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites), the body that evaluates World Heritage nominations for cultural heritage, outstanding is understood to mean exceptional; that is, ‘something that excels over the others’ (Jokilehto 2008: 14). Alternatively, in a note regarding evaluation of cultural landscapes, ICOMOS suggests it is possible to argue that rather than being exceptional a site can be said to have OUV if it is ‘a particularly good representative of a “world-‐type” of landscape’ (ICOMOS 2001: 128). For example, Agave Landscape and Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila (Mexico), represents a unique industrial landscape associated with a specific region and time period. Whether exceptional or representative, a site must be shown to be outstanding in comparison to other similar sites. The process of evaluating whether or not a nominated site possesses OUV is necessarily comparative. A World Heritage site is outstanding not because it stands alone, or is unique, since ‘all sites are somehow unique and therefore exceptional’ (Jokilehto 2008: 14). A World Heritage sites is outstanding because no other site, whether an existing or even potential World Heritage site, is able to better represent the specific values that make up the proposed OUV. By way of example, Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump World Heritage site in Alberta is ‘one of the oldest, most extensive, and best preserved sites that illustrate communal hunting techniques and the way of life of Plains people’. The site is a globally exceptional illustration of communal hunting practices which were once more widespread in the world but are today uncommon. Specifying and justifying the potential OUV of a site can be a difficult task for Indigenous peoples who have a cultural tendency to be non-‐judgemental and non-‐ comparative. Indigenous peoples in Canada are less likely to be comfortable making judgements about the nature of other peoples’ relationships with their lands. For example, at the inaugural conference of the World Indigenous Network, held in Darwin, Australia, May 26–29 2013, Indigenous representatives of Pimachiowin Aki suggested the World Heritage nomination process ‘requires indigenous people to make inappropriate claims of superiority about our cultures in comparison to other nations and communities in order to grant us special recognition’ (Feneley 2013). The concern was eventually resolved, to a large extent, by focusing on the ability of the specific geography of the nominated site to reflect a specific set of values in comparison to other sites with similar values. It can be a difficult and perhaps subtle point of difference but because the World Heritage Convention is an area-‐based (land or water) convention, OUV must inhere in the physical features of a site itself. Therefore, demonstrating that a site is exceptional is not about comparing cultures or even people, it is about comparing sites for the way in which they demonstrate a particular form of cultural heritage. Comparison is not an assessment of the cultural values themselves but the relative ability of a site to reflect or represent those values.


4


In sum, to be a World Heritage site, a proposed Tentative List site must be of exceptional international significance; local or national significance is not enough. Maintaining an international perspective is important in arguing for potential OUV because the World Heritage Convention ‘is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most outstanding of these from an international viewpoint’ (UNESCO 2015: Art. 52). Additional Resources ¤ ICOMOS bibliographies on specific forms of heritage (these contain very few sources on heritage in North America but may be important resources for comparative work): http://www.icomos.org/centre_documentation/bib/

Indigenous World Heritage in Canada

Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump was inscribed for its outstanding representation of the universal theme of survival from the land, and specifically a pre-industrial form of subsistence: the communal hunting of bison and way of life of Plains people in North America that continued into the late 19th century and still form part of the traditional knowledge base of Plains people. The site is of international cultural, archaeological, and scientific interest for the way it helps to understand the practices of traditional hunting cultures elsewhere in the world. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump was deemed outstanding in comparison to other similar sites because the World Heritage site is ‘one of the oldest, most extensive, and best preserved sites that illustrate communal hunting techniques and the way of life of Plains people’. Used for more than five millennia and identified with the remains of © Government of Alberta several thousand buffalo, the site is a much (www.facebook.com/HeadSmashedInBuffaloJump/) larger kill site than comparable sites such as Solutré in France (wild horse kill site) and Vistonice in Czechoslovakia (mammoth kill site). Neighbouring kill sites in the United States of America do not offer comparable degrees of preservation and therefore value for international cultural, archaeological, and scientific interest.


5


Indigenous World Heritage in Canada

SGang Gwaay World Heritage site provide an example of the kinds of protection and management provided an existing World Heritage site in Canada. SGang Gwaay was designated under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act as a National Historic Site in 1981, also the year of its World Heritage inscription. SGang Gwaay sits within the much larger Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, regulated under the Canada National Parks Act, and Haida Heritage Site, protected under the Constitution of the Haida Nation. The Government of Canada and the Council of the Haida Nation signed the Gwaii Haanas Agreement in 1993, which expresses shared respect for Canadian and Haida interests and a mutual commitment to protect Gwaii Haanas as one of the world's great natural and cultural treasures’. The Agreement also sets out the two parties’ © Neil Banas (www.flickr.com/photos/neilbanas/) differing understandings of ‘sovereignty, title or ownership’, with the Haida Nation seeing Gwaii Hanaas as Haida Lands and the Government of Canada viewing Gwaii Hanaas as Crown land’. SGang Gwaay is cooperatively managed by the Government of Canada and the Council of the Haida Nation as part of the larger Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site. Haida Hereditary Leaders have moral authority over the village sites and provide guidance in management decision-making.

2. World Heritage criteria

World Heritage criteria are a kind of general category of World Heritage under which specific forms of heritage are grouped for the purposes of assessing Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). All World Heritage sites are inscribed under at least one of either six cultural criteria or four natural criteria. The six cultural criteria are directly relevant to Indigenous heritage sites and are therefore the focus of this document. Because natural heritage is assessed from a science-‐based perspective, largely without reference to cultural heritage, natural criteria are not discussed here. Sites inscribed under both cultural and natural criteria are referred to as mixed sites. B. World Heritage Requirements

6


Choosing appropriate criteria is a very important step in developing an effective argument for inscription. Adoption of specific World Heritage criteria ties down the range of values and issues that need to be covered in a proposal and may affect the boundary definition of a site. All Tentative List applications, and full nominations, must develop a justification for proposed OUV for each criterion used. Following are brief descriptions of the six cultural criteria. Discussion of which criteria are most appropriate for various forms of Indigenous heritage in Canada, including use of both cultural and natural criteria, is left for Section D, ‘Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List’.

CRITERION (I)

To be inscribed under criterion (i), a World Heritage site must ‘represent a masterpiece of human creative genius’. This criterion relates to artistic or technological achievements that have become iconic around the world for their intellectual, symbolic, or technical mastery.

CRITERION (II)

To be inscribed under criterion (ii), a World Heritage site must ‘exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-‐planning or landscape design’. The key phrase here is ‘interchange of human values’, and in particular this criterion is assessed for evidence of intellectual and/or cross-‐cultural communication that has led to significant changes in regional or global history.

CRITERION (III)

To be inscribed under criterion (iii), a World Heritage site must ‘bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared’. This criterion addresses sites that provide tangible evidence of cultural traditions and civilizations that have existed for long periods of time and define a way of life in a given region.

CRITERION (IV)

To be inscribed under criterion (iv), a World Heritage site must ‘be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history’. This criterion addresses built structures or landscapes that represent a stage in human history or some moment in history that was highly influential on a regional or global scale.

CRITERION (V)


7


To be inscribed under criterion (v), a World Heritage site must ‘be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-‐use, or sea-‐use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change’. This criterion addresses distinctive ways of working the land, for economic and habitation purposes, which have existed or continue to exist for long periods of time in order to be seen as traditional.

CRITERION (VI)

To be inscribed under criterion (vi), a World Heritage site must ‘be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance’. This criterion addresses intangible heritage such as ideas or beliefs that are linked specifically to some tangible aspect of a site, or the site as a whole. Although these intangible aspects may be central to the significance of a heritage site, the tangible aspects of the site itself must clearly convey that significance. There is an expectation that Criterion (vi) is not used on its own but in combination with other criteria. 3. Authenticity and Integrity

The requirement to demonstrate authenticity of a site applies only to cultural heritage sites, including the cultural heritage of mixed sites. All nominations to the World Heritage List must demonstrate integrity of cultural and/or natural heritage within the site. Authenticity refers to the ability of a site to effectively reflect, to an outside observer, the specific heritage that is being proposed to be of Outstanding Universal Value. Again, it is the site being tested for its ability to demonstrate authenticity, not the cultural heritage itself; the physical features of a landscape, whether natural or built, must be shown to anchor and reflect the proposed OUV for each cultural criterion used. This may be especially difficult where Indigenous heritage is expressed primarily through ideas, knowledge, beliefs, and practices (i.e. intangible heritage) rather than built structures that last over long periods of time. For sites with living Indigenous cultural heritage, demonstrating authenticity often requires showing the site continues to be used in the same way so the features of the site continue to hold the same significance as they did in the past. A key piece in demonstrating authenticity of a site is gathering all information sources on the cultural heritage that show the landscape and cultural features of a proposed site express the values being proposed as of OUV. Information sources include any ‘physical, written, oral, and figurative sources, which make it possible to know the nature, specificities, meaning, and history of the cultural heritage’. While oral sources are acknowledged, it is always important to also have written documentation, including, where appropriate, historical, anthropological, and


8


archaeological works relevant to proposed timeframe in which the significance of the heritage is rooted. Where possible, it is advisable to have cultural heritage resources documented in geo-‐spatial (GIS) formats that can be presented in maps. Additional Resources Resources for community-based Indigenous documentation of heritage resources: ¤ Living Proof: The Essential Data-Collection Guide for Indigenous Use-andOccupancy Map Surveys. By Terry N. Tobias (2010). Available for purchase: http://www.nativemaps.org/node/3684 ¤ Chief Kerry's Moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection. By Terry N. Tobias (2000). This is the original version of Living Proof and can be downloaded for free: http://nativemaps.org/node/1423 ¤ Aboriginal Mapping Network: http://www.nativemaps.org/ ¤ Living with the Land: A Manual for Documenting Cultural Landscapes in the Northwest Territories. By Government of Northwest Territories (2007): http://www.pwnhc.ca/download/living-with-the-land-a-manual-fordocumenting-cultural-landscapes-in-the-northwest-territories/

Because authenticity is necessarily assessed by an outside body (ICOMOS) that may not be familiar with the specific Indigenous culture(s) of a site, these information sources need to be accessible or understandable to a non-‐expert observer; this is what is meant by information sources being ‘credible or truthful’: ‘The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful’ (UNESCO 2015: Art. 80). It may seem potentially contentious for an outside entity to judge what is authentic in another culture, especially as people adapt to a changing world around them. In recognition of this potential pitfall, the World Heritage Committee adopted a guidance document known as the Nara Document on Authenticity (WHC 1994b), which states: All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong. Integrity refers to the wholeness and intactness of heritage. Wholeness can be understood as ensuring all the required components that make up or represent the B. World Heritage Requirements

9


proposed OUV are in fact within the site. Achieving wholeness does not require having every piece of land associated with that heritage within a site but having a representative portion so that every attribute or aspect of the heritage is reflected in the site. This may include, and especially for sites with living cultural heritage, cultural and ecological processes and relationships that are integral to the expression of cultural heritage. Definition of site boundaries can be complicated for Indigenous peoples who are disinclined to identify specific parts of their land as more important than others. But inclusion of specific parts of a landscape in a proposed Tentative List site is not necessarily a matter of placing greater value on those places; it is a strategic decision to include what is needed to demonstrate proposed OUV. Development of a case for potential OUV requires that specific values are isolated for attention and elevated above others in order to produce a focussed and effective argument. By way of illustration, when deciding on site boundaries for the Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site, Northwest Territories, it was necessary to focus on a discrete series of interlinked places along a 175-‐kilometer stretch of the Mackenzie river that were able to represent the larger Gwichya Gwich’in landscape that is tied to the river. The Gwich’in community had lengthy discussions over the assumption that ‘one part of the whole can be described as more important’. Delineation of the Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site aimed to include a representative sample of the landscape features that demonstrate the Gwich’in relationship to land and water along the Mackenzie River while also ensuring places associated with the most important stories and uses were included (Government of Northwest Territories 2007: 34). Intactness can be understood as the absence of adverse affects, including those that undermine both the physical fabric of a site (e.g., natural weathering and deterioration) and the cultural beliefs and practices that are specifically associated with the proposed OUV of a site (e.g., acculturation). Of potential concern to Indigenous peoples is the relationship between human use of nature and integrity of sites nominated under natural criteria. Where Indigenous livelihood practices continue, it may be necessary to demonstrate those practices do not negatively affect the specific natural features being proposed as of potential OUV. For example, in Wood Buffalo National Park World Heritage site, eleven First Nation and Métis communities hold rights to make use of the site for customary livelihood practices, excluding hunting of buffalo outside of a designated area. But the low levels of customary harvesting relative to the large size of the site ‘minimize human-‐ related stress within the property [i.e. site], resulting in a high level of integrity’. An alternative approach is proposed by the Tentative List site Pimachiowin Aki, which argues that human use is an integral part of natural values: sustainable hunting and trapping by Anishinaabeg is seen as part of healthy predator-‐prey dynamics that


10


constitute one of the site’s ‘significant on-‐going ecological and biological processes’ (criterion (ix)). 4. Effective Protection and Management

According to the Operational Guidelines, ‘all properties inscribed on the World Heritage List must have adequate long-‐term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditional protection and management to ensure their safeguarding’ (UNESCO 2015: Art. 97). In addition, sites being proposed for World Heritage inscription ordinarily are expected to have a buffer zone or zones around the site that have a complimentary protection and management framework that provides for maintenance of the OUV, including its integrity and/or authenticity. Sites proposed for addition to Canada’s Tentative List will need to have in place some form of legal (i.e. ‘permanent’), site-‐based protection under municipal, provincial, territorial, or federal legislation, or be in a planning process that is expected to lead to some form of legislated, site-‐based protection. In areas under comprehensive lands claims settlements, there are opportunities for Indigenous communities to establish and regulate their own forms of protection. Generally, participation of Indigenous peoples in defining protection and management of a potential Tentative List site will be an outcome of highly localised and context-‐specific processes. Protection and management of World Heritage sites can often involve complex legal and administrative arrangements, especially for large sites and those with multiple stakeholders. Indigenous peoples in Canada have often had a difficult relationship with protected areas that were established within their traditional land use areas, often without their consent. However that experience has begun to change in most jurisdictions, especially those in which comprehensive lands claims have been settled. At a federal level, Parks Canada has developed a cooperative approach to protection and management of national heritage places; for example, Parks Canada believes that Indigenous people must have access to places where they can continue to practice traditional activities and transmit their knowledge to the younger generation and to Parks Canada team members. The Agency is confident that stronger relationships will lead to better heritage place management and to healthier Indigenous communities (Indigenous Affairs Branch 2016; see also, Parks Canada Agency 2014). In addition, as is discussed in Appendix A, ‘Policy Supporting Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage’, there is now strong support for participation of Indigenous peoples in the management of World Heritage sites. Where Indigenous peoples have concerns for their ability to continue customary uses of protected areas designated as World Heritage sites, including those inscribed under only natural criteria, there


11


is specific support for sustainable use that does not impact the OUV of a World Heritage site (UNESCO 2015: Art. 119). For World Heritage sites inscribed under natural criteria, IUCN has a long history of working with Indigenous peoples in protected areas and has stated, ‘the involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities in the establishment and management of World Heritage sites is paramount’ (IUCN 2011). The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has suggested there is a growing ‘new paradigm’ of conservation that recognises ‘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’ (Phillips 2003: 41). Additional Resources ¤ Human Use of World Heritage Natural Sites: A Global Overview. By Jim Thorsell and Todd Sigaty (1998), an IUCN thematic study: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/WH-WP-004.pdf

Summary: The Long Road to World Heritage Inscription

Inscription on the World Heritage List is the highest international recognition that can be achieved for a protected area. Requirements for World Heritage inscription are therefore very stringent. World Heritage sites must contain heritage deemed to be of exceptional significance for all of humanity (i.e. Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)), as assessed under one or more of ten World Heritage criteria. This exceptional significance must be demonstrated in comparison to other similar sites, through comparative analysis; that is, no World Heritage site should already represent the proposed OUV and no other site with potential to become a World Heritage site should provide a comparable representation of the proposed OUV. In addition, World Heritage sites must meet the conditions of integrity and authenticity, which ensure the proposed Outstanding Universal Value is completely and accurately (or ‘truthfully’) represented; all of the natural and built features that reflect and/or anchor the OUV are present in the site and the specific relationships between those physical features and the OUV are either evident or demonstrable. World Heritage sites also have in place effective protection and management regimes to ensure the long-‐term preservation of the Outstanding Universal Value. Applicants to Canada’s Tentative List are reminded to consult the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2015) as the primary reference for World Heritage requirements. The UNESCO resource manual Preparing World Heritage Nominations (UNESCO 2011) provides additional clarification and guidance.


12


Requirements for World Heritage inscription need to be addressed, to varying degrees, in a Tentative List application but they are not specifically requirements of a Tentative List application; applications need to show there is good potential for OUV and realistic plans are in place to achieve the requirements of authenticity, integrity, protection, and management. Once a site is on a Tentative List, the proponents are expected to develop a full nomination dossier for evaluation by the World Heritage Committee. Nomination dossiers must specifically, and often in significant detail, address the requirements for World Heritage inscription outlined in the Operational Guidelines. Development of a full nomination dossier will take at least two years to complete, usually longer, and requires investment in documentation, meetings, fundraising, promotion (and branding), substantial expert input for analysis and writing, and capacity-‐building efforts (including possibly travel to World Heritage sites). Typically, this requires dedicating full-‐time staff and considerable financial resources. After submission of a completed nomination, the evaluation, review and decision process takes approximately 18 months. The World Heritage Committee meets once a year to discuss nominations so delays can add years to the process. After inscription, World Heritage site managers have a range of ongoing reporting requirements, including regular reporting on the state of conservation of the site as well as voluntary reporting on projects that might affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the site. In sum, achieving World Heritage status is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking, especially for large sites with multiple partners.


13


C. Indigenous H eritage a nd W orld H eritage

Aboriginal peoples in Canada, like Indigenous peoples worldwide, approach history not primarily through the western constructs of causal relationship, record, and time sequence, but through cosmology, narrative, and place. Susan Buggey, former Director of Historical Services, Parks Canada (1999: 3) This section provides an overview of Indigenous cultural heritage as general background and to help identify potential opportunities for Tentative List applications involving Indigenous heritage. This background will help with completion of Tentative List application Part C — Heritage values for which the site is proposed. The discussion is presented in three parts: 1. Identifying Appropriate Forms of Heritage — a brief introduction to the

forms of heritage that are most appropriate for inclusion on a Tentative List application. 2. Indigenous Heritage Themes — a broad overview of forms of Indigenous heritage in Canada through seven Indigenous heritage themes. 3. Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List — examples of Indigenous cultural heritage found in existing World Heritage sites that exemplify the seven Indigenous heritage themes. 1. Identifying Appropriate Forms of Heritage

When identifying indigenous heritage for inclusion in a proposed Tentative List site it is important to be clear on two key features of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, or the World Heritage Convention. First, cultural and natural heritage are evaluated separately within World Heritage processes. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) evaluates World Heritage nominations for cultural heritage; nominations for natural heritage are evaluated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) from a science-‐based perspective, largely without reference to cultural heritage. While ICOMOS and the IUCN collaborate and communicate with one another, the justifications for the proposed OUV in a World Heritage nomination for both cultural and natural values (i.e. a mixed site) must both be able to stand independently on their own. A mixed site nomination is in effect two nominations (see Section D.1, ‘Selecting Appropriate World Heritage Criteria’). Secondly, the World Heritage Convention supports protection of specific tracts of land and/or water that are considered to contain natural and/or cultural values that are of ‘outstanding interest’ as ‘part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole’. C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage

14


Therefore, heritage must be identified on or clearly tied to the specific geography of a proposed Tentative List site. The World Heritage Convention explicitly recognises intangible heritage — such as Indigenous knowledge, beliefs, and practices — where it is directly tied to specific, tangible features on land or water (among other specific restrictions discussed under criterion (vi) in Section B.2). For example, songs are one means for many Indigenous peoples in Canada to convey, across the generations, important cultural teachings about ethics, history, skills, and the environment. To be considered in a cultural nomination, songs must be tied to or associated with specific places on the land or the site as a whole. It is the ability of specific places on the land to anchor and convey the significance of songs that enables the songs to be part of a World Heritage nomination. Note that practices are also considered intangible heritage within World Heritage. For example, harvesting practices such as killing of moose or seals are not part of tangible heritage but can be considered as potential World Heritage where those practices are directly or tangibly tied to specific places on land and/or water. Harvesting sites within a site anchor and express the values or significance of the site (e.g., continuity of traditional livelihoods) and are the basis of an argument for OUV. Without the harvesting sites there would be no harvesting, so it is those sites that are the focus of protection under the World Heritage Convention. Without a concrete and demonstrable connection to specific places on the land, songs and their associated drums and regalia are more appropriately the subject of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) rather than the World Heritage Convention. The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage explicitly addresses ‘practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage’ (Art. 2). Additional Resources ¤ UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/

2. Indigenous Heritage Themes

To better understand how Indigenous heritage in Canada is relevant to World Heritage requirements, Indigenous heritage themes have been developed to reflect the diversity of Indigenous cultural heritage in Canada. These themes are broadly


15


relevant across the country and apply, at least potentially, to Inuit, First Nation, and Métis peoples. In addition, because World Heritage designation applies to specific, delimited areas of land and/or water, Indigenous heritage themes have been developed to reflect an area-‐based perspective. For example, rather than develop a theme for Indigenous spiritual beliefs, a theme (Spirit Places) has been developed to address the manifestation of spiritual beliefs on the land (or water) in the form of sacred or ceremonial sites. For the examples of Indigenous heritage sites provided below, details are taken from the Canadian Register of Historical Places unless a separate citation is provided. Designation as a National Historic Site of Canada is a separate process from World Heritage inscription; a World Heritage Tentative List site does not need to be a National Historic Site of Canada. Sites presented here as examples can be categorized under more than one Indigenous heritage theme. Additional Resources ¤ National Historic Site initiative and registry, which is searchable by name, place, and keyword (e.g., ‘Indigenous’): http://historicplaces.ca ¤ Canadian Museum of Civilization, with artefact images, photos, and documents from non-Indigenous people who have studied Indigenous peoples: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/tresors/ethno/index_e.shtml ¤ Library and Archives Canada, images and documents on Indigenous heritage across Canada: http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginalheritage/pages/introduction.aspx ¤ Provincial and territorial archives listed with Archives Canada: http://archivescanada.ca/Networks.

1. SPIRIT PLACES

Spirit places are sites where there is a particularly strong or important association between the site and the presence of spirit beings or the ability to communicate with spirit beings or the spirit world more generally. These places may be ceremonial sites or places where people observe special behaviour in relation to spirit beings associated with the site. These places are what Susan Buggey has referred to as places of power, ‘where the combination of spirits and place creates environments favourable for spiritual communication. Places of power in the landscape consolidate spiritual energy, strengthening as in vision quest sites, but sometimes malevolent and threatening ... they are approached through rules of conduct, customs, rituals, ceremonies, and offerings’ (1999: 7). C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage

16


Waapushukamikw (Colline Blanche) NHS is a 5,000-‐year-‐old quartzite grotto that was a source of fine quality chert (stone used for making cutting tools), which was widely traded in the region and farther beyond. The largest cave, known as Tchichémanitououitchouapi (‘House of the Great Spirit’), has smooth walls and was used historically for shamanistic practices. The site continues to be a place of spiritual significance to the Cree of Mistissinni.

© Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, J. Gagnon (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

SPIRIT PLACES

Waapushukamikw National Historic Site, Québec

© Parks Canada Agency (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

SPIRIT PLACES

Xá:ytem / Hatzic Rock National Historic Site, British Columbia

Xá:ytem NHS is an ancient habitation and ceremonial site dating back some 5,000 years. The focus of the site is a transformer stone associated with an ancient spirit-‐being, the Transformer Xa:ls, who is central to shared Coast Salish mythology. Sto:lo people explain that life forces continue to reside in the Rock and can be heard to sing, cry, and drum. The site remains an important testament to the spirituality and survival of Sto:lo people today.

2. HARVESTING SITES

Harvesting sites are places of natural abundance, such as salmon runs, or places where some aspect of the setting supports harvesting, such as narrows in which animals can be corralled or trapped. These areas are made visible through their location and their natural features but may also contain built structures such as fish weirs, drying racks, middens, or caches. Vuntut National Park is a part of an existing Canadian Tentative List site (Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk)) being nominated for its historic associations with the Porcupine caribou herd. The Vuntut Gwitchin (and Inuit to the north) retain important associations with caribou, which in the past were hunted collectively using caribou fence complexes that represent an economic pattern which was once common throughout the western subarctic.


© Parks Canada Agency

HARVESTING SITES

Vuntut National Park, Yukon

17


This Tentative List site is very large (33,400 sq.km.) and contains many harvesting sites, as well as spirit places and storied landscapes. Harvesting sites are associated with seasonal habitation and processing sites, tied together as a multi-‐community network by means of waterway travel routes. Through their beliefs, values, knowledge, and practices, Anishinaabeg of Pimachiowin Aki have lived for millennia with the boreal forest that sustains them.

© Pimachiowin Aki Corporation

HARVESTING SITES

Pimachiowin Aki, Manitoba and Ontario (Canada’s Tentative List)

3. SETTLEMENTS

Settlements are sites that are or were occupied seasonally or year-‐round and retain some evidence of that occupation either in the form of archaeological remains or structures. Typically a settlement is a larger aggregation of families in order to harvest a seasonal resource, and engage in collective activities such as diplomacy, trade, healing ceremonies, marriage, or planning future harvesting activities. This site was an important whaling station and vessel wintering site from the 1860s until the early 20th century. It includes an Inuit village with traditional semi-‐subterranean houses, sod houses (quarmats), and tent rings, as well as travel routes, resource harvesting sites, and sacred places. The site illustrates the traditional relationship between culture and land use, as well as the impact of the whaling industry on the economy and culture of the Inuit.

© Natural Resources Canada (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

SETTLEMENTS

Blacklead Island Whaling Station National Historic Site, Nunavut

Batoche NHS is significant as a historical Métis community and site of armed conflict between the Métis provisional government under Louis Riel and the Canadian government in 1885 (North-‐West Rebellion). The site illustrates the distinctive Métis historic river lot pattern based on the seigneurial system of New France (Québec). Long, narrow lots provided everyone with access to the river for travel, drinking water, and fertile farming soils.


© Parks Canada Agency, David Venne (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

SETTLEMENTS

Batoche National Historic Site, Saskatchewan

18


4. COASTAL-‐MARINE HERITAGE

The Indigenous peoples of Canada’s coastal and marine areas have unique harvesting practices, settlement patterns, and histories, based on their reliance on the oceans. Coastal-‐marine heritage is also unique for its continuing international significance, given the historic importance of the seas for transportation, international conflict and diplomacy, and resource harvesting. This Indigenous heritage theme is added here in part because it is an important theme in World Heritage and therefore deserves being highlighted for potential Tentative List applications. Occupied for over 4,300 years, the village of Yuquot served as capital for peoples of the Nootka Sound region and is linked with the origin of Nuu-‐chah-‐nulth (Nootka) whaling, an integral part of their culture. In the late 18th century, the site was a safe harbour that attracted Spanish and British explorers; as an early place of contact between First Nations and Europeans, the site served as a center of trade and diplomacy.

© Parks Canada, 1997 (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

COASTAL-MARINE

Yuquot National Historic Site of Canada, British Columbia

This site contains traditional summer camps and sacred sites of the Paallirmiut Inuit, including tent rings, food caches, kayak stands, and graves. The site well illustrates the coastal life of Paallirmiut, who continue to camp at the site to harvest the abundant marine wildlife of the area. Continuing oral traditions, indigenous knowledge of the area, numerous sacred sites, and undisturbed archaeological sites speak to centuries of occupation and use.

© Parks Canada Agency, 1996 (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

COASTAL-MARINE

Arvia'juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk National Historic Site, Nunavut

5. STORIED LANDSCAPES

Oral traditions are a central part of Indigenous heritage in Canada and are tied to named places on the land that serve as markers for personal and cultural histories, mythology, ethical teachings, and indigenous knowledge. Places named in oral traditions are often connected as a series of points that form a linear route depicting the journeys of culture heroes such as Glooscap of the Mikmaq or Yamoria of the Dene (Buggey 1999: 6). The significance of such landscapes is in totality of the story being told by reference to named places, rather than the function of the isolated pieces such as natural features, spirit places, or harvesting sites. C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage

19


© Parks Canada Agency (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

STORIED LANDSCAPES

Saoyú-ʔehdacho National Historic Site, Northwest Territories

Saoyú-‐ʔehdacho NHS is a place where the oral histories of Sahtu Dene are mapped out on the land, providing a linkage between the living and spirit worlds. The significance of natural features is manifest in stories of giant legendary animals and culture heroes. Through the interplay of named places and traditional narratives, the land comes alive and defines Sahtu Dene as an indigenous people in relationship to their lands (Hanks 1996: 888).

Nagwichoonjik NHS is a 175-‐km section of the Mackenzie River in which Gwichya Gwich’in oral histories are attached to a series of named places, including camps, settlements, fisheries, quarries, trails, burial places, and ritual and sacred sites. These interconnected points along the river express Gwitch’in interdependence with the river, and their relationship to the land more generally, and are central to the transmission and survival of Gwich’in culture.

© Ingrid Kritsch, Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute

STORIED LANDSCAPES

Nagwichoonjik (Mackenzie River) National Historic Site, Northwest Territories

6. MAJOR TRAVEL ROUTES

Major travel routes are or were used by more than one Indigenous people/culture for travel and trade over long distances. These routes are important arteries for the exchange of harvests, materials, artisanal products, and ideas between different culture groups, including between Indigenous and non-‐Indigenous peoples. They are often key historical points in migration, settlement, and early colonial encounters. This ancient trade route was used by Tlingit to carry marine products from the Pacific Coast through rugged mountain terrain to the upper Yukon River, where they traded with inland peoples for furs and other products, including European trade goods (Parks Canada Agency 2016). In the late 19th century, the trail became an important part of a larger network of trails and river routes used to reach the Klondike gold fields of the Yukon Territory.


(source: BC Archives collections. Item B-‐ 06743)

MAJOR TRAVEL ROUTES

Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site, British Columbia

20


This site is chosen here as a key way point on the Carlton Trail, used by Métis freighters to travel between present-‐day Winnipeg and Edmonton in the late 19th century. Additional points along the Trail include Batoche National Historic Site (above) and Tanner’s Crossing Municipal Heritage Site. Fort Carlton was an important traditional gathering place for First Nations. The trail has a history of some 6,000 years of use by Indigenous peoples (Hall 1969).

© Government of Saskatchewan, Marvin Thomas (source: Canadian Register of Historic Places)

MAJOR TRAVEL ROUTES

Fort Carlton Provincial Park, Saskatchewan

7. CULTURAL EXCHANGE

Sites of cultural exchange are places where Indigenous peoples met to engage in trade, diplomacy, and information exchange. Often it is major cultural routes that are a key context for cultural exchange. A particularly prominent form of cultural exchange for Indigenous peoples of Canada was the colonial encounter, in which Indigenous and non-‐Indigenous peoples exchanged ideas, skills, and products; these exchanges were often of international significance, such as political, military, and trade alliances that shaped the colonization of the Americas. Many key sites in the fur trade, for example, are important places of cultural exchange between Indigenous and European peoples. This is a relict site associated with a productive Sahtu Dene fishery on Great Bear Lake and a fort used by explorer Sir John Franklin as a staging area and winter quarters. The site was an important place of cross-‐cultural interaction between Sahtu Dene, Métis, and early Arctic explorers during the 19th century. This interaction is credited with shaping the emergence of the Sahtu Dene as a distinctive cultural group.

© NWT Archives G-‐1979-‐023: 2456 (source: Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre)

CULTURAL EXCHANGE

Déline Fishery / Franklin's Fort National Historic Site, Northwest Territories

All of the above sites given as examples of Indigenous heritage themes have been established to celebrate and protect Indigenous cultural heritage. Heritage sites in Canada, at municipal, provincial, territorial, and national levels, must meet certain requirements for designation, and ongoing preservation and management. For example, proposals for a National Historic Site of Canada must demonstrate a site, person, or event has had a nationally significant effect on, or illustrates a nationally important aspect of, the history of Canada (www.historicplaces.ca). C. Indigenous Heritage and World Heritage

21


In contrast, as was outlined in Section B, ‘World Heritage Requirements’, a World Heritage site must be demonstrated to be of international significance and be shown to be globally unique, exceptional, or the best representative of its type, in comparison to other similar sites. Therefore, unlike various forms of heritage designation within Canada, World Heritage status requires both broader significance and demonstration it is the best site to represent that significance. Following are examples of World Heritage sites that reflect that seven Indigenous heritage themes. 3. Indigenous Heritage on the World Heritage List

Within Canada, two of the eight World Heritage sites inscribed for cultural heritage focus on Indigenous heritage: Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump and SGang Gwaay. There are also three World Heritage sites in Canada that have been inscribed for natural heritage but an argument for World Heritage recognition of locally significant Indigenous cultural heritage has not yet been made: Kluane/Wrangell-‐St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-‐Alsek, Nahanni National Park, and Wood Buffalo National Park. Looking beyond Canada, Table 1 provides an overview of the number of World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand that were inscribed wholly or partly for their Indigenous cultural heritage. Australia and New Zealand are added to the overview because those countries have similar histories in terms of European colonization and displacement of Indigenous heritage. Table 1. World Heritage cultural sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand with and without Indigenous heritage (2016) sites with sites with only non-‐ indigenous heritage indigenous heritage Canada United States of America Mexico Latin America and Caribbean Australia & New Zealand

all sites nominated for cultural heritage

2 6 13 21 4

6 5 15 52 4

8 11 28 73 8

46

82

128

Note: For details on which sites were identified as having Indigenous heritage, see Appendix B, ‘Methods’.

As Table 1 shows, for World Heritage sites inscribed for cultural heritage in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, Indigenous cultural heritage is on the whole fairly well represented relative to non-‐Indigenous heritage; however, there is also room for greater representation of Indigenous heritage, particularly in Canada and Latin America and the Caribbean.


22


Following are brief descriptions of examples of World Heritage sites that contain an Indigenous heritage component (and are represented in Table 1). The original date of inscription is provided at the end of the site name. Also provided are the World Heritage criteria under which these sites were inscribed (see Section B.2) and the Indigenous heritage themes represented (see Appendix B, ‘Methods’, for a detailed view of how sites were classified by these themes). Note that World Heritage sites are not inscribed for the Indigenous heritage themes presented here. SGang Gwaay World Heritage Site, Canada (1981) Criterion (iii) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Settlements, Coastal-Marine, Storied Landscapes © Amanda (source: World Heritage Centre whc.unesco.org)

Located on the coast of British Columbia, this site is a former Haida village occupied until shortly after 1880. The site contains remains of cedar long houses, and a number of carved mortuary and memorial poles (‘totem poles’). The remains illustrate the art and way of life of the Haida, with the carved poles being among the finest of their type in the world. The site continues to hold spiritual value for the Haida and is still used today, including for ceremony.

Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump World Heritage Site, Canada (1981) Criterion (vi) Indigenous heritage themes: Harvesting Sites

© Maureen J. Flynn (source: whc.unesco.org)

This site in northern Alberta illustrates communal hunting techniques used by Indigenous peoples of the North American plains for nearly 6,000 years. Well-‐preserved evidence remains of marked trails, gathering basins and drivelanes on the plains above, the kill site itself where vast quantities of buffalo skeletons can still be found, and butchering sites at the base of the cliff that provide insight into ancient methods of tool use and hide preparation.

Note: Additional details on SGang Gwaay and Head-‐Smashed-‐In-‐Buffalo Jump are provided in Section B in separate special boxes, ‘Indigenous World Heritage in Canada’.


23


Papahānaumokuākea, Hawai'i (2010) Criteria (iii), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Coastal-Marine, Storied Landscapes

© Pascal Erhel Hatuuku (source: www.papahanaumokuakea.gov)

This is a massive, largely marine, site in which cultural heritage centers on the cosmological and traditional significance for living Native Hawaiian peoples. Island shrines (pictured at right) are central to beliefs in the origin of life and return of spirits after death. Archaeological remains demonstrate ancient cultural affiliations with other Polynesian peoples that have been forged over 3,000 years through seafaring and migration.

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site World Heritage Site, USA (1982) Criteria (iii), (iv) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Harvesting Sites, Settlements

© Emily Dickinson (source: whc.unesco.org)

The site represents the largest pre-‐ Columbian settlement north of Mexico, occupied between 800 and 1400ad and with a population of 10–20,000 at its peak. The size and layout of the settlement, with its many earth mounds and village sites, is testament to the centralised organization of agriculture, ritual, and trade. The mounds served as foundations for public buildings and mass gravesites.

Chaco Culture World Heritage Site, United States of America (1987) Criterion (iii) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Settlements


© Sacred Sites (Martin Gray) (source: whc.unesco.org)

Comprised of a series of separate small sites that represent a larger centre of Pueblo Indian ceremony, trade, and politics between 850 and 1250ad. The site is remarkable for its monumental and distinctive architecture. Two other Pueblo Indian sites are inscribed, largely on the basis of traditional architecture and settlement patterns: Mesa Verde National Park and Taos Pueblo.

24


Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu World Heritage Site, Peru (1983) Criteria (i), (iii), (vii), (ix) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit places, Harvesting Sites, Settlements

© Vincent Ko Hon Chiu (source: whc.unesco.org)

Built in the fifteenth century, Machu Picchu was an important religious, ceremonial, astronomical, and agricultural centre in the Inca Empire. The site sits at over 2,400 metres above sea-‐level and contains 200 structures, including giant walls, ramps, roads, agricultural terraces, and irrigation canals that blend in naturally with the environment. The site is remarkable for its architecture, engineering, and urban planning. Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, Mexico (2010) Criteria (ii), (iv) Indigenous heritage themes: Major Travel Routes, Cultural Exchange

(source: World Heritage Centre whc.unesco.org)

The Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was used as a trade route for 300 years between Mexico City and Texas and New Mexico, from the mid-‐16th to the 19th centuries, mainly for transporting silver extracted from local mines and mercury imported from Europe. Although the route was associated with the mining industry, it also fostered the creation of social, cultural and religious links between Spanish and Amerindian cultures.

Quebrada de Humahuaca, Argentina (2003) Criteria (ii), (iv), (v) Indigenous heritage themes: Settlements, Major Travel Routes, Cultural Exchange


© Philipp Schinz (source: World Heritage Centre whc.unesco.org)

Quebrada de Humahuaca represents a major cultural route, the Camino Inca, along the Rio Grande River valley. This route is a key physical and cultural linkage between the high Andean lands and the plains below. Evidence of use as a major trade route over the past 10,000 years exists for early hunter-‐gatherer and farming peoples, through the Inca Empire, and to modern struggles for independence.

25


Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park World Heritage Site, Australia (1987) Criteria (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Harvesting Sites, Storied Landscapes

© Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park

This site is significant for the way the land embodies the oral history, beliefs and moral teachings of its Indigenous residents and traditional owners, the Anangu people. The landscape is understood to have been formed by ancient, ancestral creation-‐beings whose ‘bodies, artefacts and actions became places imbued with their presence’ (ANPWS 1994: 21). Anangu continue to use and manage the site, bringing their language, knowledge, and customs into site management.

Kakadu National Park World Heritage Site, Australia (1981) Criteria (i), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Harvesting Sites, Coastal-Marine, Storied Landscapes

© Parks Australia (source: www.parksaustralia.gov.au)

Although the World Heritage values of this site focus on rock art and the archaeological record, the Indigenous peoples (Bininj) of the area value the site for traditional livelihood activities and spirit places associated with ancient oral traditions. In the Dreamtime, before people walked the earth, creation beings altered the land’s features (ANPWS 1991). Tongariro National Park (1990) Criteria (vi), (vii), (viii) Indigenous heritage themes: Spirit Places, Storied Landscapes


© Our Place – The World Heritage Collection (www.whc.unesco..org)

The peaks are associated with oral histories explaining the arrival, by double-‐hulled canoe, of the first Maori people to New Zealand and the bringing of fire to Tongariro. The peaks are the spiritual and historical centre of Maori culture, who regard the area as part of a living landscape with its own life force (mauri). Tongariro was the first World Heritage site to be designated a cultural landscape in 1993.

26


Summary: Indigenous Heritage as World Heritage

There is a wide diversity of Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List, to which the above examples provide a brief introduction. Table 2 provides a summary of how the Indigenous heritage themes identified in this section are represented among Indigenous World Heritage sites in Canada, the rest of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. Table 2. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes on the World Heritage List (2016)

Number of Indigenous World Heritage sites representing each theme

Canada (2 sites)

United States South America Australia and of America Mexico and Caribbean New Zealand TOTAL (6 sites) (13 sites) (21 sites) (4 sites) (46 sites)

Spirit Places

1

4

3

12

3

23

Harvesting Sites

1

1

3

8

3

16

Settlements

1

5

12

17

0

35

Coastal-‐Marine

1

1

0

0

2

4

Storied Landscapes

1

1

0

0

3

5

Travel Routes

0

0

1

2

0

3

Cultural Exchange

0

0

5

5

0

10

Note: For details on how Indigenous heritage themes were applied to each site, see Appendix B, ‘Methods’.

It is very evident from Table 2 that the forms of Indigenous heritage on the World heritage list are very unevenly represented. Settlements in particular are very well represented: 83% (35 of 42) of Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas represent this theme. Spirit places also appear well represented, being found in half of the Indigenous World Heritage sites of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. Table 2 also suggests that some themes may be under-‐represented: Coastal-‐Marine Heritage, Storied Landscapes, Major Travel Routes, and Cultural Exchange. To provide a sense of what Indigenous cultural heritage is already on Canada’s Tentative List, Table 3 presents the representation of Indigenous heritage themes among Indigenous sites on the Tentative List. Table 3 is only a rough guide to site values since Tentative List descriptions reflect preliminary considerations of potential World Heritage values at the time these sites were added to the Tentative List (2004). Brief, preliminary descriptions of Canada’s existing Tentative List sites are provided on the World Heritage Centre website:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ca


27


Áísínai’pi

Pimachiowin Aki

Gwaii Haanas

Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk)

The Klondike

Quttinirpaaq

Table 3. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes on Canada’s Tentative List (2004)

Spirit Places

1

1

1

1

0

0

Harvesting Sites

0

1

1

1

1

0

Settlements

0

0

1

1

1

0

Coastal-‐Marine

0

0

1

1

0

1

Storied Landscapes

1

1

1

1

0

0

Travel Routes

0

1

0

1

0

0

Cultural Exchange

0

0

0

1

1

1

While suggestive of potential opportunities for Indigenous peoples and their partners in developing applications to Canada’s Tentative List, the results shown in Tables 2 and 3 can only provide a broad sense of these potential opportunities. There are some important nuances and qualifications that need to be understood in determining what specific gaps exist on the World Heritage List that can potentially be addressed by proponents of applications to Canada’s Tentative List. Understanding these opportunities for Canadian Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List is the subject of the next section. Additional Resources ¤ World Heritage Centre, for the complete World Heritage List, with site descriptions and, for sites inscribed in the last ten or so years, nomination files: http://whc.unesco.org ¤ Parks Canada web pages on World Heritage, with details on Canadian sites: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/spm-whs/index.aspx ¤ World Heritage thematic studies that are potentially relevant to Indigenous heritage in Canada (but these themes are not specifically addressed here):  World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992–2002 (Fowler 2003): http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/6/  Thematic Programme on Rock Art: http://whc.unesco.org/en/rocktart/


28


D. I dentifying O pportunities f or I ndigenous H eritage o n t he W orld H eritage L ist

Cultural value in aboriginal cultural landscapes centers on the living landscape, a dynamic world defined by continuity, growth, and change, where human life is interactive with a natural and spiritual world integral to the land. Tom Andrews and Susan Buggey (2008: 68) Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage to be inscribed on the World Heritage List can be understood from two perspectives: (1) how Indigenous heritage is best positioned within the World Heritage criteria under which OUV is assessed and World Heritage sites are inscribed; and (2) what gaps exist on the World Heritage List for which Canadian Indigenous heritage sites may be able to make a strong contribution. Each of these is discussed in turn. 1. Selecting Appropriate World Heritage Criteria

There are no World Heritage cultural criteria with any specific reference to Indigenous peoples or their heritage but there are some important details, including precedents in how cultural criteria are used and evaluated, that are of specific interest to anyone developing a Tentative List application for Indigenous heritage. Because natural heritage is assessed largely without reference to cultural heritage — which is itself an issue of importance to Indigenous peoples and discussed more fully later in this section — natural criteria in themselves have no specific implications for Indigenous peoples; the specifics of what natural criteria are appropriate will depend on the specific natural values of a proposed site, not the presence or perceptions of Indigenous peoples associated with that site. However, where World Heritage inscription under natural criteria affects Indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage, some discussion is provided. In the following discussion of cultural criteria, details on specific sites are taken from the World Heritage list downloaded from the UNESCO World Heritage web site (www.whc.unesco.org), unless noted otherwise. The exact wording of each cultural criterion, as it is found in the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2015), is provided in Section B, ‘World Heritage Requirements’. In the introductory paragraph for each criterion there is an indication of which Indigenous heritage themes, outlined in Section C, are most likely to be addressed by that criterion.

D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

29


CRITERION (I)

Criterion (i) relates to artistic or technological achievements that have become iconic around the world for their intellectual, symbolic, or technical mastery. No Indigenous heritage themes have been identified that are appropriate to this criterion although that does not preclude Indigenous heritage from being inscribed under criterion (i). World Heritage sites in the Americas that are inscribed under criterion (i) for Indigenous cultural heritage fall into two broad categories. First are those sites that represent cultural periods no longer extant and contain unique, semi-‐permanent built heritage that is notable for the technical mastery of construction relative to the cultural period as a whole. For example, the Pre-‐Hispanic City of Chichen-‐Itza, Mexico, contains stone monuments described as ‘undisputed masterpieces of Mesoamerican architecture because of the beauty of their proportions, the refinement of their construction and the splendor of their sculpted decorations’. Rapa Nui National Park (Easter Island), Chile, contains shrines and iconic stone figures erected between the 10th and 16th centuries by people who originated from Polynesia. The Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru, is an urban settlement of the Inca Empire built in the Andes mountains more than 2,400 metres above sea-‐ level. Comparable forms of permanent (stone) built Indigenous heritage are not found in Canada, to the best of our current knowledge. Secondly, Indigenous criterion (i) sites also contain rock art typically in the form of paintings and engravings (petroglyphs). Petroforms, in which stones are laid out on bare ground to form culturally-‐significant patterns, are another form of rock art. Canada’s Tentative List site Áísínai’pi (‘writing on stone’), Alberta, is proposed under criterion (i) for its rock art: the site ‘includes the most artistically accomplished and most significant examples of several Indigenous rock art traditions ... [which] attest to the creative genius of the Indigenous artists’ (draft Nomination document, 2011). A 2004 review by ICOMOS reported there were 26 World Heritage sites, and another 44 Tentative List sites, inscribed for rock art (Jokilehto 2005: 37–8). As of 2016, the World Heritage List contains only six Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas with rock art, not all of which are inscribed under criterion (i): Serra da Capivara National Park, Brazil (criterion (iii)), Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco, Mexico (criteria (i) and (iii)), San Agustín Archaeological Park, Colombia (criterion (iii)), Fuerte de Samaipata, Bolivia (criteria (ii) and (iii)), Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas, Argentina (criterion (iii)), Prehistoric Caves of Yagul and Mitla in the Central Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico (criterion (iii)). In addition, Kakadu National Park in Australia was inscribed under criterion (i) for its cave paintings and rock carvings, which ‘represent a unique artistic achievement because of the wide range of styles used, the large number and density of sites and the delicate and detailed depiction of a wide range of human figures and identifiable animal species, including animals long-‐extinct’. D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

30


CRITERION (II)

The key phrase here is ‘interchange of human values’, and in particular the criterion is assessed for evidence of intellectual and/or cross-‐cultural communication that has led to significant changes in regional or global history. Indigenous heritage themes that are most likely to be suited to nomination under criterion (ii) are Major Travel Routes and Cultural Exchange. Among Indigenous sites in the Americas, criterion (ii) sites are usually historic trails or roads. Examples of inscribed sites include: Quebrada de Humahuaca, Argentina, a regional cultural route used over the past 10,000 years to transport people and ideas from the high Andean lands to the plains below; the Pre-‐Hispanic City of Chichen-‐Itza, Mexico, an urban centre of the Mayan empire that had a 1,000-‐year history of cultural interchange across the Yucatan, especially between the Mayan and Toltec peoples. In Central Asia, the Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape, Mongolia, was inscribed under criterion (ii) for the trade networks and urban centres that reflect the interchange of human values fostered under the empire of Chingis (Genghis) Khan. Criterion (ii) is potentially difficult to satisfy for Indigenous sites in Canada because the impact of the cultural interchange needs to be documented and tied to a specific building, set of buildings, or place on the land. Typically this is an urban development or other permanent modification of the land such as a road system. An Indigenous criterion (ii) nomination from Canada will likely be more successful if it is multi-‐national (i.e. multi-‐ethnic). CRITERION (III)

Criterion (iii) addresses sites that provide tangible evidence of cultural traditions and civilizations (which can be understood as a defined group of people with a distinctive material culture). Such traditions and civilizations will ordinarily have existed for long periods of time and define a way of life in a given region (UNESCO 2011: 36). All seven Indigenous heritage themes can be addressed by this criterion, where those themes express the essential aspects of a cultural tradition or civilization. The one example of an Indigenous World Heritage site in Canada is SGang Gwaii, a relict village with remains of houses and mortuary poles that illustrate the Haida people's art and way of life. The Canadian Tentative List site Pimachiowin Aki has been nominated under criterion (iii) for its ancient and contemporary cultural places and routes that reflect the cultural tradition of Keeping the Land, which directs people to maintain respectful relations with all beings. In the United States of America, the Cahokia Mounds State Historical Site is an example of a complex chiefdom society with a peak population of 10–20,000 people, building large earth mounds and complex settlement patterns through coordinated collective works. Criterion (iii) is highly suitable to Indigenous heritage in Canada because it is not closely associated with an expectation of permanent monuments, settlements, or D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

31


other modification of the earth. Moreover, criterion (iii) combines well with criterion (vi), which also refers explicitly to living traditions, where beliefs and practices of a cultural tradition are well expressed in the specific geography and/or features of a site. This combination of criteria allows for a more holistic expression of tangible and intangible values within a single argument for inscription. CRITERION (IV)

Criterion (iv) addresses built structures or landscapes that represent a stage in human history (which is a bit of a euphemism for social evolution) or some moment in history that was highly influential on a regional or global scale. The Indigenous heritage theme that relate most closely to this criterion is Settlements, although Harvesting Areas may also illustrate forms of livelihood practices associated with a particular ‘stage of human history’ (e.g., hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering). Examples of Indigenous sites inscribed under criterion (iv) include the Kuk Early Agricultural Site in Papua New Guinea, which was inscribed under criterion (iv) because the site ‘contains well-‐preserved archaeological remains demonstrating the technological leap which transformed plant exploitation to agriculture around 6,500 years ago’. Also, the Canadian Tentative List site Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk) is proposed to represent the collective hunting of caribou using fence complexes to corral the animals in constrained kill sites. Non-‐Indigenous examples include the Klondike, which represents a nineteenth-‐ century mining landscape associated with the Klondike Gold Rush of 1896–1898, and in which the Tr'ondëk Hwechin fish camp on the banks of the Yukon River opposite Dawson City is a reminder of the pre-‐gold rush past and the continuity of Indigenous occupation and use during the gold rush. Similarly, Agave Landscape and Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila (Mexico), represents a unique industrial landscape associated with a specific region and time period. In Canada, monuments and buildings are largely absent from Indigenous heritage because most Indigenous peoples in Canada are highly mobile; their dwellings are significant for renewing personal and collective connections with the land but not built as permanent or lasting structures. Indigenous buildings and architectural ensembles in North America that are recognized as World Heritage are mostly semi-‐ permanent and visually striking in their design, such as in Chaco Culture or the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. Some noteworthy exceptions exist in Canada, such as the weather-‐resistant cedar long houses of SGang Gwaay World Heritage Site), which are distinctive form of Indigenous architecture. Similarly, there may be opportunities for other forms of Indigenous vernacular architecture, such as that of Métis settlements. In all such cases, architectural traditions and settlement patterns are important in defining the specific culture of an Indigenous people but they would still need to demonstrated to be of ‘outstanding interest’ to the whole of humanity.


32


CRITERION (V)

Criterion (v) addresses distinctive, material forms of working the land, for economic and habitation purposes, which have existed or continue to exist for long periods of time in order to be seen as traditional. This criterion specifically applies to the Indigenous heritage themes Harvest Sites and Settlements, although Coastal-‐Marine Heritage will also be addressed where the heritage values focus on settlement, land-‐ use, or sea-‐use. Examples of Indigenous criterion (v) World Heritage sites in the Americas include: Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina), for its distinctive pre-‐Hispanic and pre-‐Incan settlements and associated field systems; Rapa Nui National Park (Chile), for its archaeological evidence of a unique culture developed in isolation from external influences; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico), built by the Spanish on the ruins of the old Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, and containing five Aztec temples, a cathedral, some 19th-‐ and 20th-‐century public buildings, and a network of canals and artificial islands. The Canadian Tentative List site Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk) is proposed to be a criterion (v) site for its archaeological evidence of collective caribou hunting, a specialised land-‐use not well represented elsewhere. Criterion (v) overlaps somewhat with criterion (iii) and even more so with criterion (iv) in that both consider settlement patterns and land use systems. In fact, most criterion (v) World Heritage sites are also inscribed under either of criteria (iii) or (iv). There is a tendency for both criteria (iv) and (v) to emphasise major modifications of land such as fortified settlements and terraced landscapes that not only represent a unique adaptation to challenging conditions but also are a visually striking element of the landscape. This is not generally a feature of Indigenous heritage in Canada. Moreover, proposals for criterion (v) face a very strong test to demonstrate continuity of traditions because the outstanding value lies in representation of land-‐ uses and/or sea-‐uses that have ‘become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change’. For example, in the 2013 evaluation of Pimachiowin Aki, ICOMOS considered that the justification for criterion (v) was not sound, in part because ‘the traditional land-‐use has and is continuing to change’; while ‘the traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping are continuing ... they now incorporate the use of modern technologies’. In addition, some of the partner First Nations are seeking economic opportunities in resource development outside the nominated area and this was cited as evidence of lack of continuity of the traditional land-‐use (ICOMOS 2013: 39–40). From the perspective of ICOMOS, the continuity of harvesting practices under changed conditions was not of outstanding value from an international perspective. A similar conclusion was made in the case of Kuk Early Agricultural Site (Papua New Guinea), which was evaluated by ICOMOS to not meet criterion (v). Although


33


Indigenous use of the site for traditional agriculture continues, the ICOMOS evaluation determined the principal values of the site are in the evidence for origins of agriculture; traditional farming practices were not themselves of outstanding value (ICOMOS 2008: 87). CRITERION (VI)

Criterion (vi) addresses intangible heritage such as ideas or beliefs that are linked specifically to some tangible aspect of a site, or the site as a whole. Associations are intangible aspects that would on their own not be the subject of the World Heritage Convention, which is a site-‐based convention, except that those intangible aspects are required to understand the significance of a World Heritage site and its tangible features. At the same time, the site itself must clearly convey and be essential to the understanding of the associations (World Heritage Centre et al. 2012: 42–43). This criterion directly addresses the Indigenous heritage themes Spirit Places and Storied Landscapes, although any of the other themes may also be expressed through intangible associations. Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump (Canada) was inscribed under criterion (vi) for the way the Indigenous peoples associated with the site continue to understand their knowledge and history to be directly tied to the site, even though they no longer engage in collective hunting of bison. Papahānaumokuākea (United States of America) was inscribed under criterion (vi) for the way Hawaiian beliefs and living traditions are anchored to shrines that are found on certain islands. Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) was inscribed under criterion (vi) because the road system serves as an ancient cultural touchstone that maintains and reinforces a common identity within the Andean world. In general, criterion (vi) should not be used as the only criterion for inscription (UNESCO 2015: Art. 77), although there are examples: Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump, Canada; L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site, Canada, wherein lie the remains of an 11th-‐century Viking settlement, evidence of the first European presence in North America; the Island of Gorée, Senegal, an historic slave-‐trading centre that was a key point in the trans-‐Atlantic slave trade; Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome), Japan, where the first atomic bomb was exploded in 1945; Auschwitz Birkenau, Poland, a German Nazi concentration and extermination camp between 1940 and 1945. Each of these sites has natural features or built structures but they are not the basis for nomination under additional criteria; nevertheless, the physical aspects of the site are regarded as of Outstanding Universal Value and this justifies nomination under criterion (vi) alone. Interestingly, only one World Heritage site has been inscribed under cultural criterion (vi) in combination with only natural criteria: Tongariro National Park, New Zealand. Tongariro National Park was initially inscribed in 1990 under natural criteria alone and was extended in 1993 to include criterion (vi) to acknowledge ‘the D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

34


mountains at the heart of the park have cultural and religious significance for the Maori people and symbolize the spiritual links between this community and its environment’. Tongariro was the first World Heritage site to be inscribed as a cultural landscape. This combination of criterion (vi) as the only cultural criterion used in combination with one or more natural criterion seems to be an open possibility for future Indigenous sites in Canada where natural features can be argued, independently of cultural heritage, to be of potential OUV. More on mixed sites (using both cultural and natural criteria) is said below. SUMMARY OF CRITERIA USED

Table 4 shows the number of times the six World Heritage cultural criteria have been used to inscribe sites with Indigenous cultural heritage in North America, Australia, and New Zealand. There are no significant conclusions to draw from Table 4 since there are no specific targets or expectations for the number of sites inscribed under the various criteria. Table 4. Cultural criteria used for World Heritage sites with cultural heritage (2016)

instances of use for each criterion

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

total # of sites

Australia & New Zealand Indigenous heritage: Non-‐Indigenous heritage only: total use for all Indigenous sites

0 1 0 2 7 5 6 8 1 1 14

0 0 0 1 8 15 6 21 0 1 14

1 1 5 0 12 2 18 11 1 1 37

0 4 2 1 9 13 10 44 1 1 22

0 2 0 0 1 1 2 11 1 0 4

1 3 1 4 2 3 2 10 4 1 10

2 6 6 5 13 15 21 52 4 4 46

total use for non-‐Indigenous sites

17

38

15

63

14

21

82

Canada Indigenous heritage: Non-‐Indigenous heritage only: United States of America Indigenous heritage: Non-‐Indigenous heritage only: Mexico Indigenous heritage: Non-‐Indigenous heritage only: Latin America & the Caribbean Indigenous heritage: Non-‐Indigenous heritage only:


35


Criterion (iii) is the one criterion that has been used the most for inscribed World Heritage sites with Indigenous heritage and criterion (v) has been used the least. These trends are not surprising given the foregoing discussion of each cultural criterion: criterion (iii) is the most flexible criterion and allows for a more holistic view of heritage, including both tangible and intangible values, which is more consistent with how Indigenous peoples understand their heritage; criterion (v) is the most restrictive overall, even for Indigenous cultures with a history of monument-‐building or permanent settlement. Among World Heritage sites with no Indigenous cultural heritage, criteria (ii) and (iv) are the most widely used. In Mexico and Latin America, where most non-‐ Indigenous sites focus on colonial architecture and urban design, the majority of sites use criterion (iv). MIXED SITES

Mixed World Heritage sites are inscribed under one or more cultural criteria and one or more natural criteria. Use of both cultural and natural criteria in a Tentative List application is likely to be of specific interest to Indigenous peoples given the desire to see both natural and cultural heritage as a unified whole. As Thomas Andrews (Territorial Archaeologist at the Prince of Wales Heritage Centre, Yellowknife, NWT) remarked, ‘in many indigenous worldviews, aspects of the landscape are regarded as living entities, engaged in kinship relations with others— including humans—that they share the earth with’ (2014: 97). However, even with a mixed site, natural values are evaluated by the IUCN from a largely science-‐based perspective, and cultural values are evaluated by ICOMOS (see Section C.1, ‘Identifying Appropriate Forms of Heritage’). The 2014 Progress Report on the Reflection on Processes for Mixed Nominations identifies that the separation of cultural and natural heritage based on the 1972 World Heritage Convention, does not ‘correspond to the ways in which many cultures, including those of traditional communities and indigenous peoples, view the relationship between humankind and nature’ (WHC 2014: 4 Art. 19). ‘Cultural and natural values may coexist, yet values are assessed by separate teams, management may be undertaken separately through distinct agencies and it is not unusual to find separate management plans’ for natural and cultural heritage (Larsen and Wijesuriya 2015:10). As part of the Reflection on Processes for Mixed Nominations, a review of nomination processes was conducted and revealed, in most cases, that unlike nominations based on only either cultural or natural criteria, mixed nominations take more time to prepare, require more coordination between Advisory Bodies, and involve more complex decision-‐making processes for inscription (WHC 2014: 3, Art. 14). As Larsen and Wijesuriya have pointed out, unless there is some measureable added value, mixed nominations are often avoided by proponents in favour of nominations


36


that downplay interconnections so as to focus on a narrow range of values with the greatest chance of success (Larsen and Wijesuriya 2015:10). When developing a mixed nomination, proponents need to be aware they are effectively preparing two separate nominations in which the description and justification for both cultural and natural heritage is balanced, otherwise the nomination may be considered incomplete (WHC 2014: 3 Art. 17). In some cases, there may be a practical imbalance in what information is available or in the capacity for developing an effective argument for inscription (Buckley 2014: 116). In recognition of the difficulties in preparing mixed nominations, States Parties are now advised to ‘seek prior advice from IUCN and ICOMOS if possible at least two years before a possible nomination is submitted’ (WHC 2015). It is not surprising, perhaps, that mixed sites make up only 3% of all World Heritage Sites (35 of 1052 sites). Interestingly, however, five of 42 (12%) Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas are mixed sites (6 of 120 (5%) of all sites in the Americas are mixed sites). The difficulties of proposing a mixed nomination are well illustrated by the Canadian Tentative List site, Pimachiowin Aki, which has been developed by five First Nations and the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. The difficulties faced by the Pimachiowin Aki proponents during the nomination and evaluation processes was the impetus for the World Heritage Committee to request a review of processes for mixed nominations, the Reflection on Processes for Mixed Nominations (WHC 2013: 175; see also WHC 2014). According to Kristal Buckley, past International Vice-‐President of ICOMOS, ‘communication between the Advisory Bodies during the evaluation cycle has improved significantly’ (Buckley 2014: 111–12). In addition to the new direction occasioned by the challenges faced with the Pimachiowin Aki nomination, ICOMOS and IUCN have engaged in a joint project (‘connecting practice’) to develop a more integrated approach to the evaluation and monitoring of natural and cultural heritage in mixed sites and cultural landscapes (IUCN 2016a; IUCN and ICOMOS n.d.). An early result of this effort to improve evaluation processes for mixed nominations is seen in the second evaluation of Pimachiowin Aki: Despite, or perhaps because of the protracted evaluation process, this dialogue has advanced the thinking and evaluative practices of IUCN and ICOMOS concerning nominations of sites for their nature/culture interactions, and has been a catalyst for a renewed and growing joint approach to the links between nature and culture in the World Heritage Convention involving all of the Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Centre and a growing range of partners. This is a legacy for the Convention from the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki that goes beyond the individual nomination concerned. ... Its long-‐term significance for the D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

37


work of the Convention lies also in its lessons about empowering indigenous peoples to determine their own priorities for conservation, which is of even greater relevance considering the adoption of the new Sustainable Development Policy and the recognition of the rights and role of indigenous peoples in the Convention’s Operational Guidelines (IUCN 2016b: 143). Therefore, in spite of the difficulties in preparing and evaluating mixed nominations, there is real improvement within the World Heritage system. Notable is the desire to address local and Indigenous views on the inseparability of culture and nature, which presents an opportunity for Indigenous World Heritage proposals in Canada. This opportunity exists for both mixed nominations and cultural landscape nominations, to which we now turn. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Cultural landscapes are a form of cultural heritage that represents the ‘combined works of nature and of man’; that is, they express a culturally and geographically unique relationship between people and the land/water they rely on for sustenance and cultural continuity. Like mixed nominations, cultural landscapes are of specific potential interest for Indigenous peoples and their partners given the attention to interaction between nature and culture. In addition, cultural landscapes demonstrate changes in settlement and culture over time in response to the influences of the natural environment and ‘successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal’ (UNESCO 2015: Annex 3, Art. 6). Therefore, built within the conception of cultural landscapes is both an appreciation for the interaction of natural and cultural heritage, as well as change in the nature of that interaction over time, including in response to external social forces. However, because cultural landscapes are a form of cultural heritage only, in practice it is difficult for a cultural landscape nomination to fully express the interaction of nature and culture given that natural and cultural heritage are in fact assessed separately. In practice, the IUCN does take an active interest in cultural landscape nominations and ICOMOS is expected to consult with IUCN, where appropriate, on matters related to natural values (UNESCO 2015: Art. 146 and Annex 6; see also, Finke 2013). Typically, World Heritage cultural landscapes are built or transformed environments, such as gardens or agricultural landscapes. For example, Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina) contains a string of fortified towns and ancient stone-‐ walled agricultural terraces, still in use today, which make a dramatic visual impact on the landscape. There are also cultural landscapes inscribed as World Heritage for their expression of the interdependence of natural features and intangible heritage such as ideas, D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

38


knowledge, beliefs, and practices (i.e. ‘association’, see Glossary). These associative cultural landscapes are inscribed for their ‘religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent’ (UNESCO 2015: Annex 3). For example, Papahānaumokuākea (United States of America) is an associative cultural landscape inscribed under criteria (iii) and (vi) for the way it embodies the Hawaiian concept of the physical and spiritual kinship among all elements of the natural world; within the site is a sacred region of primordial darkness from which life is seen to originate and to which spirits return after death. Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina) and Papahānaumokuākea (United States of America) are the only two sites in the Americas that are officially designated as World Heritage cultural landscapes; other World Heritage sites can be seen as cultural landscapes but they are not officially designated as such. For example, the Ancient Maya City and Protected Tropical Forests of Calakmul, Campeche (Mexico) is a mixed World Heritage site in which the structure and composition of the forests are largely the result of ancient agricultural and forestry practices of the Maya. Note however that the cultural landscape designation is not equivalent to World Heritage criteria for the assessment of OUV (see Section B.2). World Heritage sites are inscribed under the ten World Heritage criteria and only given an additional layer of meaning by being designated as cultural landscapes. Requesting designation as a cultural landscape requires additional effort in demonstrating the site meets the additional requirements outlined in Appendix 3 of the Operational Guidelines. However, that additional effort is not substantial; it certainly does not compare to justification of a nomination criterion. The additional effort may be important to future site programming that focuses on the interaction of culture and nature or expresses indigenous attachment to the land. Another important value of cultural landscapes for Indigenous peoples is in their role as an organising principle for the cross-‐cultural collaboration needed to develop a successful Tentative List application that expresses a view of land and culture forming a coherent whole. The cultural landscape concept allows for discussion of how places and values are interconnected across entire landscapes, rather than concentrated in discrete sites. As Lisitzin and Stovel have commented, ‘The real advantage of admitting cultural landscapes to the heritage family ... is the opportunity afforded to embrace a holistic “way of looking”, ... one focused on the key processes that have shaped and continue to define the character of the landscape over time’ (2003: 35). Finally, cultural landscape designation may be of special interest to Indigenous peoples because of the potential to be explicit that a site is a lived-‐in landscapes, in which the continuity of natural and cultural heritage as a combined whole is dependent on engaging local peoples who depend on those landscapes. Indeed, for lived-‐in (or living) cultural landscapes, it is often the inhabitants who are


39


responsible for the creation and maintenance of the landscape as a cultural landscape. Therefore, As Lisitzin and Stovel ask, ‘does it mean anything to save the appearance of the landscape without maintaining the underlying traditional social structure?’ (2003: 35). In some cases, sustaining the Indigenous customary land-‐use practices that have shaped the cultural landscape over time may be an important part of protection and management of both natural and cultural heritage (Buggey and Mitchell 2003). See Section B.4, ‘Effective Protection and Management’, for more discussion of lived-‐in landscapes. Additional Resources ¤ Fowler, P.J. 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992–2002. World Heritage Series n°6. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/6/ ¤ World Heritage Centre (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2003. Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage Series n°7, outcomes of Workshop in Ferrara, Italy, 11–12 November 2002. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/7/ ¤ Mitchell, Nora, Rössler, Mechtild, and Tricaud, Pierre-Marie. 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Series n° 26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/26/ ¤ Cultural landscape activity of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, which provides an extensive list of documents and expert meetings: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ ¤ UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre. 2011. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: Description of the World Heritage sites with a bibliography based on documents available at the UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre. Online: http://www.icomos.org/centre_documentation/bib/2011_Cultural_landscapes_ complete.pdf < this link may need to be copied and pasted into your browser’s address bar >


40


2. Gaps in the World Heritage List

This section discusses potential thematic areas and gaps in the World Heritage List for which Canadian Indigenous heritage sites may be able to make a strong contribution. Special attention is paid to the seven Indigenous heritage themes outlined in the Section C.2 (but the material here is not organised specifically around these themes). The primary reference point for gaps in the World Heritage List is The Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List, or the Global Strategy (http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/). The main goal of the Global Strategy is to encourage preparation of nominations in thematic categories and from geographical regions currently not well represented on the World Heritage List. The most recent, although now somewhat dated, ICOMOS review of gaps for cultural heritage was conducted in 2004 to support the Global Strategy (Jokilehto 2005). In addition to this ICOMOS gap analysis, experts meetings have been convened and thematic studies produced when a thematic gap is identified, typically in a specific region, and additional information is needed to better understand the diversity of sites that might represent that theme. Such studies assist ICOMOS in making their evaluations of cultural heritage sites by providing a better sense of the regional and thematic context. The few expert meetings and thematic studies that relate to Indigenous cultural heritage in Canada are discussed under the relevant gap identified below. Considerable expert attention has been paid to cultural landscapes, and endorsed by the World Heritage Committee to further the ends of the Global Strategy (UNESCO 2015: Annex 3); however, the cultural landscape concept is too broad in scope to serve as an effective Indigenous heritage theme for the purposes of this report and therefore is not addressed as a gap on the World Heritage List. Considering the outcomes of the Global Strategy, expert meetings, thematic studies, and a review of World Heritage representation of Indigenous heritage themes used in this report, the following gaps in the World Heritage List have been identified as of potential interest to proponents of applications to Canada’s Tentative List with an Indigenous heritage component: v v v v v

Living Indigenous heritage Hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering practices Arctic heritage Coastal and marine heritage Oral traditions


41


LIVING INDIGENOUS HERITAGE

In an early stage of preparation of the Global Strategy, an expert review for the period 1987–1993 indicated ‘living cultures, especially those of “traditional” societies, are largely under-‐represented’ on the World Heritage List (WHC 1994a). The most recent ICOMOS gap analysis also identified a gap for living cultures in the Americas. The conclusions of the ICOMOS analysis point to a need for representation on the World Heritage List of sites demonstrating a hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering way of life: ‘there are no inscriptions from regions with comparable landscapes [to that of northern Eurasia] inhabited by hunter-‐gatherer communities that have preserved a traditional way of life, such as Canada, Siberia, or Central Asia’ (Jokilehto 2005: 46). While it is not clear what constitutes a ‘traditional way of life’, the identification of a gap for living heritage — heritage that continues to be practiced by Indigenous peoples today — is highly relevant for Indigenous heritage in Canada. Continuity of occupation, use, and association is an important part of Indigenous relations to the land. Speaking about Aboriginal cultural landscapes in Canada, Andrews and Buggey suggest, ‘the core of the heritage value of such landscapes … lies in continuity of association with the land’ (2008: 67). The gap for living Indigenous heritage is very evident from a review of Indigenous World Heritage sites. Table 5 shows that of the 46 World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand that contain Indigenous heritage, only eight contain living heritage. In fact, that might be seen as only seven sites since one, Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina), is part of a much larger serial site, Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru). Table 5. Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand with living and relict Indigenous heritage (2016) sites with living indigenous heritage

sites with only relict indigenous heritage

all sites with indigenous heritage

1

1

2

United States of America

2

4

6

Mexico

0

13

13

Latin America and Caribbean

2

19

21

Australia & New Zealand

3

1

4

8

38

46

Canada

Note: For details on which sites were identified as having living or only relict Indigenous heritage, see Appendix B, ‘Methods’.


42


Table 6 presents the number of Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand that illustrate each of the Indigenous heritage themes, further broken down by living and relict status of the site. There is one interesting trend in Table 6: six of the eight living heritage sites exhibit the Spirit Places theme and five of eight the Storied Landscapes theme; this reflects the continuing importance of spiritual beliefs and oral traditions among living Indigenous peoples.

Spirit Places

Harvest Sites

Settlement

Coastal-‐Marine

Storied Landscapes

Travel Routes

Cultural Exchange

Table 6. Representation of Indigenous heritage themes in living Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand (2016)

SGang Gwaay

Canada

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

Taos Pueblo


0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Papahānaumokuākea


1

0

0

1

1

0

0

Quebrada de Humahuaca

Argentina

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System

Argentina, et al.

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

Kakadu National Park

Australia

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

Uluru-‐Kata Tjuta National Park

Australia

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

Tongariro National Park

New Zealand

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

totals for the 8 sites with living Indigenous heritage:

6

4

4

3

5

2

2

38 remaining sites with only relict indigenous heritage:

17

13

31

1

0

1

8

Note: For details on how Indigenous heritage themes were applied to each site, see Appendix B, ‘Methods’.

In sum, the identified gap for living Indigenous heritage is significant and can be addressed through a wide range of potential Tentative List sites that represent any one or combination of the Indigenous heritage themes. Currently, Canada’s Tentative List contains four sites that have living Indigenous heritage: Pimachiowin Aki, Gwaii Haanas, Áísínai’pi, and Ivvavik/Vuntut/Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk). Pimachiowin Aki and Gwaii Haanas in particular both have a very strong focus on living Indigenous heritage and may address this gap if inscribed. In addition, the 2016 ICOMOS evaluation of Pimachiowin Aki indicated the need for a thematic study to better evaluate the gap Pimachiowin Aki might fill if inscribed and what opportunities remain for other potential Tentative List sites in the North American Subarctic: ‘ICOMOS considers that further studies should be undertaken on the way landscape reflects the important cultural systems that characterise the many indigenous communities of the [North] American sub-‐Arctic region, before any further sites are considered for nomination’ (ICOMOS 2016: 66).


43


HUNTING-‐FISHING-‐GATHERING PRACTICES

Returning to the observation there are no inscriptions from Canada exhibiting ‘hunter-‐gatherer communities that have preserved a traditional way of life’ (Jokilehto 2005: 46), only one site in the Americas (Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump) exhibiting the Indigenous heritage theme Harvest Sites is not an agricultural site; all three Australian sites illustrate this theme. Most sites in the Americas that exhibit the theme Harvest Sites are archaeological remains of agricultural systems of ancient empires (see Appendix B, ‘Methods’). Therefore sites, both living and relict that illustrate the harvesting practices of hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering peoples, including harvesting of marine mammals, are not well represented on the World Heritage List. Pimachiowin Aki, Gwaii Haanas, Ivvavik/Vuntut/Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk), and the Klondike all contain Indigenous harvesting sites (see Table 3) so may partially address this gap. However, while harvesting practices may be addressed by these Tentative List sites, none of these sites currently has articulated a proposed OUV that focuses specifically and comprehensively on the harvesting practices of Indigenous peoples in the way that Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump, for example. ARCTIC HERITAGE

In 1998, four years after the implementation of the Global Strategy, a UNESCO World Heritage Centre expert meeting ‘deplored’ a number of imbalances, including ‘the low representation of heritage of Arctic and Sub-‐arctic regions’ (WHC 1998: 36). More recently, the International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and the Arctic (30 November – 1 December 2007, Norway) concluded ‘the Arctic Region is one of the gaps on the World Heritage List with only two natural properties, one mixed and one cultural property [i.e. site], located north of the Arctic Circle’ (World Heritage Centre 2008: 8). The mixed site is in fact an Indigenous site: Laponian Area (Sweden), inscribed in 1996 for the way it represents the traditional seasonal movement of Saami with their livestock, including domesticated reindeer. The cultural site is non-‐Indigenous. The 2007 expert meeting stressed the importance of developing Tentative List sites that integrated both cultural and natural values, ‘to cover wherever possible the important interaction between people and their Arctic environment’ (World Heritage Centre 2008: 9). A follow-‐up meeting, New potential World Heritage marine sites in the Arctic Region (25–26 February 2016, Paris), has been convened and will identify specific sites that may be able to fill gaps for natural heritage in the Arctic. As with the earlier work, the 2016 meeting stressed the importance of inscribing sites that reflect ‘the intimate interaction between local communities, traditional cultures and the Arctic’s natural environment and agreed that the Outstanding Universal Value of the Arctic region should be considered from both its cultural and natural perspectives’ (http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1453/).


44


The World Heritage Marine Programme has suggested the Arctic Realm, with its ‘vast and distinct’ coastline, may be of ‘special interest’ to World Heritage (Spalding 2012). The gap for coastal and marine heritage is addressed separately, next, but it can be noted here that these two gaps have significant overlap. Moreover, given the international character of marine natural heritage conservation, there is potential for Inuit Tentative List sites to be established through multi-‐national (trans-‐ boundary) collaboration with other Arctic states. Lastly, the ICOMOS gap analysis conducted in 2004 identified that Indigenous belief system in the Arctic were not represented at all on the World Heritage List (Jokilehto 2005: 77). This continues to be true. At present, two of the sites on Canada’s current Tentative List do have an Arctic component associated with Inuit cultural heritage: Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk), and Quttinirpaaq. While it is likely that Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk) does represent Inuit beliefs, and the Indigenous heritage theme Spirit Places more generally, these values are not currently expressed in the Tentative List site description. COASTAL AND MARINE HERITAGE

Indigenous World Heritage sites with a coastal and/or marine component are very under-‐represented in the Americas. As of 2013, there were 71 World Heritage sites inscribed wholly or in part for their marine natural features (Abdulla et al. 2013). Papahānaumokuākea (United States of America) is the only marine site in the Americas that has been inscribed for both natural and Indigenous cultural heritage, one of only two such World Heritage sites globally. The only Indigenous World Heritage site with a coastal component is SGang Gwaay, which represents the living Haida relationship with the land and sea (North East Pacific Ocean) through oral traditions and spiritual beliefs. Three sites on Canada’s current Tentative List have a coastal component: Gwaii Haanas (which includes the SGang Gwaay World Heritage site) on the west coast, and Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk) and Quttinirpaaq on the Arctic coast. While no expert meetings or thematic studies have yet identified a gap for representation of coastal and/or marine cultural heritage, the paucity of sites representing coastal and marine heritage is suggestive of potential opportunities. Note also that the potential opportunity for coastal and marine heritage overlaps with opportunities identified for hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering practices and Arctic heritage, both of which can address harvesting of marine animals. In addition, as was identified for Arctic heritage, there are opportunities for mixed site nominations that also address gaps that have been identified for natural heritage of coastal and marine areas. As shown in Figure 1, there is no representation on the World Heritage List of natural heritage in the Cold Temperate North West Atlantic (Canada’s East coast); the Cold Temperate North East Pacific (Canada’s West coast) and the Arctic are considered to have low representation (Abdulla et al. 2013: 32–6; Ehler and Douvere 2011). D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

45


Figure 1. Marine sites on the World Heritage List by IUCN marine region, 2011 (source: Ehler and Douvere 2011: 22)

There is therefore a potential opportunity for Canadian marine nominations that also consider Indigenous cultural heritage (i.e. mixed sites, see Section D.1). A good example of this approach is the existing Tentative List site Gwaii Haanas, which is proposed to contain a marine conservation area and terrestrial areas that feature relict Haida villages and living oral traditions. It is likely that Gwaii Haanas would effectively fill the gap for coastal and marine heritage on the west coast (north East Pacific), if the Tentative List site were to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. ORAL TRADITIONS

The 2004 ICOMOS gap analysis identified only eleven sites globally that represent ‘language, oral traditions, myths, song-‐lines’ (Jokilehto 2005), three of which are Indigenous sites, but this was not mentioned as a gap or concern. As of 2016, there are only five World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand that are associated with oral traditions: SGang Gwaay, Papahānaumokuākea, Kakadu National Park, Uluru-‐Kata Tjuta National Park, and Tongariro National Park. Sites representing the Indigenous heritage theme Storied Landscapes may therefore address a gap in World Heritage representation of Indigenous cultural heritage given their low representation on the World Heritage List. Oral traditions are extremely important to understanding Indigenous heritage; storied landscapes provide a good illustration of how Indigenous relations to land D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

46


are expressed through narrative and anchored to specific places and features, an important requirement for World Heritage sites. Because Indigenous oral traditions are mapped out on the land through knowledge of the location and history of named places, these landscapes provide a good illustration of Indigenous cultural traditions, histories, and beliefs. As Andrews has noted for the Dene, Métis, and Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories, ‘physical features [on the land] are used as mnemonic devices to order and help preserve oral narratives, which themselves encode knowledge relative to identity, history, culture, and subsistence (2004: 301). There is a particular important potential gap for representation of the way in which named places are linked up with one another, typically by traditional travel routes on land and water, to form linear landscapes that reveal the histories of people and spirit beings who have travelled those routes (see Buggey 1999). Named places along travel routes provide a ‘roadmap’ to or understanding of the land, thereby serving as ‘anticipatory signs of the features of the country to be encountered between them’ (Hallowell 1955: 196). Named places also house the stories that explain the significance of the land. However, these landscapes cannot be ‘read’ from a distance through the telling of stories; travel through the land is central to understanding and inter-‐generational transmission of knowledge and traditions embedded in storied landscapes (Andrews and Buggey 2008: 66; see also Andrews 2014: 100). This approach to landscape as a series of nodal points that mark out and express detailed ecological, social, and ethical understandings embedded in oral traditions that are transmitted in the context of travel, is an important aspect of Indigenous heritage not represented on the World Heritage List. This Indigenous approach to landscape as a network of nodes linked to one another and made significant through oral history stands in contrast to the cartographic worldview of non-‐indigenous peoples based on an areal view of territory. Storied landscapes that contain a variety of cultural features (e.g., spirit places, key resource harvesting sites, camp sites, and named places) that provide a map of both land and culture may be a basis for a new form of cultural landscape.1 The gap identified here for oral traditions expressed through named places inter-‐ connected by travel routes to form linear storied landscapes does not, at present, conform to the understanding of ‘heritage routes’ provided by UNESCO, which is more closely associated with cultural exchange across countries and/or regions: A heritage route is composed of tangible elements of which the cultural significance comes from exchanges and a multi-‐dimensional dialogue across countries or regions, and that illustrate the interaction of 1 This approach to landscape is very similar to the song-‐lines of Indigenous peoples in Australia, as

represented in Uluru-‐Kata Tjuta National Park World Heritage Site: ‘For the Anangu this landscape is the product of the heroic ancestors' actions and can be read as a text specifying the relationship between the land and its indigenous inhabitants’ (ICOMOS 1994: 100).


47


movement, along the route, in space and time’ (UNESCO 2015: Annex 3, Art. 23). There are no Tentative List sites that directly address the gap for oral traditions, although Áísínai’pi, Pimachiowin Aki, Gwaii Haanas, and Ivvavik / Vuntut / Herschel Island (Qikiqtaruk) all contain storied landscapes that express Indigenous oral traditions. Summary: Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

Outcomes from the Global Strategy, expert meetings, and thematic studies, together with a review of World Heritage representation of Indigenous heritage themes, provides a sense of thematic and geographic areas in which Indigenous heritage in Canada can make an important contribution. Identification of these potential opportunities supports one of the objectives of this report: to identify those aspects of Indigenous heritage in Canada that have the greatest likelihood of success in developing an application to Canada’s Tentative List. Priority areas, or ‘gaps’, that have already been identified from within the World Heritage system include two that have been addressed here: living indigenous heritage and Arctic heritage. A gap on the World Heritage List for living Indigenous heritage is a fairly broad opportunity that is of great value to Indigenous heritage in Canada. The gap for Indigenous heritage of the Arctic is particularly significant because it potentially overlaps opportunities identified for living Indigenous heritage, hunting-‐fishing-‐gathering practices, coastal and marine heritage, and oral traditions. The gap identified for oral traditions can be addressed by Indigenous heritage across Canada, particularly on landscapes associated with living cultural traditions. The 2004 ICOMOS gap analysis concluded 69% of World Heritage cultural sites were ‘architectural properties, historic towns, religious properties and archaeological properties’ (Jokilehto 2005: 21). All 42 of the Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas can be classed as one of these types of sites, even if they can also be classed as other types of sites. The opportunities suggested here provide new ways of thinking about representing Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List. However, the poor representation or even absence of a particular type of site on the World Heritage List does not mean there is necessarily a priority area in which new Tentative List submissions are encouraged. Moreover, priorities can change and certainly not all potential opportunities for Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List have been identified here; the opportunities presented here are suggestive but by no means a definitive statement. Proponents of potential Indigenous heritage applications to Canada’s Tentative List should also keep in mind there are six sites with an Indigenous heritage component on the current (2004) Tentative List and these sites, if they are inscribed, may address specific opportunities for Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List. D. Identifying Opportunities for Indigenous Heritage

48


E. Conclusions Inuit, First Nations, and Métis peoples are a growing and increasingly vocal segment of Canadian society, making up 4.3 percent of the total population in Canada in 2011, up from 3.8 percent in 2006, and 3.3 percent in 2001 (Statistics Canada 2013). The percentage population increase between 2006 and 2011 was 20.1 percent for Indigenous peoples as a whole compared to 5.2 percent for the non-‐Indigenous population in Canada (Statistics Canada 2013: 4). Off-‐Reserve Indigenous peoples make up the fastest growing segment of Canadian society (AANDC 2016). Indigenous peoples also provide Canada with a wealth of ancient and contemporary heritage rooted in a rich diversity of languages, cultures, and historical experiences. And yet, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has recently noted, heritage institutions ‘have interpreted the past in ways that have excluded or marginalized Aboriginal peoples’ cultural perspectives and historical experience’ (TRC 2015: 246). In spite of a long history of conflict and misunderstanding, the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples in Canada is an essential and enduring part of our identity as a nation. Within World Heritage internationally, there is a growing desire to see Indigenous peoples and their heritage better represented. To this end, Canadian and United Nations policies have been developed to improve representation of Indigenous heritage and participation of Indigenous peoples in heritage preservation and management (see Appendix A, ‘Policy Supporting Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage’). Given the significance of Indigenous peoples and their heritage in Canadian society, and the increasing recognition of the need to better represent Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage list, there is strong and present need for greater guidance on preparation of Indigenous heritage applications to Canada’s World Heritage Tentative List. This report has sought to improve the readiness of Indigenous peoples and their supporters to make an application to Canada’s Tentative List by clarifying interpretation of World Heritage standards and processes, and by identifying opportunities for Indigenous heritage on the World Heritage List. The guidance provided here can also assist future development of World Heritage nominations for Indigenous heritage. Specific opportunities were identified for living Indigenous heritage, hunting-‐ fishing-‐gathering practices (including harvesting of marine mammals), arctic heritage, coastal and marine heritage, and oral traditions. In some cases these opportunities may overlap. Proponents of Indigenous heritage applications need to be mindful that there are still five Tentative List sites with a substantial Indigenous focus and these sites, if inscribed, may address wholly or in part some of the opportunities identified here. E. Conclusions

49


At the same time, not all Tentative List sites get to the point of developing a full nomination for submission to the World Heritage Centre for review. In large part this is a reflection of the tremendous resources needed to develop a World Heritage nomination. Among the eleven sites that were included on Canada’s Tentative List in 2004, five have been brought to nomination and inscription. Three are cultural sites: Rideau Canal (inscribed 2007), Landscape of Grand Pré (inscribed 2012), and Red Bay Basque Whaling Station (inscribed 2013). Two are natural sites: Joggins Fossil Cliffs (inscribed 2008) and Mistaken Point (inscribed 2016). Mistaken Point was in fact placed on the Tentative List in 1998. Among the remaining six sites on Canada’s Tentative List, only Pimachiowin Aki has been brought to full nomination; Pimachiowin Aki has not yet been inscribed. First nominated in 2013, Pimachiowin Aki was deferred by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC Decision 37.COM/8B.19 http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5134), requiring substantial revision and resubmission of a new nomination. A new nomination under new criteria was developed for evaluation in 2015 and was then referred back to the State Party (Canada) ‘to allow it to work with the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation to identify and implement appropriate actions to ensure effective governance and management of the nominated property’.2 The World Heritage site Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy (Indonesia) experienced a similar series of delays after nomination. First nominated in January 2007, the site was deferred in 2008 to allow the State Party to consider adding more components to enable the site to better reflect the proposed OUV (WHC Decision 32.COM/8B.22 http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2008/whc08-32com-8Be.pdf). The site was re-‐nominated in 2011 and inscribed in 2012. As noted at the start of this report, inscription on the World Heritage List is the highest international recognition for a protected area. It is not surprising therefore that there is very often a long and arduous process associated with developing a Tentative List application, then producing a full nomination dossier, and weathering any subsequent delays in final inscription. Proponents are encouraged to consult the UNESCO resource manual Preparing World Heritage Nominations for additional guidance on topics not addressed here, such as setting up and resourcing a nomination team with the appropriate stakeholders and experts (UNESCO 2011: 51–5). 2 Referral

and deferral of nominations are explained in the Operational Guidelines. In essence, referral requires the State Party to clarify issues for the World Heritage Committee within three years, after which a new nomination is required; deferral requires, in effect, a new nomination and evaluation (UNESCO 2015: Art. 159–60).

E. Conclusions

50


F. References AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada). 2016. ‘Urban Aboriginal Peoples’. Online: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014265/1369225120949. Abdulla, A., Obura, D., Bertzky, B. and Shi, Y. (2013). Marine Natural Heritage and the World Heritage List: Interpretation of World Heritage criteria in marine systems, analysis of biogeographic representation of sites, and a roadmap for addressing gaps. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Andrews, Thomas D. 2004. ‘The Land is Like a Book: Cultural Landscape Management in the Northwest Territories, Canada’. In Igor Krupnik, Igor, Rachel Mason, and Tonia W. Horton (Eds.), Northern Ethnographic Landscapes: Perspectives from Circumpolar Nations, 301–22. Washington, DC: Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History. ANPWS (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories). 1994. ‘Renomination of Uluru-‐Kata Tjuta National Park by the Government of Australia for Inscription on the World Heritage List’. ANPWS (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories). 1991. ‘Nomination of Kakadu National Park by the Government of Australia for Inscription in the World Heritage List’. Andrews, Thomas. 2014. ‘Recasting Authenticity in Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes,’ Proceedings, 96–104. Andrews, Thomas D., and Susan Buggey. 2008. ‘Authenticity in Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes’. Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) Bulletin, 39(2/3): 63-‐71. Buckley, Kristal. 2014. ‘Nature+Culture and World Heritage: Why it Matters,’ Proceedings of a round table, Exploring the Cultural Value of Nature: a World Heritage Context, Montréal, Québec, 12–14 March 2014. pp. 105–21. Buggey, Susan. 2004. ‘An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes’. Parks Canada, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada agenda paper 1999-‐10. (updated in: I. Krupnik, R. Masen, and T. Horton (Eds). 2004. Northern Ethnographic Landscapes: Perspectives from Circumpolar Nations, pp.17–44. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC). Buggey, Susan and Mitchell, Nora. 2003. ‘Cultural Landscape Management Challenges and Promising New Directions in the United States and Canada’. In: World Heritage Centre, Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation, World Heritage Series n°7, outcomes of Workshop in Ferrara, Italy, 11-‐12 November 2002, pp. 92–100. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Calma, Graeme & Lynette Liddle. 2003. ‘Training Challenges in the Management of Heritage Territories and Landscapes’. In: World Heritage Centre, Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation, World Heritage Series n°7, outcomes of Workshop in Ferrara, Italy, 11-‐12 November 2002, pp. 104–19. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Ehler, Charles, and Douvere, Fanny. 2011. Navigating the Future of Marine World Heritage Results from the first World Heritage Marine Site Managers Meeting Honolulu, Hawaii, 1-‐3 December 2010. World Heritage Series n° 28. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

F. References

51


Feneley, Rick. 2013. ‘Indigenous leaders told of “insulting” UN rule on World Heritage listing,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, 2013. Online. http://www.smh.com.au/national/indigenous-leaders-told-of-insulting-un-rule-on-worldheritage-listing-20130527-2n7ac.

Finke, Gunnar. 2013. Linking Landscapes: Exploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Fowler, Peter J. 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992–2002. World Heritage Series n° 6. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Government of Northwest Territories (Northwest Territories Cultural Places Program). 2007. Living with the Land: A Manual for Documenting Cultural Landscapes in the Northwest Territories. Hall, Frank. 1969. ‘Carlton Trail: First Western Highway’, Manitoba Pageant, 14(3), Spring 1969: 2–3. Hallowell, A. Irving. 1955. ‘Cultural factors in spatial orientation’. In Hallowell, A.I., Culture and Experience, pp. 184–202. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hanks, Christopher C. 1996. ‘Narrative and Landscape: Grizzly Bear Mountain and Scented Grass Hills as Repositories of Sahtu Dene Culture’, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada agenda paper, 1996-‐61. Indigenous Affairs Branch, Parks Canada Agency. 2016. ‘Promising Pathways: Strengthening engagement and relationships with Indigenous peoples in Parks Canada heritage places’. Online: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/aa/parcours-pathways.aspx. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2016. ‘Evaluations of Nominations of Cultural and Mixed Properties: ICOMOS report for the World Heritage Committee 40th ordinary session, Istanbul, 10 – 20 July 2016,’ WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2013. ‘Evaluations of Nominations of Cultural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List: ICOMOS report for the World Heritage Committee 37th ordinary session, Phnom Penh, June 2013,’ WHC-‐ 13/37.COM/INF.8B1. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2008. ‘Evaluation of The Kuk Early Agricultural Site (Papua New Guinea), No. 887’. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/887.pdf. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 2001. ‘A Note by ICOMOS (2001).’ In: Fowler, P.J. 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-‐2002, Annex G: The Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, pp. 126–129. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). 1994. ‘World Heritage List ― Uluru No447rev’. Technical Evaluation, October 1994. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/447rev.pdf. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2016a. ‘Connecting Practice: Defining new methods and strategies to support Nature and Culture through engagement in the World Heritage Convention,’ Online: http://www.iucn.org/theme/worldheritage/our-work/more-projects/linking-nature-and-culture. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2016b. IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2016: IUCN Evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the F. References

52


World Heritage List. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2, IUCN Report for the World Heritage Committee, 40th Session, Istanbul, Turkey, 10-‐20 July 2016. Online: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-inf8B2-en.pdf. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2011. IUCN Statement to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Tenth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). Item 3(b). New York, 16–27 May 2011. IUCN and ICOMOS (International Union for Conservation of Nature and International Council on Monuments and Sites). n.d. Connecting Practice Project: Final Report. Jokilehto, Jukka. 2005. The World Heritage List: Filling the gaps ― An Action Plan for the Future. ICOMOS Monuments and Sites Series, Vol. XII. Paris: International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Jokilehto, Jukka. 2008. The World Heritage List: What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties. ICOMOS Monuments and Sites Series, Vol. XVI. Berlin: hendrik Bäßler verlag. Larsen, Peter Bille, and Gamini Wijesuriya. 2015. ‘Nature-‐culture interlinkages in World Heritage: bridging the gap,’ World Heritage, 75: 4–15. Lisitzen, Katri, and Stovel, Herb. 2003. ‘Training challenges in the management of heritage territories and landscapes’. In: World Heritage Centre, Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation, World Heritage Series n°7, outcomes of Workshop in Ferrara, Italy, 11-‐12 November 2002, pp.40-‐49. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Mitchell, Nora, Rössler, Mechtild, and Tricaud, Pierre-‐Marie. 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Series n° 26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Parks Canada Agency. 2016. ‘Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada: History’. Online: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/yt/chilkoot/natcul/2.aspx. Parks Canada Agency. 2014. Promising Pathways: Strengthening engagement and relationships with Aboriginal Peoples In Parks Canada Heritage Places — A Resource Guide. Phillips, Adrian. 2003, ‘Turning Ideas on their Head – The New Paradigm for Protected Areas’, George Wright Society Forum, 20(2): 8–32. Spalding, Mark. 2012. Marine World Heritage: Toward a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. World Heritage Centre. UNESCO, Paris. Statistics Canada. 2013. National Household Survey, 2011: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations People, Métis and Inuit. Ottawa: Minister of Industry. TRC (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada). 2015. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Online: http://www.myrobust.com/websites/trcinstitution/File/Reports/Executive_Summary_English_W eb.pdf.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2015. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: World Heritage Centre. UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2011. Preparing World Heritage Nominations, second edition. Paris: World Heritage Centre. F. References

53


World Heritage Centre, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. 2008. World Heritage and the Arctic: International Expert Meeting, 30 November to 1 December 2007, Narvik, Norway. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. World Heritage Centre, National Heritage Board of Poland, and the Polish National Commission. 2012. International World Heritage Expert Meeting on Criterion (vi), 28–30 March 2012 -‐ Warsaw, Poland. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 2015. ‘Revision of the Operational Guidelines,’ Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015), WHC-‐15/39.COM/19, 8 July 2015. Paris: UNESCO. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 2014. ‘Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda: Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List: 9B. Reflections on processes for mixed nominations.’ Thirty-‐eighth session of the World Heritage Committee, Doha, Qatar 15–25 June 2014, WHC-‐14/38.COM/9B. Paris: UNESCO. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 2013. ‘Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th Session (Phnom Penh, 2013).’ Thirty-‐seventh session of the World Heritage Committee, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 16–27 June 2013. WHC-‐13/37.COM/20. Paris: UNESCO. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 1998. ‘Report of the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting, 25 to 29 March 1998, Theatre Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands’. Twenty-‐second session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, Paris, 22–27 June 1998. WHC-‐98/CONF.201/INF.9. Paris: UNESCO. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 1994a. ‘Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda: Progress report on the preparation of Global Strategy for a representative World Heritage List’. Eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, Phuket, Thailand, 12–17 December 1994. WHC-‐94/CONF.003/15. Paris: UNESCO. WHC (World Heritage Committee, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 1994b. ‘Information note: Nara Document on Authenticity. Experts meeting, 1-‐6 November 1994. WHC-‐94/CONF.003/INF.008, 21 November 1994’. Paris: UNESCO.

F. References

54


Appendix A. Policy Supporting Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage Following is a brief background of recent policy developments related to representation of Indigenous heritage in World Heritage sites and participation of Indigenous people in World Heritage site management. Participation of people in World Heritage, whether or not they are Indigenous peoples, is shaped first and foremost by guidance and policy of States Parties to the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, or the World Heritage Convention. In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau has explicitly expressed his government’s commitment to improving relations with Indigenous peoples. One of his stated priorities after taking office in 2015 was to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation (TRC 2015: Art. 43). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission urged the Government of Canada ‘to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (TRC 2015: Art. 44). In February 2015, Douglas Eyford, the Ministerial Special Representative on Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, released his report on the state of Crown relations with Indigenous peoples. The report underlined that litigation continued to dominate those relations and called for, among other things, a ‘whole of government approach’ (i.e. an integrated and unified efforts across government departments and agencies) to reconciliation with Canada’s indigenous peoples (Eyford 2015). In response to these important recent reports, Parks Canada has made a commitment to ‘make tangible contributions to a whole-‐of-‐government approach to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples’ in the context of Canadian heritage and commemoration. This commitment will address, specifically, recognition and respect of Indigenous rights in heritage places, co-‐operation in management of heritage places, and partnerships in tourism and other economic initiatives (Parks Canada Agency 2016). This commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is significant because Parks Canada is responsible for roughly 90 percent of federal Crown lands, much of it in more remote parts of the country in which Indigenous peoples are either a majority of the population or a significant stakeholder; at present, 14 parks and park reserves are managed under a land claim (Indigenous Affairs Branch 2016). Within World Heritage specifically, Parks Canada serves as the State Party representative

Appendix A — Supporting Policy

55


for Canada on the World Heritage Committee, which makes decisions about inscription, among other things. In addition to national policy, the development of World Heritage nominations involving Indigenous people and their heritage is guided by a substantial body of policy and guidance specific to implementation of the World Heritage Convention. There is also broader policy and guidance from the United Nations that has an impact on implementing of the World Heritage Convention. The following discussion is limited to policy and guidance directly addressing representation of Indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage in World Heritage. UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (2007)

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognizes the urgent need to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples, whether inherent rights or those affirmed in treaties and other agreements, and the important and continuing role of the United Nations in promoting and protecting those rights. Of special note here are articles 40 and 41, which direct agencies of the United Nations to establish concrete mechanisms for ensuring participation of Indigenous peoples and upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples more generally (General Assembly of the United Nations 2008). The commitment to implement UNDRIP was reaffirmed in September 2014 on the occasion of the high-‐level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. The resolution adopted at that meeting committed the member states of the General Assembly, including Canada, to take action at the national level to fulfil the goals of UNDRIP (General Assembly of the United Nations 2014; esp. Arts. 7 and 8). As part of that commitment, the United Nations developed a system-‐wide action plan to increase participation of indigenous peoples in United Nations processes (UNPFII 2016). The action plan also supports realization of indigenous peoples’ rights in the implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNPFII 2016: Art. 26). UNITED NATIONS 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development represents a follow-‐ up to commitments made in the United Nations Environment Program Rio+20 final outcome document, the Rio Declaration, which affirms ‘the importance of the participation of indigenous peoples in the achievement of sustainable development’ (UNEP 2012: Art. 49). To ensure policy compliance with the 2013 Agenda, the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention adopted a sustainable development policy that has been endorsed by the WHC (39 COM 5D) as a draft policy document, ‘Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention’ (UNESCO 2015b).


56


The policy calls for World Heritage conservation and management to promote inclusive governance and collaborative management of World Heritage sites, respecting the rights of all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, whether or not they are residing within those sites (UNESCO 2015b: Arts. 9 & 17). Further, the policy calls on States Parties to: i. Develop relevant standards, guidance and operational mechanisms for indigenous peoples and local community involvement in World Heritage processes; [and] ii. Ensure adequate consultations, the free, prior and informed consent and equitable and effective participation of indigenous peoples where World Heritage nomination, management and policy measures affect their territories, lands, resources and ways of life (UNESCO 2015b: Art. 22). REVISIONS TO THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereafter ‘Operational Guidelines’) provides detailed guidance on implementation of the World Heritage Convention. At the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee in Bonn, Germany (June 28 – July 8, 2015), wording in the Operational Guidelines that refers to indigenous peoples was adopted for the first time. Indigenous peoples are now listed as potential partners in the protection and management of World Heritage (UNESCO 2015a: Art. 40). In addition, guidance under ‘Preparation of nominations’ states, in part, Participation in the nomination process of local communities, indigenous peoples, governmental, non-‐governmental and private organizations and other stakeholders is essential to enable them to have a shared responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance of the property [i.e. site] (UNESCO 2015a: Art. 123). REFERENCES

Eyford, Douglas R. 2015. A New Direction: Advancing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Report to Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, February 2015. General Assembly of the United Nations. 2008. ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, resolution A/RES/61/295 adopted 13 September 2007. General Assembly of the United Nations. 2014. ‘Outcome document of the high-‐level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’, Resolution A/RES/69/2, adopted 22 September 2014. Indigenous Affairs Branch, Parks Canada. 2016. ‘Indigenous Fact Sheet.’ Online: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/aa/faits-facts.aspx. Parks Canada Agency. 2016a. Parks Canada Agency: 2016–17 Report on Plans and Priorities. Appendix A — Supporting Policy

57


TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada). 2015. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2015a. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: World Heritage Centre. UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2015b. ‘Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention,’ adopted by the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage at its 20th session, Paris, 18–20 November 2015, WHC-‐15/20.GA/INF.13. Paris: United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2012. The Future We Want. Rio+20 final outcome document, United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, 13–22 June 2012. UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues). 2016. ‘System-‐wide action plan for ensuring a coherent approach to achieving the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. E/C.19/2016/5.


58


Appendix B. Methods INDIGENOUS HERITAGE THEMES

Themes were adopted to reflect the area-‐based requirements of the World Heritage Convention while being general enough to potentially apply to all Indigenous peoples in Canada. Listing of the themes identified does not preclude or limit Tentative List applications for Indigenous heritage that does not fit easily within this set of themes. Urban Indigenous heritage was not adopted as a theme, although urban Indigenous heritage is a growing and poorly represented aspect of heritage in Canada and World Heritage. However, at present it would be difficult to demonstrate urban Indigenous heritage has or has had a global or regional significance that could be considered exceptional, or of Outstanding Universal Value. METHODS FOR TABLES

For Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6, decisions on which World Heritage Sites contain Indigenous heritage, whether a site contains living or relict Indigenous heritage, and what Indigenous heritage themes apply to each site, were based on the most recent official World Heritage List, which includes all inscriptions up to 2015. This List is available on the UNESCO World Heritage website as file ‘whc-‐sites-‐2016.xls’ (http://whc.unesco.org/en/syndication). The List was then updated manually by reviewing sites that were inscribed in 2016. For Table 3, decisions were based on Tentative List descriptions on the UNESCO World Heritage website and any nomination materials that were available. Following are additional notes on specific interpretations used in the tables. Indigenous

Sites considered ‘Indigenous World Heritage sites’ in this report (no such term exist officially within World Heritage) are associated with a known Indigenous people who maintain an association with the site, even if they do not physically reside in or use the site. Excluded were: (1) paleontological sites (e.g., Willandra Lakes Region, Australia); (2) sites demonstrating occupation by ancient peoples with no living representatives (e.g., Serra da Capivara National Park, Brazil); and (3) sites that were inhabited by peoples considered the ancestors of more contemporary, known Indigenous peoples (e.g., Tentative List site Quttinirpaaq National Park of Canada, inhabited by Thule peoples, ancestors to Inuit peoples; The Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas World Heritage Site, Argentina, inhabited 13,000–9,500 years ago by people who ‘may have been the ancestors of the historic hunter-‐gatherer communities of Patagonia found by European settlers in the 19th century’). Appendix B —Methods

59


Indigenous Heritage Themes

Interpretation was based on Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, ICOMOS evaluations, and where needed, IUCN evaluations. In some cases it is difficult to know with certainty if a theme applies when that theme is not expressed in the site description or Statement of Outstanding Universal Value. The thematic portion of the 2004 ICOMOS gap analysis (Jokilehto 2005) was consulted for help with assignment of themes but was largely unhelpful because themes were assigned from a non-‐indigenous perspective; for example, sacred mountains was a sub-‐theme under sacred sites but Tongoriro National Park was not classified as such even though the OUV specifically centers on the sacred dimensions of mountains. Table 7 presents the 46 World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand that were identified as Indigenous. For each site, the themes that apply are indicated by a ‘1’ with ‘0’ meaning the theme does not apply. Sites identified as living rather than relict are shown as shaded rows with the site name in bold face.

Harvest Sites

Settlement

Coastal-‐Marine

Storied Landscapes

Travel Routes

Cultural Exchange

Representation of Indigenous heritage themes among all Indigenous World Heritage sites in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand (2016)

Spirit Places

Table 7.

SGang Gwaay

Canada

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

Head-‐Smashed-‐In Buffalo Jump

Canada

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Mesa Verde National Park

USA

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site

USA

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

Chaco Culture

USA

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Taos Pueblo

USA

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Papahānaumokuākea

USA

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point

USA

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Pre-‐Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque

Mexico

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco

Mexico

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Pre-‐Hispanic City of Teotihuacan Mexico Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Mexico Monte Albán Pre-‐Hispanic City of Chichen-‐Itza Mexico

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes

Mexico

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

El Tajin, Pre-‐Hispanic City

Mexico

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco

Mexico

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pre-‐Hispanic Town of Uxmal

Mexico

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco

Mexico

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Ancient Maya City and Protected Tropical Forests of Mexico

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

Appendix B —Methods

60


Calakmul, Campeche Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Mexico Prehistoric Caves of Yagul and Mitla in the Central Mexico Valley of Oaxaca Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas Argentina

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quebrada de Humahuaca

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System

Argentina Argentina, et al.

Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Bolivia Tiwanaku Culture Fuerte de Samaipata Bolivia Rapa Nui National Park

Chile

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

Churches of Chiloé

Chile

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

National Archeological Park of Tierradentro

Colombia

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

San Agustín Archaeological Park Colombia Precolumbian Chiefdom Settlements with Stone Costa Rica Spheres of the Diquís Joya de Cerén Archaeological Site El Salvador

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

Tikal National Park

Guatemala

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua

Guatemala

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Maya Site of Copan

Honduras

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

Peru

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

Chavin (Archaeological Site)

Peru

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Río Abiseo National Park Peru Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Peru Jumana Sacred City of Caral-‐Supe Peru

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

City of Cuzco

Peru

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Chan Chan Archaeological Zone

Peru

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

Kakadu National Park

Australia

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

Uluru-‐Kata Tjuta National Park

Australia

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

Tasmanian Wilderness

Australia New Zealand

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

Living sites:

6

3

4

2

5

2

2

Relict sites:

17

13

31

1

0

1

8

All Indigenous sites:

23

16

35

3

5

3

10

Tongariro National Park

Appendix B —Methods

61