This article was downloaded by: [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]

On: 02 October 2014, At: 06:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Landscape Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20
World Heritage cultural landscapes:
A UNESCO flagship programme
1992 2006
Dr Mechtild Rssler Chief
a
a
UNESCO World Heritage Centre , Paris, France
Published online: 23 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Dr Mechtild Rssler Chief (2006) World Heritage cultural landscapes:
A UNESCO flagship programme 1992 2006, Landscape Research, 31:4, 333-353, DOI:
10.1080/01426390601004210
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390601004210
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes:
A UNESCO Flagship Programme
1992 2006
MECHTILD RO

SSLER
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France
ABSTRACT This paper reviews one of the most important evolutions in the history of the 1972
UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(World Heritage Convention), namely, the interaction between culture and nature and the
development of the cultural landscape categories. The World Heritage Convention currently
covers 812 sites in 137 countries and is with 181 States Parties the most universal international
legal instrument in heritage conservation. Among the properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List, 53 sites are recognized cultural landscapes focusing on the outstanding interaction between
people and their environment. The paper further explains key case studies from World
Heritage cultural landscapes from all regions of the world and highlights the innovations in the
Conventions implementation through the landscape approach, particularly focusing on the
management of complex properties involving local communities and indigenous people. The paper
also outlines links to other international and regional Conventions and concludes with a future
outlook of the landscape programme.
KEY WORDS: Cultural landscapes, World Heritage List, World Heritage Convention,
UNESCO
Despite humankinds continuing best eorts to destroy magnicent landscapes,
devastate natural habitats and extinguish our fellow species, the world is still full
of many stunningly beautiful places, rich in biological and cultural diversity.
(Beresford & Phillips, 2000, p. 15)
Introduction
During the 1990s, the interpretation of World Heritage evolved to a great extent, and
as a result a diversity of living cultural places, sacred sites and cultural landscapes
has been included on the UNESCO World Heritage List. In particular, the cultural
landscape concept attracted international attention.
Correspondence Address: Dr. Mechtild Ro ssler, Chief, Europe & North America, UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France. Email: m.rossler@unesco.org,
Web page: http://whc.unesco.org/
Landscape Research,
Vol. 31, No. 4, 333 353, October 2006
ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/06/040333-21 2006 Landscape Research Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/01426390601004210
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Cultural landscapes are at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and
intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversitythey represent a closely woven
net of relationships, the essence of culture and peoples identity. Cultural landscapes
are a focus of protected areas in a larger ecosystem context, and they are a symbol of
the growing recognition of the fundamental links between local communities and
their heritage, humankind and its natural environment.
World Heritage cultural landscapes are sites which are protected under the
UNESCO World Heritage Convention for the outstanding value of the interaction
between people and their environment. This paper will look at these exceptional sites
in a global context and provide an overview of the implementation of the concept
over the past years, including selected case studies.
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (World Heritage Convention), adopted by the General Conference of
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientic, and Cultural Organization) in
1972, established a unique international instrument that recognizes and protects
both the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value.
1
The World
Heritage Conventions denition of heritage provided an innovative and powerful
opportunity for the protection of cultural landscapes as combined works of nature
and man (UNESCO, 1972, Art. 1).
2
The Convention not only embodies tangible and intangible values both for natural
and cultural heritage, it also acknowledges in its implementation the recognition of
traditional management system, customary law and long-established customary
techniques and knowledge to protect the cultural and natural heritage. Through
these protection systems, World Heritage sites contribute to sustainable local and
regional development.
With 180 States Parties and 812 properties located in 137 countries on the World
Heritage List, the Convention has become a key legal instrument in heritage
conservation and plays an important role in promoting the recognition and
management of heritage in many regions of the world. Its opening to heritage
landscapes and the transformation of the concept into practice with 53 World Heritage
cultural landscapes in all regions of the world has had a considerable eect on many
other programmes and constituencies, but also on other protected areas beyond the
World Heritage sites. The shift from exceptional natural sites and national parks
without people to designated natural heritage sites in a landscape context can be
exemplied. But even more evident is the shift towards people and communities,
towards linkages and the landscape context in the World Heritage cultural landscapes.
The changing concepts inuenced the crucial work in many States Parties around
the world in identifying potential sites for World Heritage Listing and including
them in their Tentative Lists. New Tentative Lists that have been prepared during
the past 10 years include numerous cultural landscapes,
3
such as in the United
Kingdom, Kenya and Canada, to name but a few. The revision of the Canadian
Tentative List is a model case involving many sites proposed by communities,
researchers, institutions and governmental agencies, a review and consultative
process across the country to identify those sites, which would t the World Heritage
criteria and are of potential outstanding universal value. The new Tentative List
(see www.parkscanada.cd) clearly illustrates the emerging approach of cultural
landscapes and diverse cultural heritage.
334 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Cultural Landscapes on the World Heritage List: A New Approach
In 1992 the World Heritage Convention became the rst international legal
instrument to recognize and protect cultural landscapes. This decision was based on
years of intensive debate in the World Heritage Committee on how to protect sites
where interactions between people and the natural environment are the key focus.
The World Heritage Committee adopted three categories of cultural landscapes as
qualifying for listing:
. clearly dened landscapes designed and created intentionally by humans, such as
many gardens and parks. Such landscapes had been already included on the
World Heritage List in the early years such as Versailles in France, but the
concept opened the List for sites such as Kew Gardens in the United Kingdom,
or the large-scale extended designed area of the Lednice Valtice Cultural
Landscape in the Czech Republic;
. organically evolved landscapes, which can be either relict landscapes or continuing
landscapes. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or
religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and
in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reect that process of
evolution in their form and component features. These include a number of
agricultural landscapes ranging from the tobacco landscape of Vinales Valley in
Cuba, the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras or the Puzta pastoral
landscape of Hortobagy National Park in Hungary; and
. associative cultural landscapes. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World
Heritage List is justiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural
associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which
Figure 1. The designed landscape of Dessau Wo rlitz; photographer: Niamh Burke
(UNESCO).
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 335
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

may be insignicant or even absent. This type is exemplied by Uluru Kata
Tjuta in Australia, Sukur in Nigeria and Tongariro National Park in New
Zealand.
Many cultural landscapes have been nominated and inscribed53 by 2005 from all
regions of the world (see Table 1)on the World Heritage List since the 1992
landmark decision. Cultural landscapes are inscribed on the World Heritage List on
the basis of the cultural heritage criteria, but in a number of cases the properties are
also recognized for their outstanding natural values, such as the transboundary or
transnational site of the Mont Perdu between France and Spain where no border
exists in the pastoral activities of the local communities.
The impact of the inclusion of cultural landscapes for the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention cannot be underestimated and is illustrated by the
following highlights.
First, the category of the associative cultural landscape has been crucial in the
recognition of intangible values and for the heritage of local communities and
indigenous people. The primary dierence was the acceptance of communities and
their relationship with the environment. There are many places with associative
cultural values, or sacred sites, which may be physical entities or mental images
embedded in a peoples spirituality, cultural tradition, and practice. The category of
sacred sites has an immense potential, as many protected areas have been basically
protected because they are sacred places. Well before the categorization of protected
areas into national parks, nature reserves, and landscapes, indigenous peoples have
protected their sacred sites and groves. Through these mechanisms they have
contributed to preserving unique sites, biological diversity and cultural spaces
transmitted to future generations.
Unique land-use systems, the continued work of people over centuries and
sometimes millennia to adapt the natural environment, were also recognized as
enhancing biological diversity. Key world crops developed in spectacular agricul-
tural systems in the High Andes (e.g. potatoes, corn), terraced rice paddies in Asia
(rice sh vegetables) and oasis systems in the Sahara (dates).
The global importance of these systems and the genetic varieties in diverse cultural
landscapes was acknowledged. At the same time the building techniques, vernacular
architecture and ingenious schemes of these systems also received attention, as they
often relate to complex social and contractual arrangements. Irrigation systems such
as the mud channels in the steep terrain of the Philippine Cordilleras, the Quanat
structures in Northern Africa or the dry stone walls in the Mediterranean also
Table 1. Number of cultural landscapes (since 1992) inscribed on the World Heritage List as of
July 2005 in comparison to other properties
Type of property Of which are cultural landscapes Total number
Cultural properties 49 628
Natural properties 0 160
Mixed cultural and natural properties 4 24
Total 53 812
336 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

show the interdependence of people on the cultural landscape. If the physical or the
social structure collapses, the whole landscape and ecological system is threatened.
Often these knowledge systems are intertwined with belief systems, rituals and
ceremonials.
The inscription of sites as cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List has had
major eects on the interpretation, presentation, and management of the properties.
The nomination process led to awareness raising among local communities, to new
pride in their own heritage, to rehabilitation and revival of traditions. In some cases,
Table 2a. The three categories of World Heritage cultural landscapes in the Operational
Guidelines 1992 2004
World Heritage
criteria,
paragraph 24 (a)
Cultural
landscape
category
Extract from paragraph 39 of the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention (1992 2004)
Cultural
criterion (i)
i The most easily identiable is the clearly dened
landscape designed and created intentionally by
man. This embraces garden and parkland
landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons
which are often (but not always) associated
with religious or other monumental buildings
and ensembles.
Cultural criteria
(ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
ii The second category is the organically evolved
landscape. This results from an initial social,
economic, administrative, and/or religious
imperative and has developed its present form
by association with and in response to its
natural environment. Such landscapes reect
that process of evolution in their form and
component features. They fall into two sub-
categories:
. a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an
evolutionary process came to an end at some
time in the past, either abruptly or over a
period. Its signicant distinguishing features
are, however, still visible in material form.
. a continuing landscape is one which retains an
active social role in contemporary society
closely associated with the traditional way of
life, and in which the evolutionary process is
still in progress. At the same time it exhibits
signicant material evidence of its evolution
over time.
Cultural
criterion (vi)
iii The nal category is the associative cultural
landscape. The inclusion of such landscapes on
the World Heritage List is justiable by virtue
of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural
associations of the natural element rather than
material cultural evidence, which may be
insignicant or even absent.
(See von Droste et al., 1995 for background information.)
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 337
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Table 2b. World Heritage cultural landscapes in the Operational Guidelines 2005
World Heritage
criteria,
paragraph 77
Cultural landscape
denition, paragraph 47
Cultural landscape categories,
Annex 3, Operational
Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention (2005)
Criteria Cultural landscapes
(i) (vi) 47. Cultural landscapes are cultural
properties and represent the combined
works of nature and of man designated
in Article 1 of the Convention. They are
illustrative of the evolution of human
society and settlement over time, under
the inuence of the physical constraints
and/or opportunities presented by their
natural environment and of successive
social, economic and cultural forces,
both external and internal.
Same text of the categories as
in Table 2a (see above)
Criteria
(vii) (x)
Applies in case a cultural landscape is also
nominated/inscribed for its natural
values.
a
(see above and paragraph 46
on Mixed Cultural and
Natural Heritage)
a
An interesting case will be the application of exceptional natural beauty, under former criterion
N(iii), now(vii), which may be also applied for associative cultural landscapes, as the concept of
natural beauty is a cultural one. Astudy by IUCNon this criterion is under preparation. No site
has been inscribed on the World Heritage List solely under this criterion since 1992.
Table 3. The 53 cultural landscapes (since 1992) inscribed on the World Heritage List as of
July 2005
State Party WH cultural landscape Criteria
Year(s) of
inscription
Afghanistan Cultural Landscape and Archaeological
Remains of the Bamiyan Valley
C (i) (ii) (iii)
(iv) (vi)
2003
Andorra The Madriu-Perata-Claror Valley C (v) 2004
Argentina Quebrada de Humahuaca C (ii) (iv) (v) 2003
Australia Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park N (ii) (iii)
C (v) (vi)
1987, 1994
Austria Hallstatt-Dachstein Salzkammergut
Cultural Landscape
C (iii) (iv) 1997
Austria Wachau Cultural Landscape C (ii) (iv) 2000
Austria/
Hungary
Ferto /Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape C (v) 2001
Cuba Archaeological Landscape of the First
Coee Plantations in the Southeast of
Cuba
C (iii) (iv) 2000
Cuba Vin ales Valley C (iv) 1999
Czech
Republic
Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape C (i) (ii) (iv) 1996
France Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion C (iii) (iv) 1999
(continued)
338 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Table 3. (Continued)
State Party WH cultural landscape Criteria
Year(s) of
inscription
France The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-
Loire and Chalonnes
C (i) (ii) (iv) 2000
France/Spain Pyre ne es Mont Perdu N (i) (iii) C
(iii) (iv) (v)
1997, 1999
Germany Dresden Elbe Valley C (ii) (iii)
(iv) (v)
2004
Germany Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wo rlitz C (ii) (iv) 2000
Germany Upper Middle Rhine Valley C (ii) (iv) (v) 2002
Germany/
Poland
Muskauer Park/Park Muzakowski C (i) (iv) 2004
Hungary Hortoba gy National Park the Puszta C (iv) (v) 1999
Hungary Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural
Landscape
C (iii) (v) 2002
Iceland ingvellir National Park C (iii) (vi) 2004
India Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka C (iii) (v) 2003
Iran, Islamic Bam and its Cultural Landscape C (ii) (iii)
(iv) (v)
2004
Republic of
Italy
Sacri Monti of Piedmont
and Lombardy
C (ii) (iv) 2003
Italy Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the
Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto)
C (ii) (iv) (v) 1997
Italy Val dOrcia C (iv) (vi) 2004
Italy Costiera Amaltana C (ii) (iv) (v) 1997
Italy Cilento and Vallo di Diano National
Park with the Archeological sites of
Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa
di Padula
C (iii) (iv) 1998
Israel Incense Route Desert Cities in the
Negev
C (iii) (iv) 2005
Japan Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in
the Kii Mountain Range
C (ii) (iii) (iv)
(vi)
2004
Kazakhstan Petroglyphs within the Archaeological
Landscape of Tamgaly
C (iii) 2004
Lao Peoples
Democratic
Republic
Vat Phou and Associated Ancient
Settlements within the Champasak
Cultural Landscape
C (iii) (iv) (vi) 2001
Lebanon Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the
Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh
Arz el-Rab)
C (iii) (iv) 1998
Lithuania Kernave Archaeological Site (Cultural
Reserve of Kernave)
C (iii) (iv) 2004
Lithuania/
Russian
Federation
Curonian Spit C (v) 2000
Madagascar Royal Hill of Ambohimanga C (iii) (iv) (vi) 2001
Mongolia Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape C (ii) (iii) (iv) 2004
New Zealand Tongariro National Park N (ii) (iii)
C (vi)
1990, 1993
Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape C (iii) (v) (vi) 1999
(continued)
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 339
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

new threats had to be faced with unregulated tourism and related developments.
In other cases they are moving towards models for sustainable land-use and com-
munity stewardship, including the marketing of specic agricultural products or
traditional arts and crafts.
Furthermore, the introduction of cultural landscapes into the World Heritage eld
made people aware that sites are not isolated islands, but that they have to be seen in
the ecological system and with their cultural linkages in time and space beyond single
monuments and strict nature reserves. The concept is therefore exemplary for the
evolution in protected area thinking and heritage conservation as a whole, as was
demonstrated at the World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003 (see Philipps, 2003). It
reects the extraordinary development in the interpretation of the World Heritage
Convention and the diversity of approaches, experiences in preservation and
stewardship.
Construire, cest collaborer avec la terre: cest mettre une marque humaine sur
un paysage qui en sera modie a` jamais. (Marguerite Yourcenar, Les me moires
dHadrien)
Table 3. (Continued)
State Party WH cultural landscape Criteria
Year(s) of
inscription
Nigeria Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove C (ii)
(iii) (iv)
2005
Norway Vegayan The Vega Archipelago C (v) 2004
Philippines Rice Terraces of the Philippine
Cordilleras
C (iii) (iv) (v) 1995
Poland Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: the Mannerist
Architectural and Park Landscape
Complex and Pilgrimage Park
C (ii) (iv) 1999
Portugal Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard
Culture
C (iii) (v) 2004
Portugal Alto Douro Wine Region C (iii) (iv) (v) 2001
Portugal Cultural Landscape of Sintra C (ii) (iv) (v) 1995
South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape C (ii) (iii)
(iv) (v)
2003
Spain Aranjuez Cultural Landscape C (ii) (iv) 2001
Sweden Agricultural Landscape of Southern
O

land
C (iv) (v) 2000
Togo Koutammakou, the Land of the
Batammariba
C (v) (vi) 2004
United
Kingdom
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew C (ii) (iii) (iv) 2003
United
Kingdom
Blaenavon Industrial Landscape C (iii) (iv) 2000
United
Kingdom
St Kilda N (ii) (iii) (iv)
C (iii) (v)
(1986) 2005
Zimbabwe Matobo Hills C (iii) (v) (vi) 2003
340 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Tracking the Global Landscape: Case Studies from Dierent Regions
Every cultural landscape has a dierent legal protection and management system,
based on diverse national protection systems, and institutional arrangements, as well
as local conditions. The following review of the global regions and case studies will
illustrate the complexity of the protection systems and management challenges to be
addressed. They represent diverse ways of meeting the challenges of conservation
of dynamic cultural landscapes, they show community managed systems and
traditional national park management, and more often they are a mix of dierent
systems and management structures which illustrate one of the future visions of
cultural landscapes: sharing of responsibilities among the stakeholders, national and
international, local and regional, community-based and regional/national park
authority management. To meet the challenges, they also reect a variety of ways to
address linkages beyond the site: involvement of research and university institutions,
training and educational centres and, rst and foremost, paving the way for future
partnerships to transmit knowledge and best practices.
Europe
The European Region is characterized by a great diversity of landscapes in the 48
States Parties of the Convention. Due to the long history of the implementation of
the Convention in this region, many cultural landscape nominations were submitted
and have been inscribed since 1994.
Two regional expert meetings were also organized: the Expert Meeting on
European Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value, Vienna, Austria,
21 April 1996, which focused on the diversity and quality of cultural landscapes in
Figure 2. Women at the Hidi Palace at the Sukur Cultural Landscape, Nigeria; photographer:
UNESCO. (See Ro ssler & Saouma-Forero, 2000 for background.)
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 341
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Europe, as well as regional cooperation, including with the Council of Europe.
The discussion also covered the identication, selection and conservation within the
framework of the World Heritage Convention.
For Eastern Europe the Regional Thematic Meeting on Cultural Landscapes
in Eastern Europe was organized in Bialystok, Poland, 29 September 3 October
1999, where case studies on cultural landscapes in Eastern Europe were presented
and recommendations on the identication, denition and values of cultural land-
scapes, legal aspects, management of cultural landscapes were made to guide States
Parties and site managers. Among the crucial discussion points were in particular the
involvement of local communities, regional development and social and economic
change.
From 1992 to 2005, 33 cultural landscapes inscribed on the World Heritage List
were located in Europe. Four main tendencies can be seen:
1. the relatively high number of transfrontier cultural landscapes, of which three are
located in the east west border region;
2. the importance of agricultural landscapes including pastoralism, as many of the
European World Heritage cultural landscapes are traditional agricultural land-
scapes, such as the southern part of the island of O

land in the Baltic Sea

Figure 3. The fossil landscape of St Kilda (United Kingdom); photographer: Armelle de Crepy
(UNESCO).
342 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

(Sweden) or Cinque Terre (Italy). They also illustrate traditional ways to
maintain the production in a world of global and economic change. The World
Heritage inscription at Cinque Terre gave a boost to the recognition of the
peoples pride in their heritage and territorial identity as well as to tourism and
local produce. It brought direct economic benets to the people and attracted
international funding such as from the World Monuments Fund for terrace
restoration. Subsequently, a national park was created which covers most of the
World Heritage cultural landscape. The protection of the site was enhanced, and
research institutions became involved in providing assistance in management
planning. One of the most important features is a system of renting out terraces
to obtain funding from people attached to the site which is used to maintain the
crucial dry stone walls, holding the steep terrain above the villages. With the
creation of the park a train transport system was developed along the seaside,
which allows visitors to move easily between the picturesque villages, the main
tourist attractions and to hike along the seaside trail. The system brings money
into the park, as each ticket is also an entry ticket into the site. Most important is
the nancial benet from the development of specic products, including wine,
olives, juice, marmalade and other agricultural produce, which is proudly
marketed by the locals using the site emblem and World Heritage logo;
3. the number of designed cultural landscapes, conrming the previous tendency of
high numbers of gardens and parks nominations in the European region; and
4. the religious heritage and associative cultural landscapes as an emerging theme,
such as the nine Sacri Monti (Sacred Mountains) of northern Italy with groups
of chapels and other architectural features created in the late 16th and 17th
centuries, linking symbolic spiritual meaning to the surrounding natural land-
scape of hills, forests and lakes.
Asia-Pacic
In this region with 41 States Parties to the Convention, two major tendencies in
cultural landscape recognition were conrmed through expert meetings:
1. The great importance of associative cultural landscapes: the Asia-Pacic
Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscape, Sydney, Australia, 27 29 April
1995, reviewed the denition of cultural associative, specic evaluation criteria,
the issues of authenticity, integrity and diculties with boundary denitions
including for sacred places. The discussion on management of these sites
included considerations on monitoring and the importance of community
involvement. The important theme of associative values was taken up as well by
the Thematic Expert Meeting on Asia-Pacic Sacred Mountains, Wakayama,
Japan, 5 10 September 2001. The latter presented detailed recommendations on
identication of the character, signicance and values of sacred mountains,
cultural and natural heritage values, intangible heritage values as well as issues
of authenticity and integrity of sacred mountain properties. Key places such as
the Kii Mountain Range (Japan), Tongariro National Park (New Zealand) or
Uluru-Kata Tjuta were inscribed on the World Heritage List, exemplifying links
between tangible and intangible heritage.
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 343
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

2. The signicance of agricultural landscapes and unique techniques and agricultural
systems in the region. This is exemplied by the Regional Thematic Study
Meeting on Asian Rice Culture and Its Terraced Landscapes, Manila,
Philippines, 28 March 4 April 1995, where the experts discussed the denition
of terraced landscapes, their evaluation, management, conservation and
typology of these sites. Subsequently the Philippines Rice Terraces (Philippines)
were included on the World Heritage List in 1995 and represent another
agricultural landscape of unique scenic value of steep and small terraces. It
represents a unique interaction between people and their natural environment.
It was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger despite eorts to
safeguard the property by the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) and
Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC), as the BRTTF lacks full government
support and needs more resources, greater independence and an assurance of
permanence. About 25 30% of the terraces are now abandoned, which has led
to damage to some of the walls. This has arisen because parts of the irrigation
system have been neglected, which in turn is due to people leaving the area. Most
of the site is privately owned and traditionally managed.
Arab Region
The Arab region with 19 States having ratied the Convention is probably the most
underrepresented region in terms of World Heritage landscapes, as was conrmed by
the Regional Expert Meeting on Desert Landscapes and Oasis Systems in the Arab
Region, Kharga Oasis, Egypt, 23 26 September 2001. This meeting looked at
deserts and drylands as origins of cultures and religion as well as the assessment of
cultural and natural values in these areas. The United Nations Year on Deserts and
Desertication proclaimed for 2006 may assist in raising awareness about these
Figure 4. Monastery in the Quadisha Valley, Lebanon; photographer: UNESCO.
344 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

unique ecosystems, where people developed techniques and changed the landscapes
to adapt to these fragile systems.
The Quadisha Valley (Lebanon) is the only World Heritage cultural landscape in
the region, a site already mentioned in the Bible with its sacred cedars. It is an
interesting example, as it was nominated as a natural property, the Cedar Forest of
Lebanon, but was not recommended by the advisory body IUCN due to its small
size and lack of integrity. Subsequently, it was presented as a cultural landscape
and inscribed in 1998 for its monastic settlement landscape, following a joint
ICOMOS-IUCN evaluation mission to the site. It has currently no protected area
status and is located between two nature reserves (Hosrsh Ehden and Tannourine
Nature Reserves). A local association works towards better protection of the site
and the World Heritage Committee, in June 2003, requested better legal protec-
tion, management coordination, establishment of a nature reserve and management
plan.
Africa
In sub-Saharan Africa, with 39 States Parties to the Convention, a number of Global
Strategy meetings were organized to review the potential of sites for World Heritage
nominations. A clear focus on intangible values and associative cultural landscapes
emerged can be illustrated by the Expert Meeting on African Cultural Landscapes,
Tiwi, Kenya, 9 14 March 1999. This meeting looked at case studies on the diversity
of the notion of cultural landscapes in Africa and the importance of the link between
nature, culture and spirituality. It emphasized the specicity of some notions such as
ownership, the denition of boundaries, the involvement of local communities and
recognition of traditional rights for the protection and ownership of the sites and for
their management in the perspective of sustainable development. The expert group
Figure 5. The rst cultural landscape in Africa: Sukur, Nigeria; photographer: UNESCO.
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 345
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

also expressed the wish that the conditions of authenticity and integrity be dened
from the African point of view, and that the Guidelines include indications
concerning the management of cultural landscapes.
Sukur Cultural Landscape (Nigeria), the rst cultural landscape from Africa,
represents a case of traditional management and customary law. The site encom-
passes the Hidis Stone Henge Palace (i.e. the dwelling place of the spiritual political
paramountcy), dominating the villages below, the terraced elds and their sacred
symbols with stone paved walkways linking the low land to the graduated plateau.
The landscape also features unique architectural elements, stone corrals for feeding
domestic stock, graveyards, stone gates as well as vernacular stone settlement clusters
with homestead farms, all in the midst of rare species of ora and fauna. It is a
remarkably intact physical expression of a society and its spiritual and material
culture.
The Americas
Whereas no specic cultural landscape meeting was organized in the two countries of
North America,
4
the cultural landscape tendencies for Latin America (29 States
Parties) were conrmed by the specic meetings: plantation systems, agricultural
landscapes and unique heritage areas displaying the nature culture interactions. The
Regional Expert Meeting on Plantation Systems in the Caribbean, Paramaribo,
Suriname, 17 19 July 2001, reviewed plantation systems with a Caribbean per-
spective and developed recommendations towards widening the denition of
plantation and encouraged preservation and sustainable development of plantation
systems as heritage sites and/or working plantations. The Regional Thematic
Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in the Andes, Arequipa/Chivay, Peru, 17 22 May
1998, reviewed various types of cultural landscapes in this mountainous region, with
a focus on agricultural heritage in a sustainable development perspective, as well as
management. The Regional Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Central America,
San Jose de Costa Rica, 27 29 September 2000, with presentations of regional case
studies discussed a particular typology of various cultural landscapes found in this
region, including conceptual and methodological aspects, recommendations
concerning use and management.
The Vin ales Valley and the Archaeological Landscape of the First Coee
Plantations in the Southeast of Cuba both illustrate the focus and traditional
techniques still in use for agricultural production, particularly of tobacco and coee.
Long Linear (Transfrontier) Landscapes
A new and emerging theme is the cultural routes and itineraries,
5
which have been
included in the Operational Guidelines of 2005. There are already some World
Heritage sites bordering two countries that have been nominated separately; for
example, the Route of Santiago de Compostela, nominated by Spain in 1993 and by
France in 1998.
In May 2001, the President of Peru launched the initiative to inscribe on the World
Heritage List the Qhapaq Nan Camino Principal Andino (Main Andean Road),
which passes through six countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador
346 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

and Peru. This trail system developed under the Inca Empire in the Andes, also
called the Qhapaq Nan, covers a distance of about 6000 km from the city of Pasto
in Colombia to the city of Talca in central Chile. The system included the roads
themselves and associated architectural and engineering structures. It also connected
human settlements, administrative centres, agricultural and mining areas and
religious and sacred places. The project is seen as a powerful tool for promoting
sustainable development for indigenous people and communities united by the
Qhapaq Nan.
Managing World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
Protected landscapes are cultural landscapes, i.e. have co-evolved with human
societies. They are areas where the natural landscape has been transformed by
human actions and the landscape qualities have shaped the way of life of the
people. All management approaches to these areas must be based on a
clear understanding of this, often complex, inter-relationship. (Beresford,
2003, p. 1)
With the inclusion of the cultural landscapes categories in 1992, far-reaching changes
were also made to the management and legal provisions and other paragraphs of
Figure 6. Agricultural landscapes in Cuba; photographer: Dominique Roger (UNESCO).
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 347
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

the Operational Guidelines. It became possible to nominate a site if it has traditional
protection or management mechanisms:
adequate legal and/or traditional protection and management mechanisms
to ensure the conservation of the nominated cultural properties or cultural
landscapes. The existence of protective legislation at the national, provincial or
municipal level and/or a well-established contractual or traditional protection as
well as of adequate management and/or planning control mechanisms is there-
fore essential and, as is clearly indicated in the following paragraph, must
be stated clearly on the nomination form. Assurances of the eective imple-
mentation of these laws and/or contractual and/or traditional protection as well
as of these management mechanisms are also expected.
6
The management of cultural and natural World Heritage can be a standard-setter
for the conservation of the environment, as a whole, by establishing exemplars of
what is required elsewhere. It can help to reinforce the standing of heritage
conservation at national and local levels. For the rst time in the history of the
Convention, with the inclusion of cultural landscapes, traditional management
mechanisms and customary law were considered acceptable forms of protection for
a cultural site. It was only in 1998 that the Operational Guidelines were nally
changed accordingly, allowing a traditionally managed natural site, East Rennell
(Solomon Islands), to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
For the rst time, the involvement of local people in the nomination process was
considered necessary and changes were introduced accordingly into the Operational
Guidelines.
Finally, for the rst time the word sustainable appeared in the text of the
Operational Guidelines with sustainable land-use. The conservation of World
Heritage cultural landscapes can also demonstrate the principles of sustainable land-
use and of the maintenance of local diversity, which should pervade the management
of the surrounding environment as a whole.
Many World Heritage cultural landscapes are under threat. A case in point is the
transnational property of the Curonian Spit (Lithuanian/Russian Federation), which
is located at the shores of the Baltic Sea and features a unique geomorphological
phenomenon of a sandy peninsula, constantly changed by waves and wind.
Following a stakeholders and planning meeting, a joint management plan was
produced and the area was nominated for World Heritage Listing under both
natural and cultural criteria. The site was inscribed in 2000 as a cultural landscape
and has beneted from the international recognition, as well as nancial assistance
for its visitor centre. However, the case illustrates that protected areas have to be
seen in their broader context as an oil platform was constructed in the Baltic Sea by
the Russian authorities and joint preventive protection measures are considered to
be dicult, despite joint meetings, UNESCO missions and international consulta-
tions. This case exemplies the fragility of heritage landscapes and the need for
collaborative approaches in management and risk prevention. Although the World
Heritage Convention is based on sharing responsibilities and international
collaboration, addressing the needs in a transboundary context can be challenging.
The site is another example of new challenges lying ahead with rapid economic
348 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

development and exploitation of natural resources, versus the protection of unique
heritage assets for the benets of present and future generations. In addition, the
enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004 presents new challenges, as
the EU outside border crosses the site.
7
It makes the transfer from one side to
the other more complicated and reduces the potential of collaboration and visitor
movements.
Other Instruments
An instrument outside the UNESCO framework, but developed in close coopera-
tion with UNESCOs World Heritage Convention, is the European Landscape
Convention adopted in Florence, Italy in 2000, and coming into force in 2004. It now
enters the implementation phase. The European Landscape Convention is a frame-
work Convention with a number of interesting principles:
1. at its origin is the observed deterioration and loss of landscapes in the European
countries;
2. the denition of landscape is focused on people, as it is dened as an area as
perceived by people whose character is the result of the action and interaction of
natural and/or human factors. It therefore is considered as a key element for
the well being of all;
3. social needs and sustainable development are taken into account as the land-
scape management is considered as a crucial element of national policy, and
participatory democracy; and
4. the implementation of the European Landscape Convention focuses on land-
scape policy on the national level, including protection, management and
planning.
It is hoped that European States Parties take both the World Heritage
Convention and the European Landscape Convention into account in their national
approaches.
Conclusions: Towards Cultural Landscape Stewardship
Although most of the worlds landscapes are to a considerable extent human
artefacts, representing countless generations of human activity and creativity,
these have for the most part been ignored since they lack the monumental
elements inseparable in the European mind from the traditional cultural
heritage. With rare exceptions, for the most part inscribed in the past ve years,
the World Heritage List is skewed and unrepresentative of the totalityand
hence the universalityof human cultural development and achievement.
(Cleere, 2001, p. 22; based on a paper at the World Archaeological Congress,
1998)
Reviewing the past 30 years of the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention, however, a broadened interpretation of heritage is evident. The
inclusion of cultural landscapes (although small in numbers), and in particular those
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 349
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

associated with natural elements rather than material cultural evidence, which may
be insignicant or even absent, has changed the perception and the practice of the
Convention. This evolution in the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention
represents only the beginning of a recognition of the complexity and wealth of
diverse values, including intangible values, in relation to protected areas, and in
particular to sites of outstanding universal value. An inclusive approach is crucial for
the designation and management of sites of outstanding universal value, for the
benet of the people living in and around these sites, the conservation community,
and humanity as a whole.
World Heritage sites generally are cornerstones of national and international
conservation strategies. World Heritage cultural landscapes have provided a new
interpretation of the combined works of nature and man in the World Heritage
Convention. Phillips traced the changes since the rst parks congress and the
parallel development to the change of paradigms of the World Heritage Convention is
evident.
Facing new challenges lying ahead these issues have to be considered:
. creating new institutional networks between international instruments, but also
protected area agencies to fully explore the links between the dierent categories
and protection systems; such a complementary relationship might be formalized
through a close link between the World Heritage Convention and other inter-
national agreements such as the European Landscape Convention, but also with
new instruments such as the 2003 UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage or the new 2005 UNESCO Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions;
. enhancing new partnerships, as recommended by the Venice celebration on
30 years of the World Heritage Convention and the Ferrara workshop on cul-
tural landscapes in 2002;
. enlarging the circle in sharing information about protected area systems and
cultural landscapes, in particular on achievements, success stories and model
cases;
. exploring World Heritage best practice sites as key places for sustainable local
and regional development; and
. implementing specic recommendations outlined in the detailed analysis of
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992 2002 by Fowler (2003), which were
prepared for the 10th anniversary of the cultural landscape categories coinciding
with the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.
The participants of the international workshop Cultural LandscapesThe
Challenges of Conservation at the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the World
Heritage Convention concluded in Ferrara (Italy, November 2002):
Cultural landscape management and conservation processes bring people
together in caring for their collective identity and heritage, and provide a
shared local vision within a global context. Local communities need therefore to
be involved in every aspect of the identication, planning and management
of the areas, as they are the most eective guardians of the landscape
heritage. The outstanding landscapes are selected examples, which could oer
350 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

stewardship, models in eective management and excellence in conservation
practices. (UNESCO, 2003)
Notes
1 The importance of the safeguarding of cultural landscapes was already recognized by the
Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites
adopted by the 12th session of UNESCOs General Conference on 11 December 1962. However, this
instrument was not legally binding and encouraged Member States to adopt measures for the safe-
guarding of landscapes and sites.
2 Article 1 of the Convention was used to introduce the cultural landscape concept into the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 1992.
3 Fowler (2003) provided a complete overview on all World Heritage cultural landscapes and an
analysis of all landscape categories included on ocial Tentative Lists submitted during the
1992 2002 period.
4 With the exception of the Expert Meeting on Heritage Canals (Canada, September 1994, WHC.94/
CONF.003/INF.10), which looked at canals as a global theme including their aspects as linear cultural
landscapes.
5 See Report on the Expert Meeting on Routes as Part of our Cultural Heritage (Madrid, Spain,
November 1994), WHC.94/CONF.003/INF.13.
6 UNESCO (2002, paragraph 24); in the new Operational Guidelines of 2005, paragraph 77.
7 It is not the only World Heritage site with this problem; Bialowieza Forest between Poland and Belarus
is another example.
References
Beresford, M. (2003) Editorial. Category V, parks, International Journal for Protected Area Managers,
13(2), pp. 1 2.
Beresford, M. & Phillips, A. (2000) Protected landscapes: a conservation model for the 21st century, The
George Wright Forum (Landscape Stewardship: New Directions in Conservation of Nature and
Culture), 17(1), pp. 15 26.
Cleere, M. (2001) The uneasy bedfellows: universality and cultural heritage, in: R. Layton, J. Thomas &
P. Stone (Eds) Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, pp. 22 29 (London and New York:
Routledge).
von Droste, B., Plachter, H. & Ro ssler, M. (Eds) (1995) Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value.
Components of a Global Strategy (Jena: Gustav Fischer).
von Droste, B., Ro ssler, M. & Titchen, S. (Eds) (1999) Linking Nature and Culture, Report of the Global
Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting, 25 to 29 March 1998, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands (The Hague: UNESCO/Ministry for Foreign Aairs/Ministry for Education, Science, and
Culture).
Fowler, P. (2003) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992 2002, World Heritage Papers 6 (Paris:
UNESCO).
Phillips, A. (2003) Turning ideas on their head. The new paradigm for protected areas, The George Wright
Forum, 20(2), pp. 8 32.
Ro ssler, M. & Saouma-Forero, G. (Eds) (2000) The World Heritage Convention and Cultural
Landscapes in Africa, Report of the Expert Meeting, Tiwi, Kenya, 9 14 March 1999 (Paris:
UNESCO/CRAterre).
UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage adopted
by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972.
UNESCO (2002) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Paris:
UNESCO).
UNESCO (2003) Cultural LandscapesThe Challenges of Conservation. Proceedings of the International
Workshop (Ferrara, Italy 2002), World Heritage Papers 7 (Paris: UNESCO).
UNESCO (2005) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Paris:
UNESCO).
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 351
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Appendix 1. Extract from P. Fowler (2003, p. 64)
Recommendations to the World Heritage Committee: that:
1. Cultural landscapes inscribed on the World Heritage List be specically iden-
tied as such at the time of inscription;
2. Noting the concept of cultural landscape to be widely used and holistic in
nature outside the World Heritage arena, certainly not restricted only to rural
landscapes, the practice of identifying cultural landscapes for World Heritage
purposes considers all types of landscape, for example urban, industrial, coastal
and submarine, and, when nding such landscapes which express outstanding
universal value and meet the criteria, inscribes them as cultural landscapes on
the World Heritage List;
3. The principles underlying the Committees Global Strategy should be very
consciously taken into account in encouraging and selecting nominations of,
and in inscribing, cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List;
4. The Committee must insist on the very highest standards of landscape and of
nomination dossier, bearing in mind that quality rather than quantity must be
the key criterion as this new concept in World Heritage terms develops under
its aegis; not least by insisting that the claimed outstanding universal value(s)
is(are) spelt out and that the proposed management regime is both appropriate
in style and appropriately resourced;
5. The identication, development and application of particularly appropriate
and eective ways of managing World Heritage cultural landscapes should be
positively pursued;
6. In considering landscapes of outstanding universal value, an emphasis in
selection, management and presentation of World Heritage cultural landscapes
should be on their scientic and educational potential;
7. Within the Committees general policy of partnership, co-operation in the
management of cultural landscapes is particularly needed and should every-
where be sought, always with local people and wherever appropriate with other
programmes such as UNESCOs own Man and the Biosphere Programme
(MAB) and similar conservation projects at regional and national levels;
8. Specically with respect to protection of cultural landscapes, the potential of
working with executive agencies at regional level should be fully developed;
9. A project be undertaken to provide the basis for the major cultures in the world
to be represented by at least one World Heritage cultural landscape;
10. Research be encouraged into numerical and other methodologies arising from
an improving data-base of World Heritage information, not least to
complement conventional assessment of existing properties on, and nomina-
tions to, the World Heritage List;
11. Over the next decade, as one sequel to the regional expert meetings of the last
decade, a programme of regional studies of potential cultural landscapes
seeking to ll the gaps now identied and based on themes appropriate to
each region, should be carried out, both to encourage nominations and to
inform the Committee in its decision-making; and that, as a matter of some
urgency before too many more nominations of continuing agricultural
352 M. Rossler
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

landscapes are proposed, in particular from Europe, a series of regional
thematic studies of farming landscapes (pastoral and arable) should be made
with a view to a global overview providing some criteria on how to distinguish
in World Heritage terms potential cultural landscapes resulting from the
commonest land-use in the world;
12. Provided with the data in these studies as a base-line, the whole topic of World
Heritage cultural landscapes should henceforth be subject to continual
monitoring and periodic, external review in order to maintain the Committees
awareness of developments, programmatic and intellectual, both within its
formal remit and beyond.
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 353
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
V
r
i
j
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
e
i
t

A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
]

a
t

0
6
:
4
9

0
2

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
4