10. Changing Concepts and Values in Natural Heritage Conservation: A View through IUCN and UNESCO Policies

Our global ecological footprint surpasses Earth’s biocapacity by 35 percent and keeps growing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Meanwhile, exponential economic growth continues to drive global climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014) and biodiversity extinction (United Nations Environment Programme 2012). If these trends remain unabated, a global ecological collapse is probable (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The Western technocratic and materialistic paradigm, identified as one of the main drivers of these trends, requires urgent change that is not likely to be derived from the very same paradigm (Barnosky et al. 2012). Simultaneously, these developments constitute a radically new context for conceiving, evaluating, and prioritizing heritage conservation policies.

New directions in natural heritage conservation are not just derived from bridging an abstract dichotomy between utilitarian or economic values and intangible cultural and spiritual values, but rather from acknowledging the conflicting relationships between societies and their environments. These relationships could be characterized as anywhere between healthy and harmonious to pathological and destructive for natural heritage conservation. New directions in natural heritage conservation increasingly emphasize the role of cultural values and subsequently seek common ground among shared values between different worldviews and knowledge systems.

The divide between nature and culture has been acknowledged as one of the foundational features of Western ontology that bedevil the realm of natural heritage conservation (Harmon 2007). As a result, many countries created separate policies for natural and cultural heritage conservation, including different administrations that apply different legislation, methods, languages, scientific disciplines, and practices. In protected areas, proposed integrated approaches to bridge this divide—for example the creation of eco-museums where ethnology, anthropology, and conservation converge—have had a rather limited impact. The more recent introduction of cultural values and bio-cultural conservation approaches may offer new ways forward in bridging the nature-culture divide in natural heritage conservation (Maffi and Woodley 2010; Verschuuren et al. 2010; Apgar, Ataria, and Allen 2011; Pungetti, Oviedo, and Hooke 2012).

Below, we briefly describe the following shifts in heritage conservation within protected and conserved areas:

• from exclusive natural assessments to more holistic, natural-cultural approaches;
• from management to the inclusion of governance of natural heritage;
• from scientific expert valuation to valuation by Indigenous peoples, local communities, and other traditional knowledge holders;
• from tangible natural values to also including cultural, spiritual, and other intangible values;
• from applying top-down legal and regulatory frameworks to bottom-up rights-based approaches, including traditional laws, duties, and responsibilities.

Next, we describe how these changes have impacted the work developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UNESCO using selected examples. We then look at some of their implications and applications at the national level in various countries around the world.

Changing Values and Concepts in Natural Heritage Conservation Policies

The 1999 publication Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity marked the onset of a new phase in conservation. Illustrated with examples from around the world, it argued that nature and culture are inextricably linked (Posey 1999, 1–18). Darrell Addison Posey’s conceptual framing of “cultural and spiritual” values had a significant impact on subsequent developments in international natural heritage conservation organizations such as UNESCO and the IUCN. The latter is the largest and most influential conservation organization in the world, including more than fourteen hundred government and nongovernmental organizations; some sixteen thousand scientists and experts participate on a voluntary basis, organized in numerous groups, under the umbrella of six commissions.

We recognize the following five changes to be essential to the process of changing values and concepts in natural heritage conservation:

1. From exclusive natural assessments to more holistic, natural-cultural approaches. During the second part of the twentieth century, most natural heritage assessments were validated using criteria based on Western natural sciences. This resulted in a number of new concepts and terminology, such as cultural landscapes (Bridgewater and Bridgewater 1999), bio-cultural diversity (Loh and Harmon 2005; Maffi and Woodley 2010), and socio-ecological resilience (Berkes and Folke 1998).

2. From management to the inclusion of governance of natural heritage. Complementary to management, the complex concept of governance of natural heritage was developed during the twentieth century (Dearden, Bennett, and Johnston 2005). This led to the creation of the IUCN management and governance matrix, where categories of protected areas are cross-checked with four broad governance types, namely governance by government, shared governance, private governance, and governance by Indigenous peoples and local communities (Dudley 2008). While this development has been quite an achievement, it has also received some critiques claiming that “the matrix” takes a narrow and restrictive view on governance (Martin 2012) and excludes nonhuman agency while ignoring spiritual governance (Verschuuren 2016).

   Monastery Gregoriu, one of the twenty sovereign monasteries that constitute the Monastic Republic of Mount Athos, Greece, a natural and cultural World Heritage Site, which is ruled by a customary governance system that has been in place for more than a millennium.

   fullscreen Figure 10.1

   The concept of governance encompasses who makes decisions, and the context of and procedures for how decisions are made. For example, traditional forms of governance are part of religious traditions at Mount Athos in Greece (fig. 10.1). It includes rights holders and stakeholders as well as legal instruments across different powers and levels of decision making. A notable innovation in the IUCN conceptualization of governance is that besides types, it includes quality and vitality. Governance quality includes, among other aspects, legitimacy and equity in relation to all actors involved in heritage conservation, including Indigenous peoples and local community conserved areas (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013).

3. From scientific expert valuation to valuation by Indigenous peoples and local communities and other traditional knowledge holders. Science-driven expert valuation has gradually opened up and given way to valuation by the keepers of traditional, religious, cultural, and spiritual values of natural heritage, such as Indigenous peoples, spiritual leaders, and local communities (Pretty et al. 2009). This has led to the recognition of values derived from traditional sciences, customary norms, religious and spiritual teachings, and traditional practices (Beltrán 2000), resulting in increased interest in shared values between Western scientific approaches and traditional sciences and worldviews within the interpretation, management, and governance of natural heritage (Lockwood, Worboys, and Kothari 2006).

4. From tangible to intangible heritage, including religious and spiritual values. There has been a move beyond tangible cultural attributes toward acknowledging the significance of intangible cultural and spiritual heritage (Berkes 1999; Dudley, Higgins-Zogib, and Mansourian 2005; Mallarach and Papayannis 2007; Mallarach 2008; Papayannis and Mallarach 2010). The spiritual significance of nature includes animistic and religious values and has been among the most influential drivers for nature conservation throughout history (Harmon and Putney 2003; Schaaf and Lee 2006; Wild and McLeod 2008). More than 85 percent of humanity adheres to some faith, and religious institutions are among the oldest and most influential organizations in the world (O’Brien and Palmer 2007). Conservation organizations have gradually realized the need to increase social support for natural heritage conservation in collaboration with religious organizations (Palmer and Finaly 2003). This realization has opened an inquiry into conservation contributions from other cosmologies, worldviews, and religions in the application of bio-cultural initiatives and approaches to natural heritage conservation (Mallarach 2012; Verschuuren, Subramanian, and Hiemstra 2014).

5. From top-down legal and regulatory frameworks to bottom-up rights-based approaches, including traditional codes, duties, and responsibilities. Natural heritage that has been conserved by traditionally protected areas has often applied top-down regulatory frameworks. Working from the bottom up, rights-based approaches enable Indigenous peoples, local communities, and other actors to continue traditional practices and ways of life that have conserved nature for many generations (Campese et al. 2007). This results in the increased recognition of cultural and spiritual values and the inclusion of traditional law and cultural practices in natural heritage conservation. Several types of nonbinding designations and actors benefit from this approach, such as Indigenous and community conserved areas and territories (ICCAs), and sacred natural sites (SNSs) with their custodian and guardian communities (Lee and Schaaf 2003; International Union for Conservation of Nature 2016). ICCAs encompass a variety of terrestrial or marine areas managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities—that is, one of the four governance types recognized by IUCN (Kothari et al. 2012). ICCAs may be recognized as protected areas or complement a country’s protected area system as different, but effective, ways of supporting conservation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013).

   ICCAs are recognized under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as protected areas. They count toward the global Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, to have 17 percent of all terrestrial and 10 percent of all marine ecosystems under protection by 2020 (Convention on Biological Diversity 2011). Signatory states report annually on progress toward this target based on strategic biodiversity action plans. Sacred natural sites are natural places that are spiritually significant for people and communities (Wild and McLeod 2008). Sacred natural sites have been recognized to exist throughout all the IUCN management categories and governance types (Dudley 2008). Many are looked after by Indigenous peoples, local communities, and/or followers of institutionalized religions (Verschuuren et al. 2010).

Selected Changes in IUCN

IUCN periodically adopts resolutions and recommendations that are known to have worldwide influence, setting the global conservation agenda. They support the development of international and national environmental law, identify emerging issues in conservation, and promote specific actions on ecosystems, protected areas, and species. Since 1948 more than one thousand resolutions have been adopted by IUCN member organizations (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2012, 3). This section outlines how the aforementioned changes have affected some of the IUCN’s policies and strategic directions, in particular within the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), the oldest of the six IUCN commissions. Our analysis focuses on the recommendations and resolutions adopted by IUCN’s General Assembly and IUCN’s Best Practice Guidelines Series, prepared by different groups of experts, which we consider the most seminal documents issued by IUCN (tables 1, 2).

Every ten years the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas organizes a world congress, which sets the agenda for protected areas and issues recommendations that aim to influence the policies of the member organizations. The Fifth IUCN World Parks Congress, which took place in Durban, South Africa, in 2003, marked a major value shift in natural heritage conservation (Phillips 2003). For the first time a substantial delegation from the world’s Indigenous peoples devised an articulate criticism of Western approaches to nature conservation. This included both technical approaches and injustices that Indigenous peoples have been suffering as a result of the creation of modern protected areas, for instance national parks and wildlife reserves (Brosius 2004). The Durban Accord defined a new approach for protected areas, integrating conservation goals with the interests of all affected people (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2004). Cultural and spiritual values were included in many recommendations. In particular, Recommendation 13 was fully devoted to integrating cultural and spiritual values in the strategies, planning, and management of protected natural areas, including bold strategic requests (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2003). These recommendations have had a significant impact on all the IUCN Guidelines published since (see table 2).

The IUCN-WCPA Specialist Group on Spiritual and Cultural Values of Protected Areas (CSVPA), which was founded in 1998 and drove much of the process behind the aforementioned changes at the World Parks Congress in 2003, initiated the preparation of guidelines for protected area managers on sacred natural sites, focusing on Indigenous peoples (Wild and McLeod 2008). In 2005 the Delos Initiative, focusing on sacred natural sites in technologically developed countries, emerged from CSVPA (Mallarach and Papayannis 2007); the initiative has identified a collection of sacred natural sites as case studies (fig. 10.2). Since 2012 CSVPA developed a program of work on the cultural and spiritual significance of nature in the governance and management of protected and conserved areas, which is in the process of producing best-practice guidelines, a peer-reviewed volume (Verschuuren and Brown 2019), and training modules (Bernbaum 2017).

Lions Head, with the simple grave of Sufi Shaykh Mohamed Hassen Ghaibie Shah at its feet, one of the kramats (miraculous tombs) that constitute the Sacred Belt of Cape Town, South Africa; these are among the Delos Initiative case study sites. Some of these sacred natural sites are included in protected areas, for example Table Mountain National Park, while the rest are conserved by the local Muslim Malay community.

fullscreen Figure 10.2

The impact of the 2003 World Parks Congress and the subsequent IUCN policy changes (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2009; International Union for Conservation of Nature 2012; International Union for Conservation of Nature 2014; International Union for Conservation of Nature 2016) are also reflected in the number and scope of international events on cultural and spiritual values and sacred natural sites in protected areas organized in Europe (table 3). These last changes are notable, considering that Europe was the cradle of positivism and materialism.

In 2008 IUCN renewed its definition of protected areas: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature, with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008, 8). The detailed interpretation of each word of the definition clarified that conserving “associated cultural values” was part of the mission of protected areas, and that “other effective means” for conserving nature include, for instance, “recognized traditional rules under which community conserved areas operate” (Dudley 2008, 8–9). IUCN protected area categories were also redefined, including the governance dimension, cultural values, and spiritual values, and in connection with them the recognition of sacred natural sites (Dudley 2008). This work built on a consensus about the meaning of “conservation,” an umbrella concept that includes “preservation,” “protection,” “sustainable use,” and “restoration” (International Union for Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environmental Program, and World Wildlife Fund 1980).

The new definition of protected areas opened the door for a complementary concept of “conserved areas,” a term borrowed from the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) referring to natural areas or landscapes conserved through other than legal means—including those conserved through cultural and/or spiritual values. A specific IUCN Task Force on Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures was established in 2015 to carry out the task of providing guidance on assessment and recognition of these areas by governments (Jonas et al. 2014).

During the subsequent IUCN General Assembly, several resolutions were adopted on sacred natural sites included in protected areas, on rights-based approaches to conservation, and on the need for recognizing the diversity of concepts and values of nature or encouraging collaboration with faith organizations, which prompted the creation in 2015 of the Specialist Group on Religion, Spirituality, Environmental Conservation, and Climate Justice within the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy.

The Promise of Sydney summarized the main outcomes of the last World Parks Congress, 2014, on how to engage the hearts and minds of people and engender lifelong associations among physical, psychological, ecological, and spiritual well-being (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2014). Building on this, the conclusions of the IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2016 (the first to have a high-level segment on religion and conservation) clearly stressed the importance of spirituality, religion, and culture, including the wisdom of Indigenous and traditional peoples, for nature conservation. This was expressed in Navigating Island Earth: The Hawai’i Commitments, which argues for the necessity of cultivating a “culture of conservation” that links “spirituality, religion, culture and conservation”:

The world’s rich diversity of cultures and faith traditions are a major source of our ethical values and provide insights into ways of valuing nature. The wisdom of indigenous traditions is of particular significance as we begin to re-learn how to live in communion with, rather than in dominance over, the natural world. (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2016, 2)

Selected Changes in UNESCO

This section highlights changes regarding the integration of cultural and natural values within the work and policies of UNESCO since the 1970s.

The UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB), launched in 1971, focuses on creating learning sites for sustainable development. Its aim is to integrate cultural and biological diversity, especially the role of traditional knowledge in ecosystem management (UNESCO 1974). The MAB promotes equitable sharing of conservation benefits derived from managing ecosystems through economic development that is socially and culturally appropriate and environmentally sustainable. After four decades in operation, the current MAB Strategy 2015–25 and the Lima Declaration continue to direct its integrative approach to natural and cultural values (UNESCO 2017).

The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972) recognizes cultural, mixed, and natural heritage sites. In 1992 it became the first international legal instrument to recognize significant interaction between humans and the environment as cultural landscapes (Rössler 2005).

World Heritage Sites are nominated by states based on six cultural criteria, assessed by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and four natural criteria, assessed by IUCN. Assessment of the cultural and natural criteria has been done independently following the convention’s Operational Guidelines. Only more recently have IUCN and ICOMOS worked together to connect their practices and find ways to link the natural and the cultural as well as the tangible and intangible values of heritage sites (Leitão and Badman 2015). Some criteria, such as World Heritage Convention Criterion VII, “exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance,” have been specifically reviewed for their applicability in natural and cultural heritage (Mitchell et al. 2013).

Globally, a large proportion of Natural World Heritage Sites include sacred natural sites (Shackley 2001). Acknowledging this fact, UNESCO launched the Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes Initiative in 2005. A few years later, to provide appropriate recognition of the religious value and the role of religious communities in the management of World Heritage Sites, UNESCO launched the Initiative on Heritage of Religious Interest. The initiative has been tasked with preparing guidance for the management of these World Heritage Sites (UNESCO 2018). It is expected that once this guidance has been adopted by UNESCO, States Parties will implement it on a voluntary basis, thereby improving the recognition and quality of both governance and management of the values and attributes of religious interest in World Heritage Sites.

The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO 2002) and the coming into force of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO 2005) provide the ideal context in international policy to rethink the role of intangible heritage of natural, cultural, and mixed World Heritage Sites. While all these conventions work independently, much could be gained from developing synergies that mutually reinforce the interconnectedness of tangible and intangible heritage.¹

Several United Nations programs are aimed at bridging the gap between cultural and biological diversity and the integration of Indigenous knowledge. These are the program on Biocultural Diversity, in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the program on Biodiversity and Local and Indigenous Knowledge. As a programmatic approach enables conventions and UN institutions to collaborate successfully, the collaboration between actual conventions proves complicated.

Implications and Applications at the National Level

The programmatic and policy changes in IUCN and UNESCO have guided the integration of cultural and spiritual values along with rights-based approaches in the work of international and national organizations and governments. Despite resistance from some sectors, such as the extractive industries, agriculture, and fisheries, the cultural and spiritual values of natural heritage have gradually been acknowledged in many countries’ conservation policies, strategies, regulations, and initiatives. There has not been any global analysis of the extent of these changes. The following section offers several examples of their integration in regional transboundary conservation, in national conservation approaches, and in specific conservation programs.

Inspired by the value changes discussed above, a number of transboundary ecosystem or landscape conservation initiatives, such as the Kailash Sacred Landscape Initiative, have integrated cultural and spiritual values in their work. The program, founded in 2009 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMD), comprises a large area of Tibet and adjacent areas of Nepal and India. Mount Kailash is venerated by more than one billion Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Bön, and Sikh devotees, and has been a pilgrimage destination since prehistoric times (Pandey, Kotru, and Pradhan 2016). The governments of the respective countries are currently exploring the possibilities of developing nominations for natural World Heritage Sites that would cover most of Kailash Sacred Landscape (fig. 10.3). The cultural and spiritual values of Kailash are guiding the preparation of the nomination files that describe the values for nomination of each part of the site.²

View of Mount Kailash, one of the most important pilgrim destinations in Asia, from a small hermitage by the pilgrims’ trail.

fullscreen Figure 10.3

An example of national-level integration of cultural and spiritual values is the development of a strategic direction on intangible heritage within the 2009–13 Action Plan for Protected Areas of Spain. This national-level action plan included a strategic direction on the development of a manual for protected-area managers to integrate cultural and spiritual values into their areas of responsibility (Mallarach, Comas, and de Armas 2012). The manual includes more than forty recommendations for incorporating intangible values into all stages of natural protected areas, governance, management, and planning. As a reference on the groundwork, it provides ten detailed case-study descriptions and more than one hundred examples of initiatives and experiences with the conservation of intangible heritage from Spain. For a summary see table 4, and for a more detailed explanation of the development and implementation of the manual see Mallarach et al. (2019).

In many countries across the world, cultural values such as beauty, silence, and tranquility are increasingly seen as significant and included in the development of new strategies for natural heritage conservation, permeating the national, regional, and local levels. Across Europe, national agencies responsible for natural heritage conservation have used such values to develop successful conservation tools, for instance the “Tranquility Areas” of England; the “Areas of Outstanding Beauty” in Scotland, England, and Wales; and the “Silence Areas” in the Netherlands. Silence and tranquility are considered human needs and the basic conditions for a deep connection with nature in cultures the world over.

Discussion and Conclusions

Natural heritage and cultural heritage cannot be considered in isolation. The evidence for interdependence and the relationships between humans and the environment justify new conceptualizations and the need to adopt integrated, coordinated approaches to the conservation of heritage (Latour 2011).

Many unsustainable global trends, such as climate change and biodiversity extinction, are affected by societal changes in positivistic, materialistic, and utilitarian values. We argue that slowing down the destruction of bio-cultural heritage requires implementing an array of new and integrated conservation approaches. However, to do away with the very root causes of these damaging value systems would require one to look beyond the practice of conservation and draw on fundamentally different philosophies that offer alternatives to materialism, neoliberalism, and capitalism (Büscher et al. 2016). From a philosophical and ethical perspective, we suggest seeking inspiration in the different cultural practices and worldviews of societies around the globe that have conserved natural heritage for millennia and have demonstrated their ability to adapt to the changes of time, as they provide valuable lessons (Lele et al. 2010; Verschuuren 2016).

In the context of natural heritage conservation, we suggest a reassessment of the values of the last century’s conservation thinkers along with those enshrined in humanity’s great spiritual and religious traditions and those informing cultural practices and worldviews of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Such assessments would contribute to the gradual paradigm shift already under way in nature conservation (Stevens 2014), based on the changes in concepts and values discussed in this article. Such assessment could also contribute to increasing commitment for adopting a conservation ethic as quoted in the previous section and proposed in the concluding remarks of the last IUCN General Assembly (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2016).