AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Perth International Law Journal

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Perth International Law Journal >> 2016 >> [2016] PerIntLawJl 9

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Chong, Wygene --- "Arbitrating in Harmony: The Effect of the Model Law on the Choice of Seat of Arbitration" [2016] PerIntLawJl 9; (2016) 1 Perth International Law Journal 82


2016_900.jpg

TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE HERITAGE:

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN COLOMBIA AND INDONESIA

LAUREN CARMODY*

Under international law, protecting physical manifestations of cultural heritage is governed by one treaty, while safeguarding intangible cultural heritage is guided by a separate treaty. However, in spite of this division, it is clear that there is an important relationship between these two aspects of heritage. This paper will examine two cultural landscapes inscribed on the World Heritage List: the Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia and the Cultural Land- scape of Bali Province in Indonesia. It will be argued that there are potential benefits that would flow from inscribing the intangible elements present at these sites on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This paper found that the Outstanding Universal Value of the two cultural landscapes is largely derived from their intangible ele- ments of heritage, and that both States are likely to meet the criteria for inscription on the Representative List should they choose to commence new nominations. Significant efforts to safeguard intangible heritage are already being made in Indonesia and Colombia. However, one suggestion made by this paper is to consider the creation of a Living Human Treasures programme to counteract the threat to intangible heritage posed by waning interest in tradi-

tional practices amongst young people.

I INTRODUCTION

In 1972, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natu- ral Heritage (World Heritage Convention) was concluded with the aim of protecting ‘the world heritage of mankind as a whole’, including natural features, buildings and monuments.1 It is now recognised that cultural heritage not only encompasses material sites or objects, but also includes intangible phenomena such as traditions and customs.2 Although in the past this intangible cultural heritage was eclipsed by developments addressing tangible heritage,3 the scope of cultural heritage conservation has since expanded considerably.4 The World Heritage Convention provided the foundation for

*Lauren Carmody. Master of International Law Student (The University of Western Australia). The author would like to thank Dr Erika Techera for her thoughts and comments on an earlier draft. Responsibility for the text lies with this author and all errors are hers alone.

1Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, opened for signature 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975) arts 1, 2 (‘World Heritage Convention’).

2  Päivi Maaranen, ‹Landscape Archaeology and Management of Ancient Cultural Heritage Sites› in Hannes Palang and Gary Fry (eds), Landscape Interfaces (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003) 255, 255.

3  Craig Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Routledge, 2010) 363.

4  Yahaya Ahmad, ‘The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible’ (2006) 12(3) Interna- tional Journal of Heritage Studies 292, 299.

the acknowledgement of intangible cultural heritage through its recognition of cultural landscapes in 1992.5 A cultural landscape is an excellent example of how tangible and intangible aspects of heritage may intertwine in a single geographic location. They are ‘manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment’, of- ten reflecting ‘specific techniques of sustainable land-use’.6 Almost a decade after this recognition, in 2003, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Intangible Heritage Convention) was adopted.7 Despite being dealt with by two distinct treaties, there exists an important connection between tangible and intan- gible cultural heritage, a relationship that is considered to be ‘exceptionally complex’.8

This paper will examine two cultural landscapes: the Coffee Cultural Landscape of Co- lombia and the Cultural Landscape of Bali Province in Indonesia. Colombia and Indone- sia accepted the World Heritage Convention in 1983 and 1989 respectively.9 Colombia’s cultural landscape was not inscribed on the World Heritage List until 2011; the Indone- sian landscape was listed the following year. It will first be considered how both of these heritage sites demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value — a prerequisite for inscription. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (last updated in 2015) set out 10 criteria for the assessment of Outstanding Universal Value, of which a nominated property must meet one or more.10 The criteria applicable to the cultural landscapes examined in this paper are the following:

(iii) bearing an outstanding testimony to a cultural tradition or civilisation;

(v) being an excellent example of traditional human settlement representing one or more cultures, or ‘human interaction with the environment’; and

(vi) being tangibly connected ‘with events or living traditions, with ideas or with beliefs’.11

In addition to tangible manifestations of cultural heritage, important intangible elements are also present in the landscapes. Indonesia and Colombia are now States parties to the

5  Forrest, above n 3, 395.

6  World Heritage Committee, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Conven- tion (8 July 2015), 70 <http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/> .

7Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, opened for signature 17 October 2003, 2368 UNTS 35 (entered into force 20 April 2006) (‘Intangible Heritage Convention’).

8  Forrest, above n 3, 384.

9  UNESCO, States Parties Ratification Status <http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=246> .

10  World Heritage Committee, above n 6, [77].

11  Ibid.

Intangible Heritage Convention, with the former joining in 2007 and the latter ratifying the following year.12 Both countries have since had elements of their intangible heritage inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (Representative List), including Colombian music and carnivals, and Indonesian danc- es and puppetry.13 There is no strict division between tangible and intangible cultural heritage: rather, they intersect in important ways. State practice indicates that synergies may be achieved by listing heritage sites under both treaties — for example, the Kaya Forests of coastal Kenya. This paper explores the idea that Colombia and Indonesia could benefit from nominating the intangible elements present in their cultural land- scapes for inscription on the Representative List. Through examining the provisions of the Intangible Heritage Convention and the criteria for listing, it will be argued that there is an opportunity for both Colombia and Indonesia to commence new nominations and ensure the safeguarding of their intangible heritage.

II CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE

Prior to being inscribed on the World Heritage List, both of the cultural landscapes discussed in this paper were found by the World Heritage Committee to possess Out- standing Universal Value. One of the key tangible aspects of the Coffee Cultural Land- scape of Colombia (listed in 2011) is the architecture of the urban settlements, ‘a fusion between the Spanish cultural patterns and the indigenous culture’.14 Coffee producers continue to wear elements of local costumes, such as the sombrero aguadeño (a tradi- tional kind of hat) and the rawhide shoulder bag.15 In addition to these physical mani- festations of culture, Colombia boasts an extraordinary diversity of intangible cultural heritage.16 The Coffee Cultural Landscape is no exception. A ‘centennial tradition of coffee growing’ has been passed down through generations of cafeteros (coffee farmers) who have created ‘innovative management practices’.17 An additional intangible ele-

12  UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage <http://www.unesco.org/ eri/la/convention.asp?KO=17116> .

13  UNESCO, The Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices

<http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/lists> .

14  UNESCO, Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1121> .

15  Ibid.

16  Teylor Valbuena Mendoza, ‘Digital Inclusion of Indigenous People in Colombia, by the Digitalization and Safeguarding of their Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Bogotá, Colombia, 10 November 2009) 407.

17  UNESCO, above n 14.

ment is the walls in the urban settlements, more than half of which are still built using the traditional bahareque constructive system.18 Overall, there is a ‘strong community focus on coffee production’, producing a unique cultural identity.19 The Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia meets the fifth criterion for Outstanding Universal Value be- cause it is ‘an outstanding example of continuing land use’ (i.e., ‘human interaction with the environment’) which has created ‘an unparalleled cultural identity’.20 It also fulfils the sixth criterion, as it is embodies ‘the most representative symbol of national culture in Colombia’ as well as ‘local traditions and costumes’, and is therefore directly linked with ‘living traditions’ and beliefs.21

Indonesia also possesses a wealth of diverse multicultural heritage.22 The core tangible aspect of the Cultural Landscape of Bali Province is the presence of water temples, which are at the heart of ‘a cooperative water management system of canals and weirs, known as subak, that dates back to the 9th century.’23 The landscape includes the impres- sive 18th-century Royal Water Temple of Pura Taman Ayun.24 Much of the value of the cultural landscape, however, lies in its intangible elements. The subak system reflects the ancient philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, which ‘draws together the realms of the spirit, the human world, and nature’.25 The water temples thus form an integral part of ceremonies, rituals, offerings and artistic performances.26 The cultural landscape fulfils the third criterion for Outstanding Universal Value because the landscape was shaped by the ‘cultural tradition’ of Tri Hita Karana.27 It meets the fifth criterion be- cause of the subak system that manages the ecology of the rice terraces, which again is linked to the concept of ‘human interaction with the environment’.28 Finally, the sixth criterion is also applicable to this cultural landscape because of the ceremonies or ‘living traditions’ associated with the water temples.29 Thus, the process for inscription on the

18  Ibid. 19  Ibid. 20  Ibid. 21  Ibid.

22  Karin Czermak, Philippe Delanghe, and Wei Weng, Preserving Intangible Cultural Heritage in Indonesia

(2003) SIL International <http://www-01.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/unesco_jakarta.pdf> .

23  UNESCO, Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Ka- rana Philosophy <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1194> .

24  Ibid. 25  Ibid. 26  Ibid. 27  Ibid. 28  Ibid. 29  Ibid.

World Heritage List has highlighted the presence, in both cultural landscapes, of vital intangible features of heritage.

III THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

The preamble to the Intangible Heritage Convention considers ‘the deep-seated in- terdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible cultural her- itage’.30 There is a considerable body of scholarship supporting this concept of ‘inter- dependence’. Professors Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton, for example, asserted that ‘heritage cannot be defined by its materiality or non-materiality’,31 while Dr Denis Byrne maintained that, far from being two separate constructs, tangible and intangible cultural heritage appear to exist on a ‘continuum’.32 Professor Craig Forrest highlighted the fact that many cultures place a greater value on the intangible cultural heritage that is passed down from generation to generation than on the mere tangible manifestations of the culture, which must be perceived in context in order to be understood and appre- ciated.33 Without this understanding, ‘the tangible cultural heritage would merely be an antiquity; an object devoid of context and meaning’.34 Dr Jean-Louis Luxen succinctly described the relationship between these two facets of heritage when he contended that:

The distinction between physical heritage and intangible heritage is now seen as ar- tificial. Physical heritage only attains its true significance when it sheds light on its underlying values. Conversely, intangible heritage must be made incarnate in tangible manifestations, in visible signs, if it is to be conserved.35

The fact that tangible and intangible elements of heritage are intertwined has been acknowledged not only by academics, but also governments. Inscribing on the Rep-

30Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, opened for signature 17 October 2003, 2368 UNTS 35 (entered into force 20 April 2006) (emphasis added) (‘Intangible Heritage Conven- tion’).

31  Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton, ‘The Envy of the World? Intangible Heritage in England’ in Laura- jane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds) Intangible Heritage (Routledge 2008) 289, 292.

32  Denis Byrne, ‘A Critique of Unfeeling Heritage’ in Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds) Intangible Heritage (Routledge 2008) 229, 246.

33  Forrest, above n 3, 362; See also, Marilena Vecco, ‘A Definition of Cultural Heritage: From the Tangible to the Intangible’ (2010) 11(3) Journal of Cultural Heritage 321, 324.

34  Forrest, above n 3, 362.

35  Jean-Louis Luxen, ‘The Intangible Dimension of Monuments and Sites with Reference to the UNESCO World Heritage List’ (Paper presented at the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 27 October 2003) <http://www.icomos.org/victoriafalls2003/luxen_eng.htm> .

resentative List the intangible elements of the already World Heritage listed cultural landscapes examined in this paper would not be an unprecedented act. Other States

— including Croatia, Belgium and Kenya — have already listed intangible features of heritage found at their respective World Heritage Sites. Inscribed on the Word Heritage List in 2008, the Stari Grad Plain in Croatia is a cultural landscape that has been used continuously for agricultural purposes for 2400 years.36 Found on the rim of the Plain are the hometowns of people who participate in the religious procession known as Za Krizen (‘following the cross’).37 This procession was added to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2009.38 In the nomination file, the Croatian Ministry of Culture expressed the view that entering the Stari Grad Plain on the World Heritage List ‘greatly contributed to increasing the awareness of the local community of the values and importance of cultural heritage’.39 They proposed that en- tering the Za Krizen procession would have similar impact by strengthening awareness of intangible cultural heritage.40

Another example of heritage being listed under both treaties is the Historic Centre of Brugge (Bruges) in Belgium, which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000.41 Nine years later, the Procession of the Holy Blood in Bruges — a colourful pageant involving more than 1700 citizens — was inscribed as an intangible element.42 The Department of Culture, Youth, Sports and Media contended in the nomination file that inscription would provide:

[A] fascinating example to study and explore the differences and common points of those two heritage paradigms, to put the contact zones between the 1972 and 2003 UNESCO heritage conventions on the agenda, while respecting the fundamental differ- ences between the two kinds of protection and heritage development.43

36  UNESCO, Stari Grad Plain World Heritage Centre <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1240> .

37  Ministry of Culture (Croatia), Procession Za Krizen (‘Following the Cross’) on the Island of Hvar <http:// www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/procession-za-krizen-following-the-cross-on-the-island-of-hvar-00242> . 38  Ibid.

39  UNESCO, Nomination for the Inscription on the Representative List in 2009 (Croatia) (14 May 2008),

4 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/procession-za-krizen-following-the-cross-on-the-island-of- hvar-00242> .

40  Ibid.

41  UNESCO, Historic Centre of Brugge <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/996> .

42  UNESCO, Procession of the Holy Blood in Bruges <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/procession- of-the-holy-blood-in-bruges-00263> .

43  Departement Cultuur, Jeugd, Sport en Media [Department of Culture, Youth, Sports and Media], Nomina- tion for the Inscription on the Representative List in 2009 (Belgium) (2 October 2009), 4 <http://www.unesco. org/culture/ich/en/RL/procession-of-the-holy-blood-in-bruges-00263> .

Finally, the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests of coastal Kenya were World Heritage listed in 2008,44 followed by the inscription of the ‘traditions and practices associated with the Kayas in the sacred forests of the Mijikenda’ on the List of Intangible Cultural Heri- tage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding the following year.45 The Mijikenda comprise nine Bantu-speaking ethnic groups residing in the Kaya forests who express their identity via oral traditions and performing arts connected to the sacred forests.46 Representatives from the Kenyan Ministry of Culture of Kenya have indicated that the Mijikenda wish to safeguard their traditional practices along with the associated cultural spaces that are essential for performing such practices.47 They went on to declare that:

The physical safeguarding of those spaces is to some extent guaranteed by their inscrip- tion on the World Heritage List. Holistic safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage of the Mijikenda, in relation to the sacred forests of the Kaya, can largely be achieved by simultaneous measures flowing forth from inscription on the lists of both the UNESCO 1972 and 2003 Conventions.48

Thus, there is evidence that other States believe that there is value in listing their tan- gible cultural heritage on the World Heritage List, and then nominating the intangible cultural elements from that site to be placed on the Representative List. In the case of the Colombian and Indonesian cultural landscapes, the increased visibility and awareness of cultural values resulting from being World Heritage listed would be boosted if the in- tangible elements were also inscribed. More resources would be allocated to the sites at the national level, and they could achieve further recognition on the international plane. Dual inscription would also serve to highlight that there is limited use in preserving the physical aspects of cultural landscapes if the dynamic nature of the intangible elements is disregarded.

44  UNESCO, Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1231> .

45  UNESCO, Traditions and Practices Associated with the Kayas in the Sacred Forests of the Mijikenda

<http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/USL/traditions-and-practices-associated-with-the-kayas-in-the-sa- cred-forests-of-the-mijikenda-00313> .

46  Ibid.

47  Department of Culture, Nomination for the Inscription on the Representative List in 2009 (Ken- ya) (2 October 2009), 2 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/USL/traditions-and-practices-associat- ed-with-the-kayas-in-the-sacred-forests-of-the-mijikenda-00313> .

48  Ibid.

IV INSCRIPTION ON THE REPRESENTATIVE LIST: NATIONAL MEASURES

To be successful in nominating new intangible elements, Colombia and Indonesia would first need to satisfy certain criteria. The Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (last updated in 2014) set out five criteria for inscription on the Representative List, all of which an element must satisfy:

1 The element satisfies the definition of ‘intangible cultural heritage’ outlined in Article 2 of the Convention;

2 Inscribing the element will enhance the visibility and awareness of the im- portance of intangible cultural heritage, promote dialogue, and thereby reflect global cultural diversity and human creativity;

3 Measures for safeguarding the element are developed in order to protect and promote it;

4 The community, group or individuals concerned with the element have had the broadest possible participation, and their free, prior and informed consent has been obtained before nomination; and

5 The element is incorporated in the State party’s inventory of intangible cultural heritage.49

The direction of this paper will now turn to a consideration of whether or not the pro- posed intangible elements for each country would meet the above criteria.

A The Definition of Intangible Cultural Heritage

The Intangible Heritage Convention defines intangible cultural heritage in the following way: ‘the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills — as well as the in- struments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith — that communi- ties, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage.’50 The definition goes on to assert that communities and groups continually recreate their intangible cultural heritage as it is passed down through the generations.51 The Conven- tion subsequently sets out some possible manifestations of intangible cultural heritage,

49  UNESCO, Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (4 June 2014), I.2 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/directives> .

50Intangible Heritage Convention, art 2(1).

51  Ibid.

including ‘social practices’, ‘rituals’, ‘knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe’ and ‘traditional craftsmanship’.52 The intangible aspects of the Coffee Cul- tural Landscape of Colombia are included in the above definition, because they include innovative management practices for coffee production, along with the traditional ba- hareque system of construction. The Cultural Landscape of Bali Province also includes intangible features that satisfy the definition and are compatible with the examples listed in the Convention, namely the Tri Hita Karana philosophy and the rituals associated with the water temples. Thus, both sets of intangible elements would meet the first criterion.

B Contribution to Ensuring Visibility and Awareness

The second criterion is somewhat more complicated, as it involves envisaging what kind of impact inscribing the elements would have on global awareness of — and respect for

— intangible cultural heritage. When nominating ‘three genres of traditional dance in Bali’ for inscription on the Representative List, Indonesia indicated that there were local community members were previously unaware of the importance of intangible cultural heritage.53 Inscription was thus viewed as an opportunity to vastly increase the visibility of the dances and promote the significance of intangible heritage in general — both lo- cally and globally — as occurred when the Wayang Puppet Theatre and the Indonesian Kris attained international recognition through UNESCO.54 A similar line of reasoning could apply to the intangible elements examined in this paper. Visibility, awareness and dialogue around Colombian coffee production and Balinese irrigation systems has already been ignited through the cultural landscapes being World Heritage listed. By highlighting that the value of the physical aspects of both landscapes is entirely depen- dent on the traditions and philosophies involved, inscription on the Representative List would enhance commitment to safeguarding intangible heritage worldwide. Therefore, both States are able to meet the second criterion.

52  Ibid art 2(2).

53  Ministry of Education and Culture (Indonesia), Nomination for the Inscription on the Representative List in 2015 (Indonesia) (16 January 2015), 6 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/three-genres-of-tradi- tional-dance-in-bali-00617> .

54  Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Indonesia), Nomination for the Inscription on the Representative List in 2009 (Indonesia) (2 October 2009), 7 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/indonesian-batik-00170> .

C Elaboration of Safeguarding Measures

To address the third criterion, Colombia and Indonesia would need to show that they are capable of safeguarding the proposed intangible elements. The Convention defines ‘safeguarding’ as measures used for guaranteeing the viability of intangible cultural heritage, including identification, promotion, transmission and revitalisation.55 One requirement for States parties is to endeavour to implement measures ‘fostering the creation or strengthening of institutions for training in the management of the intangi- ble cultural heritage and the transmission of such heritage through forums and spaces intended for the performance or expression thereof’,56 as well as to develop educational programmes for young people and ‘non-formal means of transmitting knowledge’.57 The Convention’s provisions are worded in a sufficiently ambiguous way so as to allow States parties to develop safeguarding measures that best meet their circumstances and capabilities.

In Colombia, intangible and cultural heritage is managed and regulated by the Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural (National Cultural Heritage System), which has the responsibility of safeguarding and disseminating heritage.58 Under Colombian law, a management instrument for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage — the ‘Special Safeguard Plan’ — ‘should include [m]easures to guarantee the transission of knowl- edge and practices associated with the expression.’59 In spite of this legal framework, a persistent threat to the intangible heritage of the Coffee Cultural Landscape is the lack of ‘intergenerational transfer’.60 In 2010, the average age of Colombian coffee farmers was 53, with only a fraction of the younger generation pursuing coffee farming.61 Co- lombia developed a project known as ‘Innovation Models — Coffee Farming Youths’ to address this issue and ensure the continuation of the cultural landscape.62 In fact, the Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia has been recognised as an example of Best

55Intangible Heritage Convention art 2(3).

56  Ibid art 13(d)(i).

57  Ibid art 14(a).

58República de Colombia Ministerio de Cultura Decreto Número 02941 de 2009 [Republic of Colombia Ministry of Culture Decree Number 02941 of 2009] (Colombia), art 2 (‘Ministry of Culture Decree’) <http:// www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/colombia/colombia_decreto02941_2009_engtof.pdf> .

59Ministry of Culture Decree, art 14(4).

60  Ministry of Culture (Colombia) and the Colombian Coffee Growers Federation, Nomination File — Cof- fee Cultural Landscape of Colombia (January 2010) 271 <http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1121. pdf> .

61  Ibid.

62  Ibid 272.

Practice in World Heritage Management, indicating that the country is dedicated to the conservation of its heritage and able to implement measures effectively.63

When nominating the Cultural Landscape of Bali Province to be World Heritage listed, Indonesia identified several measures to ‘conserve and enhance the intangible attributes’ of the cultural landscape, including setting up ‘community-based educational programs’ to increase awareness and knowledge of traditional values and practices among young people.64 Like Colombia, Indonesia has been chosen as a role model for other States: the country’s education and training programme for Indonesian Batik was placed on UNESCO’s Register of Best Safeguarding Practices.65 The ‘techniques, symbolism and culture’ of Indonesian Batik (‘hand-dyed cotton and silk garments’)66 have traditionally been ‘passed from generation to generation through oral and non-formal transmission’.67 However, a national education programme has now been implemented to formalise the learning of batik culture through schools.68 Having already demonstrated that effective- ly safeguarding intangible heritage is important at a national level, both Indonesia and Colombia are likely to satisfy the third criterion.

To further strengthen their systems for safeguarding, both countries might also consider the development of a ‘Living Human Treasures’ programme. Living Human Treasures are defined as ‘persons who possess to a high degree the knowledge and skills required for performing or re-creating specific elements of the intangible cultural heritage’.69 With the goal of ensuring transmission, being recognised as a Living Human Treasure entails continuing ‘the performance or manufacture of the item’, as well as training

63  Ministry of Culture (Colombia), Submission for Recognition of Best Practice in World Heritage Manage- ment (2012) UNESCO <http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/sites/bestpractice2012/1121.pdf> .

64  Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Indonesia), Nomination for Inscription on the UNESCO World Her- itage List — Cultural Landscape of Bali Province (2011) V-7 <http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nomina- tions/1194rev.pdf> .

65  UNESCO, Best Safeguarding Practices <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/register> .

66  UNESCO, Indonesian Batik <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/indonesian-batik-00170> .

67  Batik Museum Institute, Proposal of a Programme, Project or Activity to be Selected and Promoted as Best Reflecting the Principles and Objectives of the Convention in 2009 (2 October 2009) 3 <http://

www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/BSP/education-and-training-in-indonesian-batik-intangible-cultural-heri- tage-for-elementary-junior-senior-vocational-school-and-polytechnic-students-in-collaboration-with-the-ba- tik-museum-in-pekalongan-00318>.

68  Ibid.

69  UNESCO, Encouraging Transmission of ICH : Living Human Treasures <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ ich/en/living-human-treasures> .

‘younger persons in the technique or their art’.70 South Korea was instrumental in the development of this concept, with a Cultural Heritage Protection Act stipulating that:

The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration shall require holders of im- portant intangible cultural heritage to conduct education for transferal of skills or ar- tistic talent they have ... in order to transfer and preserve important intangible cultural heritage.71

Thus, should Colombia or Indonesia decide that initiating such a programme would be beneficial, particular coffee producers or Balinese farmers could be recognised as Living Human Treasures and be given the resources to pass on their talents to the next generation.

D Participation, Consent and Inventories

The Intangible Heritage Convention stipulates that States parties shall endeavour to en- sure that interested groups and individuals may participate as widely as possible and be actively involved in the management of the heritage.72 To satisfy the fourth criterion, it would be essential for Colombia and Indonesia to ensure that the local communities liv- ing in and using the respective cultural landscapes gave their ‘free, prior and informed consent’ with regards to inscription. Relevant stakeholders involved in the Cultural Landscape of Bali Province would include pekasehs (the heads of subaks), bendesa adat (the heads of customary villages) and pemangkus (priests).73 For the Coffee Cultural Landscape, the primary stakeholders would be the coffee producers, whose interests are represented by elected members of the Colombian Coffee Growers Federation.74 As Dr Albert Salamanca and colleagues maintain, ‘[o]ne cannot underestimate the challenges of managing a living cultural landscape wherein the local people are very much part of

70  Dawnhee Yim, ‘Living Human Treasures and the Protection of Intangible Culture Heritage:

Experiences and Challenges’ (Speech delivered at the 20th General Conference of ICOM, Seoul, Korea, October 2004) 11 <http://network.icom.museum/ fi leadmin/user_upload/pdf/ICOM_News/2004-4/ENG/ p10_2004-4.pdf> .

71  Cultural Heritage Protection Act No 961 of 1962 (Republic of Korea) as amended by Act No 10000 of 2010, art 41(2) (emphasis added) <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/kr/kr117en.pdf> .

72Intangible Heritage Convention, art 15.

73  Albert Salamanca et al, Managing a Living Cultural Landscape: Bali’s Subaks and the UNESCO World Heritage Site (May 2015) Stockholm Environment Institute, iv <https://www.sei-international.org/media- manager/documents/Publications/SEI-PR-2015-05-Bali-Cultural-Landscape.pdf>.

74  Ministry of Culture (Colombia), above n 63, 4.

the practices and beliefs that have been designated as a World Heritage Site’.75 Aside from being inconsistent with the Convention, proceeding with the nominations without participation from local communities would be futile, because the value of the cultural landscapes is ultimately derived from the people who continue to sustain them. Finally, both States can meet the fifth criterion if they add the relevant elements to their existing inventories for intangible cultural heritage.76

V CONCLUSION

As this paper has sought to demonstrate, there exists an opportunity for both Colombia and Indonesia to consider new nominations for the Representative List. Much of the Outstanding Universal Value held by the Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia and the Cultural Landscape of Bali Province is associated with the intangible features of her- itage present at those sites. As other States such as Kenya have recognised, the overlap- ping nature of tangible and intangible heritage means that listing sites under both treaties could be beneficial. Should Colombia choose to nominate its coffee farming traditions, or Indonesia its Tri Hita Karana philosophy, for inscription on the Representative List, this may result in a more holistic approach to heritage conservation. Although this paper found that Colombia and Indonesia could meet each of the five criteria necessary for inscription, both cultural landscapes are faced with the significant challenge of declining youth interest in the traditions and practices involved. However, with community sup- port and law and policy measures, it is not inevitable that these intangible elements will cease to exist in the future. When it comes to cultural heritage, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. In the cultural landscapes examined in this paper, the importance of neither the tangible nor the intangible could be excluded. Indeed, it is likely that one aspect would have no purpose without the presence of the other. As Mounir Bouchenaki

— former UNESCO Assistant Director General for Culture — has asserted:

Even if tangible and intangible heritage are very different, they are two sides of the same coin: both carry meaning and the embedded memory of humanity. Both the tan- gible and the intangible heritage rely on each other when it comes to understanding the meaning and importance of each.77

75  Salamanca et al, above n 73, 33 (emphasis in original).

76Intangible Heritage Convention, art 12.

77  Bouchenaki, Mounir, ‘The Interdependency of the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (Paper pre- sented at the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 27 October 2003), 4-5 <http://openarchive.icomos.org/468/1/2_%2D_Allocution_Bouchenaki.pdf> .


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PerIntLawJl/2016/9.html