How Might World Heritage Status Support the Protection of Sacred Natural Sites? An Analysis of Nomination Files, Management, and Governance Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

WHS and SNS

A well written and coherent article that is well sourced and up to date. It, however, requires much more discussion about the deliberate displacement of custodians that occurs in some cases to satisfy WH natural criteria and the assimilation policies of the State. This usually occurs at the expense of the cultural and spiritual dimension, the nomadic way of life, and to the detriment of Sacred Natural Sites

In the discussion section it is worth expanding on the dangers of deliberately deculturizing of WH properties that occurs through ecological migration. If culture is deliberately excluded or ignored there is a very real danger that the traditional users of the proposed property, especially nomads, will be excluded in the name of “conservation”. The so called “ecological migration” of indigenous people from protected areas is well documented (Brockington and Igoe 2006, Colchester 1994 2001 2004, Dixit 2017, Gauthier and Pravettoni 2016, Hitchcock 1995, Kemf 1993, Kothari et al 1995, Ma and Ma 2015, McLean 1999, Stevens 1997, Sullivan and Sullivan 2019, Stycos and Duarte 1995, Turnbull 1972, Vidal 2016 West et al 2006) and is exemplified in two recent large WHS inscriptions (Sanjiangyuan and Kokoshilli). In both cases many of the local herders were subject to “ecological migration” (Foggin 2008:27) prior to WHS nomination (ICT 2017 Wang et al 2010). The properties were depopulated and subject to deculturization (Abulu 2020) under the aegis of assimilation and the deliberate eradication of the nomadic way of life (Qi Jingfa 1998). Although the State Party reassured the IUCN Kokoshili evaluation mission that the nomads had not/would not be coercively removed the reality is that the herders/nomads do not have “the liberty to refuse” (Human Rights Watch 2007) which goes some way to explaining why so many have set fire to themselves (See Meir 2021). Ecological migration in these properties is perverse given that the herders lived in equilibrium (snod bcud do mnyam in Tibetan) with their environment for hundreds of years until 1950. Furthermore they were prime movers in trying heroically to protect the antelope from exogenous hunters (Liu 2015, Lu 2004), which was an embarrassment to the government. It is erroneous of the State Party to suggest that Kokoshili was historically a “no man’s land” (ICT 2017) or “empty” in complete contradiction to the travel logs of many westerner explorers (Wellby 1898, Hedin 1922, Rockhill 1891 1894, Rijnhart 1901, Bower 1894, Prejevalsky 1876) who recorded evidence of human usage, cultural activity and nomadic lifestyle in the Western part of Kokoshili property. This included sizeable nomadic camps (sometimes described as towns) and the remains of houses, fireplaces, cooking implements, dead pack animals and obos (lhatse in Tibetan). Rijnhart (1901) mentions the many obos (Mongolian for ritual cairns) she passed as she crossed the Kokoshilli range. Obos are very important cultural sites and the epicentre of Sacred Natural Sites, being the residence/palace of local numina/genius loci. As a result of herder displacement the numina that inhabit the obo are no longer honoured or appeased and consequently will become/are becoming deterritorialised (Ramble 2008) and the SNS are/will be lost. As a result hundreds of SNS are being lost in Kham as a result of ecological migration (See Meir 2021). As Liza Zogib said to me at an IUCN meeting in London we must make sure Kokoshilli does not happen again! Much more rigour is required during ICOMOS/IUCN evaluation missions to insure that SNS and their custodians are identified and that “natural” nomination is not a ruse for ecological migration.

Comments on Text

Line 113 Can you give more examples where the cultural dimension has been downplayed for political reasons – Sanjiangyuan and Kokoshili for starters

Line 416 - What is your source for stating that the Altai is the birthplace of shamanism? Shaman is a Manchu-Tungus word (saman) and my understanding is that it originated in Northern Siberia (Hutton 2007)

Line 425 – Is there no form of spiritual governance in Indian sarna groves? They are seemingly inhabited by spirits who prevent them from felling trees (Ekka and Danda 1984, Malhotra et al 2001)

Line 429 – Can you expand on the role of politics in nomination and inscription decisions with examples

Line 501 – the role of custodians is paramount if they have not been displaced

Line 502 – Joint management does not work if the custodians have been displaced through ecological migration

Line 510 – Surely the State Party’s approach is not sometimes just limited to colonialism – atheistic communist assimilation is perhaps more damaging in terms of the cultural and spiritual values and SNS.

Line 520 – I think it’s most important to highlight SNS as the “homes of numina/spirits” (rather than “gods”) that are responsible for spiritual governance perhaps expressed in the context of the “posthuman turn” (Smith 2018) and “other-than-human persons” (Hallowell 2002).

Line 560 – Does “mainstream” include Animism?

References

Colchester, M. (2004) ‘Conservation Policy and Indigenous People’. Environmental Science and Policy 7 (3), 145–153

Colchester, M. (2001) ‘This Park Is No Longer Your Land’. UNESCO Courier July/Aug.

Colchester, M. (1994) Salvaging Nature: Indigenous People, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. Diane

Dixit, K. (20177) ‘Remembering Rara’. Nepali Times

Ekka, W. and Danda, A. (1984) ‘The Nagesia of Chattishgarh’. Anthropological Survey of India, Memoir 58

Foggin, J.M. (2008) ‘Depopulating the Tibetan Grasslands: National Policies and Perspectives for the Future of Tibetan Herders in Qinghai Province, China’. Mountain Research and Development 28 (1), 26–31

Gauthier, M. and Pravettoni, R. (2016) ‘We Have Nothing but Our Reindeer: Conservation Threatens Ruination for Mongolia’s Dukha’. The Guardian

Hallowell, A.I. (2002) ‘Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View’. in Readings in Indigenous Religions ed. by Harvey, G. vol. 22. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 17–49.

Hedin, S. (1922) Southern Tibet. Stockholm: Swedish Army

Hitchcock, R. (1995) ‘Centralization, Resource Depletion, and Coercive Conservation Among the Tyua of the Northeastern Kalahari’. Human Ecology 23 (2), 169f

Human Rights Watch (2007) No One Has the Liberty to Refuse. HRW

Hutton, R. (2007) Shamans. Hambledon Continuum

ICT (2017) Nomads in ‘No Man’s Land’: Chin’s Nomination for UNESCO World Heritage Risks Imperilling Tibetans and Wildlife.

Kemf, E. (1993) The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. Sierra Club Books

Kothari, A., Suri, S., and Singh, N. (1995) ‘People and Protected Areas: Rethinking Conservation in India’. The Ecologist 25 (5), 188f

Liu, J. (2015) Tibetan Environmentalists in China: The King of Dzi. Lexington Books

Lu, C. (2004) KeKexili: Mountain Patrol (Film) Producers Du, Y and Wang, Z

Ma, S. and Ma, S. (2015) ‘The Environmental Justice in Ecological Immigration: A Case Study of Sanjiangyuan Area’. Architectural Research 17 (4), 147–152

Malhotra, K., Gokhale, Y., and Das, K. (2001) Sacred Groves in India: An Annotated Bibliography, Indian National Science Academy and Development Alliance

McLean, J. (1999) ‘Conservation and the Impact of Relocation on the Tharus of Chitwan, Nepal’. Himlaya 19 (2 Article 8)

Meir, D. (2021) ‘The Gzhi Bdag Cult as a Regenerative Worldview and an Animistic Expression of Biocultural Resistance in the Hengduan Mountain Range’. The Tibet Journal XLVI (1), 25–75

Prejevalsky, N. (1876) Mongolia, The Tangut Country and the Solitudes of Northern Tibet. London: Sampso Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington

Qi, J. (1998) ‘Herdsmen in China to End Nomadic Life’. Xinhua 18 March

Ramble, C. (2008) The Navel of the Demoness: Tibetan Buddhism and Civil Religion in Highland Nepal. Oxford University Press

Rijnhart, S. (1901) With the Tibetans in Tent and Temple: Narrative of the Four Years’ Residence on the Tibetan Border and of a Journey into the Far Interior. Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier

Rockhill, W. (1891) The Land of the Lamas: Notes of a Journey through China, Mongolia and Tibet. London: Longmans Green and Co

Smith, T. (2018) Sustainability, Wellbeing and the Posthuman Turn. Springer International Publishing

Stevens, S. ed (1997) Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas. Washington: Island Press

Stycos, J. and Duarte, I. (1995) ‘Parks, Resettlement and Population: A Case Study in the Dominican Republic’. Society & Natural Resources 8, 243–260

Sullivan, L. and Sullivan, N. (2019) Historical Dictionary of the Chinese Environment. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Turnbull, C. (1984) The Mountain People: The Classic Account of a People Too Poor for Morality. London: Triad

Vidal, J. (2016) ‘The Tribes Paying the Brutal Price for Conservation’. The Observer

Wang, Z., Song, K., and Hu, L. (2010) ‘China’s Largest Scale Ecological Migration in the Three-River Headwater Region’. Ambio 39 (5–6), 443–446

Wellby, M. (1898) Through Unknown Tibet. London: Fisher Unwin

West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas’. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 251–277

 

 

Author Response

We thank you kindly for your review, time and effort and respond with detailed comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper analyses how Sacred Natural Sites are given recognition within the World Heritage system and tries to emphasize whether World Heritage sites support the protection of Sacred Natural Sites. The main methods used in the paper are the case study analysis for nine World Heritage sites from across the world and bibliographic research. The paper addresses an interesting topic for the scientific community in the fields of landscape ecology, culture, tourism but also for the general public.

My main concerns refer to the representativeness of the case studies analyzed and the way of presenting the results. In this respect I am suggesting a few points the authors might like to consider in order to improve the manuscript. 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Introduction & Materials and Methods

In order to illustrate how representative the nine sites analyzed are, I consider it necessary to add, in the introduction/materials part, a description of the current World Heritage sites especially in terms of  number by geographical location, types, surface intervals and other criteria considered relevant by the authors. I also consider of relevance to discuss/estimate the share of World Heritage sites including Sacred Natural Sites. .

Comment 2: Results and discussion

The consecutive way of presenting the case studies is quite difficult to follow in the sense of forming an overview of the elements used. In order to have a clearer picture, I consider that table 3 or another table should be filled with some detailed elements (excerpts from the description of each site). Where possible I would also include the positive or possibly negative effects of some of these detailed elements on the site.

Specific comments.

Line 14 – The nine World Heritage sites are located across all continents except ….

Line 144 – The Criteria (i. ii., …) should be detailed at the end of the table, as description,  as they are to be found only on page 2. It is not very clear here what the completion of some criteria was based on.

Lines 451-453 and 455-457 are almost similar- please check.

Lines 607-608 – please check.

Date of this review: 15 Nov. 2021

Author Response

We thank you kindly for your review, time and effort and respond with detailed comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting paper on an appropriate topic for the journal. Generally well written and referenced.

The Material and Methods section (2) needs expanding. At present it is far too vague on procedures followed. Phrases like  "as  much as possible" and "significant body" are really meaningless and must be explained in detail. It is critical that it is explained how the examples were selected from a "random selection" of such sites. Why not select from the full body of sites? How was the random selection generated, one cannot say 'random' without explaining how randomness is achieved.

The selection of at least one site seems peculiar in that the Japanese site could not be fully studied because (Unknown-detailed literature in Japanese language" Why select it then if the selection process was specific and detailed? Why not get a translation of the material? This must be explained and justified.

Line 453 the section is talking of three sites but uses the word "both", this needs to be corrected.

Author Response

We thank you kindly for your review, time and effort and respond with detailed comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased with the additions and modifications made, especially to the Introduction and Materials & Methods parts. Commend the authors for their interesting paper.