CHAPTER 6: PRESENTATION AND EDUCATION
The obligation to present world heritage areas
6.1 The listing of a world heritage property confers upon it international
recognition and identifies that property as something special and noteworthy:
Just like French champagne, renowned throughout the world for its outstanding
qualities and characteristics, World Heritage Listing immediately attaches
an international stamp of endorsement to a site or property which simultaneously
lifts its public profile and makes it an elite place to visit. The World
Heritage site brand conjures up images of the highest level of tourist
sightseeing experiences and services. [1]
6.2 The ACF suggested that all Australians should feel proud and privileged
to have such areas in Australia and should accept special responsibility
for the protection of these areas. Furthermore, the Australian Government,
as the nation's representative, should emphasise their national and international
value. The ACF's policy on the promotion of world heritage is that:
The Australian Government and each of the State and Territory Governments
should promote, both in Australia and overseas, public understanding and
appreciation of the concept of world heritage, in general, and of the
world heritage areas in Australia, in particular. [2]
6.3 The ACF's view that Australian Governments should advance the understanding
of world heritage reflects the obligations and duties imposed by the World
Heritage Convention in relation to sites on the World Heritage List. Article
4 of the Convention calls for States Parties to ensure that effective
and active measures are taken to present the cultural and natural heritage
of world heritage areas.
Each State Party to this Convention recognises that the duty of ensuring
the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission
to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to
in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to
that State. [3]
6.4 Article 5 further expresses the need to give the cultural and natural
heritage of world heritage areas 'a function in the life of the community'.
Presentation is therefore a key and obligatory element in the management
of world heritage areas. The National Parks Association of New South Wales
commented on the potential for this obligation to increase the public's
appreciation of world heritage values and to enhance the experiences of
people who visit world heritage areas:
There is an obligation under the World Heritage Convention to actually
present to people what the values of the area are and to make sure they
understand why this area is special. In some cases, if you allow them
to have a very narrow focus they go away without that full appreciation
of what the area is about, what the listing is about and why it is a special
place. [4]
6.5 Presentation of world heritage areas can also enhance the tourism
value of an area. The TCA, for example, noted that world heritage listing
enhances international recognition and is used by the tourism industry
to enhance international visitation. [5]
The New South Wales Government commented on the market advantages to the
tourism industry which can use world heritage areas as a selling point:
The World Heritage Convention is probably one of the most widely recognised
conventions for the protection of natural and cultural resources. These
resources are very much a part of the unique "product" which
the tourism industry has to offer in marketing Australia ... to both international
and domestic visitors. A World Heritage Area is a tourist attraction in
its own right and can make a major impact on the competitive advantages
enjoyed by a particular destination or region. [6]
The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism also acknowledged that presenting
world heritage properties is not only an obligation of the Commonwealth
Government but is important for ecotourism and to meet tourist demands.
[7]
Responsibility for presenting world heritage areas
6.6 The Commonwealth Government is the State Party to the Convention
and is therefore obliged to ensure that presentation and education is
adequate with regard to Australia's world heritage areas. DEST has the
major responsibility for these functions at the Commonwealth level, and
regards presentation as an important aspect of its work. Dr Nicholls from
DEST made the following comment:
From the World Heritage Unit's point of view, we are placing more emphasis
now on presentation than we did before because when people go there they
want to understand what they are looking at ... [8]
6.7 In evidence to the Committee, DEST accepted that the Commonwealth
should contribute to the costs of strengthening management and presenting
and interpreting world heritage areas to visitors. [9]
DEST, however, considered that it has a joint responsibility, along with
the States, to present and manage world heritage properties. [10]
DEST also accepted that it has a joint responsibility with the States
to fund presentation facilities in world heritage areas. It has provided
some resources to State managed world heritage areas and claimed that
additional resources would be provided for interpretation:
Costs of visitor presentation, interpretation and damage mitigation are
... jointly borne by Commonwealth and State Governments. A major focus
for Commonwealth Government assistance for State-managed World Heritage
Areas has been the provision of resources for strengthening management
and improving interpretation and visitor facilities. [11]
6.8 The Committee considers presentation is an integral part of the management
of world heritage areas, and given that the States are involved in management
they will also be involved in presentation. The joint responsibility referred
to by DEST therefore recognises the reality of the administrative arrangements
that apply in most areas.
Presentation versus protection
6.9 Tourism bodies have pointed out that there has been an increased
focus on nature based tourism, and more visitors are seeking opportunities
for high quality tourism experiences in natural and indigenous cultural
environments. The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism claimed that,
while the exact size and nature of the market for Australian ecotourism
is uncertain, there are strong indications of growth. For example, research
by the Australian Tourist Commission indicated that a considerable proportion
of the international visitors to Australia ranked natural phenomena as
major factors influencing their choice of Australia as their destination.
Also, growth in visitation to national parks and world heritage areas
indicates an upward trend in ecotourism. [12]
A survey of visitors to Kakadu National Park indicated that they recognised
the area's world heritage status, and a large proportion of them visited
the park in order to appreciate the natural and cultural attributes. [13]
6.10 The New South Wales Government agreed that world heritage areas
are major tourist drawcards which receive higher than average visitation
levels and therefore demand special care and treatment. [14]
Professor Atherton from Bond University confirmed that world heritage
status attracts tourists:
... from my experience around the world I know the very fact that they
do make the World Heritage list means that they are of outstanding universal
significance for their particular values. That, by definition, means that
they are of outstanding universal tourist interest. [15]
6.11 Most of Australia's world heritage areas were attracting visitors
before they were added to the World Heritage List, and they continue to
do so. The Committee received no clear quantitative evidence that world
heritage listing attracted additional tourists. However, it considers
that this is likely to be the case or may become so. Thus, there is an
underlying strength and market potential for world heritage tourism. While
world heritage listing is not a guarantee of increases in tourism, it
is a tool used in tourism marketing.
6.12 The ACF suggested that an important means of fostering an appreciation
of world heritage areas is to encourage visitors to the areas, provided
that tourism and protection of the areas are compatible. Consequently,
the ACF's policy on tourism in world heritage areas states that 'tourism
that is compatible with the on-going protection of the natural areas should
be encouraged in and around natural areas of national and/or world heritage'.
[16]
6.13 The Committee received evidence that the presentation of world heritage
areas can coexist with the protection of world heritage values. The then
Commonwealth Department of Tourism argued that tourism has the potential
to help present world heritage areas through sensitive development both
in and adjacent to them. The previous Government's National Ecotourism
Program, for example, aimed to develop sustainable ecotourism through
innovative projects that would increase Australia's competitiveness as
an ecotourism destination, enhance visitor appreciation of natural and
cultural values, and contribute to the long term conservation and management
of ecotourism. [17] ANCA claimed
that public education assisted in managing pressures on the heritage values
of conservation areas. [18]
6.14 Mr Haigh expressed his concerns about the apparent conflict between
protecting world heritage values and presenting them to an increasing
number of tourists. He made this comment about presenting world heritage
areas:
"Presentation" can only take place if the Area is not likely
to be damaged or destroyed. The limit on damage is that the Area must
be handed to future generations in essentially the same condition it was,
subject to natural evolution, at the time of Listing. ... This view reasserts
the dominant role of World Heritage is to protect listed areas as globally
significant natural or cultural places. [19]
Mr Haigh claimed that world heritage areas can be presented provided
the duty to protect and conserve for future generations takes precedence.
He commented on the line between presentation and overuse:
Presentation is not just a nice brochure ... . It is about whether we
are presenting it so that people can see it, enjoy it, but not damage
it. The threshold of damage is very low. ...
I think a World Heritage area is, par excellence, a site for ecotourism.
It has to present, and only do that, which means that it lightly touches.
It does not damage. It does some damage because the word 'presentation'
clearly means that, but it does not damage it so that it does not allow
for protection or conservation for future generations. We do not leave
our footprint so big that future generations cannot have the same spot.
[20]
6.15 An area of potential conflict between the obligation to present
and the obligation to conserve world heritage values was brought to the
Committee's attention. The Alliance for Sustainable Tourism pointed out
that presenting a world heritage area to the public requires that the
area be accessible and cautioned against locking away parts of the country.
[21] However, providing access may
threaten the area's values, particularly when inadequate funding means
that access routes cannot be well maintained nor designed to minimise
environmental impacts. The Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau reported
that it believed that the WTMA was unable 'to recognise its obligations
to "present" the World Heritage asset as part of the international
convention', and alleged that:
... this particular responsibility is not given the same importance as
the other obligations eg. conservation. The opportunity to 'grasp' an
international recognition and create a unique tourism region is not considered
on equal standing as other preservation issues. [22]
The Committee considers, however, that as a general principle it is absolutely
proper that the WTMA should give conservation priority over presentation
of an area, although generally both objectives can be mutually satisfied.
6.16 As indicated above, world heritage areas have the potential to attract
large numbers of visitors. Accordingly, there is a great opportunity to
promote awareness of conservation values to a wide range of people. The
Committee considers that, since world heritage areas are of international
significance and attract tourists who are seeking a special experience,
presentation in the areas is particularly important. To ensure that presentation
is professionally carried out while protecting world heritage values,
the Committee recommends that:
(34) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in
consultation with managing agencies, develop standards for the presentation
of world heritage areas.
These presentation standards should reflect the international significance
and universal heritage value of the sites.
6.17 The Committee notes that protection and presentation of world heritage
areas have to be managed compatibly since both are obligations under the
Convention. The Committee concludes that the presentation of a world heritage
property can be consistent with the protection of world heritage values,
and can make protection easier to achieve. However, as noted in Chapter
3, any development that might be carried out for the presentation
of a world heritage area has to be consistent with the overriding requirement
to protect and conserve the area. Adequate management, supported by monitoring
of world heritage areas, as discussed in Chapters 4
and 5 are required to ensure that presentation
does not outweigh or conflict with protection.
Education about world heritage
6.18 Article 27 of the Convention establishes an obligation to educate
people about world heritage:
1. The States Parties to this Convention shall endeavour by all appropriate
means, and in particular by educational and information programmes, to
strengthen appreciation and respect by their peoples of the cultural and
natural heritage defined in Article 1 and 2 of the Convention.
2. They shall undertake to keep the public broadly informed of the dangers
threatening this heritage and of activities carried on in pursuance of
this Convention.
6.19 The ACIUCN's Richmond Communique laid out some principles of education
about world heritage areas. It proposed that:
- a national education program about world heritage be developed for
distribution to schools, public libraries, and other institutions;
- education programs be developed and implemented following research
to ascertain the existing community understanding of world heritage
concepts and obligations; and
- the community be better informed about threats to world heritage areas
and the actions being taken to address these.
Furthermore, the Communique stipulated that, where authorities such as
UNESCO, IUCN and ICOMOS endorse, or permit the use of their logo in conjunction
with, a publication about world heritage or world heritage properties,
they should ensure the accuracy of the information contained within the
publication by reference of a draft text to the relevant world heritage
managers or other appropriate local persons or authorities. [23]
6.20 The education and consultation strategies of the GBRMPA provide
an example of a well-developed approach that is in sympathy with the above
principles. These strategies include:
- encouraging the marine park's consultative committees to act as education
and extension advisory committees;
- developing formal and informal education programs for diverse target
groups;
- ensuring that public participation programs enable different user
groups to share views and experiences; and
- developing culturally-appropriate, regulatory and informative education
material for all stakeholders. [24]
A representative from the GBRMPA stated that education is most important
in world heritage management:
Education, information, consultation are the strongest mechanisms that
we have for management. We see them as being as important as any plan
or regulation or piece of legislation that we might put in place. They
are, in fact, probably more important because even the plans and regulations
have to have a marketing component associated with them. [25]
6.21 The Committee supports the above principles of the Richmond Communique
and the strategies of the GBRMPA. It considers the principles of the Richmond
Communique to be particularly important as they were agreed to by a diverse
group of representatives from Commonwealth, State, Territory and local
governments, managing agencies, the tourism industry, conservation groups
and indigenous groups who attended the workshop arranged by the ACIUCN.
6.22 Community education can, like presenting world heritage areas, assist
management authorities to achieve their objectives. The community, if
adequately educated about the threats to the values of world heritage
areas, will generally react favourably to the need to take protective
measures. This would appear to be the case with the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park world heritage area where runoff from areas outside the marine
park is a significant threat. An independent review of the management
of the marine park, which was commissioned by the GBRMPA and published
in 1991, observed that:
In summing up, it is particularly clear that there is an enormous reservoir
of goodwill amongst most users towards maintaining and protecting the
Great Barrier Reef, even beyond the present restrictions. People's motivation
to do the right thing is certainly high. What is lacking in many cases
is the knowledge of what the right things are, and the reasons for those
rules and regulations. Hence, the role of GBRMPA and QNPWS [Queensland
National Parks and Wildlife Service] in education, interpretation, and
publicity - as well as surveillance and enforcement - is essential and
must be expanded. [26]
Awareness of world heritage
6.23 It was suggested to the Committee by a number of witnesses that
more education and information programs were needed to enable Australians
to better understand and value their world heritage. [27]
For instance, Mr Hadler from the NFF claimed that little information had
been released to the public about world heritage:
... over the last 10 years ... there has not been much information to
the wider community about what World Heritage is and what its implications
are, nor any detail really for local communities about the process of
particular nominations. [28]
Participants at the Committee's workshop claimed that ignorance about
world heritage listing can elevate a community's fear towards world heritage.
6.24 Atherton and Atherton suggested that a large proportion of the world's
population has never heard of the Convention or the concept of a common
cultural and natural heritage. [29]
This is probably not the case for Australians but, as one witness observed,
they are sometimes misinformed about world heritage and assume that world
heritage status automatically means a protected area status. [30]
Dr Thorsell of the IUCN commented on the general misunderstanding of world
heritage:
I would note that despite all the efforts at communication and education
over the years, there is still some misunderstanding on what the World
Heritage Convention means. It is not, for instance, a label that should
necessarily be used to attract increased numbers of tourists. It is also
not the only instrument to use to strengthen or impose a conservation
regime on an area. Information efforts will be on-going and need to extend
both from the general public to senior political levels. [31]
6.25 The WTMA commissioned AGB McNair to conduct surveys in 1992 and
1993 of attitudes to the Wet Tropics world heritage area. The study surveyed
the region of Cairns and the three cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.
The total awareness of the Wet Tropics as a world heritage area rose between
1992 and 1993 both regionally (71 per cent to 87 per cent) and in the
cities (31 per cent to 43 per cent). [32]
6.26 A similar survey contracted by the Parks and Wildlife Service in
Tasmania looked at the level of knowledge of and attitudes to world heritage
within the Tasmanian community. The survey found that over 80 per cent
of the 500 respondents had heard of the Tasmanian Wilderness world heritage
area; however, only one in 100 people in the Tasmanian community was aware
that the nomination of the Tasmanian Wilderness world heritage area met
cultural criteria as well as natural as a result of evidence of Aboriginal
life and culture in the area. [33]
6.27 The Committee is of the view that the preservation of world heritage
areas depends on public support. It is concerned that many people do not
understand what world heritage means and do not know what world heritage
areas exist. To appreciate and respect world heritage areas, the community
must firstly have some knowledge of them. The public needs ongoing programs
of education so it can understand and appreciate the concept of world
heritage and the value of world heritage areas. There is also a need to
maintain awareness among policy makers and managers that a world heritage
area has outstanding universal value which needs to be managed and respected
in a manner which reflects its global significance. [34]
It is essential that funding is provided for educational and publicity
programs designed to enable Australians to better understand and value
world heritage. As declared under the Convention, States Parties should
endeavour to strengthen appreciation and respect of world heritage values.
The Committee therefore recommends that:
(35) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in
consultation with managing agencies, develop standards for educating
the Australian community about world heritage values.
Educating about indigenous values
6.28 Several world heritage areas provide extensive information to visitors
about the culture of local indigenous groups, with indigenous people being
involved as guides and interpreters. The then Commonwealth Department
of Tourism predicted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
living in or adjacent to world heritage areas will play an increasingly
important role in tourism in the future. This is partly due to a growing
demand from visitors to meet indigenous people and learn about their cultures.
[35]
6.29 ANCA employs and trains Aboriginal staff to conduct tours and educate
visitors about the indigenous values at both Kakadu and Uluru Kata-Tjuta
National Parks. Of a total of 26 full-time and six part time permanent
positions at Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park in 1995-96, nine were occupied
by local Anangu people. Anangu people also monitor the park's interpretation
program and ensure that all staff provide accurate information about Aboriginal
culture. Aboriginal people have extensive involvement in the presentation
of activities to visitors of Kakadu National Park. In addition, recently
opened cultural centres are located in these parks and offer indigenous
displays and interpretation. The Warradjan Cultural Centre in Kakadu National
Park interprets the indigenous values of the property through displays
of Aboriginal history, Aboriginal stories and Aboriginal contact with
Europeans, all from an Aboriginal perspective. At Uluru Kata-Tjuta, the
new cultural centre provides information about the park and the Anangu
culture and contains shops for the sale of handcrafts.
6.30 The WTMA has included in its draft management plan the need to pay
special attention to the needs of rainforest Aboriginal communities. The
Authority has indicated that the provision of information and interpretation
about Aboriginal culture will involve the communities themselves. The
plan proposes that, where Aboriginal cultural information is presented,
it should be endorsed by the relevant Aboriginal community and, if the
community desires, should directly involve Aboriginal people in its presentation.
In addition, tour operators and land managers are encouraged to give increased
emphasis to presenting the Aboriginal culture of the area. [36]
6.31 TECCAC was established as a representative body of the Badtjala
Nation of Fraser Island, and used an area of land on Fraser Island for
an Educational and Culture Centre to promote racial and cultural awareness
and harmony. TECCAC's funding was derived from grants from the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commission and earnings from its own business
enterprises such as selling indigenous tours and artefacts. Mr McInnes,
the then Director of TECCAC, told the Committee about the tourist trips
the Centre organised:
We do culture trips in two forms. We take people to points of interest
- the lakes and the places where the white people first came to. We also
take them on bushwalks and show them bush tucker or bush medicine. We
will not take people to our ceremonial areas, because the ceremonial areas
are still in use, but we will show them scarred trees and artefacts. ...
At present I have 12 people working [on the trips]. We are committed to
a fairly hard work schedule. We have more rangers in the process of training
and we have to look seriously at purchasing more vehicles and more accommodation.
[37]
6.32 The Committee considers that visitors to world heritage areas should
be able to find adequate information about the values of the indigenous
people of the area. The Committee agrees with the principle put forward
by the ACIUCN that 'indigenous perspectives of world heritage need to
be included as an integral part of any education/information program,
and must be developed in consultation with the indigenous community'.
[38] The Committee recommends that:
(36) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, working
with managing agencies and in consultation with local indigenous people,
develop strategies for educating the community about the association
of indigenous people with local world heritage areas.
The presenters and educators
6.33 The success of presentation and education programs depends on the
skills and knowledge of the people operating those programs. This is recognised
in Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, which states that the States
Parties to the Convention shall endeavour to 'foster the establishment
or development of national or regional centres for training in the protection,
conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage and
to encourage scientific research in this field'.
6.34 According to its draft management plan, the WTMA intends to develop
a wet tropics tour operator's handbook, implement an appropriate commercial
tour operator's accreditation scheme, and continue to contribute to training
programs to help ensure tour operators are properly informed, better able
to promote appropriate visitor behaviour and provide satisfying visitor
opportunities. The WTMA has also undertaken to support the inclusion of
non-specific Aboriginal cultural information in tour operator training
courses. [39] In addition, the WTMA
supports the establishment of the proposed Ravenshoe Institute for Community
Tourism which will incorporate a visitor centre, utilising an accredited
TAFE course in heritage and interpretive tourism. The WTMA claimed that
part of the appeal of the new Institute is that it will develop tourism
away from the mass market approach to more of a value added product, and
it will create a better tourism product while producing highly professional
guides. [40]
6.35 Training courses for guides are conducted by some world heritage
area managers. ANCA, for example, conducts an Aboriginal Ranger Training
Program for trainee Aboriginal rangers. Trainees at Uluru have learnt
to deliver tours and have played a major role in teaching Park staff the
Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara language and about other aspects of Anangu
culture. [41] ANCA has also concentrated
on educating Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park's tour operators who bring
around 330,000 people to the park annually. An intensive three day tour
operator's workshop covers issues such as the culture, history, fauna,
flora, management and geology of Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park. Anangu
people have been central in initiating and delivering these workshops.
[42] At Kakadu National Park, the
Aboriginal Staff Training Program recruited four people during 1994-95.
Training comprised on-the-job work experience and complementary course
work. In addition, two tourism industry seminars were held during 1994-95,
which provided tour operators with information about the values and features
of Kakadu National Park in order to assist them to provide a high quality
visitor experience of the Park to their clients. [43]
6.36 Training courses have been conducted for tour operators on Fraser
Island, and the Great Sandy Region Management Plan 1995-2010 proposed
that minimum training accreditation requirements for commercial tour operators
within the region be established. [44]
According to the manager at Naracoorte Caves, there is the need for ongoing
inservice training of guides and interpreters to supply them with up to
date information.
6.37 In its report of November 1994, entitled Working with the Environment:
Opportunities for Job Growth, the Committee recommended that the Commonwealth
Government work jointly with the State and Territory Governments, and
with the ecotourism industry, to establish quickly a national ecotourism
accreditation scheme for operators. [45]
One of the programs in the previous Commonwealth Government's National
Ecotourism Strategy explored the development and implementation of an
industry-led national system of accreditation for ecotourism operations.
[46] Based on extensive consultation,
the accreditation scheme has been trialed and is expected to be inaugurated
at the end of 1996 under the auspices of the TCA. The Committee will be
interested in how the proposed accreditation scheme can be utilised in
world heritage areas. The Committee also noted an initiative to develop
training guidelines for guides by the TCA. [47]
6.38 The Committee considers it important that both the Government and
the tourism industry maintain an adequate standard of educative experience
in world heritage areas. Further, it is vital that tour operators and
guides are adequately trained to give informative and accurate commentary.
Some progress is being made and the Committee notes that accreditation
schemes are being developed with the ecotourism industry by the Tourism
Division of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism and the TCA.
The Committee is impressed by the initiative to establish the Institute
for Community Tourism in the Wet Tropics world heritage area as it will
market the region as an ecotourism destination and provide training to
providers in the tourism industry. Despite these developments there is
much still to be done and the Committee recommends that:
(37) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in
conjunction with the Department of Employment, Education, Training and
Youth Affairs, give a high priority to the training of high quality
staff and providing additional funding for the initial and ongoing training
of guides operating in world heritage areas.
Volunteers as presenters and educators
6.39 Some managing agencies of world heritage areas currently have volunteers
working for them. The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium utilises volunteers
who primarily provide visitor services and education. The 120 volunteers,
including 25 student volunteers, provided 15 000 hours of service in 1994-95.
[48] In the Wet Tropics more than
100 volunteers were working in community relations programs located in
Cairns, Townsville, Lake Eacham, Innisfail and Cardwell in 1994-95. [49]
6.40 The information centre at Binna Burra in Lamington National Park
in the CERRA world heritage area is staffed by the Natural History Association
on weekends. The volunteers go through an accreditation program at Binna
Burra so that they can give accurate, comprehensive information. The Natural
History Association also produced a pamphlet about the rainforest track
for visitors who want a self-guided tour.
6.41 The Committee observes that volunteers often have a deep-felt attachment
to and love for their local world heritage area and are willing and keen
to give enormously of their time and effort in presenting the area to
visitors. Their commitment to their area is also seen in the formation
of 'Friends' groups. The Committee notes, however, that capitalising on
this source of assistance and enabling volunteers to contribute as presenters
and educators (as well as in other capacities) requires that sufficient
staff from the managing agency are available to direct and monitor the
volunteers' activities. While accepting that finding suitable volunteers
to work in areas that are remote from large centres of population is difficult,
the Committee was disappointed that in general little use had been made
of volunteers in other world heritage areas. More use can be made of volunteers
to present and educate the public about world heritage areas. The talents
of volunteers can be further utilised to save on resources and funding
in world heritage properties. Volunteers can be given adequate knowledge
of world heritage areas, as other guides are. The Committee recommends
that:
(38) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories:
a) work with managing agencies to encourage the formation of volunteer
support groups for world heritage areas; and
b) assist managing agencies to more fully utilise and develop volunteers
in presenting, and educating the public about, world heritage.
Presentation and education techniques
6.42 The different presentation and education techniques that are widely
utilised by management in world heritage areas include signage and the
world heritage emblem, publications and information centres with interpretive
displays. Examples of these were found in most world heritage areas. However,
the Committee found that the adequacy of presentation and education facilities
varied from area to area. Mr Dutton from the Southern Cross University
noted in his submission that there is little uniformity in how world heritage
areas are presented to the public - 'management standards are uneven and
there is little uniformity of presentation of WHA material to park visitors
or to the broader community'. [50]
An evaluation report of world heritage management arrangements produced
by DEST found that 'the level of implementation of Australia's obligations
under the Convention for the presentation of WH areas ... has been quite
patchy between properties'. [51]
6.43 One of the largest interpretative facilities is operated by the
Education and Aquarium Branch of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
The cultural and visitor centres at Kakadu and Uluru also provide a high
standard of interpretation, although the Committee noted when visiting
Kakadu that there was only one display devoted in any detail to the area's
world heritage status. In comparison, Fraser Island and the Riversleigh
Fossil Mammal Site did not have adequate facilities for the presentation
and education of world heritage values. These presentation and education
facilities are discussed further below.
Signage and the world heritage emblem
6.44 The world heritage emblem symbolises the interdependence of cultural
and natural properties. The central square is a form created by man and
the circle represents nature; the two are intimately linked. The emblem
is round, like the world, but at the same time it is a symbol of protection.
The world heritage emblem is illustrated in Figure
6.1. The Convention states that properties included in the world heritage
list should be marked with the world heritage emblem in a way that does
not visually impair the property in question. [52]
Figure 6.1—The world heritage emblem
6.45 The Operational Guidelines include a section on the production of
plaques to commemorate the inclusion of properties in the world heritage
list. The function of the plaques is to inform visitors to the site that
it has a particular value which has been recognised by the international
community. Also, the plaques should inform the public about the Convention,
the world heritage concept and the World Heritage List. The following
guidelines were adopted by the World Heritage Committee:
- the plaque should be so placed that it can easily be seen by visitors,
without disfiguring the site;
- the world heritage symbol should appear on the plaque;
- the text should mention the site's exceptional universal value; in
this regard it might be useful to give a short description of the site's
outstanding characteristics. States [Parties] may, if they wish, use
the descriptions appearing in the various world heritage publications
or in the world heritage exhibit, and which may be obtained from the
Secretariat;
- the text should make reference to the Convention and particularly
to the world heritage list and to the international recognition conferred
by inscription on this List (however, it is not necessary to mention
at which session of the Committee the site was inscribed);
- it may be appropriate to produce the text in several languages for
sites which receive many foreign visitors. [53]
6.46 An issue which came to the Committee's attention while inspecting
world heritage sites was the lack of signage. The Committee saw many signs
that did not draw attention to the fact that the sites in question were
part of a world heritage area. This was noticeable, for example, in Kakadu
and parts of the CERRA property. Mr Howard of the New South Wales NPWS
agreed that signage is an issue that needs consideration:
That is certainly an issue that our agency is very interested in. Again,
that is one of the issues that we say would be addressed through a more
equitable funding agreement or funding arrangement with the Commonwealth.
Whilst those areas are being managed as national parks or nature reserves
under state legislation, the fact that they are now listed as world heritage
areas brings a further expectation that the level of management would
be increased and that the identification of those areas and [that] better
community education programs would flow. We would argue that under the
current funding arrangement we are not in a position to increase the amount
of money from our budget into that area to meet those additional responsibilities
that have flowed with World Heritage listing. [54]
6.47 Mr Charters from Kingfisher Bay Resort on Fraser Island also felt
that more funding was needed from the Government to provide signs which
included the world heritage emblem and world heritage information. Mr
Charters stated that:
... the [Queensland] Department of Environment and Heritage [proposed]
to signpost the barge entry points with a signage that said, firstly,
that the area was World Heritage listed; secondly, why it is important
because of that World Heritage listing and how you can look after the
area; and then something that talked about the immediate vicinity of that
barge point, the sort of biogeographic region. That is a pretty low-key
project, yet the department had to phone the operators connected with
the barge points to see whether they would contribute to these signs.
I must say that it was a fairly small amount - I think it was $1,900 that
we were asked to contribute to it.
... I guess we felt that if the government, as a partner in the World
Heritage listing, cannot afford a basic sign at the entry point to the
island saying why it is a World Heritage area then they should not be
coming to the private sector for support. On a matter of principle, we
felt it should be something that is quite basic to the listing process
and the management of the island. [55]
6.48 DEH acknowledged that, in some cases on Fraser Island, sign design
is inappropriate for the environment and some signs are inaccurate and
unhelpful. However, the Great Sandy Region management plan indicates that
by or before 2010 Fraser Island will have a system of signs to provide
interpretation and direction to visitors. [56]
6.49 Another example of ineffective signage is at the Riversleigh Fossil
Mammal Site. To date the only display or information at the Riversleigh
world heritage property is a sign which was provided in 1988 by the Australian
Geographic Society. The sign provided useful information to D Site, which
is the most accessible fossil sites at Riversleigh. The sign has now faded
and is difficult to read. Apart from this sign, nothing has been done
to facilitate or effectively guide visitors to points of significance
at the site. [57]
6.50 The Committee found little evidence of general signage bearing the
world heritage emblem around some of the world heritage areas. Signage
with the world heritage emblem is an important means of drawing attention
to the fact that a property has world heritage status. Information about
a property's world heritage status should be complemented by the surrounding
text on the sign, which will lead to an understanding of world heritage.
Furthermore, the Committee considers that more should be done to give
a sense of continuity in a disjointed world heritage area such as the
CERRA property. The Committee recommends that:
(39) the Commonwealth Government urge managing agencies to:
a) provide signage with the world heritage emblem and explanatory
text at all major access points to world heritage properties; and
b) incorporate the world heritage emblem in all interpretive and
directional signs in world heritage areas.
Publications
6.51 The Commonwealth Government, through DEST, has prepared and disseminated
a wide range of material to promote Australia's world heritage properties,
its obligations under the Convention and the world heritage concept. The
material is disseminated to the general public, business and other institutions
and includes posters, information kits, a newsletter and a monitoring
report on the status of world heritage areas. [58]
Since DEST presented its submission to the inquiry, a new suite of public
information materials on world heritage was released. Two new publications
have come from the Department: one dealing with the process of world heritage
listing and what that means, and a second describing each of Australia's
world heritage properties.
6.52 The managing agencies of world heritage areas produce publications
about the values of their areas. For instance, Queensland's DEH produces
brochures and publications on Fraser Island's history, wildlife, forestry
and geography, and the GBRMPA has published an array of brochures and
publications about the reef and its world heritage status and values.
6.53 Non-government groups also publish material about world heritage.
The Australian Council of National Trusts have fulfilled a public educational
role with regard to world heritage by releasing information such as:
- publications which highlight the importance of world heritage;
- a package of information and brochures entitled the World Heritage
Information Kit;
- wall posters; and
- National Trust newsletters and magazines which covered world heritage
issues.
They have also sponsored or cooperated with publishers of books on world
heritage. [59]
6.54 The Committee found that publications issued by managing agencies
generally do include information about world heritage and the values of
an area. It is important, though, that publications are regularly updated
to reflect changes in world heritage values and the management of those
values.
Information centres
6.55 A key way employed by the Commonwealth Government to present world
heritage and educate the public is through funding the provision and improvement
of information or visitor centres. The Committee considers that information
centres should be located in or be associated with each world heritage
property. It notes, however, that in some cases the centres are widely
dispersed and reflect the status and management of the various parts of
world heritage areas before they were included in the World Heritage List.
Details of the visitor centres is included in Appendix
G.
6.56 The distributed nature and multiplicity of management responsibilities
for the CERRA world heritage area raise particular presentation problems.
The Committee considers, however, that the Murwillumbah Visitor Centre
is an example of a well situated information centre which caters to people
interested in visiting the northern New South Wales and Queensland CERRA
properties. The Centre is located on the Pacific Highway and has a visitation
rate of 100,000 people per annum. National Park staff indicated to the
Committee that about 70 percent of inquiries at the Centre are about world
heritage. The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism granted $270,000
in 1995 for the Centre's redevelopment as a world heritage rainforest
centre. The Centre could direct visitors to the full range of sites within
the world heritage property, which would be helpful in relieving congestion
in heavily visited areas of CERRA. One such area is the Lamington National
Park where a consultant has advised against building an information centre
within the park due to its potential to contribute further to congestion
problems. The Dorrigo Rainforest Centre is an example of a well positioned
information centre which caters to visitors to other CERRA properties
within the region, such as New England National Park.
6.57 An information centre is located at Mount Isa, which is about four
hours drive away from the Riversleigh Fossil Mammal Site. The Committee
considers that it is useful to have a large information centre at Mount
Isa to cater for most visitors along the highway. However, a smaller centre
or information signage should also be maintained at Riversleigh for the
visitors who venture to the site itself. Professor Archer, Head of the
Riversleigh Research Project, claimed that many visitors will want to
travel to the Riversleigh site:
... a conservative estimate is that 10,000 tourists in the high season
are going to be wanting to go through there to see Riversleigh. At the
moment, what they see in Riversleigh is zero. [60]
The Committee is concerned that there are at present no visitor facilities
at the Riversleigh site, other than a sign erected in 1988. The Committee
considers that it is important to have some staffing and educational material
on site. These facilities are important as they assist in protecting the
site and providing information to visitors.
6.58 The Committee considers that the location of an information centre
is important. The centre must be handy to the world heritage area, yet
not cause congestion problems in properties nor concentrate traffic so
as to exceed the area's carrying capacity. Many visitors use information
centres as a starting point to obtain information before venturing into
the world heritage area itself. If information centres are located on
the edge of or outside world heritage properties, displays, signs and
maps should educate visitors once they venture into the properties themselves.
An information centre outside the boundaries of a world heritage area
also assists management to control large numbers of visitors outside park
boundaries, thus helping to protect the values of the property.
6.59 It is the Committee's view that information at all world heritage
areas needs to be regularly monitored and up-dated to incorporate changes
to the features of, and knowledge about, the properties. The information
centre at Naracoorte Caves was one place that the Committee noticed as
needing updated displays. The interpretive material there, which included
information on fossils, timelines and cave geology, is 25 years old.
6.60 Information at Fraser Island also needed updating. Committee Members
visited Fraser Island in 1994 and were disappointed at the inadequate
interpretive facilities they saw. The information provided at Central
Station was out of date and needed upgrading. Mr Charters from Kingfisher
Bay Resort claimed that there had been no change since the Committee's
visit.
... no, there has not been any progress. As an example, Central Station
still has the old forestry department display, with its logos. In terms
of the forest industry display, which you would have thought would have
changed very quickly, there are still handpainted maps and things that
are very unprofessional. [61]
6.61 There is much that can be done. The Committee visited the Dorrigo
Rainforest Centre and was impressed with its interpretive exhibits and
well-structured tracks and boardwalks. World heritage was presented in
exhibits, and a film and publications included sections on world heritage.
The Committee considers that, ideally, all world heritage centres should
have such educational facilities, and for large properties these facilities
should be installed at each major entry point. The Committee recommends
that:
(40) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories ensure
that there is a significant visitor information centre in each world
heritage area and, in the larger areas, a centre at each major entry
point.
6.62 Visitor information facilities represent a considerable investment
of the limited resources available for the management of world heritage
areas, and it would not be feasible to establish new centres and rationalise
and redevelop all existing visitor centres and interpretation facilities
in Australia's world heritage areas in the near future. Nonetheless, the
Committee considers that the situation should be reviewed and recommends
that:
(41) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories initiate
a review of visitor centres and other major visitor education facilities
to determine priorities for funding further development and refurbishment.
Footnotes
[1] Trudie-Ann & Trevor C. Atherton, 'The
Power and the glory: national sovereignty and the World Heritage Convention',
The Australian Law Journal, vol 69, August 1995, p 646.
[2] Australian Conservation Foundation, submission
(number 35), attachment 1, p 2.
[3] UNESCO, Convention concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972, p 2.
[4] National Parks Association of New South
Wales, transcript, 1 November 1995, p 161.
[5] Tourism Council Australia, submission (number
73), pp 2-3.
[6] New South Wales Government, submission (number
66), p 7.
[7] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, transcript,
31 August 1995, p 112.
[8] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 327.
[9] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 97.
[10] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 79.
[11] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, submission (number 62), p 22.
[12] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission
(number 68), p 2.
[13] Australian National Parks and Wildlife
Service, Kakadu National Park Plan of Management, 1991, p 112.
[14] New South Wales Government, submission
(number 66), p 7.
[15] Professor Trevor Atherton, transcript,
15 November 1995, p 192.
[16] Australian Conservation Foundation, submission
(number 35), attachment 1, p 2.
[17] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission
(number 68), p 3.
[18] Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
submission (number 37), p 28.
[19] Mr David Haigh, submission (number 16),
p 3.
[20] Mr David Haigh, transcript, 15 November
1995, pp 227-8.
[21] Alliance for Sustainable Tourism, submission
(number 84), p 1.
[22] Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau,
submission (number 85), p 1.
[23] Australian Committee for IUCN, The
Richmond Communique: Principles and Guidelines for the Management of Australia's
World Heritage Areas, Richmond, NSW, 7-9 August 1995, p 8.
[24] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Strategic Plan, 1994,
p 23.
[25] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
transcript, 27 November 1995, pp 292-3.
[26] J F. Whitehouse, Managing Multiple
Use in the Coastal Zone: A Review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, 1993, p 123.
[27] National Trust of Australia, submission
(number 48), p 9; Mr McColl, submission (number 27), p 2; Tourism Council
Australia, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 304.
[28] National Farmers' Federation, transcript,
27 November 1995, p 314.
[29] Atherton & Atherton, p 648 (see footnote
1, Chapter 5).
[30] Mr Peter S. Valentine, submission (number
29) p 3.
[31] IUCN, submission (number 14), p 2.
[32] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Annual
Report 1994-95, p 29.
[33] H Hocking, World Heritage Significance
and Values: a Survey of the Knowledge of the Tasmanian Community,
Consultant's report to Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania, January 1994.
[34] P H C Lucas, T J Webb, P S Valentine &
H Marsh, The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area, Vol. 1, A Draft Report to the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, undated, p 62.
[35] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission
(number 68), p 3.
[36] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Draft
Wet Tropics Plan: Protection through Partnerships: Wet Tropics World Heritage
Area, Wet Tropics Management Authority, Cairns, October 1995, pp 96,
109.
[37] Thoorgine Educational & Cultural Centre
Aboriginal Corporation, transcript, 15 November 1995, p 217.
[38] Australian Committee for IUCN, The
Richmond Communique, p 8 (see footnote 23, Chapter 6).
[39] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Draft
Wet Tropics Plan, p 96 (see footnote 35, Chapter 6).
[40] Letter from the Wet Tropics Management
Authority dated 4 May 1995.
[41] Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
Annual Report 1994-95, p 22.
[42] Julian Barry, 'Enhancing protected area
management through indigenous involvement: the Uluru model', paper prepared
for the World Heritage Managers Conference, Ravenshoe, Queensland, April
1996, p 2.
[43] Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
Annual Report 1994-95, pp 19-20.
[44] Queensland Government, Great Sandy
Region Management Plan 1995-2010, 1994, p 142.
[45] House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, Working with the Environment:
Opportunities for Job Growth, November 1994, p 119.
[46] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, National
Ecotourism Strategy, 1994, p 49.
[47] Tourism Council Australia, transcript,
27 November 1995, p 305.
[48] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
Annual Report 1994-95, p 46.
[49] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Annual
Report 1994-95, p 16.
[50] Mr Ian Dutton, submission (number 1),
p 2.
[51] Evaluation Report: World Heritage Management
Arrangements, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories,
November 1995, p 12.
[52] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, February 1996,
paragraph 123.
[53] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines,
paragraph 127.
[54] New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
Service, transcript, 1 November 1995, p 143.
[55] Mr Tony Charters, transcript, 15 November
1995, p 207.
[56] Queensland Government, Great Sandy
Region Management Plan 1995-2010, 1994, p 143.
[57] Professor Mike Archer, submission (number
70), p 20.
[58] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, submission (number 62), p 19.
[59] National Trust of Australia (Victoria),
submission (number 48), pp 2-3.
[60] Professor Mike Archer, transcript, 1 November
1995, p 170.
[61] Mr Tony Charters, transcript, 15 November
1995, p 213.
|
