““HERITAGE AT RISK: HERITAGE AT RISK: CULTURAL HERITAGE CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT IN THE

ANTARCTIC”ANTARCTIC”

Cultural Heritage….I

’m in heaven

Thesis

•The greatest threat to Antarctic heritage sites comes not from climate change but from the management regime of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCP), and in particular by

•The implementation of Annex III of the Madrid Protocol.

Background•The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have recognized the value of the Historic Resources of the Antarctic from the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) convened in Canberra in 1961, as evidenced by Recommendation I-IX on Historic Sites.

Warren review• 1989 P.J. Warren “A Proposal for the Designation and Protection of Antarctic Historic Resources submitted to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties” Master of Arts in Anthropology for the University of Washington, Seattle, U.S.A, included:

• a survey regarding the management of Historic Monuments, and site specific analysis of 53 designated Historic Monuments and 61 other sites identified from a review of Antarctic literature;

• Warren undertook to provide a theoretical and organizational basis for the treatment of cultural and historic sites, structures and objects in the Antarctic and to provide a guideline against which specific sites reports could be evaluated

Problems identified • a lack of designation criteria and systematic evaluation,

• a lack of scientific expertise, significantly a lack of involvement by professional archaeologists and conservators,

• an existing structure within the Antarctic Treaty System which served to limit the involvement of historic resource professionals,

• a lack of funding for research and conservation activity as regularly budgeted items, and

• Limited or no implementation of management recommendations,

Results of Warren’s Review:

• The Historic Monument concept has not been the result of research and analysis by cultural resource management specialists.

• However, there is a great interest in Antarctic Historic Resources and many countries possess museum collections representing their interests in the Antarctic

• But Historic Monuments are not an important element of national programs of Antarctic research and receive little funding from these organisations, and

• Historic Monuments have not been considered elements of the Antarctic environment for purposes of environmental impact analysis.

Warren’s Conclusion•“the designation of Historic

Monuments by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties under the Antarctic Treaty does not adequately protect the Historic Resources of the Antarctic”

Post-Warren

the Madrid Protocol (1991)

• The signatories to the Antarctic Treaty have particular responsibility under Annex V of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) to ensure that Historic Sites are not damaged, removed or destroyed.

• Article 8 and Annex 1 of the Protocol set out the requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA’s) and require that activities be planned and conducted so as to avoid degradation of areas of historic significance

Annex III or ‘the value of rubbish’

• Article 1 of the Annex specifies that past and present waste disposal sites shall be cleaned up by the generator of such wastes and the user of such sites,

• area of potential conflict over the recognition of archaeological deposit as cultural resource rather than rubbish,

• the provisions for waste management and removal are a potential threat to the conservation of archaeological deposits in-situ.

Annex III

ANNEX V (1991)

Site Management • established a new protected area system for Antarctica,

• with few exceptions, all protected areas would be subject to a management plan,

• historic values could now be given equal status to any other values,

• gave Treaty parties the capability to require permits for visits, particularly to vulnerable historic sites and monuments.

Problems with Annex V• does not impose an obligation to include listed

historic sites and monuments in the protected area categories,

• the definition of what constitutes ‘damage’ to an historic site was not addressed in the annex,

• While there is an obligation on parties to identify, within a systematic framework sites or monuments of recognised historic value and to include them in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA’s). This is a provision which no ATCP has yet completed. No time limit is set on this requirement, and there is little guidance given on what constitutes the framework.

• However, the 1995 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Resolution 8 and Resolution 5 (2001) did set out criteria for the identification of historic sites.

•

Post-Warren cont. • Resolution 8 (1995) Guidelines for proposing new historic sites & monuements – criteria for designation

• Resolution 4 (1996) – liaison between originating party and proposing party

• Resolution 4 (2001) – review of historic sites & monuments

• Resolution 5 (2001) - Guidelines for handling of pre-1958 historic remains.

Relic vs. Rubbish• IPHC “Heritage at Risk” reports to ICOMOS for 2001 & 2003,

• Working Group 1 Management of Historic Sites and Areas (BAS) sponsored group developing a management plan for Deception Island:

• The value of artefacts was discussed in their relation to the distinction between waste and garbage. The point was made that the value of waste lies in its record of many of the activities present at Whalers Bay. It was agreed that before artefacts are considered for clean up or removal, they should be inventoried and documented (including mapping) for their historical and cultural value.

Norwegian Guidelines 2001 ATCM Resolution 5 - Guidelines for handling

of pre-1958 historic remains. a precautionary approach to ensuring that the adequate assessment and conservation of cultural resources in Antarctica:

• grants all pre-1958 historic artefacts/sites automatic protection, prior to assessment;

• provides that historic artefacts/sites should be disturbed as little as possible until they have been properly recorded and evaluated; and

• stipulates that the guidelines pertain to historic artefacts/sites for which the existence or present location has not been established.

Wilkes Station case study

• The history of the Australian Government Antarctic Division’s (AGAD) management of Wilkes Station as a cultural heritage resource reflects the history of the engagement of the Antarctic Treaty System, and of the AGAD in particular, with the management of Antarctic heritage in general.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS• Heritage Amendments to EPBC Act (1999)requires that the AAD must make a written plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth and National Heritage values of all listed Commonwealth and National Heritage places it owns or controls;

an action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a Commonwealth heritage place, must be referred to the Minister for advice about taking the action.

DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS• DEH HERITAGE STRATEGY requires that management plans for existing listed Commonwealth Heritage places will be finalised within three years of the Heritage Strategy being completed (2009)

structured in accordance with the DEH guidelines Management Plans for Places on the Commonwealth Heritage List: A guide for Commonwealth agencies (October 2005)

A comprehensive assessment of all places owned or controlled by the AGAD against the Commonwealth Heritage criteria in order to identify Commonwealth Heritage values (December 2006)

Survey issues cont. • the extent to which archaeological survey and investigation has been integrated into the scientific research programmes of Party members;

• a comparison of funding sources available for cultural resource management in the Antarctic between the Treaty Parties;

• a fuller review of current policy in relation to cultural resource management of each of the Treaty Parties; and

• a fuller review of current practice and the response of Party members to the Norwegian guidelines from ATCM Resolution 5 - Guidelines for handling of pre-1958 historic remains.

Proposed site analysis• an assessment of plans of management for ASPAs and ASMAs, and Visitor Guidelines for areas which contain cultural heritage resources;

• Against criteria derived from: the DEH guidelines Management Plans for Places on the

Commonwealth Heritage List: A guide for Commonwealth agencies (October 2005)

Which are derived, in turn, from the Burra Charter

Other issues• The development of a strong environmental ethic and associated valuing of ‘wilderness’ over the last three or four decades, are important social values. These social values were influential in achieving the adoption of the 1991 Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty System (the Madrid Protocol) by the Antarctic Consultative Treaty Parties. Examination of influence on:– the practice of environmental impact assessment undertaken by ACTP’s in Antarctica, and

– the practice of protected area management.

Heritage Trusts

– Antarctic Heritage Trust

– UKAHT– Imaginative Future

– Virtual Reality

Huts For SaleSea ViewsLow Cost

In need of repairSuit well heeled reclusive DIY enthusiast!!

Charter content • This Polar Heritage Charter would addresses such issues as:

• the purpose of conservation,• conservation practice,• general principles of conservation method,

• general principles of conservation processes, and

• definitions

With thanks to:IASOS supervisor - Julia

JabourAAD supervisor – Tom MaggsResearch supervisor – Dr

Michael Pearson

QUESTIONS??