Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
possible, provisions are often watered down in the drafting process in order to
achieve a statement acceptable to the various state parties interested with the area
under discussion. Thus, these international instruments and programs of action
need “clearer definitions and targets and should be applied strictly goal-orientated”
(Plachter
2003
: 1) to become meaningful tools for effective implementation and
focused enforcement of international obligations at national level.
A second challenge lies in the necessity of adapting global recommendations
and international regulatory provisions in the area of nature conservation to a spe-
cific legal, social, economic and cultural context. After all, no state is exactly like
any other, and no two peoples are the same. As argued by Plachter (
2003
: 1), while
“there is indeed a broad spectrum of international conventions targeting cultural
heritage issues, [these international instruments are] often difficult to be understood
by the public and politicians”. This argument gains weight when considering the
unique context of the Pacific in which country-specific challenges in relation to
cultural heritage protection arise. Such challenges, as outlined above in the context
of the 2010-2015 Pacific World Heritage Action Plan, necessitate adaptation of
general provisions included in international agreements so as to become effective
and enforceable in Vanuatu's pluralist legal environment. It calls for in-depth explo-
ration and engagement with social and cultural norms and ongoing dialogue and
negotiation between conflicting perceptions. Since the legitimacy of international
principles at the local level depends on them being developed through a process of
equitable contestation ('good struggles'
8
), their adoption would need to be under-
taken iteratively.
The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
(UNESCO
2003
), not yet signed or ratified by Vanuatu, may serve as an example of
an international agreement for which adaptation in the Vanuatu context will be
required. In Article 15, for instance, the Convention requires States Parties “… to
ensure the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appro-
priate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve
them actively in its management”. Given the language diversity, the geographical
isolation of communities within Vanuatu, and various challenges previously outlined
in the context of the management of
one
,
largely defined
area such as the CRMD
site, the unaltered adoption of this provision into national legislation might turn
problematic. Such a provision must be adapted to the Vanuatu context to ensure that
stakeholders as well as enforcement agencies are aware of obligations and opportu-
nities created under the new legislation. Before adoption of a national legislation in
this area, Vanuatu must also ensure that mechanisms and institutional provisions are
in place to facilitate effective community participation in the management of intan-
gible cultural heritage. Moreover, such mechanisms would need to ensure that they
are legitimate in the eyes of
kastom
authorities and not seen as a threat to their
decision-making power. To this end, the focus on
process
versus
form
becomes criti-
cally important. Rather than trying to externally engineer greater “compatibility”
8
On this point see Adler et al. (
2009
).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search