Solving landscape-related conflicts through transnational learning? The case of transboundary Nordic World Heritage sites

‘Silencing’ the border as a strategy to conceal the ‘other’ side: the case of the Curonian Spit

“…International cross-border cooperation in the area exists between institutions on several scales, such as between Neringa Municipality (Lithuania) and the Zelenogradsk District (Kaliningrad), or between non-governmental organizations. 46 Svels and Sande 47 recommend that transnational learning about the management of World Heritage sites must be organically implemented on several levels. However, local cooperation is hindered by state decisions, such as the border regime, visa regulations and customs restrictions.…”

Indigenous governance of cultural heritage: searching for alternatives to co-management

“…(Sweden was an early, and committed, adopter of the 'Yellowstone model,' or 'fortress' conservation.) The application was rejected, though, based on a lack of 'outstanding universal value' under this designation (Svels and Sande 2016;Ween 2012). The Sámi Parliament in Sweden and local Sámi reindeer herding districts got involved in drafting a new application based on both natural and cultural criteria, seeing the establishment of a formally designated site as, at least potentially, a key step toward self-governance (Green and Turtinen 2014).…”

“…In 1993 Sweden 'delegated' conservation of Sámi culture to the Sámi Parliament, while the conservation of nature (along with resource development in protected areas) has remained the sole jurisdiction of the Swedish Ministry of the Environment. Moreover, this bifurcation operates against the backdrop of state non-recognition of any Sámi right to land (Svels and Sande 2016;Reimerson 2016;Sande 2015). Thus, Sámi heritage is rendered if not purely immaterial, certainly non-territorial.…”

“…Certainly, many Sámi in Norway think so: they have, for years, resisted the extension of Laponia into their territory, despite the fact such a transnationalization of the World Heritage Site would, to some extent, erase one of the borders that arbitrarily divides Sápmi. They fear that a Norwegian World Heritage Site would actually diminish the rights they currently exercise under Norway's ratification of the International Labour Organization's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO 169) (Svels and Sande 2016). Anders Urheim, a local Sámi leader at the proposed site, described the shield World Heritage status affords as far from additive; rather, in his words, it amounts to being 'protected to death' (cited in Ween 2012, 262).…”

Cultural Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific: Re-focusing UNESCO Designation on Community Participation

“…The selection and designation of World Heritage Sites has also come to represent ideals of global cooperation, introducing new governance mechanisms between international institutions and between states, as well as establishing new ideals about what type of sites should be protected and promoted (Meskell, 2018). Numerous approaches to researching World Heritage Sites have also emerged, ranging from research on international regimes (Schmitt, 2009;Zacharias, 2010), the politics of inscription (Di Giovine, 2008;Bertacchini and Saccone, 2012;Wardana, 2019), ways of defining heritage (Taylor, 2012), planning and management challenges (Hall and McArthur, 1997;Landorf, 2009), conflict and trans-boundary issues (Albrecht, 2010;Young and Goldman, 2015;Svels and Sande, 2016), tourism (both normative, e.g. Wager, 1995; and critical tourism studies, e.g.…”