Heritage management processes are assessed by considering the governance systems in place that provide appropriate statutory responses, adaptive management practices based on effective monitoring systems, and adequate resources.
Processes
Heritage (2016)
Processes
Statutory responses
The overwhelming majority of heritage listing processes and impact assessments occur at the state or local level, often as a reactive response to threats. In many cases, the multilevel and cross-jurisdictional rules cause duplication and inconsistent (sometimes contradictory) outcomes. This is especially the case where political intervention overrides heritage controls and values-based heritage decision-making. Challenges arise from land zoning, building regulations and development standards that place major pressure on heritage places. Inappropriate zoning and regulations may lead to unrealistic expectations of development potential. Development standards can create a perception that every site should be developed to its maximum potential, irrespective of the effect on heritage items on the site or nearby. Local regulations and guidelines can be extremely influential in this regard, because they represent the interface between the place, its owners or developers, and the authorities. These regulations and guidelines need to align with heritage values.
Environmental rating tools
Pressure on some historic buildings arises from growing interest in sustainability and the sustainable building agenda. Balancing heritage conservation and sustainable development can be challenging, particularly in commercial contexts. Embodied energy (i.e. the energy used to produce the building, including all materials) is an emerging issue. CSIRO has determined that the energy embodied in existing buildings in Australia is equivalent to 10 years of the total energy consumption of the entire nation (CSIRO 2008). However, sustainability legislation typically measures only the operational efficiencies of buildings, with the aim of saving water, minimising waste, and achieving immediate greenhouse gas savings by increasing efficiencies in heating, cooling and ventilation. Rating tools generally do not provide any recognition of the sustainability benefits of conserving existing buildings, and do not acknowledge the embodied energy inherent in these structures. They also do not consider the contribution that the inherent quality of materials makes to the lifecycle of a structure.
The implication of the current approach is that, rather than being conserved and refurbished, historic buildings will be demolished because they do not meet the contemporary green standards sought by industry and consumers. This risk will continue while rating categories do not award points for heritage and do not adequately recognise the value in retaining existing building fabric, in preference to incorporating renewable or recycled materials. However, appropriate approaches to assessing existing structures are being considered by a number of agencies, including, for example, the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA 2015).
The requirement for commercial building disclosure ensures that the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) for energy is available for large commercial buildings (soon to be extended to residential buildings). Because NABERS only rates energy efficiency, there is the potential for heritage buildings to become even less desirable to owners and tenants who seek higher energy ratings.
Sustainability objectives may also promote inappropriate changes that have adverse effects on individual heritage places. For example, using recycled, rather than traditional, materials may not provide an appropriate physical conservation outcome, and prioritising native vegetation over exotic species can cause adverse outcomes for significant cultural plantings and gardens. There are currently only very limited opportunities for incorporating cultural heritage values within assessed sustainable practice, with rare examples of successful practice (see Box HER38).
Box HER38 Sustainable innovative urban design and Aboriginal heritage, East Leppington
Sydney’s recent greenfield land releases have seen former agricultural land released for housing development. The innovative approach taken for the East Leppington precinct (also known as Willowdale) involved Aboriginal cultural heritage management undertaken in line with the New South Wales Government policy, the Burra Charter’s key principles (Australia ICOMOS 2013), and Green Star rating systems associated with culture, heritage and identity (Owen 2015a).
The process of cultural assessment and management was proactive and engaged the local Aboriginal community in the decision-making process (GML Heritage 2012). Archaeological research and test excavation were combined with stakeholder consultation to identify social and intangible values connected with the local and regional Aboriginal cultural landscape (Owen 2015b). The resulting mapping of cultural values identified a cultural landscape, with specific places, walking routes, view corridors and other aspects of high cultural value that may not otherwise have been afforded statutory protection or considered during the planning process.
The resulting urban design included key Aboriginal heritage values associated with specific landforms, such as:
- a lookout knoll, conserving intangible values and expansive view corridors to the Blue Mountains
- important archaeological sites, through the movement of urban infrastructure and riparian corridors
- an Aboriginal conservation area, which had been the focus for local conservation efforts in the late 20th century.
The process and outcomes showcase proactive cultural heritage conservation at a landscape scale, responding to emerging innovation challenges and concepts that address matters such as culture, heritage, identity and reconciliation as part of the sustainability agenda and evaluation system.
Source: Dr Tim Owen, GML Heritage Pty Ltd, in association with Stockland
Aboriginal representatives and officers from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage inspect the archaeological excavation of Aboriginal cultural heritage features at East Leppington, New South Wales
Adaptive management
Adaptive management is an important technique for effective heritage conservation. Developed for natural areas, adaptive management can be applied to both natural and cultural heritage places. It involves a continuous cycle of improvement based on setting goals and priorities, developing strategies, taking action and measuring results, and then feeding the results of monitoring back into new goals, priorities, strategies and actions.
Management systems in many national parks identify conservation needs and have well-informed decisions about management goals, resource allocation and impact assessment. However, formal monitoring and evaluation occurs in few jurisdictions. Australia provides periodic reporting to UNESCO on its World Heritage properties, and New South Wales and Victoria prepare reports on the state of their parks. The development-driven effects on off-park natural heritage places are addressed through the development-consent process. There are few proactive and comprehensive conservation management programs outside the national parks estate.
Indigenous heritage places within reserved lands usually have management systems that identify conservation needs, and involve traditional owners in decisions about impact assessment and resource allocation. However, outside the reserved lands system, Indigenous heritage decisions are typically reactive and not always well informed, particularly development-driven impact assessment, which may occur without knowledge of the total resource. There is little formal monitoring and evaluation or adaptive management of Indigenous heritage.
Management systems at all levels of government generally facilitate well-informed decisions about resource allocation and impact assessment for historic heritage. There are some excellent examples of innovative, values-based decisions leading to good outcomes (see Boxes HER38 and HER39). However, formal monitoring and evaluation rarely occurs. Management systems for listed historic places in public ownership identify conservation needs and generally adopt the methodology advocated by the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013). For privately owned listed historic places, the systems for impact assessment and resource allocation vary greatly across jurisdictions, owners and site types.
The Burra Charter was revised in 2013, and Australia ICOMOS is developing a series of practice notes to supplement and provide more specific guidance on its application. These notes cover a wide variety of topics, including assessment of cultural significance, policy development, ethics, archaeology, Indigenous cultural heritage management, interpretation and new works (Australia ICOMOS 2016a).
Box HER39 Promoting ecological connectivity in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area through collaboration, solutions-based research and statutory processes
Under the Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, ‘to be deemed of outstanding universal value, a property must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding’ (UNESCO WHC 2013).
The 2 key statutory instruments that the Wet Tropics Management Authority uses to protect and manage the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area are the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993 and the Wet Tropics Management Plan 1998. The plan regulates activities inside the area that have the potential to affect its integrity, and comprises:
- a zoning scheme
- a permit system
- principles and guidelines against which a permit application must be assessed and decided.
The principles and guidelines recognise that the most important consideration in deciding an application is the likely impact of the proposed activity on the integrity of the area. The authority must decide an application in a way that minimises the likely impact of the proposed activity on the outstanding universal value of the area.
One of the main ongoing impacts on the integrity of the area is ecological fragmentation arising from linear infrastructure corridors, such as roads (1200 kilometres) and electricity transmission lines (160 kilometres). Research has shown that these infrastructure corridors can severely impede or even prevent wildlife crossings. In recent years, the authority has collaborated with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, and researchers from James Cook University to design and install wildlife overpasses and underpasses at key locations along roads to promote wildlife movement. The authority uses the findings from this collaboration and encourages the installation of wildlife ‘bridges’ to promote connectivity when assessing permit applications and setting permit conditions for maintenance or upgrade of infrastructure corridors.
These successful collaborative efforts of a management agency, government department and university exemplify how the statutory planning process for heritage places can combine with applied research to deliver practical and effective conservation outcomes.
Source: Max Chappell, Manager Planning and Conservation, Wet Tropics Management Authority
A purpose-built wildlife underpass with ecological furniture at East Evelyn Road, Millaa Millaa, helps to connect 2 sections of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. The banks of the road have been planted with native seedlings to enhance connectivity with the native forest either side of the road
Education
An important, but sometimes neglected, aspect of heritage conservation is the obligation to transmit or convey the attributes and values of heritage places to the general community. At the site-specific level, this may be achieved through interpretation initiatives and events. More broadly, it is also important that heritage is included within education curriculums and programs (see Box HER40). The inclusion of themes and content related to natural and cultural heritage within the Australian curriculum, across both individual subject areas (such as geography and history) and more generally, makes an important contribution to this process. Related programs and initiatives, which are linked to the curriculum, include education kits or school programs that allow students to connect with heritage places and support the desired learning outcomes.
Box HER40 National Trust of Australia—national education programs
Education and interpretation of our nation’s rich heritage are essential elements of conservation. One of the roles for the National Trust of Australia is to provide leadership in community recognition of the importance of Australia’s heritage (natural, Indigenous and historic) at all levels and across all age ranges.
Through the National Trusts Partnership Program during the past 5 years, the National Trust in Australia has developed, resourced and implemented education programs that are delivered at National Trust places, schools and other Australian heritage places or at significant events. With the generic theme of ‘valuing heritage’, educational school programs have been implemented in the Australian curriculum, initially through history (now humanities and social sciences) and other cross-curriculum learning areas. These programs reinforce the recognition of natural, Indigenous and historic values as core elements of our heritage.
There are currently more than 40 primary heritage education programs, 10 secondary programs and 30 public programs coordinated by the National Trust in Western Australia. The National Trust of Australia has also expanded education programs to include online interactive programs for all age ranges, including seniors. In 2015, there were more than 70,000 participants in National Trust of Australia education programs.
Through school, public and online education programs, the National Trust of Australia hopes to inspire the next generation to continue to recognise the value, significance, richness and diversity of Australia’s heritage.
Source: Enzo Sirna, AM, Deputy Chief Executive, National Trust of Australia (WA)
Students in colonial costume visiting Peninsula Farm, one of the earliest farms in the Swan River Colony, and the centre for a popular Year 5 program
Mackay R (2016). Heritage: Processes. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/heritage/topic/2016/processes, DOI 10.4226/94/58b658bbe13a0
Professor Richard Mackay AM
