Whilst trying to categorise the T List sites there seemed to me to be rather a lot of Mixed sites aiming to claim Cultural Landscape (CL) status as well. My impression has always been that it has proven difficult to persuade IUCN to accept a site which has been significantly enough altered by the "hand of man" to justify being a "CL" yet maintains enough "Natural" value (other than sites which are culturally only "associative"). Indeed we have a "Connection" titled "Cultural sites rejected for Natural criteria
" with 19 sites where the State Party's nomination for mixed criteria was rejected because the "Natural" aspect didn't satisfy IUCN.
So how many have succeeded in gaining the duel Natural/CL inscription? A UNESCO search on CL identifies 10 which are mixed sites β as follows (I have taken the "type" of CL from this Web site β UNESCO does NOT officially "type" CLs)
Uluru β Assoc/Eroded
Paraty β Contin/Forest
Pimachiowin β Contin/Forest
Ennedi β Contin/Desert
Pyr Mt Perdu (Fr) β Contin/Mountain
Lope β Relict/Flora/Fauna
Pyr Mt Perdu (Sp) β Contin/Mountain
St Kilda β Relict/Insular
Papahanau β Assoc/Marine & Coast
Trang An β Contin/Karst
So 6 Continuous, 2 Associative and 2 Relict β all with enough "Natural" value for IUCN to accept them!! As mentioned above, one might have expected a higher percentage of "Associative" (which implies "nature" with few structures) but all seem to be "reasonable" in terms of being primarily "Natural" sites with a relatively small human impact. Perhaps Paraty/Isla Grande is the most surprising as it contains a significant built element in the form of the town. However this is limited to 2 concentrated adjacent sites adding up to a mere 59ha out of 173k ha βwhilst the forest area is completely separated from these and is pristine condition with only minor indigenous habitation. I guess IUCN didn't feel the need to worry if ICOMOS thought that justified a CL for Cultural reasons! .
Having just gone through many of the T List sites slated for both "mixed" and "CL" my impression is that many of them are "the wrong way round" with the Cultural element constituting the major justification with a "nice" bit of scenery or nature which the State Party hopes will justify a Natural criterion as well!! Looking through the 19 "failed" mixed/CL nominations one certainly gets the impression either that the Cultural aspect is dominant or that the natural element isn't that "special". So, I fear that a lot of the T List mixed CL/Natural suggestions won't survive the nomination process!
2 arising points
a. "Mixed CL" could justify its own Connection as the converse of the one already identified for those failing to gain such inscription? It seems a significant and rare enough "state" to justify being highlighted?
b. There are some inconsistencies in our (and UNESCO's!!) "count" of CLs. See below
a. The UNESCO advanced search identifies 119 CLs.
b. We don't have a "Connection" for CLs in total but do Categorise them separately by type of CL. These 4 CL Categories total 123 - Associative 32, Clearly defined 15, Continuing 48, Relict 28. For some reason there are only 27 WHS in the Relict list despite the total shown.
c. UNESCO lists 6 WHS which we do not - Colonies of Benevolence, Rosa Montana, Braga, Burle Marx, Piedmont and Dutch Water Lines. I have checked these and all except Dutch Water lines are correct and we should Categorise them as such. I cannot discover why UNESCO has typed the "Dutch Water Lines" as a CL. Nothing in the description or nomination papers justifies it. But there is no doubt that it has been assigned to the CL "Activity" on the UNESCO Web site! I guess that we shouldn't "follow".
d. We have 4 sites categorised as CLs which UNESCO does not β KromerΓz, Grand PrΓ©,
Kladruby nad Labem and Hedeby & Danevirke. The UNESCO documentation indicates that the first 3 were described and evaluated as CLs with no indication that they were not also inscribed as such (Indeed the offical decision for the 2nd states that it is a CL. But such statements are not consistently made for all CLs). Hedeby WAS nominated as a CL, However its evaluation states "ICOMOS considers that Hedeby & Danevirke is not a CL". As such we should remove our CL categorisation of it β we already "double" categorise it as Arch site Viking. Regarding the other 3 β we shouldn't replicate UNESCO's errors by removing them from our list - but could have a "Connection" such as "inscribed as CL but not identified as such by UNESCO"?
e. Leaving the above inconsistencies aside, the difference between our figure and that of UNESCO is also created by the fact that we have categorised some CLs as being of more than 1 type of CL. These are Kuk (Contin & Relict), Nord Pas (Contin & Assoc) , Suleyman Too (Relict & Assoc), Persian Garden (Assoc & Clearly Def) , Thingvellir (Assoc & Relict) and Grand Pre (Contin & Assoc). Unfortunately the Evaluation and inscription process doesn't consistently "type" CLs to act as a guide for us β I suppose there is no reason why a WHS couldn't be a bit of 2 or more CLs but it seems a bit excessive especially as many sites also have a "normal" categorization as well. Views??