Scoping Study for a Pacific Heritage Hub

Transcription

1 Scoping Study for a Pacific Heritage Hub Prepared for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Office for the Pacific States in support of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific August 2011 TierraMar Consulting Pty Ltd PO Box 1260 Sutherland, NSW 1499 AUSTRALIA P: F: E: info@tierramar.com.au ABN:

2 Disclaimer This report has been commissioned by UNESCO Office for the Pacific States in support of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific. It is solely for the use of UNESCO. TierraMar Consulting Pty Ltd does not accept any responsibility to any other party to whom this report may be shown or into whose hands it may come. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report, and, to the extent permitted by law, TierraMar Consulting Pty Ltd, its members, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. The information provided in this report is based on the best information and documentation available at the time of preparation. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of UNESCO. Acknowledgments The combined TierraMar Consulting and Collabforge scoping study team wishes to acknowledge with deep gratitude the support and encouragement received from the many people who have openly shared their knowledge, experience, insights and suggestions during the consultation phase of the study. Their candour has greatly assisted the study team s understanding of the World Heritage Convention and its role the protection of heritage in the Pacific region. Many of these people have been at the forefront of the efforts to implement the Convention over the past decade and their dedication and commitment has been and remains critical, to the achievement of successful heritage protection in the region. The team would also like to acknowledge the support received from the staff of the UNESCO Pacific regional office in Apia and from the staff of both TierraMar Consulting and Collabforge who have provided essential support services. Contributors Many people have given their valuable time and shared their extensive experience in both natural and cultural heritage management in the Pacific with the consultant study team. Without their valuable assistance our task to date would have been much more difficult and their contributions are very much appreciated. Their willingness to contribute is a testament to their commitment and support for the ideal of heritage protection the region. A full list of contributors is to be found in Appendix 1. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 2

3 List of acronyms AusAID CI DOC GBRMPA ICCROM Australia ICOMOS ICOMOS Australian Government Aid Program Conservation International New Zealand Department of Conservation Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property Australia National Committee of ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites ICOMOS New Zealand ICOMOS New Zealand/Te Mana O Nga Pouwhenua O Te Ao ICOMOS Pasifika International Committee for the Pacific Islands (of ICOMOS) IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LMMA Locally Managed Marine Areas Network MIC Micronesia Conservation Trust NZAID New Zealand Government Aid Program PAC Pacific Arts Council PACN Pacific Arts Councils Network PHN Pacific Heritage Network PIMA Pacific Islands Museum Association SEWPAC Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme TNC The Nature Conservancy UNESCO United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organisation UPNG University of Papua New Guinea USP University of the South Pacific WWF World Wide Fund for Nature TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 3

4 Contents 1 Executive summary 5 2 Introduction Background - World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Study scope and methodology 9 3 Issues and evaluation of Pacific Heritage Hub components Networking and knowledge management Capacity for Pacific World Heritage management Partnerships and Sustainable Funding 16 4 Scope and scale of the Pacific Heritage Hub Strategic objectives of the Pacific Heritage Hub Key outcomes sought by the Pacific Heritage Hub to deliver against strategic objectives Approaches to achieving outcomes Target audience and scope Conceptual plan of Pacific Heritage Hub and supporting resources Pacific Heritage Hub location, hosting and management Pacific Heritage Hub location and hosting PHH Management Committee Management - Staffing Budget and funding Indicative Pacific Heritage Hub establishment (Year 1) and Year 2 core operating budgets Potential PHH funding sources (see Section 3.3) 28 5 The Internet and the Pacific: opportunities and considerations The web today: Social Media and Web Developing effective online tools = Growing effective online communities Recommended approach for establishing an online component of the PHH to engage the Pacific heritage community 33 6 A proposal for the Pacific Heritage Hub interactive component 36 7 Governance considerations PHH Management Committee 37 Appendix 1 Individuals and organisations consulted 38 Appendix 2 The World Heritage properties of Pacific Island States Parties, Territories and Non Pacific Island Parties 41 Appendix 3 Proposal for a Pacific Heritage Collaborative Knowledge Network 42 Appendix 4 Indicative PHH core operating budgets 47 Appendix 5: Proposed terms of reference for Pacific Heritage Hub management positions* 48 TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 4

5 1 Executive summary This report presents the outcome of the first stage of establishing a Pacific Heritage Hub (PHH) a Scoping Study with findings for consideration by the Pacific regional World Heritage Convention stakeholders and their international supporters. It reflects the views, suggestions and importantly, the experience of many of the cultural and heritage management practitioners who have led the World Heritage movement in the region over the past decade. These were obtained through a number of teleconferences and from the participation and subsequent contributions of a World Heritage experts and heritage management professionals who attended an interim planning meeting in Suva, Fiji in April The report discusses issues which affect the implementation of the Convention across the Pacific region, focussing on the 3 key functional areas to be addressed by the Hub as it works to provide support to Pacific Island Countries and territories in developing their capacity in heritage management: networking and knowledge management; capacity building and partnership; and sustainable funding. It identifies and evaluates the existing organisations and resources which could potentially assist the PHH to achieve its aims and evaluates their particular strengths and resource gaps. The potential scope, scale of the Hub is addressed and a set of strategic objectives and desired outcomes identified for further consideration by regional heritage management stakeholders. These and the identification of a number of approaches that could be adopted to support the PHH functions provide the basis for the conceptual design of the Hub illustrated in Section 4. To give substance to the design, and to advance the process of establishing the Hub, the issue of its location and options for a hosting organisation have been evaluated and a recommendation to accept the offer of the University of the South Pacific to undertake this role is made. Recommendations for three initial staff for the PHH are made together with terms of reference and recommended conditions of employment. Indicative PHH first year establishment and 2nd year core operating budgets are offered for consideration and possible funding sources for both the core operating costs and programme funding are identified and evaluated. Considerations to be taken into account when deciding on an appropriate governance mechanism are provided and key functions for a governance body are recommended to help guide decision making. The power of the Internet and a tool to support the work of the PHH is discussed showing the immense opportunities this offers the Pacific to overcome the problems of communication and distance which have traditionally hindered business in the region. The consultant study team believes new web based technology (Web 2.0) offers real potential to both overcome these problems but more importantly, to build interactive web based heritage management communities and networks. The need to do this in a strategically planned manner with a clear design and commitment of human and financial resources is emphasised and the report provides guidance on how the PHH and its managers should undertake this process. The consultation study team trusts that the findings of the scoping study, the conceptual design of the PHH and the recommendations on hosting, location and management will provide a sound framework for a decision by States Parties and stakeholders in Pacific heritage management to proceed with the establishment the PHH. In doing so the region will acquire a much needed facility through which to champion the cause of cultural and heritage protection and management for present and future generations of Pacific islanders. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 5

6 2 Introduction At the World Heritage Convention regional planning meetings held in Cairns, Australia (2008) and Maupiti, French Polynesia (2009), delegates from almost all the 12 Pacific States parties and other stakeholder organisations developed the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan ( ) to guide the work of the States Parties and partners in implementing the Convention over the ensuing five years. This strongly Pacific orientated plan drew its inspiration from the Pacific Appeal of 2007 (to the World Heritage Committee) and expressed the shared vision that we share the dream that our Pacific Islands heritage is protected and enriched for future generations. It sets ambitious goals and objectives and aims to accelerate the establishment of World Heritage properties in the Pacific Islands region and lay the foundation for their sustainability by strengthening regional heritage management capacity and developing sustainable funding. The need to find innovative ways to support the implementation of the Action Plan and help overcome the capacity and resource issues facing the region suggested the interactive power of the Internet needed to be effectively harnessed to facilitate this work. The concept of a web based interactive facility which would support an online heritage management community together with networking, knowledge management, capacity building, partnerships development and sustainable financing led to the idea of a Pacific Heritage Hub (PHH). The PHH would also help provide capacity to serve the major Action Plan work of assisting communities to develop and implement environmentally sustainable economic growth through heritage-related enterprises. This draft report presents the outcome of the first stage of establishing the PHH a Scoping Study with findings for consideration by the Pacific regional World Heritage stakeholders and their international supporters. It reflects the views, suggestions and importantly, the experience of many of the cultural and heritage management practitioners who have led the World Heritage movement in the region over the past decade. The report comments on the issues which affect the implementation of the Convention across the Pacific region, identifies the strengths of the World Heritage community and supporting regional and international organisations and identifies key resource gaps. A design process and structure for the PHH is proposed and was offered for consideration and discussion at a workshop of stakeholders convened in Suva, Fiji April The proposal is founded upon the hosting of regional coordination resources for World Heritage and an interactive web-based facility to support the PHH through the creation of an online community of people and organisations engaged and committed to supporting World Heritage activities in the region. Although described as initially having World Heritage Convention scope and focus, the proposed PHH is designed to rapidly evolve into an organisation which encourages and supports the development of the region s heritage management community, embracing the protection of the all aspects of Pacific heritage. 2.1 Background - World Heritage Convention in the Pacific The World Heritage Convention (the Convention) and the global, regional and national pride and prestige associated with listing of Pacific properties on the World Heritage List is recognised as being of great value to the region and to the States Parties who have committed to supporting it in the Pacific. Since 1990 when Fiji became the first Pacific Island nation to ratify the Convention, a further 11 countries have acceded, accepted or ratified the convention. However, during the intervening 20 years since Fiji s ratification only two natural heritage properties and three cultural heritage properties have been inscribed to the World Heritage list by these States. Even with the additional five TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 6

7 properties in Pacific territories of non Pacific States Parties, the vast size, ecosystem and species diversity and rich cultural heritage of this unique region remains perhaps the most under-represented on the World Heritage list (See Appendix 2). There are many reasons for this under-representation of the vast Pacific region that covers a third of the earth s surface and contains unique island land and seascapes and great natural and cultural diversity. Amongst them is the institutional, capacity and funding issues which the region has struggled to overcome in the years since the first States Parties joined the Convention. The World Heritage Convention calls on all its States Parties to recognise that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred belongs primarily to the State. It calls upon each State Party to do all it can to achieve these ends to the utmost of its own national resources and where possible, by bringing international resources to bear (Article 4). In further recognition of the national responsibility for the protection of a natural and cultural heritage, Article 5 of the Convention also calls on all States Parties: 1. To adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes; 2. To set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions; 3. To develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage; 4. To take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage; and 5. To foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage and to encourage scientific research in this field. Clearly the Convention recognises that the protection of natural and cultural heritage at the national level is fundamental to the identification and protection of those few key sites which are deemed to be of Outstanding Universal Value and suitable for inclusion on a States Parties Tentative List and eventually inscription as a property on the World Heritage List. This focus on the need for and support of, effective heritage protection at the national level strongly suggests the PHH should also be focussed on supporting and enhancing the spectrum of personnel, resources and professional capability needed to achieve this goal. Institutionally, some of the implementation processes associated with the Convention are widely acknowledged as being difficult to navigate. This is compounded by the strict adherence to criteria and standards of implementation and the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the Pacific region is not accorded the priority or support it needs from the Secretariat, due perhaps to the small number of inscribed properties and the lack of influence in the UNESCO World Heritage system. However, it is also fair to say that some of the States Parties in the region have not been proactive in taking TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 7

8 advantage of the services and benefits which are available under the Convention and from the World Heritage Centre and its partners. Further focus of the Convention on defining properties as being of Outstanding Universal Value for either natural or cultural values also tends to mask recognition of the special character of the Pacific and its heritage. In particular, it works against the melding of these twin streams of heritage and the recognition of Pacific heritage as a holistic concept in which these elements are interdependent. However, emerging recognition of the appropriateness of the mixed World Heritage site designation as a means of overcoming this dilemma is a positive development for the Pacific, as was the introduction of the cultural landscape designation in With this background in mind, and following two rather inconclusive meetings to address the implications of the World Heritage Convention Global Strategy for the Pacific held during the 1990 s, efforts to redress the situation began in earnest in 2003 with the development of the first World Heritage program plan for the Pacific. The World Heritage Committee approved Pacific 2009, in the same year. In 2004 at a regional workshop attended by representatives of Pacific Island countries and interested institutions held at Whakapapa, Tongariro National Park, New Zealand an Action Plan to implement Pacific 2009 was developed. The regional meeting in Tongariro marked the beginning of a more structured and regionally planned approach to the implementation of the Convention in the Pacific. It brought together a cadre of people who were by profession, role in government, or personal interest committed to the protection of the region s natural and cultural heritage. Today, nearly 10 years and several regional meetings later, many of these same people are still carrying the torch for these ideals and are still providing the leadership and guidance needed to bring through the next cadre of heritage stewards and managers. At the Regional Meetings held in Cairns Australia (2008) and Maupiti, French Polynesia (2009), delegates from almost all the 12 Pacific States Parties and other stakeholder organisations developed the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan ( ) (the Plan). This strongly Pacific orientated plan drew its inspiration from the Pacific Appeal of 2007 (to the World Heritage Committee), which was developed at the Pacific Island World Heritage Workshop of 2007 held at Tongariro National Park, New Zealand. The Pacific Appeal and Action Plan express the shared vision that we share the dream that our Pacific Islands heritage is protected and enriched for future generations. The Plan also built on sentiments expressed in the Pacific Appeal and identified the belief that the people of the Pacific Islands offer a unique contribution to the World Heritage community through the enormous wealth of cultural diversity, as well as the island and marine biodiversity of our region, much of which is endemic and covers one third of the earth s surface. Perhaps most importantly, the Plan states clearly the importance and holistic nature of heritage in the Pacific and its fundamental role in the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of Pacific people. The creation of these plans also raised fundamental questions concerning their implementation in the region. These revolved around the region s capacity to engage effectively in World Heritage Convention processes, especially nominations and effective site management, reporting to the standards necessary to meet World Heritage criteria, the provision of information resources, and importantly, the need to secure and effectively disperse funding in support of these activities. 1 See Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific ICOMOS Thematic Study by Anita Smith and Kevin Jones for further discussion of this issue. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 8

9 Discussion and debate by participants at both meetings on ways to resolve these issues and support the implementation of the Plan led to the conclusion that a mechanism to enhance and strengthen communication, coordination and the sharing of resources and knowledge among the regional World Heritage community, its international partners and supporting institutions would be needed. The opportunity such a mechanism offered to build capacity across all facets of heritage management and strengthen the acquisition and effective dispersal of funds was recognised. The need to utilise the interactive power of the Internet as a tool to effectively facilitate this work was also embraced and the concept of a Pacific Heritage Hub (PHH) was born. This report presents the outcome of the first stage of establishing the PHH a Scoping Study and recommendations for consideration by the Pacific regional World Heritage Convention stakeholders and their international supporters. 2.2 Study scope and methodology The core task of the consultants was to prepare a scoping study of the Pacific Heritage Hub, a webbased interactive facility with the aims of providing support to Pacific Island countries and territories in developing their capacity in heritage management, sharing knowledge and information and building partnerships and sustainable funding for Pacific heritage. A goal of the PHH will be fostering supportive relationships and partnership between heritage management practitioners, and World Heritage property managers in the region, international organisations such as UNESCO, IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM and regional organisations such as SPC, SPREP, USP, Australia ICOMOS, ICOMOS Pasifika, IUCN Oceania, PIMA and the Pacific Arts Council. The study identifies and evaluates existing organisations and resources which could meet the needs of the three key main components of the PHH: knowledge management and networking; capacity building; and partnerships and sustainable funding. It seeks to identify the particular strengths of partners and the key gaps in resources. It also aims to consider the scale and scope of the PHH to develop a coordinated and decentralised framework to facilitate access to, and utilisation of resources and recommend options for governance and administration, together with indicative costs. The scoping study is being undertaken in three phases: 1. Preparation of draft Initial Findings (31 March 2011); 2. Participatory Review Workshop (27-28 April 2011); and 3. Report Finalisation and Submission (30 June 2011). The preparation of the initial draft has relied on telephone consultations with representatives of key supporting organisations and individuals who have been active in facets of heritage management and World Heritage Convention activities in the region over the past decade (see Appendix 1 for a list of those interviewed). These interviews were conducted in March 2011 and have been instrumental in helping the consultant study team formulate its initial PHH options and recommendations. The consultations have been supplemented by online research and analysis. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 9

10 This final version of the report has been strongly influenced by the views expressed by the participants in the Participatory Experts Review Workshop which was held in Suva, Fiji, April The participants reviewed all sections of the draft report and raised substantive issues for further consideration and incorporation in the report. Foremost amongst these was the role of the web based component in the work of the PHH and the need to ensure the Hub works to balance support for cultural heritage management, as well as natural heritage and the need to clearly define its audience and operational focus. Several participants subsequently provided detailed comments and suggested revisions to the authors which have been incorporated in this final report. 2 Report on the Planning Meeting on a Pacific Heritage Hub (PHH) held at the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) regional office, Suva, Fiji April, UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, Apia, Samoa. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 10

11 3 Issues and evaluation of Pacific Heritage Hub components Over the course of the consultation process the study team has gathered a substantial amount of information on the perceived strengths and shortcomings of the World Heritage Convention in the region. This is further supplemented by information on the roles and strengths of the range of organisations which support and contribute to both World Heritage related activities and broader heritage management across the region. The perspectives and suggestions of the many contributors have also been invaluable and have greatly assisted the consultant study team in its scoping efforts. The following sections summarise our evaluation and assessment of the organisations and resources that exist and could help support the three components of the PHH: 1. Networking and knowledge management; 2. Capacity building; and 3. Partnership building and sustainable funding. 3.1 Networking and knowledge management Strengths Gaps Strong but small community of committed professionals and supporting organisations Many good websites containing rich source of heritage management related information Several managed networks dealing with aspects of both natural and cultural heritage management Facilitated means of retaining and or engaging the experts with regional World Heritage experience. Internet accessibility for World Heritage site managers and stakeholder communities Inter-network linkages and linked knowledge sharing and mentoring There is a strong community of individuals, organisation and institutions in the Pacific which have been instrumental in supporting World Heritage activities in the region for many years. Together with the States Parties and their government agencies, these organisations, institutions and groups have been responsible for maintaining the profile and work of the World Heritage Convention for the past two decades in the region. They have supported workshops, meetings, the preparation of tentative lists, nominations, training and site management through funding and the contribution of institutional and in-kind support (see Table 1). It is important though to recognise that while it is a strong community of committed individuals it is also a very small community and outside this small group there is very poor understanding of World Heritage in the region amongst the general population and the decision makers, including senior government officials. This small heritage management community forming the basis on which World Heritage in the Pacific has depended includes the Pacific Island States Parties, supporting governments especially Australia, New Zealand and France, regional organisations, national NGOs, global NGOs, educational institutions and perhaps the most important of them all, the communities, clans and families who have agreed to the inscription of their property. Networking occurs via the Internet but also through personal contact at conferences, meetings, workshops and on field based projects. Fostering and growing this community by helping to provide more face-to-face opportunities for personal interaction is critical to the future of heritage management in the region and has to be one of the principal goals of the PHH. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 11

12 However in this current age, the Internet provides the most cost effective medium for professional networking and acquiring knowledge. In this respect many of the Pacific heritage related organisations also support Internet websites and databases containing a vast repository of valuable information on the cultural, biological and physical resources of the region, its ecosystems and environments. They include SPREP, IUCN, GBRMPA, TNC, WWF, CI and USP and the Bishop Museum. The ICOMOS Documentation Centre is also able to provide a wide range of information and data in support of cultural heritage protection, conservation and management. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre web site has a vast amount of information on most aspects of the World Heritage Convention including the Convention itself and all supporting documentation, site lists, site descriptions, site nominations and includes a frequently asked questions service. It is a one stop shop for all information on the World Heritage Convention but has been criticised by some as being too complex and difficult to navigate and thus not particularly suitable for the Pacific. While the site is well organised and some aspects are a little dated, it is quite easily navigated with a high speed connection. This would not necessarily be the case without high speed broadband connectivity or experience with Internet navigation, as is the case in much of the Pacific. While a slow Internet connection makes access very difficult, some types of information are not available on the website such as that required to support a nomination. In this regard, one respondent noted that the UNESCO site documented the requirements of a nomination and described end result nomination documents, but provided very little on the details of the steps in between. This, it was noted, is the real information that people unfamiliar with the process need to know to complete a nomination and something which should be addressed by the web based component of the PHH. What is also relevant to this study is that collectively these organisations and their websites represent a rich source of information which is freely available to heritage managers if they have access to broadband and high connection speeds. The websites are generally well managed, regularly updated and technologically strong. In a region where human, financial and institutional resources are precious it is important that the investment in time, resources and knowledge behind these websites is recognised and not duplicated by the PHH, which should place a premium on building partnerships, constructing portal links to important information and summarising and simplifying documents and information to improve accessibility at lower Internet speeds. These principals should underpin the design of its web based component. There are a several organisations and websites in the region specifically addressing aspects of cultural heritage and associated arts and intangible cultural issues. These include the Human Development Programme of SPC, the Pacific Island Museum Association (PIMA) with its well constructed and managed PIMA website and associated social networking platform, the Pacific Heritage Network and the Council for Pacific Arts This community of organisations, government representatives, and regional organisations is working together to strengthen Pacific Island cultural identity, including the development of a regional cultural development strategy to guide national policy and enhance regional cooperation under the Pacific Plan. Joining these long established groups is the recently formed Pacific regional group of the International Council on Monuments and Sites - ICOMOS Pasifika, an international non-governmental organisation of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of the world's cultural heritage. Among other roles, ICOMOS provides technical support and evaluation services to the World Heritage Committee in respect of cultural site nominations and management. ICOMOS Pasifika has been established as a regional group in the Pacific and has close ties with Australia ICOMOS and ICOMOS TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 12

13 New Zealand, which have long provided voluntary and in-kind support in the form of professional expertise to World Heritage processes and site management in the Pacific. In a similar vein, IUCN the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which is a unique global organisation with both Government and non government membership dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity and nature, provides expert technical support and evaluation to the World Heritage Committee in respect of natural and mixed properties. IUCN has recently established a Oceania regional programme and office in Suva, Fiji and will be a potential resource to support future World Heritage efforts in the region, reflecting perhaps its formal global partnership with the World Heritage Committee. Key regional networks which support the conservation of biodiversity and natural heritage include: the Pacific Islands Round Table for Nature Conservation, a voluntary membership-based network of non-government organisations, donors and regional organisations working in nature conservation in the region; the Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) network with its focus on community managed marine conservation areas; the Micronesia Leaders in Island Conservation (MIC) network of non government and government leaders supporting natural heritage conservation in Micronesia; and the Pacific Invasive Species Learning Network ( PILN) which supports in-country groups combating the impacts of invasive species on vulnerable island ecosystems. Each of these networks is financially supported by donor funds or institutional membership and contributes towards the broader protection of natural heritage. However, none has a specific focus on World Heritage properties or their management, although their focus and goals intersect with those of the Convention in the region. Networks addressing aspects of cultural heritage and associated arts and intangible cultural issues include the Pacific Island Museum Association (PIMA) and the inter-governmental Council of Pacific Arts and Culture. The PIMA site also supports the Pacific Heritage Network, a social networking platform for cultural heritage practitioners and volunteers. The network provides a forum for the cultural heritage community working across all aspects of cultural heritage management and represents an innovative example of the use of this technology in support of a professional network. The PIMA site and Pacific Heritage Network are examples of initiatives that need nurturing, are well used and need funding support if they are to grow and expand their potential as heritage management support mechanisms. What is noticeable is the lack of linkages between the cultural and natural heritage focussed networks and organisations. Although the PIMA sponsored Pacific Heritage Network includes the preservation of both cultural and natural heritage in its vision, its focus and membership is more orientated towards cultural management. The World Heritage Convention is not obviously catered for by any of these groups with the exception of the regional ICOMOS family. Helping achieve this integration is clearly a central role for the PHH. The proposed PHH interactive web based tool will have the potential to link the people of these groups around the common theme of World Heritage in the Pacific advancing the cause of integrated heritage management in the region. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 13

14 Table 1: Supporting Organisations for the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands. Organisation Heritage Focus: Natural Cultural Both Information Sharing Website and/or Network World Heritage processes and site management Expertise Potential Heritage Management Capacity Building Programs Potential to provide World Heritage Funding Support Priority for PHH Engagement Non and Inter-Government UNESCO Both Yes Yes Yes High High SPREP Natural Yes Yes Yes High High IUCN Regional and Natural Yes Yes Yes High High Global SPC Cultural Yes No Yes Med High PIMA/ PH Cultural Yes Yes Yes Nil High Network ICCROM Cultural Yes Yes Yes Low High ICOMOS Cultural Yes Yes Yes Medium High International ICOMOS Cultural No Yes No Nil High Pasifka Australia Cultural Yes Yes Yes Low High ICOMOS ICOMOS New Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Medium Zealand Pacific Arts Cultural No Yes No Low Low Council USP Both Yes Yes Yes Nil Medium UPNG Both Yes No Yes Nil Medium WWF Natural Yes Yes Yes Low Medium CI Natural Yes Yes Yes High High TNC Natural Yes No No Low Medium Pacific Arts Cultural Yes No No Med Medium Councils Network LMMA Natural Yes No Yes Low Medium Network Pacific MIC Network Both Yes Yes No Nil Medium Micronesia Natural Yes No No High Medium Conservation Trust Mama Graun Natural No No No Low Low Conservation Trust PNG Government All States Both No Yes Yes High High Parties Australia Both Yes Yes Yes High High SEWPAC AusAID NZ Government DOC/NZAI Both Yes Yes Yes Low Medium TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 14

15 3.2 Capacity for Pacific World Heritage management Strengths Gaps Cadre of resource people in supporting organisations with skills and experience willing to provide support, mentoring, training and site managers. Accessibility of a wide range of online management tools and online training opportunities in protected area management Some short course and workshop training opportunities Very limited number of site managers with developed heritage site management skills Limited or no Pacific orientated heritage management online courses presently operating Funds to support development and access to online and short course training opportunities Funds to support mentors and workshop/on site training opportunities The region s relatively weak human capacity in cultural and natural heritage management affects its ability to meet the standards and criteria demanded by the World Heritage Convention. There is very little practical, on the ground experience with heritage site management and even less when it comes to practical on the ground World Heritage site management. For example, there are very few individuals in the Pacific and particularly from the Pacific Island States Parties who have successfully shepherded a World Heritage property nomination through the very rigorous process leading to inscription on the World Heritage list. Those that have are highly committed and dedicated professionals who have in the most part worked either as volunteers or well beyond the normal requirements of any paid positions in their quest to have the property inscribed on the list. In the face of these capacity restraints, the retention of resource people and site managers with developed skills and hard won experience has to be a priority if the number of inscribed properties and the quality of their conservation is to increase over the Pacific Action Plan period. Even more important is the need to ensure these few individuals are available to work with and share their experience with those responsible for property nominations in governments, with site based managers and with regional organisations engaged in building heritage management capacity, either as advisors, mentors or trainers. Designing a platform that provides the opportunity to build this critical personal interaction is a central goal for the PHH. While there is a need to increase the number of people working on and skilled in heritage management in the region there is also a need to expand the variety of training and educational opportunities for heritage managers to improve their professional skills. There are a variety of options available for natural heritage in the region, which although not specific to the needs of the World Heritage Convention, has the potential to support and strengthen natural heritage management generally. Examples include the USP Pacific Island Marine Managed Area short course for community conservation area managers and the protected area management training and support opportunities available under the Convention of Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) with its supporting network of experts. It is apparent from comments received that this same variety is not reflected in the cultural heritage sector. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 15

16 In this context we are aware of work undertaken in a semi voluntary capacity by Dr. Anita Smith and Professor Bill Logan of Deakin University, with funding from UNESCO and in partnership with Australia ICOMOS, to develop a CD-ROM training module for cultural heritage managers tailored to the Pacific context. Subsequently, Dr Smith worked with USP to develop an online training module hosted by USP within its undergraduate history program. Unfortunately, resource constraints led to the cessation of this arrangement. Given that this course is widely regarded as exactly the type of training option the region needs, it must be a priority for the PHH to see it maintained, further developed including the integration of natural heritage management components and made available to existing and aspiring heritage managers. The World Heritage Convention is supported by formal agreements with three advisory bodies, IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM and each of these organisations has the capacity to help with training and capacity development in the region. In particular, ICCROM is responsible for advising on issues related to cultural heritage and has also been recognised as the priority partner for training. There are opportunities for Pacific heritage managers to engage in the training programmes of these organisations but it is incumbent on the States Parties to seek these out and ensure their managers benefit. In this regard, the PHH with its facilitation, coordination, information sharing and capacity building functions will be a helpful resource for States Parties. There are also many websites which provide access to a plethora of site assessment, resource evaluation, strategic planning and other management tools. Examples relevant to natural heritage management include the PoWPA website, and associated network of nature conservation professionals, The Nature Conservancy s Conserve Online site, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and World Commission on Protected Areas websites and closer to the region, the GBRMPA Reef Ed program and for World Heritage, the Asia Pacific Focal Point site. These all have the potential to assist natural heritage management practitioners in the region acquire new skills and tools online to do their jobs. They could also benefit cultural heritage managers insofar as they include site management planning methodologies, community engagement approaches, community based monitoring and evaluation tools which may be adapted to any number of site based conservation activities. However, application of these tools is sometimes technically challenging and there is no substitute for individual mentoring in their use and field application. Further, critical assessment of their utility in the Pacific context and where necessary their adaptation, would be advantageous. The PHH could play a role in providing information and linkages to useful websites such as these but more importantly, could broker practical assistance through the development of a Helping Hands roster of experienced practitioners engaged through a PHH online community. 3.3 Partnerships and Sustainable Funding Strengths Gaps Strong history of Government/NGO partnerships for WH site related activities Demonstrated willingness of international NGOs, the government agencies of non Pacific Island governments (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, France) and NGOs to commit financial and in-kind resources Regional mechanism for matching potential partners with States Parties and capacity building needs Funding sources to meet logistical costs of partner in-kind support No obvious successor to the Australia Fund TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 16

17 Strengths Gaps Emerging evidence of intra regional cooperation and partnership on World Heritage nominations A regional World Heritage funding strategy pending the establishment of Trust Fund Potential for linkage of World Heritage site and capacity building to globally regional conservation programmes The World Heritage Convention has been acknowledged as a catalyst for building partnerships in support of nominations and in subsequent site management. One example is the partnership between the Government of the Republic of Kiribati and the international NGO, Conservation International which led to the nomination and inscription of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area and subsequent collaboration on the management of the property. These examples illustrate the goodwill which exists across the region and the willingness of organisations to contribute their expertise and in-kind support to World Heritage related activities. In light of the resource and capacity constraints faced by most of the region s States Parties the importance of fostering strong, productive and mutually beneficial partnerships is obvious and critical to the effective implementation of the Plan of Action. Historically many of these partnerships have developed either serendipitously though a convergence of organisational interests or personal contacts, or under the auspices of Australian or New Zealand government assistance or UNESCO World Heritage programmes. The consultant study team believes the PHH and its potential online community has great potential to play an important future role in facilitating new partnerships. By strengthening communication through a flourishing and dynamic online community the PHH could improve understanding of the needs of States Parties, including identification of capacity issues, site nomination requirements and site management needs. This in turn will lead to closer and more effective collaboration on addressing these needs and gaps, including joint project identification, funding proposals and the identification of potential funding source. Acquiring financial resources to support World Heritage Convention implementation in the region has traditionally been a struggle. While some funding has been provided over the years by UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee this has been insufficient to fund the level of activity needed. In 2007 the situation was significantly improved with the nomination of Australia to the World Heritage Committee with a strong interest in representing the interests of the Pacific. To assist in meeting its new role and responsibilities the Australian Government established a fund (Australia Funds in Trust) of approximately $3 million to support improvements in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Asia and the Pacific, including $1.1 million for a heritage management framework for the Angkor World Heritage Site in Cambodia and $1 million committed to World Heritage in the Pacific. While a large proportion of this funding has been allocated to activities in Asia, it has also resulted in a significant boost to World Heritage activity in the Pacific. Projects undertaken include improvements to World Heritage Convention policy and processes including an Internet based periodic reporting system, supporting nominations, tentative list development, supporting site management and where appropriate, the development of site related tourism opportunities. Major funding contributions also TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 17

18 supported the Tongariro (2007), Cairns (2008) and Maupiti (2009) Pacific World Heritage Workshops and will support the forthcoming meeting in Apia, Samoa in September In addition to the recent World Heritage listing of the Lagoons of New Caledonia (2008) and Papahanaumokuakea, Hawaii (2010), several Pacific Island Countries have had recent successful World Heritage nominations. The momentum gained through the Australian fund and the successful nominations of Kuk Early Agricultural Site (2008), Chief Roi Mata s Domain (2008), Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site (2010) and Phoenix Islands Protected Area (2010) properties has raised the profile of the Convention in the region. However, there is concern that once Australia departs the Committee at the end of 2011 the level of financial support available over the past four years will be significantly reduced, as will the ability of the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) to provide the level of support it has. There is therefore, a critical need to identify and attract additional sources of funding to sustain these recent achievements and continue the growth of site numbers and enhance the quality of property management and conservation. The recent allocation of a US$500,000 grant from a private donor to support the management of the Phoenix Island Protected Area is clear evidence that successful World Heritage action is attractive to donors. This however, is a one off and none of the funding to date for World Heritage in the Pacific has been sustainable. In 2009 a report was commissioned to investigate sustainable funding for World Heritage activities in the region. The report recommended a sinking fund be established to provide a sustainable source of funding to sustain World Heritage activities in the region. The fund would be capitalised initially by contributions from Pacific Island countries derived from site based user fees, tourist departure levies, hotel bed taxes etc. Contributions from non Pacific Island donor governments would also form a major component and if successful, the fund could eventually evolve into an endowment based fund. A technical committee was formed by UNESCO to follow up these recommendations. Experience with Trust Funds in the Pacific suggests that the establishment of this fund is still a long way off unless there is a sudden and significant pledge from a major donor which is unlikely in the current financial climate. In the absence of the Trust Fund, funding for World Heritage and related heritage training activities over the period of the Action Plan is most likely to be sourced from States Parties contributions in support of their national properties, grants from donor governments, especially Australia, France, the US, Japan and China and funds and in-kind support from International NGOs where these are engaged on site based work. With regard to support from International NGO s it is noteworthy that while there are a number of these working and investing in the Pacific in support of the protection of natural heritage and biodiversity, with one or two exceptions the same cannot be said for cultural heritage protection. However, the work of the international and national nature conservation organisations is based on strong cultural considerations and the integrated community based approaches being used are frequently bridging the gap between natural and cultural heritage protection. Some respite may be also available through AusAID and consideration must be given to developing a compelling program for possible multi-year funding by that agency in conjunction with SEWPAC as the department winds down its level of engagement. It is noteworthy that to be successful any such program would need to include clear sustainable development assistance outcomes. In this regard, the vision for the PHH should clearly articulate the World Heritage and sustainable development goals which underpin the Pacific Appeal of 2007 and are stated in the Action Plan under main Action #7: Assisting communities to develop and implement environmentally sustainable economic TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 18

19 growth through heritage related enterprises. An example is the heritage tourism enterprise developed in association with the Chief Roy Mata Domain property in Vanuatu. Similarly, there is potential for supporting funding, management and capacity building for natural heritage protection activities under an impressive range of funding and support programmes for biodiversity and protected areas which are likely to deliver an estimated US$30 million to the region over the next 10 years. These programmes are linked and coordinated through SPREP and include: Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA); UNEP/GEF Islands Biodiversity Project; FAO/GEF Forestry and Protected Area Management in Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and Niue; National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP); Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund; and EU/IUCN Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management (BIOPAMA). It should be noted however, that these programmes are in most cases not available for direct funding of World Heritage site activities, rather they offer support to natural heritage protection through improvements to national policy and enabling conditions, raised awareness of natural heritage issues, funding in support of protected area establishment and management (sites which may eventually evolve to World Heritage status) and importantly, numerous training and capacity building opportunities which could benefit World Heritage site managers. The consultant study team was unable to identify similar large scale funding programmes targeting the conservation of cultural heritage, with the possible exception of the Australia Funds in Trust funding and US Federal Government funding from the National Endowment for the Arts available to the US affiliated countries of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam under the Pacific Arts Councils Network. This imbalance is a reflection of the global strength of the biodiversity conservation sector and associated donor funding support and contrasts dramatically with the relative paucity of funding available for the protection of the region s cultural heritage. Helping to address this imbalance by improving knowledge and access to potential funding sources, engaging and encouraging donors and raising awareness of cultural heritage issues in the region will be an important role for the PHH. At another level, it is interesting to note that there is no readily available information on the actual costs of undertaking World Heritage activities in the Pacific, such as the preparation of a nomination or meeting World Heritage reporting obligations and best practice management standards. While these costs could vary widely across properties, indicative information would be of value to States Parties for budgeting and planning for the financial sustainability of their properties and determining the costs of effectively managing their heritage, as obligated under the Convention. It would also be of assistance for the planning and assessment of capital funding requirements for the proposed Regional Trust Fund. Gathering this information was an unimplemented project under the Action Plan and consideration should be given to including it under the eventual PHH work plan. Moving to a more sustainable funding platform for World Heritage in the region will require a strategic approach based around identifying the funding requirements to meet the management and reporting standards for the Pacific s existing properties and the implementation needs of the Action Plan. Developing the funding strategy will need to involve key stakeholders including Pacific Island States Parties, supporting non Pacific Island Governments, regional organisations, particularly TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 19

20 SPREP and SPC, UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, global NGOs, multilateral donor agencies (ADB and GEF), private sector interests and private foundations. Helping to facilitate and co-ordinate this process and the associated strategic planning could also be a role suited to the PHH. The consultant study team believes a flourishing and well supported PHH has the potential to link the World Heritage activities of Pacific States Parties to these funding sources by identifying appropriate funding programmes, facilitating partnerships and joint proposals and promoting the development of coordinated regional funding strategies. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 20

21 4 Scope and scale of the Pacific Heritage Hub Consideration of the potential scope and scale of a PHH introduces key questions concerning its purpose and goals. In this regard it is useful to recall the origins of the Hub concept which are to be found in discussions at the Regional World Heritage Meetings held in Cairns Australia (2008) and Maupiti, French Polynesia (2009). At these meetings, the need for regional level capacity to support the implementation of the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan ( ) was discussed and the notion of a Hub to act as a clearing house for World Heritage in the region with co-ordination, information sharing, partnership facilitation, capacity building and financial resourcing functions was developed. It was further envisaged that in the course of operation the Hub would also function to support the work of the broad heritage management community in the Pacific, bringing practitioners together in cooperative networks and supporting existing networks, providing access to new training opportunities, and helping to increase the financial resources available to the region. It is therefore the view of the consultant study team, supported by the Planning Meeting in Suva, Fiji in April 2011, that the initial focus of the PHH design should be on building and fostering a basic management unit which consists of one or two professionals and has the ability to deliver Hub outcomes in communication and information sharing, partnership facilitation, capacity building and training and funding coordination. This work would be supported by the development of an interactive web based tool or tools, including the development of online communities of supporting organisations and individuals. These communities would consist primarily of professionals engaged in World Heritage activities and the implementation of the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan. They may also attract a wider international following of professionals and individuals interested in heritage conservation and management in the region. In this regard and in terms of the scope of the PHH, it is important to remember that the Internet is global as is the potential scale and scope of any of its communities. With these considerations in mind and based on the information provided by the many contributors to the consultation process, the consultant study team identified the following broad strategic objectives, outcomes and directions and used these as assumptions to guide the initial design of the PHH. It should be noted that differing views on these objectives emerged at the Planning meeting and highlighted the need for the Hub staff and its stakeholders to engage early in strategic planning processes which will clarify its objectives and define its work for at least the first five years of operation. 4.1 Strategic objectives of the Pacific Heritage Hub The consultant study team identified the strategic objectives of the PHH as: Improved natural and cultural heritage conservation in the region in support of the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan; Improved implementation of World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands region; More effective cultural and natural heritage management for the Pacific; Sustainable development outcomes that are compatible with long term heritage conservation; The facilitation and formation of partnerships; Improved funding and sustainability of heritage conservation and management; and TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 21

22 Increased awareness of the Pacific Island region, its unique heritage and special needs, within the international World Heritage community. 4.2 Key outcomes sought by the Pacific Heritage Hub to deliver against strategic objectives The consultant study team identified the following outcomes being sought by the PHH to deliver against strategic objectives: Growth and development of the Pacific heritage (natural and cultural) management community; Effective implementation of the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan; Improved capacity and capability in the heritage management community; Efficiency gains and reduction of duplication across the heritage management sector; Improved profile and influence for the Pacific Islands region within the World Heritage Convention system; Fostering a sense of integrated heritage community membership and awareness; and Improved and sustainable funding. 4.3 Approaches to achieving outcomes Having defined these strategic parameters, the range of preferred PHH activities to support the achievement of the outcomes were defined (see Table 2). These were identified through the consultation and Expert Meeting process and are based on the experience and views of the people interviewed. The key activities include: Establishing the PHH within a supporting institutional environment and nurturing its development; Promoting knowledge and information sharing including on funding opportunities; Promoting the sharing of expertise and experience, including learning exchanges; Developing mentoring and training opportunities; Streamlining engagement with Convention processes through: o o o Enabling effective networks including Q&A driven peer networks; Providing portal-like access to needed resources; Providing clarification of World Heritage Convention requirements for the Pacific Island States Parties; A staged approach: crawl > walk > run process for the on-line tool component of the Hub evolving in tandem with user engagement; and Outreach to connect with potential participants and partners. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 22

23 Table 2: How approaches to achieving outcomes sought by the PHH support its specific objectives Key outcomes from the PHH to contribute to strategic objectives Approaches to achieving outcomes Heritage community growth and development Outreach to connect with potential participants Expertise and experience sharing Knowledge and information sharing Streamlining engagement with convention process Staged approach to on-line community development Capacity and capability development for community members Knowledge and information sharing Linkages to training opportunities Streamlining engagement with Convention processes Outreach to connect with potential participants (more members = more potential) Strengthened States Parties commitment to heritage conservation and management Efficiency gains and reduction of duplication Outreach to connect with potential participants Knowledge and information sharing Expertise and experience sharing Streamlining engagement with Convention processes Improved sustainability of funding Increased capacity strengthens managers ability to access funding Shared donor knowledge and joint proposals Regional funding strategy guiding donors Target audience and scope These strategic considerations have led the consultant study team to recommend that the primary target audience of the PHH should initially be defined as the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan implementation community - those people and institutions who are directly or indirectly involved in the Action Plan implementation process in the region. Establishing the PHH to initially support this group, particularly World Heritage Focal Points and heritage site managers in Pacific Island countries will provide support to and engage a wide range of both natural and cultural heritage management professionals across the region and from non Pacific supporting Governments and institutions. In this way the PHH will be able to accommodate and engage with individuals and organisations with interests in all fields of heritage management, including maritime heritage, tangible and intangible cultural heritage and even critically important trends impacting on heritage such as climate change and associated phenomena. The extent of the engagement will be determined largely by the PHH strategic priorities and the level of interest and support from stakeholders. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 23

24 In coming to this conclusion the consultant study team were also aware that some of the related heritage subject areas were already the subject of established networks and supporting websites, which have been building online or networked communities with mixed success. For example, fostering cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible has been a focus of PIMA which supports it members through the website and its links to the Pacific Heritage Network. This Network has been developed through the hard work of many dedicated people associated primarily with heritage management in the region and it is envisaged that the PHH would work to complement and support the Pacific Heritage Network through linkages with its own web based tool and associated information sources and training opportunities and potentially, through improved access to supporting resources. Similarly fostering community protection of maritime heritage is a focus of the Locally Managed Marine Area network and the establishment and management of protected areas and natural heritage is a focus of SPREP, International and national NGOs and UN programmes such as the Convention on Biodiversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas. In as much as their related websites cover aspects of heritage management in the region, ensuring the PHH develops linkages and synergy with these networks is vital Conceptual plan of Pacific Heritage Hub and supporting resources Based on the discussion above a conceptual view of the PHH and its relationship to supporting stakeholders is offered graphically in Figure 1. Figure 1: A conceptual view of the Pacific Heritage Hub 3 3 Adapted from design submitted by Mr. Ken Heffernan, Director, Heritage Division, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community, Australian Government to Planning Meeting on a Pacific Heritage Hub, Suva, Fiji April 2011 TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 24

25 4.4 Pacific Heritage Hub location, hosting and management Pacific Heritage Hub location and hosting A critical issue when considering the establishment of the PHH and its long term future is that of its location and a hosting organisation. Given the likely resources available, it is not realistic to consider the PHH as a stand alone organisation and it will need to be hosted by an existing organisation in order to keep costs down and provide institutional security for staff and its programmes. There is a range of possible options in the region and to help narrow these down the application of the following criteria have proved useful: Pacific island regional government or other international organisation; regional leadership role and staff experience in natural and cultural heritage protection; professional staff with World Heritage Convention experience; established linkages with States Parties, NGOs and non region supporting Governments; experience with fostering and supporting regional level professional networks associated with heritage protection; capacity to support or undertake training, workshops etc; IT platform and capacity to support the PHH web based component; regional IT support experience; available space and flexibility to contract and accommodate up to three staff; and willingness to absorb some of the hosting costs internally. Assessing the World Heritage institutional landscape (see Table 1 in Section 3.1) the consultant study team identified several possibilities for hosting including the UNESCO Apia, SPREP, SPC and the University of the South Pacific (USP). During the consultative Planning Meeting on the Pacific Heritage Hub held in Suva, Fiji, April 2011, the Director of SPREP confirmed his organisation s willingness to discuss this role further. Subsequently, in response to a request from UNESCO seeking expressions of interest in hosting the PHH, SPREP and USP confirmed their interest and SPC declined involvement. The UNESCO office for the Pacific States in Apia has also indicated that despite its strong links to the UNESCO World Heritage Secretariat, the UNESCO system and Pacific States Parties, it does not consider it would be an appropriate agency to host the PHH. Given the importance of resolving this issue prior to the Pacific World Heritage Workshop in Apia 5 9 September 2011, UNESCO commissioned a short mission by the consultant study team to undertake an evaluation of the relative merits of both SPREP and USP as PHH hosting organisations. This was undertaken 2 7 August 2011 and the resulted in a recommendation that the offer of USP to act as host organisation be accepted. The results of the mission are reported in a separate report to UNESCO entitled Evaluation of a Host and Location for the Pacific Heritage Hub, August The evaluation was conducted using 5 criteria based on those identified above and it found that both organisations had the capability and capacity to host the PHH and each offered different institutional and functional strengths which would be helpful to the future work of the PHH. For example, SPREP is accountable to all the PICT s, has a range of natural heritage protection programmes and staff who include some of the world s leading experts on natural World Heritage. It has a well developed IT program support system and experience with knowledge management through its web based TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 25

26 Environmental Hub. SPREP has the advantage of its location in Apia alongside the UNESCO Office for Pacific States and has taken leadership in developing and hosting number of regional networks including the Pacific Invasives Learning Network and the Pacific Round Table on Nature Conservation. Similarly the University of the South Pacific has a long and distinguished record in Pacific tertiary education, and applied research in cultural studies, natural sciences and the arts and is the main source of graduates and professionals working across natural and cultural heritage management fields in the region. It has strong potential capacity to undertake specific training in these areas and obvious benefits in terms of long term capacity building. Also, the opening of the multi-media ICT centre with its state of the art internet facilities offers tremendous potential for PHH web based activities. Despite the suitability of both organisations to undertake the hosting role, the evaluation recommended that the offer from USP be accepted. This was based on the comparative strength of USP in terms of its capacity building and teaching function, its ICT system and the very strong statement of commitment to ensuring the Pacific Heritage Hub as a sustainable entity within the University which was made by the Vice Chancellor and President, Professor Rajesh Chandra in the discussions leading to the evaluation and in the subsequent meeting with the consultant and senior USP staff. The final decision on the most appropriate organisation to host the Hub should be made at the Pacific World Heritage Workshop to be held 5-9 September 2011 in Apia, Samoa PHH Management Committee To guide the initial establishment of the PHH and provide oversight of its subsequent management it is recommended that a PHH Management Committee be established. This Committee should comprise representation of appropriate stakeholders to ensure heritage management expertise and institutional strengths are available to support the establishment and operations of the Hub. The membership should be expanded to include the PHH Manager on the appointment of a person to that position. In the initial PHH establishment phase, the Management Committee should meet on an as required basis and thereafter at least twice yearly, once to approve the annual budget work plan and budget and another to review half yearly progress. One of the first tasks for the establishment of the PHH will be the negotiation of a MOU with USP assuming the latter is endorsed as the PHH Host organisation. This should clearly describe the following: i. the relationship between the PHH and USP as Host including acknowledgement of the independent status of the PHH and statement of the relative obligations of USP and PHH under the MOU; ii. iii. iv. the recruitment and contracting arrangements for PHH staff and related reporting lines and responsibilities; the location of PHH office space and the availability and protocols for use of USP infrastructure including ICT, vehicles, meeting rooms and other equipment; the financial and administrative policies and procedures under which the PHH will operate within USP including those related to financial expenditures, insurance and travel; v. procedures for developing and approving a PHH operating budget and work plan; TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 26

27 vi. a procedure for resolving any disputes which may arise. The second and related task will the finalisation of funding for an initial operating budget for the PHH including discussions with potential donors such as the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, International Policy and Projects Division and other potential sources of funding such as those identified in below. The third major establishment task will be the recruitment of the PHH Manager and Internet and Communications Officer. This will entail oversight of the drafting of Applicant Packages for both positions and their advertising, interviewing and the final selection of successful candidates. The fourth task will be the development of the initial work plan for the PHH Manager and its linkage to the operating budget. With these key elements in place the PHH will be ready to begin operations Management - Staffing Collectively, the three positions suggested below would provide the PHH with the capacity to function effectively from the outset and a sound organisational foundation for longer term incremental growth. The positions are costed in the indicative budget in Section 4.5 based on the CROP agency salary scales for similar positions of responsibility. It is recommended that the conditions of employment for all staff positions associated with the PHH management will be the same as those prevailing within the host organisation which will also be the contracting entity. Broad Terms of Reference for these positions are proposed in Appendix 5. Pacific Heritage Hub Manager Dedicated human and financial resources for the management and administration of the PHH are critical to its success. Although the New Zealand Government has supported a World Heritage advisor (Ms. Elspeth Wingham) to the Pacific in the past it has been some time since the region has had another fully dedicated World Heritage professional. With the development of the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan and the establishment of the PHH the need for a person whose function is promotion of World Heritage and heritage management in the region, and to provide support and guidance to the States Parties, coordination of partner activities, fundraising and capacity building is obvious. Pacific Heritage Hub Internet and Communications Officer The important role and huge potential of the Internet as a tool to facilitate and support the work of the PHH has been emphasised throughout this report and is described in detail in Section 5 and Appendix 3. However, as is emphasised in these discussions, this power and potential cannot be harnessed without committed resources, including a dedicated staff member to manage the interactive communities supported by the Hub and ensure its knowledge base is kept relevant and updated. Administration Officer It would be highly desirable to also establish a position to ensure the day-to-day administration of the PHH was catered for. Initially, consideration could be given to establishing this as a shared position with the host organisation as it is unlikely to be a full time role. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 27

28 4.5 Budget and funding Indicative Pacific Heritage Hub establishment (Year 1) and Year 2 core operating budgets Indicative first year establishment and year 2 operational budgets for the PHH have been developed (in USD) and are summarised in Table 3. The detailed budgets are included in Appendix 4. The budgets cover only core operational expenses and do not extend to programmatic activities in such areas as training, mentoring, workshops, direct resource support to States party etc. which it is anticipated the PHH will develop. Identification of these programmes should be the focus of the early strategic planning process for the PHH. During the evaluation mission to both USP and SPREP, the former organisation indicated that it would most likely be able to help the PHH operate on a considerably reduced budget than that contained in Appendix 4. As might be expected, the single largest expense is the salaries, benefits and recruitment costs of the three staff described above, two of whom it is recommended be recruited regionally. A second significant expense in the establishment budget is that of contracts where $50,000 has been allocated to cover the possible costs of contracting a website design specialist with proven experience n establishing and developing Web2.0 applications along the lines of the design proposed in Appendix 3. The budget also assumes several areas of expenditure will be provided gratis by the hosting organisation, including office accommodation, electricity, financial and HR services, IT server access and hosted meeting costs. These represent significant savings in the overall budgeted expenses. The indicative year 2 budget for PHH operations is considerably reduced due to the absence of recruitment and relocation expenses, capital equipment expenses and significantly reduced contracting costs, reflecting the lower level of expert involvement in maintaining the website. Table 3 Summary Indicative PHH establishment budget and Year 2 operating budget Potential PHH funding sources (see Section 3.3) A number of funding sources to support the establishment of the PHH and sustain its operations are identified and discussed below. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 28

29 World Heritage Convention The World Heritage Convention has three main sources of funding to support World Heritage Activities. These are: 1. The World Heritage Fund which is principally derived from States Parties contributions and provides about US$4 million annually to support activities requested by States Parties in need of international assistance. It includes compulsory and voluntary contributions from the States Parties, as well as from private donations. The World Heritage Committee allocates funds according to the urgency of requests and priority being given to the most threatened sites. The focus of the Fund is on supporting States Parties with nominations, tentative list compilation and site management. It is unclear whether the Fund has the flexibility to provide even modest funding in support of and collaborative multi-country initiative such as the PHH although it is clear that Pacific States Parties are eligible beneficiaries. As the PHH develops, opportunities to bundle activities within thematic programmes which may be attractive to the Fund will evolve and should be taken advantage of. 2. Funds-in-Trust are donations given by countries to support specific projects with defined goals and objectives. The current list of Funds in Trust is: Flemish Funds-in-Trust. This Fund is solely focused on the Arab region and inappropriate for the Pacific. France-UNESCO Cooperation Agreement. The France-UNESCO Cooperation Agreement is a technical and financial treaty. It is an original framework which allows UNESCO to benefit from the technical support of experts from the French government, French institutions, and local authorities and associations. It is not a simple Funds in Trust and seeks to develop partnerships, promote sustainable development, create leverage to develop the potential of developing countries and catalyse cooperative agreements with multi-lateral donors. Of the Funds in Trust this has perhaps the strongest potential to assist the work of the PHH, particularly given the French presence in the region. Japanese FIT. The purpose of this Fund is to preserve the tangible cultural heritage such as historic monuments and archaeological remains of great value. The Fund finances those activities which comply with this objective, such as restoration and preservation work and the necessary preliminary or general studies and surveys (including limited archaeological excavation work) for this purpose. The relevant services of international experts and equipment are provided according to need. As the training of national specialists constitutes a major part of such co-operation, each project shall include activities for training in the relevant fields. The Fund s focus on supporting States Parties site based work makes it an unlikely source of funding for the PHH core operations but a strong possibility for funding possible thematic training and site management programmes developed by the PHH and sanctioned by the Pacific States Parties. Netherlands Funds-in-Trust (NFiT). On the face of it this Fund too has considerable potential to support the PHH and its programmes in the Pacific. Projects and programmes under the NFiT cooperation are structured according to the Strategic Objectives adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2002 (the 4Cs), and in pursuance of regional and thematic balances: TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 29

30 o o o o Credibility: Technical assistance to Tentative List and Nomination preparations, primarily in under-represented regions, and Thematic Studies and Expert Meetings in particular on under-represented categories of heritage; Conservation: Technical assistance to preparation of Conservation Management Plans, and to projects of Sustainable Development of inscribed properties and sites, in particular in under-represented regions of the world; Capacity Building: Support to training seminars and national workshops, technical assistance to professional and institutional building; and Communication: Dissemination of information, education, public awareness raising, sites presentation. The NFIT also has an overarching strategic objective - Improving the Framework for Implementation of the WH Convention: Support to the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the World Heritage Convention and World Heritage Committee which may apply to the work of the PHH in its regional capacity. Under this Funds-in-Trust arrangement, and of relevance for the PHH, no restrictions are applied to allocating funds to particular regions of the world. As a result of this relative freedom, over the past four years a fairly equal distribution of projects and sites that were selected for sponsoring has taken place over the regions of Africa, Arab States, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. Spanish FIT. This Fund has similar objectives to the NFIT in that it supports the implementation of the Convention under the 4C s structure but is limited to the Latin America and Caribbean region in its scope and focus and therefore has no potential for the Pacific. Australia Funds in Trust. See Grant funding from donor governments below. 3. The Rapid Response Facility is a small grants programme jointly operated by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the United Nations Foundation and Fauna & Flora International. It aims to protect natural World Heritage sites in times of crisis - and to do so quickly, flexibly and in real time. As such the RRF is an unlikely source of funding for the PHH. Pacific Island States Parties As the principal beneficiaries of the PHH, it is not unreasonable to expect a significant contribution toward the costs of the PHH from the Pacific States Parties. Ideally this would be in the form of an annual shared contribution to cover the core operational budget of the PHH paid direct to a dedicated account held by the Host Organisation. As with all multi-country collaborative programmes in the Pacific, such an arrangement is the most likely option to secure sustainable funding for the PHH, and must be pursued seriously in the discussions on the future of the Hub. Another possible approach to further augment this country contribution would be to seek agreement of the World Heritage Committee to reallocate Pacific States Parties annual contributions to the World Heritage Fund to the PHH, at least for the initial 5 years of its operation. Grant funding from donor governments The generosity of a number of donor Governments especially, Australia, New Zealand and France, has been fundamental to establishing the profile of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific and supporting its implementation for nearly three decades. The most recent example of this support has been the Australia Funds in Trust and its significant contribution to the recent advances in heritage TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 30

31 protection and the development of Convention instruments such as the Tentative Lists which the region has experienced. Clearly efforts must be made to continue these partnerships and ensure the support of these countries is continued. Indications are that there may be some residual funding available from the Australia Fund to meet some or all of the establishment costs of the PHH. Ideally, any funding from this source would be leveraged with matching funds from Pacific States Parties, NGO s and multilateral sources. Grant funding from private donors and NGO s There are several important private foundations that have long standing partnerships with International NGO s working in natural heritage conservation in the region which may be interested in supporting elements of the PHH programme which synergise with their priorities. These include the US based Packard, Moore and MacArthur Foundations and NGO s like WWF, TNC and Conservation International. The latter has been a key entity in partnership with the Kiribati Government in establishing the Phoenix Marine Protected Area, one of the latest properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, illustrating the benefits of such partnerships. In the cultural heritage context, US Foundations like the Christensen Foundation may be possible sources of funding in support of programmes in the sector. Multilateral and bilateral funding sources As mentioned in Section 3.3 there are several global multi-lateral and bi-lateral funding programmes that are delivering funding to support natural heritage conservation in the region. These include the GEF Biodiversity, International Waters and Climate Change programmes and the Convention on Biodiversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas. Although they do not necessarily target World Heritage Properties per se, these programmes have the potential to do so and importantly have strong capacity building components which heritage managers should benefit from. In this regard, the PHH would be expected to liaise with the programme managers and develop opportunities for collaboration. Voluntary contributions from PHH on line community members Also as beneficiaries of the PHH its online community members could be eventually be called upon to assist with the costs of the PHH Web based components. Leveraging funding The potential to leverage funding through sharing and matching arrangements would apply to any of these options. For example, the UNESCO World Heritage programme may pledge 50% of the cost conditional on a further 50% forthcoming from States Parties (in addition to their annual Convention contributions). Similarly UNESCO, States Parties, PHH member organisations and the host organisation could share the cost. The key issue here is assigning clear responsibility for developing the funding proposal, lobbying the States Parties and other potential donors and crafting the final solution. Initially, this would logically be the responsibility of the UNESCO Secretariat and under the management scenario proposed above the PHH Manager, once appointed, would assume responsibility for raising operational and programme funding. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 31

32 5 The Internet and the Pacific: opportunities and considerations The Internet offers immense possibilities to overcome the tyranny of distance and isolation of the heritage management community in the Pacific. In this region, only 25 years ago business was done by snail-mail, taking weeks to traverse the region, or through telephone connections which were expensive. The rapid technological advances, which have been made in the computing and Internet world in recent years have, figuratively speaking, shrunk this vast and dispersed region, breaking down isolation and significantly enhanced the skills and effectiveness of those who have Internet access. The Internet has been instrumental in supporting the exchange and sharing of information, personal experiences and lessons learned through professional and social networks which have no geographical boundaries. It offers impressive possibilities as a tool for education and training and for fostering and growing the Pacific heritage management community. Unfortunately, despite exponential improvements, many Pacific people are still limited with regard to reliable Internet access. The cost of providing Internet access to those living on remote islands or rural areas or in provincial towns and villages is often too prohibitive for economically struggling island governments. Even in the major towns and cities where Internet infrastructure is available, the cost of access generally means only the well off, or those working in government, business or education facilities are realistically able to take advantage. This has implications for the scope and focus of the PHH and particularly its use of the Internet as a primary tool for networking, collaboration and facilitation. In this regard it is these groups, typically living and working in urban areas with more reliable access, who will have the opportunity to utilise the Internet to strengthen their capacity to engage and consult their communities on World Heritage property selection, listing and effective management. They will, in theory, become better placed to act as intermediaries and advisers working with and for the communities and stakeholders to conserve both national cultural and natural heritage and World Heritage properties where Internet access may be limited. As such the use of Internet based tools by the PHH to strengthen the capacity of heritage managers across the region will greatly assist the work of States Parties in their efforts to meet their commitment to the preservation of national heritage under the Convention. 5.1 The web today: Social Media and Web 2.0 A key distinction in uses of the Internet has become widely referred to as Web 2.0, versus Web 1.0. Web 2.0 refers to the notion of a read-write Web, where dynamic, interactive content is the norm, for example via Facebook. This is in contrast to Web 1.0, which is typically associated with one-way media delivery of information to an otherwise passive audience. Web 2.0 approaches have now become the standard for employing the Internet as a platform for participation and engagement and provide an important networking option for the PHH. The evolution of Web 2.0 technologies continues to expand at breakneck speed. While there are ever more tools and platforms to choose from, applications of tools associated with the great Web 2.0 success stories (Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, etc) continue to provide mixed results. This can be summarised by the following notion: You can build it, but they won t necessarily come - and if they do, will they do what you want? TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 32

33 Further, the great successes mentioned above are characterised by what has become known as social media. While social media attracts a wide range of definitions, its characteristics can be summarised as involving: 1. User generated content - A web platform or website in this context is simply a mechanism that enables participants to contribute their content, be it conversation, knowledge in the form of articles, video, pictures, (Wikipedia, YouTube etc.). 2. Ongoing relationships - Participants make a commitment to ongoing engagement in some form, for instance by registering and providing profile information and expecting social interaction (Facebook Blogs etc.). It is important to recognise in this context, that the host organisation also makes this commitment to an ongoing relationship, even if by simply supporting it through effective technical support, but more commonly through actual and ongoing community engagement. 3. Extending collaborative potential - With the increasing reach of web-based social interaction collaborative potential is greatly extended. This is because collaboration is predicated upon communication, coordination and the cooperative generation of media. Wikipedia s ability to far outpace and outstrip Britannica, while still remaining accurate 4, or Facebook s recent role in enabling regime overthrow in the Middle East. 5 The question this raises for government and non-government organisations and of course the PHH, is How do we get the most out of Web 2.0 and social media in support of our organisational goals?. 5.2 Developing effective online tools = Growing effective online communities No matter how great the tool or technology, it needs to be supported by appropriate value propositions for participants ( what do I get out of my involvement in this?), as well as aligned with their values and social norms. The central touchstone for our approach to developing the web based component of the PHH is adherence to a staged consideration of: People > Process > Tools This underlying philosophy is designed to avoid the all too common misjudgement of first selecting a tool or technology without prior consideration of participants involved or the process through which they will engage the technology. Placing the cart before the horse in this fashion is almost always a precursor to a project s failure, as no tool can be successfully implemented without adequate process, and no process will work without the support of the people who will engage it Recommended approach for establishing an online component of the PHH to engage the Pacific heritage community In bringing an online community to life, such as a broad Pacific heritage community, great care and focus must be applied along three initial lines: 1) Strategy; 2) Designs and specification; and 4 Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, Jim Giles, Nature International Weekly Journal of Science, see 5 A Facebook group, We are all Khaled Said, is widely attributed to being an early catalyst to the Egyptian Revolution of For more information, see TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 33

34 3) Development and base software. Further, effective cultivation of online communities, as well as best practice in Web 2.0 technology development, focuses on evolving the technology with the community. This entails a commitment to on going engagement and growth - both from a technical and a community perspective. This approach is important because actual, effective communities, on or offline, are organic entities (not passive audiences or websites). With any productive, organic, evolving entity always comes a certain amount of uncertainty. The big lesson of the Web 2.0 era is that this uncertainty can be leveraged as a strategic advantage. By fostering a collaborative relationship with the end users and stakeholders, while at the same time avoiding complicated or over-technical user requirements, a high degree of flexibility and community support can be cultivated. This provides strategic advantages with regard to providing resilience in catering for unexpected use, outcomes or events, as well as avoiding over capitalisation on unused features. The following sections provide high-level descriptions of the key deliverables recommended to achieve a successful Internet based collaborative tool for the Pacific heritage community. Strategy As described in section 5.1, in the context of Web 2.0 and social media, the technology is merely a tool - the tip of the iceberg. Who will use the technology, the rational as to why and how they will use it, as well as planning with regard to how they will be attracted and retained are all aspects that require consideration. This is the role of a detailed engagement strategy as outlined below. The engagement strategy is often equally, if not more important, than the actual technology itself and requires careful strategic design. This is because if you have effectively identified, connected with and attracted your desired community, its members will be far more tolerant of technology that isn t quite perfect yet. They will also be the initiative s engine, promoting it, driving engagement and providing the user generated content that turns an empty site into a thriving community. Consequently, quality and efficacy of this engagement and resulting content will only be as good as the quality and efficacy of the community. This scoping study provides recommendations for an appropriate engagement strategy that should be developed in parallel with the implementation of the formal design and specification document for the interactive website. This parallel development is imperative in order to align the progress with stakeholder engagement with the technical website features that will support this engagement. These are interdependent considerations and will inform one another. Developing a final engagement strategy, and the tools needed to implement it, would be tasks for the PHH Manager working with a Web 2.0 expert. The following provides a generic outline of the types of considerations such a strategy would include: 1) Purpose & Vision The purpose of the proposed initiative and the high-level vision the strategy advocates. 2) Stages An overview of the primary staging of the community, technology and strategy roll out. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 34

35 3) Participant groups A structured profile for each type of program participant, and an analysis of how these types relate and their motivations for participation. 4) Participant activities Detailed information about what participants will do in each stage of the plan. 5) Technology development An explanation of the technology development process, and high-level requirements. 6) Resourcing Description of skills and experience required to: Facilitate participant activities in the online platform Provide technical support and maintenance requirements Provide strategic oversight to ensure effective strategy implementation. Design and specification A focused document will be required, addressing the necessary specifications guiding the PHH platform s technical development. This includes visual design and development implementation plans. In addition to ensuring the platform s requirements are met and laid out in the strategy, this document is the basis for deciding who develops the platform, with what technology and how. With a strong strategy and design, web development is considerably streamlined Development and base software The requirement for a platform that is easy to deploy and reasonably priced, yet highly extensible and customisable, points to open source content management systems as the ideal solution for the PHH. Open source platforms are free to download and install, requiring no licensing fees. They are typically supported by a large number of skilled developers. Such a platform should have an out-of-the-box feature set that can meet the needs identified in the strategy and design specification. An example of such a platform is Drupal Commons, a social business software providing organisations with a complete solution for forming collaborative communities. It combines popular social web features for users and community management tools for site owners. It's a complete ready-to-use solution, just install, and go. The Drupal framework has been used for many government Web 2.0 and international development implementations worldwide. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 35

36 6 A proposal for the Pacific Heritage Hub interactive component In line with the previous discussion, there is a clear opportunity to improve collaboration among those involved in the preservation and management of national heritage and implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific region using online technologies. However, in order for effective collaboration to result (on or offline), these individuals must come to see themselves as members of a community, with common goals, effectively a Pacific Heritage Collaborative Knowledge Network perhaps. This can be achieved in part by how the PHH communicates its vision, purpose and the value of participation. However, there will also be a requirement for the community identity to be reinforced through constructive and focused participant behaviour. Synthesising the information and options provided through the consultation process, a proposal for the framework and design of the PHH web based component is provided in Appendix 3. In arriving at this proposal, the consultant study team has applied its People > Process > Tools approach in the formulation of questions in stakeholder interviews, evaluation of the responses and during our internal PHH framework design workshops. The suggested proposal is for the specific purpose of generating discussion, refining of ideas and approaches and providing guidance on the process to be followed when this component is developed. It should not be considered a final design, rather the best current option, and one requiring further stakeholder review and discussion. The approach was further refined at the Planning Meeting held in Suva at the end of April TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 36

37 7 Governance considerations When considering possible options for the governance of the PHH several important principles outlined in the scoping study will help shape possible structures, including the opportunity these may provide to build a strong coalition to guide and support and the Pacific World Heritage Action Plan implementation over the next decade. In this regard the following considerations should be taken into account by those tasked with defining a suitable governance mechanism: the need for effective strategic oversight of the development of the PHH requiring committed and knowledgeable individuals with institutional support where possible; targeted representation of the key institutions with linkages to supporting programmes and funding sources; linkages with the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and supporting institutions; understanding and experience of the World Heritage process as it relates to this region; ability to provide institutional support; and ability to assist with potential funding to support the governance structure and PHH operations. With these core principles in mind the consultant study team recommends that the core functions of any governing body comprise the following: oversight of the PHH planning and implementation strategy; ensuring the PHH is responsive and adaptable to the needs of its stakeholders and online communities; setting in place operating protocols including appropriate internet security; raising the operating funding; and reviewing its membership and performance. 7.1 PHH Management Committee The PHH Management Committee recommended in above would be established as a Committee of the governance body and would serve to provide inter-sessional oversight of the Hub and its activities. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 37

38 Appendix 1 Individuals and organisations consulted Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community (SEWPAC) Mr Ken Heffernan, Director, international Heritage Section, Canberra. Ken.Heffernan@environment.gov.au Ms Samantha Phillips, International Heritage Section, Canberra. Samantha.Phillips@environment.gov.au Ms Kate Feros, International Heritage Section, Canberra. Kate.Feros@environment.gov.au Bikini Atoll World Heritage Site Ms Nicole Baker, WH Nomination Facilitator, Wellington New Zealand. nicole.f.baker@gmail. com Conservation International Ms Sue Taei, Conservation Director, Pacific Islands Program, Apia Samoa. staei@conservation.org Mr Mike Donoghue, Executive Director, Pacific Islands Program Apia, Samoa. mdonoghue@conservation.org East Rennell World Heritage site Mr Greg Taieha, Volunteer Coordinator, gtaieha3@gmail.com Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) Mr Jon Day, acting General Manager Marine Park Management Branch. Townsville, Queensland. Jon.day@gbrmpa.gov.au Dr. Anita Smith, LaTrobe University, Melbourne. (member ICOMOS Australia) a.smith@latrobe.edu.au ICOMOS Global Ms Kristal Buckley, International Vice President, Melbourne, Australia. kristal.buckley@icomos.org IUCN Mr Jan Steffen, Marine Program Coordinator, IUCN Pacific Regional Office, Suva, Fiji Jan.STEFFEN@iucn.org Mr Tim Badman, IUCN Global Heritage Division, Gland, Switzerland Pacific Arts Councils Networks Dr. Lori Phillips, Pacific Resources for Education and Learning, Honolulu, Hawaii. phillipl@prel.org PIMA, ICOMOS Pasifika, Pacific Heritage Network, Fiji WH Focal Point Mere Ratunabuabua, Principal Cultural Development Officer, Department of National Heritage, Culture & Arts, Fiji. mereculture@hotmail.com TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 38

39 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Dr. Linda Petersen, Human Development Programme Manager, Noumea, New Caledonia. Dr. Elise Huffer, Human Development Advisor (Culture) Suva Regional Office, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Mr Bruce Jefferies, Terrestrial Ecosystems Advisor Terrestrial Ecosystems Management Officer) Solomon Islands Government Mr Aseri Yalangono, Acting Under Secretary- Professional, Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, World Wildlife Fund Ms Jackie Thomas, Pacific Policy Officer Coral Triangle Initiative WWF South Pacific Programme UNESCO World Heritage Secretariat Ms Fanny Douvere, Coordinator World Heritage Marine Programme Paris, France. Planning Meeting on Pacific Heritage Hub (Suva, Fiji, April 2011) The following participants attended the above two day meeting and their valuable contributions significantly assisted the completion of the Scoping Study and its recommendations. Mr. Ken Heffernan Heritage Division, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, Australia Ms. Kristal Buckley International Vice President, ICOMOS, Melbourne, Australia Ms. Suzie Yee Show Secretary-General ICOMOS Pacifika, Suva, Fiji Mr. Jan H. Steffen Regional Marine Program Coordinator, IUCN Oceania Office Suva, Fiji Ms. Tarisi Vunidilo Secretary-General, Pacific Islands Museum Association (PIMA) Ms. Elise Huffer Human Development Program Adviser, SPC, Regional Office, Suva, Fiji. Mr. Bruce Jefferies Terrestrial Ecosystems Management Officer, SPREP, Apia, Samoa Prof. Vilsoni Hereniko Director, Oceania Centre for Arts, Culture and Pacific Studies, USP Suva, Fiji TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 39

40 Adi. Meretui Ratunabuabua Cultural Development Officer, Department of National Heritage, Culture & Arts, Suva, Fiji. Mr Paul Dingwall UNESCO Mentor APA Periodic Reporting, New Zealand Ms. Bridgitte Kalmary Laboukly World Heritage Focal Point, Vanuatu Culture Centre, Port Vila, Vanuatu Ms. Jane Harrington President ICOMOS Australia, Port Arthur Tasmania, Australia MS. Akatsuki Takahashi Programme Specialist for Culture, UNESCO Office for the Pacific States Mr. Kevin Petrini Programme Specialist for Science, UNESCO Office for the Pacific States Additional written comments on the Draft were received with appreciation from: Ms. Jane Harrington President ICOMOS Australia, Port Arthur Tasmania, Australia Mr Paul Dingwall, UNESCO Mentor APA Periodic Reporting, New Zealand Mr. Derek Cleland Policy Advisor, Department of National Heritage, Culture and Arts, Fiji Government, USP Suva, Fiji Mr Ken Heffernan, Director, Heritage Division, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community, Australian Government. Ms Kristal Buckley Vice President ICOMOS, ICOMOS Dr. Robin Yarrow Vice President, National Trust of Fiji, Suva, Fiji TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 40

41 Appendix 2 The World Heritage properties of Pacific Island States Parties, Territories and Non Pacific Island Parties Pacific Island State Parties Date Status Properties Inscribed Fiji* 1990 Ratified Solomon Islands 1992 Acceded East Rennell (Natural) Papua New Guinea* 1997 Accepted Kuk Early Agricultural( Cultural) Kiribati* 2000 Accepted Phoenix Islands Protected Area ( Natural) Niue 2001 Accepted Samoa* 2001 Accepted Marshall Islands * 2002 Accepted Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test site (Cultural) Federated States of Micronesia* 2002 Accepted Palau* 2002 Accepted Vanuatu * 2001 Ratified Chief Roy Mata s Domain (Cultural) Tonga* 2004 Accepted Cook Islands 2009 Ratified Pacific Territories and Non Pacific Island Parties France - New Caledonia Lagoons of New Caledonia Reef Diversity & Associated Ecosystems (Natural) Chile Easter Island Rapa Nui National Park (Cultural) United Kingdom Henderson Island (Natural) United States of America- Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (Natural) Papahanaumokuakea (Mixed) * Denotes States Parties which have submitted Tentative Lists TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 41

42 Appendix 3 Proposal for a Pacific Heritage Collaborative Knowledge Network 6 In line with the discussion in Sections 5 and 6 of the report, there is a clear opportunity to improve collaboration among those involved in the preservation and management of national heritage and implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific region using online technologies. However, in order for effective collaboration to result (on or offline), these individuals must come to see themselves as members of a community, with common goals, effectively a Pacific Heritage Collaborative Knowledge Network perhaps. This can be achieved in part by how the PHH communicates its vision, purpose and the value of participation. However, there will also be a requirement for the community identity to be reinforced through constructive and focused participant behaviour. In addition to cultivating a shared identity, participants must build trust with one another if knowledge sharing is to be enabled. 7 Research shows that trusting in another's capabilities (do they possess the knowledge and skills required to help?), as well as trusting their benevolence (are they willing to help?) are critical factors in enabling sharing of experiential and complex knowledge. Formation of trust along these lines is greatly facilitated by holding a common vision, goals and language (a key role of the proposed community). Also important is a safe space (physical or virtual) where interactions can be supported and encouraged (a key function of a web-based Hub). Figure 5 illustrates the basic schematic for interactions between community members, mediated by the PHH website: Figure 5: Interactions between community members, mediated by the PHH website 6 This title is primarily meant to convey the substance and purpose of the community, and not necessarily proposed as a community-facing name of the PHH. 7 Trust and knowledge sharing: A critical combination, IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations, Daniel Z. Levin, Rob Cross, Lisa C. Abrams and Eric L. Lesse, see: TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 42

43 The function of this proposed Pacific Heritage Collaborative Network would be to articulate the approaches to achieving outcomes outlined above in Section 4.3. Specifically it would provide the following functions: 1) Knowledge and information sharing; 2) Expertise and experience sharing; 3) Mentorship and training opportunities; and 4) Streamlining engagement with Convention processes. We suggest that a staged approach should be applied to effectively build online community membership and capacity, in order to lead up to achieving the full range of these activities. The following engagement framework provides a sequential staging of participant engagement that is strategically designed, catering to the needs of building membership and capacity, while aiming to provide maximum value for the participants and supporting Governments and institutional partners. Community engagement framework In accordance with the above recommendation for staged growth that is responsive to community engagement, we propose two stages of strategic community development: Stage 1: Ask > Connect Stage 2: Learn > Collaborate Stage 1 would provide functionality and opportunities for: Asking questions Formulation of these questions would be open to participants. However, they would be encouraged to focus on their challenges and activities surrounding implementation of World Heritage. Connecting those who are asking questions to the resources (human or otherwise) that they require. This would be supported through uploading files, sharing URLs to Web-based resources, and contacts for appropriate expertise. Through this simple and straightforward activity of asking questions and then connecting the asker with the resources they require, collaborative community identity can be fostered through reciprocal altruistic exchange, as well as building trust among the fledgling community members. With adequate communication of the value proposition, outreach to potential members, staged strategy of community growth, and supporting the ask/connect activities through technology and human resourcing, a solid community foundation could be established, upon which to progress to the next stage. Stage 2 would extend community engagement towards: Learning, training and mentoring opportunities. This would be supported through cultivating, sharing and promoting such opportunities. Collaborating on streamlining engagement with the World Heritage Convention process in the Pacific. The outcomes of such collaboration could take a wide range of forms, for example mentoring and training programs, interpretation of World Heritage Convention materials, development of best practice guides and instructional materials in local languages, etc. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 43

44 These activities are recommended as a second stage, as they will rely upon established relationships, trust, shared vision and goals - all of which being the objectives of stage one. Further, the regional needs and opportunities with regard to learning and collaboration first need establishing. These needs and opportunities will likely only be able to be adequately understood following the community dialogue and exploration of available resources during stage one. Proposed Online Platform This section outlines an example website feature set designed to support the above straw man concept. It is focused at the high level functionality needed to support the activities recommended, and would require further business analysis in order to build a complete feature set. Table 4 provides a high level summary of the Stage 1 and 2 features along with their expected benefit in the context of the straw man proposal. Table 4: Stage 1 and 2 features of proposal for PHH interactive tool. Feature Benefit Stage 1 Activity stream Resource library User and organisation profiles Private messaging Moderation Public-facing brochure pages Asynchronous (one direction at a time) online conversation, allowing participants to ask questions and respond at their convenience. Shared resources and other important information is intuitively arranged and easily searchable. Information about participants and their organisations is available for browsing at any time. Participants can contact each other via their profiles, without alerting other users of their activity. The PHH web site administrator can choose to enable moderation of any site activity (comments, connection requests, etc.) prior to it being posted to the site. Provides public information pages on the site and its purpose that can be populated with content by the PHH administrators. Stage 2 Group work spaces Allows participants to create and manage a shared workspace to coordinate and collaborate on activities and documents. An overview of how the above features would be arranged on the website, along with a recommended staging of their development and roll out is provided in Figure 6 below. Note that Stage 1 and Stage 2 along the top of the diagram refer to the community engagement stages outline above, and that the approach to releasing the site to the public is staged to maximise emergent opportunities with the growing community. TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 44

45 Figure 6: Site features, development and release plan of proposed interactive web based tool for PHH TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 45

46 Development and implementation road-map Figure 7 below provides a flow diagram for the high level phases of development and implementation, from the perspective of both the website, and importantly, the online community. While Phase 1 entails all work required to launch the beta platform to the community, and Phases 2 and 3 are primarily focused on community engagement and growth considerations, it should be anticipated that some development and refinements would be taking place during these phases. Note also that this diagram is only relevant in the context of the current proposal. Changes to highlevel objectives, outcomes and approaches, or the community engagement framework would impact this work flow. Figure 7: Development and implementation road-map TIERRAMAR CONSULTING 46