From World Heritage to an International Living Networks Alliance

Alain HAYS - International Consultant: Green Building & Building Heritage (GBBH)

Abstract

This communication will consist of two parts: The first part is about of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces classified as a World Heritage Site (WHS), reminding the importance of the First Terraced Landscapes Conference, in which the author has participated, that led to this prestigious recognition and was the very foundation of the International Alliance for Terraced Landscapes.

This first part also raises the consequent issue of mass tourism and tourists’ accommodation in native villages and argues a “Living Heritage” vision for conservation and sustainability.

The second part invites us to think about the best ways for organizing a thematic international alliance. A pragmatic approach will lead us to draw up the concept of “Living Networks Alliance” which could be applied to other international movements or networks.

Towards World Heritage: the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces

“The Cultural Landscape of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces, China covers 16,603-hectares in Southern Yunnan. It is marked by spectacular terraces that cascade down the slopes of the towering Ailao Mountains to the banks of the Hong River. Over the past 1,300 years, the Hani people have developed a complex system of channels to bring water from the forested mountaintops to the terraces. They have also created an integrated farming system that involves buffalos, cattle, ducks, fish and eel and supports the production of red rice, the area’s primary crop. The inhabitants worship the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, forests and other natural phenomena including fire. They live in 82 villages situated between the mountaintop forests and the terraces. The villages feature traditional thatched “mushroom” houses. The resilient land management system of the rice terraces demonstrates extraordinary harmony between people and their environment, both visually and ecologically, based on exceptional and long-standing social and religious structures.” (UNESCO, 2013)

(Picture: ? Jialiang Gao - wikipedia)

The First Terraced Landscapes Conference was scheduled in November 2010 by the Honghe authorities as a preliminary stage in order to obtain the Hani Rice Terraces classification as World Heritage, which created great expectations and probably also raised a lot of questions from the locals at that time.

"The wealth of the Honghe water rice terraces is worth the recognition as World Heritage site for the amazing beauty of the handmade transformed landscape, but also for the indigenous multicultures [1] which have demonstrated over the centuries a real potential for rice diversity production and natural resources management.?

The Honghe rice-growing terraced fields are a wonderful example of eco-cultural practices, biodiversity conservation and invaluable living heritage for our World in search of sustainable development. Reflection of human genius, we could name the Honghe rice-growing terraces as the “ Thousand Sky’s Mirrors of Rice Civilizations”." *

(* Comments on Hani Rice Terraces, Alain Hays, Honghe, 2010-11-14)

(Yuanyang - UNESCO World Heritage Site - video)

Three years after this Conference, the Hani Rice Terraces have been declared a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is undoubtedly a great acknowledgement to the Hani and Yi peoples, placing to the highest level their incredible art for landscaping terraces.

This wonderful indigenous heritage also highly raises consciousness about the necessary preservation of all threaten terraced sites around the world and helps to demonstrate the key relevance of terraced landscapes for geo- and biodiversity conservation at global level. Consequently, at the end of this first conference, it was decided to create an International Alliance for Terraced Landscapes as discussed further in this communication.

Giving the floor to Hani and Yi peoples

During the event, a special attention was paid to the inhabitants, giving the floor to Hani and Yi peoples. The organizers applied a participatory approach, using visualization[2] to facilitate the exchange of information and to promote all participants awareness and understanding.

Hani and Yi people explained us in length their complex relation to their fabulous earthy terraces. They put a special emphasis on their traditions, practices and relation to nature, explaining the importance of their beliefs and the deep respect they had for their holy forest and nature deities.

Despite the great interest aroused by their presentations, I have had the impression that the exponents just tell us what we wanted to hear because they knew who we were and the main reason of our presence.

Strangely enough, they did not speak so much about the future of their land as a possible World Heritage site while the great mobilization of the population and their leaders to welcome us were obviously motivated by an enormous expectation for this worldwide recognition. One has only to remember our “triumphal” entry in Yuanyang county on 11 November 2010 (see video).

A very telling drawing

However, a Hani presentation was brought to my attention. A Hani speaker made a significant drawing that turned out to be premonitory.

(Note: letters and arrows added by the author)

?At first glance, we can be surprised that the terraces’ area (T) is reduced to less than half the image of the landscape when the built areas (A and B) are dominating the drawing. The speaker explained that since 1990, terraces areas are decreasing, for the lack of water, and also for urban extension and new infrastructures, perhaps also for rural exodus of young people to the cities in search of jobs.

It is interesting to compare this drawing with the following cross section of a typical Honghe terraced landscape. On the contrary, the section view shows earthy terraces, dry fields, shrub land and forests that occupy at least 90% of the landscape and villages only a very limited area.

“The landscape reflects an integrated four-fold system of forests, water supply, terraces and houses. The mountain top forests are the lifeblood of the terraces in capturing and sustaining the water needed for the irrigation. There are four types of forests, the ancient ‘water recharge’ forest, sacred forest, consolidation forests, and village forests for the provision of timber for building, food and firewood. The sacred forests still have strong connotations. Above the village are places for the Village God “Angma” (the soul of the village) and for the Land Protection God “Misong”, where villagers pray for peace, health and prosperity.”

[…] “Eighty-two relatively small villages with between 50 and 100 households are constructed above the terraces just below the mountain top forests. The traditional vernacular buildings have walls built of rammed earth, of adobe bricks or of earth and stone under a tall, hipped, roof thatched with straw that gives the houses a distinctive ‘mushroom’ shape. At least half the houses in the villages are mainly or partly of traditional materials.” (UNESCO ref 1111)

Rammed Earth Construction - Hani Women, Honghe Museum. 2010.

Watching again the Hani drawing, its top strangely shows a dominant urban world instead of the announced mountain top forest. So, what was it about? Any urban expectation? A new reality?

A long buildings’ row along the wide road seems shops (B4). This drawing may also indicate that indigenous people are not too isolated and have significant relationships with the cities, especially because the huge transformation and modernization of China. Mostly workers in the cities come from the rural areas. They built unavoidable “bridges” between rural and urban worlds. Today, the rural-urban divide is far more complex than the simple analyses suggest. Urban lifestyle is still largely viewed as a unique model of progress, and the city as a powerful marker of modernity, a real hope for a better life for millions of poor peasant-farmers. (see my article :?“Eco-cultural” Perspectives for Green Building Design and Built Heritage Conservation”)

Looking more closely at the drawing, urban multistoried buildings (B2 and B3) appeared in heart of the village drawing, while the sacred mountaintop forest (H2) is relocated at right, below the urban world, just below the “Highway” (H1). It is what I call “H-to-H Syndrome”.

The “H-to-H” Syndrome

“H-to-H” means “Highway to Holy Place”. The “H-to-H Syndrome” is typical of mass tourism and consumer societies and not the specific situation of China. On the one hand we value ethnic cultures as never before, and on the other we must take share of the blame for the disappearance of endangered indigenous people. We are looking for authenticity while just by our massive presence and our requirements we upset existing ecological and social balances of any autonomous society.

Domestic and foreign tourism is constantly increasing. Numerous tourists want to stay in traditional dwellings, to have a look at sacred places, to experiment some hours of peasant hard life as if it were matter of playing. For them, indigenous peoples feel an obligation to wear everyday their best traditional clothes as if it were a permanent festival in their villages. But what is authenticity exactly in such cases? Only hidden paths protect the holy forest, not highways…

When an indigenous site is classified as World Heritage, the “H-to-H Syndrome” run the risk to have enormous consequences if it has not been properly thought by all the stakeholders. Sudden mass-tourism and abrupt changes are hard to deal with.

“Spiritual leaders of the Hani Villages Migus are worshipping the god of the forests, Yuanyang County Dayutang Village, March 2010.” (Guo Zhan & Zhang Jin, 2015, p.659)

The Delicate Gentrification Issue

In 2016 (three years after the WHS classification) a group of English and Chinese experts (PhDs) from the Universities of Greenwich, Minzu, Hong Kong and Xi’an Jiaotong made a relevant study. Their research on site reveals a triple gentrification process in Honghe WHS: Gentrifier-led gentrification, State-led gentrification and Self-gentrification. "Gentrification" can be defined as "the production of space for progressively more affluent users" resulting in the gradual, indirect displacement of long-terra residents.”(Hackworth, 2002, in Jin Hooi Chan et al. 2016, p.4 ).

Looking again at the symbolic drawing, we can observe that the village area (A) is really wide spread, showing a lot of traditional dwellings from the terraces (T) up to the “Highway” (H1). Like the holy forest (H2), the traditional Hani village’s gate (H3) is now directly connected to the urban “Highway”. But, why so many traditional houses? Perhaps, because an expectation of high rental value of their traditional dwellings for touristic purpose. The indigenous houses seemed to be of great economic importance and at core of a development strategy.

This drawing in 2010 was really premonitory: “Government ban on new construction in the WHS for conservation purposes has caused high rental demand for existing Hani dwellings. […] During our 2015 revisit, a gentrifier declared the annual rental he paid to be about US$10,000 — a very high figure in comparison to the village's average annual income of less than US$500 per capita” (Jin Hooi Chan et al. 2016, p.16).

The study concludes that endogenous gentrification of villages by some of their own inhabitants (self-gentrification) for homestay tourist accommodation is more convenient than exogenous gentrification, because this could reduce out-migration in compared of other types of gentrification.

This may be true but I would not be so optimist. To lodge a growing number of tourists in small indigenous villages could have a deep impact on traditional private and community life. In other words, tourists will invade ethnic peoples day and night. The number of traditional dwellings reserved for tourist accommodation is set to increase in the future. This “self-gentrification” could also imply significant out-migration involving a risk of not enough peasants available for rice-terraces cultivation and maintenance. In villages, to accept only proper scale tourist groups, to develop economic activities (reserved almost fully to natives) as transportation and guiding, agricultural produce and local crafts selling, small bars, tea/coffee places and small restaurants providing friendly and comfortable rest areas, etc. could be a better way to achieve long-term sustainability.

“The tension between cultural exoticism and modernity is clearly depicted by the most senior manager in the state-owned tourist development corporation Shibo-Yuanyang Co. Ltd.5 in improving the general living conditions of the villages: "Some experts proposed that the more authentic [the culture is] the better; the more ancient the better... you demand [Indigenous people] to be poor, backward, and remain primitive, but you want to stay in a luxurious hotel room!... Our company position is... we are investing in this place, first and foremost, for conservation. But if it is merely conservation, and no reasonable development, the people cannot get rich. If local people are not rich, they will destroy [the rice terraces]."” (Jin Hooi Chan et al. 2016, p.18).

A fair agreement and balance of profits between all stakeholders is necessary for granting substantial benefits to ethnic natives who know how to maintain “alive” a so complex agricultural heritage. Government and governmental agencies should play a critical role in ensuring balance and regulation.

"Living Heritage" Concept

In 1999, invited by the Mexican delegation to the World Congress on the Conservation of Monumental Heritage[3], Prof. Jorge González Claverán and?I, we argued that it is essential to take into account?both aspects - tangible and intangible - for any natural or cultural heritage. It is even more valid for World Heritage. Defending that position, we coined together the key concept of “Living Heritage”.

This concept of Living Heritage is definitely relevant in case of indigenous heritage, in particular for terraces conservation. The tangible heritage of Hani and Yi terraces is their beauty, complexity, extension, and high quality crops. Intangible heritage consists of deep indigenous knowledge and eco-cultural practices, local people involvement and appropriate societal organization. These tangible and intangible aspects are totally linked and should be taken into account for any action to ensure maximum protection of such World Living Heritage; in this case the permanency of an amazing World Eco-Cultural Heritage.

SKY WATER EARTH ART (earthen rice terraces that scaled steep mountain slopes)

An International Living Networks Alliance

As we noted above, a significant outcome of the First Terraced Landscapes Conference was the International Alliance for Terraced Landscapes. But how to run “properly” an international alliance? I will try to give my views from my long experience in several cultural and socio-political contexts (Europe, Latin America, China), managing many projects, working with various institutions: academic, governmental, international, associations and indigenous peoples).[4] For development of an international alliance, I think it exists two main possible ways. The first one could be the formalization of a “conventional organization”.

Conventional Organization – the first way

This conventional organization is, in principle, based on the previous election of one delegate for each country. Then, these elected delegates make up an international advisory board. From this advisory board are elected or designated the members of an executive committee and elected the president of the international organization (unless the president would be elected by all the organization members, which is difficult to achieve between countries that are located far away from each other). In reality, international events organized by this type of international organization are often a unique opportunity of global meetings for the re-election of their leaders and President. I remind some international thematic organizations. During international fora, the representatives of each country seemed to exercise more concern for their re-election as new executive committee member than by the goal of the forum. In other words, the international meetings were often transformed into the theater of innumerable conflicts and intrigues as if the main purpose of the international meeting had become a secondary consideration…

But let us imagine that we are only between fair play persons and very democratic institutions from friendly countries without any envy or ambitions for power, though some are much wealthier and more powerful organizations or countries than others: it would be like wonderland, doesn’t it ? Institutions and their leaders (in particular NGOs, universities, research centers and even charitable organizations…) fortunate enough to have more resources, always end up benefiting the funds rather than qualified stakeholders on the ground or independent actors who have already proven successful. In other words, consistent funds are granted in most cases to those who demonstrate a long history of large fundraising and financial administration regardless of the actual work done and true professional quality of their projects in the past.

Nevertheless, this “conventional organization” system is necessary for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and could be convenient for international organizations (IOs) whose members in each country have the same status at local and global levels, as for example an international network of universities. The rules are easier to define when everybody uses them in his own environment and above all when everyone has the same status. But I understand that on the contrary, the International Alliance for Terraced Landscape, since its creation, does its best for integrating and motivating new actors coming from different backgrounds and territories. And that is how it should be!

In this diagram, the countries A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I have elected their respective delegates a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i. who make up their advisory board. An executive committee is comprised of members i, d, f, a. At this level, we can observe that the representatives of the countries B,C,E,F,G,H are not present in the executive committee. Unfortunately, the “democracy” quickly appears to have its technocratic and bureaucratic limits…. Here, the elected President “a” is from the country A.

The Alliance commitment to openness obliges to imagine another organizational scheme. We do not have to re-invent the wheel but to start from the current reality. So, in my opinion, the second way would be the own Alliance capacity-building and priorities, what we can refer to as a “Living Networks Alliance”.

Concept of “Living Networks Alliance” – the second way

An argument for this second way is the diversity of participants and their location. In various documents the Alliance is presented as a network of professionals and activists. “Stakeholders” or “actors” would be more appropriate than “professionals and activists”. Firstly, because these terms are not on an equal footing: a professional can also be an activist when an activist is not necessary a professional. Secondly, because the ambiguity of the word “professional”. Does it mean a person who belongs to one of the profession? Does it mean a person who is expert at his or her work? Does it include for example a PhD student who has not yet graduated but who is doing a useful research about terraces? Does it include retired specialists or academics who are no longer engaged in an employed or self-employed activity? Does it really include indigenous people or peasant inhabitants who are expert in terraced landscapes building, cultivation and maintenance? In case of touristic regions with attractive terraced landscapes (e.g. World Heritage Sites), does it also mean a person who is working in tourism-related business connected with the terraced landscapes topic? That seems a little confusing. On a global scale, talking about “stakeholders”, “actors” or “partners” could better designate any person or institution who is involved in the use, rehabilitation, conservation, improvement and development of terraces, who is committed to the terraced landscapes preservation and who agreed with the founding Honghe Declaration (a copy of this text is attached for ease of reference). ?Thus profiles of the members of the Alliance should be much more open:

• Direct actors & users: Local Inhabitants - Peasant Communities - Indigenous People - Farmers - Agro-food Productors - Rice Growers - Tea Growers - Wine Growers - Local craft producers, etc.
• Peasant Associations: Cooperatives - Peasant Federations - Agricultural Producers’ Networks - etc.
• Knowers: Growers, Local Specialists, Academics (Universities), Researchers, Experts, Consultants, Governmental or International Cooperants - etc.
• Scientists: Archaeologists, Historians, Geographers, Ethnographers, Anthropologists, Agronomists, Botanists, etc.
• Builders: Local Builders, Materials Producers, Water Engineers, Civil Engineers, Landscape Designers, Architects, etc.
• Promoters: Local Knowers - Activists - Volunteers - NGOs - Students - Teachers - Educators – Schoolchildren – Reporters – Film-makers – Photographers – Eco-museums, etc.
• Formal Nature Conservation Organizations: Nature Park, Eco-Cultural Park Managers (local, regional, national.) - etc.?
• International Nature and Culture Organizations: IGOs (UNESCO - UN Agencies - FAO), IOs (ICOMOS – IUCN, etc.)
• Administrative Authorities: (local, provincial, regional, national, etc.), GO(s)
• Indirect actors: Merchants, Businessmen, Tourism officers, Ecotourism actors - Innkeepers, Restaurateurs, Carriers, Tourists. etc.
• Investors: Private, Public, Local or External Investors - Banks, etc.
• Sponsors: Funding Partners - Donors - Fundations - Development Agencies - Local, Provincial, Regional, National, International Organizations - GOs - IOs - IGOs - etc.

This stakeholders’ list is far from to be exhaustive.

If we take into account all these “Terraces” stakeholders eventually interested in the Alliance, it is almost certain that a conventional organization will never work. Which official delegate could represent so different stakeholders? and how to organize fair and democratic elections ? Only a decentralized organization, an alliance of motivated and independent networks (the plural is significant) and key individual persons or groups could really work. It is why I have tried to illustrate the concept of “Living Networks Alliance”. (see below, the following illustration)

This concept of “living networks alliance” is not a pipe-dream. So far, it is the current reality, and it has worked with little means compared to the successful mobilization and a good number of “Terraces” events in several countries. We have to congratulate all who have helped this initiative to become a reality. In less than a decade, the numerous meetings and international conferences organized in Peru, in Italia, and soon in Spain (Canary Islands) speak for themselves.

What can we observe from this second graphic illustration ?

First, each country is unique and the terraced landscapes reality and involvement of people about this topic are different in every country. Stakeholders are also not the same.

Second, in each country, we can find different types of organization, giving power to local stakeholders at all decision-making, planning and implementation levels. e.g.:

• In the country H, Alliance actors have decided to create a formal national association “h” (e.g. as it is the case in Italy) Why not? if the establishment of this new association meets the participants needs for developing activities in their country or from their country towards other actors at global level.
• In the country E, a key person “e” makes great efforts to promote activities of the Alliance and bring together important actors and competencies around the Terraced Landscapes topic.
• In the country I, we can imagine a stakeholders cluster “i” which coordinates its activities with different terraced landscapes sites. e.g. It could be a peasant confederation for terraced landscapes agriculture, a terraces builders corporation,?an informal activist movement, or any motivated organization.
• In the country F, we can observe a strong inter-communication or inter-action between several terraced sites, maybe because a good agricultural and rural development policy, maybe because an efficient NGOs coordination (which is no easy matter…), or other historical and social factors.
• In the country A, terraced sites and their actors look independent. It is a common situation when the distances are quite great between these sites inside a same country or when the agricultural use of terraces are very different: rice growers, tea growers, etc.

Third, dot lines between some of sites and their actors highlight inter-communication or concrete actions (projects, programs, resources exchange, etc.) between them. Following a process of decentralization, it is important that the Alliance encourages appropriate forms of cooperation at the initiative of its members or prospective members. These could cover domestic and international cooperation. Alliance members or potential members (e.g. national research centers, universities) must be free to develop their own terraced landscapes programs and their researches at regional, national or international level. The Alliance should not result in stakeholders substitution. On the contrary, the Alliance has to be a credible promoter for any valuable initiative which contributes, with ethics and transparency, in the achievement of its goals.

Fourth, and perhaps the more striking, the graphic illustration shows that any Alliance actors has to be be directly informed of all activities and projects, new demands and timely news, and no only some representatives as it is too often the case in many conventional organizations. Any actor needs to feel engaged as a member of the Global Alliance Committee (GAC).

Fifth, To facilitate inter-communication between all stakeholders at global level is the main and difficult task. Internet is a great tool for that but not enough. There must also be a real willingness and that takes work. The “president” of the Alliance (sometimes it is convenient to use this word in formal events or proceedings) has to be a Global Coordinator (GC), a key person who has demonstrated capacities for facilitating this necessary inter-communication and for organizing the Alliance events at global level.

So having a last look at these two illustrations and it is not only a visual impression:?the first one seems geometrically and perfectly organized but it can also be seen as the top view of a dry-tree which risks to lose quickly its leaves while it has a solid trunk at least in appearances.

The second illustration looks organic and complex. It is not fully symmetric. It seems a nice living plant with only a thin stem but showing many seeds able to germinate in the future.

This light organic scheme fit in well with the present and future of the International Alliance for Terraced Landscape: an International Living Networks Alliance born in the Hani and Yi region, at the same time of a wonderful Eco-Cultural World Heritage.

Alain HAYS (ITLA founding member )

HONGHE DECLARATION

Global declaration on protection and development of terraces

Drafted by Professor Shi Junchao

From November 11th to 15th, the most beautiful season for Hani terraces in Honghe Prefecture, we, the representatives and scholars from 16 countries, terrace farmers and representatives from international organizations including UNESCO, FAO, and the Ramsar Convention , as well as a representative from the US Environmental Protection Agency , have gathered together in the capital city of Honghe Hani and Yi People’s Autonomous Prefecture, China, to hold the First Terraced Landscapes Conference, in order to explore ways and methods to protect and develop terraced cultures worldwide.

All participants including scholars, farmers and representatives of the international organizations jointly declare that:

1. Terraces are agricultural, ecological systems which are found around the world.?They represent an agricultural system created by numerous cultures over thousands of years of history. The terraces embody the creative wisdom and the labor of mankind.?They further illustrate the close integration of humans and nature, and the need to safeguard biodiversity and cultural diversity.?For thousands of years, the terraces were not only the cornerstone on which many cultures were built, but they also nourished large populations around the world. However, the terraces not only satisfied people’s material needs, but also served as repositories of culture.
2. For the last half century, globalization and economic integration have severely impacted on the terraces, and imposed challenges for the people who farm them. Many terraces have been abandoned, and many cultures linked with the terraces are endangered – with some close to extinction. At such a critical moment, the question of how to protect the tradition of the terraces, and how to develop terraces for the future is a priority.
3. The protection and development of terraces is the common responsibility of all of society, including governments; scholars and researchers; farmers; businessmen and other members of society.?All must share the responsibility of managing , protecting, and caring for the terraces.?
4. To protect and develop the terraces, you first have to address what is valued. We believe that the value of terraces is not based upon a monetary value. The culture of terraces embodies a system of values.?In addition to providing food for survival, the terraces have scientific, cultural, historical, philosophical, religious, ecological and aesthetic value.?As such, they cannot be replaced by any other agricultural system.
5. What is particularly noteworthy is that the nature of terrace cultures embodies harmoniousness, namely a harmonious coexistence between man and nature; a harmonious coexistence between man and god[5] (as a cultural symbol of nature); and a harmonious coexistence among humans themselves. The harmoniousness of terrace cultures is sufficiently strong to moderate conflicts and contradictions that occur between different ethnic groups, different cultures and different countries.[6] This is why the ancient cultures of terraces possess significance for today, and bear importance for the future.
6. The preservation and well being of the terraces requires the bringing together the resources and expertise of government, experts and scholars, local people and agencies.?All policies applied to terraces should prioritize protection, and secondly appropriate development based upon science which underpins sustainability. Any approach should must take into account not only present impacts, but also effects on later generations.?

From planning to implementation, we must heed the voices of both scientists and practical experts, namely the farmers who are the stewards of the land.

At present, the most urgent task is to develop a truly sensitive scientific understanding of terrace culture, and neither abandon nor exploit them. In order for the terraces to survive, we must combine a respect for tradition and indigenous knowledge with modern methods and expertise. It is only in this way that we can guarantee a healthy future for the terraces and the unique human contribution that they represent.

What will be the future of terraces rests upon our understanding and awareness of what we will do now.

We wish, through our joint efforts, that the terraces will last forever, benefiting future generations.

15 November 2010

Mengzi, Honghe Prefecture, Yunnan, China

?

How to cite this paper?:

?HAYS, Alain (2018), From World Heritage to an International Living Networks Alliance, International Alliance for Terraced Landscapes – ITLA, 16p.

?Key words:

World Heritage Site - Indigenous People – Hani Rice Terraces –?Honghe Declaration -?Terraced Landscapes?- Terraces Conservation - Living Heritage Concept – World Living Heritage - Mass tourism – H-to-H Syndrome – Gentrification – Living Networks Alliance -?ITLA

Select bibliography:

FAO (2014) Distinction between GIAHS and UNESCO’Cultural Landscape categories (GIAHS/STC/15/3add.1), Discussion Paper, GIAHS Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems.

GUO Zhan*, ZHANG Jin** (2015), Hani Rice Terraces of Honghe – The Harmonious Landscape of Nature and Humans, *ICOMOS, International Conservation Centre-Xi'an), China; **Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage, Beijing, China, Landscape Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 655-667

HAYS Alain, MATUK Silvia (2000), Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Vernacular Chinese Habitat, GEOdomus International, in “Links between Cultures and Biodiversity – Proceedings of the Cultures and Biodiversity Congress 2000 – CUBIC”, Kunming, Xishuangbanna, Zhongdian, Chine, 2000, Yunnan Science and Tecnology Press. pp. 154-173, 3 graph. bibl.

HAYS Alain (2011), De la géo-architecture au patrimoine mondial de l’humanité?: les dimensions de l’habitat humain, GEOdomus International, avant-propos de Jacques du Guerny, in Maisons paysannes de France – Revue n° 21 de la délégation du Vaucluse, Vaison la Romaine, 2011, 9p.

HAYS, Alain (2016) Xishuangbanna World Botanical and Eco-Cultural Heritage, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden- XTBG, Chinese Academy of Sciences- CAS, 31p. 海丝?阿兰。(2016) 。西双版纳世界植物和生态文化遗产。中国科学院西双版纳热带植物园。(英语)

HAYS, Alain (2017) Menglun Eco-Cultural Development and Dai Building Heritage, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden - XTBG, Chinese Academy of Sciences - CAS, 18p.

海丝?阿兰 (HAYS, Alain)。(2017)。勐仑生态文化发展及傣族民居传承。中国科学院西双版纳热带植物园。(翻译:艾崇蕊)

海丝?阿兰 (HAYS, Alain)。(2017)。“生态文化”在绿色建筑设计与建筑遗产保护上的展望。中国科学院（CAS）西双版纳热带植物园（XTBG）。(翻译: 龚昕)

海丝?阿兰 (HAYS, Alain)。(2018)。 “生态文化”在绿色建筑设计与建筑遗产保护上的展望,延申版，中国科学院（CAS）西双版纳热带植物园（XTBG）。（翻译：龚昕）

HAYS, Alain (2018) “Eco-cultural” Perspectives for Green Building Design and Built Heritage Conservation, long version, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden - XTBG, Chinese Academy of Sciences – CAS. 28 p.

HERATH Srikantha, JIAO Yuanmei, CASTRO Peter P.M.., DIWA Johanna, SORIANO, Mario, LIANG Luohui, WANG Yi, DULAWAN, Loinaz, (2013) Developing ecosystem-based adaptation strategies for enhancing resilience of rice terrace farming systems against climate change. Final Report, Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research -APN. 50p.

HOOI CHAN Jin, IANKOVA Katia, ZHUANG Ying, McDONALD Tom & QI Xiaoguang (2016) The role of self-gentrification in sustainable tourism: Indigenous entrepreneurship at Honghe Hani Rice Terraces World Heritage Site, China, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24:8-9, pp. 1262-1279.

HUA Honglian, ZHOU Shangyi (2015), Human-Environment System Boundaries: A Case Study of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces as a World Heritage Cultural Landscape, School of Geography - Beijing Normal University, School of Tourism and Geography – Yunnan Normal University (Kunming), China. Sustainibility 2015, 7, pp. 10733-10755

ICOMOS, (2013) Honghe Hani Rice Terraces (China) N°1111, in: Evaluations of Nominations of Cultural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List, ICOMOS Report for the World Heritage Committee, 37th ordinary session, Phnom Penh, June 2013, WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B1

S.A.C.H.-P.R.C. (2013), Cultural Landscape of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces, World Heritage Convention - Cultural Heritage Nominated by People’s Republic of China, State Administration of Cultural Heritage of People’s Republic of China, 375p.

SHI Junchao (2010) Honghe Declaration - Global declaration on protection and development of terraces, First Terraced Landscapes Conference (Nov. 2010, 11-15) - 15 November 2010, Mengzi, Honghe Prefecture, Yunnan, China.

TIAN Mi, MIN Qingwen, TAO Hui, YUAN Zheng, HE Lu, LUN Fei, (2014), Progress and Prospects in Tourism Research on Agricultural Heritage Sites, Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014 Vol.5, N°4,?pp. 381-389

Notes:

[1] “The Honghe WHS is defined by a complex co-existence of multiple ethnic minority villages with different religions, socio-cultural systems and languages, in addition to other incoming populations”?(Jin Hooi Chan et al. 2016, p.11 )

[2] See manual:?McKEE Neil, SALAS Maria Angelica, TILLMANN Hermann J. (1993), VIPP – Visualisation in Participatory Programmes – A manual for facilitators and trainers involved in participatory group events., UNICEF, Bangladesh, 158 p. ISBN 92?806 3033 4.

[3] ICOMOS XII Assembly, World Congress on the Conservation of Monumental Heritage, 17-23 October 1999, Mexico, Guanajuato, Morelia, Guadalajara.

[4] For ethical reasons, I will not cite the names of institutions or persons to which I could refer as problematic examples.?

[5] Note (Honghe Declaration) : we have to examine, in the original Chinese text, the phrase “a harmonious coexistence between man and god” This translation has a very religious connotation, especially Christian, which is inappropriate. If it refers to animist beliefs of specific Indigenous peoples, ??an harmonious relation between animist peoples and their nature deities?? would be appropriate.

[6]?Note (Honghe Declaration) : There is a doubt that this affirmation is true; serious historical studies about this topic are required. If it is really true, it will be a strong political and philosophic additional argument for promotion of terraces cultivation.

PDF. This article has a pdf full version ; you can download it on the official webpage of the International Terraced Landscapes Alliance - ITLA Journal | Publisher: University of Coventry, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR) Coventry, United Kingdom in cooperation with ITLA: ISSN 2754-7639 (Online): https://zenodo.org/record/5205429#.Y7qEHL-ZNEY

e.mail : [email protected]

? Alain HAYS – All rights reserved