Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017, 131–148 TERRACED LANDSCAPES AS PROTECTED CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič Terraced rice paddies in Bali, a UNESCO world heritage site. S H U T T E R S TO C K 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 131 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS. 4628 UDC: 911.53:631.613(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: This article presents the current state of protection of terraced landscapes as an important type of cultural landscape, both globally and in Slovenia. The UNESCO World Heritage List, the Satoyama Initiative list, and the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage are analyzed. The findings show that terraces rarely appear as a factor justifying protection, even though certain progress has been made in recent years. At least globally, this has clearly been contributed to by the 2010 adoption of the Honghe Declaration. Slovenia shows both a lack of appropriate criteria for identifying terraced landscapes worth protecting and an insufficiently systematic treatment of heritage sites that are already being protected. KEY WORDS: geography, cultural landscape, terraces, UNESCO World Heritage, Satoyama Initiative, Slovenian heritage, Slovenia ADDRESSES: Drago Kladnik, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Mateja Šmid Hribar, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si Matjaž Geršič, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si 132 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 132 1 Introduction Terraced landscapes are cultural landscapes with a special value, in which their aesthetic role is of great importance in addition to ecological, cultural, historical, research, psychological, philosophical, and reli- gious aspects (Kladnik 2016a; Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat and Erhartič 2016). Therefore, it is not surprising that terraced landscapes are among the world’s most picturesque landscapes found online (e.g., Amazing satellite … 2016; Incredible … 2014; Tremendous … 2011). They form a special agricultural and ecolog- ical system that can be found throughout the world. They are formed by diverse agricultural terraces, the main purpose of which is to produce food. However, if they are well maintained, they can have an added value in fighting erosion and the negative effects of natural disasters (Komac and Zorn 2008) and in case of extensively management they also ensure biodiversity (Špulerová et al. 2017). However, if terraces are not maintained, this only exacerbates the effects of natural degradation. Unfortunately, due to the restruc- turing of social strata, maladaptation to mechanized farming, and increasingly pronounced globalization effects, in many places terraces are being abandoned, overgrown, or left to deteriorate in large numbers, while traditional terraced landscapes are becoming neglected (Kladnik 2016a). Only well-maintained terraced landscapes can present an attractive image that not only makes the locals that live with terraces from one generation to the next proud, but can also prove to be an important part of cultural heritage with developmental potential (Kladnik 2016b). This is true both globally and in Slovenia, and accordingly the awareness that terraced landscapes are worth protecting as an invaluable part of cul- tural landscapes is gradually strengthening (Erhartič 2009). Various protective initiatives and strategies (Ažman Momirski and Kladnik 2015) have sprung up, which in and of themselves do not automatically guarantee appropriate further maintenance and conservation of terraced landscapes, but they do clearly play an important role in the perception, awareness, discovery, and evaluation of these landscapes. If pro- tection is well thought out and the values of terraced landscapes are suitably promoted, the protection itself can provide an exceptional developmental impulse (Geršič et al. 2016). Together with their increased profile, this makes possible not only further maintenance of an attractive cultural landscape, but also gen- erates new jobs in activities related to the growing number of incoming tourists (Ažman Momirski and Kladnik 2015). Terraced landscapes belong to cultural landscapes that are the result of the interaction between the natural environment and human life and work in this environment (Urbanc 2002). The expression »cul- tural landscape« was introduced by the American geographer Carl Sauer, who defined it as follows: »The cultural landscape is fashioned out of the natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the nat- ural area is the medium, the cultural landscape is the result« (Sauer 1925, 46). Cultural landscapes are already indirectly mentioned in the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Convention … 1972), which defines cultural heritage as monuments, groups of build- ings and sites, which are works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and natural heritage as natural features, geological and physiographical formations and natural sites. Cultural landscapes that have been internationally recognized and protected since 1992 (Cultural land- scapes 2016) are characterized by unique land use adapted to natural conditions and an intangible relationship with nature. An important step towards the recognition of cultural landscapes was made through the 2000 adoption of the European Landscape Convention, which highlights the interaction between natural and human factors, but does not specifically mention terraced landscapes. In the Slovenian legal system, the landscape is mentioned in the Nature Conservation Act (2010), which in principle defines the landscape as a natural value (even though not even a single unit like this can be found in the Register of Natural Values), and in the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (2016), which also covers the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016), in which cultural landscapes are included. Landscapes are also discussed in the 2010 Paris Declaration on the Satoyama Initiative, which covers socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. It conceives of landscapes as »dynamic mosaics of habitats and land uses that have been shaped over the years by the interactions between people and nature in ways that maintain biodiversity and provide humans with goods and services needed for their well-being« (Paris declaration on… 2010, article 1). Satoyama is a Japanese compound term referring to the area between the foothills of a mountain and arable flat land (< sato »arable, fertile« + yama »mountain, hill«). In the broader sense, satoyama landscapes are a mix of forests, paddy fields, plowed fields, pastures, creeks, ponds, and irrigation systems surrounding Japanese villages (Kobori and Primack 2003). Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 133 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 133 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites As an exceptional landscape system, terraced landscapes were globally recognized at the conference on terraced landscapes that took place in Mengzi, China, in November 2010 and where the Honghe Declaration on the Protection and Development of Terraces was adopted (Peters and Junchao 2012; Kladnik 2016a). That was also when the International Terraced Landscapes Alliance (ITLA) was established (Ažman Momirski and Kladnik 2015). To date, no comprehensive systematic study on the protection and conservation of terraced landscapes as important cultural landscapes and hence cultural heritage deserving protection has been conducted either globally or in Slovenia. The best-known protected terraced landscapes are mentioned in the works of Tarolli, Preti, and Romano (2014), Varotto (2015), Peters (2015) and Andlar, Šrajer in Trojanović (2017) provid- ed a systematic overview on typological diversity of the Croatian Adriatic terraced landscapes This article provides an overview of the current state of protection of the terraced landscapes includ- ed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (World Heritage List 2016) and in the international database of Satoyama landscapes (Satoyama Initiative 2016) and the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016) in one place, drawing attention to the structural deficiencies of the registers and seeking to further enhance efforts for more planned and systematic protection of terraced landscapes. 2 Methods This study is based on a review of two international lists–the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016) and especially its list of cultural landscapes (Cultural Landscapes 2016), and the Satoyama Initiative list (2016)–and the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016). Based on the justifications for inclusion on the list and the explanations of the reasons for protection, we identified heritage units (unam- biguously or by making inferences based on knowing the actual conditions) that have been selected as worth protecting due to the important role of agricultural terraces. In this, the role of terraced landscapes can be a decisive factor or quite marginal. Based on the extent of highlighting the significance of terraced landscapes or their role in the justifi- cations for addition to the list, three types were defined at the global level (predominant, highlighted, and marginal) and four among the Slovenian cultural heritage sites (predominant, highlighted, marginal, indi- rectly identified). Even though the criteria for classifying terraced landscapes under individual types are subjective, they are based on the comparison of published justifications. They are illustrated here with four sites from the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (2016), which we classified under various types. For a better com- parison, all of the units are from the same Slovenian region: the mesoregion of the Koper Hills (Sln. Koprska brda). The predominant type (Register … 2016): Puče settlement: the cultivated terraces between Krkavče Creek (Krkavški potok) and Supot Creek (Supotski potok): »The preserved traditional system of cultivated terraces was created where the plateau-like level ridges gradually change into the steep slopes above the Dragonja Valley. The villages of Krkavče and Koštabona dom- inate the wider area.« The highlighted type: Seča: the Seča Peninsula cultural landscape: »An area transformed by man for agricultural use, with culti- vated terraces and walls built from local stone; dispersed construction, the Forma viva open air sculpture gallery on the promontory. Olive trees, grapevines, and orchards predominate among the cultivars.« The marginal type: Strunjan: Strunjan Nature Park: »The area south of Strunjan Cliff (Strunjanski klif) features a church with a monastery, dispersed tenant farmers’ houses on a slope that has been converted into terraces, a settlement next to the former town harbor, saltpans, and a stone pine avenue.« The indirectly identified type: Čentur: »A special feature of this village is its characteristic architecture, the special structure of its parcels, and the unique way in which its farmland is cultivated. Arable land is divided into small parcels that extend outwards in concentric circles in order to adjust to the terrain.« 134 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 134 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 135 3 Levels of protection around the globe and in Slovenia This section presents the findings of the review of the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016), the Satoyama Initiative (2016) database, and the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016). 3.1 UNESCO World Heritage List The UNESCO classification uses the following three categories of cultural landscapes (Operational Guide - lines … 2012): • Cultural landscape designed and created intentionally by man; • Organically evolved landscapes, developed as »results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment«; divided into two subtypes: a) a relict/fossil landscape and b) a continuing landscape »which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress«; and • Associative cultural landscape. Figure 1 presents the UNESCO typology of immovable cultural heritage (The World Heritage … 2004). However, because it is not universal, it is not generally established and applied in individual national leg- islations. In June 2016, there were 8.5% of cultural landscapes among the 1,031 world heritage sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List (Cultural Landscapes 2016). Four of these are listed as transboundary properties, and a German one was removed in 2009 because it did not meet the protection criteria. Twenty are connected with terraced landscapes. Among the rest of the world heritage sites, five are relevant from the viewpoint of terraces. Four are classified under cultural sites and one, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, is classified under mixed sites. Thus we identified a total of 25 relevant terraced landscapes on the UNESCO list (Figure 2): in eight cases, they became part of world heritage almost exclusively due to their terraced character, whereby cul- tivated terraces are highlighted as their component part, and in nine cases they are mentioned marginally because they were ascribed a high level of protection primarily due to other landscape elements. The major- ity of the protected sites include a central area measuring several hundred square kilometers(with exceptions over 1,000 km²) and a similarly large or smaller buffer zone. The analysis of 1,641 world heritage sites included on the tentative list (Tentative Lists 2016) showed that only four partly referred also to terraced landscapes (one in France, one in Algeria, and two in Yemen). The first site that mentions a  terraced landscape in the justification, the Natural and Culturo- Historical Region of Kotor, Montenegro, was entered on the UNESCO list as early as 1979 and the second, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru, was added to the list in 1983. The first site that refers explic- itly to a cultural landscape and a terraced landscape as part of it was the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, which was added to the list in 1995. The graph in Figure 3 shows that the number of these types of world heritage sites is gradually increasing and, what is even more evident, the significance of terraces in the justifications is increasingly more highlighted. 3.2 Satoyama Initiative An important international register of cultural landscapes is being compiled as part of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI), which promotes societies in harmony with nature. As part of the Satoyama Initiative, an internet-based portal was established, which among other information pro- vides well-presented case studies of socio-ecological production landscapes around the globe (Satoyama Initiative 2016). Currently more than 80 case studies are presented in the database, including seven terraced landscapes. The significance of terraces is predominant in three, highlighted in two, and marginal in two. All of the entries on the Satoyama Initiative list are of a more recent date, from 2010 onwards. Two sites, both part of the Ifugao terraced landscape on the Philippine island of Luzon, are included on the UNESCO World 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 135 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites 136 Monuments Groups of uildingsb Places Archaeological heritage: Individual monuments, including earthworks, farms, villas, temples, and other public buildings, defensive works, etc., that are not in use or occupied Settlements (towns, villages), defensive works, etc., that are not in use or occupied Earthworks, burial mounds, cave dwellings, defensive works, cemeteries, routes, etc., that are not in use or occupied Rock–art sites: – – Caves, rock shelters, open surfaces, and comparable sites containing paintings, engravings, carvings, etc. Fossil hominid sites: – – Individual sites and landscapes containing skeletal material and/or evidence of occupation by early hominids Historic buildings and ensembles: Individual monuments, ensembles of monuments, works of art – – Urban and rural settlements / historic towns and villages: – Towns, town centers, villages, and other communal groups of dwellings – Vernacular architecture: Traditionally established building types using traditional construction systems and crafts Groups of traditionally established building types Religious properties: Buildings and structures associated with religious or spiritual values; e.g., churches, monasteries, shrines, sanctuaries, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. Historic settlements or towns with religious or spiritual associations: sacred cities, etc. Sites with religious or spiritual associations: sanctuaries, sacred landscapes, or landscapes with sacred features, etc. Agricultural, industrial and technological properties: Factories; bridges, water–management systems (dams, irrigation, etc.) Agricultural settlements; industrial settlements Military properties: Castles, forts, citadels, etc. Citadels, town defenses; Defensive systems Cultural landscapes with vernacular settlements Field systems, vineyards, agricultural landscapes; water management systems (dams, irrigation, etc ; mines, mining landscapes, canals, railways, etc. .) Figure 1: UNESCO typology of immovable cultural heritage (The World Heritage … 2004, 15). Green cells contain material related to cultural landscapes. Figure 2: Terraced landscapes identified on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016) and the Satoyama Initiative list (2016). p 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 136 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 137 # ## # # # M ad e w ith N at ur al E ar th A ut ho rs o f m ap : M an ca V ol k Ba hu n, R ok C ig lič , M at ja ž G er šič © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU Le ge nd Si gn i ca nc e of te rr ac es in th e ju st i ca tio n Pr ed om in an t t yp e # Sa to ya m a Te rr ac ed a re a 0 20 00 40 00 60 00 K m H ig hl ig ht ed ty pe M ar gi na l t yp e 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 137 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites 138 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Predominant type Highlited type Marginal type < 1991 1991–1995 1996–2000 2001–2005 2006–2010 > 2010 Figure 3: The period in which the terraced landscapes identified were entered on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016) according to the significance of terraces in the justifications for entry on the list. Figure 4: The cultural landscape of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces in China. JI M M Y T R A N 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 138 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 139 Heritage List. All of the sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List and the Satoyama Initiative list are pre- sented in Figure 6. 3.3 Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage In Slovenia, the protection of terraced landscapes is provided for as part of the Cultural Ministry’s Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register nepremične kulturne dediščine) (Register… 2016), which also includes cultural landscapes among the eight defined types of heritage and two non-defined types (unknown and other). In June 2016, the register included 317 sites, among which forty-three terraced landscapes can be identified (Figure 7, Table 1). In two cases, terraces were the decisive reason for addition to the register, in seventeen cases they were a very important reason, in twelve cases they were not mentioned at all because other reasons were more important for the entry, and in twelve cases agricultural terraces were not men- tioned but they can be inferred from the descriptions. Among the total of 50 mesoregions, only 18 include protected terraced landscapes. By far the great- est number of registered terraced cultural landscape sites can be found in the Koper Hills (10) and the Sava Hills (8). Among the nine landscape types, they can be found in six, but not on the Mediterranean plateaus and in the Alpine mountains, where terraced landscapes do not exist anyway. Figure 5: The terraced landscape of the Upper Douro (Alto Douro) Wine Region in Portugal. D R A G O K LA D N IK Figure 6: Terraced landscapes as identified in 2016 on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016), UNESCO Tentative Lists (2016), and Satoyama Initiative (2016). The names of sites fully recognized by UNESCO are given in plain text, sites on the UNESCO Tentative Lists in italics, and sites on the Satoyama Initiative list in underlined italics. p p. 138 Figure 7: Terraced landscapes identified in the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016). p p. 139 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 139 140 C o n ti n en t P re d o m in an t H ig h li g h te d M ar g in al A fr ic a • K on so C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe • Su ku r C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe – • B as sa ri C ou nt ry : B as sa ri , F u la , a n d B ed ik C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe s P a rc d e s A u rè s a v e c l e s é ta b li ss e m e n ts oa si en s d es g or ge s d u R h ou fi e t d’ E l K an ta ra A si a • C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe o f H on gh e H an i R ic e Te rr ac es • C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe o f B al i P ro vi n ce • R ic e Te rr ac es o f t he P hi lip pi n e C or di lle ra s A R ic e P ad d y C u lt u ra l L an d sc ap e C on se rv at io n i n a n I n d ig en ou s C om m u n it y, T ai w an »M u yo n g in I fu ga o P ro vi n ce , N or th er n L u zo n I sl an d in t h e P h il ip pi n es « T ow n R ev it al iz at io n M ak in g th e M os t of N at u ra l L an d sc ap e an d T ra d it io n s of K an ak u ra W aj im a C it y, I sh ik aw a P re fe ct u re , J ap an • A fl aj I rr ig at io n S ys te m s of O m an • L an d of O liv es a n d V in es – C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe o f S ou th er n Je ru sa le m , B at ti r G on gl ia o– H oh o– T er ra ce d – P ad d y– F ie ld s, T ai w an • R ol e of T ra di ti on al K n ow le dg e in St re n gt he n in g So ci o– E co lo gi ca l P ro du ct io n L an ds ca pe s • Ji bl a an d it s Su rr ou n di n gs , J ab al H ar az D on g P eo pl e’s R ic e– F is h – D u ck Sy m bi ot ic S ys te m i n C h in a E u ro p e • Po rt ov en er e, C in qu e Te rr e, an d th e Is la n ds ( P al m ar ia , T in o, a n d T in et to ) • C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe o f t he Se rr a de T ra m un ta n a • L av au x, V in ey ar d Te rr ac es • W ac ha u C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe • U pp er M id dl e R hi n e V al le y • To ka j W in e R eg io n H is to ri c C u lt ur al L an ds ca pe • N at ur al a n d C u lt ur o– H is to ri ca l R eg io n o f K ot or • A lt o D ou ro W in e R eg io n • M ad ri u– Pe ra fi ta – C la ro r V al le y • T he C au ss es a n d th e C év en n es , M ed it er ra n ea n A gr o– P as to ra l C u lt u r al L an ds ca pe • C os ti er a A m al fi ta n a • V in ey ar d L an ds ca pe of P ie dm on t: L an gh e– R oe ro a n d M on fe rr at o • L an ds ca pe o f t he P ic o Is la n d V in ey ar d C u lt ur e • P ar c n at io n al d es É cr in s N o rt h A m er ic a – – – O ce an ia w it h A u st ra li a – – – S o u th A m er ic a – • H is to ri c Sa n ct ua ry o f M ac hu P ic ch u • Q ue br ad a de H um ah u ac a • Fu er te d e Sa m ai pa ta • Sp ir it ua l a n d Po lit ic al C en tr e of t he T iw an ak u C u lt ur e T h e A yl lu S ys te m o f th e P ot at o P ar k, C u sc o, P er u ••• • • • • Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 140 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 141 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU So ur ce o f t he ty po lo gy : P er ko , H rv at in a nd C ig lič 2 01 5 Le ge nd Si gn i ca nc e of te rr ac es in th e ju st i ca tio n La nd sc ap e ty pe s Pr ed om in an t t yp e H ig hl ig ht ed ty pe M ar gi na l t yp e In di re ct ly id en ti# ed ty pe A lp in e m ou nt ai ns A lp in e hi lls A lp in e pl ai ns D in ar ic v al le ys a nd c or ro sio n pl ai ns D in ar ic p la te au s Pa nn on ia n lo w h ill s Pa nn on ia n pl ai ns M ed ite rr an ea n lo w h ill s M ed ite rr an ea n pl at ea us 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 141 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites 142 Ta ble 1: Se ttl em en ts in th e S lov en ian Re gis ter of Im m ov ab le Cu ltu ral H eri tag e ( Re gis ter … 20 16 ) f or w hic h t he ju sti fic ati on fo r t he ir p rot ec tio n i nc lud es or im pli es va rio us de gr ee s o f s ign ific an ce of te rra ce s, by Sl ov en ian m es ore gio ns an d l an ds ca pe ty pe s. La nd sca pe La nd sca pe M es ore gio n Pre do m ina nt Hi gh lig ht ed M arg ina l Ind ire ctl y Nu m be r o f c as es / typ e g rou p typ e ide nt ifie d se ttl em en ts wi th te rra ce s M ed ite rra ne an M ed ite rra ne an Ko pe r H ills ( K op rsk a b rd a) Pu če Izo la, Ja go dje , M ov raž , Ko rte , S tru nja n Če nt ur 11 lan ds ca pe s low hi lls Pir an , S eč a, Str un jan , Sv eti Pe ter Vip av a V all ey (V ipa vs ka do lin a) – – – Ze m on o 1 M ed ite rra ne an pl ate au s – – – – – 0 Di na ric Di na ric Go rja nc i H ills (G or jan ci) – Jav oro vic a, Ve lik i C ero ve c – – 2 lan ds ca pe s pla tea us Ka m br eš ko H ills an d B an jši ce Pl ate au – Lo ko ve c – – 1 Kr im H ills ( K rim sk o h rib ov je) – – – Go ren ja Br ez ov ica 1 an d M en iši ja Pla tea u ( M en iši ja) Ko če vje Li ttl e M ou nt ( K oč ev sk a m ala go ra) , – – La ze pr i P red gr ad u – 1 Ko če vje Ro g ( Ko če vs ki ro g) , a nd M ou nt Po lja ne (P olj an sk a g or a) Ra du lja H ills (R ad ulj sk o h rib ov je) – Hm elj čič – – 1 Dr y C arn iol a ( Su ha kr aji na ) a nd Šm ihe l p ri – – – 1 Do br ep olj e K ars t p olj e ( Do br ep olj e) Žu že m be rku Big M ou nt ain ( V eli ka go ra) , M ou nt Sto jna (S to jna ), an d M ou nt G ot en ica (G ot en išk a g or a) – – – Dr ag a 1 Di na ric va lle y s ys tem s Lo we r C arn iol a L ow lan d – Sp od nja Sl ivn ica , M ali Vr h – 3 an d c or ros ion pl ain s (D ole njs ko po do lje ) Te m en ica (n ea r M irn a P eč ) Ve lik e L aš če Re gio n – – Kn ej – 1 (V eli ko laš ča ns ka po kra jin a) 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 142 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 143 Al pin e Al pin e m ou nt ain s – – – – – 0 lan ds ca pe s Al pin e h ills Ce rkn o H ills ( C erk lja ns ko hr ibo vje ), – – – Go ren ja Že tin a, Sp od nje 4 Šk ofj a L ok a H ills (Š ko fje loš ko hr ibo vje ), Da nje , T op olj e, Ve lik e Po lho v G rad ec H ills (P olh og raj sk o h rib ov je) , Gr ah ov še an d R ov te Hi lls (R ov tar sk o h rib ov je) Sa va H ills ( P os av sk o h rib ov je) – Se lo pr i P an ca h, Ga br je pr i J an ča h, Ja vo rje pr i G ab rov ki, 10 Še nt go tar d, Vo lav lje Go lče r, J av or Te pe , V inj e p ri M ora vč ah , Zg or nja Ja vo rši ca Al pin e p lai ns Lju blj an a M ars h ( Lju blj an sk o b arj e) – – Gu m niš če – 1 Sa va Pl ain (S av sk a r av an ) – – – Le še 1 Pa nn on ian Pa nn on ian lo w hil ls Bo č H ill an d M ac elj H ill (B oč in M ac elj ) – – Do na čk a G or a – 1 lan ds ca pe s Kr šk o H ills ( K ršk o g rič ev je) – – – Do len ja va s p ri R ak i 1 Slo ve nia n H ills (S lov en sk e g or ice ) – Je ru za lem – – 1 Pa nn on ian pl ain s – – – – – 0 2 17 10 14 43 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 143 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites 144 Figure 8: Land surrounding Šmihel pri Žužemberku in Dry Carniola was included in the register precisely because of its well-known terraced landscape. Figure 9: Like all other terraced areas in the Brkini Hills, the land surrounding the village of Ostrožno Brdo has not yet been recognized by conservationists as deserving protection. M AT E V Ž L E N A R Č IČ M AT E V Ž L E N A R Č IČ 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 144 4 Discussion Terraced landscapes account for 22.7% of cultural landscape sites and 2.4% of all sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2016), for which the listing is legally binding and is considered a great prestige con- sidering that it has established itself as a successful brand (Erhartič 2014). We determined that the significance of terraces in the justifications for entering individual sites on the list is becoming increasingly more high- lighted. This may have been contributed to by the 2010 adoption of the Honghe Declaration on the Protection and Development of Terraces (Peters and Junchao 2012), which among other things emphasizes the role and significance of intangible heritage, which comes especially to the fore in Third World countries, where collectiveness in work, free time, and rituals is still an important value. In the international Satoyama Initiative (2016) database–which has just begun to be compiled and the main point of which is high-quality and systematic descriptions of the sites included, the protection of which is, however, not legally binding–there is a notable predominance of Asian and African landscapes. Terraced landscapes account for 8.8% of all cultural landscapes described in this database. We determined that in the »cultural landscape« category of the Slovenian Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage (Register … 2016), terraces appear as a protection factor only in 13.7% of cases, and that among the total of 29,893 Slovenian immovable cultural heritage sites terraced landscapes account for only 0.14%. Knowing the actual conditions in the field, it can be arrgued that, despite seemingly suitable coverage of terraced landscapes in Slovenia, the existing range of protected sites included in the register is deficient. In this regard, deficient criteria for the inclusion and the occasionally terminologically deficient descrip- tions in the justifications for the sites’ protection can be established (see, e.g., the description for Jeruzalem, reg. no. 7867; Register … 2016). This points to a considerable lack of awareness and poor identification of terraced landscapes’ values among the responsible experts in the majority of regional units that pre- pare the protection strategy and plans and the expert bases justifying the inclusion of individual sites in the register. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 145 Figure 10: Terracing a slope in Rwanda as part of public works. S A M T H O M P S O N , F LI C K R 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 145 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites In Slovenia cultural landscapes and terraced landscapes as parts of them have not yet been officially recognized as part of intangible heritage, even though certain practices and skills of cultivating terraced land definitely form part of such heritage (Ažman Momirski et al. 2008). Due to farming organized by fam- ilies in the areas of Slovenian terraced landscapes, we haven’t identified any organization of labor, celebrations, and rituals connected with the cultivation and maintenance of terraces within the wider village commu- nity so far. The Digital Encyclopedia of Slovenian Natural and Cultural Heritage (DEDI, 2016) among the 468 units also includes a description of the terraced landscape in the Upper Gorizia Hills (Zgornja Goriška brda) (Kladnik 2010). Just like any other area in most distinctly terraced Slovenian region of the Gorizia Hills (Goriška brda), the presented site has not yet been officially registered as a cultural heritage site. However, the author believes that considering its significance as a cultural value the site deserves to be protected against the possible deterioration that threatens the demographically endangered northern part of the region. The review of the world and Slovenian heritage lists raises certain questions: which terraced landscapes are worth protecting and why, is their function or external appearance more important, when did they become heritage, in which cases do they deserve to be protected, and so on. Since only selected sites can be protected it is first necessary to inventory various terraced landscapes and create the criteria for their protection. Here (Table 2) we list a few possible criteria that were identified as part of the project Terraced Landscapes in Slovenia as Cultural Values. Table 2: Criteria, identified for evaluating of terraced landscapes in Slovenia. Criteria Type of criteria A large contiguous area of terraced land Spatial The method of terrace construction Spatial and time related The shape of terrace treads Spatial The height of terrace slopes Spatial Time of construction Time-related Planned construction (whether the terraces were planned or created Time-related spontaneously with slope processes caused by man) Rarity Spatial and time related State of conservation Legislative Any other accompanying features – Habitats of endangered plant and animal species Natural/ecological 5 Conclusion Based on the reviews performed, the following findings can be highlighted: • Terraced landscapes and cultivated terraces began to be classified under heritage sites fairly late, or only after a special category of »cultural landscapes« was established in general; • Terraced landscapes are a significantly more important element of protection than is evident from the descriptions because those that protected them did not realize the significance of cultivated terraces, and in Slovenia no uniform criteria were in place then, and still are not; • Intangible aspects of terraced landscapes (e.g., group work, celebrations, rituals, etc.) are already being recognized around the globe, but this does not apply to Slovenia; • In Slovenia, terraced landscapes could start being regarded as a special subtype of cultural landscape that deserves special treatment due to the complexity of treating it effectively. The protection of terraced landscapes must definitely be connected with active survival strategies and the farmers for whom work in a terraced landscape represents an important source of food and an impor- tant level of subsistence or even market surplus production. To achieve all of this, it is necessary to maintain a vital cultural landscape with a sufficient number of people that are able to work and ready to contribute their share to further maintaining an attractive terraced landscape. If this landscape manages to be added to world protection lists, such as the UNESCO World Heritage List, this provides new tourism-based devel- opment prospects, which can generate many new jobs not only in the hospitality sector and accompanying activities, but also in secondary activities on farms. 146 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 146 6 References 11 Incredible Terrace Fields. Internet: http://www.touropia.com/incredible-terrace-fields/ (20. 6. 2016). 17 Tremendous Terraced Rice Fields. Internet: http://www.lovethesepics.com/2011/02/17-tremendous- terraced-rice-fields/ (20. 6. 2016). Amazing satellite images from around the world. Benjamin Grant, Caters News. Internet: http://news.yahoo.com/ photos/amazing-satellite-images-from-around-the-world-slideshow/ (20. 6. 2016). Andlar, G., Šrajer, F., Trojanović, A. 2017: Classifying the Mediterranean terraced landscape: The case of Adriatic Croatia. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4673 Ažman Momirski, L., Kladnik, D., Komac, B., Petek, F., Repolusk, P., Zorn. M. 2008: Terasirana pokrajina Goriški brd. Geografija Slovenije 17. Ljubljana. Ažman Momirski, L., Kladnik, D. 2015: The terraced landscape in the Brkini Hills. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS49101 Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. UNESCO. Paris, 1972. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf (2. 4. 2016). Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Official Gazette RS 16/2008, 123/2008, 8/2011, 90/2012, 111/2013, 32/16. Ljubljana. Cultural Landscapes. UNESCO. Paris. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ (2. 4. 2016). Digital Encyclopedia of Slovenian Natural and Cultural Heritage – DEDI. Internet: http://www.dedi.si (23. 6. 2016) Erhartič, B. 2009: Terase Jeruzalemskih goric kot krajinska vrednota. Pomurje: 20th Congress of Slovenian geographers. Ljutomer, Murska Sobota. Erhartič, B. 2014: Vloga Unesca pri ohranjanju kulturne dediščine. CAPACities 2. Ljubljana. European landscape convention. Council of Europe. Internet: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/ full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680080621 (23. 6. 2016) Geršič, M., Pipan, P., Repolusk, P., Šmid Hribar, M., Tiran, J., Topole, M. 2016: Vzorčni primeri terasiranih pokrajin. Terasirane pokrajine. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2010: Zgornja Goriška brda. DEDI – digitalna enciklopedija naravne in kulturne dediščine na Slovenskem. Internet: http://www.dedi.si/dediscina/86-zgornja-goriska-brda (23. 6. 2016). Kladnik, D. 2016a: Terasirane pokrajine in Honghejska deklaracija. Terasirane pokrajine. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2016b: Terasirane pokrajine v Sloveniji. Terasirane pokrajine. Ljubljana. Kobori, H., Primack, R. B. 2003: Participatory Conservation Approaches for Satoyama, the Traditional Forest and Agricultural Landscape of Japan. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 32- 4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.4.307 Komac, B., Zorn, M. 2008: Plazovitost Goriških brd. Terasirana pokrajina Goriških brd. Geografija Slovenije 17. Ljubljana. Nature Conservation Act. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 96/2004, 61/2006, 63/2007, 32/2008, 8/2010, 46/14. Ljubljana. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO. Paris. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12-en.pdf (20. 6. 2016). Paris declaration on the Satoyama Initiative. Internet: http://satoyama-initiative.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/ 2011/09/Paris_Declaration_EN_april2010_revised03_low.pdf (15. 5. 2016). Perko, D., Hrvatin M., Ciglič, R. 2015: A methodology for natural landscape typification of Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1938 Peters, H. 2015: Disappearing terraces: can international tools support safeguarding terraced landscapes and their traditional knowledge? Peters, A. H., Junchao, S. (eds.) 2012: First terraced landscapes conference (Honghe – China) paper collec- tion. Kunming. II Congreso Internacional de Terrazas: encuentro de culturas y saberes de terrazas del mundo, Cusco, mayo de 2014. Cusco, Lima. Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage. Ministrstvo za kulturo. Ljubljana. Internet: http://giskd6s.situ- la.org/giskd/ (1. 3. 2016). Satoyama Initiative. Case studies. Internet: http://satoyama-initiative.org (22. 3. 2016). Sauer, C. O. 1925: The morphology of landscape. Berkeley. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 147 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 147 Drago Kladnik, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Matjaž Geršič, Terraced landscapes and protected cultural heritage sites Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, K., Erhartič, B. 2016: The beauty of landforms. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3039 Špulerová, J., Dobrovodská, M., Štefunková, D., Kenderessy, P., Izsóff, M. 2017: The features of terraced landscapes in Slovakia. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4674 Tarolli, P., Preti, F., Romano, N. 2014: Terraced landscapes: From an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene 6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ancene.2014.03.002 Tentative Lists. UNESCO. Paris. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/ (6. 5. 2016). The World Heritage List: filling the gaps – an action plan for the future. ICOMOS – International Council on monuments and sites. Paris. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/ activity-590-1.pdf (30. 6. 2016). Urbanc, M. 2002: Kulturne pokrajine v Sloveniji. Geografija Slovenije 5. Ljubljana. Varotto, M. 2015: Terraced landscapes of the Alps: Decay, rediscovery, revitalization. II Congreso Internacional de Terrazas: encuentro de culturas y saberes de terrazas del mundo, Cusco, mayo de 2014. Cusco, Lima. World Heritage List. UNESCO. Paris. Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (15. 4. 2016). 148 57-2_Special issue_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:23 Page 148