|
On 7 March
2002 the Trust Executive Director, Elsa Atkin, addressed the ‘Keeping
It Public Forum: Better Models for Managing Cultural and Natural Heritage’
at NSW Parliament House.
Click
here to download full transcript of this talk
When we
look at the North Head Quarantine Station we have both natural and built
fabric of great renown as well as a site in state ownership. The basic
questions of what it means to be ‘publicly owned’ and what accessibility
means are difficult at the best of times. It is not uncommon in National
Parks the world over to have visitation restricted because of the inherent
nature of the place under protection of the state. Publicly owned does
not necessarily mean that it should be 100% accessible nor that visitation
should be continually increased. . .
There is
no point in debating the economic return of one scheme over another if
the place is destroyed in the process. The ‘economic reality’ that we
discuss endlessly in relation to the Mawland’s scheme is based on a quite
obvious, and not unreasonable, expectation that a private developer requires
a return on his or her investment. The carrying capacity however must
be determined by what is the most fragile piece of this complex puzzle
- the weakest link as it were. In terms of the physical, it is more likely
that the endangered bandicoot population, or the fairy penguins will fare
worse than the buildings, even though lack of maintenance has made some
buildings more fragile than they might otherwise have been.
However,
even more fragile is the abstract significance the site holds, as a reflection
of the attitudes and mores held by new arrivals over many decades. It
is the sense of raw emotion which seeps from its fabric, which speaks
of isolation, segregation and the terrible fear of deadly disease. Like
it or not, this is part of the history of the development of this nation.
And it is this, too, which is under the most threat.
. . . Perhaps
the most similar site to [North Head Quarantine Station] internationally
is Grosse Île, an island in the St Laurence River, Québec, Canada. It
has a very similar history to North Head although it wasn’t in use quite
as long. . .
Grosse
Île now contains two memorials to the Irish and others, including one
built in 1998, a monument to physicians built in 1853, the Irish cemetery,
First, Second and Third Class hotels, wash house, disinfection building,
plumbing and carpentry workshop, bakery, electrician’s house, Vaccination
and Medical Examination Office, Guard Post, sailor’s quarters, Anglican
chapel, Catholic chapel and presbytery, artillery battery, telegraph office,
residences for physicians, medical bacteriologists and nurses as well
as a school. A residence for healthy immigrants called the Lazaretto is
the only remaining evidence of Grosse Île’s role as a hospital in 1847.
The site
is a national historic site administered by Parks Canada under the Parks
Canada Agency Act (1998). Unlike the National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Parks Canada is a national or Federal body. Parks Canada is also responsible
for the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office which provides custodial
departments with assistance and review of proposed interventions that
might affect the character of designated buildings. Parks Canada administers
the largest number of federal heritage buildings in Canada.
A visit
to Grosse Île involves a guide greeting you at the wharf and inviting
you to visit the disinfection building. ‘The exhibits here will immerse
you in the historical context of the quarantine station’ their website
says. You then have a choice of taking a one-hour guided tour or wandering
on your own. You can buy a guide book to help you on your way for $4.00
Canadian. There is a trolley that can take you around on the tour, equivalent
to the ‘people mover’ discussed by Mawlands.
Rather
than the ‘visitor experience’ described by Mawlands and NPWS, Parks Canada
say in their website that ‘Grosse Île has witnessed some moving moments
in history, and it provides visitors with a peaceful setting for quiet
contemplation.’
The Parks
Canada Agency Act (1998) has given Parks Canada ‘the tools and flexibility
it needs for the effective contemporary stewardship of our system of special
heritage places.’ The real significance of the Parks Canada Agency Act
was the inclusion of two-year rolling budgets along with a new human resources
framework to allow them to administer appropriately, Government commitment
to important places.
Stewardship
and the role as a public entity is something taken very seriously. Parks
Canada talk about ‘ecological integrity’ and ‘commemorative integrity’.
Their aim is to raise awareness of Canadians to the value and benefits
to them of ‘heritage places’ be they natural or built. The notion of ‘commemorative
integrity’ is a good one and is perhaps more expressive of our aims than
many terms in common use here. It is the place’s ability to ‘be’ and to
tell its own story.
The impact
of human use and conservation works at Grosse Île is of concern even at
the relatively low level of intervention. Wildlife of concern is not bandicoots
but little brown bats. Four large colonies have been identified on the
island along with four other species of bat, long eared, red, big brown
and hoary bats. In 1998 a significant drop in the population of the little
brown bat was noticed and the most likely cause is considered to be the
restoration work to one of the buildings in the attic of which bats were
known to roost. A number of solutions have been investigated including
building separate artificial roosts and a monitoring programme has begun.
Work to the remaining buildings may need to be modified to take account
of roosting habits.
In all
the documentation, reports and the like there is no real distinction between
the responsibilities for the natural and built environment. In concurrence
with the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and the Parks Canada
Agency Act the national historic sites programme is assuming a role
of support, education, co-operation and collaboration within the larger
family of historic sites. These activities which have both formal and
informal aspects, affirm Parks Canada’s broad role within the national
historic sites across Canada, regardless of ownership. This is quite a
different role than our own NPWS.
The goal
of the national historic sites programme is to illustrate the full range
and diversity of Canadian history through a system of sites, persons and
events considered significant to the nation. They also give assistance
to sites owned by others through the National Cost-Sharing Program, i.e.,
support partners in ensuring the integrity of Canada’s national historic
sites. Work includes restoration and preservation as well as emergency
stabilisation. Parks Canada administers 144 national historic sites. Grosse
Île has over 30 nationally significant buildings whose condition ranges
from good to poor. Remedial actions are planned or underway, with due
consideration for the bats. (At North Head there are approx 50 buildings
also of varying condition).
It is interesting
to note in a recent report about the effectiveness of their programmes
and initiatives that the discussion is about ‘engaging Canadians’ not
capturing the tourist market.
It is about
measuring the awareness among Canadians of the value and benefits to them
of the systems of heritage places in order to ‘ensure the long term ecological
and commemorative integrity’. Parks Canada do, however, acknowledge the
role of Heritage Tourism and note that it is a primary catalyst of domestic
and international travel. To quote from the State of Protected Heritage
Areas 1999 Report: ‘Heritage tourism must be sustainable. For Parks
Canada, sustainability means access to the heritage places in its care
that does not diminish their ecological and commemorative integrity, their
raison d’être and the character that gives them value. It is a
delicate balance’ ‘Principles of Public Benefit’ from the Parks Canada
Principles of Cultural Resource Management ‘Cultural resources
are dedicated and held in trust so that present and future generations
may enjoy and benefit from them.’
‘When
all is said and done what it comes down to is respect and integrity. All
the words and explanations in the world will not alter that basic concept.'
In short
the management structure at Grosse Île is testament to the commitment
of government to places that tell the story of the nation. Continued research
is essential for making wise visitor decisions and ensuring long term
eco-system health.'
There is
no distinction made between the natural and the cultural in discussions
of importance and a strong commitment is made to indigenous heritage and
continued participation. Grosse Île may not be ideal in some ways. It
can probably be argued that more evidence of later occupation would be
an advantage and the importance of the little bats versus the cultural
importance of the buildings will no doubt continue to be debated, but
in the end, the slow and steady approach with strong government commitment
must be applauded and hopefully emulated.’
Click
here to download full transcript of this talk
|
