I agree with Ivan ManDy’s evaluation of the Philippine Cordilleras. As I write this review I am looking above my monitor at a wonderful piece of handwoven Ifugao cloth hanging on the wall with its bright reds, blacks, whites and yellows. It is one of my better WHS souvenirs and brings back visions of green rice terraces and peasant girls wearing wearing wrap round skirts of the same cloth. If you do go then by all means visit the “classic” viewing point above Banaue on the road to Bontoc (photo). This however is rather touristy and is packed with old Ifugao ladies puffing enormous pipes waiting to be photographed! So try also to visit some of the lesser known valleys away from the tourist trap of Banaue. We had a rent-a-car which made this easier though it is better still to take to the footpaths. Driving in the Philippines among the “Jeepnies” which give no quarter in the battle for road space is an experience in itself. Indeed the Philippines has a lot going for it as a tourist destination – and the Rice terraces are certainly “worth the journey”.

However Ivan ManDy is only partially right in his assertion that the Philippine Cordillera was the first “Cultural Landscape” site to be inscribed. It was indeed the first to be so inscribed from scratch and the first purely on cultural criteria but Tongariro in New Zealand was re-designated a “Cultural Landscape” in 1993 as was Uluru in Australia in 1994. Both had been WHS on purely “natural criteria” since 1990 and 1987 respectively. Sintra in Portugal was also inscribed as a cultural landscape in the same year as the Philippine Cordillera but is numbered “1” later! This raises a number of issues about the definition of “Cultural Landscapes which WHS enthusiasts might find interesting!

The World Heritage category of “Cultural Landscape” has in fact only existed since 1992 when it was first accepted that there were some sites which were of “outstanding universal value” which the standard cultural and natural criteria were not picking up (the failure of UK’s nomination of “The Lake District” apparently played a part in this decision though I note that it still sits forlornly in UK’s Tentative List whilst St Kilda was “upgraded” to be a mixed site AND a cultural Landscape” in 2005 ). Thus the “category” sits rather uncomfortably within the older distinctions of “Natural”, “Cultural” and “Mixed (If anyone is interested in this subject I recommend “Landscapes for the World by P Fowler, Windgather Press ISBN 0-9545575-9-X which is solely about WHS Cultural Landscapes and/or an article by him which can be found by searching on “Cultural Landscape” on the UNESCO site )

In fact, most “Cultural Landscapes” are inscribed purely on Cultural criteria though some are mixed. Conversely only some mixed properties are “Cultural Landscapes” and this is not only because of those inscribed before the new category was created eg, to take a site at random, the Laponian area in Sweden was inscribed in 1996 as a mixed natural/cultural site but is NOT officially a “Cultural Landscape” (even though the ICOMOS evaluation suggested it should be!) whilst the Island of Oland inscribed in 2000 on purely cultural criteria is so described! It is actually quite difficult to identify which sites are “Cultural Landscapes” – some, but only a minority, have the words included in the title – for others you have to delve more deeply into the UNESCO web site and sometimes even into the papers of the Advisory Body Evaluation (or the above article)

I am not a geographer but apparently the term “Cultural Landscape” has existed since around 1926 and still causes great debate within professional circles eg the view that “Cultural Landscapes do not exist as such, or at least, they are not worthy of being protected because the influence of humankind is intrinsically degrading”. Apparently the inscription of the “Blaenavon Industrial Landscape” as a cultural landscape in 2000 caused and causes great concern and has not been followed by any other “non rural landscapes (The Derwent Valley is not officially a “cultural landscape” even though the ICOMOS evaluation uses the term!)

Whatever the esoteric debates about the category and what it means the Philippine Cordilleras site transcends them and is surely unarguably “world class”. Fowler writes “..the terraces of the Ifugao have remained a standard-setter since 1995, for they represent the quality against which all other potential WH cultural landscapes can be judged”.