WHOSE VIEWS COUNT?: ACHIEVING COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION Chris Johnston INTRODUCTION On Day 1 of the Conference the term cultural landscape was given a beating (perhaps undeserved) and virtually tossed aside. However, the discussion revealed at least five important reasons for pursuing the notion of cul- tural landscape : • Cultural landscape provides a broader notion of places, linking the disaggregated aspects of the environment - natural, Aboriginal, historic - and requiring integration of our techniques, criteria, etc. This was seen as valuable but challenging (or perhaps too hard). • Cultural landscape encourages us to see the values in ordinary places and vernacular landscapes. • Cultural landscape demands the recognition and understanding of more of the components or aspects of a place. • Cultural landscape may lead to a practice of better environmental care for all places. • Cultural landscape may lead to some links being created between those who care about different aspects of the environment - especially the creation of links with and resolution of conflict between our- selves and the (so called) 'green' environment move- ment. This paper links whose views count in our current conservation practices and the dilemmas and difficulties that result, with what we seek to achieve (as described in the five points above). As a question 'whose views count?' can be simply answered. Our views count and those of the non-profes- sional community don't. This isn't the way it should be. And amongst those here today some people's views count more than others; for example, those who hold the money are usually more able to give sway to their views. At the Australian Heritage Commission's seminars in 1986 I asked people to put their hands up to find out where they participated in the 'heritage system'. Very few said they were involved as activists for conservation in their local community. Repeating the exercise at this conference would probably produce much the same out- come. My (untested) hypothesis about the power struc- ture within the cultural heritage sector would propose the following hierarchy: Historic Environment VII 2 (1989) • politicians • government bureaucrats (those who hold the money and information, and advise the politicians) • local government • consultants • voluntary conservation groups • the community If the community's views did count, especially at the local level, then all of us would be active at the local level. And if the community's views counted we would consult them. Given how powerless most professionals in the field appear to feel, it is not surprising that one often hears a sad resignation to demolition proposals by those far less powerful. I believe that we should feel some disquiet about who's views count. There are, of course, issues of equity and democracy and while I do not intend to pursue them in this paper, they should not be overlooked. More funda- mental to our conservation objective is the need to build political support; today this means mass community support, rather than the power of the expert or the notable individual. 1 As well we need to recognise that our current heritage power and information structures have- n't resulted in a very effective form oflandscapeconser- vation practice. Some of these fundamental contradictions between the techniques and methods we use and these larger objec- tives are examined below. THE ISSUES My critique of current practice hinges on a number of concerns that can be summarised as: • our failure to build community awareness of the values in the landscapes we seek to protect • separation of cultural and natural • being pseudo-scientific and over-methodological • allowing the professionalisation of conservation to push aside 'non-professionals' • relying on a narrow set of values within a country where diversity is increasingly apparent and accepted. page 33