The multidisciplinary approach taken by Connecting Practice, with its use of representatives from both natural and cultural heritage organisations, as well as local and international partners, has highlighted the differences in interpretation and understanding of applicable terminology and concepts. In many situations, seemingly similar concepts have accumulated slightly different meanings depending on their context. The terminology and concepts used in one disciplinary realm have different meanings in others or, conversely, distinct terms or notions in one realm play a similar function in another. The application of multiple vocabularies can lead to confusion and misunderstanding that can hinder mutual use across disciplines.

Establishing a common ground for terminology was identified as being helpful for the integration of concepts and practices to ensure collective use and understanding. In order to address this need, the Commentary on Nature-Culture Keywords emerged as a result of the work done in Connecting Practice. It is a compilation of terms and concepts divided into three clusters (biocultural approaches, resilience and traditional knowledge), with the goal of creating common understanding and collective use to assist future project activities.

Fieldwork has been the pivotal activity in all Connecting Practice phases, pursuing the aim of recognising commonalities, establishing linkages, and bridging the nature/culture divide. Fieldwork in all three phases centred on engaging at site level with communities, site managers, heritage practitioners and policy makers.

The project has tested various methods of carrying out field visits. Phase I visits were explorative in nature and used a variety of approaches and working methods at the sites. Phase II focused on creating a consistent, common structure to the fieldwork to identify strategies of generating immediate benefits to the sites. Phase III focuses included: the promotion of biocultural approaches for management and conservation of continually evolving cultural landscapes; the translatability of ‘resilience’ in management responses; and the use of broader partnerships to increase the multi-disciplinary character of the project.

Field visits are critical for understanding sites, generating connections and modifying practices, with each phase providing lessons and themes for subsequent phases. Outcomes from fieldwork create lessons for the development of improved frameworks and strategies applicable to a wider range of World Heritage properties and organisations.

The use of these interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams creates richer dialogues and widens the scope of discussion in a project such as Connecting Practice, while also emphasising different contexts and approaches to conservation and management practices.

Throughout all phases of Connecting Practice, efforts have been made to expand the fieldwork teams to include participants with diverse professional and educational backgrounds, including archaeologists, agronomists, landscape architects, geographers, ecologists, anthropologists, geologists, natural and social scientists. In most cases, these professionals have previously worked for or collaborated with IUCN and ICOMOS, often with a World Heritage focus. Each phase collaborated with and included site managers, local heritage organisations and national/regional representatives.

Phase III in particular involved larger groups of practitioners and international partners in contemporary fields to investigate new facets of the interconnection between nature and culture and to build alliances across international heritage programmes. This included the integration of professionals engaged with the GIAHS programme, namely an agricultural engineer and an ecologist, into the fieldwork teams.

Connecting Practice is the first jointly-managed project of ICOMOS and IUCN under the World Heritage Convention, promoting collaboration for the nature/culture interconnection at an institutional level to encourage more holistic, integrated approaches to site management and understanding. The use of joint field visits was a distinct change from previous ICOMOS and IUCN missions, allowing a more experimental approach to understanding the interconnection. This involved field teams with ICOMOS and IUCN representatives, the creation of common Terms of Reference, coordinated planning and organisation of site visits, and preparing a final, combined report, resulting in improved collaboration between ICOMOS and IUCN at an institutional and local level.

Phase III involved the FAO and their Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems project. This created further networks and integration among international players, and allowed the exploration of potential synergies with other international designations by considering two properties which were both GIAHS and World Heritage sites. This resulted in a richer discussion and professional exchange of common conservation and management priorities and systems, challenges and potentially mutually reinforcing responses.

As the public-private partnership improved approaches to conservation, it became clear that the challenges being faced on site were affected by its wider context. It was vital to recognise the Vesuvian area and wider socio-economic dynamics, as a source of opportunities, not threats, that could reinforce site management. Heritage was increasingly viewed as a shared responsibility.

A key initiative was the Herculaneum Centre, a non-profit association founded by the heritage authority, the municipality and a research institute to consolidate a network of local, national and international partners. For 5 years, it implemented an activity programme focused on stimulating new types of involvement in Ercolano’s heritage. The capacity to work with others was enhanced within institutions and civil society through research networks, community projects and a variety of learning environments.

The trust of local partners created conditions, unimaginable ten years earlier, for the regeneration of a difficult urban district adjacent to the archaeological site known as Via Mare.

With the Centre’s programme completed, this tradition of cooperation has been taken forward by Herculaneum’s new heritage authority, supported by the Packard foundation and other partners.

Each year, Save The Waves accepts one new World Surfing Reserve from surf communities all around the world. The application process requires significant work from local communities and their inquiry is based on the following core criteria: 

1) Quality and consistency of the wave(s);

2) Important environmental characteristics;

3) Culture and surf history;

4) Governance capacity and local support;

5) Priority Conservation Area

Each application is reviewed by an indepedent Vision Council made up of professionals in the conservation, business, nonprofit, and surf fields. Once the World Surfing Reserve is selected based on the rigorous criteria, they undergo the Stewardship Planning Process and the other building blocks to formally dedicate the World Surfing Reserve.