Beyond the Nature-Culture Divide: Spiritual Governance and the Institutional Limits of UNESCO Heritage Protection

This thesis examines the structural tensions between UNESCO heritage frameworks and living governance systems that integrate ecological, cultural, and spiritual dimensions without separating them operationally. Chapter 1 critically reviews the evolution of UNESCO conventions from the 1972 World Heritage Convention to the introduction of cultural landscapes in 1992 and the 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. It suggests that the nature/culture dichotomy is not a neutral analytical tool but a governance instrument that determines what gets protected and by whom. Comparative cases from Benin and Kenya (Mijikenda Kaya Forests) illustrate how spiritual practices function as systems of traditional ecological knowledge, framing the analytical approach for the main case study. The research focuses on the Subak irrigation system of Bali, inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2012. A qualitative methodology was used, including fieldwork in Indonesia (November–December 2025), interviews with UNESCO officers and local practitioners, questionnaires administered at the Subak Jatiluwih and Subak Sangeh, and systematic analysis of State of Conservation Reports from 2014 to 2025. The thesis documents the gap between formal recognition and the operational conditions that sustain the system's functioning. Findings show that the Subak is not merely a cultural landscape to be preserved, but a governance system in which water management, ritual calendars, community cohesion, and agricultural production form a single integrated practice. UNESCO inscription has produced meaningful legislative advances and international visibility; however, thirteen years of monitoring reports consistently document the same unresolved structural failures: tourism pressure, land conversion, demographic erosion, and insufficient economic support for farmers. The thesis concludes that UNESCO can generate formal protection but cannot, within its current institutional architecture, ensure the conditions under which the Subak's own governance logic can continue to operate. The underlying argument is epistemological: the spiritual dimension of the Subak is not an attribute of the system to be protected alongside the landscape: it is the system's governance infrastructure.