01796nas a2200265   4500000000100000000000100001000000100002008004100003653001600044653001400060653001900074653002400093653002200117653002300139653002700162653002900189653002400218100001600242245015100258856011800409300001200527490000700539520096400546022002001510       2007                            d10aAustralasia10aAustralia10aAustralia (AU)10aWorld heritage site10acultural heritage10acultural landscape10aenvironmental planning10aEnvironmental protection10anature conservation1 aI. Connolly00aCan the World Heritage Convention be adequately implemented in Australia without Australia becoming a party to the Intangible Heritage Convention?  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-37249023678&partnerID=40&md5=d253d6dbcb2985642fce3d688549a068  a198-2090 v243 aMost Australian World Heritage sites inscribed for natural values under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage also contain indigenous cultural heritage values. This article examines how effectively the Australian govemment can use the World Heritage Convention as a tool to protect intangible indigenous cultural heritage including cultural landscapes whether those values are recognised as being of Word Heritage value or not. It also examines the potential of the new Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage to protect indigenous cultural heritage values and discusses the pros and cons of Australia becoming a party to the new Intangible Heritage Convention. It will be argued that these two Conventions are intended to work together to provide a mechanism for effective identification, safeguarding, awareness, protection, and conservation of both tangible and intangible heritage.  a0813300X (ISSN)