Any discourse of heritage management using indigenous models must first take into consideration the type of heritage and how the citizens of the polity where they exist explain, interogate and venerate the heritage in question. This is because, it is only when heritages are engaged ontologically from the axiology of the owners that one understands the rationale for the model used in preserving them especially inline with the challenges posed by environment. To then blend the model into western constructs without taking the latter issues into consideration would be doing harm to the heritage. For a synergy to occur betweeen indigenous models and western models of heritage management, the ritual practices in the indigenous method should be made to undergo a scientific inquiry, rather than dismiss it as one of the uneccessary eccentrics of a primitive society,

@Opata,

Thank you for the insight you gave. The case you made is the problem against the tide, the 'authorized heritage discourse' which 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity, 2003 UNESCO and 2005 Faro Conventions are against. Documents emanating from these gatherings encouraged community participation in heritage management in principle but have become difficult to appear in practice. My question is focused on understanding how these principles which are already in policy documents can go into practice without democratic exclusion of any sort. 

Wonderful question.  I think that it is necessary for scientists (anthropologists and archaeologists and others) to attempt to dismantle their structure of knowing and commit to a perspective of more open communication with the indigenous people.  I think this can be done as we do have a number of good examples of such collaboration here in the United States.  I think the Canadians and the Australians are far ahead of us here though.

It is certainly a challenge to work within the contemporary laws and policies.  It often puts us as scientists and cultural resource managers at odds with all the various stake holders including the indigenous, our employers, our clients and the oversight agencies.

A challenge indeed, and one that probably is beyond blanket solutions. Based on personal experience, it is sometimes difficult to establish exactly what a given group of traditional owners sees as the 'right' approach to heritage management when that particular group in itself has different (and sometimes conflicting) ideas as to what that heritage is, who the primary stakeholders are (or should be), how the consultation process should be structured, and what should be done with knowledge about that heritage (the frequent conflict of confidentiality vs. publicity, for instance).

A lot of delicate maneuvering between factions (and I use the term advisedly) may be required, and even then there is a good chance that not everyone will be happy. Not sure this helps much to address your question, John, but as I indicated at the beginning, variability within and between traditional groups seems to call for case-by-case approaches to heritage management in my opinion.

It is a very complex and interesting question, I' think. This is the problem of the "implementation gap" of the indigenous rights by the nation states, if we think that local heritage management are like a concession due to the multicultural recognition policy of each state, I think we are misunderstand the real issue. Collaborative archaeology and heritage management can give those rights a dimension of practice by which indigenous groups can claim stronger for other rights, like territorial autonomy or self-determination, whose implemention is more complicated because of the centralization of power in post-colonial countries. Since international organizations and related documents are centered in the Nation-state there is little chance that heritage can play a decisive role in the inequalities reduction effort, becouse it is the very process of heritagization that contibutes to creat such inequalities. So, I argue that a democratic participation in heritage recognition, interpretation and management could be a solution but it is important that this call for participation is realized jointly with a real affirmation of indigenous peoples' collective rights.

The indigenous models based on their own culture and identity, give us a true idea of the heritage foundation. The peoples in Latin America have a holistic worldview that integrates your lifestyle and cultural events, which are then classified as equity and are shown as pitifully folkloric events after a biased interpretation from the academy and the prevailing Western view.

 http://www.mincetur.gob.pe/newweb/Portals/0/prensa/2015/noticia_446_2015.html

Your question reminded me of this article I read some time ago, it's called "Conservation Policy Delivery", by Sharon Sullivan. Here's a link, page 33: 

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/cultural_heritage_asia.pdf 

It might help you to look into strategic planning/management models, and then apply them to heritage conservation, considering the indigenous community as a stakeholder. That would be a way to integrate their views and values into a comprehensive planning process for a given site.

This might not be exactly what you were looking for with your question, but from what I've seen (in Latin America), indigenous cultures don't bother with heritage "preservation" so much as to have models for it. The heritage they venerate is, as Mr. Burneo pointed out, more of the intagible kind: Landscapes, sacred places, traditions such as dances, rituals, songs, storytelling, crafts... So they're not so concerned with preserving buildings or objects. However, they must have a say in the matter, therefore they become stakeholders. 

Good luck.