THE challenges that face cultural heritage conservation today are more complex and far-reaching than the issues that the cultural heritage profession grappled with 50 years ago. Whereas in the restoration and reconstruction efforts post-World War II, Europe grappled with technical issues of material authenticity and recreating historical accuracy, today’s issues regarding culture and cultural heritage are now fundamentally implicated in contemporary discourse and policy debates on sustainable development.

The protection of cultural heritage is seen as a means to safeguard diverse cultural values and particularistic knowledge that is embodied across the full range of the world’s cultures, embodied in both material and immaterial manifestations. Safeguarding cultures has come to be understood as fundamental to safeguarding cultural rights, which is in turn an inalienable part of the rights-based approach to sustainable development.

Community involvement is the central fulcrum that enables cultural heritage to be leveraged as a driver of sustainable development in its fullest, most diverse and most democratic sense. It does so by reasserting the active agency of heritage bearers, in all their manifold roles and within all corners of society, to create a multitude of development pathways that reach beyond the heritage of the state to valorize and mobilize the heritage of the people in a self-reaffirming and productive manner.

Although space does not allow to provide a full history and detailed analysis of this debate, it is important to understand the paradigm shift which has taken place within the discourse on heritage conservation by referencing the considerable literature surrounding this debate from other field of development.¹

In a prescient move, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage – popularly known as the World Heritage Convention – adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 1972 – foreshadows this connection between heritage, communities and sustainable development.² It is worth bearing in mind that the World Heritage Convention was born during the same era as the sustainability movement, emerging from the 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. Since its formal adoption by the UNESCO General Conference in 1972, a total of 193 Member States of UNESCO have become States Parties to the World Heritage Convention (as of April 2018).

 

The World Heritage Convention calls on each State Party to ensure effective measures for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory. In particular, the convention encourages States Parties to ‘adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes’ (Article 5a).

By doing so, this article opened the door for local communities to play a central role in the process of heritage conservation, and raised awareness among the conservation profession about the need for community involvement in the heritage management process.

Previous to the adoption of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, the notion of community involvement had been largely absent in international conservation charters that proposed universal standards for the protection of monuments and sites and put an emphasis on top-down management. One of the earliest of these is the Venice Charter, drawn up in 1964 and adopted by ICOMOS in 1965. Ground-breaking for its time, the Venice Charter strove to define ‘the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings’ which are seen as part of the ‘unity of human values’ and ‘common heritage’ (Venice Charter 1964, paragraph one). The Venice Charter established a privileged role for the ‘expert’ in undertaking conservation work at all stages: from ascribing value to the heritage resource to the selection of conservation actions aimed at preserving those values (Venice Charter; Article 9).

 

Notwithstanding the adoption of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, throughout the 1970s and 1980s the top-down heritage management paradigm remained largely intact. This was exemplified by UNESCO International Safeguarding Campaigns which reinforced the responsibility of government to identify heritage that was to be protected and the role of the ‘expert’ to define and carry out the necessary conservation work. Communities, when mentioned, are noted primarily as needing heritage education and having their ‘awareness raised’, presumably in order to sustain the work of the conservation specialists. The work of planning and safeguarding remained in the hands of the cultural authorities and technical specialists.

The 1990s brought about a sea change in the attitude towards community involvement in heritage conservation. Recognition of the central role of the community in conservation eventually resulted in a paradigm shift in the profession, thereby democratizing the process and enabling an instrumental role for heritage in the sustainable development discourse.

 

The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) was one of the seminal documents to give momentum to the paradigm shift to community involvement. For the first time, in an international instrument intended to influence the future of conservation practice, a consensus of professionals recognized that ‘responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it’ (Nara Document on Authenticity 1994, Article 8). This was a radical and revolutionary position for the time, and created impetus for community engagement with and stewardship over local heritage resources.

The Burra Charter, drafted by ICOMOS Australia in 1979 and substantially revised in 1999, reflected 20 years of accumulated experience working with communities, is another particularly noteworthy document for its emphasis on the need to define cultural significance through a broad-based process of consultation as the starting point for the conservation process. Acknowledging the different notions of heritage between its settler and indigenous populations, the Burra Charter marked a dramatic shift from the Eurocentric concept of heritage monuments and sites to the concept of heritage places which encompass landscapes and other non-built features that resonates more strongly with its indigenous peoples. The Burra Charter introduces the notion that heritage should be understood and managed in the specific local socio-cultural contexts to which it belongs, and by engaging with a diversity of stakeholders to which the heritage is significant (Burra Charter, Articles 11-12).

 

The developments during the 1990s reach fuller maturity during the early years of the 21st century. In 2002, the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (2002) emphasized the need to ‘seek to ensure the active involvement of our local communities at all levels in the identification, protection and management of our World Heritage properties (Budapest Declaration, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 5). The declaration does not simply advocate, but calls for ‘ensuring’ the involvement of communities and their participation in all aspects of the heritage process: identification, protection, and management.

Indeed, in other UN and UNESCO circles, it had become increasingly axiomatic to assert the centrality of the local community in the heritage enterprise.³ The key role of communities was enshrined in two more recent UNESCO conventions, also dating to the early years of the 21st century, namely the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage⁴ and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.⁵

The 2003 Convention requires the explicit involvement and agreement of the communities in all activities safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH), including the nomination of ICH elements to the two lists associated with the 2003 Convention and the inventory of ICH elements.

The 2005 Convention upholds the importance of cultural diversity of all humankind, and calls upon States Parties to do all they can to foster, support, and encourage the freedom of cultural diversity and expression.

 

The Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage (2004), called for the ‘close collaboration and agreement with the communities and groups concerned’ in integrating the safeguarding of tangible and intangible heritage, where appropriate. With reference to development, the declaration promotes ‘economically rewarding heritage-related activities without compromising the integrity of communities and the viability of their heritage.’

This strategic engagement with communities reflected a shift in the approach of the World Heritage Committee away from merely listing new heritage sites, to ensuring their sustainable management. The Periodic Reporting process, which was only introduced into the World Heritage procedures in 1998, found that, across the board, the state of conservation of World Heritage properties was deteriorating at an alarming and ever-increasing rate due in large part to an inadequate response to the threats posed by development processes, and the lack of the integration of heritage conservation into community planning frameworks.

Armed with this data, it was only then that the norms and mechanisms of elitist, statist models of heritage conservation could be effectively challenged. Not only had the prevailing government-led approach to cultural heritage conservation proved inadequate to protect the most iconic of World Heritage sites, it did little to meaningfully involve those communities that generated the heritage in the first place, nor did it enable them to participate in its management, and enjoy the results of heritage protection.

The ongoing shift from statist to community-based models of management was also undergirded by the reality that an overwhelming percentage of the historic environment is claimed by private entities or communities in some capacity, either through use or through ownership. As such, the meaningful involvement of a broader group of stakeholders at the local level in the identification, preservation, restoration, and reuse of heritage becomes inevitable, if heritage is to have ‘a role in the life of the community’, as explicitly advocated in Article 5 the 1972 World Heritage Convention and implicitly argued in the 2003 and 2005 Conventions.

 

While this ‘new vision’ of the role of heritage conservation within the development paradigm now resonates with both the public lobby and the conservation profession today, the operationalization of the vision has not been a straightforward path. Beyond the actual inscription process, participation requires inclusion in the entire heritage conservation and management process, beginning with identification of the heritage assets all the way to site monitoring. Moreover, it is one in which the local community is not merely consulted, but plays an active role in decision making processes. Harper⁶ notes that ‘It is important to realize that local influencers have much to offer as they have probably thought about the problems to be tackled far longer than any of the "professionals" that are often imposed on the community from the outside’.⁷

Against the backdrop of this evolving institutional landscape, UNESCO has had to re-evaluate traditional heritage management frameworks, seeking different strategies which would foster the inclusion of a stronger community voice.

 

In many cases, it should be noted that the adoption of the rhetoric of community-based and consensual approaches has gained more traction than the actual translation into practice. However, the very fact that consultation is now a de jure part of many heritage policy making and planning processes opens the door for a more participatory approach to heritage management. The global standard setting function of UNESCO in this regard, which stipulates the importance and mandatory nature of community involvement in various aspects and steps of the heritage management process, has helped to raise both the bar in both the rhetoric and practice.

In some cases, this requirement has led to genuinely transformative effects. In Myanmar, as part of the process of nominating the Pyu Ancient Cities to the World Heritage List, a series of local heritage trusts were set up in each of the three proposed towns with the support of the Ministry of Culture. The heritage trusts – which bring together local town leaders, business people, youth representatives and others – were active participants in the nomination process and, following inscription of the site in 2014, continue to act as champions for site protection, heritage education and local community development. It can only be surmised that World Heritage nomination has given impetus to this initiative, in a governance context where engagement with civil society is still nascent.

In seeking to test and refine this new conceptual framework, the Office of the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific (RACAP) initiated a series of programmes starting in the late 1990s. The main thrust of the programmes was to institutionalize the role of community and other stakeholders in heritage management in the Asia-Pacific region as a means of acknowledging that without their support, preserving heritage would be a losing struggle and an empty exercise.

 

The Local Effort and Community Preservation in Asia and the Pacific (LEAP) programme modelled a new approach to cultural heritage conservation and management for the region. It was one led by public consensus, enabled by local government, and supported by private sector financing. The LEAP programme aimed to mobilize and empower local communities to identify, advocate, conserve, manage and utilize their culture and local heritage within a developmental context. The ultimate objective was for communities to retain and strengthen their cultural identity and values while benefiting economically and socially from their cultural capital.

One of the primary projects that was developed under the LEAP concept was ‘Cultural Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Cooperation among Stakeholders’. The five-year project began in 1999 and finished in 2003 with a workshop held in conjunction with the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and the World Bank, to evaluate and mainstream project results.

One noteworthy success emerging from this process of stakeholder consultation, joint planning, and action was the scheme for the capture and reinvestment of tourism revenue back into local heritage conservation in Hoi An, Viet Nam. The local heritage authorities, politicians, and heritage homeowners were able to negotiate an innovative mechanism to split revenue from entry tickets among the owners of various heritage attractions, the heritage office, and the local and provincial governments. In so doing, tourism revenue in Hoi An is able to directly support conservation of the most visited heritage assets, other heritage buildings under the remit of the heritage office as well as other public services administered by the government, respectively.

Despite the positive gains in coalition building through the project, it still proved difficult to override entrenched power structures and interests, particularly economic ones. As the profits from heritage tourism increased at some sites, so did the reluctance of the government to relinquish its control over heritage management and economic development, while local enterprises and residents were crowded out by outside investors.

 

While experimenting with projects seeking to integrate local communities into the safeguarding and management of cultural heritage, RACAP expanded the LEAP concept into the area of natural heritage as well. Similar to the management paradigm for cultural heritage, the management of national parks, reserves, and protected areas all over the world traditionally relied on an elitist top-down structure overseen by experts.

Recognizing that people are part of landscapes also impacted on the very foundation of the World Heritage Convention. By initially separating cultural from natural heritage, the convention created a false dichotomy. By reinserting people back into their proper environment, the convention could work with these populations for realistic and more effective management. During the 1990s this newfound understanding was reflected in the adoption of the category of ‘cultural landscapes’, sites which integrated the natural biodiversity and cultural values of a landscape, including the intangible knowledge of the people who lived within the boundaries of the site.⁸

A practical example of the application of these ideas can be seen through an examination of the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project set up in and around the Nam Ha National Biodiversity Conservation Area in Luang Namtha Province, Lao PDR, under the initiative of RACAP. The project which was implemented over a 10-year time span aimed to test if community-based tourism could provide alternative livelihoods, in order to help protect the environment while bringing needed benefits to local populations and safeguarding their cultural heritage. Building upon RACAP’s LEAP framework, a team of stakeholders was formed that brought together different government departments at the local and national levels (forestry, culture and tourism), academic institutions, and local communities.

 

The approaches piloted by UNESCO RACAP in Asia were not only predicated on the involvement of local people in the heritage management process as such, but also on the acknowledgement of their knowledge concerning heritage and heritage resource management. In opposition to the model of external experts having the most authoritative voice in decision-making, a more holistic model of heritage management and sustainable development requires the valorization of the complete human ecology, including the embodied knowledge and practices needed to sustain the local culture and cultural resources not simply as assets, but as intrinsic sources of value and identity. By putting this knowledge at the centre of the management process, the role of the knowledge-bearers themselves is consequently reaffirmed as well.

RACAP initiated a process to capture and codify knowledge about traditional approaches to heritage conservation, drawing upon the remaining, often elderly, knowledge-bearers. This body of knowledge was then married to modern conservation techniques where appropriate, resulting in localized frameworks for heritage management which combined deep knowledge of the site with complementary methods practiced by the international heritage profession.

 

With a view to ‘democratizing’ conservation beyond the hands of experts and technocrats, it was important to address the role of traditional stewards in a more holistic sense, and to equip them with actual practical skills, RACAP developed another project, The Cultural Survival and Revival in the Buddhist Sangha Project. This project aimed to revive the role of the ‘sangha’ (communities of Buddhist monks) in the hands-on conservation of monasteries and the practice of a wide range of traditional arts, crafts, and intangible cultural traditions that were central to the life of the monastery and the community at large.

The Cultural Survival and Revival Project sought to strengthen the teaching institutions and mechanisms needed to pass down endangered traditional knowledge within the sangha. It produced training curricula and materials covering a range of Buddhist arts and rituals spanning south, southeast and east Asia, from Nepalese stone chaitya carving to Cambodian mural painting, and from playing ritual instruments in Arunachal Pradesh to sand mandala construction in Sikkim, India. The project focused on developing long-term training platforms rather than ad hoc training activities.

The strategy of engaging with a local institution with strong roots and continued social relevance ended up being extremely successful.

 

The experiences of the various case studies above show that, even with an expanding role for local communities, there is still a function for professional heritage managers with technical expertise. While these ‘experts’ may no longer be the sole source of authority in conservation and management within the expanded institutional landscapes created by this new paradigm, they nonetheless continue to serve as sources of specialized technical inputs, facilitators, and mentors.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that there is a dearth of heritage managers equipped with these new skill sets and, more worryingly, few educational institutions producing such heritage managers.

The Asian Academy for Heritage Management was the response conceived by UNESCO, ICCROM, and leading heritage practitioners in the region to meet this need in a professional, systematic, sustainable, and cost-effective way. The academy was set up as a network of institutes of higher learning that are engaged in the research and teaching of some aspect of heritage conservation and/or culture resource management.

With a view to bridging from heritage conservation and management theory into practice, and to reflect real-life challenges faced by heritage sites across the region, the Asian Academy encouraged the review and reform of existing heritage curricula as well as convening field schools at actual heritage sites.

The case studies presented above each highlighted a specific condition for community-based heritage conservation: (i) building broad-based coalitions, (ii) linking heritage conservation with development goals, with direct involvement and benefits for local people, (iii) valorizing traditional modes of heritage conservation and management, and marrying them to scientific conservation know-how, and (iv) transferring heritage conservation knowledge and capacity to younger generations in a long-term institutional manner through educational institutions. In reality, the real key to ‘democratizing conservation’ requires most, if not all, of these components to be in place.

In spite of the acknowledged importance of UNESCO-led inter-government action to champion the conservation of heritage assets worldwide, the essential role of communities living in and around heritage sites for managing and ensuring the long-term safeguarding of these sites cannot be ignored. International resolve must be translated into site-based practice which is accomplished through community-based action. The purpose of community-based heritage conservation is not to encourage people to return to some nostalgic past, but rather to use heritage as the divining rod for determining the direction each community wishes to take in its future development. This will help to ensure that the end result of development efforts will be acceptable and appropriate to each community’s economic needs and respectful of each community’s social and cultural values.

 

* This text is a summary and précis of a much longer article which has been submitted by the authors and accepted for publication by Routledge Press under the title: Engelhardt, Richard A, Heather A Peters, and Montira Horayangura Unakul: ‘Democratizing Conservation: Challenges to Changing the Paradigm of Cultural Heritage Management’, in Barry Stiefel and Jeremy Wells (eds.), Human-Centered Built Heritage Conservation: Theory and Evidence-Based Practice. Routledge Press (in press.)

Footnotes:

1. See for example: Robert Chambers, Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK, 1983; Robert Chambers, ‘The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal’, World Development 22(7), 1994, pp. 953-969; James Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic State Power in Lesotho. David Philip, Cape Town, 1990; James Ferguson, ‘The Anti-Politics Machine: "Development" and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho’, The Ecologist 24(5), 1994, pp. 176-181; Bill Freund, ‘The Ironies of Development. A Review of James Ferguson the Anti-Politics Machine: "Development, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic State Power in Lesotho"’, Transformation 13, 1990. pp. 104-107; Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao, Localizing Development: Does Participation Work? The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2013; Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, Anthropology and Development: Understanding Contemporary Social Change. Zed Books, London and New York, 2005 (translated by Antoinette Tidjani Alou); Ben Ramalingam, Aid on the Edge of Chaos: Rethinking International Cooperation in a Complex World. Oxford University Press, London, 2013.

2. UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972. http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/convention-en.pdf

3. See for example, those discussions that led to the Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, Our Creative Diversity, published by the UN in 1996.

4. UNESCO, Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003. www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index. php?lg+en&pg+00006.

5. UNESCO, Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, 2005. http://en-unesco.org/creativity/convention/what-is/convention-text

6. P. Harper, ‘The Importance of Community Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Development’, in M. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, p. 147.

7. Peter G. Gould, The Role of Communities in Sustainable Heritage Preservation, 2009, p. 10. Paper downloaded from: www.sustainablepreservation.org.

8. Nora Mitchell, Mechtild Rossler, Pierre-Marie Tricaud (eds.), World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Papers 26, 2009. UNESCO, World Heritage Centre: Paris.