[cover page]

FINAL REPORT

CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN

GOLESTAN PALACE - TEHRAN 25 APRIL - 03 MAY 2015

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication and those of the authors are do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNESCO, II.TED or the Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicraft and Tourism Organization.

Realized by II.TED - International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics

Via Napoleone Bonaparte, 52 Florence (50135) ITALY [email protected]

Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Tehran Cluster Office

Sa’adabad Historical Complex , Tehran (19896-43936) I.R. IRAN

© UNESCO UTCO 2015

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ tehran/about-this-office/publications/).

Lead author and coordination: Siavash Laghai

Supervision: Esther Kuisch Laroche

Reviewers and other contributors: Alessio Re, Bogusław Szmygin, Firoozeh Salari, Jukka Jokilehto and all the participants of the Capacity Building Workshop on the Management Planning for World Heritage Sites in Iran.

Copyediting and proofreading: Iszara Blake

Acknowledgements: We would like to express our gratitude and appreciation of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicraft and Tourism Organization, the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Tehran and the Golestan Palace World Heritage Site. Table of Contents

Note on the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office 6 Note on the International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics 6 Introduction 7 Chapter 1: World Heritage...... 9 World Heritage Global Strategy 9 World Heritage Strategy for Capacity Building 9 World Heritage and I.R. Iran 11 Iranian properties inscribed on the World Heritage List 11 Iranian properties submitted on the Tentative List 12 Chapter 2: The Capacity Building Workshop...... 14 Topics and aims 15 Workshop program 16 Activities and discussions 17 Chapter 3: Selected Papers ...... 20 Interrogating Universality in Conservation Theory 20 Analysis of Doctrinal Texts in Heritage Protection 31 Management planning for World Heritage properties: culture as a driver for development 43 Chapter 4: Participants...... 56 Participants selected work 58 Conclusion...... 61 Annex...... 62 Glossary 62 The Criteria for Selection 65 Pictures 66 References 67 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Final Report 5 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Note on the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office

The UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office (UTCO) was established in January 2003. The Office covers four countries in the region, namely the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic Pakistan and Turkmenistan.

Programmes for Afghanistan and Pakistan are managed through UNESCO Offices in Kabul and Islamabad, while programmes for Iran and Turkmenistan are managed directly by the Tehran Cluster Office. UTCO works in close co-operation with the UNESCO National Commissions and key governmental partners of the four cluster countries, as well as UN Agencies. At the regional level, UTCO also co-operates with UNESCO's regional offices in Bangkok and Jakarta.

UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office closely co-operates with the relevant government authorities of the four cluster countries of I.R. of Afghanistan, I.R. of Iran, Pakistan and Turkmenistan, UN and UNESCO offices in the region. UTCO has a wide range of partners in the programme areas of education, culture, natural sciences, communication and information, as well as in the interdisciplinary fields pertinent for the region, such as integrated disaster management. UTCO works with several ministries of Science and Technology, Energy and Education as well as government bodies such as Iranian Cultural Heritage and Handicraft Organization, Iranian Technical and Vocation Organization.

Note on the International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics

II.TED International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation based in Florence. II.TED principally aims to arise community awareness and to put emphasis on building capacities and competencies for the preservation, valorisation and promotion of heritage sites and places, towards a sustainable management.

II.TED promotes respect for environment and landscape, bases that need to be preserved as an irreplaceable common heritage of humanity. II.TED is based on founding documents, conventions and recommendations such as the European Landscape Convention, The UNESCO World Heritage Convention, UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Ramsar Convention on wetlands and the UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape.

Final Report 6 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Introduction

According to the UNESCO and ICOMOS charters, conventions and recommendations that are outlined in the international framework for conservation approaches, it is evident that there is a need for heritage management with democratic governance, including monitoring and evaluation processes.

It is especially important to consider the increasing complexity of culture and heritage, specifically in reference to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972)1, The Nara document on Authenticity (ICOMOS, 1994)2, The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance (Burra Charter,1999)3 and the UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (2011)4 as they demonstrate the most complex categories of heritage such as historic and modern urban areas, rapid and uncontrolled urbanisation and in-between landscapes.

According to "Governance in the New Millennium", governance amongst accepted traditions and institutional frameworks concerns the methods in how power is exercised, for example, who makes influential decisions and how they are held accountable for their decisions and actions (2000, p. 3)5.

Defining and implementing the new generation of public policies is required in order to provide better governance of heritage sites and to clarify conservation policies. Nevertheless, capacity building and involving people within the decision making process- particularly those that have a strong associations with a place (Burra Charter, 1999), largely remains a complex process as factors such as legitimacy, administrative competence, community participation, economy, rule of law, policy and human rights, their role and their impact need to be considered carefully.

The political dimension of heritage assumes more and more relevance of factors such as international dialogue opportunities (as testified in recent UNESCO policies and programs implemented in the Balkans and Palestine) in order to stimulate a sense of belonging that goes beyond local interests and to provide a basis for new forms of identity and citizenship.

1 Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session Paris, 16 November 1972

2 The Nara Document on Authenticity was drafted by the 45 participants at the Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, held at Nara, Japan, from 1-6 November 1994

3 The Burra Charter was first adopted in 1979 at the historic South Australian mining town of Burra; minor revisions were made in 1981 and 1988. Following a five year review, more substantial changes were made resulting in this version which was adopt- ed by Australia ICOMOS in November 1999

4 On 10 November 2011 UNESCO’s General Conference adopted the new Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape

5 Governance in the New Millennium: Challenges for Canada, Institute On Governance, January 2000

Final Report 7 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Most importantly, when assuming the sustainability paradigm it is imperative to gain a deeper understanding of the irreplaceable quality of heritage resources and their significance and skill in their management when considering economic and political decision making.

Siavash Laghai and Alessio Re

Final Report 8 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Chapter 1: World Heritage

UNESCO seeks to encourage the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world that is considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. this is embodied in an international treaty called the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in 19726.

The Convention defines the kind of natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List. As a matter of fact, to be included on the World Heritage List, sites moreover being of Outstanding Universal Value, must meet at least one out of ten selection Criteria7.

Outstanding Universal Value relates to cultural and/or natural significance to an exceptional standard that transcends national boundaries, with the best interest of both present and future generations of humanity8.

World Heritage Global Strategy

The World Heritage List has a Global Strategy representing balanced and credible World Heritage Properties9. Its aim is to ensure that the List reflects the world's cultural and natural diversity of Outstanding Universal Value. By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage to better reflect the full spectrum of our world’s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention.

World Heritage Strategy for Capacity Building10

In 2001, the Global Training Strategy for Cultural and Natural Heritage was presented and approved at the 25th session of the World Heritage Committee (Finland). The strategy had two main levels of implementation. At the international level, the focus was placed on better

6 http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/

7 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention: Cultural criteria (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi) Natural criteria (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

8 What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties, an ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto

9 Adopted in 1994 by the World Heritage Committee to balance the World Heritage List

10 WHC-11/35.COM/9B - World Heritage Committee, 35th session, Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 19-29 June 2011 http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-35com-9Be.pdf

Final Report 9 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 implementation of the Convention, and improvement in professional skills for management, and conservation. The strategy also called for the development of regional strategies for each of the five regions.

Capacity building – whether of practitioners, institutions or communities and networks – is seen as a form of people-centered change that entails working with groups of individuals to achieve improvements in approaches to managing cultural and natural heritage.

Considering the popularity that has been achieved by the World Heritage Convention and its ongoing political support, attempts should be made to use the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy for the benefit of broader heritage conservation and management programmes. Capacity building messages for World Heritage sites should promote good conservation and management practice in the field without drawing distinctions between World Heritage sites and other sites3. Capacity building should be understood as the most cost- effective means by which the World Heritage Committee can protect the Outstanding Universal Value and other values of World Heritage properties and ensure a mutually beneficial dynamic between heritage and society.

WHC-11/35.COM/9B

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Thirty-fifth session

Paris, UNESCO Headquarters 19-29 June 2011

Final Report 10 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

World Heritage and I.R. Iran

The I.R. Iran has ratified the UNESCO World Heritage Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on 26th February 1975. By this Iran recognizes the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory11.

Iranian properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

As for 2015, there are 19 Cultural Heritage12 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List:

Name of the Property Date of Inscription Criteria

Armenian Monastic Ensembles of Iran 2008 (ii)(iii)(vi)

Bam and its Cultural Landscape 2004 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)

Bisotun 2006 (ii)(iii)

Cultural Landscape of Maymand 2015 (v)

Golestan Palace 2013 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Gonbad-e Qābus 2012 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Masjed-e Jāmé of Isfahan 2012 (ii)

Meidan Emam, Esfahan 1979 (i)(v)(vi)

Pasargadae 2004 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Persepolis 1979 (i)(iii)(vi)

Shahr-i Sokhta 2014 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Sheikh Safi al-din Khānegāh and Shrine Ensemble in Ardabil 2010 (i)(ii)(iv)

Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System 2009 (i)(ii)(v)

Soltaniyeh 2005 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Susa 2015 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Tabriz Historic Bazaar Complex 2010 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Takht-e Soleyman 2003 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

Tchogha Zanbil 1979 (iii)(iv)

The Persian Garden 2011 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

11 Article 4 of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, National protection and International protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage

12 Article 1 of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, Definition of the Cultural and Natural Heritage: monuments, group of building and sites

Final Report 11 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Iranian properties submitted on the Tentative List

The Tentative List13 is an inventory of those properties which each State Party14 intends to consider for nomination. As of June 2015, Properties submitted by the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) on the Tentative List are as followed: .

Name of the Property Date of Submission Criteria

Alisadr Cave 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)

Arasbaran Protected Area 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Bastam and Kharghan 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Bazaar of Qaisariye in Laar 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(vi)

Cultural Landscape of Alamout 2007 (ii)(iv)(v)(vi)(viii)

Damavand 2008 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Firuzabad Ensemble 1997 Cultural

Ghaznavi- Seljukian Axis in Khorasan 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Hamoun Lake 2008 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Harra Protected Area 2008 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Hegmataneh 2008 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Historic ensemble of Qasr-e Shirin 1997 Cultural

Historic Monument of Kangavar 2007 (iii)

Historical Ensemble of Qasr-e Shirin 2007 (ii)(vi)

Hyrcanian Forest (Caspian Forest) 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Jame' (Congregational) Mosque of Esfahan 1997 Cultural

Jiroft 2007 (ii)(iii)(v)(vi)

Kaboud Mosque 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

Kerman Historical-Cultural Structure 2008 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

Khabr National Park and Ruchun Wildlife Refuge 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Khorramabad Valley 2007 (i)(iii)(iv)(v)

Kuh-e Khuaja 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Lut Desert (the vicinity of Shahdad) 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Nasqsh-e Rostam and Naqsh-e Rajab 1997 Cultural

13 States Parties are encouraged to submit their Tentative Lists, properties which they consider to be cultural and/or natural heritage of outstanding universal value and therefore suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. UNESCO World Her- itage Centre

14 States Parties are countries which have adhered to the World Heritage Convention. 191 States to the Convention as of Au- gust 15, 2014

Final Report 12 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Name of the Property Date of Submission Criteria

Persepolis and other relevant buildings 2007 (ii)(iv)(vi)

Qanats of Gonabad 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)

Qeshm Island 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Sabalan 2007 (vii)(viii)(ix)

Shush 1997 Cultural

Silk Route (Also as Silk Road) 2008 (i)

Susa 2007 (ii)(iii)

Tape Sialk 1997 Cultural

Taq-e Bostan 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

The Collection of Historical Bridges 2008 (i)(ii)(iii)

The Complex of Handmade Settlements in Iran (Maymand Village) 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)

The Complex of Izadkhast 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

The Cultural Landscape of Uramanat 2007 (i)(iii)(v)

The Cultural-Natural Landscape of Ramsar 2007 (iii)(iv)(vii)(x)

The Ensemble of Historical Sassanian Cities in Fars Province 2007 (ii)(iv) (Bishabpur, Firouzabad, Sarvestan)

The Historical City of Masouleh 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)

The Historical City of Maybod 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)

The Historical Port of Siraf 2007 (v)

The Historical Structure of Yazd 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)

The Historical Texture of Damghan 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)

The Historical Village of Abyaneh 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)

The Historical–Cultural Axis of Fin, Sialk, Kashan 2007 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

The Natural-Historical Landscape of Izeh 2008 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)

The Zandiyeh Ensemble of Fars Province 2008 (vi)

Touran Biosphere Reserve 2008 (x)

Tous Cultural Landscape 2007 (iii)(iv)(vi)

Zozan 2007 (ii)(iii)(iv)

Final Report 13 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Chapter 2: The Capacity Building Workshop

The Capacity Building Workshop on the Management Planning for World Heritage Sites in Iran took place in Golestan Palace in Tehran between 25 April and 03 May 2015. This Workshop was a joint activity of:

• UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office (UTCO), Iran

• Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO), Iran

• International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics (II.TED), Italy

Faculty

The workshop saw the contribution of international academic experts, scholars and professionals from different disciplines:

• Alessio Re, CSS-EBLA / University of Turin

• Bogusław Szmygin, Lublin University of Technology / ICOMOS-Polska

• Siavash Laghai, II.TED / ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon

• Jukka Jokilehto, University of Nova Gorica / ICCROM

• Mohammad Hassan Talebian, ICHHTO, Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization deputy Director

Scientific Committee

The scientific committee was composed by the professional network of:

• UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office (UTCO)

• Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO)

• International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics (II.TED)

Partners

This programme has embraced the partnership of the following institutions:

• Iranian National Commission for UNESCO (Nat.Com), Iran

Final Report 14 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

• The Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Tehran

Topics and aims

The planned Workshop was dedicated to the "Governance of Heritage Places” and aimed to focus on the governance and management of heritage sites with a socio- cultural anchorage.

The Workshop was shaped using the existing framework of international debate surrounding the governance of heritage places and sites. Cultural significances such as values and diversity, environment and heritage are becoming more and more relevant in the international agendas, especially in relationship with sustainable development opportunities for communities and territories.

Objective

In the Islamic Republic of Iran there are currently 17 UNESCO World Heritage Sites and more than 1,000 national heritage sites. Rapid urban developments near to several World Heritage Sites is endangering them and therefore calls for urgent capacity-building on conservation and management principles in addition to strategic planning and policy-making. There is also an important need for capacity-building with regard to the involvement of community stakeholders in the decision-making processes.

In order to respond to these needs, the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office together with ICHHTO and II. Ted International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics have organized this intensive training workshop consisting of a face-to-face learning phase with two practical field visits resulting in a final dissertation.

Methodology

The Programme was organized in two learning phases: P1 - Face to face learning: 24 April - 03 May 2015 P2 - Final dissertation preparation: Works to be delivered until 04 June 2015

Final Report 15 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

During the face to face learning phase, participants had the opportunity to visit the Golestan Palace World Heritage Site and the Historical-Cultural Axis of Fin, Sialk, and Kashan as the case studies.

Workshop program

The programme of the Workshop was structured in 6 days in class lectures and 2 days of field visits:

Date/Time 09:30-11:00 11:15-13:00 14:30-16:00 16:15-17:30

24/04 Arrival

25/04 Welcoming addresses Heritage places and sites definition and Conservation and and presentation of the recognition (M.H Talebian and J. Jokilehto) management workshop agenda principles (J. Jokilehto)

26/04 Heritage places and sites definition and Conservation and management recognition principles (J. Jokilehto) (B. Szmygin)

27/04 Conservation and management principles Strategic planning, policies and (B. Szmygin) management (J. Jokilehto)

P1 28/04 Study visit: The Golestan Palace (J. Avaj)

29/04 Strategic planning, policies and management Evaluation and monitoring process (M.H Talebian) (J. Jokilehto and B. Szmygin)

30/04 Decision making and community engagement Conservation and Decision making tools (A. Re) management and community principles (A. Re) engagement tools (A. Re and S.Laghai)

01/05 Evaluation and monitoring process (A. Re and S.Laghai)

02/05 Study visit: The Historical-Cultural Axis of Fin, Sialk, and Kashan

03/05 Departure

P2 04 June 2015 Final Works to be delivered

Final Report 16 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Activities and discussions

The activities developed during the Workshop enabled an exploratory discussion of heritage management concepts, processes and tools from a multidisciplinary and multicultural perspective.

The methodological structure was based on the following focus areas:

A. Heritage places and sites definition and recognition

1. Understanding cultural significances and diversity

2. Urban landscape complexities

3. Cultural (intermediate) landscapes

4. Natural and environmental values

B. Conservation and management principles

1. Rapid and uncontrolled urbanization

2. Cautious approach and compatible use of heritage places

3. Conservation processes

4. Managing changes

5. Preparation of integrated management plans for world cultural and natural heritage properties

C. Strategic planning, policies and management

1. Policies for urban heritage conservation

2. Evolving normative trends and legal issues in governing heritage

3. Linking governance principles for protected areas

D. Decision making and community engagement tools

1. World heritage and sustainable development: the social and economic dimension

Final Report 17 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

2. Capacity building, participatory planning and stakeholder involvement in decision making processes

E. Evaluation and monitoring process:

1. Tools and techniques for mapping heritage and territorial values

2. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of resources

3. Assess vulnerability

Contributions included theoretic and methodological approach as well as practical sessions and case studies:

• Exchanging know-how on best practices and case studies,

• Evaluation of existing management system and laws.

Furthermore, the discussions by both professionals and participants provided them with the opportunity to consider local contexts and deeper investigation to the following;

- The heritage protection policies

- The heritage protection and preservation systems

- Sustainable development and local communities

- Stakeholders analysis

- From sustainable management to management for sustainability

- Heritage management plan procedures

- Value based management

- From Historic cities to Cultural Landscape

- Culture and creative industries

- Direct and indirect monitoring indicators for the heritage site

- Identifying threats to the world heritage sites

- Disaster risk preparedness

Final Report 18 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

The current issues of World Heritage:

- Natural disasters and catastrophes

- Human activities affecting World Heritage

- Physical resources distraction

- Socio-cultural use of World Heritage

- Political issue affecting World Heritage

And presentation of the current international and national best practices in heritage management:

- Azerbaijan (Baku, Sheki)

- Eritrea (Asmara)

- I.R. Iran (Tchogha Zanbil, Perspolis, Isfana, Tabriz)

- Italy (Rome, Naples, Alberobello, Piemonte)

- Yemen (Shibam, Zabid)

Final Report 19 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Chapter 3: Selected Papers

Interrogating Universality in Conservation Theory by Jukka Jokilehto

Abstract

The international conservation doctrine is normally associated with the developments in the second half of the 20th century, and more in particular with the establishment of a group of international organisations, headed by UNESCO. The international doctrine is based on the conventions and recommendations, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO, and on the charters of ICOMOS. The most significant for our purposes is certainly the World Heritage Convention of 1972, which has established an international list of properties that represent the different aspects of cultural and natural heritage of humanity. The World Heritage List has also become exemplary in demonstrating how the international community interprets the application of conservation theory and principles in practice.

One of the crucial aspects of the international conservation theory is to have recognised human creativity and the resulting diversity. In simple words this means that each heritage resource has its specific qualities and its particular history in a particular context. Consequently, using a popular word: each property is somehow unique. Therefore, the question can be raised about the universality of the international conservation doctrine. Is it at all possible to establish general guidelines that are applicable to the entire world’s heritage in all its rich diversity? Certainly, the various recommendations of UNESCO and the charters of ICOMOS are testimony to attempts to meet this requirement. For example, the UNESCO conventions of 2003 on intangible cultural heritage, and 2005 concerning cultural expressions, are important in placing attention on heritage significance beyond the material aspect. In fact, in his restoration theory Cesare Brandi, as well as various philosophers and art historians, including Erwin Panofsky, have reflected on the differences and connections between cultural and scientific aspects of our artistic heritage.

The universality of Conservation Theory can indeed only be referred to as a methodology of approach. The principles for the treatments must be found in the

Final Report 20 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 resource itself understood in its cultural-historical and physical context. At the same time, however, it is possible to draft guidelines for the conservation of different types of properties. This actually is the scope of most ICOMOS Charters. The problems can be referred back to the international “conservation culture”, where many experts tend to apply fixed criteria for the conservation of different types of heritage resources, but without going to the effort of properly recognising the specificity and significance of each property or place.

International Doctrine

The second half of the twentieth century has seen the evolution of an international framework for the conservation of the cultural and natural heritage. In this process, the role of UNESCO has certainly been fundamental. The task of safeguarding heritage was already part of its constitution adopted in London on 16 November 1945. The purpose of the organization was thus to contribute to peace and security by “promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture” in order to further universal respect for justice, rule of law and human rights. One of the ways for UNESCO to realize this purpose was to:

Maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge: By assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science, and recommending to the nations concerned the necessary international conventions; By encouraging cooperation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity, including the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture and the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest and other materials of information; …

Over the nearly sixty years from its foundation, UNESCO has been able to establish a network of programmes, organizations and conventions, acting as instruments that assist in sustaining its constitutional tasks. One of the first programmes, officially started in 1960, consisted of the series of international campaigns for safeguarding exceptionally important heritage sites, such as the monuments of the Nile Valley and the Lagoon and Historic City of Venice. Another important programme has been based on the World Heritage Convention adopted in 1972. By 2014, this Convention has been ratified by 190 States Parties, and it has become the most subscribed international instrument in the field of cultural and natural heritage. At the same time, this means that nearly all countries of the world have accepted the fundamental principles on which this convention was based. Not the least of these is certainly the issue of Outstanding

Final Report 21 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Universal Value, OUV, as the basic requirement for inscribing properties in the World Heritage List, and the associated principles that guide safeguarding these.

The challenge in guaranteeing conservation of the world’s inheritance can be seen in the requirement of universality in the guidelines and principles to be adopted. In this sense, the question is about the so-called “international doctrine”, consisting of the conventions, recommendations and declarations adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO. To these could also be added the charters and policy documents adopted by the General Assembly of ICOMOS. The 1964 Venice Charter can be taken as the founding charter for conservation doctrine; it states: “It is essential that the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down on an international basis, with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions.” (Preface of the Charter) This statement is consistent with the modern theory of restoration, where the contribution by Cesare Brandi was fundamental in his role as the first Director of the Italian Istituto Centrale del Restauro, in 1938, one of the first such institutions in the world. Brandi’s theory was based on the proposition that the creative process that gave birth to a work of art was a universal characteristic of humanity. Therefore, as a process, it would not be dependent on the social-cultural context. At the same time, however, the results certainly would reflect the diversity of cultural expressions, a central and universal characteristic of human creativity.

In this regard, the Nara Document on Authenticity of 1994 already highlighted the importance of the diversity of cultures and heritage as an essential aspect of human development. This was further developed in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001): “Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.” This indicates that the purpose of conservation of heritage is focused on safeguarding the diversity of cultures and associated creative results, tangible and intangible. This task certainly is a major challenge aggravated in the times of increasing globalisation in the world.

Final Report 22 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Human Creativity

The issue of Creative Evolution (L’Évolution créatrice, 1907) is the fundamental thesis of Henri Bergson (1859-1941), a foremost French philosopher. He was awarded Nobel Prize in literature in 1927, and he presided the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, created in 1922 as an advisory organization for the League of Nations. This Committee also was a predecessor of UNESCO. It included Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Béla Bartók, and Thomas Mann amongst its members. In his thesis, Bergson claims that life is in continuous evolution, driven by an “élan vital” (life force or life impetus): “Life is tendency, and the essence of a tendency is to develop in the form of a sheaf, creating by its very growth, divergent directions among which its impetus is divided.”15 All forms of life continue their individual processes in divergent directions thus creating the diversity in nature as well as in culture. The life force is intangible, as is culture, but it interacts with the matter, and the resulting growth and creative diversity thus become tangible evidences of its impact16. For Bergson, the entire universe endures and so does each conscious being taken separately. The question of “duration” of the universe, for Bergson, was not only related to time. “The universe endures. The more we study the nature of time, the more we shall comprehend that duration means invention, the creation of forms, the continual elaboration of the absolutely new.” (Bergson, 1998:11) In the universe, “Its past, in its entirety, is prolonged into its present, and abides there, actual and acting.” (Bergson, 1998:15)17 This implies that history is embodied in the present as a fundamental part of human culture and cultural artefacts. So, indeed, is the situation also in regard of the whole universe.

The origins of homo sapiens and the emerging cultures are understood to have been in Africa, where the initial developments took place from around 200,000 BC. At that time, homo sapiens was already biologically similar to us. Subsequently, perhaps already from 120,000 BC or at least from 60,000 BC, homo sapiens started travelling expanding its presence to the Middle East, Asia, Europe and America. It is through this process that the human culture developed, distinguished from human beings as biological

15 ‘Car la vie est tendance, et l’essence d’une tendance est de se développer en forme de gerbe, créant, par le seul fait de sa croissance, des directions divergentes entre lesquelles se partagera son élan.’ (Bergson, Œuvres, Presses Universitaires de France, 1991 : 579)

16 It is interesting to take note of the research by a Finnish group led by Lauri Nummenmaa, published as: ‘Bodily Maps of Emotions’, SNAP, 2013. The research shows that all human emotions are intimately related with the different parts of the body that react according to the stimulus.

17 « L’univers dure. Plus nous approfondirons la nature du temps, plus nous comprendrons que durée signifie invention, créa- tion de formes, élaboration continue de l’absolument nouveau » « Comme l’univers dans son ensemble, come chaque être conscient pris à part, l’organisme qui vit est chose que dure. Son passé se prolonge tout entier dan son présent, y demeure actuel et agissant » (Bergson, Œuvres, Presses Universitaires de France, 1991 : 503/507

Final Report 23 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 creatures. The American social scientist Ted Benton has distinguished these two types of characteristics: the biological ideas, on the one hand, and their cultural uses, on the other. The first is related to human species in general; the second is “distinctive in that not only its exercise, but its very possession is dependent upon some specific cultural acquisition”. (Benton, 1984:122) Benton notes that the second type of capacities are multiplied over time, becoming historicized. “The systematic exercise of these capacities in a given natural environment constitutes the acquisition of a culture. A historical capacity … is one possessed by members of only some cultures and which is distinguished from a natural capacity in that its very possession presupposes some specific cultural acquisition.”18 He also notes that: “the conceptual position in any scientific discipline at any historical moment is unlikely to be wholly stable or consensual”. (Benton, 1984: 119).

The British archaeologist, Colin Renfrew has written: “The deliberate and systematic production of tools is the most evident example of the engagement process between humans (or hominids) and the material world over the entire course of the human story. To use an object taken from the material world, and shape it for use in order to act upon the material world, is a fundamental step.” (C. Renfrew, Prehistory, 2007) The question is complex and related to the formation of human mind (also involving human body), and an extension to cosmos. In cognitive archaeology, it is noted that society is organized by means of symbolic categories. Symbols were (and are) used for measuring and planning the world. Such concepts, associated with innovation and creativity, increase in importance with the development of society. A small example of the use of symbol are the polished jade axes, dating ca 4000 BC, discovered in Cambridge, UK. These seem to have had purely symbolic meaning of protection, and similar talismans have been found in other regions as well. Through the dispersion of human beings in the different world regions, the various cultures developed independently resulting in a great diversity of cultural expressions. The fantastic rock art of the Chauvet Caves in Southern France, only discovered in 1994, dates from ca. 30,000 BC. It is the earliest example of such cave painting, and a testimony to the use of techniques rarely found elsewhere. Even though early, the paintings already demonstrate full maturity in depicting groups of interacting animals such as horses, lions and rhinos, but also animals that do not exist anymore. This implies that human culture must have had a long path of development before reaching such perfection.

18 Ted Benton, ‘Biological ideas and their cultural uses’, pp. 111-133: 116f; S.C. Browns (ed.), Objectivity and Cultural Diver- gence, Royal Institute of Philosophy, Lecture Series 17, Cambridge University Press, 1984

Final Report 24 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

As has been noted above, one of the central aspects of human culture is the capacity to associate symbolic meanings to physical objects. The American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) has stressed that our ideas, values and even emotions, as our nervous system itself, are cultural products. These cultural products are always present when we act or create something, giving particular meanings to the resulting issues or objects. As an example Geertz takes the Chartres Cathedral, saying that this cathedral has its meaning associated with its being a particular structure, built at a particular time, and by certain members of a particular community. “To understand what it means … you need to understand also, and even more critically … the specific concepts of the relations among God, man, and architecture that, since they have governed its creation, it consequently embodies.”

Meaning in Cultural Products

There is also a difference between the approach of a scientist and a humanist. In his Meaning in the Visual Arts (1955), the German art historian Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968) refers to the modern distinction between a scientist and a humanist. “In defining a work of art as a ‘man-made object demanding to be experienced aesthetically’ we encounter for the first time a basic difference between the humanities and natural science. The scientist, dealing as he does with natural phenomena, can at once proceed to analyse them. The humanist, dealing as he does with human actions and creations, has to engage in a mental process of a synthetic and subjective character: he has mentally to re-enact the actions and to re-enact the creations. It is in fact by this process that the real objects of the humanities come into being.”19

One of the questions that often emerge is the issue of comparing truth in art and truth in sciences. This question comes for example in the evaluation of cultural and natural World Heritage nominations. Even though there are obvious differences (that are too often highlighted) there are also similarities. At the end, even natural heritage is human perception and recognized by human society. The question about truth in cultural field is also related to duration, as defined by Bergson. In this same issue, Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) has observed that while in the traditional world statues were often referred to their cult value in shrines and temples, the concept of art value has only emerged with the start of collections and exhibitions. In the modern world, furthermore, historical testimony rests on the notion of authenticity. Benjamin notes that “if the duration in time

19 Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, Penguin Books, Peregrine Books, UK, 1970 (first published in 1955), 37f

Final Report 25 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 ceases to matter as a result of replication, what is really jeopardized is the authority of the original object, its ‘aura’”. This indeed places the question on the justification and modalities of reconstruction.

All cultural products have an intangible setting, which can also be associated with tradition. What we today recognize as inheritance is the result of past creative efforts. It can be noted, however, that tradition is not static. In order to remain authentic, tradition has to continue a process as has been argued by Benjamin. This necessarily involves re-appropriation and re-creation. In the case of “living traditions”, such processes continue even today. From this does not automatically result a lack of authenticity. In fact, authenticity is embedded in the duration of the tradition. It is the duration that makes tradition a living tradition. The way human beings act is by learning and re- interpreting. This is a normal part of the process. On the other hand, when discussing the authenticity of an ancient tangible work of art, an art historian would assess the creative input to appreciate how ‘original’ the work is or whether the question is of a replica. An expert conference in Nara in 2004, adopted the Yamato Declaration, where the requirements of the 2003 convention and those of the 1972 convention were compared regarding for example the question of authenticity. It was here concluded: “further considering that intangible cultural heritage is constantly recreated, the term ‘authenticity’ as applied to tangible cultural heritage is not relevant when identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage”. We believe that this statement is not justified when dealing with something inherited, even though intangible, such as traditions.

When the question is about practices or representations, defined as intangible cultural heritage, these can refer to theatre or music. In 2012, for example, the nominations of intangible heritage included: Bigwala, gourd trumpet music and dance of Uganda, the Fiesta of the patios in Cordova in Spain, the Worship of Hung Kings in Phú Thọ, Vietnam, etc. Already due to the fact that such traditions are recognized as inherited, it is obvious that there is need to assess the truthfulness and credibility of such skills and practices. Indeed, the 2003 Convention itself notes that the “intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. The fact that they are continuously recreated is part of the traditional continuity. If such traditions are not true (authentic), one might be dealing with kitsch or performances that have been falsely argued to represent cultural heritage of a certain people.

Final Report 26 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Cultural Expressions

In October 2005, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted a further elaboration of the notion of cultural diversity by approving the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Here it is affirmed that ‘cultural diversity is a definition characteristic of humanity’, and that the various forms of such diversity should be cherished and preserved for the benefit of all. ‘Cultural diversity is made manifest not only through the varied ways in which the cultural heritage of humanity is expressed, augmented and transmitted through the variety of cultural expressions, but also through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution and enjoyment, whatever the means and technologies used.’ ‘Cultural expressions’ are defined as: ‘those expressions that result from the creativity of individuals, groups and societies, and that have cultural content’. The Convention recognizes the diversity of cultural expressions as ‘an important factor that allows individuals and peoples to express and to share with others their ideas and values’. The Convention furthermore emphasizes the need to incorporate culture as a strategic element in national and international development policies, and that cultural activities, goods and services have both ‘an economic and a cultural nature, because they convey identities, values and meanings, and must therefore not be treated as solely having commercial value’.

The role of this Convention can be crucial and it remains to be seen what impact it will have in practice. In any case, it brings to the foreground the need to safeguard the diversity of cultural expressions as one of the principal tasks of heritage conservation. Taking a look at the developments almost in any country of the world, surviving historic settlements are more often than not surrounded by constructions dating from the second half of the 20th century or later. Such results of globalisation do not greatly differ either from one country to another, or from one culture to another. Instead, they create a uniform habitat that tends to suffocate traditions and cultural identities. Another aspect of this phenomenon is the attempt to rebuild clichés or replicas of ancient historic streetscapes and monuments, which either serve for commercial and touristic purposes, or satisfy the ambitions of wealthy sponsors. In either case, such globalisation tends to result in the loss of authenticity, and the disenchantment in the world, where processes are oriented toward different types of rational goals, as opposed to traditional society.20

20 Ref. Marcel Gauchet, Le désenchantement du monde, Gallimard 1985

Final Report 27 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Within the half century that separates the 2005 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity from the definition of the works of art and monuments that were a concern in the 1960s, in the immediate aftermath of the World War II, the world has changed dramatically. This change is seen in the explosive increase of population particularly in urban areas and in the resulting transformation of surrounding rural areas as well. The change is seen in the transformation of production processes from manual to machine made, the shift from construction on site to large-scale prefabrication elsewhere, often in other countries with cheaper labour. This results in the loss of knowledge and skills needed to maintain and repair traditional habitat, tending towards ‘disposable culture’. Moreover, it can result in increasing unemployment and economic problems.

This change creates new challenges to the conservation of artistic and architectural heritage. It does not necessarily reduce the importance of the modern conservation- restoration theory, which developed from the 1960s. However, it does add other requirements to conservation policies and strategies to be efficient. There are issues in the conservation theory that are valid for works of art as well as creative cultural expressions in general even though not necessarily recognized as ‘works of art’. We still need to recognize such cultural expressions as heritage worthy of safeguarding and conservation. We still need to identify the creative and historic qualities of such heritage in view of safeguarding relevant aspects to future generations.

While historians and writers will have celebrated renowned works of art for centuries, many cultural expressions are yet to be discovered. Sometimes these may be relatively humble vernacular constructions and settlements, possibly still inhabited and maintained by communities that have been able to retain their traditions. Sometimes, they are embedded in more recent structures. In any case, such recognition cannot be done only by art historians and poets, there is need to involve the communities to recognize their traditional habitat and together find ways to guarantee its survival. This issue was indeed one of the key recommendations of the conclusive document of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in Kyoto 2012.21 It does not diminish the importance of the work of professional conservationists, but it does emphasise the need for better understanding of the context of the artefacts, and the involvement of stakeholders in their recognition, maintenance and safeguarding. This means improved communication and development of systems of exchange of knowledge and information. In a word, it means capacity building in the management of human resources,

21 UNESCO, ‘Kyoto Vision’, November 2012

Final Report 28 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 institutions and administrative and legal frameworks, which is the task of heritage society in each place.

Universality of Conservation Theory

Like humanity itself, the international doctrine related to the recognition and safeguarding of human cultural expressions is also subject to continuous creative process. We can just recall that in the immediate post-Second World War period emphasis was on the most threatened properties. In the 1970s, when the development in society had again started working, it was realized that historic urban areas were in danger of being lost due to demolition and renovation. There was need for new international instruments, which were developed in association of the European Architectural Heritage Year of 1975 by Council of Europe, and the following year by UNESCO. In the 1980s, this was followed by the consideration on traditional culture and folklore, further expanding to entire cultural landscapes in the 1990s. At the same time, especially due to the expanding notion of heritage, the 1994 Nara Document became a new paradigm, bringing attention to the conservation of heritage resources defined in their diversity and within their diverse cultural contexts.

This process, which has actually taken place in a relatively short time span, has challenged some of the previous approaches to the conservation of heritage resources. Conservation principles do not anymore look so firm and constant. On the contrary, from aiming at static consolidation of historic structures conservation has now become a concept that can be characterised as a process. There is similarity with the identification of life itself. Human society is in continuous evolution, and the international doctrine is also one of the results of this process. This does not mean that new guidelines should automatically replace old ones. Each element in the construction of the international doctrine has had its historic role, and has contributed to the current understanding of what is heritage and how we should propose to deal with it in an appropriate manner. It can be compared to the concept of “duration”, coined by Bergson. Life is an unceasing creation. A living organism has history embodied in itself as part of the creative process of living, i.e. duration. The international doctrine is another cultural product and needs to be treated as such. It has its élan vital, and it also has its duration, which means that history is integrated into the decision-making processes.

So, where is the universality in the international conservation theory? One of the universal characteristics of human culture is the notion of cultural creativity; another

Final Report 29 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 relates to the notion of duration. This implies that the results represent a diversity of cultural expressions. It also means that each place, and each cultural expression, must be judged on its specificity and its merits in the relevant context. Consequently, the theory of conservation has universality only if it is understood as a historical-critical methodology, an approach rather than a set of principles, guiding the way the meaning of inheritance is understood and recognized. In his Theory of Restoration, Brandi writes: “Restoration consists of the methodological moment in which the work of art is recognized in its physical being and in its dual aesthetic and historical nature, in view of its transmission to the future.”22 The principles, which often are erroneously taken to replace the theory of conservation, may only be applicable in specific types cases. Consequently, to judge the universality of internationally adopted charters or recommendations that form the “doctrine”, it will be necessary to examine those aspects that suggest a methodology or approach. Guidelines that are specific to particular types of properties should be taken as a separate issue as possible guideline. The question of what is recognized as heritage is undoubtedly a key issue in defining the appropriate treatments. For example, in the case of World Heritage, the limits and modalities of treatments depend on the criteria that justify inscription, i.e. the Outstanding Universal Value, OUV, and associated requirements.

22 C. Brandi, 2005, Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore, Florence (English edition, p. 28)

Final Report 30 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Analysis of Doctrinal Texts in Heritage Protection by Bogusław Szmygin

The idealistic goal of heritage protection is their maintenance in the original form and their passing to the coming generations. The fulfilment of this goal requires sustenance of the authentic substance, form, function and location of monuments. This is only possible when modern modification do not go further then current conservation of a monument, such a case can be spoken of as a complete preservation of the monumental value. However, such cases are extremely rare. In practice, conservators are forced to make decisions for interference and redesign of monumental objects. Therefore, they have to decide which elements (values) are to be preserved and which elements (values) must be lost.

Choices taken by the conservator should be maximally objective. To guarantee this, precisely defined procedures and guidelines must exist. The creation of those procedures and guidelines should take place within the frames of the conservation theory. In practice, each monument is an individual case: each monument is different – it carries specific values, conservation and non-conservation conditions.

For this reason the conservation theory has never elaborated universal procedures and guidelines, which would plainly define the course of action in each case. In consequence, neither regulations concerning monuments conservation nor conservators guidelines offer ready methods.

It is assumed that conservator’s decisions will be made according to an individual case, as long as the persons responsible for these decisions have proper qualifications. This seems to be the specifics of this discipline.

Monuments conservation is a field which has not been formalised what concerns the methods of action. Of course this results in various negative consequences. The lack of procedures and guidelines makes conservation critique practically impossible, obscures evaluation of conservators’ qualifications, weakens the position of conservator in the natural conflict with the investors.

The individualised analysis of monuments value and appropriate course of action, causes the risk of lack of care, risk of mistakes or even abuses.

The conservators’ community have noticed the outnumbered disadvantages. As a proof one should mention the so called doctrinal documents introduced by varied conservators’

Final Report 31 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 assemblies. These documents are attempts to introduce more order into practical activity through the creation of norms and their formalisation. The doctrinal texts are a form of development of conservation theory, and as such should be treated seriously.

The doctrinal documents concerning protection and conservation of monuments – all Charters, Declarations, Guidelines are created and passed for 100 years23. Many (at least tens of them) have been developed because few conservators’ bodies can resist the temptation of creating own one.

These documents play doubtlessly an useful role, as they name, order and synthesize many problems. However, the documents are very diversified. This applies to both its form and contents. Important is also, that the existent documents are usually not actualized but completed by new ones.

The broadening of the notion of ‘heritage’ leads to intensified production of such documents. In effect, the new image of our discipline becomes even less coherent, and the documents lose their normative and practical function. The situation is difficult, because no regulations for acceptance and validity of doctrinal documents have been agreed upon.

In monuments’ conservation on the international scale there is no decision or control centre, which would have prerogatives to put forward such regulations.

So the process of creation of the successive doctrinal documents is not controlled, there are not any rules as to their form and contents, there are not any rules executing obedience to them. The number of doctrinal texts increases, but their contents is not synchronized (they sometimes even are contradictory), there is no hierarchy between them. Consequently, any conservatory interference can be legitimized by any chosen text, or this reference can be omitted at all. The existence of too many documents leads to devaluation of their contents, weakens their position or undermines their sense altogether.

The conservators’ community should certainly have some control over the doctrinal texts. In practice, it is impossible to control the development of new documents completely, because they are prepared by different bodies. Even gaining control over this process within ICOMOS only, which is the most important conservators’ organization in the world, would be a significant step forward.

Introducing order into doctrinal texts in within ICOMOS is so important, because over last 40 years it has become the biggest world conservator’s organization in all important aspects. It

23 “Manifesto” by William Morris and other co-founders of “The Society for Protection of Ancient Monuments” from 1877, can already be seen as a doctrinal document.

Final Report 32 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 consists of 9 thousand members representing all specializations linked with protection and conservation of heritage.

ICOMOS is a truly international organization – National Committees exist in over 120 countries. Lastly, ICOMOS through different forms of activity – National Committees, International Scientific Committees and General Assembly, has the possibility to fully discuss problems of heritage conservation, to create syntheses and develop doctrinal texts. It is why, a great part of doctrinal documents created over the last few decades, has the ICOMOS structures as their birthplace.

Doctrinal documents are important because of their contents, so their analysis should focus on it. However, it is difficult to carry out such an analysis. Although it is relatively easy to synthesize their sense – to extract their premises, definitions and expressed guidelines, it is by far more difficult to estimate its value. Such an evaluation requires primary doctrinal principles, which we could describe as superior. Unfortunately, the contemporary conservation does not provide us with such. The constant addition of new doctrinal documents is the very proof of the fact, that the classical premise about maximal refrain from interference is very difficult to put into practice. The Venice Charter – the fundamental document expressing this ideal – has for 30 years been regarded as too strict and non- realistic. It is exactly this need to respect the specifics of various groups of heritage, that brought so many other Charters into being. Their paragraphs widen in fact the scope of allowed actions beyond the boarders drawn by the Venice Charter. As long as the contemporary conservation doctrine has not been formulated, the wholesome analysis of doctrinal texts is impossible, because it can not lead to any substantial agreements. Moreover, it may bring about an unwanted image of conservation doctrine, that has not been consciously formulated by anyone.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to analyze the doctrinal texts from the formal perspective. It could be accomplished independently from the analysis of the contents and it should be the first phase of the process. This mode of action has been accepted by the official bodies of ICOMOS24.

The first task is to choose the documents to be analyzed. The process of structuralizing is carried out within ICOMOS, so the analysis can be limited to the documents of the organization. Obviously, the full set of documents ever created by all ICOMOS assemblies

24 During the meeting of Advisory Committee in Quebec in October 2008 were presented the principles of the formal analysis of doctrinal texts, developed by the Executive Committee. These principles were discussed upon by the International Scientific Legal Committee of ICOMOS. With the regard to Legal Committee’s opinions, precise guidelines will be developed and pre- sented to the Advisory Committee.

Final Report 33 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 could not be subject of the analysis. They are too numerous, as even within the organization itself there are no explicit restrictions concerning the form and contents.

The only regulation is the ‘Procedure’ for the doctrinal texts passed by the General Assembly of ICOMOS25. The ‘Procedure’ introduces a few levels of agreements, for this reason the documents passed by the General Assembly may be regarded as official and the most important – as carefully consulted within ICOMOS. Thus, the doctrinal texts prepared by the General Assembly should be first in the row to our analysis. This condition is satisfied by:

• International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter),1964

• Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas – (The Washington Charter), 1987

• Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage, 1990

• Guidelines for Education and Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites, 1993

• Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 1996

• Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites, 1996

• International Charter on Cultural Tourism, 1999

• Principles for the Preservation of Historic Timber Structures, 1999

• Charter on the Built Vernacular heritage, 1999

• ICOMOS Charter – principles for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage, 2003

• ICOMOS Principles for the Preservation and Conservation-Restoration of Wall Paintings, 2003

• The ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes, 2008

• The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites, 2008

25 “Procedure for the adoption of a doctrinal text” was passed during the 33. Session of the Executive Committee in 1984.

Final Report 34 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

The above named documents were accepted by the General Assembly and additionally have the form that justifies their description as doctrinal documents. Decisive are above all their size (few pages) and their way of dealing with the subject – it is particularly important that the document defines not only the subject and the aims, but also the means of action (this increases document’s practical value). Such composed document is most of the times called a ‘Charter’; it is mainly the Charters that are mentioned in the list above. Beside the Charters this group also consists of the documents called “Principles” and “Guidelines”, which composition and size is comparable.

The General Assemblies (or the Scientific Symposiums accompanying the Assemblies) have also accepted a few other documents, that can be regarded ICOMOS’ doctrinal documents. These are smaller, they too define the subject and the aims of action, but they do not define the methods quite as much.

To this group belong:

• Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings, 1972

• Resolutions on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns, 1975

• Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas, 2005

• Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place, 2008

There is yet another group of documents, that can be classified as doctrinal. They are broadly and officially used in ICOMOS’ works, although they have never been passed by the General Assembly, or even has been developed outside of the ICOMOS structures (the World Heritage Convention). Their impact on ICOMOS actions is responsible for their high position. These documents are:

• World Heritage Convention, 1972

• The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), 1979

• The Florence Charter (Historic gardens and landscapes), 1981

Final Report 35 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

• The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994

The groups above is a juxtaposition of all valid ICOMOS’ doctrinal documents. If ICOMOS has a coherent conservation doctrine at all, than it is these documents that constitute it. Therefore, it is reasonable to analyze this group of documents from both formal and substantial perspective.

The formal analysis of doctrinal documents should begin with choosing the criteria, that have not yet been defined. With respect to features that distinguish the documents the following criteria can be suggested.

The first criterion should be: what kind of document is it according to its authors, what did they planned it to be. The character is most often implied in the title. The following names occur in the above mentioned groups: Charter (as in the Venice Charter), Principles (e.g. Principles for the Preservation of Historic Timber Structures), Guidelines (e.g. Guidelines for Education and Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites), Resolutions (e.g. Resolutions on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns), Documents (e.g. The Nara Document on Authenticity), Conventions (e.g. World Heritage Convention), Declarations (e.g. Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place) – Table 1.

Acceptance of a particular name should be a conscious and important act, the name should to some extent define the form or/and the essence of a document. So far ICOMOS has not issued any regulations concerning proper naming of documents. Most probably the authors have named their creations intuitively, following the previous examples. Thus, the majority of documents passed by the General Assembly were called Charters, bearing in mind the position of the Athens or Venice Charter. This tradition caused the smaller texts to be called Documents, Principles or Declarations.

The analysis of separate documents proves, that no other rules were followed at their creation. As a result, each document has a different composition and range of contents (which can be detected even without the assessing of the contents). From this perspective, the names were assigned at random.

The choice of the name does not reflect the character of the institution that issued it, either. There are no restrictions as to which bodies are empowered to pass a particular document (e.g. Charters only by the General Assembly).

Final Report 36 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Consequently, Charters are passed even by local conferences even on extraordinary issues26. This can lead to chaos and disinformation (the type of the document does not explain anything) and devaluation of different types of documents.

The next factor introducing order into naming of documents could be their hierarchy. ICOMOS has never uttered any opinions on the hierarchy of doctrinal documents’ names – for instance that a Charter is more important than a Document. Inventing a hierarchy could decisively facilitate the normative function of the doctrinal documents. Important is, that the hierarchy is developed in relation to other factors - regulations of the formal and substantial structure as well as prerogatives of the separate decisive bodies to pass a specific type of document.

Having said that, we can agree that the name of the doctrinal document can be significant in several ways – formally and substantially. However, this potential has not been explored so far; the actual names play neither normative, informative nor systematical role. Therefore, it seems very advisable to work out some agreements in this field.

The second criterion of the analysis could be the body that prepares or/and pass the doctrinal document. Within ICOMOS we may distinguish documents that can be divided into 5 groups (according to the bodies that create them). The documents may be passed by: the General Assembly, the National Committee, the International Scientific Committee, a conference organized (or co-organized) by ICOMOS, other bodies (organizations, institutions, conferences) – examples given in the Table 1.

Documents passed by ICOMOS – this is 4 out of the above named groups – have an enacting procedure only in case of the General Assembly. It is worth mentioning however, that this procedure is only four short paragraphs, that regulate only the order in with a documents is accepted or rejected – the procedure says nothing about the form and the contents. Bodies other than then General Assembly do not have any guidelines. Thus all the elements of a document – among the others name, form, size, substantial range, substance – have to be decided upon separately every single time.

There is no reason to introduce limits for the separate bodies – the National Committee or the Scientific Committee may decide that there is need for different types of documents to co-exist. On the other hand, it is sensible to settle archetypes for documents such as – Charters, Guidelines or Principles. Even if the archetypes will not be too precise, which is by the way not necessary, we have to scheme their characteristics.

26 An example for an overuse of the term Charter seems to be the proposal of introducing „International Charter for the Organi- zation of Conferences in the Field of Stone Conservation”, prepared for the 13th meeting of ICOMOS International Stone Committee in 2008.

Final Report 37 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

It would be also wise to introduce hierarchy of documents, according to the body that develops them. No doubt, the documents of the General Assembly should be superior – the order of all the others must yet be debated.

A hierarchy – of types and bodies that issue the documents – is so important that it should define the method to decide about the contents. It is namely unwise that documents of lower status are contradictory to the superior ones. If we decide that a Charter is more important than a Declaration, than the acts of a recently prepared Declaration should follow the Charter on the common issues. Respectively, documents by the National Committee should not contradict the agreements of the General Assembly. A hierarchy is a condition to recreate normative and practical function of doctrinal documents.

The third criterion is the subject of document. Analysing the ICOMOS documents we can distinguish 4 groups: general documents – they include the whole discipline; documents that refer to a particular group of heritage; documents that treat single actions of conservation (protection) of heritage; documents concerning protection of heritage in particular region (e.g. country, continent)

There are no official regulations as to how the contents of a document should be linked with its form. The existent documents do not provide any proofs that such rules have emerged in practice. Probably, the tradition to call the most important documents by the name of Charter effected in naming documents covering the whole discipline (e.g. the Venice Charter), its considerable part (e.g. the Burra Charter) or the whole field of activities (e.g. the Charter of Cultural Tourism).

The appliance of this criterion should also be disciplined. It seems to be practical to reserve some kinds of names for documents dealing with certain issues. The term Charter should not be utilised for more modest groups of activity or agreements less important. The activities connected with protection or conservation (e.g. interpretation) – due to its changeability should be laid out in documents with other names – such as Principles and Guidelines. Of course, this point of view is only possible if we accept the hierarchy of documents (as it was mentioned above).

The presented criteria enable us to classify all the doctrinal documents, which emerge in the frames of protection and conservation of heritage. The classification shows the variety of possible solutions in arranging the documents. The effects are summarised in Table 1.

Final Report 38 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Table 1: The criteria of doctrinal documents classification

The criteria of doctrinal Possible form Examples documents classification

The Florence Charter, Venice Charter Charter

Document Nara Document of Authenticity

1. Type of document Principles Principles for Wall Paintings /declared by authors/ Guidelines Operational Guidelines WH

Convention World Heritage Convention

Declaration Xi’an Declaration

General Assembly Washington Charter ICOMOS

International Scientific Committee The Florence Charter ICOMOS

National Committee 2. Form of adoption Burra Charter ICOMOS

Conference Nara Document ICOMOS

Other bodies World Heritage Convention

Whole discipline Venice Charter

Washington Charter (historical Selected type (group) of heritage 3. Subject of document towns)

Action Guidelines of Education and Training

Heritage of region /country/ Burra Charter, China Principles

Based on the outnumbered criteria we can analyse documents passed and used by ICOMOS, that constitute the doctrine of this organization. The results are shown in Table 2.

Final Report 39 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Table 2: Doctrinal documents /ICOMOS/

Subject Form of adoption Type Date Official name of document /area, topic/ /by ICOMOS/ /declared by authors/ /adoption/

The Venice Charter A d o p t e d ( ? ) b y International Charter for the Conser- General Constitutive Assembly Charter 1964 vation and Restoration of Monu- /whole discipline/ I C O M O S Wa r s a w ments and Sites 1965

Convention Concerning the Adopted by 17th Gen- Part of heritage Protection of the World Cultural eral Conference UN- Convention 1972 and Natural Heritage /World Heritage/ ESCO 1972

The Burra Charter Adopted by ICOMOS Heritage of 1979 The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Australia in Burra Charter Places of Cultural Significance country /continent/ (South Australia) 1979 /& next/

R e g i s t e r e d b y The Florence Charter Part of heritage / ICOMOS 1982 as 1982 Historic Gardens historic gardens/ Appendix to Venice Charter Charter

Adopted by 8th Gen- The Washington Charter Part of heritage / eral Assembly ICO- Charter for the Conservation of M O S Wa s h i n g t o n 1987 Historic Towns and Urban Areas historic towns/ Charter 1987

Approved by 9th Charter for the Protection and Part of heritage General Assembly M a n a g e m e n t o f t h e /archeological ICOMOS Switzerland 1990 Archeological Heritage Charter heritage/ 1990

Guidelines of Education and Adopted by 10th Action Training in the Conservation of General Assembly Monuments, Ensembles and /education and ICOMOS Sri Lanka Guidelines 1993 Sites training/ 1993

D r a f t e d b y N a r a C o n f e r e n c e o n A u t h e n t i c i t y i n The Nara Document on Action - feature / Relation to the WHC, Document 1994 Authenticity authenticity/ Nara (Japan) 1994; UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS

Charter on the Protection and Part of heritage / Ratified by 11th Gen- Management of Underwater underwater eral Assembly ICO- Charter 1996 Cultural Heritage heritage/ MOS Bulgaria 1996

Principles for the Recording of Ratified by11th Gener- Action M o n u m e n t s , G r o u p s o f al Assembly ICOMO Principles 1996 Buildings and Sites /recording/ Bulgaria 1996

International Cultural Tourism Action Adopted by 12th Gen- Charter eral Assembly ICO- Managing Tourism at Places of /management of Charter 1999 MOS Mexico 1999 Heritage Significance tourism/

Part of heritage Ratified by 12th Gen- C h a r t e r o n t h e B u i l t /vernacular eral Assembly ICO- Charter 1999 Vernacular Architecture architecture/ MOS Mexico 1999

Action or part of Adopted by 12th Gen- Principles for the Preservation heritage eral Assembly ICO- of Historic Timber Structures Principles 1999 /protection of MOS Mexico 1999 timber structures/

Final Report 40 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Action or part of Principles for the Preservation Adopted by 14th Gen- heritage and Conservation-Restoration of eral Assembly ICO- Principles 2003 Wall Paintings /protection of wall MOS Zimbabwe 2003 paintings/

Principles for the Analysis, Part of heritage / Adopted by 14th Gen- Conservation and Structural eral Assembly ICO- Restoration of Architectural architectural Principles 2003 MOS Zimbabwe 2003 Heritage heritage/

X i ’ a n D e c l a r a t i o n o n t h e Action - feature / Adopted by 15th Gen- Conservation of Setting of eral Assembly ICO- Heritage Structures, Sites and conservation of Declaration 2005 MOS China 2005 Areas setting/

Ratified by 16th Gen- The ICOMOS Charter on Part of heritage / eral Assembly ICO- 2008 Cultural Routes cultural routes/ MOS Canada 2008 Charter

Action - feature / The ICOMOS Charter for the Ratified by 16th Gen- interpretation of Interpretation and Presentation eral Assembly ICO- Charter 2008 of Cultural Heritage Sites cultural heritage MOS Canada 2008 sites/

Quebec Declaration on the Adopted by 16th Gen- Action - feature / Preservation of the Spirit of eral Assembly ICO- Declaration 2008 Place genius loci/ MOS Canada 2008

Based on the analysis of the existent doctrinal documents of ICOMOS and with the regard to the functions, they are meant to perform we make conclusions.

Firstly, the analysis of the doctrinal documents shows, that as far as the three criteria are concerned, this field lacks rules, chaos prevails. The documents are created arbitrarily.

Secondly, lack of regulations and arbitrariness has to result in incoherence in the conservatory doctrine (proving of this fact requires a substantial analysis). Consequently, the doctrinal documents fail to perform their fundamental function – they are not normative documents.

Thirdly, it is necessary to introduce guidelines concerning the formal aspect of doctrinal documents.

Realizing the third objective, one can suggest some improvements of the formal aspect of the documents. They are presented in the Table 3. as follows:

1. The created documents should be limited to 4 types: Charters, Guidelines, Principles and Documents. The creation of Declarations and Conventions within ICOMOS is

Final Report 41 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

improper, regarding the specifics of this organization - Conventions are documents that need to be ratified; Declarations are documents obliging to undertake particular actions.

2. It is important to prepare formal rules, to be obeyed in ICOMOS doctrinal documents – among others the form of acceptance, the subject (linked with the document’s title), the size, possibility (or restriction) of actualization, the formal structure.

3. It is important to specify the features distinguishing the separate documents – Charters, Guidelines, Principles, Documents; it is particularly crucial in case of documents that share common field of interest.

4. It is important to introduce a formal hierarchy between the doctrinal documents of ICOMOS; the existence of a hierarchy will enforce order in the contents of documents.

TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS /FEATURES/ OF ICOMOS DOCUMENTS

/proposals/

Feature/ Charter Guidelines Principles Document Document

- whole discipline - part of heritage - part of heritage No specify demands Subject - part of heritage - activity - activity

- GA ICOMOS - GA ICOMOS Form of GA ICOMOS - NC ICOMOS - NC ICOMOS No specify demands adoption - ISC ICOMOS - ISC ICOMOS

Size A few pages No limitations No specify demands A few – dozen pages /pages/ /5-7/ /detailed document/ /few – dozen pages/

Formal Should be Should be Should be formulated No specify demands structure formulated formulated

Whole area Whole issue Matter /preamble; aims; /detailed information Whole issue No specify demands /contents/ rules; methods/ concerning procedures/

Changeable Durability Constant, Constant /according to No specify demands /constancy/ unalterable /decades/ requirements/

Hierarchy **** ** *** * /importance/

Final Report 42 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Management planning for World Heritage properties: culture as a driver for de- velopment by Alessio Re

Summary of contents:

1. Culture and development

2. Culture counts: from conservation to production

3. From heritage to culture: the importance of material culture

4. From values to needs: towards a wider approach on culture management

1. Culture and development27

One of the most relevant topics emerging from the overall debate around the role of culture and its different expressions, beside their protection, use and consumption, is that cultural activities are a major contributor to national development, job creation and social cohesion. At the same time, managing culture in the era of the knowledge society, global markets and experience economy is becoming more and more a complex question, as it requires adapting to diverse goods, services and very ether-generous consumers.

Documents that highlight the growing role of worldwide cultural and creative industries within the economic context include reports that highlight the birth of a new, culture related development paradigm include reports such as the UNDP Human Development Report, Our Creative Diversity of the World Commission on Culture and Development, the Creative Economy Report of UNCTAD in 2008 and "The Economy of Culture in Europe- completed for the European Commission in 2006.

It is suggested that UNESCO is moving towards similar goals of the aforementioned reports. In 2002, to emphasize the importance of a proper management of heritage, the World Heritage Committee adopted, during its 26th session, the "Budapest Declaration" calling on all partners to support the preservation of World Heritage through key strategic objectives, trying to secure a proper balance between conservation, sustainability and development. In

27 This text is largely inspired by the research work of Walter Santagata on the relation between culture and economic devel- opment, and takes profit from the research projects, especially on material culture and cultural districts, implemented on that issue by the Centro Studi Silvia Santagata-Ebla. Also the presented case studies are directly related to this experience.

Final Report 43 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 this view, heritage conservation and protection should no longer be considered as objectives in themselves, in isolation from the socio-economic context, but they should be redefined as integral parts of, and essential tools for, concretely achieving the sustainable development of the society at environmental, social and economic level.

Current research illustrates an interesting and dynamic outlook on management issues surrounding world heritage and its implications- a currently relevant and worldwide interest.

Among the recent contributions on this subject, it is possible to refer to the text by Leask and Yeoman (2004), Harrison and Hitchcock (2005), Van Der Aa (2005), Cleere, (2006), Leask and Fyall (2006), Frey and Pamini (2009, 2010). ISpecifically, until now research has focused on aspects such as the nomination process, stakeholder participation, tourism impacts of the inscriptions (Tunney, 2005; Cochrane and Tapper, 2006), visitor management (McKercher and Cros, 2001; Shackley, 2006), the identification of the conditions in which the World Heritage List brings benefits and, on the contrary, when it may cause risks and threats (Frey e Stainer, 2010). There are also many case studies on single sites (for Hadrian’s Wall De La Torre, 2003; Stonehenge, Mason and Kuo, 2006; Machu Picchu Regalado-Pezúa and Arias-Valencia, 2006; the Yellow Mountain in China Li Fung and Sofield, 2006; Assisi Borchi, 2008; for Hanoi in Vietnam, UNESCO, 2008; the Christmas puppets district of San Gregorio Armeno in Naples Santagata, De Caro e Marrelli, 2008; Jurassic coast, 2009; Shirakawa-Mura in Japan, Jimuara, 2010. And more: for the English sites, DCMS, 2007; for the Scottish sites, The Scottish natural heritage/Hambrey consulting study, 2007; for some case studies in Italy, Santagata, 2011; Re, 2012); for comparative international studies: a Pric waterhouse Coopers LLP, 2007, Prud’homme et al., 2008; World Heritage Status, 2009, to mention some.

Looking beyond site management issues, other complex challenges are currently posed by the sustainable development question in relation to culture: for instance, the role of creativity and cultural industries. UNESCO is considering these factors as a central issue in cultural policy making and stressed the role of the economic process as ways to promote social and human development in multiple occasions such as;

• The World Culture Reports;

• The adoption (2011) of the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape;

• The recent “Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of the Convention, 2012-2022”, adopted by the 18th General Assembly (Paris, 2011), which integrate a concern for sustainable development, notably in its “Vision for 2022”, which calls for the World Heritage Convention to “contribute to the sustainable development of the world’s communities and

Final Report 44 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

cultures”, as well as through its Goal N.3 which reads: “Heritage protection and conservation considers present and future environmental, societal and economic needs”, which is to be achieved particularly through “connecting conservation to communities”;

• The celebrations for 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention (2012) dedicated to “World Heritage and sustainable development: the role of local communities”;

• The Ouro Preto Meeting on World Heritage and Sustainable Development (2012), stressing the need for heritage institutions to view conservation objectives within a larger system of social and environmental values and needs encompassed in the sustainable development concept;

• The Toyama Meeting on “World Heritage and Sustainable Development: from principles to Practice” (2012) whose outcomes reiterates the importance of mainstreaming heritage in the current and future international policies on sustainable development, but also to mainstream sustainable development in heritage policies and practice;

• The International Congress "Culture: Key to Sustainable Development" in Hangzhou (China) in 2013, specifically focusing on the linkages between culture and sustainable development28, and addressing, among the others, a number of needs strictly connected with economic development issues: integrating culture within all development policies and programmes; leveraging culture for poverty reduction and inclusive economic development; harnessing culture as a resource for achieving sustainable urban development and management; capitalize on culture to foster innovative and sustainable models of cooperation;

In addition, broad consultations with governments, civil society, private sector, academia and research institutions are currently under way to shape the post-2015 development agenda, that succeeding the Millennium Development Goals and the Rio+20 Conference, will serve as a framework for global development efforts after 201529.

In this general framework, the consideration of culture as a resource to set up proper projects for sustaining local development seem to be widely shared and a central issue in the present debate. Starting from such preliminary considerations, we may try to focus the attention on three main different dynamics or, we may say, concept shifts, which appear to

28 The Hangzhou Declaration, Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies. Adopted in Hangzhou, Peo- ple’s Republic of China, 2013. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-development/hangzhou-congress/

29 http://en.unesco.org/post2015/#sthash.YJSd7vXm.dpuf

Final Report 45 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 be slightly important to understand the same meaning and potential of setting up and implementing cultural projects for development in such frame. In particular:

1. From conservation of culture to production of culture: the need for an integrated approach is quite evident. No more only the emphasis on the safeguard, protection and even valorization functions, but also to the whole value chain to produce culture.

2. From heritage to culture: not only heritage expressions, but the entire concept of culture as a whole represents a potential resource for generating sustainable development opportunities and a stability factor in a era characterized by rapid changes.

3. From values to needs: values belongs to inherited heritage, while development project should always move from present needs of local communities. Cultural projects can contribute to development if culture becomes an opportunity to solve community problems.

2. Culture counts: from conservation to production

In its tangible (monumental or archaeological sites, historic settlements, cultural landscapes, parks but also museums, archives, libraries, antiquities and works of art in general), intangible (traditions, social practices, folklore, tacit knowledge, know-how, festivals) and material (decorative arts, crafts, design and gastronomy) different expressions, culture can be seen not only as the anthropological, spiritual and social image of a civilization, but as a capital able to directly or indirectly generate income. The direct effects refer to the creation of employment, job opportunities and economic activities in the cultural sector and heritage services, while the indirect effects encompass the emergence of heritage related services, such as restoration and preservation activities, and the capacity to positively impact or generate positive externalities (benefits) on other economic fields, like the tourism one.

The term “cultural capital” is used in this context not to evoke the meaning of a cultural stock held by a single individual (Bourdieu, 1986), but to emphasise the economic and social context within which the relations of cultural production are embedded. It refers (Throsby, 2001) to all the aforementioned forms of value and is used to draw attention to the fact that the new cultural economy asks us to take account of the economic component in cultural production. Cultural capital includes specific assets: cultural patrimony endowments; industries and productive activities: cultural industries, including traditional artisanal enterprises; service activities and organizations: organized structures for facilitating public access to heritage, such as museums, libraries, theatres, exhibitions, and cultural tourism

Final Report 46 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 companies; commercial enterprises: shops, formal and informal markets for culturally related artefacts, artisanal products; institutions: a set of state institutions as well as semi- governmental and nongovernmental organizations dedicated to work on heritage conservation and management.

In many cases, the economic value of cultural heritage is the result of the revitalization of museums, archaeological areas, theatres: recipients like these may be the ideal storage for the appreciation, consumption of culture and cultural tourism. However, in other cases, the economic value is extracted from a physical capital accumulated over the centuries, it uses the intangible factors, like intellectual capacities, beliefs, ideas, and especially the so-called traditional knowledge. The main objective of this second option is to produce culture. So, basically we may say that there are two opposing models of development: one mainly oriented to conservation and consumption (aesthetic, artistic, archival) and one production- oriented (based on the creation of new cultural and artistic expressions). In theory (Santagata, 2007) the two models are not equally important. It is evident that without the creation and production there cannot be any use, consumption or conservation of cultural heritage. Even in monetary terms, the difference is huge: estimations on the added value of the cultural heritage sector in Italy (Symbola annual report on Cultural Industries in Italy, among the other studies) show that the model of production (including music, theatre, opera, publishing, movies) is normally more than twenty times that one of the consumption of cultural goods.

Moreover, the conservation model is able to create synergies only with a limited number of other economic sectors: basically with the tourism industry, and with small restoration or new building businesses, cataloguing and publishing companies, and few else, and this represent a fundamental argument that we will recall later in this text. For all the aforementioned reasons, the traditional model of conservation for consumption seems to be limited and outdated. On the contrary, it becomes crucial to focus the attention to the whole value chain of production of heritage: selection of artists and actors of creativity, creation of ideas, production, distribution, and consumption.

3. From heritage to culture: the importance of material culture

In this framework, it would be necessary to go beyond the concept of tangible cultural heritage, as defined in the UNESCO 1972 Convention, and the concept of intangible heritage, as defined in the UNESCO 2003 Convention, to draw the attention on a third category of heritage. The value of the material culture is in fact, undoubtedly among the

Final Report 47 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 fundamental themes to be considered in exploring the relation between heritage and its potential to produce economic values and development.

Material culture is an interdisciplinary concept, whose definition comes from the social sciences (anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, history, museology, etc) that refers to the physical evidence of a culture in the objects they make or have made (Woodward, 2007). It is a phenomenon both tangible and intangible in nature, as the result of an accumulation of knowledge in a certain place and community. It refers to products like food and beverage, jewellery, ceramics, furniture, fashion, clothing, textiles, etc. especially providing opportunities to develop skills and, for example transition farmer to manufacturer, artisan to designer or give opportunity to other people with specific technical abilities and provide them with management or marketing skills.

Moreover, material culture has a functional nature: as products are provided as a response that the community has requested, therefore it is possible to consider its living culture. The production of material culture is thus strictly linked to the use by a certain group or community of knowledge, creativity and innovation and, therefore, to the concept of intellectual capital and the allocation of the collective rights of intellectual property, which is largely recognized as a tool with a great potential to generate economic value and growth (WIPO, 2003). Trademarks, such as designations of origin, geographical indications, collective certifications of the product quality, may play a crucial role in sustaining the production of material culture and accelerate the creation of territorially organized systems for its production.

The Italian context suggests other interesting cases that allow exploration of material culture. For example in Caltagirone, a little town part of the Val di Noto world heritage site in Sicily, traditionally producing artistic ceramics, now have a new law in place that provides the institution with the ability to give ceramic art national branding. In the case of food and wine production, the case is even more clear. We may mention the collective marks of individual producers: the DOC and D.O.C.G., that function as real a management system which have been, for instance, the economic rationale for identifying the Outstanding Universal Value of the Vineyards of Piedmont recently inscribed into the World Heritage List.

Making reference for instance to the existing literature on the cases of the Murano glass production (Russo and Segre, 2005), the ceramics of Caltagirone (Cuccia and Santagata, 2003), the wine of Tuscany or Piedmont (Segre, 2003), etc., it is evident that a key feature of the production of such goods is that the production system is generally characterized by concentrations of small and micro enterprises, with a strong manufacturing capacity, able to

Final Report 48 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 develop high quality products based on the local traditions, and organized in forms of so called cultural districts. A cultural district (Valentino, 2001) is a well-recognized, labeled, mixed-use area of a settlement in which a high concentration of cultural activities serving as an anchor of economic development and attraction. The lesson that emerges from the Italian industrial districts, from Biella to Prato (textiles), Vicenza and Arezzo (jewellery), to mention some other cases, is the fact that such places are able to develop an industrial feel; small companies create an atmosphere in which information and technology freely circulates, and its management is based on participatory decisional processes and the sharing of revenues (Santagata, 2003). The district, as defined by Santagata, is closely linked with the place: within the local community circulates a system of information that sustain and facilitate the transformation of knowledge into culture and of culture into goods and services with an economic value (Sacco, Ferilli, 2006).

In the Italian context, the district organizational model has found in recent years many experiences in policies and projects aimed at enhancing the local cultures and heritage. A recent initiative of Union-camera and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and production in partnership with GOOGLE has drafted a virtual mapping of the most significant experiences related to the district's cultural productions of "made in Italy". There are more than 50 cases of heritage place valorization based on material culture productions: in relation to the agri- food sector (including South Tyrolean apple, Parmesan Cheese, Hazelnut of Piedmont, Altamura bread, Lemons of the Amalfi Coast) and to the craft sector (including the jewels art in Florence, the lace of Ascoli Piceno, the Biella textile, the wood of Cuneo, the Fabriano paper, the Este ceramics, the corals of Trapani, etc.). Of course, the challenge of this development is always in finding a right balanced way to decline the culture not merely as a product to sell, but as production to sustain and put into circulation, enhancing the existing resources without neglecting the processes of innovation that underlie the economy of knowledge and of the cultural production that, stratifying over the centuries have helped to produce those goods that we want today to valorize.

Moreover, we may also easily observe that material culture is in many of UNESCO designated sites in the world an important strategic element, because of its links with local culture, and for its potential to create future creativity and local development. In other words, it seems that this field represents a possible solution to the sustainability question in relation to manage heritage places, as it was mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Final Report 49 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

An interesting sample of this could be represented by the case of the historic centre of Naples world heritage site. The preparation of its management plan, completed in 2011, happened in parallel with the preparation of the Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation, and offered a real opportunity for reflection on all the issues posed by that document.

The introduction of the concept of Historic Urban Landscape has strongly guided the definition of the Plan. Starting from the consideration of the site within its environment: the issues of the historical centre of Naples were addressed at larger scales (local, metropolitan, provincial and regional): on one hand the buffer zone of the site was partially revised, and on the other hand, the enhancement of the place was approached looking at the network of existing and potential relationships with other cultural areas in the region.

The most interesting aspect of this work seems to be the attempt to combine the efforts of preservation of the historical heritage with the valuation of intangible heritage and the sustain to the development of cultural industries (MiBAC, 2004).

The uniqueness of the historical centre of Naples has in fact to be found in its complex and extraordinary density of historic stratifications and cultural values, which is the reflection of a practically unique social vitality, that fully characterizes this context as a real living heritage. For this reason it was considered crucial to overcome standardized planning formulas to develop ideas and projects in terms of production of new culture.

In Naples there are cultural worldwide productions, such as nativity scenes or Christmas puppets (Cuccia, Marrelli, Santagata, 2007; De Caro, Marrelli, Santagata, 2008) but including also sewing, gastronomy, crafts, art and music. This continuous and well- established cultural production is undoubtedly the most vital and authentic expression of the extraordinary and complex system of cultural values in the historic centre of the city. All these creative productions, traditionally located in the historic neighbours of the city, have been interpreted, in the plan logic, as an opportunity to generate new cultural and economic value (Re, Santagata, 2011). As such, their survival has been recognized as the first way to guarantee the safeguard of the authentic historic significance of the whole city, as well as of the identity of the local communities. Thus, in structuring the opportunities in action plans, the preservation of tangible and intangible assets has been approached as a combined process between conservation and development, to be achieved through the continuous production of new culture and innovation.

Final Report 50 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

4. From values to needs: towards a wider approach on culture management

Although the experience on the historic centre of Naples, together with other recent, equally interesting tentative applications of the Historic Urban Landscape input (such as those implemented in the Trulli of Alberobello or in the Sassi of Matera world heritage sites30), represent an important effort in changing approach towards the management of the heritage resources, some relevant challenges still need to find a proper solution.

A particular issue represented by the real efficiency of management systems and their potential to impact local contexts, dynamics and life conditions. To be concretely effective, every management instrument should be able go beyond standard approaches and be based on the needs which are expressed by the local communities (Re, 2012). Proposing and implementing cultural projects for local development should thus be based on a full understanding on such needs and on the evaluation of local resources and economic dynamics. The perspective is again radically different from the one of basing management strategies and choices only on the set of values expressed by the place. Values belongs to the place, while needs are expressed by the people; values imply a preferential reference to the past dimension, while needs belongs to the contemporaneity. It is a radical change of perspective.

Another very important question to consider is how to identify, interprets and understand the needs of local communities, especially in relation to the development question.

Current literature demonstrates, in the development field exploring the methodologies to prepare and implement projects (project cycle management) based on problem solving approach (EC, 2004). A significative use of such methods have also in the recent past been related to cultural heritage: among them it is worth to mention the first approaches to cultural heritage, starting from the ‘80s by World Bank interventions in the MENA countries, where the innovative key aspect was found in the recognition of the role of culture in inducing development also in non cultural sectors, like infrastructure projects contexts, or environmental projects contexts (World Bank, 2001).

Another interesting approach already tested in some cases in Italy can be found in the “Creative Atmosphere” model, developed by the research centre CSS-Ebla to identify and describe the key principles of economic development based on culture and creativity. That methodology was applied for the first time for Torino and Piedmont (Bertacchini and Santagata, 2012), and then tested in Milan (CSS-Ebla, 2014), the province of Ferrara

30 Historic Urban Landscape, dalla Raccomandazione UNESCO all’ambito applicativo. Esperienze a confronto nei siti Patri- monio Mondiale UNESCO: “Trulli di Alberobello” e “I Sassi e il parco delle chiese rupestri di Matera”.

Final Report 51 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

(Segre, 2013) and is currently under process for the province of Cuneo. This approach could be in general considered a good sample to summarize al the different questions mentioned in this article.

The expression Creative Atmosphere defines a methodology that identifies and investigates the local systems of creativity. The atmosphere is intended as the result of a network of actors who interact frequently and self-sustaining each other in all those activities in which creativity declines in the production of goods and services of high cultural, innovative and symbolic content. The most effective reference text that provides a useful interpretative model that defines the meaning of most of the classifications proposed for the cultural and creative sectors is, among the others (the Hesmondhalgh symbolic text model, the WIPO copyright model, the UNESCO Institute of Statistics trade related model, etc.) present in the economic literature, that one defined by David Throsby as "The concentric circles model of the cultural industries "(Throsby, 2001). Throsby proposes a subdivision of the economic policies in the cultural field in different concentric sets, ordered according to the origin and diffusion of creative ideas in sound, text and image from core creative arts. Therefor the model has a centre in the arts (visual arts, literature, music, entertainment) and circles of creative contents gradually decreasing: core creative industries (film, museums, libraries, photography), wider cultural industries (media, video, heritage services), related industries (advertising, architecture, design, fashion).

This approach, has been conjuncted with the Italian model of creativity-based development proposed by Santagata (2009), which recognizes in the three following sectors the main pillars of the economic culture based development:

A. Cultural Heritage Industries, including: museums and heritage, architecture, live entertainment: (music, theatre, dance and opera), art and photography.

B. Material Culture, including: fashion and textiles, taste (food and wine), design and creative crafts.

C. Content Industries, including: cinema and audiovisual, TV and radio, publishing, software, advertising and communication.

On that basis, the obtained analytic model intends to explore the value chain, from production to consumption, of the local systems of creativity. The notion of "system" has been introduced mainly to overcome the boundaries of the cultural and creative sectors

Final Report 52 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 which are usually pretty difficult to define. On the contrary, the notion of system does not focus simply on the identification of the amount outstanding and the economic performance of an asset, but includes the social structure, institutions and relationships that wraps entrepreneurs and producers in a given field (Segre, 2014).

In order to clarify the approach, it is relevant to refer to the most recent application of such analytic model, implemented in the context of the city and province of Ferrara which, together with its Po river delta cultural landscape, is also an UNESCO world heritage property. In this context, eight sectors have been considered for the analysis: Cultural heritage, Entertainment, Gastronomy, Design and traditional and artistic craft, Fashion, Media and new media, Festivals and Tourism. A total of 1.455 companies have been recorded in such sectors, for a total of 5.000 persons employed, 47% of which concentrated in the main urban settlement of Ferrara, mostly in the sectors of cultural tourism, media and gastronomy production. Focusing more in detail in the heritage sector, these are the results of the analytical levels defined and designed to understand the economic consistence of the cultural activities in such area.

From the first step of the analysis, it emerged that there was a widespread presence throughout the territory of a large number of historical heritage, preserved in good conditions, and a wealth and variety of the cultural landscape and of the rural territory, especially in the Delta area (40.000ha of protected areas in total), that combines real historical, architectural, urban and environmental values. A large and strong presence of civic, state and private museums, 47 in total, for a record of 561331 visitors per year, is also recognized as an asset, which is constantly growing in quality thanks to the recent initiatives promoted by the local administration. In addition, it was also recorded the presence of a relevant number of professionals in this field, thanks to the existence of qualified education and training centres. The Faculty of Architecture, where every year about 100 architects take their degree, appears to be one of the first one in Italy for quality of education (CENSIS and Great University Guide 2013/2014). Currently, the province of Ferrara has 505 recognized architects (276 men and 229 women): 10% of them work in the PA, while the majority as freelancers.

The second step was to identify the so called “factories of culture”, defined as the key drivers of excellence and local cultural production, and the micro-services functional to the production of the whole cultural sector. An international established image of Ferrara emerged as an ideal renaissance urban and landscape heritage, included for this reason in the UNESCO World Heritage List, as well as the existence of well-established practices in the management promotion and enhancement of the historic environment. In terms of

Final Report 53 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 investing in culture, Ferrara is one of the first Italian cities for public expenditure. If we compare this with the population, it appears that the municipal expenditure on culture per capita is € 169.6, being second only to Siena and Mantova (2010). Even looking at the presence of theatres, museums, contemporary art exhibitions and expenditure for the show in relation to population, Ferrara ranks above the national average and in 25th place among the 107 Italian provinces. The International Fair on the Art of Restoration and Conservation of Cultural and Environmental Heritage, held for 21 years at Ferrara Fiere, has in recent years recorded the presence of more than 200 exhibitors and over 25,000 visitors, and represents an important opportunity for professional updating and promotion. One area that gives an interesting picture of the vitality of the cultural Ferrara is one of the exhibitions of contemporary art. According to the report Ferrara Italian cuisine is among the top 15 Italian cities by number of exhibitions mentioned on Exibart magazine, with a total of 66 exhibitions (2010 data). The presence of a large number of professionals in the heritage field, combined with a significant social dynamism that has in recent years produced associative and social entrepreneurial experiences such as the "City of Culture / Culture of Cities" (2013) Association Grisù (2012), Wunderkammer (2011) and interesting start-up as Tryeco, Kuvacomunicazione, G-Maps, Obst, Ecopolis.

The last passage has been the definition of the local systems of creativity: a description of the bonds and networks between individuals and between the long supply chains. What emerges is a clear potential for development given the vocation cross this field to bind to other economic sectors: tourism, gastronomy, events, entertainment, craft and design. Also from the point of view of territorial positioning, a great potential asset is represented by the proximity to highly attractive local systems as Venice, Bologna and Ravenna. Based on such situation, local policies should address the current gaps, needs and issues emerged by the analysis. For instance one of the critical factor emerged in the strategic capacities (both in the public and private sectors) to design and development of projects and entrepreneurship in the cultural sector. An effort to strengthen the system as a whole would be required, to allow the single vital components of this context a qualitative leap. The role of entrepreneurs is crucial to determine the success of the factories of the culture and the systems of creativity: without the ability to translate creative inputs into business opportunities, substantial market initiatives, local development and employment opportunities would be lost.

Concluding, setting cultural projects for development implies the need to adopt methods for a proper knowledge of the economic dynamics happening in the concerned territories, and for the clear understanding of the main needs expressed by the local communities. From the

Final Report 54 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015 case presented, as well as from all the considerations proposed in this text, also a fourth shift clearly emerges and deserves to be investigated: from the single place to the whole territory. Cultural places and communities might also be seen as networks, with nodes, connections, concentrations, agglomerations. In many areas of the world there is a coincidence or overlapping between tangible, intangible and material culture resources; in some cases they also find a territorially based productive organization able to produce economic returns and local development, like in the cases of cultural districts. When heritage sites function as productive networks, then they become themselves real cultural industries, and efficient in terms of coordinated management, improvement of economic capacities and life quality.

Final Report 55 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Chapter 4: Participants

The workshop saw the involvement of 35 participants among experts and site managers from Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO): .

Participant Names Respective World Heritage Site

Abbas Shamshiri Soltaniyeh*

Afshin Ebrahimi Bam and its Cultural Landscape*

Ahmad Nasrolahi Falak-ol-Aflak Castle***

Ali Sanaeinejad Darreh Shahr Ancient city***

Ali Taghva Pasargadae*

Behrouz Nedaei Sheikh Safi al-din Khānegāh and Shrine Ensemble in Ardabil*

Bijan Heidari Zadeh Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System*

Davood Najar Asiabani Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System*

Elham Eriss Cultural Landscape of Alamout***

Fahimeh Arab Nasrabadi ICHHTO World Heritage Office Liaising Officer

Farhad Azizi Zallani ICHHTO World Heritage Office Manager

Fariba Khatabakhsh Meidan Emam, Esfahan*

Firoozeh Salari ICHHTO World Heritage Office Expert

Hassan Yousefi Takht-e Soleyman*

Hosein Raie Bisotun*

Hossein Esmaeeli Sangari Tabriz Historic Bazaar Complex*

Hossein Yazdanmehr Masjed-e Jāmé of Isfahan*

Jabbar Avaj Golestan Palace*

Mahnaz Ashrafi Cultural Landscape of Maymand*

Maryam Mehran ICHHTO Deputy Director Office International Relation Responsible

Masoud Nakhaee Ashtari Tchogha Zanbil*

Mohammad Hossein Arastoozadeh Susa*

Mohammadali Jannatifar The Persian Garden*

Mojtaba Farahmand The Historical Structure of Yazd**

Mostafa Babaei ICHHTO World Heritage Office Expert

Mostafa Pourali The Historical City of Masouleh**

Najmeh Mennatkar Golestan Palace*

Parvin Sadr Seghatoleslami Golestan Palace*

Final Report 56 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Participant Names Respective World Heritage Site

Rouhollah Shirazi Shahr-i Sokhta*

Sara Babaie ICHHTO World Heritage Office Technical Officer

Sareh Ziaei ICHHTO World Heritage Office International relation Officer

Sasha Riahi Moghaddam The historical city of Maybod***

Shahram Rahbar Persepolis*

Shahrzad Behnamnia Golestan Palace*

Sima Haddadi ICHHTO World Heritage Office Expert

Notes:

* Managers, properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

** Managers, properties submitted on the Tentative List

*** Managers, national protected properties

Final Report 57 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Participants selected work

Among all the final papers presented following the Capacity Building Workshop on the Management Planning in Iran The Persian Qanats was chosen as the best work.

The Persian Qanat by Firoozeh Salari

The Persian Qanat base includes eleven Qanats nominated from 6 provinces. Qanat is a gently sloping subterranean canal, which taps a water-bearing zone at a higher elevation than cultivated lands. A Qanat consist of a series of vertical shafts in sloping ground, interconnected at the bottom by a tunnel with a gradient flatter than that of the ground. The first shaft (mother well) is sunk, usually into an alluvial fan, to a level below the groundwater table. Shafts are sunk at intervals of 20meter to 200meter in a line between the groundwater recharge zone and the irrigated land. From the air, a Qanat system looks like a line of anthills leading from the foothills across the desert to the greenery of an irrigated settlement. Qanat engages a variety of knowledge and its studying entails an interdisciplinary approach. In a traditional realm, Qanats are embraced by a socio-economic system that guarantees their sustainability.

Criteria under which inscription is proposed: (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)

Documenting and assessing the management system

Goal: Protection of outstanding values of eleven selected Qanats while respecting its authenticity and integrity and preserving the traditional management of Qanats.

Management approach: Identification, conservation, maintenance, and optimal introduction of values of Qanats as the greatest traditional hydraulic system in the world as well as preserving the traditional management system with emphasis on public involvement are considered as the main approach. Furthermore, the multidisciplinary approach for preserving values and an integrated management for Qanat collection is of utmost importance.

Final Report 58 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Management strategy, policy and action plan

• Continuing the traditional management system,

• Identifying indigenous Moqannis31 and document their experiences aimed at transferring them to future generations;

• Creating a documentation resource database,

• Spreading of educational programmes and improving study and scientific collaborations,

• Enhancing public awareness about Qanat values,

• Encouraging public participation in conservation and restoration processes of Qanats,

• Involving sustainable tourist management plan,

• Establishing policy and planing for reducing risks associated with potential natural and manmade disasters.

Example of Qasabeh Qanat (ICHHTO)

Corezone: 4492 ha Buffer zone:25805 ha Agricultural demand area: 589 ha

31 Traditional Qanat builder

Final Report 59 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Monitoring: the monitoring system of qanat has an integrated plan from the past and has its significant base in its traditional management.

The monitoring items, within the Qanats buffer zone, include the condition of Qanat structure, its well shafts, mother well, galleries, water output and exit point. These are among the most important factors to ensure the quality and health of the Qanat’s water.

The management system framework

The eleven nominated Qanats, which together represent outstanding values of The Persian Qanat, are managed under the individual traditional supervision of Qanat Council. Each Qanat has its local Qanat Council from its region. In this management system the focal point is Qanat traditional council and the relevant state organizations support through the indirect connection.

Existing plans (Planning)

Some of the proposed Qanats are situated outside of an urban area, therefore they are not subject to immediate risk. However, measures relating to core zone and buffer zones of these Qanats have been considered in the master plan. Additionally, criteria and considerations about the underground pathway of Qanats within the core zone and buffer zones have been included in the existing plans. In order to preserve their natural and cultural landscape, several development plans will be subject of revision, such as: agricultural development plans, urban development, industrial development and mining, water resources development, socio-cultural transformations and tourism.

SWOT analysis of the Persian Qanats

1. Industry 1. Strong traditional management 2. Development and knowledge 3. Social approaches 2. Public participation Weaknesses Strengths 4. High Conservation costs 3. Water resources sustainability 5. Unsafe underground activities 4. In harmony with nature 6. Employment difficulties 5. Workman ship

1. Urban Development 1. Socio-cultural Development 2. Industrial development and 2. Economic development pollution 3. Agriculture development Threats 3. Ignoring by new generations Opportunities 4. Natural sustainability 4. Uncontrolled use of water 5. Employment 5. Uncontrolled construction activities 6. Tourism

Final Report 60 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Conclusion

A long-term vision and planning is required to meet all the challenges of stimulate community engagement, at all levels of the World Heritage management. This is a complex approach, however, in order to fostering principles of community engagement, a home grown vision for policies and programmes is essential.

Final Report 61 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Annex

Glossary

Advisory Bodies A nominated property is independently evaluated by two Advisory Bodies mandated by the World Heritage Convention: the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which respectively provide the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of cultural and of natural sites nominated. The third Advisory Body is the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an intergovernmental organization which provides the Committee with expert advice on conservation of cultural sites, as well as on training activities.

Criteria for selection of World Heritage sites To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which, besides the text of the Convention, is the main working tool on World Heritage. The criteria are regularly revised by the Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage concept itself.

Culture Sector, UNESCO Is responsible for important conventions and universal declarations, such as the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity which it implements in a number of areas in order to promote intercultural dialogue. The Cultural Heritage Division manages international campaigns and assists in safeguarding sites – some of which involve World Heritage properties – and masterpieces of oral and intangible heritage. It also carries out operational projects in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM, ICOMOS and ICOM.

ICCROM The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, is an intergovernmental body founded in 1956 which provides expert advice on how to conserve World Heritage sites, as well as training in restoration techniques.

ICHHTO Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization.

Final Report 62 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

ICOM Founded in 1946, the International Council of Museums is devoted to the promotion and development of museums and the museum profession at an international level. ICOM is a non-governmental organization with around 17,000 members in 140 countries, many of which have World Heritage sites with museums.

ICOMOS The International Council on Monuments and Sites, a non-governmental organization, was founded in 1965 after the adoption of the Charter of Venice, in order to promote the doctrine and the techniques of conservation. ICOMOS provides the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of properties with cultural values proposed for inscription on the World Heritage List, as well as with comparative studies, technical assistance and reports on the state of conservation of inscribed properties.

II.TED International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics.

Intangible heritage Intangible cultural heritage is the practices, expressions, knowledge and skills that communities, groups and sometimes individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage. Also called living cultural heritage, it is usually expressed in one of the following forms: oral traditions; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and traditional craftsmanship.

IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature, an international, non-governmental organization founded in 1948, advises the World Heritage Committee on the inscription of properties with natural values. Through its worldwide network of specialists, it reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage sites.

MiBAC The Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage Activities and Tourism.

OWHC The Organization of World Heritage Cities was established in 1993 to develop a sense of solidarity and a cooperative relationship between World Heritage cities, particularly in view of the implementation of the Convention.

Final Report 63 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

States Parties Are countries which have adhered to the World Heritage Convention. They identify and nominate sites on their national territory to be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List. States Parties have the responsibility to protect the World Heritage values of the sites inscribed and report periodically on their condition.

Tentative List The first step a country must take is making an ‘inventory’ of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This ‘inventory’ is known as the Tentative List, and provides a forecast of the properties that a State Party may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which may be updated at any time. It is an important step since the World Heritage Committee cannot consider a nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List unless the property has already been included on the State Party's Tentative List.

UNEP-WCMC The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre manages the database of World Heritage properties with natural values.

UTCO UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office.

World Heritage Centre Is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Convention and for the administration of the World Heritage Fund.

World Heritage Committee Meets once a year, and consists of representatives from 21 of the States Parties to the Convention elected for terms up to six years. The Committee is responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, allocates financial assistance from the World Heritage Fund and has the final say on whether a site is inscribed on the World Heritage List. It examines reports on the state of conservation of inscribed sites and decides on the inscription or removal of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Final Report 64 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

The Criteria for Selection

(i) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

(ii) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

(iii) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

(iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

(v) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

(vi) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);

(vii) to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

(viii) to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

(ix) to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

(x) to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Final Report 65 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

Pictures

Final Report 66 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

References

• European Commission, “Aid Delivery Methods: Project cycle management guidelines”, Volume 1, Brussels, 2004.

• Governance in the New Millennium: Challenges for Canada, Institute On Governance, January 2000.

• The Burra Charter, Australia, ICOMOS, November 1999.

• The Hangzhou Declaration, “Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies”, China, UNESCO, 2013.

• The Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage Activities and Tourism (MiBAC), “Il Modello del Piano di Gestione dei Beni Culturali iscritti alla lista del Patrimonio dell’Umanità”, Linee Guida, 2004.

• The Nara Document on Authenticity, Japan, ICOMOS, November 1994.

• UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972.

• UNESCO Institute for Statistics, “International Flows of Selected Cultural Goods and Services 1994–2003: Defining and Capturing the Flows of Global Cultural Trade”, Montreal, UIS, 2005.

• UNESCO World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy, 2011.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Managing historic cities”, World Heritage papers n.27, 2010.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Engaging Local Communities in Stewardship of World Heritage. A methodology based on the COMPACT experience”, World Heritage papers n. 40, 2014.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Managing Natural World Heritage”, 2012.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention”. 2012.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Presentation and adoption of the World Heritage strategy for capacity building”, 2011.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape”, 2011.

Final Report 67 CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP ON THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN IRAN TEHRAN 25 APRIL-03 MAY 2015

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre Resources Manuals, “Managing Cultural World Heritage”, 2013.

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development”, 2011.

• What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties, an ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto, 2008.

• World Bank, “Cultural Heritage and Development: A Framework for Action in the Middle East and North Africa”, 2001.

• World Intellectual Property Organisation, “A tool for economic growth”, Geneva, 2003.

• World Intellectual Property Organisation, “Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the Copyright-based Industries”, Geneva, 2003.

Final Report 68 Tehran, 2015

The organization and coordination committee

UNESCO UTCO

II.TED

For more information contact

UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office

Sa’adabad Historical Complex , Tehran (19896-43936)

I.R. Iran

Tel: +98-2122751315-7

Fax: +98-2122751318

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/tehran/home/

IITED

International Institute on Territorial and Environmental Dynamics

Via Napoleone Bonaparte, 52 Florence (50135)

Italy

[email protected]