REPORT ON THE STATE OF CULTURAL CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE Sectorial analysis CULTURAL HERITAGE. Interarts. Prepared by Michel Thomas-Penette European Institute for Cultural Route. May 2003.

 

A – MAIN TRENDS - PRELIMINARY AND A PRIORI  REMARKS

 

A – 1 Methodology

 

The preparation of a report intended towards evaluation of present state in bi or multilateral co-operation regarding cultural heritage between 31 European countries in such a very short delay needed to follow drastic choices and to establish a system of priorities. 

 

Our work was based on various approaches  :

 

 

-       Interviews by phone or in the direct presence of persons in charge of European co-operation in specialised ministries (Directorates for heritage, architecture, environment or European integration…).   

 

-       Analysis of data bases on European heritage policies and of the documents gathered by the European Institute of cultural routes since six years and through the experience of various partners belonging to more than twenty networks engaged in the process of implementing cultural routes projects.

 

-       Analysis of the national reports sent to Interarts with  some complements coming directly from the ministries involved. Just as a matter of fact and not as an excuse, it is clearly established in a careful survey of the national reports that the actions supported, backed or directly launched by cultural heritage sectors are lesser known of the experts than other more visible cultural fields. This is the reason why we asked for specific reports or complements from Luxembourg, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia and the French Community of Belgium.

 

-       Analysis of the answers to a short questionnaire sent to sixty museums or heritage sites linked to the Institute's activities in the frame of cultural routes networks.

 

Following the confrontation of all the documents, we have chosen to highlight and develop  some very concrete situations for which our information were either direct, that means coming from the persons in charge, or were based on documents, even confidential one, coming from our partners. 

 

Due to lack of time our records and examples are presented more in terms of qualitative analysis than in a quantitative approach. 

 

It goes without saying that the work done for more than fifteen years close to many European operators was giving us a large series of references that have been compared with all the information coming from the national experts and direct Institute's partners. 

 

Last consideration : the complexity of the matter.

 

If  sectors like book and reading, music or dance are rather clearly demarcate, it is not the same for cultural heritage the definition of which is always on the move. That’s is the reason why – before any consideration regarding co-operation - we chose to insist on typologies, relevance to the sector, trends and prospects. 

 

It any kind of co-operation has to be recommended or enhanced in the future, the Commission should have in mind the possible themes - topics - areas - regarding common actions already working or gaps to be filled. 

 

A – 2 Background and guidelines

 

We first have to underline what we are putting in perspective among the main remarks coming from the documents of the Commission and from the comments of Interarts.

 

A- 2 - 1 - Target

 

"Public authorities of at least two countries which either are directly competent or have been officially given the remit by national authorities for conducting transborder - (rather transnational) cultural co-operation."

 

First consequence :

 

It seemed to us that the Commission aimed at focusing on the evolution of the very nature of this co-operation. The question raised could be expressed in those words : “how can we face the fact that countries are slowly going from a "classical" series of bilateral agreements based on exchanges of people and experiences, on technical assistance, on common exhibitions or more generally, common events, toward new policy based on European sub-regional co-operation practices (for example Baltic Heritage Committee, Barents-Euro-Arctic Council, South-East and Balkans, even Transylvania…) - launched inside sub-regional mixed States-Regions decision bodies or previous large Empires?

 

As expressed in the national Austria report, this country “aid to the “reform” states (Eastern-European state aid) diverse restorations projects” as regards to the limits and borders of the previous Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

 

Second consequence :

 

The growing importance of the necessity of linking countries in the process of integration or accession with E.U present members through closer and diversified co-operation processes or the idea of creating new frames between neighbouring countries in the ex-Eastern block seemed for us key issues.  Not only because it makes co-operation easier, but also because it enhances democratic security. This is the reason why we tried to thoroughly underline or develop some cases which are going in those directions. 

 

 

A - 2 - 2 - Structures that are entitled in due matters

 

 

The National Trust (or the English Heritage in the case of cultural heritage), and the new rather similar bodies launched in Eastern countries like Slovakia (Slovak Institute of Heritage), Latvia (State Heritage Inspection), or the Hungarian Heritage House for folklore and non tangible heritage are certainly the most classical cases, but as stated in the text it could be also : "local (or regional) authorities which are entitled by some constitutional or legal arrangement to undertake cultural activities abroad or to conduct cultural co-operation, could also be the object of the project's research." (Federal or quasi-federal states)…"

 

In this case the situation is changing quickly and mainly in one main direction taking various complementary forms : decentralisation of responsibilities, desetatisation or privatisation, as well as transfer of funding or financing, from States to Regions. The recent French law on regional power which is under way (adopted in a meeting of the Congress of Parliament on 17 March 2003) is clearly symbolic of this trend. After the launching of pilot schemes (for the management of E.U funds in Alsace or  cultural projects in Lorraine) the law gives very clearly to Regions the statute of “collectivité territoriale de plein droit” i.e. with the same rights that municipalities or “departments”.

 

If we think of co-operations at the European level in the fields of regulations, ethics, prospective, on one side or if we think to symbolic events linked to commemorations of common European figures, anniversaries of treaties, anniversaries in royal families, or simply common historical events, on the other side, States are of course still in charge.

 

But if we think of practical implementation, actions, funding of practical European co-operations, the bodies in charge or involved are more and more in the category that the Commission calls : "entitled or funded to do it".

 

One of the main consequences is that it is quite impossible to give a clear answer to the Commission's needs in avoiding the growing importance of mixed structures in which State, local authorities and private bodies are engaged and co-funders of transnational co-operations.

 

 

A - 2 - 3 – Importance of Conventions and Charters

 

"Actions of cultural co-operation carried out by at least two national authorities under the umbrella of an international Convention (for example in the heritage sector) are covered by the study". The concept of Convention is an essential point for cultural heritage. To quote

 

This is certainly the main issue. We insist on the number of valuable Charters and Conventions, which are not only guidelines for co-operations but have to be followed as a law. It is rather impossible to put aside the numerous ministerial conferences or expert’s meetings under the umbrella of UNESCO or of the Council of Europe that decided or suggested various forms of circumstantial or regular events linked to co-operation in the heritage field

 

 

A - 2 - 4 - E.U. funding

 

It is understandable that the Commission doesn't want to focus on co-operation based on programmes already working - like Culture 2000. But it is clearly established that much multilateral co-operation at the levels of minister's departments in charge of heritage either aimed at preparing future cultural programmes E.U.'s bids or are based on the idea to become eligible for E.U regional funds.

 

The Commission has to be aware of that fact that National Ministry’s departments or public bodies in charge of cultural heritage are acting as operators and using "seed money" as a matter of co-operation in the perspective to prepare future multinational actions funded by different E.U. sources. A good case is illustrated by a co-operation regarding cemetery heritage between Lithuania, Italy and other European countries that has been recently elected by the Culture 2000 programme.

 

A - 2 - 5 - Budgets

 

A - 2 - 5 - 1 General considerations

 

The average budgets involved with heritage protection, restoration or valorisation within a country is subject to large variations from one country to another. For certain countries restorations of specific symbolic sites are almost the state's only investment in terms of image….for others it is only a burden. 

 

It is always rather difficult to get precise records of the budget devoted to a sector like cultural heritage, just because it comes from various ministries and various departments in each ministry, because it can involve extra-budgetary measures and because the situation is specific to each country. More than that : if we decide to put together heritage as such on one side and museums and archives on the other, the comparison  is much more difficult.

 

Western European countries consider generally since for almost 20 years - independently of the political party in charge - that heritage is one of the key issues for local and tourism development and that investments are essential.

 

But it can be subject to great variations, depending on the personal priorities of the minister in charge.

 

The example of Italy regarding natural heritage is certainly a good case. This country was one of the best promoters of the European Landscape Convention – which had its signature opening in Florence year 2000. Then a complete change occurred linked to new priorities (liberal attitude, extensive development) regarding territorial planning.

 

 

 

A - 2 - 5 - 2 Specific features for Eastern and Central European countries

 

Budgets :

 

The example of Romania is also certainly significant: more than one hundred restoration or excavation sites were opened between 1996 and 2000 pushing the heritage budget to the highest place. During the two last years, the budget was almost completely cut bringing heritage at the last place regarding priorities, to the exception of religious one.

 

The recent evolution in Slovakia is also to be considered. To quote the expert who sent us information : " Changing of government after elections in September 2002 influences the situation in Slovakia. At this time of period – 5 months after elections there is not very clear situation as for the program strategy of culture policy for the next 4 years… The other very important factor in the development of culture in Slovakia and especially in regional areas is the process of decentralisation and the transition of culture (“Reform of public administration in culture”), where a lot of state institutions became non-profit institutions and they have to identify their own mission and policy again. Almost all cultural institutions fall within self-government’s cognisance and their budgets and activities are managed by them. This process of transition will probably cause the end of few organisations running without state support. This reform – the process of decentralisation seems to be not very well prepared for the implementation phase of the practise. As far as we were in contact with representatives of Ministry of Culture in Slovakia we were informed, that they intend to design more a complex strategy for culture for longer period.”

 

Priorities :

 

We have also to emphasise the fact that religious heritage was the first target in cultural heritage budgets devoted to restoration in most of these countries. This is the case for Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, as well as Poland, with certain variations in this last country in recent years. The symbolic signification of it is obvious regarding the growing importance or "reconquest" of Church after 1989.

 

Another significant feature for these countries is the contrast in situation before and after 1989 regarding budgets and staffs.

 

Some countries like the Baltic States generally devote their main budget to heritage (churches, castles, fortresses and even historical parks are the main targets…).

 

On the contrary, In Bulgaria 2000 people were responsible of cultural heritage before 1989, now only 200 remain.  

  

 

A - 2 - 5 - 3 Budgets for European Co-operation

 

 

These variations in attitude from one country to another and from one minister to another are of course tremendously influencing the budget involved for co-operation in the cultural heritage sector.

 

When considering the percentage of the budget devoted to cultural heritage co-operation actions, we have to say that decisions are mainly subject to political needs or specific events (The preparation of Europalia for Poland or Bulgaria is a good example) which can introduce significant variations. By using study cases we are presenting some precise situations in regards to budgetary matters.

 

But some prominent facts have to be underlined if we only consider the average budget average in the countries from which we received precise direct records for the cultural heritage sector (museums and archives are not concerned) (France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lithuania, Latvia, Spain, Bulgaria) :

 

-       almost every country among the 31 are funding on a regular basis an exchange of people and co-operative research based on various sources : education, research, higher education, vocational training...;

 

-       the percentage devoted to bi or multilateral actions (mainly considered as European integration budget for the candidate's) in the cultural heritage sector is established between 10 to 15% of a whole budget which has to be considered to be roughly around 5-10% of the whole budget devoted to cultural sectors (and environmental in the relevant countries).

 

-       That means something important has to be taken into consideration if we choose to focus on cultural heritage : no more than 1% of the budgets devoted to culture and heritage at large is put into European co-operation on cultural heritage.

 

-       To only give one detailed example concerning a developed country which is putting forwards priorities for culture, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg : the whole budget for culture increased from 0.55% of the State budget at the end of the 90's to around 1.1 – 1.2 at the beginning of the new century (roughly 62 million Euros). The average for cultural heritage is around 5% (3 million). We have to say that this will be no more the case in future years as the budget will be cut by half. Regarding the main co-operation's budgets 1997-2003 (in restoration or cultural routes implementation fields - Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Russia were concerned, this year too), the budget can be considered as high as 0,2 to 0,6 million Euros.       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A - 2 - 5 - 4 - Public - private

 

According to the important role played by private sources and by encouragement to patronage, sponsorship or semi-public bodies in the cultural heritage field we think it is important to link this report to the Madrid's Commission D.G. X conference on that subject (April 2002, Spanish chairmanship).

 

One of the aspects of encouragement of private initiatives as regards patronage and sponsorship's laws towards "knowledge, protection, restoration, keeping of architectural heritage" is the European co-operation which intends to put the contrasting situations at a rather comparative level.  

 

To quote the recent proposal in France (Law project March 5^th 2003) : "En introduisant une réduction d'impôt de 60% plafonnée à 20% du revenu imposable, assorti d'une possibilité de report de l'excédent du don sur 5 ans, la France disposera d'un régime comparable à celui de la plupart des pays étrangers en matière de plafonnement, tout en disposant d'un taux supérieur à la moyenne. De fait, le régime de déduction à 100% sur le montant des revenus imposables, en vigueur dans certains pays, équivaut en effet à une réduction d'impôt inférieure à 60%."

 

 

A – 2 – 6  Heritage on the move

 

 

A - 2 - 6 - 1 Cultural landscape

 

We have chosen to emphasise the recent European Landscape Convention - and in some cases linked to its recent implementation - as a key issue to give consistency to European transborder or transnational co-operation. The Article 9 on "Transfrontier landscapes" specifies clearly : "The Parties shall encourage transfrontier co-operation on local and regional level and, wherever necessary, prepare and implement joint landscape programmes."

 

Good examples are now emerging at the sub-regional level between France and Germany or Germany and The Netherlands based on the organisation of the  “Landesgartenschau” in borders  areas. The best one is situated in the Lemanic space (France – Switzerland). It has also to be mentioned even if it falls out of the countries involved in this study, as a pilot scheme that is taken into consideration by countries among the 31.

 

 

A - 2 - 6 - 2 Cultural Routes

 

Not just as a matter of practice of the Institute's programmes, the frame launched by the Council of Europe in 1987 has taken a growing importance in practical co-operation on many themes linked to cultural heritage.

 

It has been rapidly adopted by countries in transition, not only as a means to valorise their own heritage but as a tool for re-establishing new themes of co-operation in a true consensus (The Baroque initiative in Central Europe is certainly one of the most important inter-governmental co-operations established just after 1989), or even on more controversial topics (rural architecture, as one).

 

If the Council of Europe adopted a practice based on the idea that a route is material and intellectual, linked to a trail or a path, it is also a "cosa mentale", the Executive Committee of UNESCO World Heritage gave a more precise definition : “A cultural itinerary is made of tangible items which signification (cultural meaning)  comes from exchanges and pluricultural dialogue through countries or regions and that illustrate an interactive movement, along its journey, in space and time.” 

 

A - 2 - 6 - 3 - Awareness raising

 

It has to be taken into account that the European Heritage days, as well as the European Heritage classes have brought new occasions for active co-operation between countries, either in transborder areas or through European multilateral agreements. We are developing some cases, even if the extent of co-operation is limited to neighbouring countries.

 

A - 2 - 6 - 4 Tourism and cultural heritage

 

Even if the European Commission has left apart since 1998 the idea of launching a common programme on "Europe as a destination" it is obvious that the valorisation of cultural heritage - and especially through museum's new policies -  is not only a question of ethics but also of economic resource. This domain is a classic example of competition between countries rather than co-operation, but some data is also presented in order to give indicators of the extent of co-operation in the preparation of conventions or recommendations, as common touristic proposals. More than that, documents issued from the Commission are precise in recommending that countries and operators have to prepare actions in respect to cross-co-operation between various Directorates (Tourism unit, D.G.XXIII, regional policy, culture…).

 

 

A - 2 - 6 - 5 - Role for cultural heritage of Cultural Institutes in foreign countries

 

In analysing the national reports and the reactions gathered through the questionnaire sent to various structures linked to the cultural routes programme, one main answer came from many directions. If the foreign Institutes are deeply engaged in cultural action : theatre, concerts, cinema, festivals and literature the answer  is almost unanimous : they are doing almost nothing in that sector.

 

Of course they are involved in practical issues : facilitating contacts, welcoming lecturers, helping students or scholars that are participating to training or exchange programmes. It is symbolic that the document sent by the French national expert about budget and precise actions for the period 2000 - 2003 doesn't mention any for cultural heritage, except in the visual arts sector for loans of objects or even for exhibitions linked to local themes (co-operation between France and Greece in the context of an exhibition in Benaki museum). 

 

We know that actions are seldom directly decided by the French Institute, Czech Institute, the Cervantès Institute on behalf of the Director's choices or preferences. That was the case in Florence for the organisation of European seminars and lectures on historical Parks and Gardens (year 1999-2001).

 

The question raised by Rod Fisher : "Is the role of the cultural institutes diminishing, or is it simply that the space which they have occupied for so long is now the territory of many others involved in European cultural co-operation, such as cities and regions, networks and foundations?" has certainly to be linked to the reactions we got.

 

We agree a lot with the conclusion he presented : "Cultural diplomacy non longer appears to be the dominant factor underpinning the work of national cultural institutes in Europe. It is conceivable, however, that it has not disappeared, it has simply changed its nature, manifesting itself now as cultural relations or public diplomacy." Could we add that they are sometimes part of a process of privatisation  as they have to act through specific ONG that they launch to be part of co-funded actions ? and take it completely as granted for the cultural heritage sector.

 

 

A - 2 - 6 - 6  - Importance of new technologies

 

This specific point would need more than one report, but it seems important to insist on the growing importance of virtual techniques regarding cultural heritage.

 

For protection, new technologies bring a new field enabling virtual visits of sites which need a high degree of protection.

 

For interpretation it brings new possibilities for showing hidden parts of buildings, giving comments on previous steps of construction, or even for showing archives, documents. In certain cases where the remaining are only understandable by specialists, it gives keys and knowledge at the public level.

 

But the question of property of the images is still pending. It is a market that remains without precise laws and regulations.

 

A - 2 - 7  Heritage – Museum – Archives

 

A - 2 - 7 - 1 General consideration

 

As regards budgetary lines, cultural heritage, museums and archives are nor always in the same boxes. Archives are apart or falling in the same area as libraries. Museums are sometimes apart or falling in the same sector as cultural heritage. 

 

                    A - 2 - 7 - 2 Museums

 

Museums have not been considered in this report as a specific subject, but on the contrary they are included in the prospect as a whole. We are aware of the fact that specific budgets or budgetary limits are devoted to museums and that in some countries these limits are higher than those devoted to heritage.

 

But the situation is rather contrasted regarding national financial resources and missions. Some are, of course, national museums, others are under state control, others funded by States at regional level, some are part of specific semi-national bodies or funds (Réunion des Musées Nationaux in France). We have chosen to include the case of museums in specific projects, mainly when they are part of a co-operation normal process (co-production of exhibitions, exchanges or loan of artifacts, scientific co-operation) or engaged in new ones like common information systems, or common tickets in transborder areas.

 

Since the launch of a new event by French Minister of Culture Catherine Trautmann in 1998 (a frame named "Spring of the Museums")  and the choice three years ago of the idea of "Europe" as a theme, i.e showing part of the collections or items coming from other countries, it tends to become more and more a common European event used for common communication in transborder areas.

 

In this case some political bodies like the "Agence de la Francophonie" is playing a clear and important role in Europe for linking actions between France, Belgium, Luxembourg and some co-operation budgets are coming from this source.

 

A - 2 - 7 - 3 Archives

 

Up to now the case of archives is very specific and mainly linked to book and library policy (and in recent years to cinema policy). Specific departments or bodies are in charge and it is infrequent that they are directly linked to cultural heritage sector.

 

The international texts regarding archives are also very specific and do not fall in the same ministerial areas or programmes as cultural heritage, even if there are common aims and methodologies.

 

On 21-22 November 1994 a Conference on "Archival co-operation in Europe" was held in Strasbourg. It focused on three main topics : the preservation, the democratisation of legal systems and procedures and last but not least, accessibility. This last issue is now becoming a main issue regarding Central and Eastern European countries and has raised hard controversies if not political crises (Romania, Bulgaria and other countries…). A Recommendation of the Council of Europe (2000)13 is addressed to avoiding discrimination and to harmonising legislation and regulations throughout Europe. To quote "Although archives are the property of nations, they have to ensure the (nations) free flow of information."

 

There are of course bi-national co-operations as regards training and comparative cases for conservation systems and keeping. Co-operations between historians of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as between Central and Eastern European countries are growing everyday. This is the case for Romania, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republic regarding archives of state police during communist regimes or between Poland, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, as well as with Ukraine and Russian Federation for the restitution process.

 

Since 1993 UNESCO has developed a programme named "Memory of the World" aiming at safeguarding this cultural heritage of humanity. More recently an International Committee "Blue shield" backed by the National Committee in order to prevent human and natural catastrophes affecting built and movable heritage, to implement professional actions during disasters, to gather information on methods and practical help for prevention or reparation. The most important measure regarding archives is of course achieved through various copying processes : photocopy, microfiches or digital records.  

 

B -  INTRODUCTION 

 

B - 1 Complexity of the matter

 

 

The fact that bi and multilateral co-operation in the heritage sector is based on (and in the legal frame of…) a large number of Charters and Conventions (mainly UNESCO, Council of Europe and ICOMOS…) that have to be ratified at the Parliamentary national level and considering  the fact that administrations in charge are very often in the hands of heritage "technicians" who carefully put into effect these regulations can explain that "outside" initiatives are not so numerous and that the actions have to be included in grids, and precise frames. 

 

New laws in Central and Eastern Europe's countries have no more than five years implementation's experience or sometimes less…. The question of return to private property is one of the reasons that explain the difficulties in establishing more extensive co-operation. The law for heritage was adopted in Romania at the end of the 90's. The Slovak Republic ratified the European Convention for the protection of archaeological heritage on October 31st 2000 and the European Convention for the protection of architectural heritage on Mars 7^th 2001.

 

We have to put more emphasis on the variety of items : from simple buildings to language, from collections of objects to territorial system (fortresses, battle fields, industrial sites, landscapes, routes…), from know-how and skills to popular festivals. Plus the questions of periods (from archaeological sites up to 20th century architecture). 

 

A specific issue regards public frequentation : some sectors are against any public frequentation, due to the drastic necessity of protection while others want a large number of visitors and expect income from tourism.

 

The growing importance of co-operation with complex "political" heritage regarding minorities, sites of memory, borders, conflicts, "heritage of suffering", heritage of totalitarism (parks, communist statues, graves cemeteries …), return to the roots (Jewish heritage is an example…), D-Day… 

 

The growing demand of civil society for international co-operation in case of symbolic actions (heritage without borders), in case of danger or catastrophes (earthquakes, flooding…). 

 

 

B - 2 The definition of various items

 

 

The fact that typologies of cultural heritage have known a complete change and a drastic evolution during the twenty last years of 20th century is obvious. But this has been thoroughly analysed in detail by many experts (see references). Criteria for the various categories included in this report are based on formal and informal texts of the Council of Europe and of the World Heritage List. Material and immaterial, tangible and non-tangible, sustainable, buildings and objects, continuities (canals, rivers, sea sides, cultural routes…), even people as "treasures" are now key words for this sector. 

 

 

B 2 - 1  The "cultural" and "natural" criteria are following the rules of Unesco

 

Cultural criteria  for the inclusion in the World Heritage List :

 

Monuments : architectural works, works of monumental sculpture or painting, elements of structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science.

 

Groups of buildings : groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science

 

Sites : works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.

 

Added criteria or domains 1994-1997 :

 

- directly or tangibly associated with events or living trditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works…

- town-planning of landscape design

 

Natural criteria for the inclusion in the World Heritage List :

 

Natural features : consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view

 

Geographical and physiographical formations : and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation and natural beauty.

 

Added criteria or domains 1994 :

 

- Be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological an biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals.

 

B- 2 - 2  The importance of the notion of integrated conservation

 

The Grenada Convention (art 1) is proposing three categories of items linked to architectural heritage that have to be protected : monuments, architectural ensembles and sites. It follows the definitions established by the Convention of 1972 for the protection of World Heritage, cultural and natural and of Resolution (76) 28 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the adaptation of laws and regulations systems to the needs of integrated conservation of architectural heritage.  

 

B. 2 - 3  Variations from country to country

 

Spain has adopted a classification inspired by the Council of Europe's, whilst adding and integrating some values coming from anthropology.

 

Differences still exist regarding some categories. If Rural heritage means for France civil and religious buildings, it is not the same situation in some German Länders where civil architecture is the only type taken into consideration.

 

We are aware that the analysis of this specific point should be developed if any general programme has to be launched. 

 

 

B - 2 - 4 New key words

 

Intangible

 

One of the key issues is folklore. The question was officially opened on April 24^th 1973 by Bolivia for adding a new article to the Convention on copyright. In December 1984 a Committee of experts gathered by UNESCO and The World Organisation on intellectual property proposed the project of a new treaty.

 

In 1989, UNESCO adopted a Recommendation regarding safeguarding of popular and traditional culture. As the word popular is being more and more depreciated some expressions are better used : "traditional culture" or "traditional heritage". The definition used by UNESCO since November 15^th 1989 is : "Traditional and popular culture is the whole  creation coming from a cultural community, founded by tradition, expressed by a group or by individuals and recognised as answering the needs of the community as an expression of cultural and social identity, standards and values transmitted by oral communication, by imitation or other ways. The figures are, among others : language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rites, customs, habits, craft, architecture and other art forms."

 

"The cultural space" is of course not the same thing as a building where one can find material testimonies of human activities (monuments or ruins). The cultural space is an anthropological concept that refers to a /some place(s) where a traditional cultural expression is taking place. On May 18^th 2001, UNESCO presented a list of 19 master pieces regarding oral or immaterial heritage (for example in Europe the Elche ceremony (Spain) or in Sicily the "Opera dei pupi").

 

 

People

 

UNESCO launched also a project on "Human living treasures". The idea was that the preservation of intangible heritage through collection, records and archives is not sufficient. It is also important to ensure that the people keep some important knowledge, skills, craftsmanship and to be able to increase it and can transmit it in the best conditions to further generations. 

 

Memory and symbols

 

Various bodies in charge of heritage have recently emphasised a new added value for heritage : the idea of memory. One key example in the domain of "universal memory" is the case of an object : the original 200 page manuscript of the IXth Symphony by Beethoven which has been added as the 69^th object or work under this definition.

 

From Treaties to wars, from rural to post-industrial society

 

Following the recommendations of experts, the work on the memory of Europe will relate only to one restricted period of our memory, a period which is precisely carried by our memory. It will stress the past one hundred and fifty years of our history, since the signature of the great treaties that contributed to the cutting of Europe and the creation of nation states. It was during this period that the major transformations of our society have taken place: the passage from the traditional rural society to the urban one, the passage from the society of craftsmen to the industrial one, then the latter’s decline to post-industry. 

 

The century that has just ended is one in which respect for human values, human rights and democracy were marked as never before. It is the century during which the worst atrocities were perpetrated. It is to this memory that will be given priority, because it still speaks about itself. It deals with a period significant and rich in changes, which continues to be a strong reference in our lives and our contemporaneity, our spirits and our international relations.

 

 

            B - 3  Responsibilities

 

In this sector we have to underline the fact that co-operation between the central administrations sharing responsibilities is sometimes characterised by dramatic fights between heritage and cultural actions and policy sectors - environment, planning, economy - tourism with local delegations for large or decentralised countries.

 

A synthesis has been prepared about 27 countries by the Council of Europe in 1996.  It was based on article 10 of Granada Convention regarding "integrated conservation" linking conservation to the objectives of territorial planning and urbanism.

 

General trends : Normally, architectural heritage is under the competence of central states and local administrations are competent for legislation linked to territorial planning and urbanism, while getting delegations of power and decisions regarding monuments.

 

Some examples of the contrasted situations (reflected in the national reports).

 

In Germany, as quoted from the national expert’s report : « Decentralisation of governmental power and a division of labour even with non-governmental actors (NGO) is a « typical » aspect of many fields of political action in Germany.” In fact, the Länders are entrusted (law and administration) with the responsibility of architectural heritage protection. Each of them is free to manage these tasks with more or less staff. But territorial planning and urbanism at large are – under Federal Constitution – competitive jurisdictions and competences. The Federal laws linked to these domains constitute only general frames in which new regional laws or administrative regulations have to become integrated. In respect of the Federal law on building, municipalities are endorsed with the responsibility of urban planning and regulations on architecture. In certain case, they can achieve the same objectives of the cultural heritage federal administrations by implementing directly the Federal laws regarding monuments protection. 

 

It is not the same case in every federal state, even in the main lines. In Austria, the protection of monuments is endorsed by the State (through the Federal Institute for Historical Monuments part of the Federal Ministry for Science and Research) but territorial planning and buildings are endorsed by the federal entities. 

 

The models of Italy and Spain are close to each other but with a different extent in decentralisation. In Italy the national legislation for the protection of cultural and architectural goods is managed by the Ministry of cultural goods and landscapes with the help of decentralised services in region : the superintendents. The State kept back a large part of the decentralised responsibilities in 1977. That means that Regions have limited responsibilities left regarding territorial planning. The State is responsible for a huge architectural heritage in quality and quantity. 

 

In Spain the State is responsible for the administration the « historical heritage » which is under a specific nationl law for protection, with regards to the specific competence of the Autonomous Communities. The State kept only the direct management of the best know – but rather limited in number – heritage.

 

In the United-Kingdom the whole architectural heritage is covered since 1992 by « English Heritage », a non-governmental, quasi independent body. English Heritage is responsible for old monuments (with the exception of archaeological sites) but has to share responsibilities regarding the three categories of historical buildings with local authorities which have to implement the legislation under its control. Agriculture and forests »National Parks » and sites of exceptional beauty are under specific laws and authorities. 

 

In Norway and Finland responsibilities for architectural and natural heritage are in the same administrative hands i.e. the Ministry of Environment. In Denmark, the architectural heritage is directly under the responsibility of the National agency for forest and nature.  En Norvège et Finlande les compétences pour le patrimoine architectural et celles pour les sites naturels se trouvent administrativement réunies. In Sweden the cultural and natural heritages have been separated since the creation  of  a ministry in charge of culture (Ministry of Education). It is the same in Iceland. 

 

A common trend of these various Europeans systems is that municipalities are generally in charge – as a basis of complex administrative relations - of attributing authorisations for new buildings or demolishing.  

 

            B 4 / Conventions

 

They have to be underlined as they are at the same time regulations that countries have to follow and the basis on which countries can implement co-operations, work together or accommodate foreign specialists in the frame of a bilateral agreement. This is more specifically the case in the training sector when exchange of skills or knowledge are organised in a bi or multi co-operative program.

 

One can find in the appendix more detailed accounts and precise articles relating to the points we have raised

 

Athens Charter for restoration of historical monuments (Athens 21-30 October 1931).

 

International Charter on conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (Venice Charter - 1964)

 

European Charter for architectural heritage  (Council of Europe October 1975)

 

Convention for safeguarding architectural heritage in Europe (Council of Europe, Granada October 1985)

 

European Convention of La Valette for protection of archaeological heritage (Council of Europe, January 1992)

 

European Landscape Convention adopted by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers on July 19^th 2000 signed by 18 countries in Florence on October 20^th 2000. 

 

We have also to mention The European Convention on infractions linked to protection and restitution of cultural items (Delphi June 23 1985).

 

 

B 5  / Raising the question of ownership.

 

 

Cultural heritage is not (or is no more) in the hands of States and is essentially the property of local communities, local authorities or even private owners. This implies that rather complex managing structures (specific consortiums, semi-publics, mixed-financed bodies) are in charge of management. 

 

Different models of co-administration have been progressively implemented where the Regions hold a principal financial role and mediate between the central state which conserves its role in legal fields, of classification or protection, and the public or semi public management organisations which act on the territories by delegation of the state, the non governmental organisations who implement project work - sometimes with considerable implications, equally with the English National Trust - and others which bring their finance and are often managers of the sites.  There are legal and financial assemblies which pass by inter-ministery and inter regional co-operations and connect central directors of regional planning, the regional conservations and implement work of inter-ministery conventions, all like the conventions of the United States.

 

When this concerns figures we have to be extremely prudent. The economic value of heritage is the object of very few studies, contrary to the rest of the cultural industry market.  To quote Xavier Greffe : "The objects of demands and offers of heritage do not merge.  The demand is the beginning of a demand of aesthetic "services" which suppose in general a beginning of an administration of heritage considered good, sometimes the same with complete readministration.  The offer is the beginning of a support which doesn't produce as priority, an only service, the right to watch or at least, the right to visit, it doesn't start to offer the service and not adequately with the demand which if the holder of the capital undertakes to organise it."

 

If we can produce an economic analysis of the administration, it is difficult to do the same for those which concern the good intangibles and the natural spaces, even the immaterial heritage.

 

Recently, the concept of durable development was added, which causes the economic component of administration to be inscribed in a non-profit organisation, but the participation of the local actors are the fruits of the collective investments, and this is long term.

 

Within this frame the sharing of the expenditure of heritage and museums between the states, the communes, the departments and the regions, varies extremely between countries.  Only one double standard seems to prevail, the importance of the European structural funds, the Leader and interreg programmes, thus the specific help programmes Phare and Tacis for the Central and Eastern countries of Europe, which since some years of specific manner, but significant, the programme Culture 2000.

 

The detailed analysis in terms of financial assemblies between the different public and private partners, national and local have been reunited by the Institute on the occasion of the setting  of cultural and tourist values of certain routes. They are constituted of the models which we have brought to retain the idea, - taking into account the complexity of cultural and heritage factors implemented - each case is very specific and right to make the object of an "à la carte study".

 

 

B 6 / The growing importance of the insertion of cultural heritage in local development policies, more specifically in tourism integrated projects.

 

B 6 - 1 Museums

 

The museums have always occupied a major place in tourism.  At the same time places of conservation and knowledge, but also, more and more often windows and interpretation sites which "explain" a subject, and provide an explanation in the form of permanent or temporary expositions, but also give a territory suggested to read to be discovered in the form of a "diffuse" museography, a French example being the eco-museums which remain perfectly conclusive.

 

It is good to know that the success of museums is the equal of success at heritage sites.  The museography institutions of town centres have privilages in terms of frequentation (5.7 million visitors to the British Museum in London in 1995, in the region of 5 million for the Louvre in recent years - the figure is situated at around 1.5 million at the beginning of the 80's, near to a million for the Galleries of Offices à Florence).  The museums of the central and oriental European countries not being in remainder, the same is the most recent phenomenon : more than half a million visitors to the Galerie Nationale de Prague at the end of the 90's.

 

 

B 6 - 2 Celebrations

 

All the European countries came to implement a work of national celebration : the bicenetary of the French Revolution, Hungarian Millenium, the celebration of founding historic poeple, great writers, artists or ancient musicians (Birthday of Victor Hugo, of Mozart - which gave a theme to a cultural route - ) even contemporaries : the case in 2003 of Jacques Brel or Simenon in Belgium.  The other tourist operators were more and more associated with every step.

 

If we take it in account the European value abroad and the co-operations around a European figures (Mozart for a decade of European countries in 1991 or Victor Hugo for France, Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in 2002 for example), the choice of people doesn't remain less complex, then it is into positive or negative or with the ambiguity of divergent readings.  For example, does one put with the dimensions of Luther or Voltaire the others, Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon?  More, the often simple utilisation at the time of national celebrations, in the imposing frame of school programmes or in the tourism funds on the historic routes or the museum houses, for not to quote in examples, makes it necessary to put a work though rigorous choices.

 

It is in this domain of mediation in the direction of the public, but also always in cultural tourism where one can lean on the role of the centres of interpretation.  Those that rest in the permanent or specific expositions, the documentary places treaties in a new manner, turn towards a large public or towards targeted publics, they present a certain interest and have brought a certain transfrontal co-operation.   

 

 

B 6 - 3 Tourism and cultural heritage

 

But if mass tourism constitutes a danger to the heritage, tourism taking as its objective cultural practice as a means - a priori new - of gaining a share of the market, is essentially tourism at all risks. These dangers are caused by the strong contradictions that traverse it. Indeed, apart from tourism professionals, without whom the implementation of such products would not exist or would be confined to simple individual steps, an ensemble of partners take part in the development of the offer, among others professionals from culture, religious organisations, public and elected officials, who all naturally express contradictory wishes.

 

On the one hand, it is about researching the cult and integrity of cultural facts, about the need to respect the charters and conventions on the protection and valorisation of cultural heritage, about the desire for a balanced and durable cultural development of the territory, which implies a long preliminary analysis and expensive investments. But it is also about the involvement of social and educational actions, which make the "visited" also take part in the constitution of the offer, so that it is at the same time the reflection of their past identity, without folklorisation, and of their current social reality, without exclusion. One does not show a patrimony in an innocent way, even less so when it is related to a recent and sometimes painful past.

 

On the other hand, one would tend rather to privilege market laws by instrumentalising culture towards its most attractive avatars, by choosing an offer for leisure that satisfies the greatest number within leisure or theme parks, not all of which found their public. Or, on the contrary, one seeks demonstrations of prestige reserved for an elite and, by establishing an economic partnership turned towards the priority of luxury equipment, one restores castles and villas, gardens and residences to recreate the "charm of the past".

 

One could quote tens of meetings held within large international organisations, such as the pastorals of tourism on the question of cultural tourism. It led to an ensemble of codes of practice and charters, regularly brought up to date. But some of these organisations also encouraged the practical implementation of these resolutions in the form of topics, roads or transcontinental or European routes. At a meeting held in Brussels on November 8 and 9, 1976, various cultural and tourist partners brought together by the ICOMOS signed the Charter of cultural tourism. Without quoting all its terms, one can consider the second paragraph of the first version: "Considered from the point of view of the quarter of a century to come, located in the context of the phenomena of expansion fraught with consequences confronting Humanity, Tourism seems one of the phenomena likely to exert on the environment of Man in general, on sites and monuments in particular, an extremely significant influence. To remain bearable, this influence must be carefully studied and form the object of a concerted and effective policy, on all levels. Without claiming to answer this need completely, the current approach, limited to cultural tourism, is believed to constitute a positive element of the necessary global solution." The most recent version rightly denounces the way in which thirty years of globalisation caused devastations and the extent to which, as in the European Landscape Convention, the respect and involvement of the "communities of reception and of local populations" are now requested, in a shared responsibility between the public and the private sector. Lastly, while insisting on the quality of the interpretation of the heritage and on the "broad redistribution of benefits", this Charter covers the two principal grounds where the conflicts of interest are: the ground of the media and that of the economy.

 

 

B 6 - 4 Extension of cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe

 

After a long period during which cultural tourism was only cantered on large Eastern cities  like Berlin, Prague, Budapest or Krakow new destinations in « virgin » areas are appealing. 

 

The case of Baltic cities and regions is certainly one of the most significant one. One can say that a spirit close to the Hanseatic League time prevails. Themes like the Vikings, Hanseatic sites or cities, fortresses have been quickly adopted.  

 

But we are developing as a study case the efforts made by the National ICOMOS Committees of the Balkans to launch cultural itineraries in South-East Europe.  

 

The case of trails in the rural space of North Romania, or in Transylvania is also in the way of achievement and is appealing German or Hungarian tourists. The Baroque cities in Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia or Croatia, as well as transborder co-operation between Hungary and Slovakia regarding industrial heritage are new horizons for tourism. 

 

 

B - 7  The growing importance of cultural landscape and natural heritage.

 

To come back to the new European Landscape Convention, we have to emphasise the fact that Chapter III is entirely devoted to  European co-operation through various articles :

 

Article 7 International policies and programmes

 

Article 8 Mutual assistance and exchange of information (pooling and exchange of experience, and the results of research projects). To quote : "At the same time, the growth of electronic communication and the arrival of the internet have provided radically improved tools for exchanging ideas and, indeed, for the technical study of landcapes. These developments create a much wider basis for the exchange of ideas and mutual support than was possible even a decade ago, allowing local actors throughout Europe to take part and this creating a true "Landscape democracy".

 

As far as the Convention is rather new we can only mention some preliminary schemes or rather intentions : the industrial landscape that North of France and Belgium share in common, the trans-Pyrenees actions for protection and valorisation of rural and mountain landscapes. 

 

The European Institute of cultural routes established new networks between professionals of Eastern and Western Europe. Missions and experts conferences were implemented in Lithuania (with a clear co-operation between Lithuanian and Luxembourg governments and the participation of experts coming from Italy, United-Kingdom, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria… 

 

Article 9 Transfrontier landscapes

 

Article 10 Monitoring of the implementation of the Convention ("It transpires that it would be easier to achieve the objectives of the convention if the representatives of Contracting Parties had the possibility of meeting regularly to devise joint co-ordinated programmes and of jointly monitoring the application of the convention").

 

Article 11 Landscape awards of the Council of Europe.

C - GENERAL FRAME OF THE INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SECTOR.

 

C- 1   Classical fields

 

The importance of mobility, foreign stays, exchange in research or practice not only for creators, but also for architects, decision-makers, landscape planners and a large set of very specialised professions is a common trend.

 

The European Charter of the Architectural Heritage adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 September 1975 and the Declaration of Amsterdam, proclaimed by the Congress on the European Architectural Heritage of 24 October 1975, were the key texts, referring to the "fundamental need for better training programmes to produce qualified personnel. These programmes should be flexible, multi-disciplinary and should include courses where on-site practical experience can be gained" and highlighting the need "to develop training facilities and increase prospects of employment for the relevant managerial, technical and manual skills. The building industry should be urged to adapt itself to these needs. Traditional crafts should be fostered rather than allowed to die out".

 

We have to quote Jean-Louis Paulet : "It is evident that international exchanges are developing in the training field, which contribute very effectively to diversifying the professional practices of one country by contribution from its neighbours, thus confirming and continuing a certain universality of building techniques, adapted over the centuries."

 

It concerns also the status of professionals in the field of restoration and the state of the market.

 

Others examples.

 

Private initiatives backed by countries and / or European Institutions:

 

The European Association of Firms Specialising in the Restoration of the Architectural Heritage (launched in 1992). Examples of sites : Belgium and Dubrovnik…it is therefore important that the trainer should possess a philosophy and sensibility which match up to the demands of restoration in Croatia. It is essential to maintain a dialogue between trainers, trainees and the relevant administrations in order to optimise training in the worksite context.

 

The CEDEFOP (the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) established by Council Regulation 337/75 as a non-profit-making body, independent of the Commission linked to EC Treaty (Article 127) placing vocational training squarely within the responsibility of the Member States (subsidiary principle) but requiring that the EU support and suppelemnt Member State's efforts.

http://cedefop.eu.int

 

The UK COTAC (Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation)

 

The Nordic Centre for Heritage Skills and Crafts in Raadvad….

 

And others.

 

One key issue has been underlined by many experts : the necessity in training in inventory and documentation techniques.

 

 

C. 2  - More recent fields of co-operation

 

C - 2 - 1 Central and Eastern Europe

 

Some specific needs have arisen in recent years linked to the implementation of new laws and regulations regarding heritage in Eastern and Central European countries. Co-operation between France and Romania or Bulgaria, Germany and Hungary, as examples, have been established.

 

Under the umbrella of the Council of Europe and UNESCO recommendations, some bi-lateral co-operation is established for World Heritage preservation : Bulgarian Zographski Monastery of Mount Athos (Greece-Bulgaria) is one example.

 

Many bilateral co-operations linking Western and Eastern Europe could be presented. Among others:

 

The "Opificio delle Pietre Dure" is currently working for the restoration of Baroque paintings in Lithuania on behalf of a bilateral agreement between Italy and Lithuania.

 

The Luxembourg Government is including a technical assistance programme for the restoration of Lithuanian Parks designed by Edouard André, the French landscape architect of the end of the 19^th century who was also responsible of designing Luxembourg-city gardens after the demolition of the Vauban fortifications.

 

Other bilateral agreements are clearly addressed at memory, for example :

 

- the restoration of two synagogues by the German authorities in Vilnius, Lithuania (inauguration au April 12^th 2003), as a testimony of the black hours of German occupation;

 

- or the restoration of a Baroque house on Mica Place in Sibiu, Transylvania (Romania) by the Luxembourg Government, in the frame of a convention linking the two countries and the Evangelist Church which is the owner (budget 800.000 Euros). This house is suppose to become at the same time the settlement for the Academy of Romanian - Transylvanian language and a tourist office, with a resource centre for cultural routes. It has to be remembered that this part of Romania is mainly German-speaking and that a community of around 6.000 people are speaking the Luxembourg dialect. Two emigration waves (12^th and 18^th centuries) of peasants coming from the Grand-Duchy brought their own language with them. The Government of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg also launched trails of cultural heritage interpretation in the cities of Sibiu (Budget : 90.000 Euros) and Alba Iulia (Budget : 85.000 Euros);

 

- last example : the co-operation between Luxembourg and Poland in Wroclaw for the restoration of the site where 13 Luxembourg citizens died during World War II. (Budget 50.000 Euros).    

 

During his recent visit to Romania, Hungary and Poland, French Minister of Culture Jean-Jacques Aillagon signed agreements regarding important helps in the cultural heritage sector. This is only one example of a more general trend that is developing for linking Western to accession countries.

 

C 2 . 2 Risks, restitution

 

There are some recommendation regarding the protection of cultural heritage against unlawful acts (Example Recommendation N° R (96)6 aiming mainly at measuring risks and putting forwards preventive and responsive measures, as well as emergency plans.  Another one was adopted (97)2 against physical deterioration due to pollution and other similar factors.

 

But the question of restitution in case of public or private illicit trafficking trade is under consideration of various international organisations. After European Parliament resolution, the European Commission set up a European Forum where States and professionals can exchange experiences.

 

Some questions are pending between United-Kingdom and Greece, as an example, but we can easily imagine that many bilateral "co-operation" and negotiations are opened with candidate countries.

 

A good case is also illustrated by the "Restitution after war". National offices like the Belgian O.R.E. (Office de Récupération écomique) in Belgium was in charge to bring back some 1.150 economical of cultural goods despoiled during the Second World War. More recently the question of the restitution of some art pieces to Jewish family has been raised in France and Belgium.

 

A more recent case was highlighted : the restitution by Giuliani Urbani, Italian Minister for Culture of a collection of antique coins dating 4th century B.C. to Cyprus. These coins were exported illegally and kept by the Italian police specialised in preventing trafficking.

 

 

C - 2 - 3 Heritage and identity challenging globalisation

 

Regarding the last meeting of the European Conference of ministers responsible for the cultural heritage and the attempt to face the challenge of globalisation (Portoroz 2001). This conference called upon national, regional and local authorities (we underlined some key words)to  :

 

-       promote the integrated conservation of cultural heritage, that respects the diverse contribution of past and present communities, their culture and patterns of use;

 

-       develop heritage policies which intrinsically benefit, preserve and enhance the identity and individuals and communities and cultural diversity…;

 

-       develop international and trans-frontier co-operation and agreements between States, based on reciprocal responsibility for preserving and enhancing the distinctive heritage of relevant communities;

 

-       encourage trans-frontier contacts and shared projects between related communities and individuals…

 

"We agree that cultural heritage policies should aim to preserve cultural diversity, and encourage inter-cultural dialogue, and should be focussed on initiatives in the field of education, awareness-raising and life-long training…History teaching should not be limited to commenting on national or local heritage, but also put forwards its trans-national character." 

 

 

C 3 / Common events - Common interpretation

 

C - 3 - 1 Common events

 

The importance - and the success - of common events like the European Heritage Days, the European Heritage classes, the European cultural routes based on permanent or semi-permanent co-operation has to be considered more precisely in trans-frontier areas.

 

Regarding the European Heritage, days efforts have been made to propose common subjects to many countries at the same time (heritage and society, industrial heritage…) but difficulties were encountered regarding a true co-operation. The situation is much easier when neighbouring countries are working together on heritage dating from times when borders were slightly different (religious heritage within Luxembourg, Germany, France and Belgium last September), or when economic activities have been shared in a common industrial channel or production line (industrial heritage in the Grande Région, transborder mining industry between Belgium and French Nord-Pas-de-Calais).

 

C - 3 - 2 Common information

 

The importance of working on common data, web-sites, guidebooks, information set is well illustrated in the "Association des Musées de la Grande Région" that was launched in 1998. This is a transborder and 4 nationality network. The work on the museum has been extended to a great varieties of sites (Commemorative places, monuments, cultural foundations, N.G.Os engaged in heritage and museums).  (2003….). A guidebook on cultural routes in the Grande Région, funded by central governments, German Länders and Belgium communities and regions is also under way.

 

A very similar situation is occurring between France and Germany (Alsace and Bade-Württemberg), as well as North Switzerland. For almost ten years a leaflet presenting public and private gardens has been published by the Regional Directorate for culture every year in June.

 

Other examples concerning museums could be underlined for French and Spanish Catalonia.

 

 

C - 3 - 3 For a European interpretation of heritage : common roots, common sources, inter-culturality…

 

 

Heritage is mediatised. Heritage is a medium. And for this reason it is the subject of multiple discourses, but also, more recently, of commercial recovery by the societies that have the means of digitalisation and information networks. Discourses appear in guides, tourist booklets, internet sites and multimedia products. States or operators are meant to ask a practical question: how does one interpret cultural heritage in European terms? And this by taking into account two considerations: the multicultural dimension of heritage and the plural dimension of visiting (if it is a monument) or of its practice (if it is a tradition, know-how, or a festival).

 

Among all the possible topics that of the "Fortified military architectures" seemed to France and the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg best capable of enabling an analysis of the methods of a plural and multilayered interpretation of heritage. It indeed makes it possible to reveal the way in which zones of fracture and conflicts can be presented not only in their often dramatic historical authenticity, but also in terms of their constitutive contributions to the identity of European regions and of Europeans. The topic was in fact retained jointly by the two organisers of the seminar: the European Institute of Cultural Routes and the Service of Cities and Countries of Art and History - "Villes Pays d'Art et d'Histoire" (the French Ministry of Culture).  Enclosures, openings, mechanised and geometrised defense, foreign occupations, spectacle of power, dismantling, industrialisation, explosion of the suburbs, creation of iron curtains, walls of shame, quartering of communities and minorities are many concepts that accompany the ways of all urban people daily, as they traverse their own city or visit a territory foreign to them. These concepts that often became too familiar to be still perceived at their right dimension, deserve to be put in perspective, as much for those who adopt a city and adapt it as for those who simply visit it. From the history of Empires to social conflicts, the city and its fortifications, mental or physical, enable a reading of history and memory for the comprehension of the present.

 

Preparation

 

The two partners put together a scientific Committee made up of heritage animators, which, in a little over a year, tried to determine the needs and to propose a working framework. This seminar, in addition to historical interventions intended to give common reference marks, wanted to offer several levels of reading and several types of approach, based on a specific physical framework, particularly favourable, namely the town of Luxembourg and its fortifications:

 

-       an exemplary and comparative urban approach, by bringing together people concerned with safeguarding, developing and interpreting the fortifications representative of several European cities: Strasbourg, Rennes, Brussels, Bois-le-Duc, Lucques, Sibiu and Alba-Iulia...;

 

-       the approach of discovery, by carrying out on-site workshops, starting from a critical reading of two urban routes of the Town of Luxembourg: the Wenzel Route and the Vauban Route; 

 

-       the European approach, by eliciting a discussion about what constitutes the basis of a plural reading of the city and its fortifications – a very material heritage - and beyond, that of other patrimonial or cultural topics related to less material data: festivals, rites, religious influences....

 

 
D / CASE STUDIES

 

D - 1  Exchange of practices, knowledge and research

 

Continuous training and exchanges addressing Eastern and Central European countries have been implemented recently by Service "Villes et Pays d'Art et d'Histoire" of the French Directorate for Architecture and Heritage. It is in a way similar to the "Courants" programme designed by the "Département des Affaires internationales" to replace or enlarge "Courants d'Est" under the name of "Séjours culture".

 

It aims mainly at putting professionals from heritage, architecture and urbanism in "real" situations, not only in capitals or large cities, but better to immerse them in territories. Through the ministerial network "Villes et Pays d'Art et d'Histoire", with the help of AVEC network (European cities for culture). This programme is also connected to practical bi-lateral agreements for restoration. For example, a challenging programme has been for example inaugurated last year  between France and Romania and be confirmed by a recent agreement at ministerial level.

 

 

D.2 Transfer of experience  through Baltic States and more generally through Nordic countries

 

From 1989 onwards a bilateral agreement was signed between  Poland and Lithuania (ex Grand-Duchy of Lithuania) regarding common cultural heritage. Two groups of experts met twice a year for studying Polish heritage in Lithuania and reverse. Accounts were published. The work is now going slower. Some co-operation between the university of Vilnius and the University of Szamosc continue.

 

A co-operation was also established between the three Baltic States after the independence. This co-operation has been enlarged to the States situated around Baltic Sea. Four working and monitoring groups have been established with 2-3 experts for each country. They are working on subjects like : sub-aquatic heritage, coastal heritage, sustainable historic heritage and building preservation practices. Each of these groups is working on a specific concrete regional or national theme in order to prepare bids of the E.U. For example in the domain of building preservation, Estonia has chosen to work on limestone, Lithuania on red bricks, Sweden and Latvia on wooden structures…

 

The Danes are responsible for a working group on sub-aquatic heritage, while Clapeida (Lithania) is working on heritage of lakes and rivers…and so on.

 

Common tools and methodologies have been elaborated and published, as well as lists of specialists and workshops and specialised institutions. They have recently adopted a new series of forums (3-6 April in Gdansk the next one will be devoted to sub-aquatic and coastal heritages). The preparation of some itinerary exhibitions is under way like the one on lighthouses. 

 

Much inter-university co-operation has also been established in various sectors : summer schools are organised regarding organ restorations with the Göteborg organ art centre.

 

For Lithuania it seems interesting to consider that the whole budget for heritage preservation is around 13 million litas (3 millions Euros) of which 300.000 Litas is devoted to co-operation with other countries.

 

 

D- 3 Competitions

 

D - 3 - 1 Nordic Timber Council and other actions concerning wooden architecture in Northern and Baltic countries

 

In Northern countries, wood is used for buildings of various kinds and uses, from simple rural dwellings to luxury cities buildings. Many competitions are organised not only for restoration, but also for "new" heritage. Norway, Finland and Sweden have settled on a common organisation for such co-operation under the name of Nordic Timber Council.

 

During 2000, Latvia organised a competition regarding wooden architecture with the help of Sweden (Koka Buves Latvija / Wooden buildings in Latvia 2000).

 

D - 3 - 2 Competition on contemporary architectural interventions in rural areas of Central and Eastern European countries

 

The idea was launched in the frame of cultural routes programme and based on the example of previous competition organised in the Grande Région. It was funded by the Culture and Territory planning ministries or Romania, the Directorate for Sites and Monuments of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg and the Directorate for Architecture and Heritage of the French Ministry of Culture. The first competition, whose regulation was published in January 1998, pursued two goals. It was a question of emphasising the contemporary architectural creation carried out by following local traditions and cultures, without overlooking current forms and materials. On the other hand, it was a question of creating an event likely to draw attention to the need for adopting a regulation concerning the insertion of new buildings in small cities and villages with architectural heritage, in which tourist activity can develop. The introduction to the regulation of the competition states clearly that it is addressed only to Central and Eastern European countries for constructions carried out between 1990 and 1997, that it will reward not only the architects, but also the owners or initiators

 

Lastly, circumstances had it that the meeting of the jury took place in Sibiu in May 1998 when the Ministry of Culture, under the aegis of the Presidency of Romania, joined an ensemble of European partners within the framework of a conference sponsored by UNESCO on the topic "Sibiu - European Confluences", which of course gave it a particular glamour and reinforced convergences of reflections on the protection of rural heritage. The zone of Sibiu, marked by multiculturalism, indeed preserves a rich cultural heritage formed partly during the medieval period and the Saxon emigration to Transylvania, in particular an ensemble of fortified churches and rural citadels. Since the twelfth century, the south-east, the centre and the north of Romania comprises of more than two hundred Saxon villages. This rural building heritage has been degrading quickly since the emigration of the Saxon population to the Federal Republic of Germany, which accelerated since 1968. The zone of Sibiu thus constitutes a very good example of a framework that should make it possible to implement a policy of durable development, founded on cultural tourism, agriculture and traditional arts.

 

A second competition was organised on the same basis in 1999.

 

-       in addition to new constructions, the prizes could be allotted to rehabilitations because the question of abandoned rural heritage is a phenomenon common to all Europe;

-       religious buildings were also included in the contest;

-       landscape interventions, which make it possible to take into account man and his environment, were also part of the eligible projects;

-       companies that play a significant part in the quality and success of the achievements could also receive prizes;

-       the files were to include a justifying description, in addition to plans and photographs;

-       finally, the concept of "rural character" based on the size of the villages - which should not exceed 10000 inhabitants - was reaffirmed.

 

Again gathered in Sibiu, this time during the launching of the Campaign "Europe, a Common Heritage", on September 13, 1999, the jury was impressed by the increase in number of projects: twenty-one applications coming, among others, from Romania, Czech and Slovak Republics, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Ukraine.

 

D - 4 The inter-university co-operation

 

A very vivid co-operation has been also engaged through the programme named CCEPUS : Central European exchange programme for University studies between Bulgaria, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia…and CROSS (Common project of educational co-operation of the Netherlands and some candidate countries).

 

 

D - 5  Sharing common policies : Grande Région (Germany Länders, Luxembourg, Belgium, France…) and other similar political bodies.

 

Since the middle of the 80's a very interesting co-operation model has been launched in the context of SAAR-LOR-LUX and has been progressively transformed and improved, reaching a true political agreement (Grande Région) and exploring specific themes every year (tourism and heritage in 2000). Commissions and experts are working the year long to prepare the resolutions of each year's Summit of the Head of State or Region. A permanent commission and a "Maison de la Grande Région" have been established recently under the lead of Jacques Santer.

 

 It is interesting to consider that culture and cultural heritage's themes have been chosen for the next years : industrial heritage, European figures, memory or highlights in creation.

 

 

D.6 Transborder workshops on rural habitat

 

In the context and the occasion of the European Year for rurality, a cultural route action was launched in 1987 as a series of 4 transfrontier trails based on rural dwelling archetypes (Mosellan, Lorraine, Gutland houses…).

 

The co-operation not only involved heritage and tourism operators, but also the Directorates for heritage and architecture, the development agencies, architects and schools of architecture, as well as regional and local authorities. They decided to work on a permanent workshop (ATEAR North) that launched competitions, published catalogues and practical guidebooks for encouraging good practice in restoration matters aimed at professionals, as well as owners.

 

Two workshops were launched in other European transborder regions (ATEAR Atlantic for Spain and Portugal) and a Mediterranean one. The ATEAR Atlantic is responsible of another set of 4 transfrontier trails between North of Portugal and Galicia.  

 

D - 7 Preparing 2007 European Capital for culture in the "Grande Région" (see appendix on coming events).

 

D - 8 The Central European Initiative

 

This initiative was born in Budapest (November 1989) under the name of Initiative 4 (Hungary, Italy, Austria and Yougoslavia). In May 1990, Czechoslovakia took part  (pentagonale), then Poland (hexagonale) and finally in 1992 after the adhesion of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina it became the Central European Initiative. Since 1993 Czech and Slovak republics are members. This initiative now has 17 Member States.

 

18 working groups have been launched, with one group for culture and education. The highlight in the cultural heritage sector was a series of nine exhibitions on the Baroque movement in Central Europe. Others are given in sectorial reports (meetings of translators and writer (Vilenica) or Mittelfest theatre festival initiative).

 

 

D - 9  Co-operations through various European themes - the case of Council of Europe cultural routes

 

It is difficult in the extent of this report to present the whole frame of the cultural heritage sector's governmental co-operation within the cultural routes programme. Many actions were launched under the umbrella of countries : the pilgrim routes (Spain and France), the Vikings routes and Hanseatic sites and monuments (Nordic countries), Parks and Gardens (Belgium, France, Czech Republic among others), Popular festival and rites (Belgium, Greece, Bulgaria, France…), as a few examples.

 

Their implementation is a very good exercise regarding the way that extensive pan-European programmes can enable multilateral co-operation backed and co-funded by countries, regions and the private sector. The textile route is now endorsed by the European Textile Network working in every one the 31 countries chosen by the European Commission for this report, as well as 17 other ones part of the European Cultural Convention. Some other examples have been mentioned on purpose in other parts of this report. The case of Baroque routes is certainly also very challenging with a co-operation that linked after 1991 a Central European initiative (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania) and was then  extended to Lithuania in 1996.

 

The question of rural habitat (architecture without borders) is developed in another chapter of this report.

 

The Northern Lights Routes, elected in 1997 have been developed and are still implemented through the co-operation of  a network of National Libraries and Universities of Nordic States and close to the Barents-Euro-Arctic Council. 

 

D - 10 Sub-regional co-operation linked to peace restoring process (The Itineraries of South-Eastern Europe - ICOMOS) - Pact of stability

 

In 1999 Icomos / Bulgaria promoted the Project "Cultural itineraries of South-Eastern Europe" addressing a key European territory, including: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

 

The aims of the Project "Cultural itineraries of South-Eastern Europe", backed by the Governments of the countries involved are related to the idea of helping the overcoming of this state whilst promoting the new role of the cultural heritage in the region. More precisely:

1. To indicate the conditions for activating the role of the cultural heritage of the region, as a precious and exceptional resource for stable regional development, which could provoke the creation of new working places, infrastructures and services, improve the living standard, attract investments etc.

2. To define for the first time the macro-structure of the heritage of the region, its identification as an integral system, as a community having its infrastructure, nuclei, zones and centres - and not as a mechanic sum total of isolated national systems. On this basis a unified concept for this heritage could be elaborated, for its common values and mutual influence - in order to make possible its popularisation and integration in the European culture.

3. To create effective regional co-operation in the frames of voluntary, independent and informal community of experts, their inner motivation being the common professional fate, shared principles and ethics concerning the heritage.

 

One of the final results of the Project was elaboration of five subject cultural itineraries of the region according to the following leading subjects:

 

- Antique archaeological zones;

- Fortifications;

- Religious centres and monasteries;

- Vernacular architecture;

- World heritage.

 

The project was presented during the European Heritage Days in Bulgaria (16-17 September 2000), dedicated to "Cultural itineraries" on International Workshop "Cultural Itineraries of South Eastern Europe". 

 

 

D - 11 Cases of emergency, after-war processes

 

Special funds have been created by the European Commission after the terrible flooding that last year affected Czech Republic and German Länders. It was difficult to get precise information from the countries that collaborated directly for helping museums and heritage sites, but some Eastern European countries have used bilateral agreements for facilitating immediate and short terms interventions in Prague.

 

Even if Bosnia-Herzegovina is not part of this report the international help regarding the restoration of Mostar bridges is symbolic of the importance of bilateral co-operation when peace restoration is part of the deal. The "small" bridge in Mostar  will be inaugurated next May. It has been not only restored but rebuilt with the financial help of Luxembourg Government (Budget 380.000 Euros) and Luxembourg is also contributing to the restoration of the main bridge through the work of an expert.

 

 

 

E / FIRST PART OF CONCLUSIONS - WHAT REMAINS REGARDING THE ROLE AND PLACE OF STATES - EMPHASISING NEW SITUATIONS

 

E - 1  Proper initiatives : Economy, ownership, facilitation

 

In the first place we have to consider that the remaining place of States within the European process has to be raised, not only because of the specificities of economic models for heritage, but mainly because of the situation of heritage ownership i.e. in hand of local authorities or private.   

 

More important is the fact – mentioned in various chapters of this report that the responsibility of States has to respect a series of Charters, Conventions, Recommendations and Resolutions in a very precise way, even more than for other cultural sectors. 

 

Frames and methodologies are precise and have been prepared in a multilateral policy and under the umbrella of intergovernmental bodies that they are members of. This explains why the budgetary lines are so very precise and that “ordinary” or « imposed » budgets are the most important and do not leave freedom for new initiatives. 

 

E  1 - 1 Ordinary budgets

 

It has to be clear that an important part of the budgets devoted to European co-operation in the sector of heritage is used :

 

-       for financing expert’s works or to accommodate foreign specialists for the practical implementation of the Conventions;

-       for the organisation of meetings in the frame of experts groups (E.U, Council of Europe, UNESCO);

-       or for the promotion of pan-European initiatives, as the European Heritage Days;

-       or simply for lobbying.

 

This is particularly the case in Central and Eastern European countries where these budgets are more and more under the name and budgetary line « European integration ». 

 

The second main budgetary line is devoted to professional and technical co-operation. 

 

 

E - 1 - 2 Exceptional or specific budgets

 

 

As regards other actions, and especially “heavy” investments like prestigious exhibitions, protection or restoration of a site in another country in the frame of bilateral agreements, it is rare that these actions are independent of a more general frame adopted or recommended by an Institution.

 

These co-operations are more and more often an answer to the urgency put forward by Institutions. The case of monuments considered in danger on the World Heritage List are a clear demonstration of it.

 

Some specific budgets do remain for circumstantial events like the promotion of national culture in a foreign country. But the events listed by the national experts show – perhaps too clearly – that heritage is largely situated behind exhibitions, festivals and literature.

 

E  1 - 3 Seed money

 

The fact that – more and more – Western European countries are involved in answering to E.U. bids through specific ministerial departments or through para-state bodies (AFAA, British Council…) is also a prominent trend. 

 

We have to be aware that a large part of the ministerial budgets devoted to missions and meetings (co-operation in the cultural heritage sector) act as seed money for obtaining European funds.

 

If it seems to be – and is truly – an indirect effect of co-operation it has not to be neglected.  All the more if the States are transferring their responsibilities and duties to local authorities, they are also recommending to private operators to address various forms of European centralised or structural funds.

 

Such attitudes, trends and mechanisms are also more and more  the case in Central and Eastern Europe. 

 

 

E – 2  The specific cases of federal state, or autonomous governments, or specific communities, or specific minorities arrangements

 

The model of Federal States, of Autonomous communities is largely becoming a common European trend in the whole of Europe. This leads to the preparation and the implementation of new models as regards European co-operation in the cultural heritage sector.

 

The kind of co-operation used by the operators acting in the cultural routes programmes are now in majority based on inter-regional and inter-collectivities agreements. We can say that almost all the initiatives that reached the Institute for three years are coming from the territories – whatever the level of responsibility- and no more from the States.

 

E – 3 Co-operations at State level coming or pushed by local authorities and civil societies needs and projects. The place of cultural routes as a facilitator and mediation frame.

 

One of the main remarks that we wanted to raise is that we have to face a complete inversion of the responsibilities and roles.

 

The States maintain their role as prescribers in terms of regulations and for prestigious events linking States. But public and private operators  are more and more at the origin of European co-operation projects. When the project is ready and partly financed, each of them, within a network, tries to concern States in order that the various levels be connected. 

 

It seems also clear that some integrated programmes like the European transfrontier or transborder cultural routes or the European Landscape Convention contributed to a fundamental change of behaviour as regards European co-operation in the cultural heritage sector. 

 

The perspective is less and less to co-operate within the same fields, the same categories of monuments (exchange of knowledge about archaeological sites, monuments, sites, materials…) but to work on territorial or urbanistic ensembles.  The themes are growing and more ambitious. They aim at sustainable development, at protecting environment, at re-establishing links between communities that were separated by borders or wars, in a word, at working on a common heritage. Large European themes – from the Baroque to transborder cultural landscapes, from European People to rural heritage offer this possibility of enlarged frames implementation.  

 

 

F / RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

Before giving some general overviews we want to list some questions or needs  that didn’t get true answers as regards European co-operation analysis, facilitation, incentive or funding :

 

-       the enlargement of cultural heritage definition, as regards conservation, restoration, protection techniques and valorisation. 

 

-       the facilitation of decentralised systems and managements as regards new responsibilities and new sources of funding ; 

 

-       the facilitation of better practices in the implementation of tourist projects and investments;

 

-       incentive programmes for operators using new technologies;

 

-       the growing need as regards methodologies and practices for the interpretation and mediation of cultural heritage in a European context, as a way of delivering common message to Europeans; 

 

-       incentive regulations for sponsorship and patronage; 

 

-       a general European frame as regards a reflection for the memorial component of heritage ; 

 

-       the question of access to heritage for handicapped or disabled people; 

 

-       incentive and long lasting programmes for exchange and encounters of young Europeans on complex heritage sites (minorities, sites of memory, heritage of suffering…).

 

 

And at last the analysis of the lack of actions through the National Institutes in foreign countries as regards the evolution of the heritage definition, and especially the importance of popular and territorial cultures in the accession countries. 

 

If the Commission is certainly aware of the abundant legislation regarding the main issue in cultural heritage - buildings and sites - we are convinced that some gaps have to be underlined regarding other items and could be subject to recommendations for new topics helped or encouraged by the Commission in future plans.

 

One case - among others - is the new uses or re-affectation of heritage, the second one is the lack of measures (for Central and Eastern European countries) or the weak ones in Western countries for protection and keeping of non tangible cultural heritage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

G - GENERAL OVERVIEWS – RESEARCH FOR OUTCOMES

 

New policy or new politics ?

 

The implicit question raised by the Commission is that of the incentive role it can play as regards subsidiarity. 

 

A lot of work has been done by intergovernmental Institutions and by ICOMOS in terms of frames, ethics and methodologies in this sector of culture. 

 

It is obvious that European States are aware of these Recommendations and that the budgets involved are mainly devoted to their implementation. The question is still pending for many accession countries which cannot face «heavy » investments and try to answer urgencies.    

 

The incentive programmes of the Commission could be focused on some of the key points of the list presented above, taking into account that the cultural heritage plays a formative and an interdisciplinary role.  

 

The question of the place and the role of archives in a Europe that is facing a shared memory is crucial. This is also a transversal issue that touches not only the conservation of built or natural heritage but also the memory of cultural and social activities as a whole. 

 

The incentive programmes for helping integrated projects proposing important European themes and linking heritage and creation (either in music, literature, architecture, popular culture…) seems equally important as well as any programme that helps a better knowledge of common roots, of the influence –even today – of the large European previous Empires. In a word to help in priority all the operators that are trying to give a clear and plural view on cultural heritage.   

 

But we have to consider that too often, bi or multilateral cooperation is conceived in the short term and corresponds more to political needs than to European strategies at large. 

 

It is certainly obvious - in respect of subsidiarity - to consider that States have to improve their relations with other European countries through culture and cultural heritage co-operation in the context of geopolitics or economic strategies and for gaining new markets.  

 

But the most important actions as regards cultural heritage are too often linked to circumstantial occasions. 

 

The European Commission should certainly answer European integration key issues in encouraging themes and actions that are going beyond immediate preoccupations and help Europeans to a better mutual understanding. 

 

Between a citizen of Granada influenced by Arab and Muslim cultures and a citizen of Vilnius worried by his or her recent past linked to German and Russian occupation who will be part - in a close future - of the same political space where they will work and travel freely, some fears still exist.

 

The European interpretation of a common heritage, as well as common practical projects will give the opportunity for a better understanding of otherness. 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices

 

1 – Remarks on the list of events planned for 2003 - 2006 based on interviews and answers of national reports

 

As not so much common initiatives seem to be planned by the countries – if we follow the national reports - we can announce two :

 

 

1^st example : 4 countries : Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium and France

 

 

Even if it will happen in 2007 a frame is under preparation in the Grande Région SAAR-LOR-LUX. During the 5^th and 6^th Summits of  the Head of States, French Region, German Länders and Belgian Region and Communities it has been decided to enlarge the idea of Luxembourg, European capital for culture to the whole Grande Région territory. Five themes of co-operation have been chosen :

 

Luxembourg : migrations

Sarre : Industrial culture and heritage

Rhine-Palatinate : European figures

Lorraine : History and memory

French and German speaking Belgian communities : Expressions of modernity.

 

2^nd example : 4 countries among the 31 and more outside :

 

A project of exhibition is under preparation on the theme of "At the borders of the main Empires" between Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria but also Turkey and the Federation of Russia. It will deal with the history of relationships between the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires.

 

 

2 - List of Charters and Conventions.

 

2.1 Sources on the internet :

 

International Charter on conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (Venice Charter - 1964)

http://www.icomos.org/docs/venise.html

 

European Charter for architectural heritage  (Council of Europe October 1975)

http://www.icomos.org/docs/euroch_f.html

 

Convention for safeguarding architectural heritage in Europe (Council of Europe, Granada October 1985)

http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/www/bh872_fr.html

 

2.2 General survey : (the survey is given in French as it can be obtained in English directly from the internet if needed). We underlined points relevant to the study

 

I.        La Charte d'Athènes pour la Restauration des Monuments Historiques

 

Adoptée lors du premier congrès international des architectes et techniciens des monuments historiques, Athènes 21 – 30 octobre 1931

Le chapitre VII de la Charte intitulé «  La conservation des monuments et la collaboration internationale » est subdivisé en 3 sous chapitres :

1)    Coopération technique et morale

2)    Le rôle de l'éducation dans le respect des monuments

3)    Utilité d'une documentation internationale

II.       Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture

Recommandation définissant les principes internationaux à appliquer en matière de fouilles archéologiques : Adoptée par la Conférence générale à sa neuvième session, New Delhi, 5 décembre 1956.

Le chapitre 3 intitulé « Le régime des fouilles et la collaboration internationale » est subdivisé en 9 sous chapitres :

 

1)    Autorisation de fouilles concédée à un étranger

2)    Collaboration internationale

3)    Garanties réciproques

4)    Conservation des vestiges

5)    Accès à la fouille

6)    Affectation du produit des fouilles

7)    Propriété scientifique; droits et obligations du fouilleur

8)    Documentation sur les fouilles

9)    Réunions régionales et séances de discussions scientifiques

 

III.          Charte de Venise de 1964 sur la conservation et la restauration des monuments  et des  sites

 

IIe Congrès international des architectes et des techniciens des monuments historiques, Venise, 1964. Adoptée par ICOMOS en 1965.

 

En matière de fouilles, l’article 15 prévoit que les travaux doivent être exécutés conformément à des normes scientifiques et à la "Recommandation définissant les principes internationaux à appliquer en matière de fouilles archéologiques" adoptée par l'UNESCO en 1956

 

IV.      Convention de L’UNESCO

 

Afin de remédier et d'assurer le mieux possible l'identification, la protection, la conservation et la mise en valeur adéquates du patrimoine mondial irremplaçable, les Etats membres de l'UNESCO ont adopté en 1972 la « Convention » concernant la protection du patrimoine mondial, culturel et naturel. Celle-ci complète les programmes nationaux de conservation du patrimoine et prévoit l'établissement d'un "Comité du patrimoine mondial", ainsi que la constitution d'un "Fonds du patrimoine mondial". Le Fonds et le Comité ont été créés en 1976.

 

Différentes formes d’assistance internationale sont mises en application au titre du Fond du patrimoine mondial :

 

-       Une assistance préparatoire

-       Une assistance d’urgence

-       La formation

-       La coopération technique

-       L’assistance à des activités d'éducation, d'information et de promotion

 

Par ailleurs, la « Protection nationale et protection internationale du patrimoine culturel et naturel » souligne que :

… les Etats parties à la présente convention reconnaissent qu'il constitue un patrimoine universel pour la protection duquel la communauté internationale tout entière a le devoir de coopérer.

Les Etats parties s'engagent en conséquence, et conformément aux dispositions de la présente convention, à apporter leur concours à l'identification, à la protection, à la conservation et à la mise en valeur du patrimoine culturel et naturel visé aux paragraphes 2 et 4 de l'article 11 si l'Etat sur le territoire duquel il est situé le demande. Chacun des Etats parties à la présente convention s'engage à ne prendre délibérément aucune mesure susceptible d'endommager directement ou indirectement le patrimoine culturel et naturel visé aux articles l et 2 qui est situé sur le territoire d'autres Etats parties à cette convention. (Article 6)

 

 

 

 

Organisation consultative

 

L’ICOMOS

 

L'évaluation des sites individuels proposés par les Etats parties en vue de savoir s'ils satisfont au critère et aux conditions d'authenticité / intégrité est effectuée par le Conseil international des monuments et des sites (ICOMOS).

 

V.       Convention européenne de La Valette, janvier 1992 pour la protection du patrimoine archéologique

 

Le Comité directeur du patrimoine culturel du Conseil de l'Europe (CDPAT) est chargé du suivi de la Convention européenne pour la protection du patrimoine archéologique (révisée) (1992), dite « Convention de La Valette ».

 

VI.      Résolution et déclaration de Portoroz du 5 – 7 avril 2001

 

5 e conférence européenne du patrimoine culturel, tenu à Portoroz (Slovénie) le 5-7 avril 2001

 

Résolution I : Le rôle du patrimoine culturel face au défi de la mondialisation

Résolution I : Les activité futures du Conseil de l’Europe en matière de patrimoine culturel, 2002 – 2005

 

 Aussi, lors de la réunion de Portoroz, les ministres inscrivent dans la deuxième résolution les missions d’un réseau de partage de données:

 

b)    offrir au public une source de données et d’expériences fondamentales et authentiques sur la gestion du patrimoine culturel en Europe ;

 

c)    jouer un rôle « d’observatoire » afin d’analyser et de prévoir les avantages que peut tirer du patrimoine culturel une société en mutation rapide ;

 

d)    faciliter le suivi du développement des politiques du patrimoine et de leur conformité avec les Conventions ;

 

e)    entretenir et développer des réseaux de coopération en matière de patrimoine, et favoriser la coopération transnationale, en particulier dans le domaine de l’archéologie et de la lutte contre le trafic illicite en matière de patrimoine culturel ;

 

f)      créer un portail du patrimoine culturel en vue de diffuser efficacement l’information à l’ère de l’électronique, de faciliter la constitution de forums professionnels interactifs et de réseaux de données, et d’encourager les personnes, surtout les jeunes, à s’intéresser à un patrimoine authentique.

 

g)    Veiller aux évolutions technologiques pour faciliter le développement d’une société d’information respectueuse de la diversité culturelle et linguistique en Europe via

 

-       une réflexion commune sur les questions juridiques liées à l’utilisation des images numériques du patrimoine,

-       l’identification d’outils méthodiques facilitant l’inter-opérabilité des bases de données scientifiques et la création de produits multimédia spécifiques.

 

 

 

VII.     Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine architectural de l'Europe signée à Grenade le 3 octobre 1985

 

CHAPITRE : Coordination européenne des politiques de conservation

Article 17

Les Parties s'engagent à échanger des informations sur leurs politiques de conservation en ce qui concerne:

1. les méthodes à définir en matière d'inventaire, de protection et de conservation des biens, compte tenu de l'évolution historique et de l'augmentation progressive du patrimoine architectural;

2. les moyens de concilier pour le mieux l'impératif de protection du patrimoine architectural et les besoins actuels de la vie économique, sociale et culturelle ;

3. les possibilités offertes par les technologies nouvelles, concernant à la fois l'identification et l'enregistrement, la lutte contre la dégradation des matériaux, la recherche scientifique, les travaux de restauration et les modes de gestion et d'animation du patrimoine architectural ;

4. les moyens de promouvoir la création architecturale qui assure la contribution de notre époque au patrimoine de l'Europe.

 

Article 18

Les Parties s'engagent à se prêter chaque fois que nécessaire une assistance technique mutuelle s'exprimant dans un échange d'expériences et d'experts en matière de conservation du patrimoine architectural.

 

Article 19

Les Parties s'engagent à favoriser, dans le cadre des législation nationales pertinentes ou des accords internationaux par lesquels elles sont liées, les échanges européens de spécialistes de la conservation du patrimoine architectural, y compris dans le domaine de la formation permanente.

 

Article 20

Aux fins de la présente Convention, un Comité d'experts institué par le Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe en vertu de l'Article 17 du Statut du Conseil de l'Europe est chargé de suivre l'application de la Convention et en particulier :

1. de soumettre périodiquement au Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe un rapport sur la situation des politiques de conservation du patrimoine architectural dans les États parties à la Convention, sur l'application des principes qu'elle a énoncés et sur ses propres activités ;
2. de proposer au Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe toute mesure tendant à la mise en œuvre des dispositions de la Convention, y compris dans le domaine des activité multilatérales et en matière de révision ou d'amendement de la Convention ainsi que d'information du public sur les objectifs de la Convention ;
3. de faire des recommandations au Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe relatives à l'invitation d'États non membres du Conseil de l'Europe à adhérer à la Convention.

 

Article 21

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne portent pas atteinte à l'application des dispositions spécifiques plus favorables à la protection des biens visés à l'Article 1 contenues dans

• la Convention concernant la protection du Patrimoine mondial, culturel et naturel du 16 novembre 1972 ;
• la Convention européenne pour la protection du patrimoine archéologique du 6 mai 1969.

 

VIII.    Convention de Florence

 

The European Landscape Convention, adopted by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers on 19 July, was signed by 18 countries during a Ministerial Conference in Florence.

In the presence of Franco Danieli, Italian Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, representing the Italian Chairmanship of the Council's Committee of Ministers, the convention was signed by the Ministers responsible for landscape issues from Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey.

 

 

 

 

3 - List of persons involved.

 

Direct collaborations :

 

Sorina Capp, Administrative assistant, European Institute of Cultural Routes, Luxembourg.

 

Claudia Constantinescu, architect, Prodomus Institute, Bucarest.

 

Cyril Savin, project officer in Luxembourg National Service for Sites and Monuments, Luxembourg.

 

Catherine Wolstencroft, assistant for the English version.

 

List of experts who have been interviewed or who sent specific reports.

 

Georges Calteux, Director Luxembourg National Service for Sites and Monuments, Luxembourg. (Budgets, strategies, practical co-operations).

 

Michaela Chalupova, Narodny trust Slovenska; Bratislava, Slovak Republic. General account.

 

Juris Dambis, Head of cultural heritage protection and European co-operation in Riga, Latvia. General account.

 

Guy Dockendorf, Director General for Culture, Ministry for Culture, Higher Education and Research Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. General account.

 

Alfredas Jomantas, European officer, Service of protection for Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Vilnius Lithuania. General account.

 

Todor Krestev, ICOMOS President Bulgaria, Architect, Professor in Architecture history,  University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria. South-Eastern co-operation.

 

Colette Rousseau, Head of cultural Heritage. Ministry of culture of the French speaking Belgian Community. Immaterial heritage and archives.

 

Vladimir Simon, Director for European integration, Ministry of Culture and cults, Bucharest Romania. Events in South-Eastern Europe.

 

 

 

4 - Questionnaire and list of Institutions to which the questionnaire was sent:

 

 

A list of institutions, mainly museums, built heritage and archaeological sites, even universities have been chosen in the various countries subject to the report of thousands of partners working on the cultural routes. Because of a lack of time we have sent only 60 copies of this questionnaire and our choice's criteria were based on :

 

-       their  permanent involvement in the cultural routes programme for at least five years or more (before and after their election in a frame, theme or network).

-       Their role as trans-national or national leaders in various networks.

-       A balance between 23 themes elected between 1987 and 1998 and 40 under preparation since.

 

 

They received a questionnaire partly based on the structure of the study, partly based on specific questions regarding events or actions funded within a bi or multilateral co-operation process in which they have been (or could be in the future) engaged.

 

The main questions were :

 

Pouvez-vous nous indiquer les actions de formation engagées ou préparées en commun avec d'autres structures comparables à la votre: invitations, séjours, échanges universitaires ou techniques et de métiers ?

 

Could you please indicate training actions or sessions prepared in common with other institutions in the same field : invitations, stays, scholar exchanges, technicians exchanges?

 

Pouvez-vous nous indiquer des actions de communication, publication ou diffusion réalisées en commun avec d'autres pays sur la base de financements nationaux, sub-régionaux ou régionaux (Nous entendons surtout par région des pouvoirs autonomes) ?

 

Could  you please indicate communications or dissemination programmes prepared in common with other countries and backed by national, sub-regional or regional funding (mainly regions entrusted of autonomous powers by law) ?

 

Avez-vous participé à des échanges et des coopérations en matière de recherche ?

 

Did you participate directly in the research of co-operations or exchanges ?

 

Est-ce que vous avez bénéficié d'actions de coopération en matière de patrimoine menées par les Institut culturels à l'étranger (Instituts culturels français, Goethe-Institut, Cervantès, Institut italien…) ?

 

Have you been part of a co-operation regarding cultural heritage issues prepared by cultural institutes of foreign countries (French Institute, Goethe Institute, Cervantès, Italian Institute…)?

 

Pouvez vous nous indiquer des événements très significatifs qui se dérouleront dans votre pays d'ici 2006 même si ils ne sont pas organisés par les Etats centraux dès l'instant où ils peuvent amener les Etats à s'engager financièrement.

 

Could you please indicate significant events that will take place in your country before 2006 (organised or funded by Central State)?

 

N.B. Il faut exclure tous les projets déjà soutenus par la Commission Européenne (Capitales européennes de la culture, Culture 2000…etc.)

 

N.B. Projects funded by the European Commission (European capitals or cities for culture, Culture 2000…etc) have to be excluded of your answer.

 

 

Only 15 institutions among the 60 sent back an answer. Some other 15 were contacted directly by phone.

 

List of institutions that sent answers or material:

 

Austria

 

OK Centrum Linz

 

Belgium

 

Musée Royal de Mariemont.

Musée du masque et du carnaval de Binche.

 

Bulgaria

 

University of Sofia.

 

Cyprus

 

None

 

Czech Republic

 

None

 

Denmark

 

None

 

Estonia

 

None

 

Finland

 

France

 

Musée de Normandie Caen

Jardins de l'Imaginaire, Terrasson

 

 

Germany

 

Center for Baroque research, Munich.

 

Greece

 

Silk Museum of Soufli

Neo-Hellenistic research centre

Benaki Museum

 

Hungary

 

Vac museum.

 

Iceland

 

None

 

Ireland

 

None

Italy

 

Università internazionale dell'Arte

Via Francigena Association

 

Latvia

 

Directorate for heritage, city of Riga

 

Liechtenstein

 

None

 

Lithuania

 

National Museum of Art, Vilnius

Amber Museum, Palanga.

 

Luxembourg

 

Musée National d'Art et d'Histoire.

Bibliothèque Nationale.

 

Malta

 

University of La Vallette, Baroque study centre

 

The Netherlands

 

Tilburg textile Museum.

 

Norway

 

Oslo Cathedral.

 

Poland

 

Textile Museum Lodz.

 

Portugal

 

None

 

Romania

 

Euroatelier Association

Art Museum of Sibiu

National Museum of Art

 

Slovak Republic

 

None

 

Slovenia

 

Spain

 

El-Andalus Foundation

Foundation for Castillan language

 

Sweden

 

University of Gotland - Viking Heritage

 

Turkey

 

None

 

 

United Kingdom

 

County Council of Cornwall - European office

Manchester Gallery of costumes

 

 

We were prepared to present a frame and comparative analysis of the answers but we found more significant - regarding the urgency - to consider only the main trends that have been presented in various parts of the report. 

 

 

Pouvez-vous nous indiquer les actions de formation engagées ou préparées en commun avec d'autres structures comparables à la votre: invitations, séjours, échanges universitaires ou techniques et de métiers ?   Could you please indicate training actions or sessions prepared in common with other institutions in the same field : invitations, stays, scholar exchanges, technicians exchanges?	Almost all the structures are engaged in common programmes but it is not always easy to distinguish between exchanges backed totally by countries in bi-lateral agreements and those which are partly funded by other programmes and especially those linked to Tempus, EVS and others.
Pouvez-vous nous indiquer des actions de communication, publication ou diffusion réalisées en commun avec d'autres pays sur la base de financements nationaux, sub-régionaux ou régionaux (Nous entendons surtout par région des pouvoirs autonomes) ?   Could  you please indicate communications or dissemination programmes prepared in common with other countries and backed by national, sub-regional or regional funding (mainly regions entrusted of autonomous powers by law) ?	A short list has to be given and because the examples were rare, we chose to underline some of them which date from the 90'.   Among the great exhibitions "The Vikings" (1993-1994) is one. It involved French AFAA, German Federal level and Denmark through a national museum.   Two exhibitions regarding the Normans in Normandy and the Normans in Italy were funded by France and Italy and shown in both countries.   An exhibition on Polish textiles which took place in Terrassa museum was funded by Poland and the Generalitat de Catalunya.   In a way we can say that the large exhibition "Mare Balticum" held in Copenhagen during the last Danish Presidency (on fortresses and visual arts) was co-funded by States around the Baltic Sea regarding the large number of items involved in the heritage sector, the loans and the participation of experts, close to the curator, Marie-Louise von Plessen.   More than twenty common leaflets, booklets, common cards were reported. But most of them are co-funded by State and local authorities.
Avez-vous participé à des échanges et des coopérations en matière de recherche ?   Did you participate directly to research co-operations or exchanges ?	Same remark as for the first question.
Est-ce que vous avez bénéficié d'actions de coopération en matière de patrimoine menées par les Institut culturels à l'étranger (Instituts culturels français, Goethe-Institut, Cervantès, Institut italien…) ?   Have you been part of co-operation regarding cultural heritage issues prepared by cultural institutes of foreign countries (French Institute, Goethe Institute, Cervantès, Italian Institute…)?	Only one answer regarding historical parks and gardens for French Institute in Florence.   The other answers are mentioning help for accommodation or social events.
Pouvez vous nous indiquer des événements très significatifs qui se dérouleront dans votre pays d'ici 2006 même si ils ne sont pas organisés par les Etats centraux dès l'instant où ils peuvent amener les Etats à s'engager financièrement.   Could you please indicate significant events that will take place in your country before 2006 (organised or funded by Central State)?	The answer is desperately : “we don’t know”.

 
5 - References

 

We have chosen only items that seem relevant to the present study

 

UNESCO

 

Pierre Pichard. Après un séisme : mesures d'urgence, évaluation des dommages. CLT / 84 / WS / 14.

 

Criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List.

 

 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

 

Twentieth-century architectural heritage : strategies for conservation and promotion. Colloquy organised by the Council of Europe with the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research and the Bundesdenkmalamt. Vienna (Austria), 11-13 December 1989. Council of Europe Strasbourg 1994.

 

Rapport sur les politiques du patrimoine culturel en Europe. Introduction et synthèse. Conseil de l'Europe - Comité du Patrimoine culturel. Strasbourg, 1996.

 

Recueil de textes fondamentaux du Conseil de l'Europe dans le domaine du patrimoine culturel. Conseil de l'Europe, Strasbourg 1997.

 

Strategies for vocational training in architectural heritage skills. Symposium organised by the Council of Europe. International Heritage Fair. Le Carrousel du Louvre, Paris, 13 April 1996. Cultural Heritage, N° 38. Council of Europe, Strasbourg 1998.

 

Patrimoine Européen / European Heritage 1994 - 1999 Cinq numéros parus.

 

Guidance  on inventory and documentation of the cultural heritage. Council of Europe, Strasbourg 2001.

 

ICOMOS

 

Los itinerarios como patrimonio cultural / Routes as part of our cultural heritage / Les itinéraires comme patrimoine culturel. Meeting of experts. Madrid 24-25 November 1994. Working papers collected by ICOMOS.

 

Key books

 

Collectif. Architecture rurale contemporaine. Rapport d'un concours d'architecture transfrontalier 1992/93. Ruralité-Environnement-Développement. Saarbrücken 1994.

 

Collectif. Bâtiments anciens - Usages nouveaux. Ruralité-Environnement-Développement. Attert 1996.

 

Collectif. Enduits extérieurs - Reflets des territoires. Ruralité-Environnement-Développement. Attert, 1997.

 

Collectif. Architecture nordique en bois. Nordic Timber Council. Malmö 1997.

 

Collectif. Public et sauvegarde du patrimoine. Cahier de sensibilisation. (Coopération Belgique, France, Irlande du Nord). Université Libre de Bruxelles. 1999.

 

Collectif. L'invitation au musée. Courrier du Patrimoine culturel de la Communauté française. N°1. Bruxelles, 1^er trimestre 2003.

 

CHOAY Françoise. L'allégorie du patrimoine. Le Seuil, la couleur des idées. Paris 1992 et 1996.

 

DEBRAY Régis (sous la direction de). L'abus monumental ? Actes des Entretiens du Paztrimoine. Editions du Patrimoine - Fayard. Paris 1999.

 

LENIAUD Jean-Michel. Chroniques patrimoniales. Editions Norma. Paris 2001.

 

PATIN Valéry. Tourisme et patrimoine en France et en Europe. La Documentation française. Paris, 1997.

 

RIEGL Aloïs. Le cultte moderne des monuments Son essence et sa genèse. (Der moderne Denkmal). Le Seuil, collection espacement. Paris 1984.