18-5 lecture

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary
measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance
and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new
construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the
limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-
required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

Consolidation is the action or process of making something stronger or more solid.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property
through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey
its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of
features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the
restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a
restoration project.

Giovanni Urbani: Italy’s second opportunity

In 1966, the floods in Florence and Venice were a violent reminder of this fragility (UNESCO 1967).
That same year, a massive landslide occurred in Agrigento, Sicily, showing the severe consequences
of unregulated urban expansion in the Valley of the Temples (Erbani 2006). In the early seventies,
the time was ripe in Italy to examine once again what could be done concretely to address these
issues and prevent future disasters.

In a radio interview, Giovanni Urbani expressed his view that the essence of the problem of
conservation in Italy lied in the ability to merge the protection of nature and culture in one
single plan (Urbani 1971). Urbani believed that like works of art, which lose their meaning when
de-contextualized from art history as a whole, the protection of cultural heritage should be tackled
globally and integrated with the protection of natural heritage.

Urbani advocated something radically different from treatment-oriented conservation:

preventive conservation. He argued that science had an important role to play in conservation
(Urbani 1973), but only if it was applied to large samples (i.e. collections) – and not individual objects
(Urbani 1968). By merging the conservation of nature with that of cultural heritage, and guiding
decisions using a strong scientific evidence base, he could give his integrated vision of conservation
a tangible form.
‘Programmed conservation’ and the Pilot plan for Umbria

In 1976, Urbani presented the Italian Ministry of Culture with the Pilot plan for the programmed
conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (ICR 1976), a project strongly rooted in this specificity.

Once implemented, this plan would give Italy a deeper understanding of the vulnerability of its
movable and immovable cultural heritage and its exposure to several deterioration factors:
geological, seismic and meteorological risk, air pollution, and depopulation. It would allow the
Ministry of Culture to make systematic, evidence-based conservation decisions within a forward
planning framework.

As a first step, data would be gathered in the region of Umbria, where the new tools for risk
management and training would be tested. Afterwards, a plan for the entire country would be
developed, taking into account the cultural specificity of each region (Urbani 1976).

Around this time, the term ‘preventive conservation’ had emerged in the museum sector (Thomson
1977; G. de Guichen, pers. comm.). Instead, Urbani used the term ‘programmed conservation,’
presumably because the tool he sought to develop would help target maintenance activities at
specific time intervals.

According to Urbani himself, programmed conservation was a “technique” that included “all
periodic measures taken to maintain and lower the rate of deterioration of ancient materials
as much as possible” (Urbani 1976, 109).

While Brandi’s (1963) ‘preventive restoration’ had been a theoretical abstraction (Lambert
2008), Urbani’s programmed conservation depended on concrete actions and measurable
results.

The Pilot plan had three main objectives:

 To evaluate the effects of selected agents of deterioration on the condition of

cultural heritage in Umbria.

 To define the techniques to be used for documentation and treatments, and

establish cultural heritage maintenance programs.

 To describe the nature and dimensions of a regional hub where monitoring and
treatment programs would be defined (Urbani 1976, 105).

In a preliminary phase, data had already been collected in Umbria to understand the composition and
regional distribution of cultural heritage and of the selected agents of deterioration. Inventory forms
for various types of heritage were developed and several regional maps indicating the location and
concentration of the agents were produced (Urbani 1976)

Training was a central element of the project. Urbani firmly believed that instead of training
restorers, Italy should train technicians capable of delivering programmed conservation to a variety
of materials and types of cultural heritage (Urbani 1977). For this purpose, didactic manuals called
‘DIMOS’ (Course on the maintenance of wall paintings, mosaics and stucco) were published from
1978 to 1979 (ICR 1979). In Italy, the DIMOS manuals (now out of print) are still used today by
several art conservation programmes.
In a distant future, after programmed conservation had been integrated into government policy,
Urbani believed that Italy would need new and innovative legislation for the protection of cultural
heritage. He was convinced that the Ministry of Cultural Heritage should also increase its regional
presence by decentralizing its power and initiate collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, the
Ministry of Education and with regional government (Zanardi 2006). Unfortunately, none of this
would ever happen.

The failure of the Pilot plan

In the months following the publication of Urbani’s Pilot plan a controversy emerged, of which
Perrotta (2004) has provided an overview. It appears the ICR was criticized severely for having
assigned to the private sector work that should have remained in the public sector.

In short, the Pilot plan grew out of collaboration with TECNECO, a subsidiary of ENI (Italy’s energy
provider). Further disapproval came from the Republican party (then in power) who claimed that
with his plan Urbani sought to override the role of regional government. This caused great
upheaval in the Umbrian Superintendence’s, who opposed the project categorically.

Roberto Abbondanza, then regional inspector for cultural heritage in Umbria, commented in national
newspapers that his role was being usurped and that the Pilot plan should be entirely re-written.
Furthermore, the Communist party claimed that Urbani was making ENI profit from the
correction of its mistakes because the project focused on deterioration associated with
industrial pollution. The Communist party also accused the project of being antidemocratic
by promoting the privatization of cultural heritage management.

One of the few concrete results of the Pilot plan came several years later. The Italian Risk
Map project began in 1987 under the direction of Pio Baldi, an architect employed at the ICR. It
focused on a single aspect of the Pilot plan: the mapping of cultural heritage distribution and the
intensity of agents of deterioration. Urbani, though he was not consulted on the project, looked
favourably upon it:

A map like this allows work to be organized based on something that is defined, analyzed,
and time-bound. Today, superintendents do not have any of this. And no one ever speaks of
maintenance. From the technical point of view, a real strategy for cultural heritage protection
could emerge from this [author’s translation] (Urbani 1990).

It has long been said that the Risk Map would be a tool used for conservation management nationwide
(ICR 1987; Bartoli, Palazzo and Urbisci 2003; Accardo 2004). Yet, 20 years later, it has yet to fully
deliver on its promises.

Discussion

As was the case at the time of the Franceschini Commmission, building without planning permissions
and speculation in the construction industry are still important problems today (Tosatti 2003; GIU
2010), which continue to have a negative impact on cultural heritage conservation in Italy (Deliperi
2010).

In a country with such a strong bureaucratic tradition, which is often difficult to reconcile with the
requirements of the private sector, one is left to wonder whether the fate of the Pilot plan could
have been different if Urbani had put aside his personal convictions and played by the
Ministry of Cultural Heritage’s rules. Admittedly, it is probable that without TECNECO’s support,
this document would never have been published at all.

Though anecdotal evidence and controversies may help to contextualize the events leading up to the
failure of the Pilot plan, the economic and moral dimensions should be further emphasised. In 1976,
annual public expenditure on restoration for publicly and privately owned monuments, galleries and
archaeological sites was approximately 35 billion lire (Urbani 1977).

Implementing the Pilot plan, would have cost only about 1.4 billion lire (excluding staff time),
or 4 % of this amount (ICR 1976). This raises a question that is central to the very notion of
preventive conservation. How much money was Italian public administration willing to invest
in 1976, for benefits that would be reaped by future generations? Contrary to restoration,
preventive conservation has no visible results, so adopting it requires a significant mental
shift.

One of the few (if not the only) successfully implemented national conservation action plans is the
oft-cited Deltaplan in the Netherlands. Instead of originating from conservation professionals, the
impetus for this plan came from a 1987 report issued by the Court of Audit, highlighting how public
funds were being misspent to care for the nation’s collections. To develop the plan, the concerned
institutions were consulted systematically, establishing a two-way exchange between them and
central government (Talley 1999).

Valuable lessons can be learnt from this on the importance of stakeholder consultations to
ensure the buy-in process for preventive conservation and on the importance of making a
strong financial case to justify its implementation.

Conclusion

History has shown that although the concept of continuous preventive conservation may be
intrinsic to many societies, large-scale strategies are often adopted in times of emergency, or in the
aftermath of disasters to avoid the repetition of errors in planning. In the late sixties and seventies,
Italy seemed to be ideally positioned to launch a national preventive conservation strategy for
cultural heritage, but failed at both attempts.

In Italy, most cultural heritage matters are governed by the State and prevention and maintenance
are legally inscribed in the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (MiBAC 2004, art. 29).
Though structures are in place to facilitate the implementation of a national cultural heritage
protection strategy, these laws have not yet materialized into an action plan.

If a stitch in time really does save nine, preventive conservation is the most long-term cost-
effective solution for Italy. This is especially true, now that public spending on the protection
and promotion of cultural heritage in Italy has been reduced by 35 % since 2007 (MiBAC 2009,
27).
Tracing the origins of preventive conservation

An early example of preventive conservation applied to collections can be found in Museographia, a

guide to the museums, galleries and libraries of Europe written by Hamburg scholar and merchant
Caspar F. Neickel. In his guide, the author gives instructions on how to avoid moisture problems by
displaying objects in rooms with south-westerly orientation, how libraries should constantly
monitor insect pests, and how to avoid damage to displays through careful design (Neickel 1727,
378, 247). He also lists 25 rules of conduct for museumgoers, reminiscent of modern collections
care guidelines, which include instructions on object handling and theft prevention (Neickel 1727,
401-403).

After more or less sporadic cases, a cohesive body of knowledge known as “housekeeping” emerged
in sixteenth-century England. Housekeeping practices, which consisted in practical advice for the
maintenance and management staff in estate homes, were handed down in diaries, manuals, letters
and paintings. These guidelines included recommendations for controlling humidity, heat, light,
insects, dust and damage from abrasion (Abey-Koch 2006).

Cultural heritage protection has often materialized in planned activities that include regular
monitoring and maintenance. A consciousness for the need to prevent the loss of cultural materials
due to constant, cumulative damage has existed for thousands of years.

Italian Code 42/2004, art. 29

Conservation is obtained by a coherent, coordinated and planned work of
• Investigation (studio): No definition given, but a key role.
The Italian word (studio) comes from the Latin “studium”, which means both study and something
like care, or love. Without care and love (passion? Curiosity?) it will be impossible to make anything
for the conservation of Heritage
• Prevention: “Prevention means the set of activities useful to limit the situations of risk
concerning the cultural property in its context”
• Maintenance: “Maintenance means the set of activities and interventions oriented to the control
of the conditions of a cultural property and to the permanency of its integrity, functional efficiency
and identity.”
• Restoration: “Restoration means the direct intervention on a cultural property through a set of
operations oriented to material integrity and to recover the property itself, to the protection and
translation to future of its cultural values. In case of historic buildings being in zones declared
subject to seismic risk, restoration includes structural enhancement.”
 Comparison Art. 29 vs Feilden
For Feilden: Prevention – Preservation – Consolidation- Restoration- Rehabilitation –
Reproduction – Reconstruction
Feilden definition: degrees of intervention in “conservation projects”, from minimum
(prevention) to maximum (reconstruction), associated with the principle of minimum intervention
Feilden is fixed conservation PROJECTS

For Italian law: Investigation - Prevention – Maintenance - Restoration-

• Italian definition: stress on coherence, coordination and planning, because all kinds of
interventions are necessary in the new vision of the “conservation process”
Italian is fixed conservation PROCESS

Monumentenwacht

• First general inspection (Inventory)

• Every year (or every second year…) inspection to critical points
Monumentenwacht organization
• Voluntary membership
• A central office managing an information system, operating teams organized on a provincial basis
• Inspection teams: two technicians skilled through courses and on-field experience
 25/5 Lecture

The Faro Convention, an original tool for building and managing Europe’s heritage

Beyond the issues of conservation and the various protection mechanisms required, it is the
“value”, in particular the social value, of cultural heritage which the convention highlights by
forging two innovative and open concepts. The first is the “right to cultural heritage”, under
which heritage gives rise to individual rights, without having to be defined beforehand. The second
is the concept of “heritage community”, which can include widely varying numbers of individuals
and enables citizens to be fully involved in building Europe’s common heritage.

Civil society is therefore called on to take part, in partnership with the public authorities, in each
stage of the process, from identify cation through to interpretation. Under the Faro Convention, the
involvement of civil society is seen as an essential aspect of the diversity of cultural heritage,
the plurality of interpretations of it and the democratization of access to it, in particular through
education and new technologies.

This is a requirement for the emergence of a sense of individual and collective responsibility
for heritage, which offers the only real guarantee of its long-term survival, diversity and
vitality. It is also on this basis that heritage will contribute to the quality of life, sustain
contemporary creative activity and foster economic dynamism.

That leaves the task of developing the arrangements and building the machinery for this joint action
by civil society and the authorities, citizens and experts.
This comprehensive, new approach to heritage, its contribution to society and the values it
conveys as part of a development project geared towards both cultural diversity and
sustainable management. It is therefore based on the same spirit as the UNESCO conventions,
with which it interacts effectively
Article 1 – Aims of the Convention
The Parties to this Convention agree to:
a- recognize that rights relating to cultural heritage are inherent in the right to
participate in cultural life, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
b- recognize individual and collective responsibility towards cultural heritage;
c- emphasize that the conservation of cultural heritage and its sustainable use have
human development and quality of life as their goal;
d- Take the necessary steps to apply the provisions of this Convention concerning: – the
role of cultural heritage in the construction of a peaceful and democratic society, and
in the processes of sustainable development and the promotion of cultural diversity;
– greater synergy of competencies among all the public, institutional and private
actors concerned.

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
a cultural heritage is a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify,
independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving
values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting
from the interaction between people and places through time;

b heritage community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage
which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future
generations.

Article 3 – The common heritage of Europe

The Parties agree to promote an understanding of the common heritage of Europe, which consists
of:
a- all forms of cultural heritage in Europe which together constitute a shared source of
remembrance, understanding, identity, cohesion and creativity.
b- the ideals, principles and values, derived from the experience gained through progress and
past conflicts, which foster the development of a peaceful and stable society, founded on
respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Article 4 – Rights and responsibilities relating to cultural heritage

The Parties recognize that:
a- everyone, alone or collectively, has the right to benefit from the cultural heritage and to
contribute towards its enrichment;
b- everyone, alone or collectively, has the responsibility to respect the cultural heritage of
others as much as their own heritage, and consequently the common heritage of Europe;
c- exercise of the right to cultural heritage may be subject only to those restrictions which are
necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the public interest and the rights and
freedoms of others.

Article 5 – Cultural heritage law and policies

The Parties undertake to:
a- recognise the public interest associated with elements of the cultural heritage in accordance
with their importance to society;
b- enhance the value of the cultural heritage through its identify cation, study, interpretation,
protection, conservation and presentation;
 c- ensure, in the specifi c context of each Party, that legislative provisions exist for exercising
the right to cultural heritage as defined in Article 4;
d- foster an economic and social climate which supports participation in cultural heritage
activities;
e- promote cultural heritage protection as a central factor in the mutually supporting
objectives of sustainable development, cultural diversity and contemporary creativity;
f- recognise the value of cultural heritage situated on territories under their jurisdiction,
regardless of its origin;
g- formulate integrated strategies to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of this
Convention.

Article 7 – Cultural heritage and dialogue

The Parties undertake, through the public authorities and other competent bodies, to:
a- encourage reflection on the ethics and methods of presentation of the cultural heritage, as
well as respect for diversity of interpretations;
b- establish processes for conciliation to deal equitably with situations where contradictory
values are placed on the same cultural heritage by different communities;
c- develop knowledge of cultural heritage as a resource to facilitate peaceful co-existence by
promoting trust and mutual understanding with a view to resolution and prevention of
conflicts;
d- Integrate these approaches into all aspects of lifelong education and training.

Article 8 – Environment, heritage and quality of life

The Parties undertake to utilize all heritage aspects of the cultural environment
to:
a- enrich the processes of economic, political, social and cultural development and land-use
planning, resorting to cultural heritage impact assessments and adopting mitigation
strategies where necessary;
b- promote an integrated approach to policies concerning cultural, biological, geological and
landscape diversity to achieve a balance between these elements;
c- reinforce social cohesion by fostering a sense of shared responsibility towards the places in
which people live;
d- promote the objective of quality in contemporary additions to the environment without
endangering its cultural values.

Article 9 – Sustainable use of the cultural heritage

To sustain the cultural heritage, the Parties undertake to:
a- promote respect for the integrity of the cultural heritage by ensuring that decisions about
change include an understanding of the cultural values involved;
b- define and promote principles for sustainable management, and to encourage maintenance;
c- ensure that all general technical regulations take account of the specific conservation
requirements of cultural heritage;
d- promote the use of materials, techniques and skills based on tradition, and explore their
potential for contemporary applications
e- promote high-quality work through systems of professional qualifications and accreditation
for individuals, businesses and institutions.
Article 13 – Cultural heritage and knowledge
The Parties undertake to:
a- facilitate the inclusion of the cultural heritage dimension at all levels of education, not
necessarily as a subject of study in its own right, but as a fertile source for studies in other
subjects;
b- strengthen the link between cultural heritage education and vocational training;
c- encourage interdisciplinary research on cultural heritage, heritage communities, the
environment and their interrelationship;
d- encourage continuous professional training and the exchange of knowledge and skills, both
within and outside the educational system.

3. Culture and Sustainable development

3.1. General Reflections

As outlined above, through the last decades, sustainability issues moved from the bare defense of
environment towards a more holistic vision of social and economic behaviors of populations. In the
definitions cited, it is possible to detect that the term development has often an ambiguous sense,
so that it is even meant as a synonymous of growth. The environmentalist approach has first
pointed out the negative meaning of both these terms, referring to the tendency towards
unlimited consumption, International Conference on Sustainability in Architectural Cultural
Heritage exaggerated protectionism and the idea itself that the world could be divided into
developed and underdeveloped countries (later defined as “developing countries”).

Adding the adjective “sustainable” is not against the idea of economic growth‫ز‬

Referring to our sector, it is evident that any evaluation of the sustainability of ACH conservation
activities cannot leave the cultural component out of consideration, but it is also evident that the
existence and the use of cultural heritage form sustainability factors. Therefore, the analysis has to
focus on those activities that, on one hand, guarantee the permanence of cultural capital and, on the
other hand, make its best valorisation possible. One of the latest strategies of integrated
conservation is Preventive and Planned Conservation (PPC), based on medium/long term
processes and on the thesis that ACH could be the driver of multiplier effects in social and
environmental fields, and not only for induced economic outputs.

Architectural Cultural Heritage and Sustainability: How Many Pillars?

Pillars, of sustainability (Society, Economics and Environment), it is fundamental to consider also
two other factors: Culture and Time. Several reflections have been developed referring to Culture,
often described as the fourth pillar, highlighting how ACH can be deemed as a factor for sustainable
development. Instead, the role of Time, meant as durability and long-run as the due date for
evaluation, is less considered within the discourses about sustainability.
The first definition of “sustainable development” was given in 1987 in the Brundtland
Report titled “our common future” (WCED, 1987): development is sustainable when it “meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs." (WCED, 1987, p.16). Since then, several other definitions have been proposed:
already in 1989, John Pezzey indexed 37 different understandings of the idea of sustainable
development (World Bank, 1989).

In 1992, on the footprint of the 1972 Stockholm conference, at Rio de Janeiro the first United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development was held, which in fact, introduced the idea
of scarcity of some resources and of limit to the uncontrolled production of harmful substances,
besides having enlightened the issue of climate changes as an effect of pollution and unlimited
economic growth. In the text of the Rio Declaration on environment the bases are to be found of the
triple bottom line model, then arranged by John Elkington in 1994.
The Declaration says that human beings are at the center of sustainable development; the
right to development has to fulfil fairly the environmental requirements and the needs of present
and future generations; the states shall reduce and abolish unsustainable modes of production and
consume; an economic system fit to generate a sustainable economic growth and a sustainable
development has to be born.

After the definition of the three pillars model in 1994, Rio+10 conference was held in 2002,
centered on the global achievement of a sustainable development, and in 2012 Rio+20, United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, focused on a twofold target; that is, a green
economy in the context of sustainable development poverty eradication and institutional
framework of sustainable development.

The last definition was then adopted by UNCSD, stating that “sustainable development meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their
own needs. Seen as the guiding principle for long-term global development, sustainable
development consists of three pillars: economic development, social development and
environmental protection”. Further reflections are to be found in the draft outcome document of
the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda (the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development), which outlines sustainable development millennium
goals: eight goals focused on people, planet, prosperity, peace, partnership.

3.2. Preventive and Planned Conservation of ACH and Sustainable Development

The Italian understanding of conservation, as it has been defined by the Italian framework
preservation law (D.Lgs42/2004, art. 29) has already been recalled above. This definition comes
from a long period of reflections and debates which started in the 1970’s when the perspective
shifted from the single building to urban settings, and discourse was initiated on the prevention
and the program of conservation activities (Urbani, 2000). During 1980’s and 1990’s, a vision of
conservation as a careful management of change was built (Bellini, 1996;Fielden, 2003), so that
ACH is not only framed in a spatial context but also strongly conditioned by elapsing time (that is
“becoming”).

For Italian Authors who followed the Conservation theses, the sense of restoration became “to
execute in progress of time interventions aimed at stopping, or better said limiting and
slowing down the increasing entropy, that is disorder, of the system, as to stop this process
is impossible (CrucianiFabozzi, 1989). These links with environmentalism have been discussed
and redefined by means of reflections coming from humanist ecology, passing from the limits of
growth to the development of limits, and to a definition of ecology as “a science and ethics of
diversity and imperfection” (Ceruti, 1998, p.55).

The link between cultural heritage and sustainability was born when sustainability was identified
as a criterion for the evaluation of projects and/or actions. This has led to recognize some sectors
of human activities characterized by a kind of “intrinsic” sustainability.

In 2005, the Council of Europe’s framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage
for Society (Faro Convention) states that the “conservation of cultural heritage and his
sustainable use have human development and quality of life as their goal”: that is, cultural
heritage has a role in the processes of sustainable development.

This is the main reason for assuming culture as the fourth factor for the recognition of
sustainability, thus changing the triple bottom line model in quadruple bottom line model, as it is
well argued by the Hangzhou Declaration, which in 2013 states that, Culture is at the hearth of
Sustainable Development Policies. Given these premises, the questions on the active or passive
role of ACH, or better said, of Planned Preventive Conservation of ACH, seem to have already found
their answers in sustainable development policies, as Faro Convention underscores. It is pretty
clear that, cultural heritage is a resource for the present, but its use should not compromise
the transfer (bequest) to future generations, and it is also internationally acknowledged that
cultural heritage plays a central role in social, environmental and even economic policies.

On the other hand, ACH is involved in a form of “strong sustainability”, as it is a capital built by not
renewable resources, as featuring authenticity, irreproducibility and irreplaceability, so that no
consumption with related compensation with other forms of capital can be accepted as “weak”
sustainable development admits (Moioli, Van Balen & Vandesande, 2014). Summing up, cultural
sustainability for ACH means the capability of historic buildings, and better of (planned preventive)
conservation process, both to produce positive effects valuable under an economic profile and to be
effective and efficient in optimizing the investments and conservative activities on the long run.
4. Time and Sustainable Development

The concept of development, especially when meant as growth, should always be considered
along with the idea of limit. Not just physical limits, that is borders, but “temporal” and
“dimensional” limits: it is not possible to exploit resources, whatever these could be (natural,
cultural or human) for an infinite quantity and, above all, for an infinite time. Thus, the “Time”
factor appears and serves as a regulator of development dynamics. For this purpose, time should
not be considered infinite, and also the different temporal requirements have to be balanced: the
time of production and consumption vs the time of renewal of the resources.

In the case of cultural heritage, sustainable development has to be even more guided by the
awareness of limits, because apart from ruling the use of this capital, it is necessary to conserve the
plurality of its features, that is, it is necessary to preserve the limits that characterize cultural
diversity (Latouche, 2012; Council of Europe, 2005).

---------------------------------
Sustainable development is usually understood as all actions to be taken for the increase of
economic and social well-being without depleting the environment. The preservation of the cultural
diversity has been included as a new dimension. It has been shown that the cultural diversity of
mankind is in real danger. This applies in particular to the countries of the so called Third World
and the emerging countries, which find themselves in a deep conflict between the western way of
life and their own traditional culture due to the massive progression of globalization. It has been
shown that in policy making cultural diversity is largely underestimated in its relevance as it has
not been identified an asset to build on prosperity and peace of the present and future generations.
Three fields of economic activity have been depicted as examples of destructive interference into
regional specialties of culture. Proposals of how to proceed to meet the requirements of
sustainability in these fields have been provided

Culture for Sustainable Development

Culture is who we are and what shapes our identity. No development can be sustainable without
including culture.
In September 2015 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, with 17 ambitious, universal goals to transform our world.
UNESCO ensures that the role of culture is recognized through a majority of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), including those focusing on quality education, sustainable cities, the
environment, economic growth, sustainable consumption and production patterns, peaceful and
inclusive societies, gender equality and food security.
From cultural heritage to cultural and creative industries, Culture is both an enabler and a driver of
the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
UNESCO's work promoting cultural diversity, and UNESCO’s Culture Conventions, are key to the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
 1-6 Lecture
Cultural Districts in Lombardy Region
The background of the Cultural District Project launched by Cariplo Foundation is the wide area
project «Magistri Comacini» based on a formal agreement signed by Lombardy Region, Cariplo
Foundation and several public and private partners. The grant was of 6.000.000 euros.

The Cultural Districts project is Fondazione Cariplo’s brainchild to promote economic growth in
Lombardy capitalizing on the local cultural heritage. The term ‘cultural district’ denotes an area
rich in cultural and environmental assets, industrial and service businesses that operate in a
synergistic fashion. With this project, which is unique in Italy, the Foundation has chosen to pioneer
a process geared to create new opportunities for economic, employment and social growth by
leveraging the local heritage and natural resources.

Fondazione Cariplo is a charitable foundation in Milan, Italy. It was created in December 1991
when the Amato law, Law no. 218 of 30 July 1990, came into force. Under this law, saving banks
were required to separate into a not-for-profit foundation and a commercial banking arm. The
Cassa di Risparmio delle Provincie Lombarde, commonly known as Cariplo, was divided into the
Fondazione Cariplo and Cariplo SpA, the bank, which merged with Ambroveneto in 1998.[6]
As at 31 December 2014, the organisation had a shareholders equity of €6,889,487,562

The project was developed into 4 steps:

PHASE 1. (2005-2006), a general pre-feasibility study was conducted to define the contents of the
call «Cultural Districts as a tool for economic and social valorisation of local cultural heritage»
Call “Cultural districts, economic engine for the territory” – 37 proposals have been submitted.
PHASE 2. (2007-2008), 11 proposals have been selected,. In this phase the total investment was €
85.000, € 60.000 funded by Cariplo Foundation. The Feasibility Study has been drawned up.
PHASE 3. (2008-2010), Start up period: creation of the Monza and Brianza Cultural District,
implementation of the feasibility study, creation of new partnership, finding of new resources.
PHASE 4. Follow up activities, evaluation, new projects.

3. In step 3 (2008-2010), assisted by the Foundation that provided them with guidelines, the advice
of a panel of experts and training, local teams in the 11 selected areas worked on their development
as a cultural district. Fondazione Cariplo reviewed the outcome of that exercise and selected 6 out
of the initial 11 areas as its grantees for the development of a cultural district. Fondazione Cariplo
funded each of these cultural districts with up to €3.8 million and matching funds were provided by
other local sources;
4. In step 4, the 6 selected cultural districts were launched. The Camonica Valley District was the
first cultural district to be kicked off (March 2009), followed by "Dominus in the Mantua Po River
Area" (April 2010) and "The Gonzaga Palaces" (July 2010) in the province of Mantua, the "Monza &
Brianza Cultural District" (July 2010), the "Cremona Province Cultural District" (July 2010) and the
"Valtellina Cultural District" (September 2010).

The project was endorsed by the Lombardy Regional Administration with whom the Foundation
signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the regional administration’s possible co-funding of
the project.

The 6 districts launched

Every cultural district approved after evaluation of operational feasibility studies kicked off
independently. The Cariplo Foundation's commitment to the support of the districts reached a total
of € 20 million . In about half a year, from March 2009 to September 2010 , officially started in
Lombardy six cultural districts :

VALCAMONICA
The Cultural District Vallecamonica , born on 8 March 2009, has enhanced the local cultural
heritage, rock art to the artistic heritage, the history of the great war to the sacred rites, and the
contemporary cultural production. Purpose of the District is to make culture an integrated
development lever, strengthening the design quality and governance, giving impetus to
contemporary creativity and the development of new businesses.
DOMINUS
The Cultural district Oltrepò Mantovano - DOMINUS , started on 11 May 2010 is centered on the
promotion of rural culture and agricultural landscape, synthesis of a sustainable balance
between man and nature, between work and quality of life. The District has raised a strong
vocation shared by the residents and communities related to the enhancement of the landscape
and agricultural products around the rural centers .
REGGE GONZAGA
The Cultural district "Le Regge dei Gonzaga" , which began July 20, 2010, has inherited the Gonzaga
dynasty to promote the artistic and architectural identity and attention to the conviviality
that characterize and Mantova its territory. The District has favored the creation of a network
between institutions and companies can invest in the flavor industry and conservation as a
strategic axis for local development.
MONZA E BRIANZA
On 20 July 2010 was born the Cultural District of the Province of Monza and Brianza : a land that
has bet on the artistic heritage and culture as resources to stimulate the capacity for innovation
and creativity of the local companies . The challenge is very ambitious, but in line with business
vocation that characterizes the territory.
CREMONA
Party July 20, 2010, the Cultural District of the Province of Cremona focused on the
diversification of the cultural system and has invested on the integration of entertainment,
music and crafts as an engine of economic and social development. The District has taken steps
to make the system the various artistic and entrepreneurial initiatives in music and create value for
the whole community.
VALTELLINA
The Cultural District of Valtellina , party September 14, 2010, has worked to consolidate the close
relationship between landscape, traditional production and cultural identity of the territory ,
through an integrated and shared programming. Cultural District has focused on the
enhancement of historical settlements in the average valley and the agri-food tradition that
has shaped the landscape : a heritage to know and able to feed local development strategies
in the long run.
Grants before Cultural District

Underscore the change before and after Cultural District Project

BEFORE

-Grants for restoration works -No controls about procedures -No controls about quality
-No evaluation of the quality of the expenditure -No monitoring on the long run
-No economic evaluation of the process -No evaluation of the impacts
AFTER
The shift from restoration to planned conservation has relevant economic outcomes, as the new
paradigm entails scale economies and cost reduction, and, above all, it moves investments to more
qualified activities (survey, monitoring, diagnostics, data filing, information management, research,
communication…). The objective is to use given resources in the way that yields the maximum of
positive outputs in a local development process.

The Spinning Mill in Sulbiate

The municipality lost the opportunity of financing, but through ASTER competition they gained
enough money

To work together and to be open to change brings advantages. They used money that came from
organizations that had nothing to do with heritage, they were for fostering innovation.

Association of the building companies had to say: we are able to carry out very qualified works, in
order to maintain their position.

Results: in all procedures they were more demanding than before

More cooperation among public bodies
Communication
More care of the social capital
Open villas: a program of cultural properties visits
Cantieri aperti

Definition of quality based procedures

at subjects

To keep local people involved

Schools are the best way to involve communities, but also training courses, facebook page

Management model

1- Public Announcement
The application required subjects able to:
-Think innovative ideas
-Create contamination processes among art, design, making, handicrafts, media and food with the
aim to:
-generate new production processes
-Activate partnership with enterprises, craftmanship, public bodies by means of mentorship,
valorisation of micro-companies for not mass-produced objects

2- Selection
3- Contract
Rent and ordinary operating costs
2 open days per year
4 events per year involving schools
Training courses
Networking with local economic subjects
Externalities

What are externalities?

Externalities are costs (negative externalities) or benefits (positive externalities), which are not
reflected in free market prices. Externalities are sometimes referred to as 'by-products', 'spillover
effects', 'neighbourhood effects' 'third-party effects' or 'side-effects', as the generator of the
externality, either producers or consumers, or both, impose costs or benefits on others who are not
responsible for initiating the effect. The key feature of an externality is that it is initiated and
experienced, not through the operation of the price system, but outside the market.
Jacobs spillover
Under the Jacobs spillover view, the proximity of firms from different industries affect how
well knowledge travels among firms to facilitate innovation and growth. This is in contrast
to MAR spillovers, which focus on firms in a common industry. The diverse proximity of a
Jacobs spillover brings together ideas among individuals with different perspectives to
encourage an exchange of ideas and foster innovation in an industrially diverse
environment.

Developed in 1969 by urbanist Jane Jacobs and John Jackson the concept that Detroit’s shipbuilding
industry from the 1830s was the critical antecedent leading to the 1890s development of the auto
industry in Detroit since the gasoline engine firms easily transitioned from building gasoline
engines for ships to building them for automobiles.

Marshallian externality, industrial upgrading, and industrial policies

A growth model with multiple industries is developed to study how industries evolve as capital
accumulates endogenously when each industry exhibits Marshallian externality (increasing returns
to scale) and to explain why industrial policies sometimes succeed but sometimes fail. The authors
show that, in the long run, the laissez-faire market equilibrium is Pareto optimal when the time
discount rate is sufficiently small or sufficiently large

Value networks have emerged from value chains due to digitization and its consequences. A value
network is characterized by collaboration between all the stakeholders to co-produce value. At the
center of a value network is a platform. To define, create, and capture value the Platform Business
Model encapsulates the platform. Platform or API providers are primarily confronted with two
challenges: how can the platform be (1) attractive and (2) findable for API consumers (developers).
As discussed in this post, a contribution to address the challenge of attractiveness can be the
deployment of open standards (such as API commons). To tackle the challenge of discoverability
making sure to register an API at API directories and especially automated API search engines is
recommend (such as APIs.io).

A value chain is a set of activities that a firm operating in a specific industry performs in order to
deliver a valuable product or service for the market. The concept comes through business
management and was first described by Michael Porter in his 1985 best-seller, Competitive
Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.[1]

The idea of the value chain is based on the process view of organizations, the idea of seeing a
manufacturing (or service) organization as a system, made up of subsystems each with inputs,
transformation processes and outputs. Inputs, transformation processes, and outputs involve the
acquisition and consumption of resources – money, labour, materials, equipment, buildings, land,
administration and management. How value chain activities are carried out determines costs and
affects profits.

6-6 Lecture
Business plan
Defintions:
- Dealing with cultural properties, a business plan starts from the recognition of values, the
awareness about conservation issues, the choice of a valorization program (business
concept)
- Interventions thought within the frame a long-time vision entail the plan of the
management system, which is conditional to financial support, as it helps to guarantee
sustainability
- A business plan encompasses the definition of the management plan (business model)

The structure of a business plan (for an entrepreneurial initiative)

Qualitative section:
- Analysis of the market - Placement versus competitors - Configuration of the supply system
- Organization of the enterprise - Network of the possible alliances - Typology of financers and
engagement forms
Quantitative section:
- Forecast economic counts (and balance sheets) - Financial flows - Cash flows - Break even
- Indicators for monitoring

Reasons why business plans have been adopted in cultural heritage field

Valorization targets entail complexity in management activities

Need for self-financing (at least partial)
Research of synergies (building networks, systems, districts…)
Pressure towards new financial sources (public-private partnership…)

Phases of the business plan (complying with targets)

- Ideation and development of the business concept
First stage project – feasibility evaluations
- Choice of the business model
Established the basic ideas, the matter is the fine tuning of the mechanisms, and the
quantitative evaluation of costs and expected benefits
- Presentation to institutional financers («critical resources»)
BP oriented to show feasibility and affordability

Focusing the business concept

- Early stage project: the point is to draft the borders and the features, according to target
audience, needs to satisfy or opportunities to exploit.
- The study analyses the territory and the reasons of success/failure of similar interventions
in other places (benchmark: a sensitive analysis of the context is required)
- Identification of stakeholder
- Comparison (multicriteria) among different proposals
- Quantitative evaluations use to be rough at this stage

An example of a concept: the “albergo diffuso” (scattered hotel)

 - Problem: we have an appealing but abandoned historic village, whose houses belong to an
obsolete typology, in a territory that complies with the requirements for a development
model enriched by (sustainable) tourism
- Target: to give new life to the historic buildings valorising and safeguarding its peculiarities
- Tool: an organisation, which makes possible to use the houses renting them to tourists, with
scale ecnomies (centralized services) and coordinated and “aggressive” promotion
- The scattered hotel has been promoted in Italy since 1980s in Friuli region. Today there are
many, as well as supporting laws

Identification of the business model

Once the concept is decided, the matter is to fine-tune the mechanisms for:
- Offer (which is the “product”, which is the public, who pays and why),
- Organization (how the functioning will be guarantee)
- Resources (which financial and human resources, cost structure)
- Alliances (which scale economies will be possible..) – NB: alliances more than competition,
because, opposite to retail centers, in this field increasing the offer often strengthens the
appeal
- Management of the relationships with stakeholders

Presentation to institutional financiers

- A Business Plan can be written to show the feasibility and the advantage of carrying out a
project
- This happens on the basis of impact indicators
- Positive externalities toward the reference territory can be relevant to decision makers
- Financial figures should be very clear as well as the idntification of what is needed to start
the project, and which will be the management costs (as valuated ex-ante)

Transfer from business to heritage sector: value and risks

Value:
- Project logic (accountability, timetable…)
- Systemic approach
- Responsibility for results

Risks:
- Pressure to gains (incorrect and utopistic in heritage field)
- Low attention to positive externalities (which are interesting for politicians, not for businessmen)
- Low sensitivity for quality

If there is awareness about risks, these could be the issues on which a competitive advantage can be
built

Sources of financement (or incentives)

-Fundraising / crowdfunding (gathering donations)
-State direct funding (grants or loans)
-Tax cuts
-Public interventions not for heritage (support to construction sector, support to energy efficiency,
relief from unemployment, vat policies…)
-Integrated wide-area projects
-Scaffoldings as support for advertisement
-Sponsorships (money versus image rights, legitimation, publicity, also integrated with tax cutting)
-“Technical sponsorship” (supply of works and/or materials…)

8-6 Last Lecture

Use Value (Market Value)

Use values are market values10—the ones most easilyassigned a price. Use values of material
heritage refer tothe goods and services that flow from it that are tradableand priceable in existing
markets. For instance, admissionfees for a historic site, the cost of land, and the wages of workers
are values. Because they are exchanged in markets, these values can be easily expressed in terms of
price, and they are susceptible to economists’ many analytical tools based on neoclassical theory.

Nonuse Value (Nonmarket Value)

Nonuse values are economic values that are not traded in or captured by markets and are therefore
difficult to express in terms of price. For instance, many of the qualities described as sociocultural
values are also nonuse values. They can be classed as economic values because individuals would
be willing to allocate resources (spend money) to acquire them and/or protect them.
The economics field describes nonuse values as emanating from the public-good qualities of
heritage— those qualities that are “nonrival” (consumption by one person does not preclude
consumption by someone else) and “nonexcludable” (once the good/service is provided
to anyone, others are not excluded from consuming it). A public archaeological site would exhibit
these qualities very clearly. Markets fail to provide public goods and services, and nonuse values
therefore pose a difficult

REVEALED-PREFERENCE METHODS
Revealed-preference methods draw and analyze data from existing markets for heritage-related
goods and services.

Economic impact studies have become very popular because of the use of a quite simple method,
and they often suggest clearly that investment in a heritage project will yield tangible economic
gains.

By measuring economic investments and employment gains directly related to conservation

activity, and multiplying this on the theory that these direct investments yield secondary gains as
they ripple throughout the economy,

impact studies identify exact returns on investment (which is to say, increases in the value of
the heritage).

Impact studies may be useful in identifying some use values and some externalities of
heritage investments, but they are often suspect because of double counting and because
they fail to account for the opportunity costs of heritage investment.

Hedonic pricing methods can measure nonuse heritage values only as they are reflected in related
market transactions. They measure the increments in financial value gained, for instance, from the
proximity of a real estate parcel to a particular heritage resource.
Travel-cost methods measure heritage values through the proxy of travel expenditures related to
the use/consumption of heritage sites or objects. By only recording values when they are translated
into individual decisions to travel, these methods give highly partial accounts of heritage values.

STATED-PREFERENCE METHODS
Stated-preference methods rely on the creation of hypothetical markets in which survey
respondents are asked to make hypothetical choices, which are then analyzed as value judgments.

Contingent valuation methods measure total value ascribed to a heritage site by an individual
(expressed as willingness to pay for it) but do not break down the value, leaving it undifferentiated.
The method draws information from individual appraisals and decisions, in hypothetical markets,
and does not see the collective picture at all, except by aggregation and inference. This method is
beginning to be used more extensively for heritage projects, because it yields the sought-after
conversion of qualitative values into quantified prices. (In the case of heritage, the corresponding
concept of willingness to accept compensation for loss of a resource can also be relevant.) It should
be noted that the insights and conclusions drawn from contingent valuation studies of heritage
resources have been limited to instances where they are carried out under very stringent
conditions.

Choice modeling is a potentially very interesting method for heritage in that it does break down
the specific attributes of the overall value expressed by study participants. Therefore, it could be
used to measure the values (the utility to individuals) associated with the different characteristics
of a heritage site, according, for instance, to the typology outlined above. Though people do respond
well to these types of scenarios and comparisons, the method presumes very well informed
participants, and it will not capture well the intangible, difficult-toprice values (such as spiritual
values). Economic methods in general have gained a
in a seemingly objective form (prices), and directly to the business-thinking
mentality of global decision makers and, increasingly, of society at large.

Economic methods are used more widely and for new purposes, and they are gaining credibility.
But there remains a great danger in relying on quantitative economic methods alone—this is a view
strongly endorsed by some economists, The
neoclassical economic model is so well refined, so tightly theorized to block out uncertainties, that
it sets a tone in which other values seem a priori excluded (or devalued). This situation is
problematic in several respects, among them that people cannot talk about certain kinds of value in
monetary terms; cognitively, quantitative language doesn’t work very well, for instance, to express
spiritual values. In other situations, the ability to express a commonly held qualitative value in
quantitative terms has been critical to getting proconservation decisions made, so the urge to
quantify remains very strong.

All the methods described in this section need professional economists to direct them; there are
many technical problems to be dealt with, and the methods can easily be abused if applied in an
uninformed manner. But the stated-preference methods, which include extensive survey processes,
open up a lot of common ground (and potential collaboration) with the approaches used by
anthropologists and other social researchers. The ways that economists create and adjust survey
instruments are basically identical to the ways that anthropologists do it (an iterative process of
piloting, refining, rolling out).

3.0 THE CONSERVATION PLAN

3.1 What is a conservation plan?
At its simplest, a conservation plan is a document which sets out what is significant in a place
and, consequently, what policies are appropriate to enable that significance to be retained in
its future use and development. For most places it deals with the management of change. Its
scope may vary from a do-it-yourself plan for a modest cottage to plans for sites of the complexity
of the Port Arthur Penal Establish ment in Tasmania or the North Head Quarantine Station in
Sydney.
‘Conservation plan’ has become a convenient generic term covering a variety of productions. The
type of place, needs of owners, range of problems encountered and skills available all mean
that the scope and approach must be flexible if the contents are to be both useful and succinct. The
structure of such plans should therefore be tailored to resolve relevant issues in the most
direct way. Government House, Sydney, for example, required attention to management, public
access and interpretation—issues which are negligible in a private residence faced with fabric
failure and a need to improve facilities. The increasingly common use of ‘standard’ or ‘model’
conservation plan briefs should therefore be treated with caution and regarded only as a starting
point and check list. The actual structure and scope of the plan has to evolve to suit the particular
place and its problems.
conservation plans depends on:
• recognising limitations in time and expertise and hence when to employ specialists;
• precise briefing and progressive supervision of all persons working on the project;
• careful estimation of resources required, efficient co-ordination and elimination of inessentials;
• ability and willingness to analyse, to assess and to evolve policies— not just to collate material.

3.4 Objectives and resources

Conservation is about the care and continuing development of a place in such a way that its
significance is retained or revealed and its future is made secure. The objective of the conservation
plan is to set out how that aim may best be achieved. In doing so it seeks to relate the proposed
conservation action to the procurable resources. To be of value a conservation plan must be
founded on as definitive an examination of all relevant data as is practical. Only then will the
policies developed be soundly based and worth implementing. The key word for such an approach
is ‘relevant’. Many plans are made fat by repetition and by the inclusion of unnecessary material. If
the matter does not make a contribution to an understanding of the significance of the place or to
the development and implementation of policy it should be omitted.

Faro Declaration

Part 1: Vision
We reaffirm our vision based on the principles of the universality and indivisibility of human
rights, democracy and the rule of law. We reject the idea of a clash of civilisations and firmly
believe that, on the contrary, increased commitment to cultural cooperation – in the broad
sense of the term – and intercultural dialogue will benefit peace and international stability in
the long term, including with respect to the threat of terrorism. We will work towards a true and
open dialogue among cultures on the basis of mutual understanding and respect.
We undertake to pursue our efforts in favour of European identity and unity on the basis of shared
fundamental values, respect for and valorisation of our common heritage and cultural
diversity. At the same time, we will remain open and co-operate with neighbouring regions and the
rest of the world.
We are committed in particular to promoting a model of democratic culture, underpinning the law
and institutions and actively involving civil society and citizens, and to ensuring that diversity is a
source of mutual enrichment, by promoting political, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.
Access to and participation in cultural life for all – in the sense of the European Cultural Convention
– are essential conditions to achieve this aim.
We are also determined to build supportive societies and strengthen cohesion in social,
educational and cultural terms. We shall endeavour in particular to create the right conditions
for the emergence and development of sustainable communities where people want to live and
work, now and in the future.
We forcefully condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination, especially on the grounds of sex,
ethnic origin or religion.

Part 2: Action
We shall systematically encourage intercultural dialogue on the basis of universal human rights, as
a means of promoting awareness, understanding, reconciliation, tolerance and respect for
the other, of preventing conflicts and of ensuring an integrated and cohesive society.
We stress the importance of closely involving civil society in this dialogue, in which both men and
women shall be able to participate on an equal footing. We support the active involvement of
parliaments and local and regional authorities in the member states, as well as the role of the
Parliamentary Assembly and of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of
Europe to develop contacts and promote best practices in this area.

We undertake to contribute to the swift and effective implementation in the States Parties to
the Cultural Convention of the decisions taken at the Warsaw Summit, in particular:

- enhancing all opportunities for the training of educators in the fields of education for democratic
citizenship, human rights, history, intercultural education;
- developing intergovernmental co-operation on democracy and good governance at all levels, and
promoting freedom of expression and information and media freedom as a core element of these;
- supporting the Council of Europe’s work on history teaching.
- further developing the Council of Europe’s work on the recognition of diplomas and qualifications
and its contribution to the Bologna Process, aimed at creating a European Higher Education Area by
2010.
As Ministers of Culture, we shall work more particularly on developing strategies to manage and
promote cultural diversity while ensuring the cohesion of our societies.
We shall also endeavour to see that the political will shown at the Summit to engage in a new
dialogue between Europe and its neighbouring regions – the southern shores of the Mediterranean,
the Middle East and Central Asia – translates into action, particularly by:
- initiating a process to develop intercultural dialogue through concerted action between the
competent international and regional organisations, with the active involvement of the member
states concerned and civil society;
- developing human rights, democratic citizenship and civil participation education programmes, as
well as intercultural exchanges at secondary school and youth level, both within Europe and with
neighbouring countries;
- beginning work on the shared past of Europe and its neighbouring regions, based on the
conviction that dialogue between cultures is also fostered by a common understanding of history;
- launching cultural and audiovisual heritage co-operation programmes.

To give an operational basis to this twofold commitment, we shall capitalise on the

achievements of 50 years of cultural co-operation, focusing on the following lines of action:
- respect for, and access to cultural rights and the right to education, in order to fight exclusion and
build equitable societies, paying particular attention to all vulnerable groups;
- setting up inter-sectoral public policies encouraging cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue,
as well as language learning and access to information technologies as a means of promoting
intercultural exchanges at world level;
- developing the knowledge of history, cultures, arts and religions, and highlighting elements
illustrating both the historical and the contemporary influence of cultures and civilisations on each
other, as well as cultural cross-fertilisation;
- devising and applying principles and methods for management of the heritage and use of cultural
resources as factors for human development and sustainable development;
- supporting cultural and artistic activities and exchanges and recognising the role of artists and
creators– as vehicles for dialogue and mutual understanding, and introducing incentives to
facilitate everyone’s access to and participation in these activities.

Part 3: Instruments
To implement this strategy, we shall build on the standard-setting aquis of the Council of Europe
in the cultural cooperation and human rights fields, and use the instruments put at our disposal by
the Organisation, particularly:
- the European Cultural Convention, as the framework for intergovernmental co-operation between
all countries in Europe, as well as the steering committees and mechanisms set up under the
Convention. In this respect, we stress the importance of Eurimages - the Council of Europe Fund for
the Co-production, Distribution and Exhibition of European Cinematographic Works and we note
with interest the opening for signature of the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural
Heritage for Society at Faro;
- the Human Rights Commissioner, whose mandate includes the promotion of education in,
awareness of and respect for human rights, as embodied in the Council of Europe human rights’
instruments;
- the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the youth campaign for
diversity, human rights and participation, to run from 2006 in the spirit of the “All different, all
equal” campaign of 1995, as well as the Euro-Mediterranean activities carried out as part of the
partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the youth field;
- the North-South Centre, whose role in promoting intercultural dialogue was recognised by the
Warsaw Summit, together with its mission of fostering European awareness of intercultural and
development issues. In this connection, we invite states that do not yet take part in the Centre’s
activities to consider doing so.
Furthermore, to provide the Council of Europe with the new resources required to implement this
strategy, we advocate:
- the launch of a Council of Europe “White paper on integrated policies for the management of
cultural diversity through intercultural dialogue and conflict prevention”; the setting up of new
instruments for intercultural dialogue between Europe and its neighbouring regions. In this
respect, we welcome the first steps in this direction which are:
i. the signature of a co-operation memorandum between the Council of Europe and the Anna Lindh
Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures;
ii. the setting-up of a co-ordinated activity programme between the Council of Europe and ALECSO
in the areas of education, culture, cultural and natural heritage, youth and sport;
iii. the creation of a platform for intercultural dialogue and co-operation between the Council of
Europe and UNESCO, open to other international or regional partners.