Proposals for a heritage public policy for the right to heritage

On 8 August 2015, the National Assembly adopted the law concerning the new territorial organisation of the Republic, which in its article 103 requires that on each territory, the cultural rights of citizens be guaranteed by the joint exercise of the Competence in the field of culture by the state and the local authorities. The "guarantee" that the cultural rights of people will be everywhere, at any time, respected, is now a public responsibility of services as elected officials. They may refer, as a minimum, to article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR), an article which derives from the "right to cultural heritage" of the Faro Convention. Until then our co-operative has cooperated with the mayors who have voluntarily adhered to the principles of the Faro Convention (5 mayors since 2009), thus committing themselves to assume their responsibilities "in accordance with the right to cultural heritage". The French state has still not signed the Faro Convention and a thorough examination in view of its signature is currently underway (Parliamentary question 77255, June 2015). Today, section 103 of our law imposes an obligation that applies to all actions and actors of cultural policy. Since the adoption of a law is not an immediate translation into public policy, here is from the experience of Marseille and those encountered elsewhere, proposals for what could be a heritage public policy in favour of the right to Cultural heritage and which could be discussed, amended, reconsidered and experienced by a community. These proposals focus in particular on taking into account the "right to cultural heritage" as defined by the Faro Convention with regard to human rights, since cultural rights are much broader: Article 103 of the Law refers to Cultural rights set out in the Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions of 20 October 2005. So how do we move from the logic of the policy of "cultural offer" and "public" to that of listening to social demand? How can we encourage everyone to participate in public action in the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation of cultural heritage? How do we move from the designation of "beneficiary audiences" to the Citizen initiative? What public framework could be endowed with a "citizen Heritage factory"? What is the distribution of competences, responsibilities and actions in the field of cultural heritage between the state, local authorities and citizens? What possible cooperation? How can the public institution, which guarantees the general interest, also be a guarantor of cultural rights? The first proposal would be to create a public heritage service whose function would be to accompany the citizens, alone or in groups, in their work of identification, research, exhibition and conservation of the cultural heritages to which They value and wish, within the framework of public action, to maintain and transmit to future generations. Citizens would no longer only be "beneficiaries" of cultural heritage (public policy, cultural supply) but those who make heritage (integrated approach). The long experience of the European Integrated Heritage Mission allowed a heritage curator to experience this new heritage public service from 1995 to 2013. The mission, which has unfortunately not been maintained following its retirement, has led to civil society initiatives that are pursuing part of its functions as the "resource Centre" anchors dedicated to the history and memories of Migrations or the Northern Hotel centipede which is a "story factory". The second proposal concerns the heritage data. Although the public institution is active on the inventory of cultural heritages, their digitisation and accessibility through, inter alia, new digital cultural services, the numerous data collected by the heritage communities enter , they rarely in the public domain often fail even to try, see to opt for publication media independent of the institutional control like Wikipedia. How can these processes, both public and civil, contribute to co-defining the conditions and protocols for the cooperation of heritage communities in the process of inventorying and putting into circulation of heritage data (commenting, collecting, Complete, re-create, share, interpret, mediate, value)?. The latest European opinion "the local and regional dimension of the sharing economy" promotes the consolidation of "collaborative institutional ecosystems" with citizen initiatives that respect the principles of transparency, openness and Responsibility. The third is to experiment with public regulation of "cultural Commons" which could be inspired by the Italian experience of the laboratory for the governance of LabGov common goods. It experiments and disseminates a model of "settlement of Urban Commons" adopted in just two years by some sixty Italian cities and in short of adoption by 80 news including Rome. It allows a community to pass a "collaboration pact" with citizens so that they can take care (protection, preservation, maintenance) of tangible or intangible common goods, public or private for public use, and collaborate in their management, Renovation, transformation or innovation. These urban commons can be public spaces such as squares or gardens, buildings or services such as sports, cultural, social, etc. The waterfall of Aygalades, the Carmelite cave, the Oppidum of Varma, Atower of which heritage communities and local elected representatives are long-term mobilizers, could benefit on an experimental basis from such an experiment. The fourth relates to the establishment of a process of public consultation in heritage. The mayors signatory of Faro have posed as the first act the establishment of a "Heritage commission" bringing together the heritage communities active for ensemble to focus on the issues related to cultural heritages. This experience, which today is the subject of a "Free application of Faro" disseminated by the Council of Europe, could be further formalised by relying in particular on the French experience of the development councils. Heritage communities would thus be recognized in their function of interrogation and preparation of public decisions relating to cultural heritages (urbanism, cultural policy, social action, economic development, etc.). They could, in the context of public action, be able to participate in organising local consultation, carrying out the diagnosis as well as evaluation and being a force for proposal and warning. Their role would be equally important in the management of heritage conflicts (uses, interpretations, development, etc.) by facilitating the expression of heritage communities, economic and associative actors, elected officials and administrations. The last one concerns the setting up of an observatory on the taking into account of cultural rights. It would be useful, not in an evaluation function, but as an "alert" for the experiments implemented in particular concerning access to the right of all citizens, on the actual existence of an economic and social environment conducive to their Participation, respect for the diversity of interpretations as well as the integrity of the heritage, in short to maintain constant attention to all the recommendations emanating from the Faro Convention, Fruit of thirty year of European reflection. These proposals made in Primis to the members of the cooperative as to the local authorities and more generally to those who are interested in these issues condition the realization of our social object. Prosper Wanner, northern Hotel associate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *