Prosper Wanner: Can cooperation sustainably stabilize the heritage economy?

The nature of the heritage "to be protected" continues to increase: natural, industrial and intangible heritage. Public funding to keep it, they are experiencing a downward trend. In the Face of this situation, several public institutions have invested in the development of private financing methods. Sponsorship and "cultural tourism", at the centre of these new forms of financing, today show their strong sensitivity to an uncertain economic context. American museums like Italians have to face a sharp drop in their private resources. Cultural demand and even more sponsorship are experiencing a sharp drop. Long-term financial commitments such as restoration work or exposure preparation can hardly be dependent on economic hazards such as oil prices or financial speculation at the risk of mortgage The inalienable.  Critics of the use of private financing have hitherto focused on the risks of instrumentalization: loss of meaning, over-exploitation, haggling. The oil and then financial crisis of 2008 raises the question of its stability. This situation, the decline of public resources and the uncertainties of private resources that are supposed to compensate them, gives a special economic value to citizen participation in heritage policies. It helps to make the heritage economy less vulnerable. Until then under estimated, it allows to spread the risks better. It is based on diversified modes of financing (volunteering, public financing, participation, trade) and their sector (trade, agriculture, education,…). The distribution of roles and intentions between private and public actors is evolving. Public policy evolves in the direction of a culture of results: measure of performance, justification of expenditure, valorisation of resources. The Conservatives are called upon to become more managers. In the case of private actors, for-profit companies or not, take into account the defence of interests hitherto carried by public authorities: social responsibility, sustainable development, solidarity economy. People are undertaking to defend a threatened heritage. The traditional compartmentalization between economy and culture gives way to more interrelations. This situation raises as many hopes as fears. On the one hand, it raises the fear of an increasing instrumentalisation of the heritage: loss of meaning, overexploitation, haggling. On the other, it is based on the expectation of an increased contribution of heritage to the development of a more democratic and peaceful society. Rather than face each other, conservatives and entrepreneurs are looking to develop new forms of heritage economics based on cooperation. Our co-operative is positioned on the emergence of private public economic cooperation conducive to sustainable development. At the request of the General Association of Curators of the public collections of France, Section d'azur (AGCCPF), we realized in 2007 three economic diagnoses of cooperation between conservatives and companies Support for sustainable development. We have chosen as an analysis grid the one set up to accompany the modernisation of the French state: measure of the performance vis-a-vis the taxpayer (efficiency), the user (quality of service) and the citizen (socio-economic impact) to which We have added the performance vis-à-vis the Company (Sustainable development). One of the three cooperations is that developed in Marseille between the association Boud'mer and the MCEM, Museum of society devoted to the civilisations of Europe and the Mediterranean. The Boud'mer Association reconciles the Protection of the marine environment and the democratisation of its access. Its 300 members share the use of a dozen traditional boats and educate the general public about the Marine heritage: thematic outings, exhibitions. Since 2006, MCEM has entrusted him with the maintenance, conservation and development of the Swordfish boat. Cooperation is interesting for both parties. The boat is better kept at sea, accessible all year long and costs are shared. It helps to enhance and protect the local marine heritage. Each of these cooperation is proving to be effective. They are an effective way to accompany the implementation of the curator's missions: improving the accessibility of heritage, intervention in rural areas or in sensitive urban areas. It allows it to use complementary external skills. Costs are shared on diversified funding modes: volunteering, public funding, participation, trade. This cooperation strengthens the economic players as well in their choice of sustainable development. These companies, less lucrative in the short term, have difficulty access to the sales front to make themselves known and venture capital to invest. Access to a heritage allows them to benefit from a cultural capital, a notoriety or a mark of recognition that is not indexed on their profit in the short term. Interest is shared. Cooperation is not based on the ability of actors to grow heritage but on their capacity to contribute to heritage policies: conservation, protection and development. These diagnoses, disseminated in the professional environment by the AGCCPF via its website www.ateliermuseal.net, contribute to the enhancement of the potential of cultural heritage as a factor of sustainable economic development (article 10 of the Convention of Faro). The diagnosis has shown that the three experiences also share a structural fragility: these are unsustainable development initiatives. Cooperation is based on trust bonds and little on a contractual regulation of private public relations. Paradoxically, their success can quickly destabilise them in the absence of a well-established regulatory framework. There are few legal and scientific references to make these co-operations transparent (indicators, criteria) and in a democratic way (regulatory framework). Cooperation between private/public actors in heritage requires further signposting. Everyone has sought to adapt already existing frameworks, to pass bipartite conventions, to give authorisations or approvals to do the best. This lack of repositories hinders the development of cooperation between public and private heritage actors. The passage of so well-identified benchmarks – public heritage policies – towards processes of cooperation with the private sector is all the more a risk-taking. Few conservatives are now considering cooperation as a possible expansion of their mode of action. The Faro convention is in this essential sense. It calls on the parties to develop the legal, financial and professional frameworks which allow for a combined action on the part of the public authorities, experts, owners, investors, companies, non- and civil society (article 11) by exchanging, developing, codifying and ensuring the dissemination of good practices (article 17). In February 2009, with these three diagnoses, the departmental Council of consultation of Bouches-du-Rhône, bringing together some 100 representatives of civil society divided into four colleges, unanimously adopted article 17 of the Faro Convention as a recommendation to the elected officials of the Bouches-du-Rhône General Council. Prosper WANNER . SCOP PLACE February 2009: Contribution to the Council of Europe's work "heritage and beyond" on the Framework Convention on the Contribution of cultural heritage for society, known as the "Faro Convention". Reference article: Article 10 of the Faro Convention "heritage and Economics".

Leave a Reply

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