Prosper Wanner and Christine Breton: The departmental heritage: Common good and economic exchange

Preamble: This note is the result of an action research process initiated between an official in charge of conservation of the heritage and an entrepreneur responsible for the sustainable development of enterprises. This duality, common good and economic exchange, is wanted: economic and patrimonial interests are seldom crossed. On the one hand, the heritage approach is seen as excluding goods from the economic field and increasing the public burden. On the other, the economic approach is seen as a participant in "merchandise" of heritage assets. This tension is topical: copyright, patents on living, over-exploitation of tourists, etc. This process aims, on both sides, to overcome this opposition between common good (inalienable) and private (profitable) use in the interests of each. It represents for everyone a cultural revolution. The inalienable nature of the property, its democratic management and its free access remain difficult to translate in the context of private use. All like the designation of what makes heritage and its use is difficult to grasp in a participatory way. It was validated by the departmental consultation Council in plenary meeting on 16 November 2006. See the official version.   The heritage economy. Heritage Conservation is a public office. Its identification, restoration, study or exhibition are all loads that are seldom compensated by the product of the visits. It's a deficit economy. Since the nineteenth century, the nature of the heritage has continued to widen to go far beyond the treasure of the cathedral. To tangible property (monuments), intangible (arts, crafts) are added cultural and then natural goods, increasingly threatened. This exponential increase puts the burden on local communities of heavy responsibility: how to identify all the local assets at risk? Which ones to keep for the good of future generations? How to assess the risks associated with their disappearance: Identity crisis, loss of sovereignty? How to finance their conservation in a context of scarcity of the public resource? The economic value of heritage. Art, crafts and catering are all areas that benefit from heritage.  Tourism has become one of the first civil industries in the world and the online sale of cultural goods (music, image, text,…), one of the most promising. Heritage has gained unprecedented market gain. The economic value of heritage is essential. It brings together knowledge, provokes encounters and opens up to other cultures. Companies, artisans, associations are living heritage and making it live. Tourism is by far the economic sector that benefits most from the valorisation of heritage. The measure of this "profit" enables the valorisation of the patrimonial public office in terms of its economic impact. The PACA region has created a regional observatory in this direction. It measures the economic scope of a heritage property with regard to the tourist benefits (visits, restaurant, Hotel,..), tax (visitor's tax) and related to its restoration (restoration work, public finance mobilization). This economic gain is based in large part on the ability to attract a potential clientele that generates direct revenue (ticketing, guided tours, bookstores) and indirect (expenditures made in its environment). The French experience of the centres of Heritage economics shows that the economic scope also concerns the attractiveness of a territory (improvement of the quality of life) and its handicraft (creation of a strong identity). The law of 2 August 2005 in favour of SMEs has created the label "Enterprise patrimony vivant" designed to promote the development of enterprises with an economic heritage (rare know-how, mastery of traditional techniques or high technicality). It aims to enhance the recognition of this heritage at national and international level and to strengthen these companies through specific financial measures and communication tools. The economic overexploitation of heritage. The investment for "more attractiveness" in the short term sometimes has induced effects: degradation of the intentionality of the property to meet the legitimate demands of a clientele, loss of identity, evolution of the sites to commercial zones Tourism, increasing land to the detriment of farmers or the less wealthy,…. Our territory is highly tourism-intensive and knows the effects of an "excess of tourism" and an "excess of attractiveness". Heritage goods and services are endowed with a dual nature, economic and cultural. The risk of a lack of regulation concerning this double quality is to see against economic value and general interest. The Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions signed on 20 October 2005 by the UNESCO General Conference (HTTP://PORTAL.UNESCO.ORG/CULTURE/FR) lays down cultural goods and services as identity holders, of value and meaning which therefore should not be treated as having an exclusively commercial value. At present, negotiators of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) are questioning the possibility of extracting the heritage from the public good and integrating it into the laws of the market: public institutions are giving up their rights and boosting The world economy. The risk is that a wealth economy, albeit a deficit, we pass on the economic exploitation of heritage: beneficiaries of our heritage, we become clients. A concrete example: the conflict that opposed Kokopelli, the association of diffusion of old vegetable seeds, and a cereal is a new illustration of this tension between public good and market value: Following the request for the inscription of varieties of Old seeds on an official catalogue, the Court of Alès has pointed out the divergence between trade legislation, here national, and heritage legislation, here community. today, patents on the living, image rights or more locally the transformation of some of our sites or common in "amusement park" are already as many warning signals That we need to be attentive to. However, historical monuments must be used to have a chance to be maintained just as the landscape must provide income to the farmers who manage it. How do we get out of this opposition between a heritage logic that sanctuarise property at the cost of an increase in public office and a market approach that creates wealth at the risk of a loss of sovereignty? How to increase the surface of our natural parks, preserve our mining heritage, renovate a historical social habitat, maintain a peri-urban peasant agriculture without increasing the public burden? The productive investment of heritage converge economic development and heritage conservation: a challenge for sustainable development of citizens ' stories, evidence of possible convergence between sustainable development paths and Heritage conservation issues here in the Bouches du Rhône department:

  • The reforestation of the chain of the Star (Natura 2000 site) with the pumping of water from the gallery to the sea and the recycling of the "red Sludge" produced by the treatment of bauxite (miner of Gardanne);
  • The use of micro-electronics and silicon extraction skills to locally install a photovoltaic industry and increase our energy autonomy (Environmental Education Association);
  • The renovation of the high environmental quality of Marseille's first social habitats to preserve ancient know-how adapted to ecological developments (construction contractor);
  • The reintroduction of hemp, a fire-cut plant, to exploit it as an alternative ecological material to all plastic (artist);
  • The development of short circuits conducive to the maintenance of peasant farming as a pledge of our food sovereignty and conservation of our landscapes and local biodiversities (peasant).

Since the Amsterdam declaration of 1975: "Integrated conservation engages the responsibility of local authorities and calls for citizen participation". A reservoir of 30 years of texts to Member States, calls for proposals and expert work is at our disposal (  Recommendation R (95) 9: "On the conservation of cultural sites integrated with landscape policies" is the richest of potential applications. That heritage is no longer only the fruit of the eyes of conservatives, but also of citizens, and that they can have the enjoyment of it allows to transcend the French vision where the state says what is heritage, thus our identity, and uses it as a pledge Staff (the treasure of the cathedral). Interest is both European (enriching the nation's logic) and economic (Finding heritage conservation resources other than the assignment of rights). By recognising the dual economic and cultural quality of heritage, it aims to register its conservation and use as a driving force for a more democratic society and contributing to the improvement of the quality of life for all. With regard to tourism, it is attentive to a sustainable and balanced development which allows a better valuation of the sites and irrigates the whole department. The integrated approach to heritage in its culture/nature report is complementary to the heritage heritage (museums, monuments, enshrined in a Nation's logic). Heritage responsibility is no longer at the sole expense of the local community. The designation of what makes heritage, the identification of threatened heritage property, the possible avenues of conservation or valorisation can also be the fruit of civil society: associations, collectives, companies,… Local capacities to "make heritage" or preventive conservation are multiplied. The closing conference of the 50th anniversary of the European cultural Convention (Faro, October 2005) resulted in Uneconvention framework on the value of cultural heritage for society. This Convention represents a considerable step forward. It clearly declines the principles of implementation of public policies for integrated heritage conservation. It deals with the rights and responsibilities of individuals in the field of cultural heritage and successively explicitly links it to the different dimensions of development: Democratic debate, territorial cohesion, quality of life, Sustainable valorization and economic development. Its declination in terms of public policy remains to be done. In this sense, it gives a framework and lays down specific bases which are as many points of support heritage is no longer seen as a public office but as a productive investment. The property seeks to acquire a "living function" in connection with the present and its stakes. It adapts to the present (as has long been the case) and its intentional value participates, as an investment, in the sustainable development of the Territory. It is a resource for the whole of society: companies, associations, inhabitants,... The public storage office becomes here a entrepreneurial resource. Companies can rely on this resource to create wealth: the upkeep of a castle garden, the collection of threatening natural species or the slashing of fire prevention are all wealth for Entrepreneurs.  They encourage the anchoring of economic activities in the Territory. The conservation of a building, a know-how or a culture is no longer at the cost of a public deficit, an assignment of rights or an excess of attractiveness, but as part of a shared sustainable development project. The difficulty is that the property does not lose its intentional value (cultural, political and symbolic) in favour of a purely financial approach (no longer aiming at the curious visitor in search of intelligence but the potentially solvent client). The risk of a lack of regulation concerning this dual economic and cultural quality is to see against economic value and general interest. Heritage can have a role to play in our food sovereignty, energy autonomy or the defence of our landscapes. The valorisation of heritage is no longer primarily its attractiveness, but its capacity to support economic development projects that are industrial, agricultural or tertiary. Our ability to control our development choices is reinforced. It is not a question of seeing heritage conservation as a constraint (increasing taxes, increasing inordinately tourism or resorting, amplifying economic dependence), but as the treasure it is and what we could do with it in Everyone's interest. Heritage management becomes the support of public private cooperation public service can no longer do without civil society and conversely. Co-operative status here takes a new interest.  Its nature of commercial law, the imshareable character of the property and its democratic governance make it a possible framework for experimentation. In particular, the new status of a cooperative partnership of collective interest that can involve public and private interests (CICS). It is not a question of opposing trade in heritage against a cooperative virtuous circle but, by that statute, of (re) putting on the agenda these formulas which make it possible to put on public and private equality. This know-how should be opened to symbolic productions. Currently, cooperatives, positioned on heritage conservation, bring together artisans, users, businesses, researchers and local authorities. They participate in the general interest and enrich the economic activity of territories, tourism professionals, craftsmen, associations and researchers. In 2006, cooperatives will be able to acquire a European stature. With the new European cooperative status opens the field to the experimentation of local co-operation registered at European level. A cross-cutting approach that is pushing the current executives. The integrated conservation of heritage Property represents a cultural revolution for both economic actors and heritage curators. The patrimonial and economic interests of a territory are seldom crossed. This can be explained by the fears they generate on both sides: on the one hand, the heritage approach can be seen as excluding local assets from the economic field, and on the other, the economic approach can lead to "merchandise" of goods Heritage. This approach disrupts the framework of traditional heritage management. The challenge is to innovate the outlines of this relationship between collective property (inalienable) and individual use (profitable). This evolution concerns both the process of civic designation of what makes Heritage (identify, name, expose) as well as new forms of participatory use of heritage (investing, participating). The inalienable nature of the property, its democratic management and its free access must be translated into an integrated conservation framework. Proposal N ° 1: The Departmental Consultation Council invites the Department to endorse the Council of Europe's recommendations on integrated heritage approach, namely: 1.1 Recognising the dual economic and cultural quality of the Heritage, to record its conservation and use as a driving force for the development of a more democratic society and contributing to the improvement of the quality of life for all, 1.2 to be attentive to a sustainable and balanced development of tourism which allows a Better valuation of the sites and irrigates the whole department. 1.3 Become an engine in the process of ratification of the Faro Convention at National, transnational level, at the level of the Latin and European ARC. Proposal N ° 2: Within the framework of the objective of integrated heritage management, the Regional Council of consultation invites the General Council to: 2.1 To identify the resources in the field of wealth in the county territory in all its Forms and in particular to recognise the complementarity of its heritage heritage (museums, monuments enshrined in a Nation's logic), with the integrated approach to heritage in its culture/nature relationship. 2.2 To identify and produce appropriate indicators for integrated heritage management. 2.3 The General Council may, in particular, rely on the regional heritage agency and the Council of Europe to carry out the work. Proposal No. 3: The departmental Council for concertation invites the General Council to promote collective symbolic capital. 3.1 By registering its heritage as a resource mobilized for all its policies and services by registering and giving a framework for the use of its heritage in accordance with the recognized rules and from a development perspective Sustainable and preventive conservation. By registering the restoration work on the monuments and sites belonging to it in an integrated management in connection with the stakes of the present. 3.2 At the smallest territorial level, within the framework of the policy of aid to municipalities or cross-financing by taking advantage of the integrated approach to heritage, in particular in the interests of good management of its investments and by consolidate its Support in the perspective of a balanced cultural development. Proposal N ° 4: The departmental Council of consultation recommends that the General Council should include its heritage policies in the framework of European construction. 4.1 At European level, it supports the recording of local approaches within the framework of European policies: standby function, support for project assembly, co-financing. It mobilizes its European networks and in particular its representation in Brussels and its partners within the Latin ARC. 4.2 It is attentive to the inclusion of heritage approaches in a European framework: incitement to transnational cooperation, creation of European common goods.  At the Euro-Mediterranean level, it can build on the proposal for the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean network of local systems within the framework of the European Delta programme. 4.3 In connection with the Council of Europe and the State, it values its investment through the publication of these actions within the framework of the European programmes of valorisation of good practices, including the inheritance programme. Proposal N ° 5: The department recognises every citizen a right to cultural heritage for the sake of innovation. 5.1 The identification, restoration, interpretation, exhibition or use of heritage may be the result of civic approaches: Collective of inhabitants, enterprises, associations, cooperatives, etc. These approaches are treated in the same way as other heritage policies. 5.2 In order to do so, the department creates a line of calls for projects focusing on the integrated heritage approach. The three levels of local government could be mobilized.  It could focus on the local declination of Council of Europe recommendations, particularly in the area of ' citizen heritage production ' and ' integrated heritage use '. This call for tender could eventually lead to a European or euro Mediterranean tender. Proposal N ° 6: As part of its policies to support the Co-operative movement and its openness to European construction, the departmental consultation Council urges the Department to continue its support for the cooperative movement and in particular The development of private public cooperation, particularly within CICS and dedicated funds. By encouraging these cooperation to make heritage by accompanying them to take a European dimension as soon as the texts allow it through the forthcoming European Cooperative.

Abonnez-vous à nos actualités

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *