The cause is heard: culture will now be the fourth pillar of sustainable development. (…) The Rio Summit had already, in 1992, paved the way by saying that "sustainable development" was first a change of behaviour, that is to say a cultural change. "Culture and Sustainable development: The breakthrough", Serge Antoine [1] 2005. The increasing awareness of public opinion on sustainable development is timidly translated into action, whether we are challenged as a citizen, a professional or a simple consumer. If the younger one seems to be, that of the adults remains problematic. Guilt-the world is going badly-consom'action-the future is in your purse-or tax incentives do not prove to be the best vectors of accountability. On the contrary sometimes. This change in behaviour, so often put forward as fundamental to strive towards sustainable development, sustainability or simply desirable, represents for each one (r) cultural evolution. It is not just a matter of having the right tools, a certain number of recipes already exist, but of wanting to seize it. Our relationship with our environment, whether human, natural or technical, goes through culture. Just like the link between generations, the foundation of sustainable development. Culture and heritage, which have not been taken into account until today in sustainable development policies, are on the way to becoming the fourth pillar. The stakes still seem to be far beyond: they are not only a good to be preserved for future generations, but they are one of the only ones able today to accompany a cultural change of this nature. This cultural quality is doubled by an economic quality that faitce "lowest common denominator" between sectors, disciplines and logics that are more closely associated with each other – economy, society, culture and the environment. Transversality indispensable to sustainable development. This potential – "Making sustainable development" – is perceived by heritage curators first as a risk-taking. And it is a real risk taking to move from such a well-identified outlet – public heritage policies – to this new take – to cooperate with civil society – without falling into the "haggling" of heritage. Today, conditions seem to come together to accompany a risk-taking. 1/The context is more than favorable, or even "too much", to take language with the economic world, often perceived as antagonist. Heritage, like culture, is already at work in the new processes of value creation. They become the most important competitive values to stand out in an increasingly global and virtual economy. Heritage has already become an economic lever for state debt. The new Intangible Heritage Agency of the state – the Fipa – and the recent exceptional valorisation of the "Louvre" brand are here to testify. The local authorities, the TPE, the SMEs, the associations, in short what makes the local economy, has as much need of the heritage to be anchored locally and to find a room for economic manoeuvre conducive to sustainable development. 2/Public policy framework indicators are structured at the national level. They are benchmarks for monitoring risk-taking, comparing its performance, drawing on balance sheets and whether it remains compatible with national policies. In short not to advance completely in the fog. This possibility is offered in particular by the Organic law relating to the financial laws of 2001, the LOLF. The state has built a battery of more than a thousand performance indicators. They concern all public policies – culture, health, economics, etc. – and are apprehended from the point of view of the citizen, the user and the taxpayer. Another set of indicators concerns its national sustainable development strategy – SNDD. Both are supposed to converge. 3/Beyond these beacons, a regulatory framework adapted to the cooperation of the Conservatives with the private sector-associations, companies, individuals-emerges at European level: the right to cultural heritage. The absence or weakness of existing repositories on private public cooperation in the field of heritage weakens the construction of conventions to regulate power relations and even possible conflicts of interest. By proposing to pass each of the status of "beneficiary" of heritage to that of "entitled", it proposes a new regulatory framework. Thus avoiding becoming a mere "customer". Private partners are recognized as partners, not just potential customers, suppliers or benefactors. The heritage is public and remains public. The difficulty is to move forward on all these fronts. One cannot do without the other. Cooperation without clear objectives is more akin to a display strategy. And the pursuit of common objectives without piloting tools makes it difficult to capitalize on knowledge and draw balance sheets to advance. Lastly, cooperation without a regulatory framework is tantamount to not apprehending conflict management and becoming unmanageable, especially in the development phases or when the founders are leaving. The purpose of this "virtual gallery" is to feed or even initiate this project by starting to evolve our own look. Cooperation between conservatives and sustainable development companies already exists. The three examples chosen by the AGCCPF PACA bear witness to this. They voluntarily illustrate the three traditional axes of sustainable development: the environment, the social and the economy. The environmental problem is illustrated by the cooperation between the Musée Gassendi in Digne-les-Bains and the geological reserve of Haute Provence. The social problem by the European Integrated Heritage mission of the city of Marseille inscribed at the heart of a project of the National Agency of Urban Revitalization – the ANRU. And the economic problem through the contribution of the MCEM to the development of a social and solidarity economy initiative in Marseille. In each case, the angle of analysis focused on the relationship between a conservative and a private entrepreneur (s). The realization of these portraits consisted in the first time to go even on the sites, to meet these people, to collect their testimony and the data available. Then, from this material, a diagnosis was made from three angles. The first on economic valuation, or, otherwise said, interest to the entrepreneur. The second on the efficiency and effectiveness of this cooperation for the museum. And the last one on the modalities of contracting which it was possible to pose between the company and the museum. In what measures does a cooperative approach between a conservative and a company perform well? Is it compatible with the performance targets that the state sets for 2010? Does it help to strengthen a sustainable development approach for the company? The realization of the museum's missions? None of the parts of the portraits – the museum, the Heritage object, the company – is similar. On the contrary, they illustrate a variety of possible inputs: a national museum, a departmental museum and a communal mission – an association, an independent and a public company – a work of art, a heritage object and a historical monument. The convergence between the portraits is not based on the statutes of the parties but more on their modalities of action and their production. 1/cooperation is interesting for both parties. Each of these cooperation is efficient – or thrifty – for the museum and the company. They are an effective way to accompany the realization of the museum's missions – improving the accessibility of heritage, intervention in rural areas or in sensitive urban areas. They are even effective in terms of the targets set by the LOLF to museums for 2010. Finally, they strengthen the economic actors in their choice to be enrolled in sustainable development. 2/The three portraits converge on the implementation of the heritage policy. Access to heritage is based on the three cases of homelessness: a trip to the sea, a European route and a hike. and cooperation with a large part of civil society – associations, companies, collectives, etc. – is done in an effective way: heritage is proving to be a catalyst capable of working together worlds that are not very common: the economy, the social, Culture and the environment. 3/They also share a structural fragility: these are unsustainable development initiatives. Cooperation is based more on trust than on contractual regulation of reports. In this context, it can be difficult to pass a course of development, to go beyond the founders or simply to transfer these experiences except to find an identical context. There is little reference. If the relationship to the client or beneficiary is sufficiently marked, that of public/private cooperation requires more. The Council of Europe framework Convention on the value of cultural heritage for the society proposed in November 2005 by the Council is the point of support for tackling the task. A first conclusion to these portraits is perhaps the identification of this site which seems to be a priority for these innovations, these experiments and these investigations to emerge a framework of common law. The most advanced framework to accompany these processes is the cultural Agenda 21. The French Standards Agency – AFNOR – has just published a methodological guide "sustainable development and social responsibility applied to local communities". ». Agenda 21 can be initiated by any actor, why not museums?
Prosper Wanner, January 2008
Portraits
- The boat swordfish, well-inalienable shared.
- Refuges d'art, a work of contemporary art essence of sustainable development
- The Carmelite cave-between historical Monument and source of sustainable development
Indicators Co-operative indicator N ° 1 – Economic valuation. The first angle of analysis is to make the entrepreneur's interest more explicit. He is neither a customer nor a supplier nor a patron of the museum but the partner of a joint project. How does he find his account? How does this cooperation strengthen its position? COOPERATIF Indicator N ° 2 – efficiency. The second indicator aims to measure the effectiveness of cooperation from the museum's point of view. That is, its ability to achieve the objectives corresponding to the missions of general interest inherent in the cooperation project. In order to be able to compare the effectiveness of the cooperative process with other experiences and the target set by the state for the years to come, this indicator is first identified within the LOLF. COOPERATIF Indicator N ° 3: – Efficiency. This third indicator always concerning the museum focuses on the efficiency of cooperation. Efficiency refers to achieving a goal with the minimum of possible committed means. It is a question of looking at the means deployed and the results set. Always with the prospect of being able to compare the efficiency of the cooperative process at the national level, the indicator is identified within the LOLF. COOPERATIF Indicator N ° 4: – Democratic governance: the last angle of analysis concerns the involvement of members of civil society – companies, associations, individuals, etc. – on issues related to heritage and the level of Current contracted.