Sub-theme 1. Our common SDGs?
Panel 1.4.
Cultural Heritage as a Commons: Governance Challenges through the lens of UNESCO Heritage Conventions and the Sustainable Development Goals
The 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention initiated a period of global expansion in government-sponsored protection of natural and monumental cultural heritage sites. Three decades later, the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage revolutionized heritage governance by advocating that practices, traditions, or skills transmitted between generations constitute “heritage” and that communities, groups, and individuals are main subjects in heritage governance. Both Conventions contributed to the dramatic growth in global tourism premised on heritage as a driver of development. A similar spirit is reflected in the UNESCO MONDIACULT 2022 conference, which concluded that “culture is a driver of development” but also “culture is a global public good.”
Cultural heritage thus has become problematic new commons, raising local, regional, national, international, and global governance challenges. Substantial financial resources and reputational rewards are at stake in heritage protection, energizing competition for control of heritage sites or practices. National and international institutions are neither designed nor equipped to resolve these governance challenges and are subject to political contention at every level. The struggle to incorporate non-state actors (indigenous peoples, communities, NGOs) in existing global heritage regimes is widely seen as unsatisfactory, resulting in increased tensions related to political disempowerment, site enclosures, cultural appropriation, and maldistribution of economic rewards. Heritage is inadequately represented in the Sustainable Development Goals, even though effective heritage governance could substantially contribute to their achievement.
This panel will explore when “commons” is an appropriate analytical frame for assessing heritage governance and its challenges, how cultural heritage governance meshes with Sustainable Development Goals, how commons tools and analysis can contribute to addressing the inequities in global heritage governance, what lessons can be gleaned from existing governance of UNESCO tangible heritage sites or of intangible heritage practices, and how commons theoreticians and practitioners from outside of heritage can contribute to improving global heritage governance. Scholars and practitioners are invited to share their challenges and ideas.
Panel 1.4. A — Macro Governance Perspectives
Chair: Peter Gould
1. Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage commons
James Cook University, Australia
Political dynamics across scales are often overlooked in the design, implementation and evaluation of commons governance. We provide new evidence to explain how interactions between international organizations and national governments shape commons governance and outcomes for 238 World Heritage commons, on the basis of a new intervention–response–outcome typology. We analysed interactions between the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and 102 national governments responsible for implementing commons governance under the World Heritage Convention between 1972 and 2019. We combined data on the reporting, deliberation and certification of threats, with data on national governance quality, economic complexity and key stakeholder perspectives. We found that the extent of threatened commons is seriously underestimated and that efforts to formally certify threatened commons are often resisted by national governments. A range of responses to international intervention, including both productive and counterproductive responses, generates material impacts at multiple levels. Counterproductive responses occur in nations dependent on limited high-value natural resource industries, irrespective of overall level of economic development. We identify new political approaches to improve commons governance at higher scales, including how to overcome the problem of national regulatory capture. Our findings inform how we can better anticipate and account for multiscale political dynamics in governing the commons.
2. Identifying the longue durée in the history of cultural heritage (Virtual)
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
This paper offers just one view of the kinds of contribution that commons theoreticians and practitioners from outside heritage can make to improving the global governance of heritage. The continuing management of shared agricultural resources is a commonplace aspect of tangible cultural heritage, as is its distinctive contribution to intangible cultural heritage through its expressions in governance, society and identity. The proposition presented here is that time-depth in the history of commons in natural resources, arable or pasture – and, by implication, their intangible contributions to social structures, social relations and cultural traditions – might be identified in societies where that longer-term history can only be inferred. It suggests that shared rights of property over some resources across the longue durée may be identified using interdisciplinary approaches drawn from fields other than excavation, historical or anthropological research. Taking the case of British landscapes it demonstrates that there was a fundamental continuity in rights of common in non-arable resources and in their influence on community identity, governance, social relations and social values across at least five millennia before the present. It briefly touches on the utility of Gunderson and Holling’s model of panarchy in exploring the relationship between such long-term continuities and substantial political, social and economic change. It concludes by asking whether the demonstration of that added time-depth might make a modest contribution to further strengthening arguments for the preservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage both of commons and, as importantly, as a common in itself?
3. A global analysis of threats to the World Heritage Commons
University of Torino, Italy
Like other commons, cultural heritage is increasingly recognized as a resource whose conservation and management pose collective action dilemmas at different scales. While scholarship research has so far mainly focused on theoretical and conceptual issues to understand heritage sites under the lens of the commons, there is still a lack of empirical evidence to support the proposed theoretical framework.
This paper proposes an exploratory analysis of the main threats affecting World Heritage Sites to empirically unveil the dilemmas emerging in the safeguarding and conservation of cultural heritage.
Using data from the UNESCO State of Conservation reports of more than 400 World Heritage Sites in the 2000-2020 period, the paper first documents the frequency and correlation between different types of threats globally and between regions. Moreover, by developing indicators of heritage threats at the state level, we inquire into their political, economic and natural determinants at the macro-level.
The paper contributes to the emerging literature on heritage governance by shedding light into the main causes that determine collection action dilemmas at heritage sites.
4. Enhancing community resilience through a commons approach to World Heritage (Virtual)
World Heritage Catalysis; ICOMOS, Norway
Tourism is a global growth industry recognized for its potential to directly and indirectly contribute to all the UNSDGs (UNWTO). Natural and cultural World Heritage sites attracting significant visitor numbers are consequently acknowledged as potent drivers of development and localizing the Goals (UNESCO; ICOMOS). But a booming tourism industry and increasing dependency on growth in tourism has left many tourism reliant communities vulnerable to disruptions. As for post Covid, the SDGs are central in the recovery of tourism.
Meanwhile, carbon emissions from travel and tourism are increasing, driving climate-induced crises and disasters affecting many communities hosting World Heritage. The gap between this reality and Agenda2030 have called the appropriateness of the framework into question (Hickel; Bendell). A main critique is the extractive and unsustainable financial system specifically set out through SDG 8 on promoting ‘economic growth’ but underpinning all of the SDGs.
This paper explores an alternative to addressing heritage as a ‘resource’ in perpetual economic growth through tourism, to an approach considering natural and cultural heritage as ‘commons’ to be stewarded for the benefit of the host community (Ostrom; Bollier & Helfrich; a.o.). In presenting the emerging theory of change set out by World Heritage Catalysis it suggests that a bottom-up collaborative approach to visitor management through applying the UNESCO Visitor Management Assessment & Strategy Tool (VMAST) and World Heritage Exchange Trading Systems (WHETS) could enhance community resilience and self-reliance ahead of future disruptions.
5. Meta-commons and the challenge of sustainable global governance: the case of UNESCO Heritage Lists
University of Warsaw, Polska
The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of meta-commons. First, starting with identification of existing definitions and approaches in the field of global governance it maps the conceptual landscape with the aim to adequately place the concept of meta-commons. Then, it takes Elinor Ostrom’s concepts and approaches (Ostrom 1990, Ostrom, Hess 2003) in order to shift the reflection from natural resources considered as commons to cultural and heritage commons and finally – to policy tools and institutions created to govern heritage commons. I take as a case study UNESCO Heritage Lists and argue that each UNESCO Heritage List is ‘a shared resource subject to social dilemmas’ – the definition of commons introduced by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom (Hess, Ostrom, 2003, 2007). The UNESCO Heritage Lists: World Heritage List and the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity are themselves repositories of heritage resources considered as commons. Thus, I distinguish ‘commons’ from institutions created to govern the commons: meta-commons. So, I conceptualize selected, specific policy tools that are repositories of commons as meta-commons: that is commons that govern the commons and that need themselves to be governed effectively, sustainably and credibly.
Panel 1.4. B — Case Studies and Local Perspectives
Chair: Chair Hanna Schreiber
1. Analysis of the Role of Indigenous People’s Cultural Heritage in achieving Sustainable Development Targets: the case of the Maasai of Kenya
University of Nairobi, Kenya
Available literature demonstrates the important role cultural heritage plays in achieving the Agenda 2030. The contribution of the indigenous peoples in the world will be significant in realising this Agenda. Thus, there is need to understand how appropriate management of the cultural heritage of the Maasai community of Kenya can promote achievement of the set sustainable development targets in Kenya.
The objective of this paper is to analyse the role of the cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Kenya in achieving sustainable development targets, with specific reference to the Maasai of Kenya. A mixed-methods and exploratory research design is used. Multiple data gathering instruments including in-depth literature review, field observations and key informant interviews were employed. Purposive sampling was used to select interviewees from the relevant state and County departments.
The major finding of the study is that the Maasai Community continue to take pride in their cultural heritage especially their manyatta villages, rite of passage and indigenous knowledge even in a globalising world. However, cultural heritage faces numerous challenges that need to be addressed to ensure its sustainability and contribution to sustainable development.
Key words
Conservation, cultural heritage Maasai, indigenous peoples, Kenya, sustainable development
2. How to govern trade-off situations towards sustainability in UNESCO World Heritage Sites? Insights from Chaco Culture National Historical Park, US (Virtual)
School of Sustainability, Arizona State University,USA
Achieving worldwide sustainable development remains the biggest challenge of the 21st century. Despite near-global consensus on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), unresolved and politically contentious trade-offs between SDGs have undermined implementation. The threat of climate change exacerbates these challenges. Trade-offs are also prevalent in UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) which require governance processes to coordinate competing resource uses.
I use a case study research design for the WHS Chaco Culture National Historical Park, US, as a critical case in this regard. Data were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews between 2022 and early 2023 and document analysis. Data were analysed through qualitative content analysis. The results show how a proposed 10-mile buffer zone around the WHS would protect and preserve the cultural heritage (SDG 11), withdraw oil and gas development (SDG 13), protect ecosystems (SDG 15), stop harm to air quality and health (SDG 3) and to water quality (SDG 6), support transition to renewable energy (SDG 7), protect night skies, soundscapes, and viewscapes, but threaten local economic income (SDG 8) and poverty (SDG 1). Most of the advocates and opponents of the proposed zone are not satisfied with the governance processes and claim for reducing inequalities (SDG 10) and ensuring inclusive and representative decision-making (SDG 16). Apart from a few exceptions, the designation as a WHS is not part of the argumentation and of decision-making even though the WHS Operational Guidelines recommend a buffer zone for the proper protection of the property. I conclude with reflections on how to improve governance processes to manage trade-off situations in WHS.
3. Heritage as commons: a Mediterranean perspective
Centre for Landscape, Newcastle University, UK
In the emerging scientific arena of commons debate and practice, culture and heritage appear in notably few discussions. Cultural commons are broadly interpreted as cognitive/intellectual commons or “new commons,” involving concepts such as social structures, regulatory frames and processes of commoning, along with their immaterial outputs. Heritage commons appear in the bibliography even less frequently, mainly inferred through discussions in heritage theory (values, tangible-intangible resources, indigenous heritage), community inclusion, institutions and management (public / private, ownership, rights), criticism of economic development and sustainability practices (tourism, management). Drawing from cases in the Mediterranean Sea, I will attempt to gauge the role of heritage commons in the debate over the political role of heritage but also, taking a step back, further organise the ontological framework of heritage commons, attempting to understand the overlapping enclosures of heritage and identify ways towards the opposite end: the democratic, socially relevant – and occasionally agonistic – patterns for the viable governance of heritage as a commons.
4. Local Experts in World Heritage Cities: Understanding Their Role in Polycentric Governance. The Experience of Torun (Virtual)
University of Warsaw, Poland
The coordination of policies across different sectors of government is of growing importance for both scholars and policymakers. Public officials have to interact effectively at different levels of government and with the business sector and local communities. In this context, it is essential to understand not the functions of individual public officials but how governance is exercised as a system and what role individual actors play in it.
Polycentric governance provides more opportunities for the representation of different social actors and represents a system of many centres of decision-making which are formally independent of each other. Using the example of the Medieval Town of Torun (Poland), this research analyses the building of local expertise on World Heritage issues and the role in the decision-making process played by people who are well-known locally but who do not have the status of World Heritage experts.
Empirically, the study is based on a series of semi-structured expert interviews and a qualitative analysis of city administration documents about the people they invited as experts to heritage commons inscribed into the World Heritage List. The data were collected in the first part of 2023.
This study hypothesizes that in polycentric governance systems, World Heritage local expertise structures are becoming less hierarchical. Increasing numbers of participants are being included in expert reviews, influencing this process and determining the content of recommendations. Local experts can provide valuable knowledge and experience about the local context, cultural practices, and community values, which can inform the design and implementation of governance strategies that are tailored to local needs and preferences. Additionally, local experts can serve as liaisons between the community and heritage experts, facilitating communication and teamwork among these groups. This can contribute to cultivating a feeling of accountability and ownership among community members, which maybe become the most fundamental for maintaining heritage commons in the future.
5. Polycentric Governance and Sustainable Heritage Sites
Indiana University (Bloomington), USA
Cultural heritage sites implicate diverse and divergent stakeholders in the provision and appropriation of the values they create. These are both intangible values such as identity, cultural transmission or religious observation and tangible values relating to the economic benefits from heritage-driven tourism, urban redevelopment, and the museum industry. The governance of heritage sites is strongly dominated in most countries by government organizations administering them as public goods. However, alternative structures exist that suggest and in some cases incorporate polycentric governance models. These present an underappreciated alternative to top-down management. Polycentric heritage site governance may be able to satisfy the financial needs of sites and the interests of national and international bodies in site preservation and presentation, yet devolve both operating responsibility and authority to local organizations better placed to reflect community values and interests in heritage. Multi-level governance provides regulatory oversight and access to scarce resources and skills to ground-level organizations likely to fail without such interventions. This paper will present a preliminary report into a survey of heritage sites worldwide that exhibit clear characteristics of polycentric governance. The project is designed ultimately to assess the effectiveness of polycentric structures in addressing the interests and goals of diverse constituencies in a manner that achieves site sustainability in a manner that effectively can resolve the inherent stakeholder contention over heritage sites.
