Intangible Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Preservation Management

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH), including traditional and socio-cultural practices, is a group of authentic elements which have the ability of sustainable preservation (Keitumetse, 2006). According to the UNESCO ICH Convention (2003) - Para. 2.3, the state parties are keen to define the general perspective of ICH preservation that

Safeguarding’ means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of [ICH], including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, and transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage.

Continuing this perspective, Aikawa Noriko – Advisor to the Assistant UNESCO Director-General for Culture – clarified, within the 2004 Workshop on Inventory-making for Intangible Cultural Heritage Management, that the main feature of ICH preservation is for the responsible cultural agencies is “[to] identify and define the various elements of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory, with the participation of communities, groups and relevant non-governmental organizations” (Noriko, 2005).

Modern technologies are considered one of the significant tools in managing and preserving ICH, recording the ethnographic memory of each community, within a group of cultural technological innovations (Artese & Gagliardi, 2015).

Although the local or indigenous communities cannot always be systematically involved in various cultural issues, it has been indicated that the local community is a significant element in preserving ICH. Therefore, local communities must try to be involved in the inventory process as much as possible [1] representing the living experience and mitigating the rate of change in the core values of culture, especially in the traditional context (Artese & Gagliardi, 2015; Brooks, 2011; Sullivan, 2004).

Japanese ICH management inventories could be a good practice. Japanese law has given high significance to performing arts and craftsmanship [2]. Therefore, it is recommended that authorities create, what is called in Japan a ‘National Human Treasure’, not only for the nominated holders but also for the non-nominated holders of the ICH properties. (Hirotsugu, 2005)

Internationally, numerous countries invest in creating inventories of ICH and produce criteria for their preservation e.g. “[to found] Intellectual Property Rights related to traditional cultures and knowledge”. Subsequently, these states employ the inventories, as pedagogical instruments, training young ICH professionals, such as contemporary artists and creators. On the other hand, other states utilize these inventories as principal documentation for the reactivated actions, twining between these actions and the local development process. (Noriko, 2005)

According to the UNESCO ICH Convention (2003)-Para. 11(B), UNESCO provided a common framework “[to] identify and define the variety of elements of [ICH] present in its territory” (Noriko, 2005). Moreover, authorities should take advantage of the benefits of the UNESCO (2001-2005) program “the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage Program” raising awareness of how to preserve the outstanding universal values of ICH; upgrading legislatively the safeguarding criteria; and finally, fostering either governmental entities, NGOs or indigenous communities “to identify, safeguard, revitalize and promote” their ICH through the following six criteria:

1. Its roots in the cultural tradition or cultural history of the community concerned;
2. Its role as a means of affirming the cultural identity of the peoples and communities concerned;
3. Its value as a unique testimony of a living cultural tradition;
4. The excellence, that means, a certain mastership in the application of the skill and technical qualities displayed;
5. The risk of its disappearing;
6. The outstanding value of a certain cultural expression (Moreno-Triana, 2005).

Subsequently, the governments could create or develop ‘a decentralized management system’ as opposed to the current ‘fragmented authoritarianism’. It might merge various cultural heritage administrative, legislative, managerial, financial, informational, human resources and material-technical resources so that both governmental and non-governmental organizations can participate in safeguarding ICH. This decentralized management system will create a sustainable financial source guaranteeing the pattern of sustainability within a group of various contributions that will collaborate representing the “human resources, involvement of the museum network, cultural-educational institutions in the process of searching, recording and restoration of [ICH] elements” (Imnaishvili & Taktakishvili, 2013).

Internationally, numerous governments jointly seek to conserve and maintain their ICH against the various threats of extinction, including long-term development plans, academic institutions, and freelance professionals. This safeguarding operation is conducted via a group of various studies and activities documenting, studying, and analyzing ICH. In the final phase, these collaborative activities are moved to a museum or academic archives that “imply educational, material support of the workers of culture, their teaching, professional development, training, master classes, workshops, facilitation of attraction of the youth to the sector” (Imnaishvili & Taktakishvili 2013).

For an effective and sustainable management of ICH, it has been indicated that heritage branding creates loyalty via developing a direct emotional rapport with the visitors of the heritage destinations. As a result, branding ICH products is an essential process. If ICH products reached the augmentation level, it would be in balance with the general goals of sustainability factors to preserve the indigenous resources of ICH in the long-term through a group of actions, e.g., the strategies of interpretation and promotion (Centre for Conservation and Archaeology of Montenegro, 2016; Deacon, 2004; Park, 2014).

Cultural identity plays an important part in sustainable development, with indigenous communities interacting socially, economically and environmentally with the surrounding factors. Respectively, the inherited past can play a strategic role and affect the national logistic plan, generating revenues not only to financially support the national development plan, but also, to consolidate the local communities. This enhancement will ensure a sustainable labour market for the local communities and also, boost entrepreneurship. (UNESCO, 2012)

Fortunately, the cultural industries’ investment or what is called “culture-oriented development”, to authenticate the local traditional resources and to preserve the cultural assets, does not require a huge capital while, in case of using the tool of promotion, it directly acts as a radical change, revitalizing the cities’ economic conditions, especially in the category of vernacular population. Worldwide, there are various countries which have started creating a new image using the pattern of cultural heritage, either tangible or ICH. Consequently, a majority of developed countries have sought to strategically improve their cultural sectors and initiatives to upgrade their economic status. (UNESCO, 2012)

According to the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity, it has been indicated that “development does not simply mean economic growth but should be a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, [and] moral” well-being (Brooks, 2011).

Numerous definitions identify the features of sustainable development. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as “[development] that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Torggler et al., 2015). Colantonio (2007) has pointed out its elements encompassing the immaterial aspects, the socio-economical level, the environmental context and green spaces, the governmental framework, and finally the cultural and natural heritage. Consequently, sustainable development, highlighting the cultural policies, must realize the interaction between the three dimensions, social [3], economic and environmental, valorising the cultural values [4], which are examined and entertained not only by tourists but also by various categories of the local community. (Hribara et al., 2015; Torggler et al., 2015)

Regarding the former framework, to operationalize the pattern of sustainable development in heritage cities, the cultural authorities there must valorise the social and economic benefits of upgrading living standards. This maximization process is implemented according to the city’s targeted level of sustainability in terms of environmental and natural limitations and socioeconomic capabilities and tolerance (Mori & Yamashita, 2015). Also, heritage has an effective high social impact, which can contribute to enhancing the living standards of indigenous people, this impact will also enhance a sense of ownership and belonging (Bandarin & van Oers, 2012; Guzmán et al., 2017).

Guzmán et al. (2017) evaluate the links between heritage management and sustainable development, asserting that heritage is not only a cultural creation but also, a socio-economic product. ICOMOS asserted within the Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development that there is a significant benefit of merging the cultural, historical, and memorial values in the development process of the long-term management plan. This integration preserves the spirit of historical places; it acts as sustainable development of cultural tourism [5], especially in developing countries and the least developed countries (LDC), and at the same time, lessens the human-induced impact of mass tourism (Brooks, 2011; ICOMOS, 2011).

Worldwide, the development process has mostly had great side-impacts degrading the authentic value of cultural heritage (ICOMOS, 2011). Hence, the UNESCO Adoption and Promotion of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) (2011), and the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) recognized the high significance of cultural diversity and ICH, as the fourth pillar of sustainable development (Torggler et al., 2015) in the process of creating sustainable development-characterized destinations to activate the strategy of an integrated urban landscape (Hosagrahar et al., 2016; ICOMOS, 2011).

Footnote:

1. “UNESCO provides a structure to store information, which includes general information on cultural heritage, features, people that know and can transmit the knowledge, sustainability, data related to the inventory and references”.(Artese & Gagliardi, 2015)
2. This is intentionally used, as it is only men and boys that make mats, no women are currently involved in the process.
3. “The social dimension of sustainability is most connected to the museum mission, which the International Council of Museums (ICOM) considers an “institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment”. (Pencarelli et al., 2016)
4. “Cultural values are various tangible and intangible elements and individual natural elements of cultural significance and local origin that are identified by the stakeholders and have economic, social, ecological, or cultural developmental potential. The developmental importance of a specific cultural value co-depends on the utility, compatibility, and the scope of developmental potential”. (Hribara et al., 2015)
5. According to Graham Brooks - the President of the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee, Australia - well-managed tourism reinforces cultural identity as a fundamental point for development; moreover, “[to] provide opportunities for sustaining traditional and contemporary cultural values that contribute to the identity of a community and its social traditions”.(ICOMOS, 2011)

Bibliography:

1. Amer, M. (2018), Egyptian Intangible Heritage between Preservation Management and Sustainable Development Pattern: Analysis of the Popular Craft of Manufacturing Mats. In A. De Trafford, G. J. Tassie, J. van Wetering & O. El Daly (eds.),?a River Runs through?It: Studies in Honour of Prof. Fekri A. Hassan.?London: Golden House Publications, 226-242.
2. Artese, M. T., & Gagliardi, I., (2015). UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Management on the Web. In M. Khosrow-Pour (ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (3rd ed.). Hershey: IGI Global, 5334-5347.
3. Bandarin, F., & van Oers, R. (2012). The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century (1st ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Brooks, G. (2011). Heritage as a Driver for Development: Its Contribution to Sustainable Tourism in Contemporary Society. Paris: ICOMOS.
5. Centre for Conservation and Archaeology of Montenegro. (2016). Final Report: Joint Cross‐Border Approach to Sustainable Management of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites on the Adriatic. Kotor: Centre for Conservation and Archaeology of Montenegro, EX.PO AUS (Extension of Potentiality of Adriatic UNESCO Sites) & the IPA Adriatic CBC Program 2007-2013.
6. Colantonio, A. (2007). Social Sustainability: an Exploratory Analysis of Its Definition, Assessment Methods Metrics and Tools (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford Brooks University, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD) – International Land Markets Group.
7. Deacon, H. (2004). Intangible Heritage in Conservation Management Planning: the Case of Robben Island. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10(3): 309–319.
8. Guzmán, P.C., Roders, A.R.P., & Colenbrander, B.J.F. (2017). Measuring Links between Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Urban Development: an Overview of Global Monitoring Tools. Cities 60(A), 192-201.
9. Hirotsugu, S. (2005). System and Historical Development of the ICH Administration in Japan. In ACCU Program Series on Intangible Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: 2004 Workshop on Inventory-making for Intangible Cultural Heritage Management. Tokyo: Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (www.accu.or.jp/ich/en/pdf/2004_Tokyo.pdf)
10. Hosagrahar, J., Soule, J., Girard, L. F., & Potts, A. (2016). Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda (ICOMOS Concept Note for the United Nations Agenda 2030 and the Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (HABITAT III)). Quito: ICOMOS – (www.usicomos.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Final-Concept-Note.pdf)
11. Hribara, M.?., Bolea, D., & Pipana, P. (2015). Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences188, 103-110.
12. ICOMOS (2011). The Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development. Paris: ICOMOS - www.icomos.org/Paris2011/GA2011_Declaration_de_Paris_EN_20120109.pdf
13. Imnaishvili, N., & Taktakishvili, M. (2013). Considerations on the Management of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Georgia. European Scientific Journal 2(Special Edition), 373-377.
14. Keitumetse, S. (2006). UNESCO 2003 Convention on Intangible Heritage: Practical Implications for Heritage Management Approaches in Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 61(184), 166-171.
15. Moreno-Triana, C. (2005). UNESCO: Inventories and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Selected Questions. In ACCU Program Series on Intangible Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: 2004 Workshop on Inventory-making for Intangible Cultural Heritage Management. Tokyo: Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (www.accu.or.jp/ich/en/pdf/2004_Tokyo.pdf)
16. Mori, K., & Yamashita, T. (2015). Methodological Framework of Sustainability Assessment in City Sustainability Index (CSI): a Concept of Constraint and Maximisation Indicators. Habitat International 45(1): 10-14.
17. Noriko, A. (2005). Challenges for national inventories of intangible cultural heritage. In ACCU Program Series on Intangible Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: 2004 Workshop on Inventory-making for Intangible Cultural Heritage Management. Tokyo: Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (www.accu.or.jp/ich/en/pdf/2004_Tokyo.pdf)
18. Park, H.Y. (2014). Heritage Tourism. London: Routledge.
19. Pencarelli, T., Cerquetti, M., & Splendiani, S. (2016). The Sustainable Management of Museums: an Italian Perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Management 22(1): 29-46.
20. Sullivan, S. (2004). Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System. In E. de Merode, R. Smeets, & C. Westrik (eds.) Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: UNESCO WHC, 49-55.
21. Torggler, B., Murphy, R., France, C., & Portolés, J.B. (2015). UNESCO’s Work on Culture and Sustainable Development Evaluation of a Policy Theme (No. IOS/EVS/PI/145 REV.2). Paris: UNESCO.
22. UNESCO (2012). Culture: a Driver and an Enabler of Sustainable Development, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Thematic Think Piece. (www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/2_culture.pdf)