1. Origin, scope
and objective of the report
1. On 30 September 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly
referred to our committee for report the motion for a recommendation
on culture preservation in crisis and post-crisis situations (
Doc. 13277) which I had presented with 27 other members of the
Assembly on 4 July 2013. The committee appointed me rapporteur on 3
October 2013.
2. In co-operation with the Council of Europe Directorate General
for Democracy (DGII), we organised a working meeting on 22 and 23
July 2014 in the Council of Europe office in Sarajevo with several
experts
who have
been working on field projects in the framework of the DGII Technical
Co-operation and Consultancy programme for South-East Europe, and
with experts who took part in projects undertaken in Cyprus, Georgia and
Azerbaijan.
3. I wish to particularly thank Dr John Bold for his help and
expertise in the preparation of this memorandum.
4. My report will focus on built
(architectural and archaeological)
cultural heritage, while considering heritage to be part of a wider
cultural context which can create positive conditions for (re)building
more cohesive societies in post-crisis situations with enhanced
levels of tolerance, trust and intercultural dialogue.
5. Culture and cultural heritage are difficult to define. Various
definitions of culture
and cultural
heritage
exist
at the national level as well as in international instruments. But,
definitions notwithstanding, the identification and meanings of
cultural heritage (together with frequently associated terms of
community and identity) gain greater substance and authority through
threat: crisis provokes recognition.
6. The cultural heritage is recognised as a source of positive
social cohesion and shared values when it is at risk but equally
it can easily become a contested focus for negative actions and
assault. Following the destruction of cultural property in the Second
World War, the Geneva Convention
stipulated
that civilian objects should not be the object of attack or reprisals,
and that attacks in war should be limited strictly to military objectives;
and the Hague Convention
emphasised
the protection of cultural property, preparing in times of peace
for its safeguarding, undertaking to protect it from exposure to
destruction or damage during armed conflict, obligations which may
only be waived in the event of military necessity.
7. Following war or crisis, discussion on how to reconstruct
has tended to focus on whether to rebuild in contemporary or historicist
styles – modernity or tradition – or in a hybrid manner in which
new forms, accommodating new services, respect traditional appearances.
But reconstruction is not only concerned with the visible; it concerns
also the immaterial, intangible values which are enshrined within
the tangible built heritage, as well as the rebuilding of the social
fabric of institutions, relationships and trust.
8. Reconstruction is not always positive: it may be an aggressive
act of reassertion of values, not only witnessed by the victims
of the original violence but also overseen by the perpetrators.
Following a crisis, mechanisms and resources are required to reconstitute
the built fabric in its broad context (cultural, social and environmental)
so that peace does not prolong the social, cultural and environmental
damage of the war.
9. Finally, public participation is vital, but, post-crisis,
institutions may not be trusted and responsibilities may not be
best discharged by the people who are themselves suffering.
10. I should therefore like to focus my report on the following
key issues:
- how to help local
people change their (negative) perceptions of the culture of “others”
(for example members of other ethnic, religious or cultural groups);
- how to increase democratic participation in the context
of public responsibilities for the cultural heritage;
- how to preserve the identity and diversity of cultural
heritage, while meeting the pressing need for restoration and reconstruction,
ensuring that short-term project-led reconstruction does not take precedence
over a longer-term, broad strategy for sustainable development;
- how restoration and reconstruction of cultural heritage
could become a positive factor for reconciliation and restoration
of the society and economy and in particular, in the context of
ethnically driven conflict, how the dispersed population may be
encouraged and enabled to return;
- how to establish a more balanced relationship between
external partners which support projects targeted at cultural heritage
and the local actors with longer-term needs, ensuring that short-term projects
are conducted within the framework of a sustainable strategy and
that greater attention is paid to the views and aspirations of local
people.
11. Considerations of these issues should be at the core of restoration
and reconstruction strategies. A further question would be which
policy action the Council of Europe, the European Union and the
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) could take to ensure
proper consideration of the cultural heritage in these strategies
and provide support and guidelines to national authorities.
2. Culture
and cultural heritage as a target of conflict
12. The built heritage was a target during the Second
World War with irreparable damage to cities throughout Europe. In
a spirit of remembrance of suffering and the promotion of forgiveness
a new cathedral was built at Coventry in dialogue with the preserved
ruins of the old one. In Dresden, the ruins of the Frauenkirche
initially remained as a war memorial before total reconstruction
was completed over half a century after the end of the war. In the
wars in the former Yugoslavia, the deliberate destruction of Albanian tower
houses (kullas) in Kosovo*,
the shelling of Dubrovnik
in Croatia, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina the gutting of the Town
Hall in Sarajevo, the destruction of the Mostar bridge, the destruction
of the Čaršija Mosque at Stolac, among numerous other religious
monuments of all denominations, have all prompted restoration and reconstruction
re-affirming cultural identity and restoring places as far as possible
to the former familiar appearance which encourages the return of
displaced persons.
13. Conflicts generally lead to the loss of large numbers of historic
buildings. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2 771 historic
buildings were partially demolished or damaged, 713 totally destroyed
and 554 set on fire. In Kosovo, more than 200 mosques (one third
of the total number) were damaged or destroyed; of 1 200 kullas
(traditional tower houses), only 200 survived. The destruction of
monuments or other symbols of a way of life was in many cases an
assault upon the cultural identity of a people or a population,
a systematic action describable as “urbicide”. In Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the small town of Stolac had one of the greatest concentrations
and diversity of cultural heritage in the region until it was systematically
destroyed. Its reconstruction and the defining of post-war development
plans have been an integral part of the complex process of the return
of refugees and displaced persons.
14. Cultural heritage (linking identity to place) is also looted
or destroyed during or after war either for financial gain or to
inhibit communities from returning and again recognising this place
as theirs. In Cyprus, hundreds of monuments have been partially
or completely destroyed, with an incomparably rich material cultural
heritage dispersed around the world. The establishment in 2008 of
the bilateral Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus
demonstrates that members of both Greek and Turkish communities
have an understanding of the value of their shared cultural heritage
and a desire to work together to maintain and restore it. The bilateral
Technical Committee has surveyed the monuments in both the north
and south of the island, has embarked on educational programmes,
and has with European Union support made emergency restorative interventions
on churches, mosques and such other major monuments as the Othello
Tower in Famagusta.
15. It is stated in the Geneva Convention that civilian objects
should not be the object of attack or reprisals in war, and the
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the
Event of Armed Conflict (1954) emphasises its protection except
in the event of military necessity. The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention
(1999, entry into force 2004) gave renewed impetus to the need to
protect cultural property and to establish enhanced systems to do
so. The recognition in the Protocol of the International Committee
of the Blue Shield
as an international
advisory organisation with the necessary expertise
to
recommend specific cultural property to the committee established
through the Protocol gave additional authority to its activities. The
Protocol recommended the preparatory measures to be taken in times
of peace against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict: inventories;
measures against fire or structural collapse; removal of movable
cultural property; and the designation of competent authorities
for safeguarding cultural property. Such property would be afforded
enhanced protection if it were deemed to be “of the greatest importance
for humanity”, protected by adequate legal and administrative domestic
measures, and not used or intended to be used for military purposes.
16. In the event of violation of the principles of the Protocol,
making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of
attack or subject to looting during armed conflict of both international
and non-international character,
each
Party to the Protocol was enjoined to “adopt such measures as may
be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic
law the offences set forth ... punishable by appropriate penalties”.
Although Parties should apply the general principles of international
law, the Protocol does not suggest that offences should come before
international courts.
17. I believe, however, that this legal framework is not sufficient
and that we should consider strengthening existing conventions,
providing for more robust pre-emptive protective mechanisms, and
stronger sanctions, including reparations, for militarily unnecessary
destruction, acknowledging that such destruction is not just an assault
on built fabric but also upon what it means and upon the community
which it serves.
18. Since offences against cultural property during armed conflict
are unlikely to come before domestic courts if the perpetrators
remain in power or the courts are otherwise intimidated or merely
cautious, there is a case for policy makers and commanders of warring
parties to be charged before international courts for the targeted
destruction of cultural property. It is perhaps ironic that the
“Blue Shield” labelling of sites of enhanced protection might have
encouraged the recognition of those sites (such as Dubrovnik) as
potential targets, provoking aggressors into destructive action.
19. The expert reporting to the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia noted: “The destruction of cultural property
... can be charged as a crime against humanity, and the intentional
destruction of cultural and religious property and symbols can be
considered as evidence of an intent to destroy a group within the
meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
This
is an important acknowledgement that the protection of heritage
is a humanitarian issue.
20. When military campaigns are anticipated, populations may be
evacuated, works of art removed and protective fire-fighting organised,
as was the case in London during the Second World War. But it is
often the ordinary heritage which suffers most. Before it can be
protected, built cultural heritage must be identified. Therefore,
inventory programmes and more thorough documentation are required.
This
is not just a question of listing the obviously important historic
buildings; rather it is a question of looking also at those ensembles
of buildings in their context which encapsulates the sense of place
with which local people identify. This requires public consultation
and the opportunity for all citizens to make an appeal for a heritage
which matters to them, as occurs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Assessments
of significance are also required: such assessments will influence
the prioritisation of future reconstruction in the event of crisis
or disaster.
21. Since protection depends on public acceptance, programmes
of education and publicity are required to highlight the significance
of the cultural heritage. Such education should be promoted not
only in schools, colleges and universities but also through exhibitions
and in the mass media, including the Internet.
22. Crisis planning and risk-assessment in advance of crises will
identify responsibilities and possible activities within civil society,
with an emphasis on administrative and emergency services, all of
which should know the extent of the cultural heritage, likely targets
and risks. The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention refers to
the preparation of guidelines on procedures for its implementation,
enjoining the signatories also to incorporate guidelines and instructions
on the protection of cultural property within military regulations.
But such planning and procedural guidance is not just a task for
the professional services or the military. We might propose the
establishment of task forces attuned to cultural heritage, comprising
professionals and lay members, including students. By drawing on
the knowledge of a wide range of people, and encouraging media involvement,
we would broaden not only our understanding of what constitutes
built cultural heritage but also greatly increase the numbers of
people who understand the shared responsibilities for its care.
Task-force-led local heritage plans created with full public participation
would potentially have a wider impact than crisis-driven plans,
shifting the emphasis towards positive management and funding independently
of crisis.
23. The measures to be taken in the event of natural disaster
– the legal and administrative framework, financial and insurance
measures, education and training to improve risk awareness, risk
assessment and disaster prevention and mitigation – are covered
in detail in Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (93) 9
on the protection of the architectural heritage against natural
disasters. These measures should be reviewed in this context with
a view to identifying the further potential vulnerabilities to which
the built heritage might be subject in cases of targeted armed conflict,
and the strategies to be adopted to mitigate them.
3. Cultural heritage
as a victim of the reconstruction process
24. Following a crisis, there is a need for damage assessment,
emergency and long-term treatment (with appropriate guidance on
techniques), and social and physical rehabilitation, acknowledging
the four overlapping periods of disaster recovery and the length
of time that each one will take: the emergency period, dealing with
the immediate problems of dead, injured, homeless and missing people;
the restoration period, restoring the major services; the reconstruction
period, returning social and economic activities to pre-disaster levels;
and the commemoration and betterment period serving future growth
and development.
Post-crisis
or disaster mechanisms should be drawn up in advance by national
authorities so that actions and responsibilities can be clear.
25. Reconstruction may be an aggressive act as well as a positive
response to crisis. The rapid reinstatement of planning controls
and heritage management after crisis is a priority, with collaboration between
development and heritage authorities and full public consultation.
This will require the empowering of institutions and the restitution
of the legal system in order to develop the national sustainable
strategy in which individual projects should be nested.
26. In the case of religious buildings, a multi-faith approach
is desirable. In Cyprus, the Apostolos Andreas monastery is being
reconstructed as part of the joint cultural heritage of both Greek
and Turkish Cypriots, funded by the Cyprus Orthodox Church and the
Muslim Evkaf: in this regard, clerical establishments are working
together to promote respect and reconciliation.
27. During war, systematic action is required to integrate the
built heritage into emergency humanitarian operations if irreversible
change or loss to historic buildings is to be avoided: emergency
repairs using inappropriate materials have had a very damaging effect
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In cases in which damaged historic buildings
are to be used for emergency accommodation, at a time when it is
perhaps not possible to effect full and proper repairs, remedial
works should be reversible so that a full restoration can be carried
out when stability has been restored. Similarly, damaged buildings
which do not have an alternative use should be preserved from further
deterioration – making roofs watertight, boarding up windows and
doors – pending later restoration.
28. How to reconstruct the built fabric, in contemporary or historicist
style, requires international guidelines which could be led by the
Council of Europe, as noted by the 2001 European Conference of Ministers responsible
for cultural heritage. Note should be taken of potential positive
and negative outcomes: building anew signifies a new beginning but
may result in transformative styles and forms taking precedence
over the familiar; building in an historicist style signifies continuity
and reinstatement of identity but threatens the integrity and authenticity
of the heritage and its embodied values: modern materials may be
in conflict with intended older appearances. But the key to successful
reconstruction is the recognition of the scale and character of
the place, which should assume priority over issues of contemporary
or historicist style. The identity of the people and the community
as it exists in the post-conflict period should be a prime factor
in assessing reconstruction needs and appearances.
29. It is a truism in established conservation practice to say
that all layers of history should be respected in the fabric of
a conserved historic building. How this might be achieved in cases
of radical conversion or reconstruction requires site-specific debate,
engaging all stakeholders, since functions, populations and perceptions
are bound to change. Following interventions, the results should
be reviewed to assess the process and the outcome. What are the
implications for example of the instauration (renewal) of the Monastery church
of St Clement in Ohrid (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)?
This new church was completed in 2002 on the site of a 10th century
church which had been demolished and replaced by a mosque which
was itself subsequently demolished.
30. New, often illegal buildings on the territories of former
Yugoslavia, Cyprus and South Caucasus has resulted in a reconstruction
which threatens the historical and architectural integrity of settlements.
A clear vision of how people think places ought to look is needed,
underpinned by regulation, information, financial incentives and
sanctions against illegal or unauthorised actions. The post-war
pressure of development often exploits the gap between the end of
a crisis and the re-establishment of legal systems and their implementation,
as has occurred in Kosovo. Planning, permission procedures and sanctions
are urgently needed post-crisis, with temporary emergency powers
pending the full restitution of civil authority drawn up within
the context of a strategic environmental assessment. This should
not be purely restrictive but enabling with incentives – owners
and occupiers of buildings have rights as well as responsibilities.
An independent inspectorate, monitoring
and enforcing, may be required in situations in which corruption
and intimidation inhibit due legal processes.
31. The desire for new, well-insulated properties militates against
restoration of historic buildings which are perceived as old-fashioned
and inefficient. A better correlation of planning and heritage priorities
is needed with better incentives for owners who must be shown the
positive economic performance of historic buildings (for example
in the case of vernacular architecture). In this context, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) often reach individual owners rather more effectively
than the national institutions, since they are better able to speak directly
to individuals and offer disinterested advice. Cultural Heritage
without Borders (CHwB) in both Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and in their participation in the Transylvania Trust’s project Heritage
without Borders, Heritage at Risk in South-East Europe, identifying
buildings at risk and arranging “heritage surgeries” through training
and advice at grassroots level, has demonstrated the success of
a direct approach in advising owners what the regulations allow,
and how historic buildings might properly be repaired.
Such NGOs should be
seen as essential partners to official national and local institutes
as well as to such international bodies as the Council of Europe
and the European Union which tend to intervene at a high political
level, directing their activities in concert with national governments.
32. The repair or reconstruction of mosques damaged or destroyed
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo raises questions about funding
and agency: Saudi funding favours the austerity of Wahhabi Islam
over the decorated interiors of the Balkans. Funding bodies should
be subject to national planning and protection requirements, and
should be prevented from imposing an imported, alien vision. International
agencies also should note that the imposition of an internationalist
agenda is not always appropriate: in Cyprus, the European Commission,
as the main donor, has attempted to influence practices by laying
emphasis on religious buildings, but local secular priorities are
now being asserted. In Stolac in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the internationally
funded and conducted restoration of one hundred traditional houses
ignored their special features in the rebuilding, so causing a lasting
obstacle to the restoration of the destroyed cultural memory.
33. It is important that national authorities keep close control
of interventions from both internal and external sources, and impose
uniform rules of engagement. This is not always easy – there are
said to be 1 700 organisations involved in Bosnia and Herzegovina
– but control and monitoring are nevertheless required, rather than
ceding responsibility to other governments or government-sponsored
agencies: work should be licensed and monitored, following national
regulatory procedures and technical standards. It should also be recognised
that buildings such as churches and mosques have a community and
heritage significance beyond their function as places of worship,
so decisions on their repair or reconstruction should not rest solely
with the religious authorities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the lack
of funding and the weak legal system resulted in foreign donors
channelling aid through UNESCO and NGOs: Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi
Arabia and Jordan have funded the restoration of mosques; the Greek
and Serbian Orthodox Churches have sponsored the reconstruction
of orthodox churches, indicating “the politicisation of the process
and the purchase of national political agendas”.
34. Stronger legislation, sanctions and incentives are needed
to ensure local control over reconstruction and investment, so that
local needs are not over-ridden by international funding agencies
or commercial imperatives, building confidence and capacity so that
the risks of slipping into a culture of intellectual and financial
dependency are avoided. The Council of Europe/European Commission
Integrated Rehabilitation Project Plan/Survey of the Architectural
and Archaeological Heritage (IRPP/SAAH) and subsequent Ljubljana Process
on rehabilitation of the built
heritage and its context provides a good example of this, giving ownership
and choices back to the countries themselves, rather than having
international agencies determining priorities for funding. The creation
of seven Local Cultural Heritage Forums in Kosovo with representatives
from central and local institutions and civil society is a further
successful example of how heritage can facilitate dialogue and engage
the public in a consultative process. This has resulted in the selection
of numerous projects for restoration of sites, urban regeneration
and cultural tourism.
35. There is often an economic crisis and loss of jobs after a
conflict, so when international funding comes in, attracted by the
crisis, it is difficult to risk jeopardising it by suggesting alternative
modes of approach, particularly since the money arrives in the immediate
aftermath of war when the country is too disorganised to usefully
direct it. So assessments of rehabilitation needs and costs should
look beyond the existing situation towards the potential for growth,
not only in tourism and its related services, but also the potential
for industry and agriculture in the region, bringing back the basic
components of growth in order to benefit local people.
36. In the rush to reconstruct, competing agencies and revitalised
institutions pursue their own agenda, but collaboration and agreement
between them is vital if mutually desirable outcomes are to be achieved.
It has long been a finding of the Council of Europe’s Technical
Co-operation and Consultancy programme that the failure of institutions
to collaborate, or even to acknowledge each other’s responsibilities,
lies at the heart of many heritage-management problems, notwithstanding
the call in the Council of Europe’s Amsterdam Declaration (1975):
“The conservation of the architectural heritage should become an
integral part of urban and regional planning, instead of being treated
as a secondary consideration.”
37. As the case of the reconstruction of Stolac (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
demonstrates, the maintenance or restoration of built heritage and
its enshrined values is not just a matter for experts. The memories, photographs,
perceptions and desires of local people are all fundamental to both
the maintenance of continuity of cultural heritage and its restitution
after a crisis or disaster. This is not a job just for those who
are professionally engaged with heritage management; rather, those
who are so engaged should ensure a widening of the constituency
of interests.
38. A failure to collaborate is not just a domestic problem. For
example, in Kosovo, international bodies have failed to pragmatically
adjust their expectations. In the reconstruction of five new kullas,
the otherwise desirable space standards imposed by UNHCR for new
buildings required the demolition of the remains of others on the site.
But elsewhere local and international funding has been successfully
deployed by Cultural Heritage without Borders in rebuilding kullas
and in organising training and capacity building for local institutes.
39. In Kosovo, the destruction of Serbian Orthodox heritage in
2004 could be interpreted as a view of it as “other”’, denying the
notion of a “common heritage”.
Composed
of Kosovo Albanian, Serbian and international experts, the Reconstruction
Implementation Committee, organised by the European Union with Council
of Europe participation, and dedicated to repairing and reconstructing
the churches, offered a model for post-crisis collaboration, but
the work was left incomplete when the Kosovo Government halted funding, raising
questions about the will to reconcile. Similarly, the creation of
Special Protective Zones established through the Comprehensive Proposal
for Kosovo Status Settlement, and enshrined in the recent planning
and heritage laws, has not so far fulfilled its intention “to provide
for peaceful existence and functioning of sites to be protected”:
the process of reconciliation is long, with many stops and starts.
40. The care of the heritage is both a national and international
responsibility which should override political divisions and short-term
imperatives. The failure to resolve the Cyprus question, for example,
has resulted in difficulties to implement conventions in the northern
part of the island. Furthermore, in Kosovo there is no contact with
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
since the territory is not recognised
as a State.
The
principles of the Faro Convention
are social rather than political:
they should be re-emphasised and promoted through publicity and
education and accorded a supra-national status which would allow
for implementation notwithstanding the manoeuvres within sovereign
States which characterise transient, quotidian politics. For example,
all member States which are in a position to assist Cyprus with cultural
heritage restoration and reconstruction projects should integrate
in the implementation of such projects the principles of international
conventions, including the Faro Convention.
4. Culture and cultural
heritage as factors for conflict resolution/reconciliation
41. There are examples which show that cultural heritage
can be a tool for reconciliation: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
reconstruction of the Mostar Bridge was intended to symbolise international
solidarity and reconciliation. It is now as a result carrying much
greater symbolic weight than it ever had before: the image of the
bridge has become a ubiquitous symbol. Conceived as a finite project
achieved through international funding of US $1.5 million, the bridge
and the rehabilitated towers to either side are testimony to the
power and reach of international agencies, but also to the shortcomings
of such interventions. The short-term, finite projects with readily
measurable outputs, favoured by international funding bodies, are
not part of the long-term national strategies, with full community
involvement, which fully sustainable reconstruction requires.
42. Although Cultural Heritage without Borders has led the reconstruction
of two bazaars of shops and cafes near the Mostar bridge, a further
fine group of handsome buildings of c.1900 a short distance away
remains ruined, the outer walls still standing but the interior
gutted. Full sustainability here (and elsewhere) will require a
better understanding of the sense of place and what constitutes
it. The iconic monument certainly plays a part and may act as a
catalyst for further interventions but the whole still requires
treatment that must be supported by a return to functioning institutions
which have the power to enforce regulation and, in the case of Mostar
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, prevent the burgeoning tourist industry
from physically swamping the bridge and its environs and so compromising
the intrinsic qualities which draw tourists in the first place.
43. We must build strategies based on the perspectives of local
people rather than on the preconceptions of international bodies.
If cultural difference has prompted the initial crisis, physical
reconstruction is not enough. It must be supported through consultation,
education and demonstrably positive socio-economic outcomes: positive
outcomes encourage further activity. International actors and donors
need to commit themselves to longer programmes beyond the restitution
of single iconic monuments, although these programmes may then be
broken down into the finite, achievable projects which demonstrate
success and encourage continuation. Successful projects engender
public support and encourage further investment. But these international
actors must be subject to national and local regulation and input
since reconstruction is not just physical. It is not possible to
build sustainable peace and common memory simply by importing foreign reconciliation
policies and mechanisms.
44. The intention behind restoration and reconstruction in the
countries of the Western Balkans has been to demonstrate a return
to normality, re-affirming cultural identity and restoring places
to their former familiar appearance, so encouraging the return of
displaced persons. But it is unrealistic to expect people to return quickly
to live near their former oppressors. Reconciliation takes time:
forced return or time-limited return are both inadmissible.
45. The (Dayton) General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia
and Herzegovina devoted its Annex 8 specifically to cultural heritage.
It recognises the importance of cultural heritage for the entire
process of post-war reconstruction, allowing for full public participation
in evaluating that heritage. But in its strength, isolating heritage
as a special case, there is an inherent weakness, since the heritage
should not be separated from post-war recovery as a whole, which
has many other requirements to be satisfied: the development of
a spatial planning system; the return of displaced persons; the
establishment of secure conditions; the establishment of a legal
and judicial system; prosecution of perpetrators; the clearance
of mines; the development of the education system; economic development;
media development; and the growth of an information society.
46. The rehabilitation of built cultural heritage
presents
a focus and stimulus for the memorialisation – public remembering
and recording – which is part of the recovery process. Post-crisis
social public engagement is a prerequisite for regaining moral and
social well-being and ensuring not only a sustainable future but
also an enduring collective memory, materialised in the cultural
heritage – the “shared source of remembrance” to which the Faro
Convention refers (Article 3).
47. The reconstruction, long after the event, of sites of pain
and atrocity indicate ways in which the process of commemoration,
education and narrative is influencing the perception of cultural
heritage and historical places. The partial reconstruction of former
Nazi concentration camps in the Netherlands, and the building of national
centres of commemoration, enable people to learn about the past
and to share some echoes of the war and conflict in the hope that
they will never happen again. After the Second World War, the majority
of people wanted to forget and make a fresh start, but a later generation
wishes to tell the story and show what happened: this too is a long-term
process.
48. Conflict resolution requires the unbiased teaching of history
and acknowledgement of the multi-vocality of the past, since a focus
on one interpretation over another or a refusal to discuss and seek
to explain contested recent history results in a failure to understand
and value the cultural heritage of all. Cultural heritage is a major
factor in the establishment of inter-cultural dialogue: multi-faith
collaboration, education in history and the finding of common ground
are all fundamental to the development of mutual trust and the building
of confidence. The involvement of young people in this virtuous
circle is especially important. Children in Kosovo, for example,
are now being made aware of the diversity of their cultural heritage
and the need to understand and respect the cultural heritage of
others – through the children, the message reaches the parents.
49. The IRPP/SAAH and subsequent Ljubljana Process in South-East
Europe
has been exemplary in its partnerships
and projects, bridging divisions in building citizenship and reviving
economic activity with local and tourist benefits. Working together
is a major element in reconciliation, but it must be seen to result
in beneficial socio-economic outcomes for local people and visitors.
It is fundamental to youth in particular that they feel that they
have a stake in society, contributing to it and benefiting from
its development. Unemployment and exclusion from the processes of
civil society prompt the damaging disaffection and alienation which
leads young people to acts of disruption or to seek a better life
elsewhere, both of which undermine the notions of social continuity
and community.
50. The activities of the Council of Europe Technical Co-operation
and Consultancy programme since 1975 have helped to strengthen co-operation
between member States through cross-border and transnational projects
and have played a key role in post-conflict reconciliation and rehabilitation
in South-East Europe and the Caucasus. In Georgia, restoration and
reconstruction following the conflict in 2008 has been a priority
not only to accommodate the inhabitants and to ensure the conditions
for the return of displaced persons, but also to preserve the spirit
of communities, shifting the heritage emphasis from monuments to
villages, from the monumental to the everyday built heritage. In
this process, lay opinion should be enlisted onto conservation advisory
committees, alongside that of experts: the involvement of local
stakeholders in identifying projects for rehabilitation will have
a beneficial impact on the sustainability of those projects.
51. Conservation is a process as well as a technical activity,
having the potential to bring members of the community closer to
the notion of heritage. A current initiative in Albania, Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Kosovo, “Make it Yours”, aims to engage stakeholders
from all walks of life in conservation tasks: preparing traditional paint
and painting facades, hewing beams and plastering walls. It should
be noted, however, that such work requires close supervision to
ensure quality control, since a similar student-led exercise in
Bulgaria required repainting the following year.
52. International pressure should be applied to governments to
commit to action plans and compel them to honour and implement commitments
which they have made: cultural heritage is not a luxury to be paid
for after the building of hospitals, schools and roads; it is fundamental
to humanity. Existing institutions should be better empowered to
take action against neglect and assault on cultural heritage. Guidelines
and rewards for best practice are needed for cultural heritage management
and community involvement in our new world order of globalised economic
disruption, scarcity, targeted destruction and consequent social
disintegration and loss of confidence.
5. Conclusion
53. Cultural heritage is fundamental to sustainable conflict
resolution and the well-being of society. Restoration and reconstruction
of cultural heritage after a crisis is a political act but is not
solely the responsibility or concern of politicians, since they
are acting on behalf of, and in concert with civil society as a whole.
54. Reconstruction involves looking forwards as well as backwards.
Cultural heritage can prompt and facilitate conflict as well as
having the potential for reconciliation. Reconstruction is also
potentially capable of reigniting conflict. Much depends upon who
is in control of the reconstruction process: the continuation in
power of those who were in charge during the period of conflict
does not facilitate reconciliation and the return of displaced persons.
Since reconciliation might take generations to achieve, should we
not be considering the staging of reconciliation – maintaining it
as a long-term ambition – but beginning with the simple aim of peaceful co-existence,
followed by building constructive dialogue and trust, as first steps
along the way?
55. Moreover, the nature of modern conflict, particularly civil
or ethnically promoted war, often conducted without a formal declaration
of war, is in contradiction to the rules and assumptions about its
conduct which were taken as a basis for the Geneva Convention and
the Hague Convention, both drafted and agreed upon in the aftermath
of the Second World War. As we have seen in the conflicts in the
Balkans in the 1990s, the built heritage, together with the civilian
population, has become the target of violent actions, rather than
the accidental victim of collateral damage: “Architecture in the
twentieth century has become more and more, a weapon of war rather
than something that gets in the way of its smooth conduct.”
56. In such circumstances, we need new guidelines and new instruments
designed to address the protection and reconstruction of the cultural
heritage, noting that in 2001 the fifth European Conference of Ministers responsible
for the Cultural Heritage called for the establishment of “principles
for the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed cultural monuments
and for fostering regular maintenance of cultural heritage”. The consideration
of attitudes towards built heritage before, during and after a conflict
may act as a catalyst for a wider consideration of heritage in society
and its treatment: neglect and general deterioration are also important issues.
57. Reconstruction does not stand alone as a series of finite
rebuilding projects; rather it should be carried out within the
context of a democratically developed national policy framework
to facilitate local development and cohesion of the local community,
integrated with programmes for the sustainable return of refugees
and displaced persons. Such projects should therefore involve local
society as a whole. Major efforts are needed in post-crisis situations
to reconstitute life in the community independently of monuments:
crisis-recovery is about people, their physical and social well-being,
and confidence in the shared idea of a common good.
58. The post-crisis “interpersonal deficit”, the loss of trust,
dignity, confidence and faith in others – social cohesion – has
been described as the most far-reaching outcome of conflict, so
distinguishing the needs of post-conflict reconstruction from those
of post-natural disaster reconstruction. Reconstruction within a
socially rooted vision is a development challenge and guidelines
for pre- and post-crisis actions are therefore urgently required.
These should take note of the “Seven Pillars for Post-War Reconstruction”:
vision; participation; security; reconciliation and justice; equity;
reconstruction and development; and capacity.
59. Guidelines should also build upon such existing instruments
as Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (93) 9 on the protection
of the architectural heritage against natural disasters, and take into
account the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), “Helping Prevent Violent Conflict” (2001);
the ICOMOS Ohrid Declaration on the protection of cultural heritage
in the event of armed conflict (2002);
the
UNESCO Strategy for Reducing Risks from Disasters at World Heritage Properties
(2007);
and the UNESCO
Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture
– Managing the Historic Urban Landscape (2005), which urged an understanding
of place as opposed to object buildings only, noted the need for
comprehensive survey of the historic urban landscape and analysis
as a way of expressing values and significance, and stressed the
need to respond to development requirements by allowing for contemporary
architecture while respecting the inherited townscape and landscape.
This
recalls one of the fundamental considerations of the Council of
Europe’s Amsterdam Declaration (1975): “Since the new buildings
of today will be the heritage of tomorrow, every effort must be made
to ensure that contemporary architecture is of high quality.”
60. Furthermore, the Council of Europe’s report on Reconstruction
of Built Heritage (CDPAT(2003)27) urged collaboration between national
and international organisations to establish a plan of action to
be taken in the event of destruction of built heritage, including
a process for determining the candidacy of a site for reconstruction.
This is still required. Additionally, the key initiatives, the achievements
and methodologies of the Technical Co-operation and Consultancy
programme should be better publicised.
61. Taking the above into consideration, I firmly believe that
we need clearer guidelines for addressing policies and practice
relating to the heritage in crisis and post-crisis situations and
stronger affirmation of principles, and in particular:
- affirming the Faro Convention
as a groundbreaking document on the role of cultural heritage in supporting
the principles of human rights and democratic society and encouraging
its further ratification as an essential contribution to managing
diversity, the development of democratic participation and the improvement
of the living environment and quality of life of all Europeans;
- recalling the principles of integrated conservation as
described in the Amsterdam Declaration (1975), including citizens’
participation and the integration of the architectural heritage
into social life;
- acknowledging that access to cultural heritage is a fundamental
human right and that a cultural identity expressed by a community
is a political act based on a collective memory;
- developing the notion that systematic, deliberate and
targeted destruction and looting of cultural property can be charged
as a crime against humanity and developing further mechanisms to
bring perpetrators before national and international courts;
- taking a lead on guidance on reconstruction and the associated
rehabilitation of societies, paying regard to the various strategies
which may be adopted for reconstruction and giving precise definition
to terms in use (reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, culture,
cultural heritage, cultural identity, etc.);
- recognising that the reconstruction of built cultural
heritage is a fundamental component of the post-crisis development
process helping to bring society back to normal by re-establishing
and maintaining the living and developmental potential of communities,
responding to the needs and desires of the people;
- taking note of the need for continuing and targeted education
on cultural heritage, paying due regard to the media expectations
of the audience;
- taking steps to improve national legislative and management
regimes, and encouraging better resource allocation, so enabling
due regard to be paid firstly to the identification of cultural
heritage in need of protection and secondly to its restitution in
the event of crisis;
- promoting a holistic approach to cultural heritage as
a fundamental element and responsibility of a sustainable democratic
society which should take ownership of the cultural heritage, and
not devolve responsibility to external aid agencies;
- taking steps to increase the collaboration of international
bodies, pooling expertise, giving a greater force and authority
to conventions and declarations. With a view to ensuring adequate
support and guidance to national authorities, the Council of Europe
should initiate discussions with the European Union and UNESCO on
improving the instruments required for crisis and post-crisis heritage
management and reconstruction and on the development of further
guidelines for broader heritage policy and practice to be applied
in post-crisis situations.