Sustainable Development and cultural heritage conservation:
 some notes on a methodology and
 the example of Amrit

Gaetano Palumbo

Director of Archaeological Conservation

World Monuments Fund

What is the contribution that cultural heritage can give to sustainable development?  And can sustainable development provide an alternative to business-oriented exploitation of cultural heritage?

These questions require the definition of a methodology, that is being developed now in a number of cases throughout the world, and that has proved to be a viable alternative to the simple economic exploitation of cultural heritage.

Heritage exploitation and consumption has been a common approach in recent years.  In many countries this has created irreversible damage not only to the physical character of heritage places, besieged by businesses exploiting the profitable tourism sector and by the construction of infrastructures near or sometimes within the heritage resource itself, but also to the social and economic structure of the area in which the site is located.  As it is often the case, Western countries had the opportunity to assess the damage and reconsider their options, experimenting and implementing alternative approaches, such as ecotourism, cultural tourism (in the true sense of the word), and improved social and urban development plans for the areas affected.  In many developing countries the mirage of quick returns from the tourism industry has instead caused the repetition of the errors made in the West in the sixties and seventies, sustained in these decisions by ill-inspired debt-reducing and economic development advice from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  The latter is behind some of the most contested plans implemented at heritage sites, although fortunately there has been a 180 degree shift in policy concerning tourism development in developing countries in the World Bank policies in the past 10 years, and especially between 1998 and today. 

The difference between the concepts of heritage consumption versus heritage use is fundamental.   Heritage consumption seeks immediate returns, mostly in economic terms.  It seeks the setting up of protection strategies for the site that tend to isolate the site from its surroundings, with the fencing up of its legal (but certainly not historical) limits, and the creation of infrastructures dedicated to its consumption, from visitor centers to hotels sometimes placed in the center of the site.  In a consumption-based management approach, the development of tourist facilities and infrastructures prevails over the resources dedicated to the documentation, interpretation, and conservation of the site.  The consumption approach measures its success on the numbers of people responding to the initiative, and in order to maintain high numbers of visitors needs continuous reinvestments in terms of new facilities, new exhibitions, new restorations to be made at the site.  The local community in a heritage consumption approach is seen as being at the service of this initiative, by providing labour force for all the activities generated by the tourism industry.  The unsustainability of this approach is given by the fact that rapid consumption tends to deplete the resource, especially if reinvestments, after the initial push usually encouraged through bank loans or foreign investments, are not adequate.  The large number of visitors seen by some as a measure of success can also mean the destruction of the resource itself.

In short, consumption sees cultural heritage as a product to exploit, a product that exists on its own and has superficial links, or no links at all, with the society at large and the local community in particular.  The relationship with the resource is purely aesthetical for the consumer, and purely economical for the manager and the community.

The opposite is true when cultural heritage is used, not consumed.  Using cultural heritage means that the resource is not exploited as a product extraneous to the life of the community, but it is instead borrowed by the community and its guests, in order to give and receive from it.  Using heritage means that the resource is not seen in isolation, but as part of the continuous that links the society to its cultural landscape, both physical and spiritual.  The values that inspire heritage use are not only aesthetical and economical, but also and perhaps more (especially in the case of the local community) political, spiritual, and social.  The use of the resource creates the means for its protection.  Since this protection is not based on massive restorations and interventions, is locally apt and sustainable, and creates opportunity for community involvement which is not necessarily dedicated to tourism services only, but can also cover aspects of documentation, assessment, and conservation.  In short the resource is more cared for, because it is the people, and not only the site manager, that is empowered and feels responsible for its survival.

The measure of success of a use approach to heritage management is given by a general improvement in the social and economic condition of the community in which the site is located.  This is a more difficult parameter to measure than the simple counting of access numbers and revenues, but it can be measured, and in the largest majority of cases has enormous advantages over the consumption approach.  These advantages are less evident in the short term, but very clear in the longer term.  These advantages are found in an economic growth that maintains social cohesion, in visitor numbers that are more balanced, in expenses for maintenance and conservation that are higher in percentage than those normally generated by a consumption approach, but smaller in absolute terms (because continuous care reduces the expenses of drastic and major conservation works) and in general in a quality of life and a quality of visit that is not found in strategies aimed only at attracting tourists.  Many economists, such as Throsby, Klamer and Zuidhof, are now looking at the presence of cultural heritage sites in a community as an element that contributes to the well-being of that community even in the absence of direct economic benefits.  The presence of these sites, however, and, if well managed, the benefits they provide in terms of generating culture, social cohesion, sense of ownership are sufficient to start a process of upgrading and economic improvement that can be assessed and properly evaluated.

Unfortunately most development programs only look at immediate returns, hence the preference for consumption of cultural heritage.  The argument of many economists and social experts is that we cannot overlook the long term disadvantage of such an approach. 

So in order to trace a theory of sustainable management we need to go back at the root of the management issue and see what tools are needed to understand the resource in its context, rather than in isolation.

If a concept of sustainability (interpreted as cultural sustainability before than economic) can be applied to cultural heritage management, I believe that this is found in the way this is being practiced in several cases with the indigenous people of Australia and the United States. These experiences have brought together heritage managers, archaeologists, local communities, and local administrations.  It is sufficient to say that it is in these experiences that the importance of participation and collective decision-making process shows its advantages over centralized and monolithic approaches to site conservation and management.  Involving communities is a practice that has worked already in a number of cases, and it is common practice in urban planning, especially when difficult issues of urban and slum upgrading are tackled. As it was logical to involve communities when projects of rehabilitation were conducted in their neighbourhoods, having to upgrade not only the physical features of a place, but also and foremost the life of its inhabitants, similarly a new understanding of archaeological sites having values for the local people means that consultation and involvement of the local communities should be a basic element of site management.  A good example of this process has been demonstrated by the Stonehenge management planning process, that has involved not only the direct stakeholders of the site, but also the surrounding communities which previously had little or no impact on the decisions taken about the site and its region.

To quote Throsby again, the economic sustainability of cultural heritage use can be achieved applying some criteria which derive from economic principles of sustainability applied to environmental and other living contexts.  These are

1.      the generation of tangible and intangible benefits, as a measure of both use and nonuse values, economic as well as of other type,

2.      intergenerational equity as the acknowledgement of the interest of future generations

3.      intragenerational equity identified as the avoidance of serious inequities in economic or cultural terms, and the proper involvement of stakeholders in the decision making process,

4.      maintenance of diversity as a method to enrich the cultural capital, hence contribute to the long term benefits of the project,

5.      precautionary principle as a way to control and limit decisions that may take to irreversible change in the cultural resource,

6.      and finally the recognition of interdependence, a principle applied in sustainable development projects that recognizes that cultural elements do not exist in isolation and the role of heritage needs to be studied in the social and economic context to which it belongs.

In the case of Amrit there are some basic issues that should be shared by everyone:

1.      The site is of fundamental archaeological importance.  Because of its remains and scientific potential, the site is of international significance, deserving World Heritage listing

2.      An important component of this significance is given by its context, which has environmental and aesthetic values.  The integrity of this cultural landscape and the authenticity of its remains should be safeguarded.  It is easy to predict that the integrity of this landscape will be a decisive element in the decision of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and that any important addition to this landscape, such as large development projects, will impact negatively on the final decision of the Committee.

3.      Because of the complex nature of the site, of its long history, and the important data to be expected from the site, it is impossible to predict how long archaeological research may take at the site, and whether research there can ever be considered “completed”.

4.      Any removal of immovable remains, such as tombs, or structures, will result in the loss of integrity and authenticity, thus diminishing the significance of the site

5.      An immediate scientific campaign, possibly as an international cooperation, should be launched to define the extent of the site and the scientific potential of the different areas. These investigations will take the form of archaeological surveys, remote sensing analyses, and archaeological soundings

6.      A management planning process should be started for the site, to define its limits and regulate its uses, also including the compilation of guidelines for allowing alternative uses within the limits of the protected area, of its buffer zone, and of the areas around the latter

7.     The current plans concerning all developments on site should be cancelled.  New proposals should go through the planning process proposed above, after reconsidering the product and the client to be targeted by this development, and by adopting a tourism strategy compatible with the cultural heritage values of the site and the possibility of Amrit becoming a World Heritage site.