ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

12
Consultation on Grey Indicators Proposed by IAEG-SDGs Submission by ICOMOS December 15, 2015 The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a Paris-based international Non-Governmental Organization. We are pleased to provide this comment on the proposed indicator for Target 11.4. These comments expand upon the comment we submitted in the spring of 2015 during the earlier UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service’s online Indicator consultation. ICOMOS believes there are four key tests against which any proposed indicator for Target 11.4 should be measured: (1) Is the Indicator based on sound methodology and is the methodology behind the indicator (data sources, method of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) well documented and readily available? Is the indicator recommended by a well-established and recognized peer review mechanism or through international mechanisms? (2) Does the indicator expressly correlate to the broader aims of SDG Goal 11, to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable? (3) Does it recognize the inter-linkages of natural and cultural heritage, implicit in the text of Target 11.4 and explicit in contemporary heritage policy and philosophy? (4) Does it operate at a landscape or regional scale, recognizing the pervasive and multifaceted nature of heritage, including tangible and intangible, movable and immovable, natural and cultural. The current proposal is “Share of national (or municipal) budget which is dedicated to preservation, protection and conservation of national cultural natural heritage including World Heritage sites.” As we wrote in the UN-NGLS consultation in March, we believe a different approach would better address the four key tests we have outlined. Also, ICOMOS notes the

description

The attached document represents the comment that was submitted by ICOMOS as part of the IAEG-SDG open consultation on the proposed United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Indicators coded ‘grey’. One of these grey Indicators is the Indicator for Target 11.4, which relates the safeguarding of natural and cultural heritage. You can read more about the consultation here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YZKHPKN.IAEG-SDG.

Transcript of ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

Page 1: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

Consultation on Grey Indicators Proposed by IAEG-SDGs

Submission by ICOMOS

December 15, 2015

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a Paris-based

international Non-Governmental Organization. We are pleased to provide this comment on the

proposed indicator for Target 11.4. These comments expand upon the comment we submitted in

the spring of 2015 during the earlier UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service’s online Indicator

consultation.

ICOMOS believes there are four key tests against which any proposed indicator for Target

11.4 should be measured:

(1) Is the Indicator based on sound methodology and is the methodology behind the

indicator (data sources, method of computation, treatment of missing values,

regional estimates, etc.) well documented and readily available? Is the indicator

recommended by a well-established and recognized peer review mechanism or

through international mechanisms?

(2) Does the indicator expressly correlate to the broader aims of SDG Goal 11, to make

cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable?

(3) Does it recognize the inter-linkages of natural and cultural heritage, implicit in the

text of Target 11.4 and explicit in contemporary heritage policy and philosophy?

(4) Does it operate at a landscape or regional scale, recognizing the pervasive and

multifaceted nature of heritage, including tangible and intangible, movable and

immovable, natural and cultural.

The current proposal is “Share of national (or municipal) budget which is dedicated to

preservation, protection and conservation of national cultural natural heritage including World

Heritage sites.” As we wrote in the UN-NGLS consultation in March, we believe a different

approach would better address the four key tests we have outlined. Also, ICOMOS notes the

Page 2: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

current draft seems to have a typographical error. Presumably, it was intended to read “protection

and conservation of national cultural and natural heritage.”

ICOMOS writes in support of the following Indicator for Target 11.4:

“the percentage of urban areas supported by development and financing governance

frameworks that include the safeguarding of natural and cultural heritage.”

Such an Indicator would use existing methodologies to establish a baseline definition for

inclusion of the safeguarding of natural and cultural heritage into metropolitan or urban regulatory

and legal development and financing governance frameworks. These reflect an assessment of the

effectiveness of governance tools, as community engagement, knowledge and planning regulatory

systems and financial tools on the safeguarding of heritage. Progress towards Target 11.4 would

then be measured in terms of increases in the number (measured by means of population covered,

square miles covered or another suitable metric) of urban areas supported by an effective

development governance framework, that is to say, ones that meant the baseline definition of being

inclusive of the safeguarding of heritage.

The ICOMOS proposal focuses on spatial and process variables, versus economic/financial

ones. ICOMOS believes this is justified in view of the multi-dimensional manner in which heritage

safeguarding supports Goal 11. This approach also creates more synergy with the other Targets of

Goal 11 and the New Urban Agenda expected to be adopted as part of the UN Habitat III process.

Financial expenditure is a reducing tool of heterogeneity/complexity/multidimensionality, because

it transforms all aspects into one dimension. While ICOMOS prefers an approach that is more

multi-dimensional, ICOMOS does agree that financial mechanisms are extremely important. The

ICOMOS proposal recognizes this by including as a baseline requirement the incorporation of

incentives for heritage safeguarding within broader development governance tools. Thus, key to

our proposal is the reference to development and financing governance frameworks.

What follows is an explanation of the ICOMOS proposal with reference to each of the four

key tests outlined above.

(1) Methodology

The ICOMOS proposal is based on research collected by UN Habitat and others and on

national and sub-national assessment tools already in use and being developed by the World Bank

and the Asian Development Bank. For example, the approach draws on the concept of country

environmental analysis (CEA) found in the Asian Development Bank's 2003 Environmental

Assessment Guidelines. (Available online at http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-

document/32635/files/environmental-assessment-guidelines.pdf). The CEA assesses, at a policy

level, a country's Regulatory and Institutional Framework that includes a review of its

environmental standards, regulations, enforcement, mechanism and instruments. It makes this

assessment against identified environmental issues that are most important to a country's

development strategy. The ICOMOS proposal utilizes this approach to assess existing governance

frameworks against the issue of the safeguarding of natural and cultural heritage.

One finds similarities in the World Bank's draft Environmental and Social Procedure,

which requires the Bank, as part of its due diligence, to evaluate countries' Environmental and

Page 3: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

Social Frameworks, that is those aspects of the country’s policy, legal and institutional framework,

including its national, subnational, or sectoral implementing institutions and applicable laws,

regulations, rules and procedures, and implementation capacity, which are relevant to the

environmental and social risks and impacts of development. (Available online at

http://consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-

world-bank-safeguard-

policies/en/materials/clean_draft_es_procedure_final_draft_for_consultation_july_1_2015.pdf),

The review requires an assessment of the Country's overall legal framework in service of

determining the extent to which that framework addresses the risks and impacts of development

and enables the project to achieve objectives materially consistent with World Bank's

Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESSs), including the World Bank policy on the

safeguarding of cultural heritage.

The starting point for application of the proposed Indicator would be a determination by

national authorities of the urban development and finance framework (national, regional, sub-

regional) relevant to its urban areas. Five elements could be used as part of a baseline for

establishing whether heritage safeguarding had been included in the relevant framework:

Inclusion of natural and cultural heritage safeguarding elements in development standards,

regulations, enforcement, mechanism and instruments.

Existence of financing tools for heritage safeguarding as part of broader schemes of

development finance.

Existence of heritage capacity and capability within development and development

finance agencies.

Existence of mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination of heritage policies and actions

with other development and finance functions.

Opportuinty for public consultation in heritage-related decision-making.

The following references support these elements:

REPORT YEAR REFERENCE TO HERITAGE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS RELATED SUSTAINABLE

DIMENSIONS

UN HABITAT REPORTS

2002

Good governance should “preserve the urban environment and the cultural and historical heritage of cities”…

Identify and protect the commons

Conservation offices

Conservation policies

SOCIAL: “related to democracy, human rights and civic participation in decision-making processes”

2004-2005

“with the growth of Cultural Heritage Tourism, more cities in developing countries were investing in the conservation of old historic buildings and thus tapping into their ‘cultural capital’”

Culturally driven models of redevelopment

ECONOMIC: “Cultural heritage sites are playing notable roles in the symbolic economy”…

2006-2007

“Law on Spatial Planning that followed is based on the overarching principle of protecting the public over individual interest“

Integration of heritage conservation on urban planning

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: “… a more rational use of land, greater equity in the provision of basic infrastructure and services, the protection of the environment and the preservation of cultural heritage.”

2008-2009

“cultural heritage, sense of place and memory and the complex set of social and symbolic relationships that give cities meaning”

Adopt policies to protect intangible assets, and create social spaces that contribute to “humanizing” cities

SOCIAL: “these intangible assets represent the “soul of the city” and are as important for harmonious urban development as tangible assets”

Page 4: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

2010-2011

“A number of cities today are using culture as a transformational tool to integrate ethnic minorities, preserve regional values, safeguard linguistic and religious diversity, resolve conflicts, protect the heritage in the built environment, and in the process promote economic development.:

An inclusive city promotes of creative artistic expression and heritage activities

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: “Beyond the sole cultural sphere, these policies together can go a long way towards bridging the urban divide in its other social, political and economic dimensions.”

2012-2013

“Shared urban prosperity puts people first, values the tangible and intangible aspects of development”

To ensures civic participation by all in the social, political and cultural spheres

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL: ”inclusive economic growth, protects human rights, ensures enabling equitable development, cares for the natural environment, reduces disaster risks and vulnerabilities for the poor and builds resilience to adverse forces of nature”

Local UN HABITAT REPORTS

STATE OF ASIAN CITIES 2011

“Asian cities are also waking up to another dimension of globalization, i.e., tourism, with an attractive mix of historical heritage and dramatic modern buildings and skylines.

Conservation policies

Integration of conservation in planning strategies.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL: “urban biospheres offer the potential for Asian cities to devise policies and development practices that recognize and manage environmental and cultural heritage and values in a more sustainable way.”

STATE OF EUROPEAN CITIES, 2013

“Protected territories (natural and cultural heritage) are an element of master and detailed plans…. Spatial planning is also seeking to bring development in settlements…with crucial ecological value and to achieve the protection of territories endowed with historic and cultural heritage”

Better cooperation with European and global institutions for criteria setting, evaluation and management of the natural, cultural and landscape heritage.

Inclusion of cultural and natural heritage protection in a territory”

ECONOMIC: “Some non-capital cities have a specialized economic or functional role, such as…smaller cities with rich a cultural heritage or natural resources…Cities with a significant urban region, on the other hand, were often able to recover from economic decline over quite short periods if they had architectural heritage…

STATEOF LAC CITIES 2012

Latin American and Caribbean cities implementing conservation-led programs focus on the preservation and regeneration of public space as a tool to improve the quality of urban life.

development initiatives aimed at the recovery and renewal of historic centers

SOCIAL: improvement of quality of life through the recovery and renovation of historic public spaces.

STATE OF ARAB CITIES 2012

Arab Cities are also taking efforts to preserve their urban heritage through the renovation of old forts, palaces, suqs and mosques.

Development programs including the conservation of cultural (tangible) heritage

ECONOMIC: Mostly mentioned through tourism revenues

STATE OF AFRICAN CITIES 2013

“African Governments have deployed programs to restore and preserve the historic centers as a valued cultural heritage and an architectural and urban legacy that can be attractive to domestic and tourism…”

Launching plans to rehabilitate and promote urban heritage

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: Challenges due to fragmented ownership patterns and the reluctance to participate in improvement initiatives that do not generate revenue. Nevertheless, significant improvements to public spaces,…

URBAN MANAGEMENT / PERFORMANCE

UIMC 2001 cultural heritage as part of a cities

management departments

Establishment of heritage conservation and management offices

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: “contribution related to high tourism potential and its social and economic implications.

ECI, 2000

“An important component of a sustainable society is the general well-being of its citizens…”

Empower local communities

Foster citizen participation in local planning and decision-making processes

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL: “…This means being able to live in conditions that include safe and affordable housing, the availability of basic services (such as school, health, culture, etc.)... a good quality environment (both natural and built)...”

Page 5: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

URBAN COMPETITIVENESS

PWC, 2011

“Preservation is taking off worldwide: Twelve percent of the world’s surface now is preserved, and a vast amount of new area awaits heritage certification, according to a study done by AMO”

“Measuring and comparing urban preservation efforts would make city comparisons unwieldy, inaccurate or impossible due to differences among cultures and economic conditions.”

ECONOMIC: “ironically, heritage status attracts waves of tourists who, in turn, jeopardize the integrity of what was just preserved.”

Page 6: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

Table 2 BEST PRACTICES BASED ON THE CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE (Blue cases are WHS)

REPORT YEAR BEST PRACTICE INNITIATIVE RELATED SUSTAINABLE DIMENSIONS

UN-HABITAT REPORTS

2002

1. Crosstown 116, re-design of the 116th Street corridor from Hudson to the East River

Partnerships addressing inner-city issues through educational programs at high school level working with architects.

SOCIAL: “Restore the former architectural feel of the area”. Participatory community, inclusive processes to protect the commons.

2004-2005

2. Ciutat Vella Project: Revitalization Of The Historic Centre Of Barcelona, Spain

the city council, in partnership with citizens and the private sector, formulated an integrated plan to rehabilitate housing, improve public infrastructure, promote local economic development and implement social welfare programs.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC: Urban redevelopment and social policies have improved the quality of life in the district, including educational levels, household income, economic activity and security. this has, in turn, reduced the economic and social gaps that existed within Ciutat Vella

3. Atelier 231: Street Art In Sotteville, France

located in a former French railways building, rehabilitated to accommodate artists, a cultural policy in favor of promoting street arts, it was essential to establish an appropriate system of rehabilitation

SOCIAL: “This has helped to build and strengthen the social fabric of the city.”

4. Zanzibar, Tanzania: preserving the historic Stone Town

“The Stone Town Conservation Plan was approved in 1994, lays out a general planning framework, and establishes the broad conservation and development policies for the Stone Town.”

SOCIAL: “Life quality with measures to develop and improve parcels of land and other larger spaces in the central area, including methods to improve parking and circulation of vehicular traffic in and around the Stone Town.”

5. Kathmandu, Nepal: restoring a centuries-old water supply system

“One of the projects undertaken by KMC, in collaboration with UNESCO, is the restoration of the centuries-old water supply system of sculptural ‘stone spouts’ and wells.”

SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL: the restoration of the water spouts not only helps to preserve a unique living heritage, but also contributes to the improvement of the water supply and drainage system in a city that suffers from chronic water shortages.

6. Santiago de Chile’s strategic plan

“Revitalizing the central core system, including the downtown district and the surrounding deteriorated areas, entailing the preservation of the city’s cultural heritage and specialized commerce, as well as restoring surrounding areas and improving access to them.”

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

7. Havana’s 1998–2001 strategic plan

Relevant projects given priority: Raise habitat quality and improve preservation of the built heritage. Strategic areas: Historic inner city of ‘World Heritage’ status in Old Havana., Malecon Rehabilitation Project

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

8. Enhancing Partnership In Planning: The Case Of Mega-Project Management In TheNetherlands

“The Rotterdam Central Station project had been part of a strategy that was to turn Rotterdam into a ‘world city’. But in 2002, the newly formed city council could not be convinced of this logic. The exuberant ‘champagne glass’ design had to be scrapped. The old railway station was declared a heritage building, and a ‘home-grown’ architect would be enlisted for the project”

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: In this dramatic instance, globalization did not eliminate the local; it strengthened it. The new council majority represented the interests of small businesspeople and petty bourgeois in the city who were feeling disoriented, their livelihood threatened by the forces of globalization. It was this majority that the formerly hegemonic social democrats, in their eagerness to put Rotterdam on the global map, had failed to perceive.

2006-2007

9. Improving urban planning and monitoring in the city of Aleppo

The new planning scheme, which aims to upgrade the historic core of the city and preserving its architectural heritage, conceived of this task within a broader structure of urban management, including land use regulation, housing, technical infrastructure, traffic, and others.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: The municipality has also been able to involve several stakeholders and generate innovative partnership with local and international actors that allowed it to compensate for lack of know-how as well as the scarcity of its resources.

Page 7: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

2008-2009

10. The strategic urban plan of Guangzhou

provided the overall framework for implementation and resulted in substantial improvements in management, urban greening, sanitation, pollution control, and conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: In 1997, the municipality of Guangzhou in southern China initiated a five-year Actio0n Program for improving the living environment to maintain and enhance Guangzhou’s attractiveness both as a place to live and do business.

2010-2011

11. Bogotá’s “Declaration of Cultural Rights”

this came as part of a broader-ranging effort to promote cultural diversity and more equitable appropriation of the city’s cultural riches and heritage.

SOCIAL: in a bid to enhance equal opportunities for cultural expression by all segments of the population;

STATE OF EUROPEAN CITIES, 2013

12. The county territory master plan, Lithuania,

“Protected territories (natural and cultural heritage) are an element of master and detailed plans. The county administration and the Ministry of Environment supervise lower-level preparation of planning documents.”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL.

13. National Urban Policies, Belarus

“Spatial planning is also seeking to bring development in settlements and on territories with crucial ecological value and to achieve the protection of territories endowed with historic and cultural heritage, as well as those with natural and recreational potential.”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL: focuses on sustainable development of its urban and rural settlements, transport system, engineering and technical infrastructure, social amenities, recreation and health care systems, and on preservation and efficient use of its historic

STATEOF LAC CITIES 2012

14. Regenerating the Historic Centre of Havana

“declared a priority area for conservation-led programs because of its dilapidated state. Regeneration saw improvements to social and cultural facilities and services for tourism.”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC: “The project, which recovered the center’s historical heritage without losing its residential character, favored the development of new economic activities and inspired similar initiatives in other cities in Cuba”

15. Regenerating the Historic Centre of Quito

“a housing project for the historic centre, the relocation of street vendors to malls, and vehicle traffic regulation (1994-2004). With local and international financing, and private sector support, the project focused on the regeneration of vacant buildings to create social housing and private housing free of public subsidies.”

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC: “to achieve mixed occupation by different social groups. The architectural heritage was restored while basic infrastructure like water and sanitation have been improved, and so too the lives of inhabitants. The initiative, replicated in Cuenca, Ecuador, faces the challenge of maintaining socio-economic diversity and the financial viability of the zone”

STATE OF ARAB CITIES 2012

16. Syria’s Municipal Administration Modernisation (Mam) Programme

“From 2005 to 2010 MAM has undertaken activities which include reviewing and revising legislation, increasing the capacity of central and local governments and working jointly with municipalities to prepare sustainable urban development plans, … it addressed the issues involved in the preservation of cultural heritage in the Damascus historic centre and the archaeological site of Palmyra”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC: “developing approaches to the regularization of informal settlements, streamlining procedures for the delivery of urban services and improving financial management.”

17. Oman launched its National Spatial Strategy in 2010

“30-year development plan designed to promote geographically balanced and sustainable growth in line with its 2020 vision.”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL: It focuses on developing both urban and rural areas through land planning, economic development, infrastructure, social services, heritage conservation and environmental protection.

18. Bahrain’s national planning framework

“access to global markets, preserve its environmental resources, develop an integrated transport network, build new communities, accentuate the waterfront, protect its heritage, ‘green’ the country and build a sustainable future”

ECONOMIC: “tourism contributes 10 per cent to GDP and the government is investing in hotels and tourist facilities in Durrat Al Bahrain and Al Areen. It has proposed Muharraq for UNESCO’s world heritage list.”

19. Jeddah, historic department, Saudi Arabia

“The Saudi government has recently invested a significant amount of money to restore and preserve the historic buildings

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC: “The government is also investing in initiatives to train local workers in the tourism sector and

Page 8: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

and sections of Jeddah, develop a tourism corridor linking to Al Balad and obtain world heritage status, among other initiatives.”

collaborating with educational institutions to offer vocational training”

STATE OF AFRICAN CITIES 2013

20. Medinas 2020 Initiative

“…a programme for the rehabilitation and conservation of Northern Africa’s historic urban centres.”

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC

URBAN MANAGEMENT / PERFORMANCE

UIMC 2001

21. 16 Asian cities profiled trough different governance qualities and management challenges, in which Heritage is included

Heritage is often included within the cultural and/ or governance sector, related activities include:

Adaptive reuse

Restoration

Inventory of cultural heritage assets

Community participation on heritage activities

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC: “…Tourism attraction, Development (facilitating basic need for local communities)”

The foregoing tables adapted from Guzman Molina, P.C. (Paloma), WORLD HERITAGE

CITIES AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Bridging global and local levels in

monitoring the sustainable urban development of World Heritage cities (2015).

Additional References [Online]:

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2001). “Urban Indicators for Managing Cities (UIMC)”.

Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30020/urban-indicators-

managing-cities.pdf

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), (2011). “Cities of Opportunities Report”. Available at:

https://www.pwc.com/mx/es/publicaciones/archivo/2014-05-cities-of-opportunity.pdf.

The World Bank (WB) & Environmental Resource Management, (2008). Global Cities

Indicators Facility (GCIF). Available at:

http://www.cityindicators.org/Deliverables/Final%20Indicators%20Report%203_21_08_4-23-

2008-924597.pdf.

2. Correlation with the Broader Aims of SDG Goal 11

Target 11.4 calls for “making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and

sustainable by strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural

heritage.”

The development of an Indicator for Target 11.4 must start from an understanding of the

ways in which the safeguarding of heritage link to urban inclusiveness, safety, resilience and

sustainability. This in turn requires an understanding of the term “cultural heritage.” The term

should not be exclusively associated with “extraordinary” sites such as Historic Monuments or

World Heritage sites – even though such sites retain their exceptional iconic status – but rather

should be understood as including cultural landscapes, historic cities, and sites of

memory. Moreover, contemporary practice extends the concept of heritage beyond “tangible

Page 9: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

heritage,” to the intangible dimensions of heritage as well. This means the capital of knowledge

derived from the development and experience of human practices, and from the spatial, social and

cultural constructions linked to it.

Cultural heritage, as thusly understood, comprehends not only a collection of monuments

but humanity’s historical, cultural and social memory, preserved through authenticity, integrity

and ‘sense of place,’ thus forming a crucial aspect of the development process. In both its tangible

and intangible forms, heritage fosters socio-economic regeneration and is a crucible of creativity,

a driver of 21st century economies. It is also a key element of resilience, from bio-cultural

knowledge and its role in climate change adaptation, to the sustainable model for urbanization

offered by traditional, dense development patterns. Perhaps most critically (in the face of climate

change, potential future resource scarcity, rapid urbanization and other trends), cultural heritage

with its value for identity strengthens social cohesion and social well-being and enhances the

livability of cities. In short, heritage is both an enabler and a driver of sustainable development

and it was for these values that it was included in Goal 11.

One of the most comprehensive efforts to address the role of cultural heritage in urban

development is the ICOMOS Symposium entitled “Heritage, a driver of development” held in

Paris in 2011. This meeting was held in anticipation of the UN Conference on Sustainable

Development (the Rio+20 Conference) and attended by nearly 1,200 heritage experts from over

100 countries. The meeting resulted in a doctrinal text in heritage known as the “Declaration of

Paris on Heritage as a Driver of Development” (the “Paris Declaration”). The International

Congress "Culture: Key to Sustainable Development" convened by UNESCO in Hangzhou

(China) in 2013 was a foundational event in these discussions. The Habitat III Issue Paper on

“Urban Culture and Heritage provides another valuable contribution to these questions and to other

issues around culture, heritage, and urban sustainability. This work has yielded an enormous

diversity of practical approaches and solutions designed to leverage heritage in service of urban

resilience, safety, inclusiveness and sustainability.

From these, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Heritage has the power to strengthen communities where citizens associate the historic

environment with a shared identity, attachment to place and everyday life, including people

who are minorities, disadvantaged or socially excluded.

Traditional settlements, with their lasting cultural identity and socio-economic traditions,

raise the awareness and pride of citizens in local history and culture no matter where they

originate or how they may be adapted.

The mix of public and private spaces found in traditional settlements engenders social

cohesiveness and interaction by providing common spaces for diverse groups to interact.

Historic cities are by nature functionally and socially mixed, supporting a wide range of

complementary activities, and embody multiple cultural values. Historic cities were

vibrant, convivial, inspiring and have proved to be supremely adaptable to incremental and

harmonious change.

Page 10: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

People are at the heart of heritage conservation policies and projects. Good governance and

transparency are key to a sense of ownership of heritage, which allows heritage to

strengthen the social fabric and enhances social well-being.

Public spaces like historic parks or plazas are often key to historic parts of towns, or

adjacent to historic monuments.

Historic towns, districts, and the historic parts of the cities are valuable for their uniqueness

and sense of place. They help to attract tourism, employment and local investment,

fostering the sustainable development of the city. They also engender curiosity and in so

doing, build an understanding and acceptance of others’ values, history and traditions.

In designing the Indicator for Target 11.4, it is also important to consider the key ways in

which heritage can make cities and human settlements more inclusive. Some examples include:

Occupations related to cultural heritage, cultural practices, and creativity provide a

valuable source of income, dignity, and livelihood.

Culture based livelihoods have the potential for small and micro enterprises empowering

local communities and contributing to poverty alleviation.

Enables people to draw on and build on local and knowledge for their livelihoods and

problem solving rather than privileging external education and knowledge alone. They

offer a diversity of solutions to a wide range of problems.

Heritage, both tangible and intangible, thus contributes to the goal of making cities and

human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable in a myriad of ways, including by

strengthening sense of belonging and of identity of local communities; by promoting social

cohesion, inclusion and equity; and as a model of sustainable, traditional settlement patterns.

These processes are heterogeneous, complex and multi-dimensional. The challenge for the

Indicator for Target 11.4 is to design a metric that expresses a meaningful correlation between

these urban goals and heritage safeguarding. ICOMOS believes that measuring increases in the

number of cities and settlements that are taking steps to incorporate heritage safeguarding into

broader development and development finance governance frameworks offers an effective model

for doing so.

3. Recognition of the inter-linkages of natural and cultural heritage

The recognition of the inter-linkages of natural and cultural heritage provided by Target

11.4 are critical to harnessing the power of heritage, culture and nature-based solutions for

sustainability. The Indicator selected should be agile enough to measure not only increases in the

safeguarding of natural or cultural heritage but also in the effectiveness of governance tools at

increasing the integration of natural and cultural heritage safeguarding. In the co-joining of

cultural and natural heritage, Target 11.4 of course finds a ready antecedent in the World Heritage

Convention, among international laws, that natural and cultural heritage. This co-joining is

consonant with emerging best practice in the heritage field. A growing body of experience has

demonstrated that in many landscapes, natural and cultural heritage are inextricably bound together

and that the conservation of these resources would benefit from more integration. Protected natural

Page 11: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

landscapes and cultural landscapes, for example, share much common ground: both are focused

on landscapes where human relationships with the natural environment over time define their

essential character. In the World Heritage context, there has been much work done to stimulate the

development of new methods and strategies to better integrate nature and culture.

4. Landscape-Scale

A concern with the current, proposed Indicator (share of budget dedicated to the

preservation, protection and conservation of heritage including World Heritage sites) is the risk of

reducing the consideration of heritage to expenditure on conservation of monuments and protected

areas only. We believe the focus should be on the incorporation of cultural and natural heritage

into development, planning and development finance governance frameworks at a landscape

(regional) scale.

As discussed above, in order to explore how heritage operates at a landscape scale and how

heritage informs spatial development strategies and policies that effectively create equitable,

compact, connected, and socially inclusive cities, the idea of “heritage” must be understood in its

broader, modern sense.

Nowadays, as more and more people abandon small towns and the countryside, migrating

to large conurbations, urban development has been alternating between authoritarian policies and

anarchic planning that have already had serious, even catastrophic results. A key function of

heritage is to inform a focus on more balanced form of spatial development. This will be achieved

at regional development level. This is where lessons from our heritage, associated with best

participatory practice, will again be valued as a framework for new spatial development:

continuation of time-honored boundaries and settlement patterns.

There is an enormous diversity of practical approaches and solution designed to leverage

traditional settlement patterns and planning methods in service of making cities more inclusive

and equitable based on the references cited above. Such patterns are not only a key element for the

revitalization of historical core areas of cities and towns but are also of great importance to the

urbanization of the world, for their capacity to inform and guide new spatial development. In

order to leverage this accumulated wisdom, the following elements should be included in over-

arching spatial development strategies:

Promote and revive the value of historical settlement patterns, landscape forms and

traditional building techniques, while protecting the integrity of the historical urban fabric

in new spatial development and redevelopment.

Expand the use and availability of fiscal tools, such as tax incentives, to attract investment

both in core historic areas and the surrounding areas. These economic development

strategies and financial tools will provide a framework for revitalization and development

of the city.

Promote the integration of new development within the traditional street, public space,

architectural elements and cultural heritage patterns.

Page 12: ICOMOS IAEG-SDG Consultation Submission Dec 15

Use rules, regulations and financial incentives to discourage urban sprawl in the rural

countryside and encourage the revitalization and reuse of existing infrastructure.

Consider the historical urban-regional linkages when adapting historic and traditional

settlements to other areas.

In conclusion, we believe our proposed Indicator, properly informed by needed pilot

projects, as the best potential to meaningfully measure the aspects of heritage most relevant to

Goal 11.

About ICOMOS

ICOMOS is a non-governmental organization that works for the conservation and

protection of cultural heritage around the world. It also serves as the Advisory Body on cultural

heritage to the World Heritage Committee for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention of UNESCO. At an international level, ICOMOS has been at the forefront globally in

considering the role of heritage in sustainable development, both in the lead up to and during the

Rio+20 process. Target 11.4 is perhaps the fullest realization in the SDGs of the #culture2015goal

campaign, a coalition of more than 700 organizations from around the world that mobilized in

support of explicit targets and indicators for culture in the SDGs. This work was undertaken as

part of the Rio+20/The Future We Want process. ICOMOS was pleased to play leadership roles

in these efforts.