Making Heritage our resource: The Italian lesson learned

Ratri WulandariMaster Student of Uni European Management of Cultural Landscape

Ratri.wulandari@gmail.comRa3_wulandari@yaho.com

Abstract

Reading the theme, the firsts things appear on mind were questions: what kind of resource? Educational resource? Historical resource? Financial resource? Architectural precedent? Artistic resource? Tourism resource? Or resource of nostalgia to serve psychological needs upon one’s past? It is all depend on whose point of view and for what purpose. Looking on the trend is making heritage resource for tourism activity, but who get the impact on this activity? Whose resources to whom?

Italy is the country of heritage, archeological heritage in particular, which people came to for different reasons. Tens of its archeological remains to cultural landscapes are listed in the UNESCO’S world heritage list. Once a site is listed, a heritage becomes internationally known and tourists and visitors starting to came. As we all know, UNESCO World Heritage list is one effective way to promote heritage tourism to the world.

Good management and cooperation would lead to protection of heritage and at the same time developing and enhancing the community socio-economic and heritage educational condition. On the other hand, mismanagement would lead to improper heritage exploitation and community’s misunderstanding in valuating their heritage and increases its vulnerability.

From Amalfi to Val d’Orcia, this paper will review several heritages management conception in utilizing heritage as resources in Italy as lesson learned.

IntroductionReading the theme, the firsts things appear on mind were questions: what kind of resource? Educational resource? Historical resource? Financial resource? Architectural precedent? Artistic resource? Tourism resource? Or resource of nostalgia to serve psychological needs upon one’s past? It is all depend on whose point of view and for what purpose. Looking on the trend is making heritage resource for tourism activity, but who get the impact on this activity? Whose resources to whom?

In making heritage as resource, different stakeholders taking parts have different interests which each try to get benefit from. Good management and cooperation would lead to protection of heritage and at the same time developing and enhancing the community socio-economic and heritage educational condition. On the other hand, mismanagement would lead to improper heritage exploitation and community’s misunderstanding in valuating their heritage and increases its vulnerability.

The Italian has great concern upon their cultural heritage. Italy itself is the country of heritage, archeological heritage in particular. Tens of its archeological remains to cultural

landscapes are listed in the UNESCO’S world heritage list and we all know, UNESCO World Heritage list is one effective way to promote heritage tourism to the world. “The impacts of the World Heritage inscription was a boost in tourism, but also highlighted the need for an integrated management strategy for maintaining the values for which the site was inscribed”. Once a site is listed, a heritage becomes internationally known and tourists and visitors starting to came. People came to these cultural heritages for different reasons from curiosity to self fulfillment. The Italians are able to manage and create their cultural heritages into resources that gain visitors and the world sympathy. Management is a keyword to success and failure.

Heritage itself is “a concept to which most people would assign a positive value” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). Preservation of cultural heritage, tangible and intangible, is viewed as resource that gives advantages to various people (Ruggles and Silverman 2007).. “Both personal and community identities are formed through such tangible objects and intangible cultural performances, and a formation of a strong identity would seem to be a fundamentally good thing” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). Whether who should define and control the management and advantage of cultural heritage is a risk must be taken (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). One thing certain is that when a heritage connected directly to people’s life then it the people that should be the first preference.

Heritage Management“Cultural heritage management is, in essence, a facet of social engineering, whereby physical remains of the past (and present) are selectively preserved based on values currently held by the population at large. Indeed, mid- and long-term protection of heritage sites can only occur if such places are “embraced” or “owned” by the community” (Spennemann 2006).

Cultural heritage is, in essence, created and selected by present people to represent the past. It is a result of an evolution and a selection process. A good management in conserving heritage will lead to its continuation in the future. Mismanagement will lead to neglect, forget and misuse of it. The deteriorating of heritage is loss to the society that might lead to public amnesia about the past and lead to the lost of identity. In preparing a management planning, the surrounding community needs to be considered since they may, and are, holding an important role in the conservation process.

“A good heritage management plan will review the threats posed to the well-being of heritage places and will assess, inter alia, the risk posed by natural hazards and include mitigation options, including the prescription of special disaster management plans” (Spennemann 2006).

Cultural LandscapesCultural landscape is a holistic approach of conservation that considers both the tangible and intangible aspect of heritage. The concept appears for the first time to respect the different concept upon conservation and to cope with the immaterial aspect of cultural heritage.

UNESCO defines the essence of cultural landscape as the ensemble of human interaction and natural system. UNESCO divides cultural landscape in three categories: the intended created landscape, relic and/or evolving landscape, and associative cultural landscape. Italia has five cultural landscapes listed as world heritage: the Val d’Orcia, the Amalfi coast, Cinque terre,

the national Parc of Cilento and Val di Diano, Sacro Monte. Three of the listed cultural landscapes are evolving landscape, one relict, and one associative landscape.

The proposition of sites as a cultural landscape in Italia is because they see the opportunity in valuing and conserving their heritage in a more inclusive way, and to reduce threat to the deteriorating heritage. “Cultural heritage is threatened when it is neglected and allowed – sometimes intentionally – to deteriorate. It is also damaged when the natural integrity of a site or people is deluged by external influences” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). The greatest external influence to heritage sites is tourism and natural hazard. The flow of people coming to visit the site needs particular attention and control.

In some of the case tourism become solution in a cultural landscape management, but in some other it is disaster. Taking a lesson learned from the Italian WHCL, tourism can be a solution, financial resource to keep tradition and the heritage alive. However, in another part of the country, tourism is disaster because it changes the system in the society unconsciously and it threatened the heritage from going in continuity. This case not only happens in Italy, but in many parts of the world, including Indonesia.

The Italian Cultural LandscapesThe Val d’Orcia is a vast agriculture region with only several thousand peoples inhabiting the area. It is listed in the world heritage list with its outstanding value is an example of pre-renaissance agricultural landscape. This agriculture area in northern Italy is launching the “Slow Tourism” concept to keep people coming and staying for sometimes in the area. By taking advantage from the hilly beautiful landscape break by the line of cypres, the societies of five cities in the area are proposing this type of tourism. The concept is taking people to enjoy the solitude within the vast agriculture area in one of the isolated lodgement that was functioned as the farmer’s lodgement.

The proposition of this region as a cultural heritage is due to local problem of the declining inhabitant – leaving youth and the growing older community, rapid development of urbanization, and the difficulty of access to the territory and from the territory to neighboring big city. Therefore its aim is to invite people from exterior through the equipment of public facilities such as schools and hospitals, and the availability of proper work for the youth. The local government gives a sort of compensation to land owner who keep their land active and inherit it to their children. The children will then receive a sum of money to support the continuity of the agriculture activity.

The Amalfi Coast is terraced lemon agriculture in southern Italy. It constitutes a landscape influenced by the oriental world. Together with the coastline area, it constitutes an example of necessity in manipulating natural condition available in order to give maximum utilization of the land. Traditional farming system of lemon is valued as inherent intangible patrimony of the site.

Threat to this cultural resource is the neglect of traditional farming practice because farmers prefer to use a more practical modernized farming system. Other threat is the load of tourism. Amalfi is a popular tourist destination. For this reason, the inhabitant prefers to transform their houses and garden into hotels, hostels, restaurants or shops, more commercial activity less preference in agricultural activity. This way the inhabitant of Amalfi is pushed to neighboring cities such as Scala. In the case of Amalfi, uncontrolled tourism activity is a great threat to the continuity of heritage.

Cinque terre is ensemble of five villages (communities) on steeply sloping mountain side that fall directly to the sea. This area managed together with the national park and protected marine zone. It was created by the youth that were concerned about the uprooted identity of the region. This site is listed as UNESCO’s world heritage endangered site.

In promoting the area, the community created a research center and mark of the region to produce and commerce local products. “The marketing of local agricultural products is bringing financial benefits as well as supporting the eco-cultural identity of the Cinque Terre” (Lennon 2010). To get the cooperation and support from local community, the park makes a logo of standardization that helps promote commercial places and accommodation managed by the locals within the park’s networking. It is a strategy to “coordinates protection and development activities (Lennon 2010)” within the site. Tourism activity is controlled by the park while the preservation is managed by the community. “The tourism income is directly benefiting the local community and the maintenance of the terraces” (Lennon 2010).

The difficulty of access and the hard terrain gives challenges to conservation and even to tourism activity. Other problems are the abandon of agriculture land, natural hazard, increased tourism, declining inhabitant that are willing to work in their land.

Cinque terre is an example of a whole preservation from terraces, buildings, local products to tourist trekking. “Survival of the landscape and its inscribed heritage values is dependent on its continuing economic viability” (Lennon 2010). To cope with financial problem, apart of tourism as finance core, the park also find another source of finance such as sponsorship from private company and international organizations.

Cilento National park and Val di Diano is a natural park and archeological remains located in the southern of Italy, a vestige and proof of Greek colonisation in the early time of Italy. Again, tourism is expected to become a solution in conserving the region’s patrimony. In proposing this site as a world heritage cultural landscape, pastoral activity became an important element of value apart of the park and the archeological site. Another element valued is natural resources in the park. Through the national park and archeological vestiges, they signed the historical path of Greek’s immigration and movement in the region.

Lesson Learned“Cultural heritage requires memory. It is not enough for things and monuments to exist on a landscape: in order to be cultural heritage they must be remembered and claimed as patrimony, even if their original meaning is lost or poorly understood. In this sense cultural heritage is always, to some degree, intangible. For tangible and intangible cultural heritage to have meaning and potency, the heritage must be active, dynamic, used, and performed, rather than existing inert and static” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007).

All four cultural landscapes presented utilizing the agriculture and pastoral activity as the core value of the heritage patrimony. All are set in a way to represent regional richness of specialty product and local tradition. The management planning was created to benefit the locals and to the conservation and preservation of heritage directly. The locals are being educated to be conscience about their cultural heritage and therefore giving an ease to the process of site protection. It is not only about utilizing heritage as resource but also about its education, preservation and conservation. Good cooperation between local governments, local peoples, managing organizations, and support from the central government makes it possible for the region to revaluate their heritage in order to strengthen and rebuild their regional (local) identity.

Indonesia is rich with these potentials of cultural and natural heritage. Unfortunately, there is no proper law and governmental body that would support, control and manage these potentials. Every level of bureaucracy is stakeholder with their own interest apart of other stakeholders in site. Rarely local peoples being integrated within the management planning most of the time they are excluded and only become object of applied planning and law.

In Indonesia, “the tourism industry shows signs of devolving into a more locally based system in which not only the economic benefits may accrue to individual regions but also the expression of cultural localism”. But has it really benefit the object of tourism? Taking a simple case of Borobudur, it is being managed by a state owned company benefitting directly from tourism. How about the local inhabitant living near by the site? Have they received any benefit from the existence of the world heritage monument? Do they even understand the significance of this monument to them and to other more than just a tourist destination or financial resources? A researcher, Ken taylor (2003), suggested including the surrounding landscape and local inhabitant of Borobudur to create an ensemble of cultural landscape that would benefit the locals and for the benefit of the monument’s conservation. After the 2006 Jogja earthquake, UNESCO led the conservation of Prambanan temple. The temple was temporarily closed to public. UNESCO’s assistance for the monument conservation was misunderstood by local tour guide and they blame the organization for the loss of revenue. This case shows the lack of conscience over cultural heritage which is being regarded only as income source. Another case in Indonesia is the Sangiran archeological site. The surrounding inhabitant is not well integrated within the site management plan of conservation, if there is any. This leads to ilicit traffic of archeological remains they found in or near the site.

“Destruction of heritage can occur deliberately, but it can also occur as a result of neglect, impoverishment, and looting” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). “Vandalism directed against tangible cultural heritage, such as architectural monuments and archeological sites, occurs as a result of mischief, greed, political protest, religious intolerance, poverty” (Ruggles and Silverman 2007). It is necessary to determine what to do with heritage sites, monuments and objects. “The complication with heritage is that the speed of development may be faster than the growth in the realisation that deliberate management is essential, resulting in damage that may be difficult or impossible to reverse”(Ashworth and Tunbridge 1999).

ConclusionThe Italian heritage is being managed in conscience that it is richness of the people and the state. The people are well educated in the frame of heritage consciousness. They are very proud of their patrimony and making them their identity. Each region is proud with their locality. This is the value that the people well-guarded. Though they are less ordered in comparison to other European country, but they have consistency in managing and safeguarding their cultural heritage.

It is important to revaluate cultural heritage in Indonesia to benefit the locals in subject area. Education on heritage conscience and integrating the locals into the heritage management plan is essential for the continuation of it. It is time to view heritage as whose belonging, for whom and how to manage it, not only viewing it as remains from the past or revenue resources. Making heritage as resource is not only commercializing and promoting it to the wide world but also to support its survival as part of the people’s identity.

Indonesia has different conception on conservation than the western. Its concept is rooted in the intangible patrimony and tradition. It is not a good thing to literary applies the

international convention to protect Indonesian heritage but there should be law and consensus based on local culture in order to intact heritage to the territory and to the people, to makes it remain in the collective memory.

BibliographyAshworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E., 1999. Old cities, new pasts: Heritage planning in selected cities of Central Europe. GeoJournal 49: 105–116, 1999. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 105

Fatimah, Titin, et all. 2005. Borobudur – Recent History Of Its Cultural Landscape: Toward the Sustainable Rural Development as the Landscape Rehabilitation. Forum UNESCO University and Heritage 10th International Seminar “Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century” Newcastleupon Tyne, 1116. Revised: July 2006

Ruggles, D. Fairchild and Silverman, Helaine., 2007. Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.

Ruggles, D. Fairchild and Silverman, Helaine., 2009. From Tangible to Intangible Heritage in “Intangible Heritage Embodied”, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0072-2_1, _ Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009

Salazar, Noel B., 2009. The world’s, Asia’s, Indonesia’s or ours? Heritage Interpretation and Appropriation in Times and Changes. International Conference on Heritage in Asia: Converging forces and Conflicting Values. The Asia Research Institute, NUS. Silver, Christopher., 2007. Tourism, Cultural Heritage, and Human Rights in Indonesia: The Challenges of an Emerging Democratic Society in “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights”. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.

Spennemann, Dirk H. R., 2006. Your solution, their problem – Their solution, your problem. The Gordian Knot of Cultural Heritage Planning and Management at the Local Government Level in Australia. 30 disP 164 · 1/2006

Sulistyanto, Bambang., 2009. Warisan Dunia Situs Sangiran: Persepsi Menurut Penduduk Sangiran. Wacana Lingkungan Sosial Urban. Vol. 11 no. 1 April 2009.

Tanudirjo, Daud Aris., Cultural Landscape Heritage Management in Indonesia: An Archaeological Perspective. Jurusan Arkeologi, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

Taylor, Ken., 2003. Cultural Landscape ss Open Air Museum: Borobudur World Heritage Site and Its Setting. Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003.

UNESCO., 2010. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage paper 26.