Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process

Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Partenariat euro-méditerranéen Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Assessment and Orientations Workshop results and recommendations November 2005

European Commission - EuropeAid Directorate A - Europe, Southern Mediterranean, Middle East and Neighbourhood policy Carla Montesi Head of Unit Leonidas Kioussis Head of Section Claire Kupper Euromed Heritage Operations Manager Fabrice Hendricks Financial Officer ICCD Referents for Euromed Heritage Maria Rita Sanzi Di Mino ICCD Director Luisa Granata Administrative Manager Maria Lucia Cavallo Liaison Officer Centro Città d Acqua Referents for Euromed Heritage Rinio Bruttomesso Director Mara Vittori Liaison Officer Maria Giulia da Sacco Technical Officer RMSU Managing Board Maria Rita Sanzi Di Mino ICCD Rinio Bruttomesso Centre Città d Acqua Caterina Bon Valvassina ICR Ist. Centrale per il Restauro Eugenio D Auria Ministry for Foreign Affairs Luca Fornari Ministry for Foreign Affairs Alfredo Giacomazzi Ministry for Cultural Heritage Maria Luisa Polichetti Cultural Heritage Expert Josep Giralt IEMed - Institut Europeu de la Mediterrània Francis Rambert IFA - Institute Français d Architecture Roberto Carpano RMSU RMSU - Regional Management Support Unit Roberto Carpano Co-ordinator Claudio Cimino Project Manager: La Navigation du Savoir, Mediterranean Voices, Medimuses, Temper, Ikonos, Unimed, Discover Islamic Art, Byzantium Early Islam Matteo Malvani Project Manager: Delta, Prodecom, Filières Innovantes, Patrimoines Partagés, Defence Systems in the Mediterranean Coasts, Qantara, Rehabimed Francesca Predazzi Information Manager Andrea Sbisà Financial Officer Monica Robelo Administrator Drusilla Stacy Waddy Office Assistant Mariateresa Cuomo Financial Assistant A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int) Index Welcome Address 4 Introduction 6 Recommendations Executive Summary 8 Abstracts and Recommendations of the Working Groups: 1. Regional Partnership and Cultural Heritage cooperation 12 2. Public and private investments in Cultural Heritage 18 3. Professional and Institutional Capacity Building in Cultural Heritage Management 23 Objectives and Background of the Workshop 28 The Participants 31 Who is who 32 The Organization 38 The Euromed Heritage Programme 42 Euromed Heritage, 2005 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This pubblication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Designed by Michela Scibilia Printed in Italy Credits: Mosaics from Heritage for Arts and Architecture (Sonia Twal, Aida Dabbas), Amman, Jordan This publication has been edited with the assistance of Natalia Rodriguez, RMSU intern.

Welcome Address Introduction For us it was an honour to have the opportunity to receive this workshop of Euromed Heritage in our headquarters, and to contribute by this way to the dissemination of the programme, of its ideas and goals for the future. The workshop took place just one month before the Euro-Mediterranean Summit, held in Barcelona on 28 November 2005. Let me say something about this Summit. First of all, it is a celebration, the celebration of the first ten years of the Barcelona Process. It is also an opportunity to make the bilan of those ten years of dialogue between the European Union and the countries partners of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. But it is also an occasion to give a new impulse to the Process, which started in Barcelona ten years ago, an occasion to rethink some of its orientations and to adapt them to the new context, in particular, the European Neighbourhood Policy. In this context, IEMed strongly supports Euromed Heritage, its goals, and particularly the demand of more resources and political support to cultural activities because we are convinced that cultural dialogue must be at the centre of the Barcelona Process in the years to come and because, in the field of cultural dialogue, the activities of Euromed Heritage are particularly relevant. Preservation and dissemination of our Cultural Heritage must be more important in the new period of the Barcelona Process. To finish, let me say that IEMed has already participated in many Euromed Heritage activities. We have contributed to the follow-up of some projects through the Regional Management and Support Unit and we are part of the Scientific Committee of Rehabimed. I want to express our determination to be more involved in your activities in the future, after the Euro-Mediterranean Summit. Recommendations Executive Summary Andreu Claret Director of the European Institute of the Mediterranean 4 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process

Cultural Heritage in the Barcelona process: from fine arts to a partnership strategy In order to nurture the debate within the framework of the Euro Mediterranean Cooperation, the European Commission through the Regional Management and Support Unit (RMSU) of the Euromed Heritage Programme, in collaboration with the European Institute for the Mediterranean (IEmed), organised a two-day workshop in Barcelona on the 28th and 29th October 2005. The event gathered together more than 40 European and Mediterranean selected professionals representing institutions and civil society organisations deeply engaged and involved in Cultural Heritage programmes and projects. This publication contains the results and recommendations of the Workshop, on the basis of the discussion and of the contributions previously submitted by the participants. Moreover, this event was in line with the Commission proposed Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate ¹ aiming to stimulate a wider debate between the European Union s democratic institutions and citizens. Plan-D dovetails with the Action Plan on Communicating Europe, which seeks to improve the way that the Commission presents its activities to the outside world. Within the themes of the Plan, the recommendations of this paper are in line with Europe s borders and its role in the world. Against this articulated scenario, during the workshop Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process - Assessment and Orientations, Cultural Heritage has been debated also as a strategic contribution to economic development for a reinforced partnership. The rationale for the workshop stems from the following considerations: Cultural Heritage was one of the most innovative elements of the 1995 Barcelona Process, based on a regional and partnership approach. However, after the implementation of Euromed Heritage I, II and III, the Draft Declaration for the 10th anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Summit and European Commission five-year work programme have underestimated the need for continuity in the Cultural Heritage sector. The newly created European Neighbourhood Policy will from 2007 onwards replace the current MEDA programme in the partner countries. It will furthermore have a specific and innovative component catering for the needs of cross-border cooperation and a sim- plification of financial instruments at the EU s external borders. It is important that Cultural Heritage will be one of its priorities, in accordance with the Barcelona Declaration. The potential of the newly created Anna Lindh Foundation could be an important tool for intercultural understanding, but it needs support in the Cultural Heritage sector. 1995 2005 MEDA financial allocations for Cultural Heritage totalled 67 million out of which 57 on a regional basis and 10 on a bilateral basis with Syria. The amount represents almost 1% of MEDA funds and 10% of MEDA regional funds. A relevant figure in absolute terms, though still undersized when confronted with other sources. As a comparison the financial commitment of dedicated international organisations such as the Aga Khan Trust for Culture the cultural agency of the Aga Khan development network - and the World Monuments Fund are respectively 60 million and 8 million per year. The contribution of Cultural Heritage/tourism sector to the socio economic development of the partner countries shows great potentials for growth. As an example according to the World Bank, Morocco derives about 7% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from this sector, and the share of tourism in a EU Mediterranean country like Greece s is 18% of GDP. In conclusion, it is important that international donors and national governments fully appreciate the economic value and value-adding chain of engagements in Cultural Heritage. The risk of turning a blind eye to this situation means burning the results of the previous public investments and ignoring the role of one of the strategic development resources for Mediterranean countries: if not supported the established networks will not fully demonstrate their potentialities and will not contribute to reinforce the regional dimension of the programme. Thus, the learning process continues. Roberto Carpano RMSU Co-ordinator ¹ Brussels, 13.10.2005 COM(2005) 494 final 6 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 7

Recommendations Executive Summary As a result of the two-day discussion, the participants to the three working groups made the following recommendations. The full recommendations are available in the next chapters of this document. Working Group 1 Regional partnership The key recommendation is to place Cultural Heritage and cultural activities within the future European Neighbourhood Policy instrument and to invite Governments to consider culture as a relevant tool for economic and local development and as the basic instrument to build a national identity. To date Cultural Heritage is not part of the new European Neighbourhood Policy. A number of specific recommendations were expressed on the issues of the adequacy and relevance in building and managing partnership. Among these it is important to mention: The need to diversify partnership in terms of Government Organisations/Civil society actors and regional composition To implement institutional/regulatory reforms. A more performing regulatory environment is conducive to actually allow Government Organisations and Civil Society stakeholders to actively participate in the projects implementation especially in terms of technical and financial project management The call for proposal cycle of projects should be revised and be built on a two-phase system: a first concept phase and a subsequent project design stage which should follow a participatory capacity building action in form of seminars or fora with an open and public admission procedure. The selection process can then take place on the basis of well-conceived projects. The process should be prepared by a needs analysis aimed at establishing strategy guidelines and criteria. A proposal for a differentiated co-financed project structure has also been presented. All the above is suggested in order to increase quality and ownerships of future proposals. Working Group 2 Public and private investments The need for a political commitment to invest in Cultural Heritage and a shared vision and mutual trust among all key national stakeholders has been re-asserted Public goods include Cultural Heritage, therefore the role of the public sector at central and local level as custodian of Cultural Heritage assets and as a contributor to financing of the development of integrated development programmes was underlined Civil society organisations need to be involved at different scales in the consultation and planning of investments. Local communities should share the benefits so that social development returns may be obtained The private sector should be involved in the value-chain related to the Cultural Heritage investments, contributing to local economic development, and the creation of income-generating activities and employment generation of foreign exchange European Commission bilateral allocations in the field of cultural heritage are almost absent with the exception of Syria. It is important that Cultural Heritage becomes also an important asset at the bilateral level Priority areas for investments in Cultural Heritage in MEDA countries are that: sustainable cultural tourism; measures in favour of making culture more accessible; urban rehabilitation of historic cities and adaptive reuse of buildings; territorial development around cultural and natural sites; intangible Cultural Heritage; arts & crafts and development of SMEs. Working Group 3 Professional and Institutional capacity building Recommendations were formulated at different levels: for the EU institutions/other international donors and national governments (EU and MEDA partners) For the EU institutions and other international donors is important to promote the adoption of information sharing mechanisms and to foster the integration within the different programmes dealing with Culture Heritage At the national level, planning schemes should be developed for improving the coordination among programs designed for institutional capacity building and for monitoring the position of trained professionals. A need for promoting surveys to assess the existing situation (e.g. gaps in Cultural Heritage policies, human resources, legislative framework) has been therefore recommended both for developing local capacity (training) and for institutional capacity building actions. The development of national heritage strategies and legislation should be promoted as well At the national level, specific recruitment of professional figures to fill gaps in the capacity of the institutions to address Cultural Heritage management issues, the integration of Cultural Heritage in the domain of community development, education and tourism and, finally, the empowerment of civil society in project implementation and monitoring has been recommended 8 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 9

The creation/establishment of standards in the process of project management and increasing the role of pilot projects as a learning/verification mechanism are among more specific recommendations More specific recommendations in developing local capacity regard the establishment of appropriate levels of training according to the different stakeholders, the issue of continuous training, the encouragement of closer contact between training programs and public/private employers in Cultural Heritage and of the training of trainers In the field of technology and new professional profiles, recommendations concentrate on encouraging networks of specialized local enterprises in the conservation of Cultural Heritage, preserving and disseminating local and traditional know-how, promoting the diffusion of virtual communities in Cultural Heritage domains and establishing regional cooperation in the field of programs and research in risk preparedness. This document has been summarised by the Regional Management Support Unit (RMSU) of the Euromed Heritage Programme on the basis of discussions held during the workshop. The Abstracts and Recommendations of the Working groups have been gathered by the Chairman. The RMSU has made all efforts to best reflect the contributions and the discussions as they emerged in the recommendations drafted by the three chairpersons. However, the RMSU is the only body responsible for any inaccuracies and interpretation in the final text. Abstracts and Recommendations of the Working Groups Matteo Malvani RMSU Project Manager 10 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 11

Working Group 1 Regional partnership and Cultural Heritage cooperation Chairperson: Gilles Nourissier, president Ecole D Avignon and General Secretary of ICOMOS France Key issues To what extent the partnership approach can consolidate links between countries Regional, sub-regional and national partnership The importance of cultural issues in comparison with other aspects of development Abstract from contributions Concerning building and running a partnership in Euromed Heritage the contributors first identified its nature. A local partnership should be considered the driving force of Cultural Heritage, not only as actor of a project but as referent body, Regional Partnership is a seed for changing from within. Partnership has evolved from central lead partner decision process to a shared process, only Regional Partnership could import new visions for Cultural Heritage (e.g. ordinary heritage, the combination of equal dignity), Cultural Heritage and regional cooperation inspired a policy showing true evolution in the relationship donor/beneficiary. In partnership building the human factor prevails on others. For the Corpus project (regional encyclopaedia and data base for traditional architecture in the Mediterranean basin) the regional partnership was the main spine of the work. Regional partnership reinforces empowerment of civil society and decentralization, influencing good governance, a broad partnership is necessary to step out of sensible political issues like shared heritage in ex colonized countries. Partnership is both a goal and a tool. The contributors also set its limits, for example projects should not rely on 100% funding, but be linked with marketable services or external resources and a local delegation from national administrations to more nimble NGOs is needed. They identified possible Improvements in terms of Access: Partnership should be assembled in seminars taking joint steps in designing projects according to common needs and affinities. Access to the call for proposals should be allowed only to those Consortia that come out from Seminars anticipating Projects application. Capacity building of national partners could be undertaken by local EC delegations. Management: Partnership should be framed in a model for contract, adapted to small nonfor-profit NGOs. An agency for searching other resources would be necessary as well as further contracts for successful projects (cycle 1 completed, cycle 2 planned, financial diversification obtained). Preliminary consultations to avoid overlapping of activities (UNESCO, UNDP, Worl Bank, ICOMOS, ICCROM, ICOM, Arab Fund, Aga Khan Foundation, Getty Foundation, WMF). Monitoring: Among other: improve projects scientific quality; establish permanent structures such as a Scientific Council, a Management Council, a Mediterranean Library. Concerning the importance of cultural issues in comparison with other aspects of development, the issue of Classical versus Contemporary Cultural Heritage was tackled. The contributors expressed that the question at stake is that a group appropriates its heritage, whether it is classical or contemporary. Of paramount importance is the contribution of Cultural Heritage to the identity and branding of territory, so relevant in an age of globalisation and fierce competition. Contemporary culture, as a continuation of modernism, with its central precept of breaking with tradition, can be a platform for interrogating the foundations of sclerotic social and political structures. Regarding Partnership in other EC funded programmes and the future of partnership the contributors mentioned INTERREG as a backstop due to the fact that costs on south shore are not eligible and that EC members remain the only coordinators. No follow up for Cultural Heritage issues of regional experiences in bilateral EC/country programmes. The place of Cultural Heritage issues in the future policy is a great concern, EC priorities having not allotted them equal to the situation. The trend of parcelling the available resources (in so-called micro-projects of 20/30.000 euro each) risks thwarting the efforts already done. Cultural Heritage is not seen as an overall priority for national development unless its relationship with social values, economic activities, local development, international exchanges, is made or become clear. Among the prospects: Co-ownership of cultural resources, leading Regional Partnership to co-manage them in a multilateral context. Bilateral programmes between the countries like Cultural Heritage based pilot educational projects, trainings, workshops, short-term or long-term certification programmes and even e-learning tools etc. focused on local governments and other related institutions, NGO s and for related individuals might be helpful for solving and/or identifying problems for the partner countries. A civil networking covering the Mediterranean basin may start up as local, country based networking linking up to a regional networking. The EU external policies towards neighbouring countries for the coming 2007-2013 period will extend partnership to territorial level, foreseeing for the first time cross border cooperation regulated through Joint Programmes established between partner countries inside and outside EU. 12 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 13

What is being introduced is the partnership between homologue government structures, be national or local. The Neighbourhood Policy foresees a total new line of action for cross-border cooperation among European and Mediterranean Partners based on co-ownership, joint programming and co financing. The process will begin with the definition of overall Strategy papers by the EC. Then, Joint Programmes will be defined by agreeing partner countries and sub-national governments. Finally, real actions will be proposed and implemented by various actors. Recommendations The workshop s participants agreed to focus on 3 key partnership and regional issues: Adequacy and Relevance in Building an efficient Partnership Place of Cultural Heritage and Cultural Activities in the new European Neighbourhood Policy Instruments Launching process of the projects. Adequacy and Relevance in Building Partnership Partnership should be adequately diversified (types of organizations, regional composition) and special attention and provisions should be devoted to assisting the formation of partnerships between small and medium sized NGOs Partners should demonstrate sufficient management capability and true engagement In order to be able to benefit from the relevant expertise, institutional/regulatory reforms appear necessary to allow both governmental and other organizations to participate in the project implementation (permissions, receipt and allocation of funds). This also encourages good governance and the development of civic society and the private sector. Place of Cultural Heritage and Cultural Activities in the new European Neighbourhood Policy Instruments Considering that, apart from an eventual 4th call for proposals in Euromed Heritage Programme, European Neighbourhood Policy now introduces three possibilities for Cultural Heritage and cultural activities in the future programs: - Thematic programs (such as the cultural industry, cultural tourism, a dialogue instrument...) - National plans - Cross-border cooperation tool: joint programs to be negotiated between two or more countries Invite the governments (countries and regions) to consider Cultural Heritage and cultural activities as a relevant tool for economic development and the basic instrument to build the core element of a common identity and social cohesion Cultural heritage and cultural activities (like cultural dialogue, cultural tourism, conservation and creation) should be: - An area of thematic programs - A component of national strategies and plans - A tool of local development and governance Cultural cooperation should go beyond cross-border/local levels and be flexible enough to include broad thematic and regional projects Anna Lindh Foundation should play an active role in supporting the three above mentionned recommendations Coordinate efforts and programs of EC delegations and international and bilateral agencies (as part of country assistance strategies or other donor forums etc.) covering the same areas to avoid overlapping of activities and to create synergies. Recommended launching process of projects An analysis of national/regional needs and opportunities should be undertaken, on the basis of which it should be determined what issues are of a critical regional nature and what is the added value of a regional program (see following table, phase 0) The ongoing call for proposals procedure should be improved, since building partnership is an objective of EH, (see table A, phases 1, 2 and 3) Proposal for the launching process of projects (see table A) Proposal for adapting types of activities and rates of funding to new European Neighbourhood Policy Instruments (ENPI) (see table B). 14 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 15

Table A Proposal for the launching process of projects 4 steps before projects application and selection Needs assesment Policy Strategy Guidelines Criteria Concept phase Search for partners (seminar) Forum Phases 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Project design proposal Selection Individual + common production Networks + projects implementation Inter projects cooperation Table B Proposal for adapting types of activities and rates of funding to new European Neighbourhood Policy Instruments (ENPI) Territorial level (tools) Regional (thematic programs) Type of activity Research Deliverables form of results Books, recording, On-line research tools % of funding 100% Proportion of total funding 20% Field of Actors Proponent Project leader Final consortium Associated partners individual or groups informal partnership Sub regional or crossborder (joints programs) Inter-projects cooperation Methodolodgy Capacity building Recommendations Charters Syllabus Technical assistance missions Training 100% 75% 10% 30% Networks Expertise Expertise Transfer Local authorities Sub-contractors Europeaid + RMSU Local or national (national plans) Pilot actions Other actions 50% of each or 100% of half of them 40% Visibility Dissemination Development Declaring joint interest Projects content and partnerships building Finalization of the project Possibility of splitting into several Sub-projects How to profit of EH networks, methods, capacity building 100% 16 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 17

Working Group 2 Public and private investments in Cultural Heritage Chairperson: Anthony G. Bigio, Senior Urban Specialist with the Infrastructure Department of the Middle East and North Africa region of the World Bank Key issues Public and private investments and Cultural Heritage, for what purpose and what expected return Possible sources of public and private investments and their complementary roles Required enabling national environment for successful investments in Cultural Heritage How to promote Cultural Heritage as a priority sector in MEDA countries Abstract from contributions Concerning public and private investments and Cultural Heritage, for what purpose and what expected return the contributors identified the need for investments in Cultural Heritage to be conceived as part of broader programmes in favour of social and economic development. In that regard, the integration of Cultural Heritage as a crosscutting theme in other sectors opens the way for a new generation of investments. The contributors agreed that the main areas for investments in Cultural Heritage in MEDA countries are the following: sustainable cultural tourism, urban rehabilitation of historic cities and adaptive use of buildings, rural development around cultural and natural sites, arts & crafts and development of micro-enterprises and SMEs. The group also felt that investments had to take place in: Institutional reform and modernisation of agencies responsible for Cultural Heritage management, modernisation of regulatory environments and legislative tools, education and capacity building, awareness/communication/information/new technologies for information and communication. Concerning possible sources of public and private investments and their complementary roles, the contributors reiterated the importance of national budgetary allocations to the Cultural Heritage sector, both for the conservation and management of the assets, for institutional development and for the promotion of Cultural Heritage as a resource for socio-economic development. National and local budgetary resources should be contributing to the financing of integrated development programmes centred around Cultural Heritage assets: Sustainable cultural tourism, urban rehabilitation of historic cities and adaptive use of buildings, rural development around cultural and natural sites, arts and crafts and development of micro-enterprises and SMEs. It should be stressed that these investments should promote economic growth and therefore economic returns are expected from them, as well as positive impacts on local communities. Besides national resources, contributors identified financing for such investments from: MEDA funding, bilateral aid, lending from multilateral banks, grants from Foundations both national and international, sponsorships from the private sector, investments from the private sector national and international, mobilisation for remittances. Concerning required enabling national environment for successful investments in Cultural Heritage the contributors re-asserted the primary responsibility of the public sector in each MEDA country to act as the custodian of Cultural Heritage assets in view of their role in the identity of the community at the local and national level. This identity constitutes the base for sustainable and endogenous development. For this responsibility to be carried out, there has to be a political commitment to invest in Cultural Heritage conservation and promotion and a shared vision and mutual trust among all key national stakeholders: central and local governments, civil society and the private sectors. Civil society needs to be involved at the different scales in the consultation and planning of investments on Cultural Heritage and communities should share the benefits of the related investments, so that social development returns may be obtained. The private sector should be involved in the value chain related to the Cultural Heritage investments, contributing to local economic development, and the creation of income-generating activities, employment and generation of foreign exchange. Technical and managerial capacity is needed for each of these stakeholders to carry out their respective roles efficiently and in particular among public sector agencies that are often ill equipped to respond to the challenges. Concerning how to promote Cultural Heritage as a priority sector in MEDA countries the contributors felt that the current level of MEDA funding should be increased in support of Cultural Heritage investments as described above, providing that governments commitments become more effective and focused on results. Regional EC funded activities will have the dual goal of supporting national governments in the pursuit of their Cultural Heritage agenda, and of providing opportunities for intercultural dialogue among European and Mediterranean societies and partners. A sub-regional dimension is important to envisage as an added value to the regional character of current programmes in order to ensure greater responsiveness to the specific issues being addressed by the networks. 18 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 19

Recommendations Public and private investments and Cultural Heritage, for what purpose and what expected return Investments in Cultural Heritage have to be conceived as part of broader programs in favour of social and economic development. In that regard, the integration of Cultural Heritage in other sectors as a crosscutting theme opens the way for a new generation of investments The group agreed that the main areas for investments in Cultural Heritage in MEDA countries are the following ones: - Sustainable cultural tourism - Measures in favour of making culture more accessible - Urban rehabilitation of historic cities and adaptive re-use of buildings - Territorial development around cultural and natural sites - Intangible Cultural Heritage - Arts & crafts and development of micro-enterprises and SMEs The group also asserted that investments had to take place in support of: - Institutional reform and modernization of agencies responsible for Cultural Heritage management - Modernization of regulatory environments and of legislative tools - Education and capacity building - Awareness/communication/information/promotion of new IT technologies The returns expected from these investments are sustainable economic growth, employment opportunities, an equitable distribution of benefits among local communities involved in the projects, as well as positive impacts on local cultural identities and cultural diversity. Possible sources of public and private investments and their complementary roles The group reiterated the importance of national budgetary allocations to Cultural Heritage, for the conservation and management of key assets, for institutional development of the sector, but also for the promotion of Cultural Heritage as a resource for sustainable socio-economic development National and sub-national budgetary resources should be contributing to the financing of integrated development programs centred on Cultural Heritage assets in the four areas mentioned above: a) sustainable cultural tourism; b) measures in favour of making culture more accessible; c) urban rehabilitation of historic cities and adaptive use of buildings; d) territorial development around cultural and natural sites; e) intangible Cultural Heritage; f) arts & crafts and development of micro-enterprises and SMEs In addition to budgetary resources, additional financing for such investments in various combinations and proportions, according to each project should be sought from: - EC funding - Bilateral aid - Lending from multilateral banks - Grants from foundations (national and international) - Sponsorships from the private sector - Investments from the private sector (national and international) - Mobilization of remittances from citizens working abroad The group felt that the current level of EC funding should be increased in support of Cultural Heritage investments as described above, providing that national governments commitments become more effective and focused on achieving concrete results in this sector. Required enabling national environment for successful investments in Cultural Heritage The group re-asserted the primary responsibility of the public sector in each MEDA country to act as the custodian of Cultural Heritage assets in view of its role in the respect of cultural specificities of the community and the appropriation of Cultural Heritage by local populations, these pre-requisites constituting the base for sustainable and endogenous development For this responsibility to be fully carried out there has to be a political commitment to invest in Cultural Heritage conservation and promotion, and a shared vision and mutual trust among all key national stakeholders: central and local governments, civil society and the private sector - Civil society needs to be involved at different scales in the consultation and planning of investments on Cultural Heritage, and communities should share the benefits of the related investments, so that social development impacts may be obtained - The private sector should be involved in the various value chains related to the Cultural Heritage investments, contributing to local economic development, the creation of income-generating activities, employment, and the generation of foreign exchange Technical and managerial capacity is needed for each of these stakeholders to carry out their respective roles efficiently and in particular within public sector agencies that are often ill equipped to respond to the challenges. 20 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 21

How to promote Cultural Heritage as a priority sector in MEDA countries Regional EC funded activities should have the dual goal of supporting national governments and national stakeholders in the pursuit of their Cultural Heritage agenda, and of providing opportunities for increased intercultural dialogue among European and Mediterranean societies and partners The current regional networks will evolve in response to these goals, and where appropriate function more along a sub-regional dimension, in order to ensure greater responsiveness to the specific issues being addressed by the MEDA stakeholders. Conclusions The group identified four specific areas for future regional activities that would be of support to the development of national Cultural Heritage agendas and programs of MEDA countries: Identify and prepare specific Cultural Heritage investment proposals in the MEDA countries, and mobilize for this purpose the appropriate European expertise, including for the economic analysis of the expected returns on the investments Identify opportunities for the use of international conventions, standard-setting instruments and regulatory frameworks that can facilitate the development of Cultural Heritage and of the related international exchanges and intercultural dialogue Ensure intermediation between MEDA and European stakeholders that are potentially connected through common channels and can assume joint actions or pursue commercial partnerships for mutually beneficial enterprises in areas related to Cultural Heritage Provide avenues for awareness raising and information sharing related to the role, importance and potential of Cultural Heritage among MEDA and European stakeholders in order to enhance intercultural dialogue. Working Group 3 Professional and Institutional Capacity Building in Cultural Heritage Management Chairperson: Gaetano Palumbo, Director of Archaeological Conservation of the World Monuments Fund (WMF) Key issues Setting reference models for institutional capacity building to secure economic and social sustainability of Cultural Heritage projects Training needs and developing local capacity Planning and management of heritage projects The role of technology and new professional profiles Abstract of contributions The contributors identified a series of weaknesses in capacity building and training programs on offer in the Euro-Mediterranean area, in the field of human and professional resources and leadership (lack of human resources, absence of competent leadership, mismatch between people trained in Cultural Heritage Management and those presently responsible for the management of cultural heritage, no common professional base onto which training can be built), in the field of institutional issues (insufficient institutional cooperation, lack of coordination among institutional parties, insufficient international coordination in training, insufficient legislation and ineffective regulative frameworks at the national level, overlapping and conflicting responsibilities between institutions), in the field of project planning (lack of project planning capabilities, failure of identifying specific needs, lack of development strategies, lack of maintenance capacity), in the field of project administration (low grade of civic control in decision-making mechanisms, lack of a strategic framework for project financing, Insufficient availability of capacity building and training programs, insufficient professional training programs, or link between Heritage Management courses at Universities and the marketplace). In addition the contributors identified the following needs: indicators, improve legislation, develop Cultural Heritage policies at the national level, create and develop infrastructures in Cultural Heritage Management, specific recruitment of professional figures, continuing training (such as short, or update courses for managers), tailor training content to specific professional figures participating in course, training coordination at regional levels, raising awareness among communities on the importance of Cultural Heritage (also through com- 22 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 23

munity based programs), improve awareness of Cultural Heritage and the ethics of its care in study curricula, closer contacts between training programs and public/private employers in Cultural Heritage, providing access for all to Cultural Heritage, understand risks affecting Cultural Heritage, integration of conservation and valorisation of Cultural Heritage in the domain of tourism, scale technology to local resources. Finally, there were opportunities that have been identified, which, if well addressed, might help in the development of appropriate strategies, such as taking advantage of UNESCO s periodic reporting exercise to have this linked to UNESCO s Global Training Strategy, developing cross-mediterranean partnerships through the findings and recommendations of Periodic Reporting exercises, taking advantage of the common goal of saving heritage as an integrating force, the emergence of network of specialized local enterprises in conservation of Cultural Heritage, the reuse of abandoned/under-used structures, especially for community purposes, the development of cultural networks at different levels or the establishment of virtual communities in Cultural Heritage domains. Recommendations Setting reference models for institutional capacity building to secure economic and social sustainability of Cultural Heritage projects All the recommendations under this topic aim at establishing the proper environment within the institution to guarantee the application of the new skills acquired. Recommendations for EU institutions and other international donors Promote the survey of existing gaps in Cultural Heritage policies (i.e. type of heritage at risk, types of risks, gaps in training, gaps in legislation, etc.) Secure the wider dissemination of project results to the civil society through the allocation of specific funding, and promote the preparation of educational material for school children and the civil society Promote a methodology for integrated Cultural Heritage policies (in particular by stressing a broader understanding of Cultural Heritage in all its facets) Promote the development of agreed upon methodologies for the development of National Heritage Strategies and legislation Ensure that proposed projects include not only plans for immediate results (products) but also include studies on foreseeable impacts Promote the development of a methodology for identifying indicators to evaluate the impacts of Cultural Heritage programs towards the achievement of the goals of the Barcelona Process Consider the opportunity of a follow-up financial allocation for projects that successfully meet expected results (based on established indicators). Recommendations at national level (EU and MEDA partners) Develop planning schemes to secure Cultural Heritage project sustainability - Improve coordination in the establishment of programs designed for institutional capacity building - Monitor the positions of professionals trained in the Euromed projects to prevent the wasting of qualified human resources Improve or develop mechanisms to support young actors and emerging teams in the field of Cultural Heritage activity. Training needs: developing local capacity Recommendations for EU institutions and other international donors Encourage the adoption of shared methodology in developing training in the field of Cultural Heritage management Encourage the development of courses on policy making and on the economics of Cultural Heritage Encourage the development of courses aimed at training trainers, setting training methodologies, and producing educational materials Encourage the development of courses to build the awareness of civil society in Cultural Heritage matters Encourage a stronger role for NGOs (especially from non-european partners) and the civil society in future programs. Recommendations at national level (EU and MEDA partners) Preceding the development of specific training projects there should be surveys for the assessment of existing conditions concerning - Human resources - Institutional capacities - Legislative frameworks Establish appropriate levels of training according to the different stakeholders: - Decision makers - Professional and technical staff, including mid-career professionals - NGO personnel - Civil society (including awareness building) - Professionals and private contractors 24 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 25

- Media professionals. Consider continuous training as an essential component of Cultural Heritage management Encourage closer contacts between training programs and public/private employers in Cultural Heritage Improve awareness of Cultural Heritage and the ethics of its care in study curricula. Planning and management of heritage projects Recommendations for EU institutions and other international donors Promote the creation of information-sharing mechanisms, in order to avoid the risk of duplication of practices and recommendations. One such mechanism could be the creation of Communities of practice, i.e. networks of institutions with common research and information-sharing interests. Create/establish standards in the process of project management Increase the role of pilot projects as a learning/verification mechanism Develop cross-mediterranean partnerships through the findings and recommendations of international organizations (such as UNESCO s Periodic Reporting exercise) Improve the mechanisms and criteria for the verification of project implementation and results. Recommendations at national level (EU and MEDA partners) Provide specific recruitment of professional figures to fill gaps in the capacity of the institution to address Cultural Heritage management issues Integrate conservation and valorisation of Cultural Heritage in the domain of community development, education and tourism Empower civil society in project implementation and monitoring. Role of technology and new professional profiles Recommendations for EU institutions and other international donors Promote horizontal communication and interaction among Euromed programs Promote the diffusion of virtual communities in Cultural Heritage domains Establish regional cooperation in the field of programs and research in risk preparedness. Recommendations at national level (EU and MEDA partners) Encourage the emergence of networks of specialized local enterprises in the conservation of Cultural Heritage Preserve and disseminate local and traditional know-how. Objectives and Background of the Workshop The Participants Who is who The Organization Objectives and Background of the Workshop 26 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 27

Objectives and Background of the Workshop The Workshop Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process - Assessment and Orientations has been organized by the EC EuropeAid through the Regional Management and Support Unit (RMSU) in cooperation with the European Institute for the Mediterranean (IEMed) on 28th 29th October 2005 in Barcelona, Spain. Timing and venue both had a crucial meaning: 2005 was declared Year of the Mediterranean, by the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Barcelona in November 2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the Declaration of Barcelona. The Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Barcelona on 27-28 November 1995, was the starting point of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelona Process), a wide framework of political, economic and social relations between the Member States of the European Union and Partners of the Southern Mediterranean. One of the three baskets of the Declaration was Partnership in social, cultural and human affairs: developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures and exchanges between civil societies. Objective of the workshop was thence to stimulated the debate on the results achieved in the specific field of Cultural Heritage in the region during this first decade of the Barcelona Process, aiming at suggesting concrete indications for the forthcoming period. The participation of representatives from public and private institutions involved in this field in the region enabled the discussion to broaden to other actors and programmes and to make a first assessment on the complementarities of the different strategies and actions. The goal of the workshop was not to specifically evaluate the results of the Euromed Heritage programme but rather to provide orientations for the future. For this reason the accent was placed on the issues of partnership, investments and institutional reforms/capacity building needs in MEDA countries which represent three of the priorities common to all the Euromed Heritage projects. The meaning and the importance of international cooperation in the field of culture which goes along with economic cooperation has been widely debated especially in the past decade. However, there is still a tendency to consider cultural issues as being of minor importance in comparison with other aspects of development such as health, infrastructures, education. The issue of culture in sustainable development has only recently been developed. International institutions such as the World Bank now focus on it. In other words on the possibility to generate income from cultural resources, to create employment, reduce poverty, stimulate enterprise development, foster private investment and generate resources for environmental and cultural conservation. Objectives Assess success and failure of Cultural Heritage cooperation in creating bonds among countries and cultures and to provide suggestions on the future role of the European Commission in the field of Cultural Heritage in the region, within the framework of the new neighbourhood policy Assess the impact of donor policies and investments in the area of Cultural Heritage. This took into consideration examining the lessons learned and the orientations of different donor organizations, but also comparing the dividend from public and private investments in Cultural Heritage with investments in health, infrastructures, education Suggest institutional reform and capacity building needs for MEDA countries, in order to identify better qualified prospective programmes in terms of originality of contributions and level of scientific contents. Background Euromed Heritage I, II and III projects have focused especially on intangible issues such as the dialogue among cultures and the exchange of experience. This aspect has proved to be very important in consolidating existing networks and in creating new ones. It was thus demonstrated that partner institutions in the South and in the North of the Mediterranean basin were successful in working together in the field of Cultural Heritage. If the Euromed Heritage programme, which is the first EC regional programme in this field, has been characterized by a partnership approach, also other EC funded programmes such as INTERREG or Culture 2000 that have brought other positive results achieved in the sector, should be recalled. The need for enhancing success stories, resulting from the action of the EC, implies an assessment of best practices in order to support the launch and the implementation of possible future programmes and initiatives within the framework of the EC neighbourhood policy. Representatives from international donor organisations contributed to the debate, reporting their experiences aimed at supporting the sustainable socio-economic development process in the region through devised action in the safeguarding and conservation of Cultural Heritage. The workshop has also verified to what extent international/eu cooperation in the field of 28 Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process Cultural Heritage within the Barcelona Process 29