Gamini Wijesuriya ICCROM

1. Thematic presentation on building capacity in the field of heritage conservation Experts reflection meeting on the state of conservation of World Heritage propertiesDakar, Senegal 13-15 April 2011 Gamini Wijesuriya ICCROM

2. Objectives of this meeting: To identify trends/themes in state of conservation reporting, To facilitate information sharing on management approaches to common problems, To consider what guidance is available to assist States Parties prevent and mitigate threats, and To discuss issues to include in policy approaches to common threats. HOW CAN CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTE TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES?

3. My presentation Why Capacity Building? How the SOC process has helped to shape up the Capacity Building? Key features of the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy Concluding remarks

4. Why Capacity Building? Heritage is under pressure- be they World Heritage or not Heritage bwing redefined- diverse range of properties Issues surrounding heritage conservation are growing- World Heritage has added new dimensions Training heritage practitioners only is not sufficient- It is a myth to think that heritage professionals alone can protect heritage Only science or art of conservation is not sufficient More target groups involved- more themes involved- different types of work involved Need to go beyond conventional ‘training’ approaches Training as against Capacity Building is advocated

5. Issues in heritage and conservation Use Meaning, identity relevance to daily life. Diverse values (intangibles) ecological, sustainability Natural/Human Visitors Cultural context Scientific data Heritage Development Global community OUV, Globalization Political Principles, theories New Institutions, Decentralizations Resource constrains Ownership Old and new?

6. How the SOC process has helped to shape up the Capacity Building? Issues surrounding heritage conservation are growing More target groups are involved Training heritage practitioners not sufficient Need to go beyond conventional training approaches Training vs. Capacity Building favoured Planning/working with others Impact Assessment Community consultations Negotiations-political decisions Legislation changes Issues of buffer zones Setting (integrity) ………………..

7. How the SOC process has helped to shape up the Capacity Building? Issues surrounding heritage conservation are growing More target groups are involved Training heritage practitioners not sufficient Need to go beyond conventional training approaches Training vs. Capacity Building favoured

8. Capacity Building Capacity is “the ability of individuals, organizations and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner”, Capacity building for the effective management of World Heritage properties will: strengthen the knowledge, abilities, skills and behavior of people with direct responsibilities for heritage conservation and management, improve institutional structures and processes through empowering decision-makers and policy-makers, and introduce a more dynamic relationship between heritage and its context and, in turn, greater reciprocal benefits by a more inclusive approach.

9. New WH Capacity Building Strategy The First Paradigm Shift: From Training to Capacity Building a “Global Training Strategy” to a “World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy” The Second Paradigm Shift: Connecting Capacity Building for Cultural and Natural Heritage a combined capacity building strategy

10. New Capacity Building strategy identified three key target audiences where capacities have to be developed or strengthen: Practitioners Institutions Communities and Networks

12. mission The purpose of this strategy is to provide a framework which favors the development of effective actions and programmes to strengthen or develop capacities of practitioners, institutions, communities and networks for the conservation and management of World Heritage by: informing the policies and decisions by the World Heritage Committee in the area of capacity building; orienting State Parties and other actors in the World Heritage system in planning, implementing and monitoring capacity building policies and programmes; constituting a reference for the wider conservation community and acting as a catalyst for the development of wider cooperation to support capacity building activities for heritage conservation in general.

13. vision We envisage a world where practitioners, institutions, communities and networks are enlightened, capable and closely aligned in their work to protect World Heritage, and heritage in general, and to give it a positive role in the life of communities.   Practitioners will be able to better protect and manage World Heritage. Institutions will be capable of providing support for effective conservation and management through favorable legislation and policies, establishing a more effective administrative set-up and providing financial and human resources for heritage protection. Communities and networks will be aware of the importance of heritage and support its conservation.

14. Providers States Parties: The Advisory Bodies (ABs): The World Heritage Centre (WHC): UNESCO Category II Centres (C2Cs): University Programmes: Regional Training Partners (EPA, CHDA): UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks (UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs): Forum UNESCO-University and Heritage (FUUH):

15. Three levels of Strategies Global WH Capacity Building Strategy Regional Strategies National level Strategies

16. Main global strategy World Heritage Capacity Building Key Goals and Summary Action Plan 9 Goals and related actions organized under the remaining 4 Cs

17. AFRICA 09 Was an early example of this approach  While it is true that the main focus was professionals Also worked on institutional capacity building.  It brought decision-makers into the discussion where possible Produced materials such as books, videos, and other means of strengthening institutions. Eg. legal systems, traditional conservation practices. Programme worked with local communities every chance it had

18. Conclusions Heritage management is becoming complex and challenging. (Paradox)? More and more State Parties are interested in inscription process. WH process is continuously evolving. Maintaining OUV is becoming more and more complex requiring the involvement of a wide range of target groups and addressing wide variety of issues. It is natural that the Committee will impose more and more conditions for maintaining OUV of the properties. Building and strengthening capacities of State Parties become all the more important for the Committee as well as to the State Parties themselves. A collective effort as a way forward……………..Let me end with an example…..referring to comment from the director this morning.

19. Thank You