ASEAN Declaration on Cultural Heritage

ASEAN Declaration On Cultural Heritage Bangkok, Thailand, 24-25 July 2000

WE, the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Member Countries representing Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam;

MINDFUL of the vast cultural resources and rich heritage of civilizations, ideas and value systems of ASEAN, and cognizant of the need to protect, preserve and promote their vitality and integrity;

COGNIZANT of the aspirations of all ASEAN peoples for a regional order based on equal access to cultural opportunities, equal participation in cultural creativity and decision-making, and deep respect for the diversity of cultures and identities in ASEAN, without distinction as to nationality, race, ethnicity, sex, language or religion;

FULLY AWARE that cultural creativity and diversity guarantee the ultimate viability of ASEAN societies;

AFFIRMING that all cultural heritage, identities and expressions, cultural rights and freedoms derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person in creative interaction with other human persons and that the creative communities of human persons in ASEAN are the main agents and consequently should be the principal beneficiary of, and participate actively in the realization of these heritage, expressions and rights;

UNDERSTANDING that cultural traditions are an integral part of ASEAN’s intangible heritage and an effective means of bringing together ASEAN peoples to recognize their regional identity;

DETERMINED to achieve substantial progress in the protection and promotion of ASEAN cultural heritage and cultural rights undertakings through an increased and sustained program of regional cooperation and solidarity, which draws sustained inspiration from the deep historical, linguistic, and cultural unity and linkages among Southeast Asian peoples.

CONSIDERING that the erosion or extinction of any tangible or intangible cultural heritage of ASEAN constitutes a harmful impoverishment of human heritage;

FULLY AWARE of the threat of cultural loss, rapid deterioration of living traditions of creative and technical excellence, knowledge systems and practices and the disappearance of worthy heritage structures due to tropical climate, inappropriate development efforts, illicit trade and trafficking, or the homogenizing forces of globalization and other major changes taking place in ASEAN societies;

CONCERNED that the increasing dominance of market forces, mass production and consumerist orientation in contemporary industrial society can undermine human dignity, freedom, creativity, social justice and equality.

OBSERVING that the protection of this heritage often cannot be fully undertaken at the national level because of the magnitude of economic and technical resources it requires and can only be undertaken through the collective action of ASEAN and assistance of the international community, which, although not a substitute, can effectively complement the initiatives of the Member Countries concerned;

AFFIRMING the importance of cultural discourse, awareness and literacy in enhancing intra-cultural and inter-cultural understanding and deeper appreciation of ASEAN cultural heritage, as essential for peaceful coexistence and harmony in ASEAN, both at the national and regional levels;

REAFFIRMING the commitment to an ASEAN community conscious of and drawing inspiration from its deeply shared history, cultural heritage and regional identity, as enshrined in the ASEAN Vision 2020 adopted by the ASEAN Heads of State/Government in December 1997;

ACKNOWLEDGING the work of the ASEAN Committee on Culture and Information (COCI) in its efforts to promote awareness and appreciation of the cultural heritage of ASEAN and to enhance mutual understanding of the cultures and value systems among the peoples of ASEAN;

DO HEREBY DECLARE the following policies and programmes as a framework for ASEAN cooperation on cultural heritage :

1. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROTECTION OF ASEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE
It is primarily the duty of each ASEAN Member Country to identify, delineate, protect, conserve, promote, develop and transmit to future generations the significant cultural heritage within its territory and to avail of regional and international assistance and cooperation, wherever necessary and appropriate. While fully respecting each Member Country’s sovereignty and national property rights, ASEAN recognizes that the national cultural heritage of Member Countries constitute the heritage of Southeast Asia for whose protection it is the duty of ASEAN as a whole to cooperate.

To guarantee the protection, preservation, and promotion of each Member Country’s cultural heritages, each Country shall formulate and adopt policies, programmes, and services and develop appropriate technical, scientific, legal, administrative and financial measures for this purpose.

DEFINITION OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
ASEAN Member Countries recognize the following meanings :

“Culture” means the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, intellectual, emotional and material features that characterize a society or social group. It includes the arts and letters as well as human modes of life, value systems, creativity, knowledge systems, traditions and beliefs.

“Cultural heritage” means:
(a) significant cultural values and concepts;
(b) structures and artifacts: dwellings, buildings for worship, utility structures, works of visual arts, tools and implements, that are of a historical, aesthetic, or scientific significance;
(c) sites and human habitats: human creations or combined human creations and nature, archaeological sites and sites of living human communities that are of outstanding value from a historical, aesthetic, anthropological or ecological viewpoint, or, because of its natural features, of considerable importance as habitat for the cultural survival and identity of particular living traditions;
(d) oral or folk heritage: folkways, folklore, languages and literature, traditional arts and crafts, architecture, and the performing arts, games, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, myths, customs and beliefs, rituals and other living traditions;
(e) the written heritage;
(f) popular cultural heritage: popular creativity in mass cultures (i.e. industrial or commercial cultures), popular forms of expression of outstanding aesthetic, anthropological and sociological values, including the music, dance, graphic arts, fashion, games and sports, industrial design, cinema, television, music video, video arts and cyber art in technologi-cally-oriented urbanized communities.

2. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL TREASURES AND CULTURAL PROPERTIES
ASEAN shall cooperate in the protection of antiquities and works of historic significance, movable and immovable cultural properties that are manifestations of national history, of great structural and architectural importance, of outstanding archaeological, anthropological or scientific value, or associated with exceptional events and are to be considered or declared National Treasures and Protected Buildings or Protected Artifacts. Historic sites, cultural landscapes, areas of scenic beauty and natural monuments shall be identified, recognized and protected.

ASEAN Member Countries shall take necessary measures to safeguard cultural heritage against all human and natural dangers to which it is exposed, including the risks due to armed conflicts, occupation of territories, or other kinds of public disorders.

3. SUSTENTATION OF WORTHY LIVING TRADITIONS
ASEAN Member Countries shall cooperate to sustain and preserve worthy living traditions and folkways and protect their living bearers in recognition of people’s right to their own culture since their capacity to sustain that culture is often eroded by the impact of the consumerist values of industrial globali-zation, mass media, and other causes and influences. ASEAN Member Countries shall cooperate to protect, promote and support worthy, highly creative living traditions within the framework of national and regional, social, cultural and economic development undertakings.

For this purpose, ASEAN Member Countries shall design both formal and non-formal learning programs for living traditions, both in rural and urban settings, stressing on the dignity and wisdom of these traditions and promoting creative diversity and alternative world views and values. Member Countries shall also endeavor to set up centers for indigenous knowledge and wisdom in communities for the documentation and promotion of traditional artistic or technical processes; and to institute a system of awards and recognition for the living bearers of worthy living traditions or human living treasures who are persons embodying the highest degree of particular cultural skills and techniques.

4. PRESERVATION OF PAST AND LIVING SCHOLARLY, ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL CULTURAL HERITAGE
The masterpieces and creations of profound traditions by eminent sages, philosophers, artists and writers of the past and present serve as perpetual beacons of insight and illumination, wellsprings of guidance and direction for the present and future ASEAN peoples. Their protection, documentation, preservation and promotion are of the highest priority.

5. PRESERVATION OF PAST AND LIVING POPULAR CULTURAL HERITAGE AND TRADITIONS
Popular forms of expression in mass cultures constitute an important artistic, intellectual, sociological, anthropological, scientific, and historical resource and basis for social and intercultural understanding. ASEAN shall encourage and support the preservation of outstanding “popular” traditions and heritage.

6. ENHANCEMENT OF CULTURAL EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND LITERACY
ASEAN Member Countries shall undertake continuing cultural exchanges and programs of cultural awareness and sensitivity as a basic component of ASEAN cooperation. The development of ASEAN perspectives and the validation of ASEAN cultural strengths and resources, particularly historical linkages and shared heritage and sense of regional identity could be effectively achieved through these programs.

7. AFFIRMATION OF ASEAN CULTURAL DIGNITY
ASEAN Member Countries shall endeavor to balance the increasing dominance of materialist culture by a recognition and affirmation of human spirituality, creative imagination and wisdom, social responsibility and ethical dimensions of progress.

ASEAN Member Countries shall explore possibilities to strengthen ASEAN value systems in contemporary society at the local, national and regional levels, positively harnessing them to provide direction and a vision for authentic human development, particularly in the spheres of education, mass media, governance and business.

8. ADVANCEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE POLICY AND LEGISLATION
ASEAN Member Countries shall ensure the effectiveness of cultural policies and laws for the preservation of cultural heritage, and the protection of communal intellectual property.

Cultures with global reach must not deprive local, national and regional cultures of their own development dynamics and reduce them to relics of the past. Member Countries shall ensure that cultural laws and policies empower all peoples and communities to harness their own creativity towards human development.

ASEAN Member Countries shall cooperate closely to ensure that their citizens enjoy the economic, moral and neighboring rights resulting from research, creation, performance, recording and/or dissemination of their cultural heritage.

9. RECOGNITION OF COMMUNAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
ASEAN Member Countries recognize that traditional knowledge systems and practices including designs, technology and oral literature are collectively owned by their local community of origin. ASEAN Member Countries shall ensure that traditional communities have access, protection and rights of ownership to their own heritage. ASEAN shall cooperate for the enactment of international laws on intellectual property to recognize indigenous population and traditional groups as the legitimate owners of their own cultural heritage.

10. PREVENTION OF THE ILLICIT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF CULTURAL PROPERTY
ASEAN Member Countries shall exert the utmost effort to protect cultural property against theft, illicit trade and trafficking, and illegal transfer. As parties to this Declaration, ASEAN Member Countries shall cooperate to return, seek the return, or help facilitate the return, to their rightful owners of cultural property that has been stolen from a museum, site, or similar repositories, whether the stolen property is presently in the possession of another member or non-member country.

ASEAN Member Countries are urged to take measures to control the acquisition of illicitly traded cultural objects by persons and/or institutions in their respective jurisdictions, and to cooperate with other member and non-member countries having serious problems in protecting their heritage by property educating the public and applying appropriate and effective import and export controls.

11. COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND RESOURCES
Every person has the right to enjoy the benefits of modern scientific and economic progress and their applications. However, certain advances, notably in the biomedical and life sciences as well as in information technology, may potentially have adverse consequences on the cultural heritage of ASEAN. Therefore, ASEAN Member Countries shall strengthen regional cooperation to ensure that commercial utilization does not impinge upon the integrity, dignity and rights of particular ASEAN societies.

12. INTEGRATION OF CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Cultural creativity and diversity is a source of human progress and is an essential factor in development. Cultural growth and economic sustainability are interdependent. The management of cultural resources can contribute much to social and economic development. Thus, ASEAN Member Countries shall integrate cultural knowledge and wisdom into their development policies.

ASEAN Member Countries shall make cultural policies as one of the key components of their development strategies. Activities designed to raise awareness of political and economic leaders to the importance of cultural factors in the process of sustainable development shall also be initiated. These cultural factors include cultural industry and tourism as well as people’s values and mindsets.

13. DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL NETWORKS ON ASEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE
ASEAN Member Countries shall cooperate in the development and establishment of national and regional inventories, databases and networks of academic institutions, government offices, archives, museums, galleries, art centers, training centers, mass media agencies and other institutions concerned with cultural heritage and their documentation, conservation, preservation, dissemination and promotion.

14. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE ACTIVITIES
Increased efforts shall be made to assist countries which so request to create the conditions under which individuals can participate in cultural heritage planning and development. ASEAN, the United Nations as well as other multilateral organizations are urged to increase considerably the resources allocated to programs aiming at the establishment and strengthening of national legislation, national institutions and related infrastructures which uphold cultural heritage through training and education.

The full and effective implementation of ASEAN activities to promote and protect cultural heritage shall reflect the high importance accorded to cultural heritage by this Declaration. To this end, ASEAN cultural heritage activities shall be provided with increased resources.

15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ASEAN PROGRAM ON CULTURAL HERITAGE
The ASEAN Committee on Cultural and Information is enjoined to draw up a work program on cultural heritage, including among others the observance of an ASEAN Decade for Cultural Heritage in 2001-2010.

SIGNED in Bangkok, Thailand, this 25th day of July, Year 2000.
For the Government of Brunei Darussalam:

MOHAMED BOLKIAHMinister of Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia:

HOR NAMHONGSenior Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

For the Government of the Republic of Indonesia:

ALWI SHIHABMinister for Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic:

SOMSAVAT LENGSAVADDeputy Prime Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs

For the Government of Malaysia:

SYED HAMID ALBARMinister of Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Union of Myanmar:

WIN AUNGMinister for Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Philippines:

DOMINGO L. SIAZON, JrSecretary of Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Republic of Singapore:

S. JAYAKUMARMinister for Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand:

SURIN PITSUWANMinister of Foreign Affairs

For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam:

NGUYEN DY NIENMinister for Foreign Affairs

'

Visit: http://www.aseansec.org/

ICOMOS Declaration of Human Rights 1998

Meeting in Stockholm, ICOMOS wishes to underline the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, celebrating its 50th anniversary in 1998, in particular its recognition of the right of everyone to partake freely in the cultural life of the community.

'

In addition to the importance of specific conventions or legislation relating to cultural heritage and its preservation, ICOMOS affirms that the right to cultural heritage is an integral part of human rights considering the irreplaceable nature of the tangible and intangible legacy it constitutes, and that it is threatened to in a world which is in constant transformation. This right carries duties and responsibilities for individuals and communities as well as for institutions and states. To protect this right today is to preserve the rights of future generations.

• The right to have the authentic testimony of cultural heritage, respected as an expression of one's cultural identity within the human family;

• The right to better understand one's heritage and that of others;

• The right to wise and appropriate use of heritage;

• The right to participate in decisions affecting heritage and the cultural values it embodies;

• The right to form associations for the protection and promotion of cultural heritage.

These are rights ICOMOS believes must be respected in order to preserve and enrich World's cultural diversity.

These rights assume the need to recognize, appreciate and maintain heritage, and to improve and respect a framework for action. They assume appropriate development strategies and an equitable partnership between society, the private sector and individuals to harmonize interests affecting cultural heritage, and to reconcile preservation with development. In the spirit that animates such statements, they call for international co-operation in the conventions, legislation and other statutory measures.

These are responsibilities that all -- individually and collectively -- must share just as all share the wealth of the memory, in the search for a sustainable development at the service of Mankind.

ICOMOS the Declaration of San Antonio 1996

We, the presidents, delegates and members of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas, met in San Antonio, Texas, United States of America, from the 27th to the 30th of March, 1996, at the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage to discuss the meaning of authenticity in preservation in the Americas. We did so in response to the call issued by the Secretary General of ICOMOS for regional participation in the international debate on the subject.

A. BACKGROUND
For the past twelve months, members of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas have studied, read and discussed the documents produced in 1994 by the meetings of specialists on authenticity in Bergen, Norway, and Nara, Japan, as well as other pertinent documents. In preparation for the assembly in San Antonio, each National Committee prepared and submitted a National Position Paper that summarized the results of its own national or regional findings.

B. CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Having discussed the nature, definition, proofs, and management of authenticity in relation to the architectural, urban, archaeological and cultural landscape heritage of the Americas in an assembly that was open to members of all the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas and to preservation organizations from the regions, we issue the following summary of our findings and recommendations:

1. AUTHENTICITY AND IDENTITY
   The authenticity of our cultural heritage is directly related to our cultural identity. The cultures and the heritage of the Americas are distinct from those of other continents because of their unique development and influences. Our languages, our societal structures, our economic means, and our spiritual beliefs vary within our continent, and yet, there are strong common threads that unify the Americas. Among these is our autochthonous heritage, which has not been entirely destroyed in spite of the violence of the Conquest Era and a persistent process of acculturation; the heritage from the European colonizers and the African slavery that together have helped build our nations; and finally, the more recent contribution of European and Asian immigrants who came searching for a dream of freedom and helped to consolidate it. All these groups have contributed to the rich and syncretic pluriculturalism that makes up our dynamic continental identity.

   Because cultural identity is at the core of community and national life, it is the foundation of our cultural heritage and its conservation. Within the cultural diversity of the Americas, groups with separate identities co-exist in the same space and time and at times across space and time, sharing cultural manifestations, but often assigning different values to them. No nation in the Americas has a single national identity; our diversity makes up the sum of our national identities.

   The authenticity of our cultural resources lies in the identification, evaluation and interpretation of their true values as perceived by our ancestors in the past and by ourselves now as an evolving and diverse community. As such, the Americas must recognize the values of the majorities and the minorities without imposing a hierarchical predominance of any one culture and its values over those of others.

   The comprehensive cultural value of our heritage can be understood only through an objective study of history, the material elements inherent in the tangible heritage, and a deep understanding of the intangible traditions associated with the tangible patrimony.

   When taking into account the value of heritage sites as related to cultural identity, the Americas face the global problem of cultural homogenization, which tends to dilute and erase local values in favor of those that are being advanced universally, often as stereotyped illusions with commercial ends. This weakens the role of heritage sites. While we accept the importance of traditional values as an instrument in ethnic and national identity, we reject their use to promote exacerbated nationalism and other conflicting attitudes that would lead our continent away from mutual respect and a permanent peace.

2. AUTHENTICITY AND HISTORY
   An understanding of the history and significance of a site over time are crucial elements in the identification of its authenticity. The understanding of the authenticity of a heritage site depends on a comprehensive assessment of the significance of the site by those who are associated with it or who claim it as part of their history. For this reason, it is important to understand the origins and evolution of the site as well as the values associated with it. Variations in the meaning and values of a site may at times be in conflict, and while that conflict needs to be mediated, it may, in fact, enrich the value of the heritage site by being the point of convergence of the values of various groups. The history of a site should not be manipulated to enhance the dominant values of certain groups over those of others.
3. AUTHENTICITY AND MATERIALS
   The material fabric of a cultural site can be a principal component of its authenticity. As emphasized in Article 9 of the Venice Charter, the presence of ancient and original elements is part of the basic nature of a heritage site. The Charter also indicates that the material elements of our tangible cultural heritage are bearers of important information about our past and our identity. Those messages include information about a site's original creation as well as the layered messages that resulted from the interaction between the resource and new and diverse cultural circumstances. For these reasons, those materials and their setting need to be identified, evaluated and protected. In the case of cultural landscapes, the importance of material fabric must be weighed along with the immaterial distinctive character and components of the site.

   Over time, heritage sites have come to possess a testimonial value -- which may be aesthetic, historic or otherwise -- that is readily evident to most of society. In addition to the testimonial value, there are less evident documentary values that require an understanding of the historic fabric in order to identify their meaning and their message. Since the documentary value responds to evolving questions posed by the community over time, it is important that the material evidence, defined in terms of design, materials, manufacture, location, and context be preserved in order to retain its ability to continue to manifest and convey those concealed values to present and future generations.

   The degree to which documented missing elements are replaced as part of restoration treatments varies within the Americas in accordance to the cultural characteristics of each country. Some national policies indicate that what is lost can only be part of our memory and not of our heritage. Elsewhere, policies encourage the replacement of fully documented elements in facsimile form in order to re-establish the site's full significance. Nevertheless, we emphasize that only the historic fabric is authentic, and interpretations achieved through restoration are not; they can only authentically represent the meaning of a site as understood in a given moment. Furthermore, we universally reject the reliance on conjecture or hypotheses for restoration.

   Apart from the above, there are important sectors of our patrimony that are built of perishable materials that require periodic replacement in accordance with traditional crafts to ensure continued use. Similarly, there are heritage sites built of durable materials but that are subject to damage caused by periodic natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. In these cases, we also assert the validity of using traditional techniques for their repair, especially when those techniques are still in use in the region, or when more sophisticated approaches would be economically prohibitive.

   We recognize that in certain types of heritage sites, such as cultural landscapes, the conservation of overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms and spiritual value, may be more important than the conservation of the physical features of the site, and as such, may take precedence. Therefore, authenticity is a concept much larger that material integrity and the two concepts must not be assumed to be equivalent or consubstantial.

4. AUTHENTICITY AND SOCIAL VALUE
   Beyond the material evidence, heritage sites can carry a deep spiritual message that sustains communal life, linking it to the ancestral past. This spiritual meaning is manifested through customs and traditions such as settlement patterns, land use practices, and religious beliefs. The role of these intangibles is an inherent part of the cultural heritage, and as such, their link to the meaning of the tangible elements of the sites must be carefully identified, evaluated, protected and interpreted.

   The goal of preserving memory and its cultural manifestations must be approached by aiming to enrich human spirituality, beyond the material aspect. Historic research and surveys of the physical fabric are not enough to identify the full significance of a heritage site, since only the concerned communities that have a stake in the site can contribute to the understanding and expression of the deeper values of the site as an anchor to their cultural identity.

   In cultural landscapes, including urban areas, the process of identifying and protecting social value is complex because so many separate interest groups may be involved. In some cases, this situation is further complicated because the traditional indigenous groups that once protected and developed the sites are now adopting new and at times conflicting values that spring from the market economy, and from their desire for more social and economic integration in the national life. We recognize that sustainable development may be a necessity for those who inhabit cultural landscapes, and that a process for mediation must be developed to address the dynamic nature of these sites so that all values may be properly taken into account. We also recognize that in some cases, there may be a hierarchy of values that is related to the stake of some groups in a site.

5. AUTHENTICITY IN DYNAMIC AND STATIC SITES
   The heritage of the Americas includes dynamic cultural sites that continue to be actively used by society, as well as static sites such as archaeological sites no longer used by the descendants of their builders. These two types of sites have differing natures; and their conservation needs, the determination of their authenticity, and their interpretation vary according to their character.

   Dynamic cultural sites, such as historic cities and landscapes, may be considered to be the product of many authors over a long period of time whose process of creation often continues today. This constant adaptation to human need can actively contribute to maintaining the continuum among the past, present and future life of our communities. Through them our traditions are maintained as they evolve to respond to the needs of society. This evolution is normal and forms an intrinsic part of our heritage. Some physical changes associated with maintaining the traditional patterns of communal use of the heritage site do not necessarily diminish it's significance and may actually enhance it. Therefore, such material changes may be acceptable as part of on-going evolution.

   Static cultural sites include those valued as the concluded work of a single author or group of authors and whose original or early message has not been transformed. They are appreciated for their aesthetic value, or for their significance in commemorating persons and events important in the history of the community, the nation, or the world. In these sites, which are often recognized as monumental structures, the physical fabric requires the highest level of conservation in order to limit alterations to their character.

   Another type of site that may be static is the archaeological site whose active communal and social purpose have faded or even ceased. For a variety of reasons, the descendants of the original creators and traditional inhabitants have lost their direct link to the physical fabric of the site, thereby also weakening their ability to perceive and interpret the site's meaning and value. Because the pre-European cultures of the Americas lacked writing, the most direct link to that past lies in the material evidence of the archaeological sites, with the added complication that the information that they offer is incomplete and at times random. The authenticity of archaeological sites is non-renewable. It resides in its material elements and their context, that is, the relationship of the structures and objects among themselves and with the physical surroundings. Authenticity can be destroyed when the context of the site is not properly documented, when layers are eliminated to reach deeper ones, when total excavation is undertaken and when the findings are not rigorously and broadly disseminated. For these reasons, witnesses of the original stratigraphy must be maintained so that future generations may analyze them with more sophisticated techniques than those in existence today.

   Only through study, publication and research of the physical evidence can these sites and their objects once again manifest their values and re-establish their links to our present cultural identity. However, the interpretation of the sites can authentically reflect only fluctuating interests and values, and in itself, interpretation is not inherently authentic, only honest and objective. For these reasons, the intactness of the physical evidence in its entirety demands the most thorough documentation, protection and conservation so that objectivity of interpretation may respond to new information derived from that fabric.

   Regardless of the type of site, contemporary treatments must rescue the character of all cultural resources without transforming their essence and balance. New elements must be harmonious with the character of the whole.

6. AUTHENTICITY AND STEWARDSHIP
   The heritage of the Americas is characterized by very heterogeneous patterns of ownership and stewardship. While many sites are properly protected by their stewards, at times some sites are under the jurisdiction of local authorities that lack the ability to determine properly the comprehensive value of the sites or the appropriate treatments for their conservation. Other times, the original inhabitants who created and cared for a cultural site have been replaced by new populations that have little or no cultural affinity for the site and place little or no value in it, leading to its abandonment and decay. This situation urgently demands that the proper national and local authorities and the present owners, stewards and inhabitants be made fully aware of the value that other majority and minority sectors of the population may have for the site. Both the communities and the constituted authorities must be provided the means for the correct knowledge and evaluation of the heritage, its protection and conservation, and the promotion of its artistic and spiritual enjoyment, as well as its educational use.
7. AUTHENTICITY AND ECONOMICS
   The authenticity of heritage sites lies intrinsically in their physical fabric, and extrinsically on the values assigned to them by those communities who have a stake in them. Tourists constitute one of those groups that values the site and has an interest in its meaning and conservation.

   Since cultural tourism is often a substantial source of revenue for local and national economies, its development is acceptable, as originally formulated in the Norms of Quito. Nevertheless, the limited values that tourists may place on a site and the economic concerns for tourism revenue cannot be allowed to be the overriding criterion in a site's conservation and interpretation. This is especially true when the authenticity of fabric and its context, and of the site's broader values and message are altered, diminished, or threatened.

   In the Americas, the authenticity of many archaeological sites has been compromised through reconstructions. In spite of their educational value, reconstructions aimed to promote tourism reduce the authenticity of such sites by involving new hands, new materials and new criteria, and by altering the appearance of the site.

   Furthermore, within the framework of economic development, the problem of permanently poor populations remains a critical factor in the urban cores of many historic cities of the Americas. Bringing about an awareness of the cultural value of the urban heritage on the part of these poor sectors cannot be achieved without a comprehensive approach to solve their marked material and social marginality.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS
Given all of the above considerations, we the Presidents of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas hereby offer for discussion at the General Assembly in Sofia the following general recommendations as well as the specific discussion group recommendations that emerged from the extensive discussions held in San Antonio by the participants in the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage. Furthermore, we recognize and commend the Nara Document as a valuable instrument for discussion, but find it incomplete and, therefore, endorse the appended commentaries on the Nara Document based on the needs we have identified relating to the heritage of the Americas:

1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
   1. That our appreciation be conveyed to the members of US/ICOMOS, to the Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society for organizing and sponsoring the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity, and that the authorities of the City of San Antonio, Texas, be recognized for their hospitality during our meeting and for their accomplishments in preserving the heritage of this beautiful historic city.
   2. That a process be established that will help to define and protect authenticity in the material legacies of our diverse cultural heritage, and that will lead to the recognition of a broad range of significant resources through the comprehensive and specific evaluation of cultural value, the administrative context, and the history of the site. The Burra Charter and its operational guidelines may serve as a model for this process. Such a process should include management mechanisms that will ensure the involvement of all concerned groups. Individual experts representative of a broad range of disciplines and interests, all relevant groups in the process and other interested or affected parties must be included in the management process of determination of significance and treatments in a heritage site.
   3. That further consideration be given to the proofs of authenticity so that indicators may be identified for such a determination in a way that all significant values in the site may be set forth. The following are some examples of indicators:
      1. Reflection of the true value. That is, whether the resource remains in the condition of its creation and reflects all its significant history.
      2. Integrity. That is, whether the site is fragmented; how much is missing, and what are the recent additions.
      3. Context. That is, whether the context and/or the environment correspond to the original or other periods of significance; and whether they enhance or diminish the significance.
      4. Identity. That is, whether the local population identify themselves with the site, and whose identity the site reflects.
      5. Use and function. That is, the traditional patterns of use that have characterized the site.
   4. That given the comprehensive nature of the cultural heritage, the existing principles contained in all pertinent charters and declarations be consolidated as part of the development of a comprehensive approach and guideline to the practice of heritage conservation. These should include the Venice Charter, the 1965 UNESCO Archaeological Guidelines, the Burra Charter, the Declaration of Oaxaca, the Florence Charter, the Washington Charter, the Nara Document, the Charter of Brasilia, this Declaration of San Antonio, etc.
   
   
2. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM GROUP
   1. That proper recognition be given to the values inherent in the cultural diversity of our historic urban centers.
   2. That programs be established to develop a greater awareness among the many cultural groups of their multiplicity of values.
   3. That through additional awareness and educational programs, governmental authorities and stewardship groups be made aware of the role of social and cultural values in protecting the authenticity of buildings and sites.
   4. That flexible and open processes for consultation and mediation be instituted at the local level in order to identify communal values and other aspects of cultural significance in historic urban districts.
   5. Since historic urban districts and towns are a type of cultural landscape, that many of the recommendations issued by the Cultural Landscapes Group also be applied to this sector of the heritage.
   
   
3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES GROUP
   1. That more attention be paid to authenticity in archaeological sites on the part of ICOMOS. Perhaps because of the membership composition of ICOMOS, there has not been enough concern for this heritage sector in the Americas.
   2. That more analysis be dedicated to the relationship authenticity might have to such activities as stabilization, consolidation, construction of protective shelters, etc.
   3. That descriptive and accurate documentation be an absolute requirement in all archaeological work. As sites are excavated, they are depleted of information, like books whose pages disappear. Interpretation is not controllable, but the record is. The archaeological record must be truthful and reliable -- in other words, authentic, objective and rigorous.
   4. That all interventions and excavations in archaeological sites always be accompanied by implementation of a conservation and permanent protection plan.
   5. That the authenticity of archaeological evidence be given proper protection when sites are threatened by urban encroachment or by civil works, such as road construction.
   6. That authenticity be protected prior to artificial flooding and the construction of dams through the exhaustive documentation of the area, with appropriate rescue techniques for the archaeological evidence, and followed by the publication of the results.
   7. That if excavated sites are not properly attended to and managed, conservation measures -- such as site re-burial -- must be considered to ensure that some level of authenticity is maintained through the ages.
   8. That a large part of the authenticity of an archaeological site resides in the undisturbed buried archaeological remains of the fill, and as such, should be minimally excavated by archaeologists, only to the extent necessary to determine the significance of the site.
   9. That some archaeological sites are still held to be sacred by the descendants of the creators of the site, and as such, should be minimally disturbed, or not disturbed at all, by archaeologists or development.
   
   
4. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES GROUP
   1. That processes of negotiation be established to mediate among the different interests and values of the many groups who own or live in cultural landscapes.
   2. Since cultural landscapes are complex and dynamic, that the process of determining and protecting authenticity be sufficiently flexible to incorporate this dynamic quality.
   3. That the concept of sustainable development and its relationship to the management of cultural landscapes be defined in order to include economic, social, spiritual and cultural concerns.
   4. That the conservation of cultural landscapes seek a balance between the significant natural and cultural resources.
   5. That the needs and values of the local communities be taken into consideration when the future of cultural landscapes is being determined.
   6. That further work be done on appropriate legislation and governmental planning methodologies to protect the values associated with cultural landscapes.
   7. Since in conserving the authenticity of cultural landscapes the overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms, land use and spiritual value of the site may take precedence over material and design aspects, that a clear relationship between values and the proof of authenticity be established.
   8. That expert multi-disciplinary assessments become a requirement for the determination of authenticity in cultural landscapes, and that such expert groups include social scientists who can accurately articulate the values of the local communities.
   9. That the authenticity of cultural landscapes be protected prior to major changes in land use and to the construction of large public and private projects, by requiring responsible authorities and financing organizations to undertake environmental impact studies that will lead to the mitigation of negative impacts upon the landscape and the traditional values associated with these sites.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE NARA DOCUMENT
   That the attached commentaries on the Nara Document be considered in all international documents and guidelines as a reflection of the definition, proof and protection of the authenticity of the Cultural Heritage of the Americas.

---

ATTACHMENT TO
THE DECLARATION OF SAN ANTONIO

COMMENTARY ON THE NARA DOCUMENT

Resulting from discussions among the participants in the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage, organized by US/ICOMOS, The Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society: San Antonio, Texas, March 27-30, 1996.

First and foremost, the Symposium participants extend their congratulations to the drafting committee of the Nara Document for this important and timely contribution to the field of cultural heritage protection. We also recognize that this Document was discussed and approved by the participants in the Nara Document and that, as such, it is not subject to change. However, because it has been made available to the global conservation community for study and discussion, it is important that its relevance to the cultural heritage of the Americas be analyzed. It is in that spirit that these comments are offered:

INTRODUCTION

The Preface to the Nara Document states,

"The experts considered that an expanded dialogue in different regions of the world and among specialist groups concerned with the diversity of cultural heritage was essential to further refine the concept and application of authenticity as it relates to cultural heritage. Such on-going dialogue will be encouraged by ICOMOS, ICCROM, and the World Heritage Centre, and will be brought to the Committee's attention as appropriate."

In keeping with this recommendation, US/ICOMOS took on the challenge to organize a meeting of presidents, delegates and members of the ICOMOS committees from the Americas to assemble in San Antonio, Texas, to consider the definitions and applicability of authenticity to the conservation and management of heritage in their regions. One of the tasks taken up by the group was a careful review of the articles of the Nara Document, for the purpose of examining whether the American point of view is fully represented in the document.

It was acknowledged by all present that the Nara Document represents considerable diplomatic and substantive work on the part of the individuals involved in its development. The participants in the San Antonio symposium concur with the Nara group that the subject is central to preservation work around the world, and its closer definition and more thorough understanding is of profound and timely importance to the professional community. It was also believed that while the Nara Document is focused on the needs for implementing the World Heritage Convention, by its very nature, the Document will find a broader application. Therefore, some of our comments may address its broader sense. While the Nara Document will certainly find a place in the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention and to the applications of other guidelines, it was felt by the group in San Antonio that several substantive issues that surfaced could usefully be brought forward to ICOMOS in the forum of the ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996 and to the World Heritage Committee.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCUMENT
In general, the group believes that the Nara Document is a good articulate discussion of complex issues, in spite of the difficulty in closely tracking the English and French versions. In several articles [Articles 6, 12, and 13], the English text appears weak in comparison to the French, and the meaning of the two texts does not correspond exactly, making it difficult to determine which meaning reflects the real intention of the authors. The comments on this point were made with the understanding that the document had been produced under challenging time pressures and that some language revisions are still under way.

More specifically, six of the articles were seen to present opportunities for further discussion within the context of the concerns of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas and the nature of our cultural heritage.

ARTICLE 1
The participants at the InterAmerican Symposium believes that in the Americas the concept of participation by the local community and stakeholders needs to be stronger than the text implies in order that they be involved in all processes from the beginning. By identifying the stages for such involvement, the Nara Document excludes the local community, for instance, from the identification process.

ARTICLE 4
The San Antonio group believes that in the Americas, and perhaps elsewhere, the use of the words "nationalism" and "minorities" are inappropriate, for they do not cover the rather common case in this hemisphere where a minority within a nation may be more influential and impose its cultural values over larger, even majority groups, all within a shared national identity.

Also, the concept was advanced that this article omits one important mechanism in the search for cultural identity in the Americas, which is the re-assignation of lost or new values for weakened cultural traditions and heritage, especially those associated with the native American patrimony.

ARTICLE 5
There was discussion in San Antonio as to whether this Article incorporates a very important characteristic of the Americas, which is the close coexistence of vastly differing cultural groups, including, in extreme cases, the close proximity of post-industrial, highly technical societies with nomadic tribes who live in close interaction with the natural environment. It was thought that this coexistence needs to be acknowledged and respected throughout the conservation process.

ARTICLE 8.
Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it. However, in addition to these responsibilities, adherence to the international charters and conventions developed for conservation of cultural heritage also obliges consideration of the principles and responsibilities flowing from them. Balancing its own requirements with those of other cultural communities is, for each community, highly desirable, provided achieving this balance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values.

The first sentence in this article,

It is important to underline a fundamental principle of UNESCO, to the effect that the cultural heritage of each is the cultural heritage of all.

reflects an important idea within the World Heritage context, but the group felt strongly that in a broader context the wording could easily lead to serious misinterpretation. First, the statement "the cultural heritage of each is the cultural heritage of all" could be used to support the idea that decisions over the heritage of a nation could rightfully be made by outside authorities. Unless the site or monument is on the World Heritage List, this was seen as an inappropriate possibility that undermined sovereignty. Second, at the other extreme, this statement could also be used to support the abdication of responsibility of a nation to care for its heritage when it should.

While the second sentence would appear to address that point, the current wording of the first sentence weakens its strength:

Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place to the cultural community that has generated it and subsequently, to that which cares for it.

The San Antonio group believes that where the community that created the heritage is still its steward or holds a stake in its survival, it should be responsible for its care. Where the heritage has passed into the common holding of a nation where it stands, the nation must take responsibility. Here again, the problem may lie in the translation.

The last sentence in Article 8,

Balancing their own requirements with those of other cultural communities is for each community highly desirable, provided achieving this balance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values.

is also problematic in its current wording, because the identification of "fundamental cultural values" is not possible or desirable in this context.

ARTICLE 10
It was thought that this text does not fully reflect the concerns of the Americas because it does not directly state that in the understanding of authenticity it is crucial to acknowledge the dynamic nature of cultural values, and that to gain such understanding static and inflexible criteria must be avoided.

ARTICLE 11
The participants believe that this Article lacks needed clarity and emphasis that could have been provided by a reiteration in its last sentence of the definition of what the cultural context constitutes:

a) that which created it; b) that to which it currently belongs; and c) the broader cultural context to the extent possible.

ICOMOS Declaration of Tlaxcala 1982

The participants attending the third Inter-American Symposium on the Conservation of the Building Heritage devoted to the subject of "The Revitalization of Small Settlements", organized by the Mexican National Committee of ICOMOS and held in Trinidad, Tlaxcala, from 25 to 28 October 1982, wish to express their gratitude to the representatives of Mexico and the organizing committee for the very kind way they have been received and express their satisfaction at the high standard of the proceedings and at the results achieved.

They wish most particularly to thank the government of the state of Tlaxcala for its hospitality and are happy to observe the efforts it is making to preserve the architectural and urban heritage entrusted to its keeping by history, which is of extreme interest to all the peoples of America.

The delegates, after examining the situation now prevailing in America from the point of view of the dangers which threaten the architectural and environmental inheritance of the small settlements, decide to adopt the following conclusions:

1a. They reassert that the small settlements are repositories of ways of living which bear witness to our cultures, retain the scale appropriate to them and at the same time personify the community relations which give inhabitants an identity.

2a. They reaffirm that the conservation and rehabilitation of small settlements is a moral obligation and a responsibility for the government of each state and for the local authorities and that their communities have a right to share in the making of decisions on the conservation of their town or village and to take part directly in the work of carrying them out.

3a. As established by the Charter of Chapultepec, and as reflected in the concern expressed at the Morelia Symposium and at other meetings of American practical conservationists, the environmental and architectural heritage of small settlements is a non-renewable resource and their conservation calls for carefully developed procedures which will ensure that they run no risk of being impaired or distorted for reasons of political expediency.

4a. They agree that initiatives for the purpose of securing the well-being of the communities living in small settlements must have their basis in strict respect for the traditions of the places concerned and their specific ways of life. They also agree that the situation of economic crisis at present affecting the continent must not restrict efforts to preserve the identity of the small settlements; on the contrary, if such difficult circumstances are to be overcome, reliance must be placed in the cultural achievements of the past and in the material forms of expression of our collective memory.

5a. They further observe that the introduction of patterns of consumption and behaviour foreign to our traditions, which make their way in via the multiple communications media, assist the destruction of the cultural heritage by encouraging contempt for our own values, especially in the small settlements; they therefore urge governments, institutes of higher education and public or private bodies interested in the Preservation of the heritage to use the media at their disposal for the countering of the effects of this process.

6a. They reassert the importance of regional planning as a means of combating the process of desertion of the small settlements and progressive overpopulation of medium-sized and large towns - a phenomenon which strikes at the very existence of the said settlements. And they point out that any action designed to preserve the urban setting and the architectural qualities of a place must essentially be a fight for the improvement of its population's socio-economic conditions and of the quality of life in its urban centres. They therefore appeal to governments and to competent bodies to provide a suitably integrated infrastructure together with the practical equipment for the arresting of the depopulation of small settlements.

7a. They consider that if the traditional environment of the rural settlements and small towns is to be preserved, and if there is to be continuity of expression in contemporary vernacular architecture, traditional materials and techniques must remain available, and they propose that, where these cannot be found, substitutes be used which do not involve any marked impairment of the visual effects and which meet the requirements both of the local physical and geographical conditions and of the way of life of the population.

Recommendations:

Those attending the Symposium reassert the principles which inspire the work of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, as laid down in miscellaneous international texts, including the recommendations made at the meetings held previously in America, at Quito, Chapultepec and Morelia, concerning the conservation of small settlements, and adopt in their turn the following recommendations for circulation by the ICOMOS Committees in America and by any other specialists and for submission to the authorities, the professional associations, the institutes competent in the field concerned and the universities, schools of architecture and other bodies.

It is recommended:

1. That any initiative with a view to the conservation and revitalization of small settlements must be designed as a part of a programme embracing the historical, anthropological, social and economic aspects of the area and the possibilities for its revitalization, failing which it would be fated to be superficial and ineffectual.

2. That encouragement be given to interdisciplinary participation as an essential prerequisite of any effort in favour of the conservation, restoration and revitalization of small settlements.

3. That the public services administrations concerned with such things as communication, health, education, electrification, etc., should be duly conscious of the fact that their activities undertaken with the best of intentions can on the contrary cause harm to small communities if they are ignorant of, or fail to appreciate, the values of the cultural heritage and the benefits deriving from the conservation of that heritage for the community as a whole.

4. That if better results are to be achieved both in national policies and in specific legislation and in technical progress, the sharing of experience in a variety of areas is essential. Information, whether of an international nature or specifically relating to the American world, is most important. Emphasis is laid once again on the utility of publications designed for the purpose, and it is proposed that American working groups be set up on the various individual subjects involved.

5. That the use of regional materials and the preservation of the local traditional building techniques are essential to satisfactory conservation of small settlements and do not conflict with the general principle that any new work should bear the mark of our age. It is urgent that an effort be made to recognize and enhance the prestige and value inherent in the use of such materials and techniques where they exist, and to keep them alive with increasing forcefulness in the minds of the communities concerned. It is recommended that encouragement be given to proficiency in the skilled building trades in the form of awards and prizes.

6. That the governments of the Latin American countries consider as in the public interest the granting of funds for the acquisition, maintenance, conservation and restoration of dwellings in small settlements and the lesser towns, as a practical means of keeping alive the building heritage and the housing possibilities it affords. For this purpose there must be amendment of the norms governing the allocation of funds to enable buildings for which vernacular techniques and materials have been used to be eligible for mortgage loans.

7. That schools of architecture should institute and maintain M. A. degrees in restoration and doctorates of restoration and assign due importance in their basic training syllabuses to appreciation of the architectural and town-planning heritage, conservation and restoration problems, and knowledge both of vernacular architecture and of traditional building techniques, to enable their graduates to fit usefully in their professional capacity into the communities requiring their services.

8. That the recognized colleges and societies of architects should set up commissions for the preservation of architectural heritage capable of promoting improved awareness of the responsibility devolving on them for the maintenance of the small settlements, of compiling and circulating information on this problem and of recommending programmes and operations to this end.

9. That the representatives of the countries in the region make every effort to have their governments, if they have not yet done so, approve the Protocol to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (16 November 1972), so as to be eligible for the support and technical assistance of the international bodies.

The undersigned certify the authenticity of the present text, to be known as the "Declaration of Tlaxcala", which contains the conclusions and recommendations approved at la Trinidad, on 28 October 1982, by the plenary session of the third Inter-American Symposium on the Conservation of the Building Heritage.

ICOMOS Declaration of Rome 1982

Given:

• the immense variety and the qualitative and quantitative richness of the archaeological, architectural, historical and artistic, environmental and natural, archival and book heritage existing in Italy.
• the lack of available economic and financial resources,
• the extremely tense climate which is characteristic of the present stage of growth and transformation of Italian society,

Taking into consideration the fundamental cultural contributions continuously provided by Italian experts, not only to the knowledge of the history of art but also to theories of conservation and to the practice of restoration,

Noting also, in comparison with other countries, the permanent involvement of the Parliament, the Italian Government and, above all, of the concerned public services in the conservation of the cultural heritage,

Therefore, in the aim of rendering actions for the integrated conservation of the national, cultural heritage more incisive and more precise, the Italian National Committee, under the patronnage of the Ministry of Cultural Property and of the Environment, recalling the work accomplished at the national symposia of Sorrento (1979) and of Naples (1981), discussed the following theme in Rome (9-10 June 1983) on the basis of earlier studies: "Monuments and Sites: conservation action in Italy today".

After hearing and discussing the reports and communications, the symposium noted the serious deficiencies which exist in Italy today in the field of the conservation and the restoration of the cultural heritage. These deficiencies are due, on the one hand, to the insufficiently clear relationship between theory and practice, and on the other hand, to the inherent dangers of the current political and socio-economic situation.

The Assembly noted specifically:

1. A co-ordination which is rare, even non-existent, among the various bodies involved in conservation at all levels : local, regional, national and international. This situation is aggravated by other factors, such as the lack of an organic structure in these institutions; the separation between the University and the government services in charge of cultural property; the absence of coordination among the Ministries and, above all, between Cultural Affairs and Public Works, though the latter provides considerable funding for the architectural heritage.
2. Serious consequences due to the fact that architectural restoration operations are too often awarded to insufficiently qualified professionals of the private and public sector. This situation proves the absolute necessity to employ competent restorers, having received university level training and post-graduate level specialized training.
3. Ulterior consequences due to the unsupervised work of new, unqualified, private contractors on monuments, historic centres and sites. This phenomenon has been accentuated by the poor health of the construction industry which has led certain contractors toward restoration work despite their lack of training, under the cover of recent, ambiguous legislation on architecture and town planning. This legislation is itself an expression of the present state of general confusion.

The Assembly, proposing to remedy point by point the aforementioned deficiencies and the errors attached to them,

1. requests of the Parliament, the Government and the competent controlling bodies, a total involvement in the coordination of the administrative, didactic, normative, technical and cultural initiatives taken by national and international organisms, for a careful programming of architectural operations and for the rigourous supervision of the real qualifications of professionals and contractors working in the field of restoration.
2. confirms and adopts the contents and conclusions of the "International Meeting of Co-ordinators for Training in Architectural Conservation" (organized by ICCROM, Rome, December 1982). During that meeting, the Assembly did indeed confirm the utmost importance of: the training of specialized personnel, in the historical and technical fields, in architecture and town planning who should be employed for all restoration work, according to the recognized multidisciplinary, scientific method of conservation work; and the strengthening of the competent international organizations for education and cultural training, such as ICCROM.

By the formulation of these recommendations to competent organisms and to the cultural world, the Assembly confirms the intention of ICOMOS to act and its readiness to co-operate for the most rapid practical application of these recommendations.

ICOMOS the Declaration of Dresden 1982

At the invitation of the ICOMOS National Committee of the German Democratic Republic, participants from 11 countries held a symposium in Dresden from November 15th to 19th, 1982 on the subject of the "Reconstruction of Monuments Destroyed by War".

---

The meeting:

• has observed once again in Dresden with profound shock, what terrible suffering and losses war causes for people and their cultural property,
• recognized the achievement of the government and people of the German Democratic Republic, in reclaiming a substantial part of their treasures that had been damaged or believed lost, and in particular, architectural monuments,
• against this background gives its full support to the recommendation (No. 308) of the 2nd World Conference of Unesco (Mexico, August 1982), concerning the prevention of wars,
• and agrees also with the resolution concerning the same subject, adopted by the VIth General Assembly of ICOMOS in 1981 in Rome.

The meeting summarizes the results of its discussions in the following basic assessment:

1. The task of social development after the war, the reconstruction of towns and villages, and the resulting task of the protection of monuments constitutes a single entity. The spiritual values of monuments and the desire to acknowledge them both intellectually and politically were the reasons for initiating their reconstruction.
2. The objective and the practical efforts of governments and peoples in the restoration of monuments and the preservation of the character of towns and villages which has evolved over time have been, and will remain to be of great importance for the bond between peoples and their native lands and for their participation in social progress in their country.
3. A great cultural effect has been and will be achieved in such places where protection and meticulous preservation of monuments go hand in hand with efforts to restore their impact and to promote the understanding of them, and where existing monuments have been harmoniously complemented by new works of architecture, respecting and enhancing typical urban ensembles including their natural setting.
4. Since men have been influenced by the wartime destruction and by reconstruction work after the war to regard monuments with increasing interest, in particular as providing evidence of history, fresh emphasis has been placed on the demand to preserve the original substance of the monument. By this is meant that substance which, in all those components which make it worthy of being recognized as a monument, has grown through the ages, and which, by virtue of its authenticity, confirms the origins of the monument and its historical evolution up to the present day.
5. Reconstruction gave fresh impetus to basic studies and to intensive research by means of archaeology, for new modes of documenting results in monument protection. Completion of the documentation of individual monuments and of the stock of monuments is also recognized as an urgent task for the protection of monuments from the consequences of armed conflicts and catastrophes.
6. The new interest in the intellectual acknowledgement of monuments has frequently given rise to the wish to restore a monument by reason of its meaning and impact, in addition to mere preservation. The type and scope of restoration have been and continue to be dependent on the significance and specific character of the monument, on the extent of destruction, and of the cultural and political function attached to it.
7. In reconstructing monuments destroyed by war various techniques have been developed. A multiplicity of factors have to be taken into account in each individual case. These range from the conservation of a monument for its symbolic value to the restoration of a townscape condition which cannot be abandoned.
8. In the restoration of monuments destroyed by war special care should be taken that the historic development up to the present time can be traced. This applies to the elements of monuments from different periods as well as other evidence of its fate. This might include modern elements which have been added in a responsible manner. The complete reconstruction of severely damaged monuments must be regarded as an exceptional circumstance which is justified only for special reasons resulting from the destruction of a monument of great significance by war. Such a reconstruction must be based on reliable documentation of its condition before destruction.
9. The need to continue the traditional use of a building has frequently accelerated the restoration of destroyed architectural monuments. Increasing awareness of the spiritual value of monuments has further encouraged this trend. This concerns to a large extent residential houses in towns and villages as well as town-halls, churches, and other historic buildings.
10. The destruction of a monument frequently results in completely new objectives for social use and their understanding after its reconstruction being established. This may range from the efforts to find a use of great public significance to residential use.
11. In the task of reconstructing monuments, a highly meticulous scientific methodology has evolved, as well as skills in technology, artistry and craftsmanship. Arising from the legitimate desire of peoples to restore damaged monuments as completely as possible to their national significance, necessary restoration work, going beyond conservation, has attained a high professional level and thereby a new cultural dimension as well.
12. More and more clearly, peoples combine pride in monuments of their own history with interest in monuments of other countries and with respect for cultural achievements, both past and present, of the peoples represented by these monuments. Worldwide exchange of knowledge and experience on characteristic features, historical evidence, and the beauty of the cultural heritage, especially the monuments of every people and each ethnic and social group, plays a constructive role in assuring equitable, peaceful co-existence between peoples.

Our experience working in the field of monuments protection, in seeing the terrible loss of human life and the destruction of cultural treasures by wars, our experience in the beautiful and responsible work of restoring and newly understanding these monuments, place an obligation on all of us to make every effort for a more secure peace in the world on the basis of assiduous international cooperation and disarmament.

Council of Europe the Declaration of Amsterdam 1975

CONGRESS ON THE EUROPEAN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 21 - 25 OCTOBER 1975

The Congress of Amsterdam, the crowning event of European architectural heritage Year 1975, and composed of delegates from all parts of Europe, wholeheartedly welcomes the Charter promulgated by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which recognizes that Europe's unique architecture is the common heritage of all her peoples and which declared the intention of the Member States to work with one another and with other European governments for its protection.

The Congress likewise affirms that Europe's architectural heritage is an integral part of the cultural heritage of the whole world and has noted with great satisfaction the mutual undertaking to promote co-operation and exchanges in the field of culture contained in the Final Act of the Congress on Security and Co-operation in Europe adopted at Helsinki in July of this year.

In so doing, the Congress emphasized the following basic considerations:

1. Apart from its priceless cultural value, Europe's architectural heritage gives to her peoples the consciousness of their common history and common future. Its preservation is, therefore, a matter of vital importance.
2. The architectural heritage includes not only individual. buildings of exceptional quality and their surroundings, but also all areas of towns or villages of historic or cultural interest.
3. Since these treasures are the joint possession of all the peoples of Europe, they have a joint responsibility to protect them against the growing dangers with which they are threatened - neglect and decay, deliberate demolition, incongruous new construction and excessive traffic.
4. Architectural conservation must be considered, not as a marginal issue, but as a major objective of town and country planning.
5. Local authorities, which whom most of the important planning decisions rest, have a special responsibility for the protection of the architectural heritage and should assist one another by the exchange of ideas and information.
6. The rehabilitation of old areas should be conceived and carried out in such a way as to ensure that, where possible, this does not necessitate a major change in the social composition of the residents, all sections of society should share in the benefits of restoration financed by public funds.
7. The legislative and administrative measures required should be strengthened and made more effective in all countries,
8. To help meet the cost oœ restoration, adaptation and maintenance of buildings and areas of architectural or historic interest, adequate financial assistance should be made available to local authorities and financial support and fiscal relief should likewise be made available to private owners.
9. The architectural heritage will survive only if it is appreciated by the public and in particular by the younger generation. Educational programmes for all ages should, therefore, give increased attention to this subject.
10. Encouragement should be given to independent organizations - international, national and local - which help to awake public interest.
11. Since the new buildings of today will be the heritage of tomorrow, every effort must be made to ensure that contemporary architecture is of a high quality.

In view of the recognition by the Committee of Ministers in the European Charter of the architectural heritage that it is the duty of the Council of Europe to ensure that the Member States pursue coherent policies in a spirit of solidarity, it is essential that periodic reports should be made on the progress of architectural conservation in all European countries in a way which will promote an exchange of experience.

The Congress calls upon governments, parliaments,spiritual and cultural institutions, professional institutes, commerce, industry, independent associations and all individual citizens to give their full support to the objectives of this Declaration and to do all in their power to secure their implementation.

Only in this way can Europe's irreplaceable architectural heritage be preserved, for the enrichment of the lives of all her peoples now and in the future.

---

Arising from its deliberations, the Congress submits its conclusions and recommendations, as set out below.

Unless a new policy of protection and integrated conservation is urgently implemented, our society will shortly find itself obliged to give up the heritage of buildings and sites which form its traditional environment. Protection is needed today for historic towns, the old quarters of cities, and towns and villages with a traditional character as well as historic parks and gardens, The conservation of these architectural complexes can only be conceived in a wide perspective, embracing all buildings of cultural value, from the greatest to the humblest - not forgetting those of our own day together with their surroundings. This overall protection will complement the piecemeal protection of individual and isolated monuments and sites.

The significance of the architectural heritage and justification for conserving it are now more clearly perceived. It is known that historical continuity must be preserved in the environment if we are to maintain or create surroundings which enable individuals to find their identity and feel secure despite abrupt social changes. A new type of town-planning is seeking to recover the enclosed spaces, the human dimensions, the inter- penetration of functions and the social and cultural diversity that characterized the urban fabric of old towns. But it is also being realized that the conservation of ancient buildings helps to economise resources and combat waste, one of the major preoccupations of present-day society. It has been proved that historic buildings can be given new functions which correspond to the needs of contemporary life. Furthermore, conservation calls for artists and highly-qualified craftsmen whose talents and know-how have to be kept alive and passed on. Lastly, the rehabilitation of existing housing helps to check encroachments on agricultural land and to obviate, or appreciably diminish, movements of population - a very important advantage of conservation policy.

Although, for all these reasons, there seems a stronger justification than ever today for the conservation of the architectural heritage, it must be placed on firm and lasting foundations. It must accordingly be made the subject of basis research and a feature of all educational courses and cultural development programmes.

The conservation of the architectural heritage : one of the major objectives of urban and regional planning

The conservation of the architectural heritage should become an integral part of urban and regional planning, instead of being treated as a secondary consideration or one requiring action here and there as has so often been the case in the recent past. A permanent dialogue between conservationists and those responsible for planning is thus indispensable.

Planners should recognize that not all areas are the same and that they should therefore be dealt with according to their individual characteristics. The recognition of the claims of the aesthetic and cultural values of the architectural heritage should lead to the adoption of specific aims and planning rules for old architectural complexes.

It is not enough to simply superimpose, although co-ordinating them, ordinary planning regulations and specific rules for protecting historic buildings.

To make the necessary integration possible, an inventory of buildings, architectural complexes and sites demarcating protected zones around them is required. It should be widely circulated, particularly among regional and local authorities and officials in charge of town and country planning, in order to draw their attention to the buildings and areas worthy of protection. Such an inventory will furnish a realistic basis for conservation as a fundamental qualitative factor in the management of space.

Regional planning policy must take account of the conservation of the architectural heritage and contribute to it. In particular it can induce new activities to establish themselves in economically declining areas in order to check depopulation and thereby prevent the deterioration of old buildings. In addition, decisions on the development of peripheral urban areas can be orientated in such a way as to reduce pressure on the older neighbourhoods; here transport and employment policies and a better distribution of the focal points of urban activity may have an important impact on the conservation of the architectural heritage.

The full development of a continuous policy of conservation requires a large measure of decentralization as well as a regard for local cultures. This means that there must be people responsible for conservation at all levels (central, regional and local) at which planning decisions are taken. The conservation of the architectural heritage, however, should not merely be a matter for experts. The support of public opinion is essential. The population, on the basis of full and objective information, should take a real part in every stage of the work, from the drawing up of inventories to the preparation of decisions,

Lastly, the conservation of the architectural heritage should become a feature of a new long-term approach which pays due attention to criteria of quality and just proportions and which should make it possible henceforth to reject options and aims which are too often governed by short-term considerations, narrow view of technology and, in short, an obsolete outlook.

Integrated conservation involves the responsibility of local authorities and calls for citizens' participation.

Local authorities should have specific and extensive responsibilities in the protection of the architectural heritage. In applying the principles of integrated conservation, they should take account of the continuity of existing social and physical realities in urban and rural communities. The future cannot and should not be built at the expense of the past.

To implement such a policy, which respects the man-made environment intelligently, sensitively and with economy, local authorities should :

• use as a basis the study of the texture of urban and rural areas, notably their structure, their complex functions, and the architectural and volumetric characteristics of their built-up and open spaces;
• afford functions to buildings which, whilst corresponding to the needs of contemporary life, respect their character and ensure their survival;
• be aware that long-term studies on the development of public services (educational, administrative, medical) indicate that excessive size impairs their quality and effectiveness;
• devote an appropriate part of their budget to such a policy. In this context, they should seek from governments the creation of funds specifically earmarked for such purposes. Local authority grants and loans made to private individuals and various associations should be aimed at stimulating their involvement and financial commitment:
• appoint representatives to deal with all matters concerning the architectural heritage and sites;
• set up special agencies to provide direct links between potential users of buildings and their owners;
• facilitate the formation and efficient functioning of voluntary associations for restoration and rehabilitation.

Local authorities should improve their techniques of consultation for ascertaining the opinions of interested parties on conservation plans and should take these opinions into account from the earliest stages of planning. As part of their efforts to inform the public the decisions of local authorities should be taken in the public eye, using a clear and universally understood language, so that the local inhabitants may learn, discuss and assess the grounds for them. Meeting places should be provided, in order to enable members of the public to consult together.

In this respect, methods such as public meetings, exhibitions, opinion polls, the use of the mass media and all other appropriate methods should become common practice.

The education of young people in environmental issues and their involvement with conservation tasks is one of the most important communal requirements.

Proposals or alternatives put forward by groups or individuals should be considered as an important contribution to planning.

Local authorities can benefit greatly from each other's experience. They should therefore establish a continuing exchange of information and ideas through all available channels.

The success of any policy of integrated conservation depends on taking social factors into consideration.

A policy of conservation also means the integration of the architectural heritage into social life.

The conservation effort to be made must be measured not only against the cultural value of the buildings but also against their use-value. The social problems of integrated conservation can be properly posed only by simultaneous reference to both those scales of values.

The rehabilitation of an architectural complex forming part of the heritage is not necessarily more costly than new building on an existing infrastructure or even than building a new complex on a previously undeveloped site. When therefore comparing the cost of these three solutions, whose social consequences are quite different, it is important not to overlook the social costs. These concern not only owners and tenants but also the craftsmen, tradespeople and building contractors on the spot who keep the district alive.

To avoid the laws of the market having free play in restored and rehabilitated districts, resulting in inhabitants who are unable to pay the increased rents being forced out, public authorities should intervene to reduce the effect of economic factors as they always do when it is a case of low-cost housing. Financial interventions should aim to strike a balance between restoration grants to owners, combined with the fixing of maximum rent, and housing allowances to tenants to cover, in part or in whole, the difference between the old and new rents.

In order to enable the population to participate in the drawing up of programmes they must be given the facts necessary to understand the situation, on the one hand through explaining the historic and architectural value of the buildings to be conserved and on the other hand by being given full details about permanent and temporary rehousing.

This participation is all the more important because it is a matter not only of restoring a few privileged buildings but of rehabilitating whole areas.

This practical way of interesting people in culture would be of considerable social benefit.

Integrated conservation necessitates the adaptation of legislative and administrative measures.

Because the concept of the architectural heritage has been gradually extended from the individual historic building to urban and rural architectural complexes, and to the built testimonies of recent periods, far-reaching legislative reform, in conjunction with an increase in administrative resources, is a pre-requisite to effective action.

This reform must be guided by the need to co-ordinate regional planning legislation with legislation on the protection of the architectural heritage.

This latter must give a new definition of the architectural heritage and the aims of integrated conservation.

In addition it must make special provision for special procedures with regard to :

• the designation and delineation of architectural complexes;
• the mapping out of protective peripheral zones and the limitations on use to be imposed therein in the public interest;
• the preparation of integrated conservation schemes and the inclusion of their provisions in regional planning policies;
• the approval of projects and authorization to carry out work.

In addition the necessary legislation should be enacted in order to :

• ensure a balanced allocation of budgetary resources between rehabilitation and redevelopment respectively;
• grant citizens who decide to rehabilitate an old building at least the same financial advantages as those which they enjoy for new construction;
• revise the system of state financial aid in the light of the new policy of integrated conservation.

As far as possible, the application of building codes, regulations and requirements should be relaxed to meet the needs of integrated conservation.

In order to increase the operational capacity of the authorities, it is necessary to review the structure of the administration to ensure that the departments responsible for the cultural heritage are organized at the appropriate levels and that sufficient qualified personnel and essential scientific, technical and financial resources are put at their disposal.

These departments should assist local authorities, co-operate with regional planning offices and keep in constant touch with public and private bodies.

Integrated conservation necessitates appropriate financial means.

It is difficult to define a financial policy applicable to all countries or to evaluate the consequences of the different measures involved in the planning process, because of their mutual repercussions.

Moreover, this process is itself governed by external factors resulting from the present structure of society.

It is accordingly for every state to devise its own financing methods and instruments.

It can be established with certainty however, that there is scarcely any country in Europe where the financial means allocated to conservation are sufficient.

It is further apparent that no European country has yet devised the ideal administrative machinery to meet the economic requirements of an integrated conservation policy. In order to solve the economic problems of integrated conservation, it is important - and this is a decisive factor - to draw up legislation subjecting new building to certain restrictions with regard to their volume and dimensions (height, coefficient of utilization etc.) that will make for harmony with its surroundings.

Planning regulations should discourage increased density and promote rehabilitation rather than redevelopment.

Methods must be devised to assess the extra cost occasioned by the constraints of conservation programmes. Where possible, sufficient funds should be available to help owners who are obliged to carry out this restoration work to meet the extra cost - no more and no less.

If the criteria of extra cost were accepted, care would need to be taken of course, to see that the benefit was not diminished by taxation.

The same principle should be applied to the rehabilitation of dilapidated complexes of historic or architectural interest. This would tend to restore the social balance.

The financial advantages and tax concessions available for new building should be accorded in the same proportion for the upkeep and conservation of old buildings, less, of course, any compensation for extra cost that may have been paid.

Authorities should set up Revolving Funds, or encourage them to be established, by providing local authorities or non-profit making associations with the necessary capital. This if particularly applicable to areas where such programmes can become self-financing in the short or the long term because of the rise in value accruing from the high demand for such attractive property.

It is vital, however, to encourage all private sources of finance, particularly coming from industry. Numerous private initiatives have shown the viable part that they can play in association with the authorities at either national or local level.

Integrated conservation requires the promotion of methods, techniques and skills for restoration and rehabilitation.

Methods and techniques of the restoration and rehabilitation of historic complexes should be better exploited and their range developed.

Specialized techniques which have been developed for the restoration of important historic complexes should be henceforth applied to the wide range of buildings and complexes of less outstanding artistic merit.

Steps should be taken to ensure that traditional building materials remain available and that traditional crafts and techniques continue to be used.

Permanent maintenance of the architectural heritage, will, in the long run, obviate costly rehabilitation operations.

Every rehabilitation scheme should be studied thoroughly before it is carried out. Comprehensive documentation should be assembled about materials and techniques and an analysis of costs should be made. This documentation should be collected and housed in appropriate centres.

New materials and techniques should be used only after approval by independent scientific institutions.

Research should be undertaken to compile a catalogue of methods and techniques used for conservation and for this purpose scientific institutions should be created and should co-operate closely with each other. This catalogue should be made readily available and distributed to everyone concerned, thus stimulating the reform of restoration and rehabilitation practices.

There is a fundamental need for better training programme to produce qualified personnel. These programmes should be flexible, multi-disciplinary and should include courses where on-site practical experience can be gained.

International exchange of knowledge, experience and trainees an essential element in the training of all personnel concerned.

This should help to create the required pool of qualified planners, architects, technicians and craftsmen to prepare conservation programmes and help to ensure that particular crafts for restoration work, that are in danger of dying out, will be fostered.

The opportunity for qualifications, conditions of work, salary, employment security and social status should be sufficiently attractive to induce young people to take up and stay in disciplines connected with restoration and rehabilitation work.

Furthermore, the authorities responsible for educational programmes at all levels should endeavour to promote the interest of young people in conservation disciplines.