Abstract
Executive Summary
Historically cultural heritage management has not been integrated in coastal policies. Some examples from Southern European countries are available, but usually natural heritage has been the main concern for integrated policies.
An analysis based on policies, legislation, scientific reports and academic papers show that cultural heritage has penetrated with difficulties integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) strategies implemented in the PERICLES countries. However, the compulsory requirement of the EU Directive on Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has accelerated the inclusivity of cultural policies and actors’ engagement within marine (and in some cases) coastal plans. This shows the importance of spatial planning that offers a perspective that can be exported to heritage from the more traditional implementation designed to manage cities, ecosystems and landscapes, filling the gap left by ICZM that rarely has acknowledged heritage issues to any significant extent.
An investigation on the integration of cultural heritage (CH) management within ICZM and MSP has been carried out by a checklist of indicators piloted in four PERICLES countries (Northern Ireland, Portugal, Denmark and Scotland). From the pilot test, it is evident how the current CH management reflects a broad perspective and is supported by the implementation of a series of tools (such as the environmental and strategic impact assessment) that facilitate the integration with other policies. However, elements of an integrated strategy based on adaptive management and involving concerned parties are less considered. Moreover, the lack of support and coordination at vertical and horizontal scales by public bodies and of mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of information remains quite relevant.
The integration of the literature review and the pilot test results shows that planning and management of CH are taking place in coastal zone and that a framework for considering CH into ICZM strategies is emerging. However, several approaches required by an ICZM governance are not in place. The partial coordination between government bodies, formal partnerships or other mechanisms facilitating stakeholders’ interventions and community voice are currently limiting the possibility of a transition to an participatory approach. This result is backed-up by the analysis of policy formation reported in the PERICLES Deliverable D5.1 that suggests how across the PERICLES regions policy is led by government by a top-down strategy. The policy formation analysis reported in the PERICLES Deliverable D5.1 evidences a shift towards more participatory and increasingly deliberative approaches in some countries like Northern Ireland, with extensive consultations, discussion documents, online forums and on-going stakeholder discourse encouraging partnerships and participatory processes. The latter approaches are considered necessary by PERICLES to guarantee a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ and underpin an effective multi-actor framework for cultural heritage in key policy and planning arenas.
Historically cultural heritage management has not been integrated in coastal policies. Some examples from Southern European countries are available, but usually natural heritage has been the main concern for integrated policies.
An analysis based on policies, legislation, scientific reports and academic papers show that cultural heritage has penetrated with difficulties integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) strategies implemented in the PERICLES countries. However, the compulsory requirement of the EU Directive on Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has accelerated the inclusivity of cultural policies and actors’ engagement within marine (and in some cases) coastal plans. This shows the importance of spatial planning that offers a perspective that can be exported to heritage from the more traditional implementation designed to manage cities, ecosystems and landscapes, filling the gap left by ICZM that rarely has acknowledged heritage issues to any significant extent.
An investigation on the integration of cultural heritage (CH) management within ICZM and MSP has been carried out by a checklist of indicators piloted in four PERICLES countries (Northern Ireland, Portugal, Denmark and Scotland). From the pilot test, it is evident how the current CH management reflects a broad perspective and is supported by the implementation of a series of tools (such as the environmental and strategic impact assessment) that facilitate the integration with other policies. However, elements of an integrated strategy based on adaptive management and involving concerned parties are less considered. Moreover, the lack of support and coordination at vertical and horizontal scales by public bodies and of mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of information remains quite relevant.
The integration of the literature review and the pilot test results shows that planning and management of CH are taking place in coastal zone and that a framework for considering CH into ICZM strategies is emerging. However, several approaches required by an ICZM governance are not in place. The partial coordination between government bodies, formal partnerships or other mechanisms facilitating stakeholders’ interventions and community voice are currently limiting the possibility of a transition to an participatory approach. This result is backed-up by the analysis of policy formation reported in the PERICLES Deliverable D5.1 that suggests how across the PERICLES regions policy is led by government by a top-down strategy. The policy formation analysis reported in the PERICLES Deliverable D5.1 evidences a shift towards more participatory and increasingly deliberative approaches in some countries like Northern Ireland, with extensive consultations, discussion documents, online forums and on-going stakeholder discourse encouraging partnerships and participatory processes. The latter approaches are considered necessary by PERICLES to guarantee a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ and underpin an effective multi-actor framework for cultural heritage in key policy and planning arenas.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 55 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2020 |