Heritage Management at the Local Level: Heritage Communities and Role of Local Authorities1

Heritage management at the local level benefits heritage properties and serves the public interest. By using comparative and interpretative analyses, we argue for the use of the “heritage community” term in current heritage management, and analyse what this expression brings for the role of local authorities. We upgrade this definition with attributes that characterize heritage communities. The paper presents the evolution of the concept of participatory heritage management in the context of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. It tests the relevance of the participatory approach in the heritage field against the theory of social systems. Conclusions comprise principles defining the role of local authorities in facilitating direct participation of heritage communities in heritage management.


Introduction
The primary concern of the paper is to determine how the concept of heritage community has changed in legal documents and what are the consequences of those changes regarding the shared responsibilities between local government bodies and civic groups. The paper intends to give an overview of the relationship between local authorities and groups of people that cherish heritage in the territory under the local authority's jurisdiction or have other interests in heritage management. We will take a more theoretical perspective based on international legal standards and some interdisciplinary research. We deal with the importance of heritage communities as key stakeholders and the role of local authorities in participatory heritage management.
The notion of local authorities is almost self-explanatory: this is a form of government, usually elected according to democratic principles and operating at the lowest level of territorial organisation of a state to serve the public interest. The European Charter of Local Self-Government outlines guiding standards for their role and organisation. We quote the Charter because, to our knowledge, there is no universally valid instrument defining local authority. The Charter states: "Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen." (Council of Europe 1985, Article 4) The notion of the "heritage community" needs additional explanation. In academic circles, the term sometimes denotes heritage protection experts (for example, Ripp and Rodwell 2015). ICOMOS doctrinal texts use different words related to "community" in the sense of group(s) of people interested in heritage. The following table, which is not exhaustive, gives some examples of terminology from the last 25 years. We see that the variation in the terminology is considerable, not to speak about other ICOMOS documents, reports, and studies. Another important ob-servation is that in the latest doctrinal texts -those adopted from 2017 on, the terminology tends towards the term "(cultural) heritage community." Later, we will give arguments for the term "heritage community" and hopefully, contribute to a more consistent terminology.
The third theme of this paper is participatory heritage management. Research and studies dealing with participatory management of heritage properties have become more and more abundant since the turn of the centuries. Citizens' participation in public matters is a cornerstone of democracy since the antiquity, and it is a value in itself of every modern society. Because of the inadequacies in representational democracies in cases where participation is limited to voting, new ideas about the direct involvement of citizens have emerged. Half a century ago, Sherry Arnstein (1969) presented a model of public participation in the form of a ladder illustrating stages in powers people had in decision-making. Arnstein's visualisation is a good starting point for our discussion that follows below.

Heritage Community
As we reveal in the introduction, ICOMOS doctrinal texts lack a description of what the term "community" means in the context of heritage protection. The same is true for UNESCO heritage conventions and recommendations (UNESCO 2003(UNESCO , 2018. 2 Let us consider two recent international studies. The first quotation indicates one of the main challenges in defining the relationship between a community and heritage: "There is also the problem that cultural rights, as human rights, have both a collective and individual dimension. As rights with a collective dimension, they may come into conflict with individual human rights or individual perceptions of human rights... To what extent should (the state) enforce individual rights even in relation to religious, ethnic, and cultural communities?" (Logan 2007, 44) The debate over the conflicts between different human rights lies beyond the scope of this paper. From the previous quotation, we can deduct that communities implicated in heritage are composed of individuals who may have their concern and interest regarding heritage. At the same time, they form a group with which they (partially) share their identity. As we know, heritage as a part of human culture and traditions is a crucial factor in identity building (UNESCO 2003, Article 2.1).
The second quotation argues the following: "Community is considered to be placed at the core of conservation. Heritage is not self-evident, with intrinsic/inherent values … it is people/stakeholder groups that ascribe (subjective) values to it and define heritage, and thus heritage is seen as an extrinsic and social process." (Poulios 2014, 21) Stakeholder groups are not identical to heritage communities; they comprise of legal and physical persons with interest that use heritage, and by using it, they benefit or harm heritage. The study further defines different communities according to their physical proximity to a heritage site, and functional relation to it: the core community lives in the heritage site, and living represents the principal relation; broader communities are associated with the site mainly through different uses, and conservation community provides expert guidance and assistance to the core community (Poulios 2014, 21).
The concept of three communities brings us closer to the definition with one reservation: it does not solve the challenge of the intersection of individual and collective heritage rights. To name only one usual conflict that arises when different interests of some core community members are not following what "…strengthens core community's identity, pride, self-esteem, structure, and well-being." (Poulios 2014, 21) The Council of Europe's Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society gives an elegant and encompassing solution to the definition of heritage communities. The definition goes: "[...] a heritage community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations"; and further on: "The (State) Parties undertake to… take into consideration the value attached by each heritage community to the cultural heritage with which it identifies." (Council of Europe 2005a, Articles 2b, 12b) Attributes of the heritage community that the definition implies are: -Heritage community consists of persons that share values of the same heritage. In interaction with others, an individual adheres to a community (Council of Europe 2005b, 6). -That also means that adherence to a community depends on individual members' deliberate decision. Personal adherence to heritage values also solves the question of individual non-heritage related rights superseding the collective ones. -Its locality in a heritage site nor the expert knowledge does not define the heritage community. Ethical commitment to heritage is the only qualification. We describe the difference between the private and public interest in the table below. Our knowledge about the significance of direct heritage participation derives from good practices, developed mostly at the local levels and in areas where problems touch people's lives what motivates them (Roberts 2003). 3 Heritage management is undoubtedly one of such problem areas, mainly because it intersects with spatial planning, environment protection, and, what in recent years occupies us, climate change, not to speak about social issues, indigenous peoples' and minorities' heritage. Heritage is rooted in its territory, and heritage communities carry on heritage knowledge. Attachment to the place also means that we cannot disrupt the localization of heritage without damaging or uprooting heritage.
A textual analysis of the series of Operational Guidelines adopted since 1976 reveals the evolution of the concept of participatory heritage management. The version adopted in 1994 introduced cultural landscapes as a separate heritage category. In the recommendation concerning cultural landscapes nomination, the need for broader participation was mentioned: "The nomination should be prepared in collaboration with and the full approval of local communities." (UNESCO 1994, para 41) The 1999 version of the Operational Guidelines went a step further: a separate paragraph was added to the chapter on advice about the preparation of all nominations: "Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance of the site." (UNESCO 1999, para 14) The quotation is indicative because it explains briefly why the participatory approach is significant for heritage management.
The Operational Guidelines of 2005 fully embraced the concept of participation: "States Parties to the Convention are encouraged to ensure the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other interested parties and partners in the identification, nomination and protection of World Heritage properties" (UNESCO 2005, para 12). 4 State Parties are expected to involve relevant actors in the cycle of heritage management, not limiting it solely to the nomination. The section dealing with the management system also advises on the participatory approach aiming at securing long-term management (UNESCO 2005, para 108-118).
A well-known follower of Niklas Luhmann's influential theory of social systems, Kristof Van Assche, published an article on the challenges of the inclusion of heritage in spatial planning (Van Assche and Duineveld 2013). The central claim is that there are no universal recipes on how to guarantee the success of heritage planning. In doing so, we better take into consideration a broad diversity of perspectives. In further elaboration of different aspects, the article points out some concerns that are valid for heritage management, as well. It is easy to see analogies between spatial planning and heritage management; both systems depend on a variety of perspectives because the multiplicity of interpretations, interests, and attachments cannot be reduced to one solution. The best solutions are the adaptable ones.
We can draw the following conclusion: the greatest danger in heritage management is when it remains limited to heritage concerns. In Luhmann's terms, heritage tends to be a self-referential system, sticking to its perspective, terminology, and procedures. It is hard to envisage significant shifts in regulatory framework because dominant systems such as the legal and economic ones, through their power, easily override a plea for changes that come from marginal systems such as the heritage one. System-specific codes make communication between systems problematic. In this way, economic and legal systems prevent marginal systems from introducing change on how dominant systems function, while the latter have the power to impose their rules on marginal ones. In other words, it takes time and effort for marginal systems to induct change. The great advantage of the heritage system lies in the fact that it offers a doorway to heritage knowledge.

The Role of Local Authorities in Heritage Communities' Participation
As a framework for clarifying the role of local authorities in enabling and actively supporting direct participation of heritage communities in public affairs, we take twelve principles of good governance at a local level as a starting point (Council of Europe 2008). The principles draw on the above mentioned European Charter of Local Self-Government and refer mainly to the general issues of local self-governing autonomy and services. From the twelve principles, we adapt five to clarify the role of local authorities in heritage management.

Fair participation
The principle of fair participation in heritage management builds on human dignity, the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, and, in the first place on heritage rights (Council of Europe 2005, Article 1) 5 which derive from the right of everybody to take part in cultural life (United Nations 1966, Article 15). 6 Fair participation at the level near to people's needs and expectations builds mutual respect, civic trust and pride, sense of belonging, and resilience of communities to aversive forces of globalisation.

Ethical conduct
Other rights could be, according to the law, partially limited if heritage as a public good is placed before individual interest. So, the heritage community and the public have access to heritage and interact with it. Local authorities should get a legally binding responsibility to protect the everyday heritage that heritage communities appreciate in their territories. Participatory heritage management represents a way to assure public physical, intellectual, or virtual access to heritage.

Innovation and openness to change
The participatory approach should enable a multiplicity of interpretation to express themselves, and though this process, stakeholders can negotiate the commonly acceptable solutions (Van Assche and Duineveld 2013, 5-6). In local heritage management, the rules governing it should encourage adaptation to change and not penalize it.

Sustainability and long-term orientation
Traditional cultures understood a community as an assembly of ancestors, present and future generations. Similarly, 230 years ago, Edmund Burke understood liberal societies as opposed to the one that the French revolution tried to establish, as a partnership between the living, the unborn, and the dead (Scruton 2014, location 700-701). The modern concept of sustainability developed in the 1987 Brundtland Report, concerned only present and future generations. When the culture as the fourth sustainability pillar is accepted, the full span of humanity gets involved. If local authorities understand the historical, cultural, and social complexities from which sustainability can draw its force, a sustainable and resilient future is achievable.
We need to mention the ICOMOS position towards the implementation of UN Sustainability goals, where the "localization" of sustainability represents the "file rouge" of interaction with places, citizens, and local decision-making processes (ICOMOS 2017a, 5). Before that, World Heritage Convention member states also adopted a sustainability policy (UNESCO 2015). Moreover, sustainability principles in implementing the World Heritage Convention were incorporated into the Operational Guidelines at the World Heritage Committee 2019 General Assembly in Baku.

Cultural diversity and social cohesion
Local authorities and citizens should treat cultural diversity as an asset. Local authorities' role is to ensure, according to the principle of fair participation and in respect of diverse heritage communities, that everybody can get involved in heritage identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation, and presentation, and participate in the debate on heritage challenges (Council of Europe 2005, Article 12a).
Considering the principles mentioned above, states to authorities should build an adequate legal, organisational, and financial framework so that participatory heritage management at the local level can flourish. Local authorities should, within their remit, take practical steps in implementing it.
The purpose of these principles is that their application strengthens the democratic legitimacy of local authorities and, at the same time, makes them allies with the heritage communities to work together in the public interest.
We conclude our presentation with one task heritage communities should take care of besides being committed to heritage and contribute to its continuation. Within their public action, they should build a safe social space for every individual to feel welcome and included. The trust between members is indispensable for collaborative leadership, creativity, and collective goal-oriented action. The shared effort of local authorities and heritage communities guarantees that civil participation in political decision-making is effective and benefits heritage.