91�鶹������Ʒ����

Cultural heritage has long been recognized as a dynamic process that connects the past, the present and looks towards the future. Cultural heritage crosses time and space. It is the fruit of human genius while at the same time the intrinsic invisible link that connects humans to nature and to the planet. The last 70 years have borne testimony on the one hand to the multidimensional components of cultural heritage broadening its definition towards greater equity; while highlighting the intrinsic link between humankind and cultural heritage and the common responsibility towards its protection, preservation, safeguarding and promotion.

Cultural heritage is not simply an inheritance handed down from the past but a compass for the future. Whether tangible - such as historical buildings, archaeological sites and cultural and natural landscapes - or intangible encompassing rituals and practices – cultural heritage imbues the attitudes, behaviours and activities of the present. As such, it is no surprise that cultural heritage is at the forefront of many contemporary debates, including in the political arena. What we can - and should – learn from the past is a huge inspiration for public discussion on issues of today, including issues of representation and ownership of heritage, shared responsibility towards its protection at the national and local levels, as well as protecting it from intentional destruction for divisive purposes. Cultural heritage can spur visionary urban planning, local economic development, intercultural dialogue, reform of education systems and, especially, social inclusion.

Many tools already exist, in the form of UNESCO normative instruments, but require a novel approach and thinking, and the effective implementation to use them to combat the challenges facing cultural heritage. The deliberate targeting of culture and cultural heritage in armed conflict situations for divisive purposes is a clear and growing phenomenon. The intentional destruction of cultural heritage goes hand in hand with the curtailing of human rights and fundamental freedoms, running counter to the fundamental requirement that cultural heritage should be made accessible to all. Equally, illicit trafficking in cultural property is an increasingly universal issue, sometimes fuelling illegal activities such as money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and fomenting instability and conflict, while depriving communities of their past. Climate change is heightening the pressure on cultural heritage sites and disrupting intangible cultural heritage practices. The future of our past and present is a key issue for the UNESCO World Conference on Culture and Sustainable Policies, MONDIACULT 2022, due to take place in Mexico in September and particularly how heritage can be used as a tool for inclusion, social justice and peace.

Since its foundation in 1945, 91�鶹������Ʒ���� been advocating for the safeguarding of cultural heritage, recognising its central importance for individuals, communities and humanity, and guiding international debate to ensure that such tools are in line with the evolving global landscape. At the heart of these UNESCO normative instruments for heritage lies the core principles of respect for human rights and pluralism. The right to access culture and participate in cultural life are extremely pertinent in today’s context for ensuring peaceful, harmonious societies and heritage is a key element for fostering a sense of social inclusion. Recognising the essential importance of heritage for communities, for over 75 years, the international community has developed several pillars of international law in the form of the UNESCO Culture Conventions. This process of gaining international recognition for the need to protect heritage, particularly in conflict situations, began at the end of the 19th century but was accelerated due to the devastating effects of two World Wars. The notion of the universal need to protect and safeguard heritage gained increasing traction as newly independent states reasserted their cultures. The launch of UNESCO’s International Safeguarding Campaigns in the 1960s, particularly through the relocation of the Abu Simbel monuments of the ancient civilization of Nubia to save them from the rising waters of the Nile, gave birth to unprecedented global solidarity and a recognition of the universal value of heritage for humankind.

marked a new global consciousness of the role that culture plays for the memory of humanity and security. Indeed, culture and heritage were esteemed to be so vital in ensuring global stability, following two devastating World Wars, that the 1954 Convention was the second important UN-brokered agreement in the field of international humanitarian law, after the 1948 Genocide Convention. Whether in peacetime or at war, it sets out minimum standards to protect immovable cultural property - such as monuments of architecture, art or history, archaeological sites – or moveable cultural property, works of art, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest, as well as scientific collections regardless of their origin or ownership. In accordance with the Convention, parties must prosecute and impose penal or disciplinary sanctions upon those persons, of whatever nationality, who commit or order a breach of the Convention. The Second Protocol to the Convention strengthens this provision by requiring the codification of a criminal offence, including extension of responsibility to higher command

It is in a large part due to this instrument and to the escalating intentional destruction of cultural heritage in such countries as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, that UNESCO stepped up its international advocacy for the recognition of such intentional destruction as a crime against humanity. This led to the decision in 2004 of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to hand down the first-ever conviction for the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage to former Yugoslav naval officer, Miodrag Jokić, for his role in commanding hundreds of mortars to be fired on the old town of Dubrovnik in 1991, which was inscribed that year on the List of World Heritage in Danger. More recently, in 2016, the International Criminal Court found Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, guilty of war crimes for the destruction in 2012 of ten religious sites in

These international rulings also contributed to a better understanding by the international community of the human responsibility in protecting and preserving cultural heritage. The notion of responsibility alongside to that of universality helped strengthen the global narrative on the significance of cultural heritage worldwide. The deliberate targeting of heritage in conflict gained increased attention in 2017 through the formal recognition by the UN Security Council as an imperative for peace and security. The number of armed conflicts has been escalating since the 1980s leading to an increase in the destruction of historic sites by terrorist groups and a proliferation in the trafficking of cultural artefacts. UN Security Council covers the full range of threats to cultural heritage, without any geographical limitations and regardless of whether the perpetrators of the crimes are terrorist groups already on UN lists or belong to other armed groups. It also envisages the possibility of employing UN peacekeeping operations to provide. assistance, in collaboration with UNESCO, in the protection of cultural heritage in conflict situations.

UNESCO is also the custodian of the world's first international tool to fight the illicit trafficking of cultural property; the UNESCO. By the 1950s, as more States were gaining independence, they sought to create an international treaty to stop their cultural property from entering the black market. The 1970 Convention also provides clauses for the return and restitution of cultural property, although it does not apply to the displacement of cultural property prior to its adoption, which, in part, led to the establishment of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) in 1978 to facilitate dialogue and negotiations, and more recently with the integration of a mediation mechanism. International cooperation is also key to regulate the international trade of cultural property. In order to be more effective in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property, UNESCO asked the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) to study private law questions that are not directly dealt with by the 1970 Convention. , supplements the provisions of the 1970 Convention.

The 1972 World Heritage Convention embodies the sense of universality through its guiding principle of the “Outstanding Universal Value” of a site due to its cultural and/or natural significance for present and future generations, which is not simply a matter for individual Member States but for the international community. It remains one of the most ratified of all international conventions (with 194 States Parties) and contributes to cultural diplomacy, particularly through the transboundary sites that foster cooperation. Over 50 years, the conceptualisation of World Heritage has expanded to include not only the physical attributes of a site but also its social functions and values, leading to new criteria such as authenticity. The approach to cultural heritage conservation has also evolved, from a monument-focused approach to a broader perspective leading to the emergence of new site categories such as cultural landscapes or urban landscapes. The 1972 Convention also contains a mechanism for alerting the international community of conditions which threaten World Heritage. The is a way of encouraging corrective action for properties at risk due to armed conflict and war, earthquakes and other natural disasters, pollution, poaching, uncontrolled urbanization or unchecked tourist development.

MONDIACULT 1982 marked a shift in cultural policies, placing the needs of people at the heart, breathing life into a 'second generation' of UNESCO Culture Conventions. The Conference, besides redefining the concept of culture (by including in its definition not only arts and letters, as well as tangible heritage, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs), approved a new definition of cultural heritage which included both tangible and intangible works through which the creativity of people finds expression: languages, rites, beliefs, historic places and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries. The Mexico Declaration furthermore stated that every culture represents a unique and irreplaceable body of values since each people’s traditions and forms of expression are its most effective means of demonstrating its presence in the world. In this sense, it also remarked that cultural identity and cultural diversity are inseparable and that the recognition of the presence of a variety of cultural identities wherever various traditions exist side by side constitutes the very essence of cultural pluralism. The transition placed people firmly at the centre of safeguarding cultural heritage.

The first of this new generation of UNESCO Culture Conventions, the 2001 Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention, recognises in its first line how underwater heritage is a “particularly important element in the history of peoples, nations, and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage.” It urges States to take all appropriate measures to protect underwater heritage as historical relics to allow for a better knowledge and appreciation of past culture, history and science. Understanding and conserving underwater cultural heritage, a particularly vulnerable heritage, also helps us understand phenomena such as climate change and rising sea levels.

A people-centred approach to heritage is in the DNA of the , also referred to as living heritage. Developed in the context of a resurgence of interest in protecting cultural diversity and the traditional knowledge of minority groups and Indigenous peoples in the face of globalising forces, it focuses on , whether they be communities, groups or individuals. Its adoption signalled a recognition that cultural heritage does not end at monuments and collections of objects but also includes traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants. Living heritage contributes to social cohesion, encouraging a sense of identity and responsibility which helps individuals to feel part of one or several communities and to feel part of society at large. The 2003 Convention explicitly calls for the participation of communities, groups and non-governmental organizations in the identification and safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Education and the inter-generational transmission of living heritage is of intrinsic importance in the 2003 Convention to safeguard this hype of heritage, whilst allowing for its evolution. As one of the most rapidly ratified international conventions (with 179 States Parties in under 20 years), it attests to the interest of governments around the world, in harnessing this rich cultural resources.

Cultural heritage is also acknowledged as a “well-spring for creativity” and, as such, is a living, evolving resource, as enshrined in the . Intangible cultural heritage in particular contributes to the objectives of the , the last of the “second generation” of UNESCO Cultural Conventions. Whilst the 2003 Convention focuses on living practices, the 2005 Convention focuses on the products of human creativity. For the 2003 Convention, communities are the bearers of intangible cultural heritage, who are at the heart of safeguarding processes. In the 2005 Convention, civil society plays a prominent role in the promotion of a diversity of expressions, drawing on individual creativity and cultural diversity.

Fully unleashing the potential of cultural heritage for communities and the planet - across the public policy spectrum - was a major theme during the MONDIACULT 2022 Regional Consultations, with Member States and other stakeholders. It was repeatedly highlighted that the COVID-19 health crisis had put a spotlight on the often taken for granted value of cultural heritage – tangible and intangible -, as well as the creative sector, in economic, social and environmental terms. Participants in the consultations underscored the need for a more deliberate commitment to advancing rights-based approach to culture in public policy. They called for the full recognition of local knowledge systems, notably to strengthen adaptation, mitigation and resilience in the face of challenges to cultural heritage brought about by natural hazards. The right to benefit from access to and enjoyment of one’s cultural heritage for individuals and communities - including practices and linguistic diversity - was highlighted as essential to live together thus fostering peace, stability, and sustainable development. The underlying principles reiterated over again were the vital importance of socially inclusive policy-making, based on a commitment to pluralism and the inclusion of communities in the sustainable management of cultural heritage for future generations.

Participants in the Regional Consultations acknowledged that the targeting of culture and cultural heritage in armed conflict situations led to the destruction of cultural heritage, as well as amplifying illicit trafficking of cultural property. They particularly raised concerns at this violation of human rights and cultural rights, the disruption of living cultural practices and the enhanced vulnerability of cultural institutions and sites, testifying to an increasing instrumentalization of culture for divisive purposes conducive to isolation, discrimination, and the curtailing of fundamental rights, running counter to culture’s intrinsic and foundational value as a unifier while also undermining the foundations of cultural diversity worldwide. However, some participants underscored that cultural heritage was a resource in rebuilding communities in the wake of conflict and other catastrophes. As such, international dialogue and coordination efforts needed to be stepped up.

Several participants of the Regional Consultations pointed to the fact that cultural heritage has been affected by climate change for a number of decades already, including the treats to World Heritage sites and the disruption of living cultural heritage practices. Some of the threats are long-term risks, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification, others are due to events, such as fires and cyclones. Extreme temperatures and rainfall can also undermine built heritage. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable and often the most directly exposed to the consequences of climate change, including the extreme weather events such as cyclones and hurricanes that threaten the traditional way of life of communities and threaten the cultural diversity of humanity. Furthermore, more than 1 million species are threatened with extinction. Biodiversity and nature contribute not only to our common heritage but are also humanity’s most important life-supporting safety net.

Whilst there have been some important steps taken in recent years to better align cultural heritage and climate action, Member States are requesting more support. For example, the historic declaration of the Ministers of Culture of the G20 signals greater political will by explicitly acknowledging that “culture, including intangible and tangible cultural heritage, creativity, Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ languages, wisdom and knowledge systems and traditional crafts and materials, especially those used by Indigenous and local women, offer great potential to drive climate action and sustainable development and contribute meaningfully to climate solutions”. UNESCO’s updating of its 2007 is another step to strengthen policy frameworks, as is the Flexible Mechanism for Addressing Climate Change Impact on Cultural and Natural Heritage, established at the initiative of Greece, with UNESCO and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Yet the role that cultural heritage can play in tackling climate change is often under-valued, and was identified as an avenue for UNESCO to further deepen engagement and acompany Member States in adapting cultural policies in the coming years. Firstly, many sites of natural heritage, on land or at sea, are rich ecosystems that act as carbon sinks. UNESCO-designated sites, including UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, Global Geoparks and World Heritage properties, protect approximately 10 million square kilometres of cultural heritage and biodiversity around the world – the equivalent of the size of China. Secondly, World Heritage sites can also act as learning laboratories for the study and mitigation of climate impacts, being places to test resilient management strategies, whether at Natural World Heritage sites, Marine World Heritage sites or World Heritage Cites. Thirdly, the iconic status of World Heritage sites can raise the attention of the issue of climate change, particularly those whose experience of the adverse effects are already well-publicised.

Intangible cultural heritage, in the form of traditional knowledge, is a particularly vital source of solutions for resilience, as many particpants of the Regional Consultations underscored. This can be in the form of vernacular building techniques adapted to climatic conditions, ancestral meteorological and astronomical knowledge to predict weather patterns, traditional food security strategies, or water and land management strategies. Local and Indigenous knowledge is increasingly being valued to tackle environmental degradation, for example being explicitly recognised the in the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Much of this knowledge for resilience in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss is embedded in the estimated 7,000 languages - well over half of which are Indigenous languages. Yet many of these languages are at risk of vanishing, meaning the eradication of a whole worldview, and system of knowledge. The UN-led International Decade for Indigenous Languages is a vital opportunity to preserve this knowledge and reinforce the linkages between biological diversity and cultural diversity.

KEY TAKEAWAY : The valuing of local and Indigenous knowledge systems on an equal par is vital in the fight against climate change, as identified by the MONDIACULT 2022 Regional Consultations

During the Regional Consultations, several stakeholders reiterated the urgent importance of the respect for cultural identity and pluralism, rooted in tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and nurtured through the protection and promotion of cultural diversity, the safeguarding of knowledge systems, practices, objects and sites – is an ethical imperative, inseparable from the respect for human dignity. Several participants called for a renewed commitment to the full exercise of human rights and cultural rights, entailing respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, the participation in and enjoyment of culture, enabling the fulfillment, well-being and emancipation of all individuals, groups and communities, including Indigenous people and persons belonging to minorities. The role of communities as essential stakeholders in long-term strategies for the protection and safeguarding of cultural heritage was also strongly emphasised.

Professor Ana Filipa Vrdoljak,

UNESCO Chair in International Law and Cultural Heritage

Removal and return of cultural objects have informed human relations since antiquity.From the foundation of the United Nations, newly independent states have consistently called for restitution of cultural heritage removed during foreign occupation. Restitution was viewed as integral to decolonization, the New International Economic Order and the right to development. Indigenous peoples’ claims for restitution of culture (land and sites, ancestral remains, cultural objects, and knowledge and language) infuse every aspect of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . The Declaration draws on the civil rights movement and human rights informing Indigenous responses to ongoing foreign occupation. More recently, UN Security Council Resolution 2347 of 2017 - the first dedicated to cultural heritage - recognises the threat that cultural loss and dislocation poses to international peace and security, and the centrality of effective international cooperation to facilitate restitution to address its effects. The "fil rouge" of these restitution claims is that the right of peoples to self-determination and economic, social and cultural development must encompass culture and cultural heritage.

Calls to address restitution claims and stem ongoing cultural losses has elicited manifold responses. The UNESCO 1970 Convention seeks to encourage international cooperation among states in regulating the trade in cultural objects and facilitating restitution claims, whilst the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention aims to harmonise private international law rules addressing restitution claims by States and non-state actors. Like-minded initiatives by regional organisations also exist, while multilateral efforts through the Security Council’s sanction regime, UN Office of Drugs and Crime, and International Criminal Court emphasise international cooperation on criminal accountability for cultural losses due to the illicit trade in cultural objects. Yet these treaties do not have retroactive effect.Following the call of then UNESCO Secretary-General in 1978, the ICPRCP was established to facilitate so-called ‘historic’ claims for restitution of cultural objects. In response to Indigenous peoples’ advocacy, the General Assembly have sanctioned the establishment of ‘fair, transparent and effective mechanisms for access to and repatriation’ of ceremonial objects and ancestral remains.Over the last half century, multilateral responses to the ongoing, adverse impact of cultural loss on peoples has moved beyond market regulation of trade in cultural goods to a human rights-based approach to restitution claims as effective remedies related to living cultures.

Claims for restitution of cultural heritage, from newly independent states to Indigenous peoples, to victims of armed conflict, belligerent occupation or disasters, emphasise that it is not simply an act of returning a cultural object but a process of redefining relations between peoples, within and across countries and generations. This shift is reflected in the contentious debate within the International Council of Museums about the definition and function of museums and collecting institutions; constitutional reform being negotiated in several states; and the growing momentum at the regional and multilateral level for mechanisms to facilitate international restitution of cultural objects removed during colonisation and Indigenous ancestral remains and sacred objects. It is important to recall that these responses and mechanisms must accord with the right of self-determination and be developed and operate with the effective participation and free prior and informed consent of the victims of serious cultural losses, past and present.

Other participants called for the development and implementation of policy and legal frameworks that enhance the rights of peoples and communities to their cultural identity – notably through informed consultation and participation – while respecting cultural pluralism. Enhancing and reinforcing these rights, whilst sustaining their historical continuity across time, was underscored as allowing communities to draw on the memory and legacy of the past, as a record of human experience and aspirations, to tackle contemporary challenges and shape a sustainable future, leaving no one behind. Access to cultural heritage resources is a cornerstone of some countries’ development plans, not only in reaffirming identity but also as an economic basis for decent jobs of burgeoning youth populations.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

"To speak of cultural heritage in the context of human rights entails taking into consideration the multiple heritages through which individuals and communities express their humanity, give meaning to their existence, build their worldviews and represent their encounter with the external forces affecting their lives. Cultural heritage is to be understood as resources enabling the cultural identification and development processes of individuals and communities which they, implicitly or explicitly, wish to transmit to future generations...The right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage includes the right of individuals and communities to, inter alia, know, understand, enter, visit, make use of, maintain, exchange and develop cultural heritage, as well as to benefit from the cultural heritage and the creation of others. It also includes the right to participate in the identification, interpretation and development of cultural heritage, as well as to the design and implementation of preservation/safeguard policies and programmes."

KEY TAKEAWAY: Participants identified the need to promote the role of culture for implementing a human rights-based approach across public policy that upholds culture as a public good, across all cultural domains, to address social inequalities, support inclusive access to culture and participation in cultural life.

The UNESCO normative architecture in the field of culture composed of its international Conventions, Recommendations and Declarations – together with other relevant normative instruments of UN sister agencies and regional organizations – represent a formidable toolkit for developing more sustainable and inclusive public policies for social justice, peace, prosperity and environmental sustainability. For almost 70 years these instruments have been evolving, notably through a movement that began to emerge following MONDIACULT 1982 to place greater emphasis on people not just monuments, functions not just objects and not only the preservation of heritage but also its sustainable use and development while better informing the relationship between humankind and the planet. At the same time, we have witnessed the evolution towards greater awareness and mobilization of individuals and communities around cultural heritage as the testimony of cultural identity, also testifying to the growing role of a multiplicity of stakeholders – from intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and civil society – in contributing their knowledge and efforts to advance protection, preservation, and safeguarding. Equally, because cultural heritage is such a major source of human, social, economic and environmental resilience for communities,

Member States already report more systemic linkages between cultural heritage and other policy areas – including education, climate action, disaster risk reduction, tourism, employment, urban planning, conflict prevention and peace-building – even if these linkages require greater consolidation. As such, culture should be fully considered a global public good and cultural heritage should be an integral part of the global commons as a resource and positive force for transformation in the spirit of the UN Secretary-General’s Report “Our Common Agenda”. The Culture Conventions directly touch upon questions intrinsically linked to fundamental human rights, whether it is the right of ancestral communities to live in World Heritage sites and practices their traditions; the rights of communities to access their past and transmit it to future generations; the illicit appropriation of the intangible cultural heritage of communities – particularly of Indigenous peoples – or the return of cultural objects to their country of origin. All of the latter constitute claims of peoples and individuals for greater social justice at the local and global level.

Looking ahead, the trajectory of people-centred models of cultural heritage policies points towards a future of greater expansion of cultural rights, particularly to marginalised communities. To this end, a global reflection on cultural rights – both individual and collective - is needed to re-examine the UNESCO Culture Conventions, devising new mechanisms where necessary and forging greater synergies for the protection and safeguarding of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage from unprecedented threats, from insecurity to disasters, and biased algorithms to a lack of inter-generational transmission. This reflection should lead to stronger alliances towards governance models and public policies, through strengthening the engagement of civil society, intergovernmental organizations, development banks, private sector stakeholders and – crucially – the communities themselves, based on an unerring commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms.