THE ROLE OF NGOs IN DETERMINATIONOF CONSERVATION POLICIES by Nebojsa Camprag

Nebojša ČAMPRAG

THE ROLE OF NGOs IN DETERMINATION OF CONSERVATION POLICIES ____________________________________________________ COMPARISON BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

UNIVERSITE PIERRE MENDES FRANCE INSTITUT D'URBANISME DE GRENOBLE

The role of NGOs in determination of conservation policies – Comparison between the United Kingdom and Germany ______ Le rôle des ONG dans la détermination des politiques de conservation – Comparaison entre le Royaume Uni et l’Allemagne

Master "Sciences du Territoire"

Nom, Prénom (de l'étudiant): ČAMPRAG, Nebojša

Mois, année de soutenance: Juillet, 2010.

Directeur de mémoire: Mons. Charles AMBROSINO

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Mémoire

NOTICE ANALYTIQUE AUTEUR TITRE du Mémoire

COLLATION

Nom Nom Prénom Nebojša ČAMPRAG Le rôle des ONG dans la détermination des politiques de conservation – Comparaison entre le Royaume Uni et l’Allemagne Organisme d'affiliation Directeur de de mémoire : IUG AMBROSINO, Charles Nb. De pages Nb annexes Nb de référ. Bibliographiques 75 pages; introduction Le nombre de et mots: 18.056 4 chapitres

19 pages web, 6 livres, 3 articles, 39 magazines et publications, 2 power-point présentations

MOTSMOTS-CLES Le patrimoine bâti, les organisations non gouvernementales, les politiques de conservation du patrimoine, le National Trust, la Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz TERMES GEOGRAPHIQUES

Royaume-Uni, Allemagne

RESUME EN FRANÇ FRANÇAIS

Ce mémoire porte sur le rôle des ONG dans la détermination des politiques de conservation à travers la comparaison des deux organisations les plus importantes au RoyaumeUni et en République Fédérale d'Allemagne, le National Trust et le Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz (la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments). La comparaison entre les deux ONG de conservation a montré l'ampleur du discours au sein de la gestion du patrimoine et le rôle des initiatives des populations à l'intérieur de celui-ci. D'autre part, la comparaison avec les bureaux gouvernementaux du patrimoine a prouvé l'importance des activités du secteur tertiaire, les deux organisations ayant un rôle exceptionnel et une influence sur la politique de préservation du patrimoine dans leur pays. La portée des activités et des résultats que le National Trust a atteint définit cette organisation sans aucun doute parmi les plus importantes en la matière, la présentant également comme une réponse appropriée à ces changements mondiaux, en matière de patrimoine et de conservation. Ce qui rend l'ampleur et la gamme des activités du Trust possibles et fructueuses réside principalement dans l'engagement d'un grand nombre de bénévoles et de sympathisants. Néanmoins, l'observation des activités et des résultats de ces deux ONG a prouvé l'importance des initiatives des personnes en ce qui concerne la préservation du patrimoine au niveau national et mondial, principalement parce que décider de ce qui est historiquement significatif ne rentre plus dans le champ d'application des experts, mais implique toutefois le jugement partagé de chacun ayant une participation ou un intérêt. En ce qui concerne le rôle de conversation que les ONG jouent sur la prise de décision et de planification des processus, il peut être conclu de façon générale que leur vision de l'urbanisation n'est pas en phase avec le point de vue réel de la façon dont les villes ou les campagnes devraient se développer, elles ont plutôt un rôle de sauvegarde des valeurs existantes, en indiquant les bonnes méthodes à suivre pour l'avenir, et ce, dans l'intérêt général du développement de la société.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Translation: Nicolas Di Rito

RÉSUMÉ La croissance et le développement d'intérêt public et les reliques survivantes du passé ont une histoire relativement courte, mais étonnamment dynamique. Cela remonte au début du 19ème siècle, en Grande-Bretagne, où plusieurs groupes d'amateurs ont montré un intérêt croissant pour l'interprétation des objets historiques au travers d'études archéologiques et historiques. Ces initiatives locales ont augmenté depuis, et ont été reconnues et officialisées au sein des législations nationales des centaines d'années plus tard. Les principaux changements concernant l'approche de la conservation du patrimoine s'est produite dans les décennies du milieu du 20ème siècle, dans presque toutes les villes européennes, et concerna l'élargissement des zones protégées et la promotion de la conservation plutôt que de la préservation. Le besoin de nouvelles méthodes en matière de planification préservative en dehors du domaine scientifique traditionnel a été plus récemment porté au grand jour, surtout après que le rôle de la culture et du patrimoine soit devenu de plus en plus important au sein de la politique économique. Aujourd'hui, la protection du patrimoine culturel en Europe est principalement une question de politique gouvernementale et de contrôle national, souvent aidée par les organismes publics spécialisés. La conservation du patrimoine est également fortement soutenue par les initiatives des personnes et les mouvements de base. L'importance exceptionnelle des organisations non-gouvernementales (ONG) réside dans leur liberté d'avoir une approche différente de celle des autres institutions s'occupant de ces problèmes, particulièrement en raison de leur indépendance, de leurs qualités créatives et dynamiques. Selon leurs propres sources, ces organisations appellent les gens à la responsabilité civile au travers d'une prise de conscience de l'information, et jouent un rôle important en aidant les communautés à préserver leur patrimoine immatériel. Dans certains cas, elles peuvent également se concentrer sur certaines questions importantes, qui ne sont pas assez couvertes par la politique gouvernementale. L'importance des organismes bénévoles et des ONG dans la promotion, leur pressions sur le gouvernement pour fournir un appui technique et financier est bien reconnue dans certains pays. Certaines ONG sont également très bien reliées entre elles et obtiennent des résultats significatifs en travaillant en étroite collaboration, comme dans l'exemple d'un système paneuropéen d'ONG «Europa Nostra». Afin de voir de plus près le rôle des ONG dans la détermination des politiques de conservation au Royaume-Uni et au sein de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, les deux organisations les plus importantes seront prises comme modèle d'exploration et de comparaison. Au Royaume-Uni, la plus remarquable est considérée comme étant le National Trust. C'est la plus grande organisation au Royaume-Uni, active en Angleterre, au Pays de Galles et en Irlande du Nord, et l'un des organismes de bienfaisance les plus importants à la fois par son revenu et ses actifs. Parallèlement, le National Trust est l'un des plus grands propriétaires fonciers du pays. En République Fédérale d'Allemagne, l'organisation la plus remarquable des citoyens active dans la conservation des monuments est la Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz (la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments), inspirée par les activités et le succès du National Trust Britannique et l'American National Trust pour la Préservation Historique. En ce qui concerne l'approche légale de la conservation du patrimoine au RoyaumeUni et en Allemagne, de grandes différences sont constatables. Au sein du gouvernement britannique, la culture et les questions de préservation du patrimoine sont des questions 4

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

réparties entre les États. Comme il n'y a pas de gouvernement anglais distinct, le Ministère de la culture, des médias et du sport (DCMS) est responsable de l'environnement historique, du patrimoine et de sa préservation en Angleterre. Le patrimoine anglais (bâtiments et monuments historiques de la Commission pour l'Angleterre) est un organe exécutif public non ministériel du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, qui gère l'environnement historique bâti en l'Angleterre et conseille le DCMS sur toutes les questions relatives à la conservation du patrimoine national. La conservation et la préservation du patrimoine historique en Allemagne est réalisée au sein de l'autorité des États fédéraux, mais la conservation des sites importants du patrimoine national est une question de politique culturelle du gouvernement fédéral. Au niveau fédéral, le gouvernement allemand actuel ne fournit pas de ministère traitant les questions de culture nationale, de patrimoine et de conservation, comme c'est le cas avec le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni. Le ministre d'Etat chargé de la politique de conservation du gouvernement fédéral depuis 1998 est Commissaire du Gouvernement fédéral pour la culture et les médias, et a le rôle de conseiller et d'appuyer le chancelier, dans le cadre de l'élaboration des politiques. Le Comité National Allemand pour la Protection des Monuments (Deutsches für Nationalkomitee Denkmalschutz) est une organisation gouvernementale, une interface nationale dont l'intérêt est la préservation, l'entretien des monuments (géologiques et archéologiques). Le récent système de protection du patrimoine au Royaume-Uni, établi au cours des 120 dernières années, est considéré comme n'étant pas suffisamment efficace pour faire face aux possibilités et aux besoins du patrimoine par rapport aux défis des temps modernes. La nécessité d'une réforme profonde et d'une adaptation de la politique du patrimoine national a été reconnue tant par les mouvements de base que par l'Etat. Depuis que la réforme de la protection du patrimoine (HPR) et sa mise en œuvre sont devenues la priorité absolue du patrimoine anglais en 2000, le patrimoine moyen pris en charge et identifié s'est sensiblement amélioré. A l'heure actuelle, le principal objectif est axé sur la promotion d'une approche holistique de la modernisation des soins de tous les actifs historiques grâce à un partenariat, de l'ouverture et de la transparence. Le système est «ouvert» afin de fournir des possibilités de consultation et d'explication, ainsi que pour donner plus de soutien aux autorités locales en première ligne de protection du patrimoine. Les services statutaires et consultatifs sont maintenant plus axés sur le client, plus cohérents et respectueux des délais, l'activité des visiteurs étant désormais plus rentable, plus axée sur le service et plus accessible, le but étant de mieux répondre aux besoins. Le futur système devrait être simple à utiliser et plus à jour avec le processus de planification moderne. Certains changements doivent avoir lieu conjointement à de futurs déclarations politiques de planification et d'orientation, de législation sur la protection du patrimoine et des projets y étant propres, y compris la formation et le soutien des services des collectivités locales concernant l'environnement historique. La vision stratégique du patrimoine anglais entre 2005 et 2010 met l'accent sur l'importance de s'engager avec le public et de le renouveller, ainsi que de prodiguer une meilleure compréhension afin de générer des bénéfices notamment en termes de conservation des sites plus importants, ainsi que de plus grands bénéfices personnels intrinsèques. La plupart de ces points de vue et les modifications apportées rejoignent les mêmes valeurs que le National Trust a reconnu, initié et mis en œuvre plus tôt dans sa politique. Être une organisation beaucoup plus âgée et avec beaucoup plus d'expérience en la matière (le patrimoine anglais fut créé 88 années après le National Trust), rend le National Trust beaucoup plus influent sur la question de la définition de la politique nationale de conservation. Certaines similitudes peuvent également être repérées dans la gamme des activités et des responsabilités. Le patrimoine anglais est le détenteur du conseil et de 5

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

l'éducation, en identifiant et en aidant à la protection des bâtiments et des sites archéologiques d'importance nationale. Comme le National Trust, il a aussi des propriétés historiques en sa possession, accessibles à l'audience publique. Les sympathisants du patrimoine anglais ont des avantages similaires, mais sont privés d'une participation active dans le processus décisionnel. En termes de financement, le patrimoine anglais reçoit environ les trois quarts de celui-ci du Trésor public qui s'acquitte ici de son rôle statutaire en tant que conseiller du gouvernement sur l'environnement historique. Outre ce fait, le revenu pour l'année 2009 du National Trust a été trois fois supérieur comparé au total des revenus du patrimoine anglais pour cette même année, et près de neuf fois supérieur comparé aux revenus du patrimoine anglais auto-générés. Afin de générer des revenus d'auto-production, certains moyens ont été calqués sur le modèle du National Trust, tels que «les achats en ligne» ou encore la possibilité de gagner un revenu grâce à la location d'un bien ou d'un chalet de vacances. En termes de dépenses, le National Trust a investi 4,5 fois plus de moyens financiers pour les projets de conservation en 2009. En Allemagne, où la conservation revient aux Etats Fédéraux, l'organisation politique actuelle du pays peut être considérée comme un facteur limitant concernant la politique de conservation unique. Le régime politique en Allemagne a requis la répartition des responsabilités entre les gouvernements fédéraux et étatiques. En outre, les autorités dans le domaine de la préservation et de la conservation dans chaque Etat ont souvent une organisation interne différente. Ces dispositions ont imposé un certain cadre prédéfini à la fois pour les organisations fédérales et pour les organisations non gouvernementales s'occupant des questions liées au patrimoine. Dans ce cadre, le Comité national allemand pour la protection des monuments fonctionne comme une initiative de conservation du patrimoine au niveau fédéral, avec un certain rôle de l'autorité de conservation du patrimoine. La seconde caractéristique majeure du système de protection du patrimoine en Allemagne réside en de stricts principes hiérarchiques. L'influence sur le cadre juridique en Allemagne est donc l'un des secteurs les plus importants du Comité national allemand pour la conservation. D'autre part, la plus grande ONG de conservation dans le pays, la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments, traite avec le public, mettant l'accent sur la motivation des bailleurs de fonds possibles pour des projets de conservation à entreprendre. Les deux organisations statutaires et non gouvernementales d'intérêt connu éveillent la conscience publique sur le patrimoine, encouragent les propriétaires et la promotion de l'idée de conservation dans la planification urbaine ainsi que certains objectifs communs. Alors que les ONG officient en la faveur de la plupart des activités liées à la collecte de fonds et à la promotion des valeurs du patrimoine, l'organisation statutaire du patrimoine est plutôt un corps technique et politique fédéral, impliqué principalement dans l'examen et l'adaptation des lois et des règlements en vigueur. Il est possible de déterminer de nombreuses différences dans l'établissement, concernant la juridiction et les activités des deux organisations, les deux étant établies sur les mêmes principes conservateurs de la préservation du patrimoine. Peu importe que les activités et les principes de ces organisations atteignent leurs objectifs, la conservation est exclusivement une affaire d'experts dans les deux cas, et la participation du public dans le processus semble être négligée et non suffisamment prise en charge. Les organisations et les activités manquent également d'ouverture et de transparence. Néanmoins, même les aspects négatifs du système actuel en Allemagne ont été déterminés et sa nécessité d'une mise à jour a été reconnue, cependant les réalisations sur la réforme elle-même sont plutôt modestes jusqu'ici, autant au niveau législatif que populaire. En ce qui concerne la comparaison entre les deux organisations non gouvernementales, le National Trust et la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des 6

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Monuments partagent les mêmes objectifs principaux dans deux différents pays, avec la conservation du patrimoine et la sensibilisation à son importance comme tâches les plus importantes ayant été définies. Il existe certaines similitudes dans les manières dont les deux organisations ont de réaliser leurs objectifs communs, basées sur les points de vue que le National Trust, plus expérimenté, a eu concernant le problème de la conservation du patrimoine. Ces similitudes ont été plus évidentes durant les premières années suite à la création de la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments, étant donné que ses fondateurs ont délibérément pris le National Trust britannique comme modèle. L'analyse des données recueillies dans la dernière période souligne une installation progressive de différences importantes, qui se reflètent, de nos jours, principalement au travers des différentes directions de la gouvernance et l'évolution des politiques, de la façon dont les activités et les paramètres généraux au sein des deux ONG ont été et continuent d'être actifs. La comparaison entre le National Trust et la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments a été faite à plusieurs niveaux, selon les faits généraux qui ont une influence sur le fonctionnement des organisations et des circonstances historiques, sur la structure organisationnelle et la gouvernance, sur leur programme et leur activités, sur la manière dont ils façonnent la politique d'adhésion et la participation, ainsi que sur la gestion du patrimoine dont ils sont propriétaires, et enfin, sur le plan économique, concernant le financement des organisations et des investissements qu'ils entreprennent. La comparaison historique des circonstances générales a montré en premier lieu des disproportions importantes quant à la période analysée concernant les deux organisations non gouvernementales (durant laquelle elles étaient actives). Les circonstances dans lesquelles les deux organisations ont été créées et ont acquis de l'expérience sont aussi marquées par des variations importantes sur les plans culturel, social, économique et politique. Selon le principe-même de son approche générale de la gouvernance, le National Trust est mis en place pour un engagement d'ouverture, de transparence et de responsabilité. Par conséquent, le Trust sélectionne des bénévoles de « haut calibre », capables de superviser les modalités de gouvernance de ce dernier, axées sur la réalisation de ses objectifs avec efficience et efficacité. La transparence de l'organisation est assurée par la participation des membres à rejoindre l'assemblée générale annuelle du National Trust (AGA), droit de parole et de vote inclus. De l'autre côté, la Fondation Allemande a positionné ses principes de gouvernement d'une façon un peu plus conservatrice. Les décisions sont du ressort du Conseil d'administration, sur une base d'expertise réalisée par la Commission scientifique. Les donateurs peuvent spécifier pour quels projets leur argent sera dépensé, mais il en est également du ressort des conseils d'administration. La transparence des activités de gouvernance est fournie aux donateurs (membres) au travers d'un magazine, publié et envoyé par la Fondation elle-même. En ce qui concerne le programme et les activités, les organisations britannique et allemande ont fixé leurs objectifs sur des bases différentes. Le Trust s'est axé sur la variété du patrimoine en sa possession, ainsi que sur la promotion et la participation active de la population, tandis que la Fondation allemande se concentre sur la collecte de fonds, la conservation et la promotion du patrimoine national construit. Suite à l'analyse de la politique d'adhésion et de participation, il est possible de conclure que les mesures que le National Trust est actuellement en train d'entreprendre au Royaume-Uni semblent être plus motivantes pour les personnes afin qu'elles effectuent une demande d'adhésion et soutiennent les activités de l'organisation. Des résultats positifs de la politique du National Trust sont également visibles par rapport à l'organisation gouvernementale du patrimoine anglais pour la préservation du patrimoine. Dans ce cas, le National Trust avec ses 3,6 millions de membres a environ près de 5,5 fois plus d'adhérents 7

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

comparé au patrimoine anglais. En ce qui concerne le fait que le patrimoine anglais et la Fondation allemande manquent d'activités pour ses membres et qu'elles n'impliquent pas ces derniers dans le fonctionnement de l'Organisation nous amène à la conclusion que l'approche ouverte et transparente qu'elles mènent motive les gens à participer et à contribuer. La mystification de monuments et la création d'obstacles a pour effet de renforcer la distance entre les personnes et leur patrimoine. Cette approche pourrait être déterminée comme l'un des facteurs expliquant pourquoi les ONG au Royaume-Uni fonctionnent avec plus d'efficacité comparées à la Fondation allemande.

Organisation Fondée en Pays Siège Social Territoire Slogan

1895. Royaume-Uni Swindon, Wilthshire Angleterre, Pays de Galles et Irelande du Nord ‘Pour toujours, pour chacun’

Statut ONG Plus de 3,6 millions Adhérents Responsable Membre de la famille Royale Conseil d'administration Dirigée par Organisation de Pays et Comités Régionaux / la Gouvernance Comités consultatifs, Comités / Conseil d'Administration, Comités / Conseil Volontaires 49.000 en 2006/07 Financement Frais d'adhésions, donc, activité commerciale Investissements Plus de 1 milliard EUR depuis 2007 (plus de 177 millions EUR a year) Revenu Total 2007 / 397 millions EUR 2009 / 470 millions EUR Projets de 2009 / 110 millions EUR Conservation Tâches Promotion et protection de lieux majeures d'une certaine importance par leur propriété et leur gestion Publication Axé sur

‘National Trust Magazine’ l'Appartenance des Patrimoines principalement

1985. Allemange Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalens République Fédérale d'Allemagne Rejoins-nous et aide-nous – Pour l'amour de l'architecture ONG Plus de 180.000 (donateurs) Président de la République Conseil d'administration Conseil d'administration, Directeur Général, Comité Scientifique Environ 1400 en tout Lotterie; dotations, dons, activité commerciale environ 415 millions EUR 2008 / 17,3 millions EUR 2008 / 15,2 millions EUR Préservation des espèces en danger et financement des monuments culturels ainsi que promotion de l'idée de la protection des monuments ‘Monuments’ Le financement pour la Préservation

Tableau 1.

Comparaison de base entre le National Trust et la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments

En ce qui concerne l'analyse de gestion du patrimoine, le National Trust a pris l'entière responsabilité de la conservation, ainsi que de l'entretien et la gestion de ses propres propriétés (d'une grande diversité), reconnaissant en elles le potentiel économique et culturel 8

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

nécessaire à une autonomie et à l'implication des sympathisants. De l'autre côté, la Fondation allemande a développé des stratégies différentes, en fixant son attention surtout sur le patrimoine bâti et sa conservation. Le rôle actif dans la gestion du patrimoine est dans ce cas reporté aux propriétaires ou aux locataires des monuments. Si l'on se penche et que l'on compare l'aspect financier des deux organisations à l'aide de données officielles, les différences sont évidentes, le revenu total du National Trust pour l'année 2008 a été près de 12 fois supérieur à celui de la Fondation allemande pour la protection des monuments. De l'autre côté, même l'organisation britannique a investi près de 5 fois plus d'argent sur des projets de conservation comparé à l'organisation allemande en 2008, cependant, quand on observe cela proportionnellement à leur revenu annuel total, les résultats sont un peu différents de ceux attendus, le National Trust n'a dépensé que 23% de son revenu total pour les projets de conservation, tandis que la Fondation allemande 56,5%. Ces faits peuvent être expliqués par différentes activités et objectifs que les deux organisations non gouvernementales se sont fixé comme principaux objectifs. Bien que l'organisation allemande pour la protection des monuments soit principalement pour la conservation du patrimoine bâti, le National Trust a élargi son champs d'action sur plusieurs autres grands groupes d'activités, ce qui a créé d'autres dépenses. La diversité des activités et sources de revenu différentes entre les deux ONG analysées se sont reflétées sur leur structure financière. La comparaison entre une ONG de conservation du patrimoine allemande et britannique a montré l'ampleur du discours dans la gestion du patrimoine et le rôle des initiatives des populations à l'intérieur. La comparaison effectuée avec les bureaux gouvernementaux du patrimoine a prouvé l'importance des activités du secteur tertiaire, les deux organisations analysées ayant un rôle exceptionnel et une influence sur la politique de préservation du patrimoine. Le National Trust a mis au point l'une des plus vaste et influente organisation de conservation du patrimoine au Royaume-Uni, tandis que la Fondation Allemande pour la Protection des Monuments revêt un rôle important dans le maintien de la conservation dans le pays de ses activités. Toutefois, la portée des activités et des résultats que le National Trust atteint définit cette organisation parmi les plus importantes en la matière, ce qui présente le Trust comme la réponse appropriée à ces changements mondiaux, en matière de patrimoine et conservation de ce dernier. Ce qui rend la gamme et l'ampleur des activités du Trust possible et fructueux, est l'engagement d'un grand nombre de bénévoles et de sympathisants. Son point fort siège dans l'engagement commun de bénévoles, membres, employés, visiteurs, administrateurs et de bienfaiteurs. En ce qui concerne cette question, la Fondation Allemande des Monuments Historiques n'a pas inclus suffisamment de participation et de transparence dans sa politique, ce qui rend le face à face plus difficile quant aux transformations en cours. Néanmoins, les activités et les résultats de deux ONG ont prouvé l'importance de l'initiative de la population quant à la préservation du patrimoine au niveau national et mondial. Le patrimoine appartient au peuple et donc la force de faire face aux changements devraient être puisée dans les initiatives qui viennent du peuple-même. Décider de ce qui est historiquement important n'est plus de la compétence exclusive des experts, mais implique le jugement partagé de chacun ayant une participation ou un intérêt. En ce qui concerne l'influence de ces ONG sur le processus de l'urbanisation elle-même, ainsi que sur la prise de décision et de planification des processus, en général, elles peuvent être considérées aux premières loges en tant que gardiens des valeurs culturelles et territoriales héritées. Cependant, leur vision de l'urbanisation n'est pas en phase avec le point de vue réel de la façon dont les villes ou les campagnes devraient se développer, elles ont plutôt un rôle de protection quant aux valeurs existantes, en indiquant la bonne marche à suivre concernant l'avenir. 9

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

ABSTRACT The growth and development of public concern with the surviving relics of the past reaches back to early 19th century Britain, when several groups of enthusiasts showed rising interest for archaeological and historical studies. These grassroots initiatives grew since than, and were recognized and formalized in national legislations hundred of years later. The outstanding importance of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is in their independent, creative and dynamic qualities. They are calling on people for civil responsibility through information awakening, and play a large role in supporting communities to safeguard their intangible heritage. In order to get a closer look on the role of NGOs in determination of conservation policies in the United Kingdom and Federal Republic of Germany, two most important organisations are taken to be explored and compared. The National Trust is the largest membership organisation in the United Kingdom, active in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and one of the most signifficant charities by both income and assets. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the most outstanding citizens organisations active in heritage conservation is die Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz (the German Foundation for Monument Protection), inspired by the activities and success of the British National Trust. Regarding the statutory approach to heritage conservation issues, in the UK Government, Department for culture, media and sport (DCMS) is in charge for the historic environment, heritage and heritage preservation in England, through its executive nondepartmental Public Body, ‘English Heritage’. Conservation and historic preservation in Germany are within authority of the federal states, but the conservation of important national heritage sites is a matter of cultural policy of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media and the German National Committee for Monument Protection (Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz). The recent heritage protection system in the United Kingdom, established during the past 120 years, is regarded as not being efficient enough. Since the Heritage Protection Reform (HPR) and its implementation became English Heritage’s top priority in 2000, the way heritage is looked after and identified is significantly improved. The strategic vision of English Heritage between 2005 and 2010 emphasises the importance of engaging with the public and creating both new audiences and greater understanding to generate benefits mainly in terms of greater conservation of important sites and greater personal intrinsic benefit from them. Most of these standpoints and changes made are the same values the National Trust has recognised, initiated and earlier implemented in its policy. The political arrangement in Germany required divided responsibilities between federal and state governments. In this setting, the German National Committee for Monument Protection was established as a technical and political federal body, involved mostly in examination and adaptation of the existing laws and regulations. On the other hand, the German Foundation for Monument Protection deals mostly with the activities connected to the fund raising and promoting the values of heritage. In both of the cases there is a lack of transparency, with conservation exclusively a matter of experts, while the public participation in the process seems to be neglected and not enough supported. The achievements on the reformation of the actual system in Germany are rather modest so far, both on statutory or NGO level. 10

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

The comparison between the National trust and the German Foundation for Monument Protection has been made on several levels. There is a significant disproportion in the time period the two analysed non-governmental organisations were active in, and the circumstances under which both of the organisations were established and were gaining experience are also marked by significant varieties on cultural, social, economical and political levels. Based on their general approach to governance, the National Trust is commitment to openness, transparency and accountability, while the German Foundation set its governance principles on a more conservative way. Regarding program and activities, the National Trust focused on variety of heritage in its possession, as well as on its promotion and active participation of the people, while the German Foundation concentrated on the fund-raising, conservation and promotion of the national built heritage. Actions which the British organisation is undertaking seem to be more motivating for the people to apply for membership and support the activities of the organization. Heritage management analysis showed that the National Trust took full responsibility for conservation, maintenance and management of its own properties of great diversity, recognising its economical and cultural potentials for self-sustainability and involvement of the supporters. The German Foundation developed different strategy, setting its focus mostly on the built heritage and its conservation, with active role in heritage management shifted to the owners or renters of the monuments. From the financial point of view, total income of the National Trust for the year 2008 was nearly 12 times higher comparing to the German Foundation for Monument Protection, even it spent only 23% of its total income for the conservation projects, comparing to 56,5% invested by the German Foundation. These facts can be explained by different activities and aims the two non-governmental organisations set as its major goals. And the fact that the National Trust broadened its focuses on others major groups of activities as well. The comparison between one German and one British heritage preservation NGO illustrated the size of the discourse in heritage management and the role of the initiatives of people within. Comparison with the governmental heritage offices proved the significance of the third sector activities, both of the analysed organisations having outstanding role and influence on heritage preservation policy. Undoubtedly, the scope of activities and results that the National Trust achieved sets this organisation among the most important in the matter, which makes the Trust appropriate answer to ongoing range of changes on a global level, regarding heritage and its conservation. What makes the range and scale of the Trusts activities possible and fruitful is the engagement of vast numbers of volunteers and supporters. Nevertheless, the activities and results of two NGOs prove the importance of initiative of people regarding heritage preservation on national and global level. Deciding what is historically significant is no longer the preserve of the expert but involves the shared judgement of everyone with a stake or interest. Concerning the influence these NGOs are having on the process of urbanisation itself, as well as on the decision making and planning process in general, they can be regarded on the first place as guards of the cultural and spatial values inherited. However, their vision of urbanisation is not in radical discourse with the actual standpoint of how the cities or countryside should be developing; they rather have the role of safeguarding the existing values and indicating the right ways to be followed in future. _____

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

АПСТРАКТ Настанак и развој организованих иницијатива за очување наслеђа сеже у рани 19. век, када је група ентузијаста у Великој Британији показала растући интерес за археолошка и историјска истраживања. Ове иницијативе, потекле из народа, расле су и развијале се од тада, да би касније постале признате и формализованe у националном законодавству. Изузетан значај невладиних организација (НВО) огледа се у њиховој независној, креативној и динамичној природи. Ове организације позивају на грађанске одговорности и играју велику улогу у пружању подршке за очување нематеријалног наслеђа. Да би се подробније испитала улога невладиних организација у креирању политике заштите наслеђа у Великој Британији и Савезној Републици Немачкој, одабране су две најзначајније организације ради детаљнијег испитивања и упоређивања; „National Trust“ која делује у Енглеској, Велсу и Северној Ирској, и Немачка фондација за заштиту споменика културе (Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz), активна у Савезној Републици Немачкој, инспирисана активностима и успехом британске организације „National Trust“. Што се тиче законског оквира, у влади Велике Британије брига и заштита историјског и градитељског наслеђа је у надлежности Министарства за културу, медије и спорт (DCMS), које своје циљеве остварује посредством специјалнизоване организације „English Heritage“. Очување градитељског наслеђа у Немачкој је у надлежности савезних држава понаособ, али је брига о наслеђу од националног значаја у оквирима културне политике комесара савезне владе за културу и медије, као и Немачког националног комитета за заштиту споменика културе (Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz). Систем заштите баштине у Великој Британији, успостављен током последњих 120 година, данас се сматра недовољно ефикасним. Од када је реформа система заштите наслеђа и његове примене постала главни приоритет владине организације „English Heritage“ у 2000. години, начин на који се од тада спроводи брига и идентификација наслеђа је значајно унапређен. Стратешка визија oвe организације за период између 2005. и 2010. године наглашава значај ангажовања јавности и креирања новог система, који би даље унапредио спровођење квалитетније бриге о значајним локацијама и потпомогао остваривање знчајнијег прихода од њихове експолатације. Већину ових ставова и неопходних измена је петходно препознала, иницирала и у свом раду већ применила британска невладина организација „National Trust“. Политичко уређење у Немачкој је поделило одговорности између савезне и влада држава чланица федерације. У оваквом политичком уређењу, Национални комитет за заштиту споменика културе је успостављен као неопходан технички и политички савезни орган, који надгледа и прилагођава постојеће законе и прописе. Са друге стране, невладина Фондација за заштиту споменика културе је активна углавном на прикупљању новчаних средстава и промовисању вредности наслеђа. У оба случаја, међутим, евидентан је недостатак транспарентности у функционисању организација, где је само очување наслеђа потпало искључиво под надлежност стручњака, док је учешће грађана у овом процесу релативно занемарено и недовољно подржано. Иако је овај проблем препознат на оба нивоа, резултати спроведених реформи садашњег система у Немачкој су углавном у скромним размерама, у свим секторима. Поређење невладиних организација „National Trust“ и Немачке фондације за заштиту споменика културе је извршено на неколико нивоа. Установљена је значајна диспропорција у традицији и стеченом искуству две организације, док су околности под којима су организације засноване и функционисале такође обележене значајним разликама 12

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

на културном, социјалном, економском и политичком нивоу. На основу приступа руковођењу, може се закључити да је „National Trust“ више оријентисан ка вредностима попут отворености, транспарентности и одговорности, док је Немачка фондација своје принципе управљања дефинисала у знатно конзервативнијем маниру. У домену програма и активности, „National Trust“ је усредсређен на наслеђе у свом поседству, на његову промоцију и на активирање људи ради остваривања циљева, док се немачка фондација концентрисала на прикупљање неопходних финансијских средстава за спровођење конзервације, на очување и промоцију националне баштине. Акције које предузима британска организација имају више успеха у мотивисању људи за активно чланство и подршку активности које спроводи организација. Анализа управљања наслеђем је показала да је „National Trust“ преузела пуну одговорност за очување, одржавање и управљање сопственом имовином велике разноликости, препознајући њен економски и културни потенцијал за остварење циља самоодрживости, као и значај подршке јавности. Немачка фондација је развила другачију стратегију, са фокусом на градитељско наслеђе и његову заштиту, док је управљање наслеђем препуштено самим власницима или закупцима заштићених објеката. Са финансијског становишта, укупан приход који је „National Trust“ остварио током 2008. године је готово 12 пута већи у односу на приход немачке фондације, иако је на пројекте заштите наслеђа у пропорционалном односу издвојено знатно мање средстава у односу на немачку фондацију. Ове чињенице се могу објаснити различитим активностима и циљевима, као и чињеницом да је „National Trust“ проширила свој фокус на многобројне додатне активности. Поређењем изабране немачке и британске невладине организације за очување наслеђа, стављен је акценат на дискурс у управљању наслеђем и укључивањем јавности у своје иницијативе. Поређење са владиним организацијама је потврдило удео трећег сектора, јер обе анализиране организације имају завидну улогу и утицај на националну политику очувања наслеђа. Несумњиво, делатности и резултати које постиже британски „National Trust“ сврставају ову организацију међу најважније НВО у области заштите градитељског наслеђа. Инцијативе ове организације се могу сагледати као одговарајућа реакција на низ новонасталих глобалних изазова у погледу наслеђа, његове заштите и развоја уопште, које „National Trust“ остварује управо ангажовањем огромног броја волонтера и симпатизера. Активности и резултати обе анализиране НВО доказују немерљиви значај невладиних иницијатива у области заштите споменика културе, на националном и глобалном нивоу. Што се тиче улоге ових организација на процес урбанизације, односно на сам процес планирања и доношења одлука, НВО овог типа се могу сматрати чуварима наслеђених културних и просторних вредности. Њихова визија урбанизације није у директној супротности са актуелним становиштима урбаног и просторног развоја; оне не коче развој, већ имају улогу чувара постојећих вредности и указивањa на нове правце будућег развоја.

_____

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ____

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ____

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND 1.1. HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERVIEW 1.1.1. Focus on heritage and built heritage 1.1.2. Evolution and importance of heritage conservation 1.1.3. Role of NGOs in heritage conservation 1.2. GOVERNMENTAL APPROACH TO HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY 1.2.1. Governmental heritage conservation system in the United Kingdom 1.2.2. Governmental heritage conservation system in Germany ____

C H A P T E R II : HERITAGE CONSERVATION NGOs IN THE UK AND GERMANY 2.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ON HERITAGE CONSERVATION NGOs IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY 2.2. UK NGO PROFILE: ‘NATIONAL TRUST’ 2.2.1. Historical overview 2.2.2. Objectives and facts 2.2.3. Governance and financing 14

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

2.3. GERMAN NGO PROFILE: ‘DEUTSCHE STIFTUNG DENKMALSCHUTZ’ 2.3.1. Historical overview 2.3.2. Objectives and facts 2.3.3. Governance and financing ____

C H A P T E R III : COMPARISON 3.1. COMPARISON BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UK AND GERMANY 3.1.1. Basic comparison between the National Trust and the UK governmental heritage conservation policy 3.1.2. Basic comparison between the German Foundation for Monument Protection and German governmental heritage conservation policy 3.2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NATIONAL TRUST AND THE GERMAN FOUNDATION FOR MONUMENT PROTECTION 3.2.1. Comparison level 1: General and historic circumstances 3.2.2. Comparison level 2: Organisation structure and governance 3.2.3. Comparison level 3: Program and activities 3.2.4. Comparison level 4: Membership policy and participation 3.2.5. Comparison level 5: Heritage management 3.2.6. Comparison level 6: Financing and investments ____

C H A P T E R IV : OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH OUTLOOK ____

BIBLIOGRAPHY ____

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

FOREWORD During the regular internship within the study program, taken from February to May 2010 in the Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main (Frankfurt/Rhine-Main Conurbation Planning Association) in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, there was an opportunity to work on a research, initiated with the help of Dr. Helga Jäger and supported by the research advisor, Dr. –Ing Gabriela Bloem. The main inspiration for the research came from the activities conducted by the National Trust in the United Kingdom, with the aim of comparison and possible implementation of the research results within equivalent organisation in Germany. The research results served as a starting point for this master thesis, which was later developed and presented to the Town Planning Institute (Institut d'urbanisme de Grenoble) in Grenoble, France. The thesis aims to contribute to the investigations within the issues of the third sector and participation of people in heritage preservation, through establishing and assessing the relationship between the experiences of two non-governmental organisations with the similar aims but in different countries. Investigation of the NGOs role in national preservation policies is expected to provide possibilities of recognising and implementing effective models. Also, the study hopefully may act as a catalyst for further, more comprehensive research into all of the above mentioned issues, as a contribution to the heritage conservation development. The research was completed thanks to the participation and support of the following colleagues and friends; Dr. –Ing Gebriela Bloem, Planungsverband Ballungsraum, Frankfurt, Germany Dr. Charles Ambrosino, Institut d'urbanisme de Grenoble, Grenoble, France Dr. Helga Jäger, Hessisches Ministerium Landesentwicklung, Wiesbaden, Germany

für

Wirtschaft,

Verkehr

und

Dr. Lauren Andres, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham, United Kingdom Dr. Holger Rescher, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn, Germany Regina Giebel, Hessen Agentur, Wiesbaden, Germany Tijl Vereenooghe, Project Coordinator, Civil Society and Heritage 2010 - European conference on civil society organisations active in the field of heritage, Mecheln, Belgium Nicolas Di Rito, translations 16

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The growth and development of a public concern with the surviving relics of the past th has a relatively short but surprisingly dynamic history. It reaches back to early 19 century Britain, from the first interests for local archaeological and historical studies, to a major awareness raising for the significance of heritage preservation in the industrialisation era. Social or economical factors were not the only one who made an influence on the significance of monument preservation; also different philosophical standpoints on the values embodied by the heritage had an important role, especially during the middle decades of the th 20 century, in almost all European countries. Difficulties to find a right approach to the heritage and even to define it are still present from nowadays perspective, when maintenance and preservation of monuments is often seen as a burden for communities and states. In contrast, preservation of heritage can have a significant economic potential and therefore can serve as an important catalyst for urban development, if a proper strategy is recognized and implemented. The common policy for dealing with these issues is usually set on a national level, established within standard statutory, bureaucratic framework. However, universal approach to the issues of heritage and heritage preservation simply doesn’t exist and correct solutions can not be found with unilateral approach; that is one of the reasons why preservation policies shouldn’t be just a matter of national governments. New ideas, creativity, energy, strength for new ventures, even solution for some problems can often be found in the grassroots movements, where after all the first ideas for preserving the heritage were conceived. The non-governmental organisations have an outstanding role within this matter - therefore a necessity emerged for the research about the significance and share of these organisations in evolution of the national conservation policies. The general research questions of the thesis are within the focus of the selected case studies comparison, involving two outstanding non-governmental organisations – the National Trust in the United Kingdom and Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz (the German Foundation for Monument Protection) in Germany. The research should provide answers to various questions, regarding the efficiency of governmental involvement in productive heritage management and the role of grassroots movements in this process. The results of the two NGOs comparison should also offer explanations regarding better and more efficient approach to the heritage preservation and activities that have more positive results. Out of the comparison results, a role model for possible implementation could be established, which should address current situation and conditions regarding contemporary view on heritage preservation. The main focus of the research (problematique) is determination of significance and influence of the NGOs in the determination of national preservation policies, as well as the ways the results are achieved. The methodology implemented involves case studies analysis, by investigating and comparing various facts and layers of activities, through the use of available data, fieldwork, 17

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

and empirical observations in order to assess the scope of its effects to heritage policy determination. The research does not intend to provide definitive answers to specific questions, but rather seeks to point out on the significance of non-governmental initiatives in this matter. The case of the National Trust is used as an example of the advanced nongovernmental organisation, with long tradition and experience in the United Kingdom as well as with significant results in this field, while the German Foundation for Monument Protection is younger and less comprehensive organisation, active in Germany - the country where the research took place. The overall research methodology is based on three major research phases. Research phase 1 involves activities in preliminary research, which include search for adequate bibliography, internet research and preliminary consultations with research tutor and supervisor. Research phase 2 provides gathering of the secondary data through visits to some relevant institutions and conducting interviews with its key people, and research phase 3 includes processing of the data gathered during the previous phases. Comparative and reflective analysis is expected to draw the role and influence of the NGOs in heritage conservation policies and to provide answers about the possibilities of implementing the more advanced model. The research methodology reflected on the structure of the thesis itself. The first part of the thesis provides review on different levels of conservation policies in both of the countries. The section with comparison cases follows, with the focus on two selected nongovernmental organisations, as a result of the case studies analysis and fieldwork. The last part, reflective analysis and overall conclusions, should emphasise on the main questions of the thesis.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

C H A P T E R

BACKGROUND

1.1.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERVIEW 1.1.1.

Focus on heritage and built heritage

To define ‘heritage’ can be a rather complex task, which requires multidisciplinary approach. One of the definitions of 'cultural heritage' and its conservation is provided by UNESCO, in its Draft Medium Term Plan 1990-1995:

The cultural heritage may be defined as the entire corpus of material signs - either artistic or symbolic - handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of humankind. As a constituent part of the affirmation and enrichment of cultural identities, as a legacy belonging to all humankind, the cultural heritage gives each particular place its recognizable features and is the storehouse of human experience. The preservation and the presentation of the cultural heritage are therefore a corner-stone of any cultural policy.1 Therefore, the general approach towards defining the heritage, as an essentially collective and public notion, involves values inherited from the past generations, on which society at present is set upon and benefits of them. Though heritage is certainly valued by individuals, its main role is to sustain a sphere of public interest and public good. The society is often changing and contributing to the existing heritage; at the same time creating new values, transferring them to further generations. Heritage in general is characterized both by ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ components, which refers to its physical characteristics and various layers of cultural values in it. These two aspects of heritage are interlinked and inseparable, and therefore they need to be treated equally when considering proper heritage preservation. Which are those values to be recognized and marked as ‘heritage’ is finally a question of temporal, cultural and civilizational factors. In this manner, UNESCO established a set of recommendations, concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas, adopted in Nairobi, 26 November 1976 (§ 1-6):

- 'Historic and architectural (including vernacular) areas' shall be taken to mean any groups of buildings, structures and open spaces including archaeological and palaeontological 1

Draft Medium Term Plan (1990-1995), UNESCO, 25 C/4, 1989, p.57.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

sites, constituting human settlements in an urban or rural environment, the cohesion and value of which, from the archaeological, architectural, prehistoric, historic, aesthetic or socio-cultural point of view are recognized. Among these 'areas', which are very varied in nature, it is possible to distinguish the following in particular: prehistoric sites, historic towns, old urban quarters, villages and hamlets as well as homogeneous monumental groups, it being understood that the latter should as a rule be carefully preserved unchanged. - The 'environment' shall be taken to mean the natural or man-made setting which influences the static or dynamic way these areas are perceived or which is directly linked to them in space or by social, economic or cultural ties. - 'Safeguarding' shall be taken to mean the identification, protection, conservation, restoration, renovation, maintenance and revitalization of historic or traditional areas and their environment.2 There is also no unique definition of ‘built heritage’, even this term is considered to be relatively new and less generally-established than ‘architectural heritage’. However, built heritage can roughly be defined as irreplaceable cultural asset, finite and non-renewable source created by the past generations. It consists of an individual or group of buildings, structures, monuments or remains, which are associated with architectural, cultural, spiritual, social or historical developments. Even the focus of this paper is primarily on built heritage, the architectural achievements are not the only values inherited from the past, as heritage involves the range of different natural and cultural values, as well as rather specific ones, such as ‘food heritage’ or the tradition itself.

Image 1. Use and non-use values of heritage3 2

J. Jokilehto: Definition of Cultural Heritage, ICCROM, 2005, pp. 25-26.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Regarding the values of built heritage, there are number of different, sometimes conflicting layers. The variety of values ascribed to any particular heritage are of economic value, aesthetic value, cultural value, political value, educational value, and is matched by the variety of stakeholders participating in the heritage conservation process. Balancing these values is one of the most difficult challenges in making conservation decisions that satisfy the needs of many stakeholders. Value typology considers both the use and non-use values as shown in the image 1 (page 20). Here, the values are separated into those regarding individuals who use these assets (intrinsic and instrumental value) and into those not directly used by individuals (bequest value and existence/option value). The direct use benefits of heritage are secured from those using the assets, such as tourists, while the indirect or nonuse benefit addresses the community at large.4 Although there seem to be a general consensus globally supporting the protection of built cultural heritage, policies and practices of conservation differ substantially from place to place. 1.1.2.

Evolution and importance of heritage conservation

Heritage preservation can be recognised as a rather recent activity, with its roots in the th 19 century, when the small groups of British enthusiasts showed rising interest for archaeological and historical studies, and for interpretations of historical artefacts. Since those early days, the approach to preservation went through some serious transformations.5 th The major changes occurred in the middle decades of the 20 century in almost all European cities, which concerned widening preserved areas and promoting conservation rather than preservation, with all the implications of this shift in the management of land and building uses. The change from an object perspective to an area perspective put the interest for preserving a single monument in a wider physical context, sometimes reaching up to extensive conservation areas and even whole villages and towns. This approach helped recognizing external impact of each individual property on surrounding buildings and their indirect impact to the value of adjacent properties; the surroundings, neighborhood, district or city which compounded the real value of each building area. The need for new methods in preservation planning outside the traditional scientific field came into the focus more recently, especially after the role of culture and heritage became increasingly important in economic policy. Based on the importance of built heritage, it was necessary to manage and preserve these valuable urban resources on planned and sustainable way. This new approach in preservation planning should allow renewal of the built environment form an economic and social perspective, without deteriorating cultural values. Therefore, the task of contemporary built heritage preservation planning can be considered as heterogeneous. According to the most recent shift to the market orientation, history provides the resources not only for ‘cultural’ or ‘heritage tourism’, but it serves as an amenity resource

The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, A Literature Review for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Prince Waterhouse Coopers, June 2007, p. 13. 4 The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, A Literature Review for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Prince Waterhouse Coopers, June 2007, pp. 5-13. 5 Gregory John Ashworth, Peter J. Larkham: Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, Routhledge, London, 1994, p. 3.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

base for a wide range of high-order economic activities.6 Culture and cultural values such as built urban heritage became very important factors for competing European cities, in order to attract investing companies or cultural tourism. In nowadays so-called post-industrial society, the importance of cultural infrastructure, but also of physical and social - as means of production - is progressively getting on its importance. The quality of these different infrastructure systems seems to be of strategic significance for the overall economic development. As some cities are going through the expansive economy process, in those cases the new task of planning is to prevent negative impacts on the urban built heritage, caused by new demands for construction and expansion. In the cases when the cities are characterized by deindustrialization and restructuring of the public sector, the task is to find new uses for buildings with low potential economic value.7 Contemporary view on built heritage preservation is an important element in cultural and development planning, and it plays significant role both in consumption or production oriented development strategies. In terms of consumption strategies, built heritage is now considered to create attraction to the city. Production oriented strategies are taking heritage as important element for creating a milieu of creativity and innovation. Deteriorated built heritage can also contribute to development, often being suitable for cultural activities and 8 cultural production. The last shift with equal significance in the system of heritage preservation is the organizational shift, characterized by the reduction of support from public sector and increasingly important role which private initiatives are playing. In recent years the recognition and definition of historic areas has changed. Most of the world’s major cities have been facing the pressure of new development and redevelopment due to their rapid socio-economic changes during the last few decades. This rapid increase in urban regeneration has created problems for the heritage in these cities. Every new development and redevelopment is going to tear down the old fabric and socioeconomic character of towns and cities. The urban growth planned to improve urban life, affected the social, cultural and environmental fabric. After the evolution of term “sustainability”, urban planners, developers and policy makers have started thinking to create a balance between development and heritage conservation in the coming times. On the other hand, rapid increase in the socio-economic conditions has also changed the people’s aspirations and expectations of their common future. The local community and people have also shown their concerns about heritage conservation and its loss with time. 1.1.3.

Role of NGOs in heritage conservation

First initiatives for heritage preservation came from grassroots movements, formed by influential and knowledgeable amateurs and powerful individuals, who were fascinated by the th built monuments in Great Britain. These initiatives grew from the second half of the 19 century, and were recognized and formalized in national legislations hundred of years later. Nowadays, the protection of the cultural heritage in Europe is still mostly a matter of national government policy and control, often with the help provided by specialized public 6

Gregory John Ashworth, Peter J. Larkham: Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, Routhledge, London, 1994, p. 14. 7 Nystrom, Louise: City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability; The Swedish Urban Environment Council, 1999, p. 431. 8 Nystrom, Louise: City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability; The Swedish Urban Environment Council, 1999.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

agencies, such as English Heritage in the United Kingdom, or German National Committee for Monument Protection in Germany. The importance of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is in their freedom to have different approach from that of other institutions which deal with the same issues, more specifically because of their independent, creative and dynamic qualities. The important role for heritage associations is not at all undeserved, for it is known how these associations, seen from an active citizens’ point of view, are related to important socializing and community-building effects and other democratic values. From their own sources and beyond, those organizations call on people for civil responsibility through information awakening and play a large role in supporting communities to safeguard their intangible heritage. In some cases, these organisations can also focus on some important issues, which are not covered only by the governmental policy. The results achieved by the NGOs in heritage preservations made these organisations partners of great importance. In the German Bundesland of Thüringia, considerations were given to the idea of allowing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) a statutory right to participate, but the idea was not approved when the protection law was passed in 1992. The other example is from England, where six national amenity organizations already have a statutory right to be consulted on applications proposing the demolition of listed buildings. Besides this issue, NGOs can also serve in providing technical advices, such as SPUB in the United Kingdom, the Walloon Heritage institute and the Irish Georgian Society, or may also have a significant role to play in promotion and in acting as an independent and often influential lobby on heritage matters, such as Save Britain’s Heritage and the Civic Trust (UK), Club for Old Prague and Prague Society (Czech Republic) or Italia Nostra (Italy).

Image 2. ‘Europa Nostra’ logo9

The importance of voluntary and NGO organizations in promoting, lobbying and providing technical and financial support is well recognized in some countries.10 Some of the NGOs are also very well connected between themselves and are achieving significant results by working in close collaboration. As an outstanding example of international NGO in heritage conservation is the pan-European Federation for Cultural Heritage Europa Nostra (image 2). This organisation represents European civil society active in the field of heritage towards international bodies concerned, in particular the European Union Institutions, the Council of Europe and UNESCO. They represent millions of citizens through supporting or working for 9 10

Source: http://www.europanostra.org/ Robert Pickard: Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation; Spon Press, New York, 2001, p. 337-338.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

heritage as volunteers and professionals. During the 45 years of its existence, Europa Nostra has built a network of more than 400 member and associate organisations active in 45 countries across Europe, with the German Foundation for Monument Protection as its 11 representative in Germany. The rising importance of non-governmental organizations is reflected not only in heritage preservation, but in other aspects of civil societies as well. These organizations are becoming essential partners for governments, aiming to promote understanding between citizens and the state. The reason for such a success can be justified not only by the fact that non-governmental organisations acknowledge the importance of volunteers and voluntary action, but also in their attempts to increase “social capital” by providing people with opportunities to build trust in each other and the capacity to work together toward their common goals.

1.2.

GOVERNMENTAL APPROACH TO HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY 1.2.1. Governmental heritage conservation system in the United Kingdom

Culture, together with the issues of heritage preservation, are divided matters in the UK Government, with responsibility resting on corresponding departments in the Scottish Government in Scotland, the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive in Northern Ireland. As there is no separate English government, Department for culture, media and sport (DCMS) of the United Kingdom Government is responsible for the historic environment, heritage and heritage preservation in England. The DCMS is involved into the listing of historic buildings and scheduling of ancient monuments, the export licensing of cultural goods, the management of the Government Art Collection and for the Royal Parks Agency.12 The heritage here is defined as a set of properties and artefacts of cultural importance handed down from the past, while heritage assets are considered to be components of the historic environment buildings, and are classified as monuments, sites or landscapes that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest, whether designated or not. Some of the outstanding projects initiatives of the DCMS are: - English Heritage visits, with the aim to support education within the historic environment as a resource; - Heritage Open Days, established in 1994, as England's contribution to European Heritage Days, which provides the visits to the sites that are usually closed to the public or normally charged for admission; - UK World Heritage Sites, as a part of UNESCO initiative in recognizing heritage of “outstanding universal value”. The UK currently has 26 World Heritage Sites, of which 16 are in England, 4 in Scotland, 2 in Wales, 1 in Northern Ireland and 3 in overseas territories (image 7, page 29); - The Heritage Protection Review, an ongoing programme launched in July 2003, in order to reform and improve the system of heritage protection, suggesting changes to 11 12

http://www.europanostra.org/ http://www.culture.gov.uk

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

the heritage protection system. This initiative included improvements in list entries for listed buildings, consultation with owners and local planning authorities on listing applications, new information packs for owners of newly listed buildings, and a formal process for reviewing listing decisions. In the heritage preservation system of the United Kingdom, there are several important organizations which are dealing with some specific issues and are functioning as advisors to governments regarding national heritage. English Heritage (the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) is an executive non-departmental Public Body of the United Kingdom Government, which manages the historic built environment of England and advises DCMS on all matters concerning the conservation of national heritage. Powers and responsibilities of the institution are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983) and it reports to the Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. English Heritage is funded in part by the Government and in part from revenue earned from its historic properties and other services. Although sponsored by DCMS, English Heritage works with a range of Government Departments to help realise the potential of the historic environment. Its work includes acting as the administrator of heritage sites, providing grants for the conservation of historic buildings, monuments and landscapes, broadening public access to the heritage and maintaining registers of England's most significant historic buildings, monuments and landscapes. Members of the public are encouraged to join English Heritage, and in 2007/08 there were 665.000 members. Membership confers benefits such as free admission to properties of the organization, but members are not involved into running of the organisation, which is in contrast with the policy common for similar organisations, such as the National Trust.

Image 3. Political map of the United Kingdom13

source: http://www.sheffcol.ac.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

‘The National Heritage Memorial Fund’ and ‘the Heritage Lottery Fund’ are organisations specialized in providing financial means to aid heritage protection and conservation on the national level. The National Heritage Memorial Fund (HMF), grant funded by Government, supports projects which will preserve or enhance land, buildings, collections and objects of outstanding importance to the national heritage of the UK which are in danger of being sold abroad, developed, damaged or lost. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) gives financial help to projects preserving both the natural and cultural heritage. Since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded £3.3 billion in 18,000 awards. Similar to English Heritage in England, governments of Scotland and Wales also established their own executive agencies responsible for historic monuments in this countries; Historic Scotland is active in Scotland while Cadw operates in Wales. Unlike the equivalent bodies in England, Scotland and Wales, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is a Northern Ireland executive conservation agency, which aims to promote and conserve both the natural environment and the built environment.

Image 4. Some of the major governmental heritage preservation organisations in the UK (First line: DCMS, English Heritage, NHMF, Heritage Lottery Fund. Second line: Historic Scotland, CADW, NIEA)

1.2.2. Governmental heritage conservation system in Germany Conservation and historic preservation in Germany are within authority of the federal states (image 5, page 27), but the conservation of important national heritage sites is a matter of cultural policy of the federal government. The organization and structure of the authorities in preservation and protection of 14 monuments are different in various provinces, but defined by the federal conservation laws. The conservation laws of the countries are under the authority of the special office in charge for monuments (Landesdenkmalamt), responsible for all technical issues of conservation and subordinated only to the supreme conservation authority. The functions of this specialized 14

http://www.dnk.de

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

authority are, in particular, to advise the ‘lower’ heritage authorities (Die Unteren Denkmalbehörden - municipalities, districts, autonomous cities) and monument owners in all aspects of cultural heritage protection and conservation. As public agencies, they represent the interests of the preservation in public construction projects and planning. In some countries they are also responsible for the management of listed directories. The ‘upper’ heritage authorities (Die Oberen Denkmalbehörden - district governments) are usually legible for the professional supervision and monuments maintenance, and to some extent for the establishment and continuation of the landmark directories. The ‘lower’ heritage authorities (counties, municipalities) carry out conservation and historic preservation in general.

Image 5. 15 Political map of the Federal Republic of Germany

On the federal level, the actual government of the Federal Republic of Germany is not providing a separate Ministry which deals with the issues of the national culture, heritage and 16 preservation, as it is the case with the UK Government. The minister of State in charge for the federal conservation policy since 1998 is the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, who has particular duties with the role to advise and support the Chancellor, as part of the policymaking level. Besides its role as a supreme conservation authority in the country, it also promotes various preservation programs and supports cultural institutions of national importance. The Federal Government commits substantial resources for the conservation of more than a million existing monuments in Germany, and a particular concern is to provide fast help for endangered monuments all over the country. German National Committee for Monument Protection (Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz), founded in 1973, is a governmental organization in charge of keeping the connection to the conservation policies of Europe and managing federal, state and local communities and organizations involved in conservation. Federal, state, municipalities, churches, professional organizations, associations and private citizens groups are working together in the German National Committee for conservation, as a national interface for the 15 16

source: www.dialog-webdesign.de/ http://www.bundesregierung.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

interests of preservation, the monument care and the geological and archaeological monuments. The most important tasks of the Committee are awakening public awareness about heritage and encouraging owners, promotion of the conservation idea in urban planning, preservation and preservation problems determination, examination and adaptation of the existing laws and regulations.

Image Image 6. Most important heritage preservation governmental bodies in Germany (BKM, German National Committee for Monument Protection and Initiative Architektur und Baukultur)

The Architecture and Building Culture Initiative (Initiative Architektur und Baukultur) was launched in autumn 2000 in cooperation with Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs, with the federal foundation in architecture launched six years after. It is a loose coalition of various chambers, associations and cultural institutions in Germany, with the purpose to produce planning and construction of a quality, sustainability and efficiency in Germany, both nationally and internationally. It also aims to raise awareness of good design and building culture and the value of the built environment for builders and for the population. The Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media contributes to the preservation program "National restore valuable cultural monuments" as well as to historic preservation, with special help to preserve nationally significant historic monuments, and thus building culture, heritage and identity of towns and cities. Federal conservation policy in Germany had faced numerous difficulties after the unification of Western and Eastern Germany, mostly because built heritage in the eastern federal states was in a rather critical state. Today, federal policy is mainly focused on the programmes aiming preservation of individual historical monuments of outstanding national significance, throughout the entire state. Program "Conservation of cultural monuments of national importance" was launched to support the conservation of monuments, archaeological sites and historic parks and gardens with an outstanding importance for the German cultural landscape. During the period between 1950. and 2008, this program helped preservation of 549 cultural monuments, providing 288 million euros. In 2009, the program funding was around 15 million euros, with a total of 11 million euros for 104 cultural monuments in the old 17 and approximately 4 million euros to the new federal states. Among the other notable programs for historical monuments preservation is "Nationally Valuable Cultural Monumentsâ&#x20AC;?. Within this programme, the Federal Government supported a total of 86 properties in 2008, with around 12 million Euros. Nevertheless, most extensive governmental contribution to the 17

http://www.bundesregierung.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

preservation of the cultural heritage so far was approved by the German Parliament in autumn 2007, when 400 million Euro was approved for the programme for nationally significant cultural investments. This sum was co-financed by the German federal states. The Federal Republic of Germany joined UNESCO on the 11th July 1951. There are 33 monuments in Germany, which are listed on the World Heritage List (image 7).

Image 7. Map of World Heritage Sites in the UK (28) and Germany (33)18

Sources: http://www.culture.gov.uk/ukwhportal/ and http://www.unesco-welterbe.de

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

C H A P T E R

HERITAGE CONSERVATION NGOs IN THE UK AND GERMANY

2.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ON HERITAGE CONSERVATION NGOs IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY Both in the United Kingdom and in Germany, there are two main kinds of nongovernmental organisations, active in the issues of heritage and heritage preservation. The first group of NGOs are foundations which are established with wider scope of interest, dealing with the issues of heritage conservation on a general level. Second group consists of the organisations which are more focused on certain regions or types of the monuments they are striving for. In the United Kingdom, out of the variety of non-governmental organisations involved in the issues of heritage and heritage conservation, the most outstanding are considered to be the National Trust and the National Trust of Scotland. The National Trust is the largest membership organisation in the United Kingdom, active in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and one of the most signifficant charities by both income and assets. It is also one of the largest landowners in the country. The National Trust for Scotland is based on the simmilar principles and is in charge for the protection and promotion of Scotland's natural and cultural heritage. It is an independent charity, aiming to achieve its goals through direct heritage ownership and by engaging all sectors of society. Today it is the largest conservation charity in Scotland, with over 310.000 members. The network of NGOs in the matter of heritage conservation in the United Kingdom is also supported by some ‘specialized’ charities. Examples for this kind of organisations are the following: Birmingham Conservation Trust - which saves and restores historic buildings in the city of Birmingham, The Churches Conservation Trust - which looks after churches of architectural significance which are no longer used for regular worship, Historic Royal Palaces - charity which manages Britain's unoccupied royal palaces, and others. In the Federal Republic of Germany, one of the largest citizens organisations active in preservation of monuments is die Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz (the German Foundation for Monument Protection), inspired by the activities and success of British National Trust and American National Trust for Historic Preservation. The initiatives of ‘specialized’ organisations are also notable, such as die Interessengemeinschaft Bauernhaus e.V. (IGB; The Community of Interest for Farmhouses), which is the only nationwide organization working in Germany for 19 the preservation of historic architectural heritage in the countryside and in small towns. The second example is Deutsche Gesellschaft für Mühlenkunde und Mühlenerhaltung (German 19

Founded in 1973, the organisation today includes more than 6000 members. http://www.igbauernhaus.de

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Society for Mills and Mills Conservation), active in the proper conservation and utilization of historic mills. In order to get a closer look on the role of NGOs in determination of conservation policies in the United Kingdom and Federal Republic of Germany, two most important organisations are taken as a model to be explored in more detail and compared to each other. Those are: the National Trust from England and the German Foundation for Monument Protection from the Federal Republic of Germany.

2.2.

UK NGO PROFILE: ‘NATIONAL TRUST’

‘The National Trust shall be established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as is practicable) of their natural aspect, features and animal and plant life.’ Section 4.1 National Trust Act, 1907

2.2.1. Historical overview ‘The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty’ usually known as th the ‘National Trust’ was founded as a charitable organisation on 12 January 1895, as a result of a concern about the rising impact of uncontrolled development and industrialisation. It was founded by three Victorian philanthropists, Miss Octavia Hill, Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley (image 8), with the main idea to form an organisation, which will act as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings.

Image 8. Founders of The National Trust; C. H. Rawnsley, O. Hill and R. Hunter20

‘The National Trust for Scotland’ was established in 1931, with similar statutory powers to the National Trust, but with an entirely independent constitution. ‘The National Land Fund’ 20

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

was created in 1946, and two years after the ‘Gardens Scheme’ was launched, with the cooperation with the ‘Royal Horticultural Society’. Under the newly appointed Director of Public Relations in 1970, E. Fawcett, the Trust began to sell various items at its properties, leading to the formation of the ‘National Trust Enterprises’. The property that led to the idea of creating the National Trust was a garden in Deptford, east London, called Sayes Court, which attracted the attention of the Trusts founders because of the lack of organisations with the necessary legal powers for holding the property for permanent preservation. The first building purchased by the Trust was Alfriston Clergy House in Sussex (image 9), bought for £10 in 1896, and the first village to be protected 21 was West Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, in 1934. During the following years, the National Trust was the beneficiary of donations of both property and money from various individuals and organizations.

Image 9. Alfriston Clergy House in Sussex22

For the first 50 years, the Trust owned 112,000 acres of land, 93 historic buildings and had 7,850 members. Membership of the Trust stood at 226,200 in its 75th anniversary year. By 1975 it had 500,000 members; and by 1981 a membership of over 1 million, which was doubled in 1990. The point of 3,5 million members was reached in 2007. The National Trust has since grown into Europe’s biggest conservation organisation. 2.2.2. Objectives and facts The National Trust is incorporated non-governmental organization, with powers conferred on it through Parliament, by the National Trust Acts 1907 to 1971 and under the Charities (National Trust) Order 2005. The Trust deals mostly with the heritage it owns. This property can not be sold or developed against the Trust’s wishes without the express consent of Parliament. The official motto of the National Trust is ‘for ever, for everyone’. The organization aims to deliver public benefit through promoting and protecting places of certain significance and importance through ownership and management. It works to preserve and protect the coastline, countryside and buildings of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in a range of ways; mostly through practical caring and conservation, through educating and informing, and also through encouraging people to enjoy their national heritage. The Trust is also 21 22

There are around 40 protected villages at present. Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

contributing to education and debates about the importance of the environment and of preserving heritage for the future generations, about the future of the economy, the development of people’s skills and sense of community and the quality of the local 23 environment in both town and country.

Image 10. The National Trust visual identity24

In ownership of the Trust are historic buildings dating from the Middle Ages to modern times, ancient monuments, gardens, landscape parks, coastline, woodland, mountain and farmland throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland (image 11, page 34). The Trust involved in conservation work through advising in Eastern Europe, India and in the Far East. Officially, the Trust owns the following resources: - 1,141 kilometres (709 miles) of coastline in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - 254,000 hectares (627,000 acres) of land of natural beauty (countryside, moorland, beaches and coastline); - Various historic properties (5.150 pre-historic sites, 400 factories and mines, 215 houses and gardens, 206 mills, 149 museums, 76 nature reserves, 57 villages, 51 dovecotes, 43 pubs and inns, 40 castles, 25 medieval barns, 12 lighthouses, 6 World Heritage Sites and 2 gold mines). Most of these properties are held in perpetuity and so their future protection is secured by the Trust. The vast majority are open to visitors. The National Trust defines conservation as careful management of change and its vision of conservation is not as a static but as a creative activity.25 Conservation is about revealing and sharing the significance of places and ensuring that their special qualities are protected, enhanced, enjoyed and understood by present and future generations. The key aims of the conservation work for the Trust are: sharing the knowledge with society at large, presenting values of its heritage properties, celebrating the uniqueness of each property, enhancing understanding and learning by providing access, giving enjoyment by offering space for pleasure, discovery and inspiration and physical protection, through expertise and continuity.

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk 25 History and Place – Informing the Future, The National Trust, 2004. 24

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 11. The National Trust properties search, provided by the ‘Google Maps’

The National Trust is guided by six main conservation principles;26 - Principle 1: Significance. This principle is important in order to define the reason for acquisition and what it is that should be preserved. - Principle 2: Integration. Conservation is a creative process of negotiation to agree shared goals and objectives, which provides solutions to perceived conflicts of interest, such as finding new uses for redundant historic buildings without adversely affecting their significance. - Principle 3: Change. The Trust sets the task for conservation to defend heritage against adverse changes, such as inappropriate development and economic policies that affect the viability of current management practices or reduce resources for conservation. Conservation activities themselves can initiate desirable change, such as improvements of the physical state and interpretation of heritage properties. - Principle 4: Access and engagement. Natural and cultural heritage conservation should aim sustainable access and engagement for the benefit of society, gaining the support of the people by promoting understanding, enjoyment and participation in the work of the Trust. - Principle 5: Skills and partnership. The conservation of the heritage owned by the Trust requires a balance of traditional and innovative methods and craft and conservation skills to be developed and maintained. - Principle 6: Accountability. The Trust set transparency and accountability as of a great importance to share the knowledge in order to enable the best conservation decisions to be taken. 27 The strategy of the organization to 2010 and beyond sets out four priorities for achieving the main defined purposes (image 12, page 35): - Engaging supporters; - Improving conservation and environmental performance; - Investing in members of the organization; - Financing future of the organization. 26 27

Conservation Principles; Central Conservation Directorate, The National Trust. Our Future-Join In, Our Strategy to 2010 and Beyond, The National Trust, 2007.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

UNDERSTAND SUPPORTERS DEEPEN RELATIONSHIPS WITH SUPPORTERS

IMPROVING CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

ENGAGING SUPPORTERS

DEVELOPE THE TRUSTS APPEARANCE

LOOKING AFTER SPECIAL PLACES,

‚FOR EVER, FOR EVERYONE’ ACHIEVE 20% NET GAIN

FINANCING THE TRUSTS FUTURE

TRACK CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT

STRENGHTEN SUPPORT & RESPECT OPERATIONAL LINE INVESTING IN THE PEOPLE

TRIPPLE BOTTOM LINE APPROACH

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT & REWARD

Image 12. The National Trust strategy, with four priorities28

2.2.3. Governance and financing The National Trust’s approach to governance is based upon commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. The Trust is achieving those principles through the appointment, selection or election of high-calibre volunteers, capable of overseeing the governance arrangements of the Trust, ensuring that it remains focused on achieving its mission efficiently and effectively.29

Image 13. ‘Heelis’ Building, the National Trust Headquarters in Swindon, Wilthshire30

Simon Murray: The National Trust’s new approach to Heritage Care through Active Citizenship, Civil Society and Heritage 2009 - European conference on civil society organisations active in the field of heritage, Mecheln, Belgium. 29 Source: The National Trust Governance Handbook, 3rd edition - 2009, page ii. 30 Sources: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk and http://www.building.co.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

The National Trust embarked a major structural review in 2000, to enable it to work more effectively with other conservation bodies and to improve its internal processes when the number of regions was reduced from 15 to 11. The Trust’s Head Office, which had spawned into four separate buildings, was relocated in 2005 to a new central office in Swindon, Wilthshire (Image 13, page 35). The new headquarters building was constructed as an ‘environmentally friendly’ building, located on a brown-field site. It is recognized as one of the greenest office buildings in the UK, having carbon emissions 65% lower than similar 31 developments. The president of the National Trust is closely involved with the work of the charity. President in succession to HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is Prince Charles, who was Patron of the Trust's Centenary in 1995.

Image 14. 32 Fiona Reynolds, Director General of the National Trust

The governance structure (image 15, page 37) is designed to establish a relationship between the trusteeship (a Board of Trustees) and representation of the wider interests of the nation (the Council). The governance structure consists of: - Board of Trustees and the Council, - Country and Regional Committees, - Advisory Panels, - Committees of the Board of Trustees, - Committees of the Council. The Trust is lead by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, the Board of Trustees, and by the Council with the Senior Member of the Council. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman act as the figureheads of the National Trust, providing leadership of the Trust, maintaining links with key contacts/partners and representing the Trust at functions, meetings and in the media. The Board of Trustees has responsibility for the running of the Trust, throughout general control and management of the administration of a charity. The majority of the Board of Trustees is made by the Council members. The Council is seen as ‘the guardian of the 31

This project has won 12 prestigious awards, including RIBA Award for Sustainability (2006), The Civic Trust’s Sustainability Award (2007) and Building Performance Sustainability Award (2008). (Source: www.aad.co.uk) 32 Source: http://www.uwe.ac.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

spirit of the Trust and of its long-term objectives’,33 with its main responsibilities in ensuring accountability, shaping policy development and inspiring support. The Council is made up of 52 members: 26 elected by the members of the National Trust and 26 appointed by organisations whose interests coincide with those of the National Trust. The Board of Trustees has three committees, which assist it with particular aspects of its responsibilities: - The Audit Committee reviews the Trust’s financial and risk controls, - The Remuneration Committee in charge of the remuneration and the Trust’s management succession plan and - The Appointments Committee, makes recommendations to the Board on the appointment of committees chairmen. Members of Country and Regional Committees provide advice and support to staff in the English, Wales and Northern Ireland regions and to the Board of Trustees, and are also acting as ambassadors for the Trust. The role of the Advisory Panels is to provide independent advice to the staff of the Trust and to the Board of Trustees. They complement the skills of staff on specific professional issues, act as advocates for the Trust, assist with policy development and advise on major acquisitions and projects of significance to their expertise. There are also seven expert panels; for archaeology, architecture, arts, gardens and parks, land use, learning and nature conservation, whose role is to advise staff, and through the staff advise the Board of Trustees.

Image 15. 34 Governance Structure of the National Trust

The financing of the National Trust depends on the support of its’ 3,6 million members, 14,8 million visitors and 55.000 volunteers, as well as benefactors, tenants and other partners, through membership fees, donations and legacies, as well as from revenue raised from its commercial operations such as restaurants, shops and holiday cottages. The National Trust is 33 34

Source: The National Trust Governance Handbook, 3rd edition - 2009, page V. Source: The National Trust Governance Handbook, 3rd edition - 2009, page 1.15.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

independent of Government and therefore receive no direct state grant or subsidy for its’ general work. The organization works with over 40,000 companies, including 2,000 specialist conservation businesses. Yearly investments of the Trust are over 180 million EUR (£160 million) in the nation’s environmental infrastructure. th For the year ended 28 February 2009, the Trust’s total income was £423,1 million (475,4 EUR). The largest sources of income were membership subscriptions (£122,0 million), direct property income (£95,8 million), enterprise income (£50,42 million), appeals and gifts (£47,68) and legacies (£42,8 million). Total resources expended reached £396,92 million (446 million EUR), including £48,98 million as costs of generating funds, £345,3 for charitable activities and £2,7 for governance costs. On conservation projects in 2008/09, the Trust spent 35 £98 million (110 million EUR).

2.3. GERMAN NGO PROFILE: ‘DEUTSCHE STIFTUNG DENKMALSCHUTZ’ ‘Die Bürger aber sind sozusagen die Geschworenen, die letztlich mit ihrem Engagement darüber entscheiden, ob die historischen Zeugnisse auch für die nächsten Generationen gerettet werden. Denn ohne die Bürger ist auf Dauer kein Gebäude, keine Parkanlage, geschweige eine historische Stadt zu bewahren.’ From the Interview with Professor Dr. Dr.-Ing. E. h. Gottfried Kiesow, Chairman of Die Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz 2.3.1. Historical overview

The German Foundation for Monument Protection (Die Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz) was founded in 1985. in Gracht castle near Bonn, Germany (image 17, page 39). At the time of the establishment of the organization, the National Trust in Great Britain and the American National Trust for Historic Preservation were taken as the role model. Karl Gustaf Ratjen was elected for the first president of the foundation, and the first patron was the federal president, Richard von Weizsäcker. Nowadays, the German Foundation for Monument Protection is considered to be the largest private heritage preservation initiative in Germany, and the second largest in Europe.

Image 16 16. 36 Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz logo

35 36

The National Thrust Annual Report 2008/2009, p. 46. Source: http://www.denkmalschutz.de and Magazine ‘Monumente’, Nr. 1/2, February 2010, p. 5.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

The main task set for the private foundation was to assume responsibility for individual endangered monuments, ensure their survival, repair them, and restore them to the use considered to be appropriate for a monument. The Foundation is active in all federal states of Germany.

Image 17. Schloss Gracht near Bonn37 and the founding meeting in 198538

The biggest challenges for the relatively young foundation so far were changes in the political establishment, following the unification of East and West Germany at the beginning of 1990’s. Opening of the borders set much greater tasks for the Foundation, especially in the eastern federal states of unified Germany, where the majority of built cultural heritage needed urgent interventions in order to be saved. 2.3.2. Objectives and facts The German Foundation for Monument Protection has exclusively focused its activities on built heritage and has been involved into rescuing, preserving and securing with the new uses for more than 3.400 historical monuments so far. It is established as a non-profit private foundation, settled in Bonn (image 18, page 40), with the two major tasks defined as: - preservation of endangered cultural monuments and - promotion the idea of monument protection. The Foundation set its focus on promotion of various donating possibilities, as a necessary precondition for undertaking the activities in preserving tangible heritage, illustrated with the motto: ‘join in and help – for the sake of architecture’. Major activities and collected funds are directed to various kinds of historical monuments, such as burgher houses, village, town and cloister churches, industrial monuments, palaces, castles and manor houses, parks, town walls and archaeological excavations. The prerequisite for a monument to be supported by the foundation is that the respective projects are recognised monuments according to statutory criteria, while the most important factors for granting funds are actual state of the monument, its historical and cultural importance, as well as the project commitment by the

Source: http://esmt.org Source: ‚Monumente’, Magazin für Denkmalkultur in Deutschland, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn, February 2010, p. 5.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

monument owners. The Foundation acts as one of the financiers of a single project only if the republic, federal states, owners or other investors are also included and willing to cooperate.

Image 18 18. Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz 39 headquarters building in Bonn, Germany

The second aspect of the Foundation mission is raising public awareness connected to the importance of monument protection and necessary tasks to achieve this goal. The organization is committed to strengthening cooperation and working in partnership with the government, as well as raising awareness for the heritage protection among the citizens, but also among the owners of the built heritage. The Foundation is informing and reporting about monuments in need for urgent donations six times per year, through its own publication, magazine ‘Monuments’. This is also the way to keep supporters and benefactors up to date regarding the current activities of the foundation and about how and where the donated funds are being used. The cooperation with the national television broadcaster ZDF resulted in monthly TV show "Bürger, rettet Eure Städte" (Citizens rescuing our cities), which promotes the concerns of monument protection, while the national public radio station Deutschlandfunk organises benefit concerts as part of its "Grundton D" series since 1990. These musical events take place in endangered monuments in the eastern federal states of Germany and the proceeds go directly to the reconstruction and preservation of those monuments. Among the major activities of the Foundation is coordination of the nationwide European Heritage Day, held annually in September. Notable are also various events and workshops organised by the Foundation in order to encourage young people to become more involved with cultural heritage. In 2002 the organisation initiated the nationwide schools project "Denkmal Aktiv – Kulturerbe macht Schule" (Cultural Heritage in Young Hands), with the aim to motivate schools to integrate the cultural heritage and monument protection into their curriculum. The "Jugendbauhütte" projects (Youth Masonry Guilds) running in nine towns in Germany is providing a year of voluntary civic experience for young adults, with the introduction to the basic know-how and skills in historical monuments conservation, as a platform for their future vocational orientation. On the initiative of The German Foundation for Monument Protection, two separate membership organizations were founded: Die Denkmalakademie (The Monument Academy) and Die Branderburgische Schlösser GmbH (The Castles of Brandenburg). 39

Photo: N. Čamprag, March, 2010.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 19. ‘Denkmal Akademie’ logo and offices in Germany40

The main purpose of the Monument Academy (image 19) is training of the professionals in the highly specialized techniques needed for the preservation of built heritage. For this purpose it organizes seminars, conferences and workshops for professionals who wish to further their practical knowledge, such as craftsmen, architects, restorers, government employees etc. Since 2002, the Academy also conducts numerous events to promote awareness of the benefits of conservation. The Castles of Brandenburg was founded as a non-profit organization in 1992, by the German Foundation for Monument Protection and Branderburg State Government, in order to save the cultural landscape of Brandenburg, characterized by more than 500 castles and manor houses. After more than 10 years, as long as foundation is active, 14 castles and manor houses have been preserved, and 7 castles are under the preservation process. Most of the preserved castles are in the ownership of the organisation (image 20, page 42). However the redevelopment of the castles is only one part of the work of the Castles of Brandenburg. They are also involved into the search for a user who guarantees the future use of the redeveloped object in the sense of protection of historical monuments. When the suitable user is found, the activities of the organisation are put on hold, and the organisation itself benefits from the property rent which guarantees the economic use and the future maintenance of the buildings. Most of the castles owned by the organisation are turned into hotels, while some of them are used as conference and event houses, museums or administrative buildings. The uses the Castles of Brandenburg organisation is suggesting for the property not rented so far is for the purpose of dwelling, administration, as a boarding school, seminar house, gallery, library or other suitable cultural use.

Source: http://www.schloesser-gmbh.de/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 20. 20. Map of the castles in Brandenburg, owned and renovated by ‘The Castles of Brandenburg’41

Together with the Castles of Brandenburg, the German Foundation for Monument Protection has 40 heritage buildings in its direct ownership, throughout the whole Germany. In the recent period, the foundation abandoned the policy of purchasing new properties because of the high maintenance costs and other heritage management difficulties. 2.3.3. Governance and financing The German Foundation for Monument Protection is governed by the Board of directors, which consist of six members and is coordinated by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Managing Director and The Scientific Commission (Chairman, Deputy Chairman and seven members) are providing expert advices to the Board, who is making the most important decision regarding future plans and actions. The organisation also has its Board of Trustees, composed of twenty members and governed by the Chairman and its Deputy. The patron of the organisation is the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. The procedure for getting the Foundation’s support starts with the applications submitted to the German Foundation for Monument Protection, which are examined by a Scientific Commission within the framework of the budget, defined by the Board. The Foundation becomes active in cases where state funds are either not available or are proving insufficient, with the main role of initial spark, which should attract additional financial sources in future. As the German Foundation for Monument Protection has no intention of taking over federal and state responsibilities, the financial assistance provided by it is not a substitute for state aid, but its’ addition. For this reason the funds are primarily invested in the conserving and restoring of monuments under the direct ownership or tenure of non-profit organisations, 41

Source: http://www.schloesser-gmbh.de/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

church communities, local authorities or private persons. There are around 2000 application in average directed to the German Foundation for Monument Protection every year for the assistance during heritage conservation, and the Foundation manages to take part in average of 200 projects.

Image 21. Professor Dr. Dr.-Ing. E. h. Gottfried Kiesow, Chairman of the German Foundation for Monument Protection42

Volunteers are providing a support to the activities of the Foundation; currently around 60 local comities with almost 400 members are actively advancing the concerns of the German Foundation for Monument Protection. With info and trade fair stands, exhibitions and lectures, these local boards are frequently active in and around their hometowns. The Amount of the Donation /EUR/ Up to 50 Euros 50 to 100 Euros 100 to 500 Euros 500 to 5000 Euro higher than 5.000 Euro OVERALL

The Number Number of Donors /2007/ 36.318 27.234 21.923 1916 192 87.583

The Number of Donors /2008/ 37.378 27.498 21.972 1687 110 88.645

Table 1. 43 Cross-section of the donors share in 2007 and 2008.

The important income for the Foundation since 1991 was provided by the lottery ‘GlücksSpirale’, which supports charitable projects throughout whole Germany with a yearly fund of around 50 million euro. Besides the lottery income, the German Foundation for Monument Protection established a great variety of possibilities for donors to financially support the activities of the organisation. Major sources are coming from the citizens directly, mainly through donations, endowments or legacies (table 1, page 43). The donations are most 42

Source: http://www.denkmalschutz.de/ Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2007; DSD, 2007, p. 22. and Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2008; DSD, 2008, p. 24.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

common way of providing financial support and if not earmarked for a specific project, they are employed where the need is most urgent. The fiduciary foundations under the trusteeship of the German Foundation for Monument Protection provide the contribution to the long-term preservation of cultural heritage by establishing a new trust fund or augment the resources of an existing one. Committed benefactors have already set up over 170 fiduciary trusts. The possibilities open for dedicating testamentary grants in the case of death are donations, contributions to an existing foundation or even the founding of a new fiduciary foundation. The Foundation invested more than 370 million Euros in their preservation activities so far, and more than 180.000 benefactors have entrusted the Foundation with their donations and endowments. For the year 2008, the Foundation spent 15,2 million EUR for the support of heritage preservation, together with its fiduciary foundations. The majority of financial means were allocated to preservation of sacral buildings (5,5 million EUR), castles (5,1 million EUR), public buildings (1,7 million EUR), dwelling buildings (1,3 million EUR) and technical 44 monuments (0,5 million EUR). Another 7,4 Million EUR the Foundation spend on maintaining heritage it owns. For the 2007, the Foundation spent 18,6 million EUR for the support of heritage preservation.45 Even the important income so far was provided by the lottery, during the year 2007 and 2008, the grants from the lottery showed a decrease compared to the previous period, when income from the lottery was a primary one (image 22). For the year 2008 only, the Foundation raised 40 million EUR, received around 15 million EUR from the ’GlücksSpirale’ lottery. On the other hand, the funding from donations and legacies are developing positively during the recent years, with an increase from 5,4 to 17,5 million EUR per year. In the year 2007, income from the donations for the first time exceeded the lottery; revenues from the commercial activity also showed a slight increase from 0,1 million EUR to a total of 2,3 million EUR. Fiscal 2007 ended with a net income of 4,4 million EUR compared to 3,0 million in 2006.46 The growing trend continued during the following 2008, which ended with a net income of 5,5 47 million EUR.

Image 22. Ratio between donations, endowments and ‘Glüksspirale’ lottery income, 2004 - 2008.48

Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2008; DSD, 2008, p. 14. Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2007; DSD, 2007, p. 13. 46 Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2007; DSD, 2007, p. 10. 47 Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2008; DSD, 2008, p. 10. 48 Source: Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutzt Jahresbericht 2008; DSD, 2008, p. 24. 45

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

C H A P T E R

III

COMPARISON

3.1. COMPARISON BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UK AND GERMANY 3.1.1. Basic comparison between the National Trust and the UK governmental heritage conservation policy The history of English post-war development has shown that when the historic environment has been valued and cared for, social and economic benefits have been generated, through the establishment of desirable, distinctive and economically successful places. Where its’ potential has not been recognised and harnessed, or when it has been ignored, degraded or destroyed, the quality of people’s lives has been impoverished and opportunities stifled. The current heritage protection system in the United Kingdom, established during the past 120 years, is regarded as not being efficient enough to cope with the potentials and needs of the heritage confronting the challenges of the modern times. The necessity for a major reform and adaptation of the national heritage policy has been recognised both by the grassroots movements and by the legible state bodies as well.

Image 23. English Heritage strategy, 2005-2010.49 49

The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, A Literature Review for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Prince Waterhouse Coopers, June 2007, p. 11.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

The Heritage Protection Reform (HPR) and its implementation became English Heritage’s top priority. The current heritage protection system is seen as complicated to use and not as transparent or efficient as it should be. English Heritage has been working on HPR since 2000, and so far the way heritage is looked after and identified is significantly improved. The main aim focused on at present is promotion of a modernised holistic approach to the care of all historic assets through partnership, openness and transparency. The system is being ‘opened up’ in order to provide opportunities for consultation and explanation, and to give more support to local authorities at the front line of heritage protection. Statutory and advisory services are now more client-focussed, consistent and timely, the visitor business is now more profitable, service-orientated and accessible, and the research is more responsive to need. There are three main strands of activity that make up programme of Heritage Protection Reform in the future: widening public involvement, to contribute to the process of protecting the heritage; creation of an efficient system, easier to understand and use, and improving heritage protection through strategic support for local authorities at the front line of heritage protection and putting into action modern, positive and collaborative approach to conservation. The future system is expected to be simpler to use and more up-to-date with the modern planning process. Some changes should take place under future planning policy statements and guidance, heritage protection legislation and own projects, including the training and supporting of local authority historic environment services. The strategic vision of English Heritage between 2005 and 2010 (image 23, page 45) emphasises the importance of engaging with the public and creating both new audiences and greater understanding to generate benefits mainly in terms of greater conservation of important sites and greater personal intrinsic benefit from them. Most of the listed standpoints and changes are exactly the same values the National Trust has recognised and is striving for in its policy. Being an organisation much older and with much more experience in the matter (English Heritage was established 88 years after the National Trust), provides this non-governmental organisation much more influence on the matter of shaping and initiating changes within the national conservation policy. The basic comparison between the National Trust and the English Heritage is shown in the table 2, on page 47. Some similarities can also be spotted within the range of activities and responsibilities. English Heritage holds authorisation for advisory and education services, identifying and helping in protection of buildings and archaeological sites of national importance. Its specificities are in providing conservation grants, undertaking research and study, and also in maintaining the National Monuments Record as the central publicly accessible archive for the historic environment in England. As the National Trust, it also has historic properties in its ownership, accessible to the public audience. Members of the English Heritage can also choose between various memberships possibilities, and are having similar benefits as free visits of the owned property or receiving some published material, but without the possibility to get actively involved into decision making process. The English Heritage is also active in learning programs and is organising various events and ‘days out’. The governance structure shows similar organisation principles, with a decision making board at the head of the organisation (Commission), which is supported by various advisory panels (image 24, page 48).

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Organization Founded Country Head Office Territory Official motto Status Members Patron Lead by

1895. United Kingdom Swindon, Wilthshire England, Wales and Northern Ireland ‘For ever, for everyone’ NGO More than 3,6 million Royal family member Board of Trustees and the Council

Country and Regional Committees, Governance Advisory Panels , Committees / organization Board of Trustees , Committees / Council Volunteers

1983. United Kingdom London, Swindon England Governments statutory adviser, Executive Non-departmental Public Body 687,000 Commission Overseen by a Chair and a board of up to 16 Commissioners selected by the Government. The Commission is advised by 12 expert advisory committees and panels.

49.000 in 2006/07

Investments

over 1 billion EUR till 2007 (over 177 million EUR a year)

Total income

2007 / 397 million EUR 2009 / 470 million EUR

75% by the Government and the rest from self-generated income (revenue from historic properties, membership fees, commercial activity) In 2008/09 public funding was worth 148 million EUR, and income from other sources was 53 million EUR. 2007 / 152 million EUR 2009 / 149 million EUR

Conservation projects

2009 / 110 million EUR

2009 / 25 million EUR

Major tasks

promoting and protecting places of certain significance and importance through ownership and management

Conserve and enhance the historic environment, broaden public access to the heritage, increase people's understanding of the past

Publication Focus

‘National Trust Magazine’ owned heritage mostly

Financing membership fees, donations, legacies, commercial activity

owned and national heritage

Table 2. Basic comparison between the National Trust and the English Heritage

In terms of financing, English Heritage receives approximately three-quarters of its funding from the Treasury to carry out its statutory role as the Government’s adviser on the historic environment (image 25, page 48). Besides this fact, the income for the year 2009 of the National Trust was three times higher comparing to the total income of the English Heritage for the same year, and nearly nine times higher comparing to the English Heritage self-generated income. Some of the ways for self-generating income were modelled on the National Trust, such as ‘online shopping’ or gaining income through renting a property or a 47

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

holiday cottage. In terms of expenditures, the National Trust had invested 4,5 times more financial means for the conservation projects in 2009.

Image 24. English Heritage governance structure50

Image 25 25. Income and Grant of English Heritage, and the overview on self-generated income (in British Pounds, for 2008/09)51 50 51

Source: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ English Heritage Information Pack 2009, English Heritage, London, 2009, pp. 22-23.

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

3.1.2. Basic comparison between the German Foundation for Monument Protection and German governmental heritage conservation policy The fact that the conservation in Germany is a matter of the federal states can be observed as certain limiting factor for identifying the features of the national conservation policy. The political arrangement in Germany required divided responsibilities between federal and state governments. Furthermore, the authorities in the field of preservation and conservation in every state often have different internal organization. These arrangements imposed a certain predefined framework both for federal and non-governmental organisations dealing with the issues of heritage. In this setting, the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media established the German National Committee for Monument Protection, as a coordination heritage conservation initiative at the federal level. The second major feature of the heritage protection system in Germany is strict hierarchical principle it is based on. Therefore, the German National Committee for Monument Protection has a certain role of heritage conservation authority. It balances between the government, states, municipalities, churches, professional organizations, associations and private citizens' groups to work together in the issues of conservation. As it is mostly dealing with governments and administrations, the committee includes representatives from politics, business, religious and municipal associations, the media and organizations involved in conservation and historic preservation in the broadest sense. The influence on the legal framework in Germany is therefore one of the most important sectors of the German National Committee for Conservation. On the other hand, the non-governmental Foundation for Monument Protection is dealing with the public, focusing on motivating possible donors for conservation projects to be undertaken. The basic comparison between the two organisations is listed in the table 3, on page 50. The two compared organisations set awakening public awareness about heritage, encouraging owners and promotion of the conservation idea in urban planning as some common aims. Nevertheless, it is possible to determine numerous differences in the establishment, legibility and activities of the two organisations, even both of them are established on similar conservative principles of heritage preservation. While the German Foundation for Monument Protection deals mostly with the activities connected to the fund raising and promoting the values of heritage, the German National Committee for Monument Protection deals mostly as technical and political federal body, with major tasks in examination and adaptation of the existing laws and regulations. Regardless of the activities and principles these organisations are achieving their aims, conservation is exclusively a matter of experts in both of the cases, and the public participation in the process seems to be neglected and not enough supported. The functioning of the organisations and activities they are undertaking also lack of openness and transparency. Nevertheless, even the negative sides of the actual system have been determined and the necessity for its upgrading was recognised, compared with the efforts that are being implemented in the United Kingdom the achievements on the heritage protection reform in Germany have been rather modest so far, both on statutory or grassroots level.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Organization Founded Country Head Office Territory

Status Members Patron

1985. Germany Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalens German federal states Join in and help – for the sake of architecture NGO More than 180.000 (donors) President of the Republic

Lead by

Board of Directors

Official motto

Governance organization

Board of Trustees, Managing Director, Scientific Commission

Volunteers

1400 (?) donations, legacies, lottery, commercial activity around 415 millions EUR so far 2008 / 17,3 million EUR

Financing Investments Total income Conservation projects Major tasks Publication Focus

2008 / 15,2 million EUR Financing preservation of endangered cultural monuments and promotion the idea of monument protection ‘Monuments’ financing preservation

1973. Germany Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalens German federal states Technical and political federal body President of the Republic the Consultant of the Federal Government for Culture and Media Board of Directors, Executive committee, Assembly of the members, by public and private contributions 43 million EUR (2006-2009) On a federal states level On a federal states level Promotion of the preservation of built heritage for future generations.

national heritage

Table 3. Basic comparison between the German Foundation for Monument Protection and the German National Committee for Monument Protection

3.2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NATIONAL TRUST AND THE GERMAN FOUNDATION FOR MONUMENT PROTECTION The National Trust and the German Foundation for Monument Protection are nongovernmental organisations, sharing the same major aims in two different countries. For both of them, the most important task defined is ensuring heritage conservation and raising awareness about its significance. There are certain similarities in the ways the two organisations are achieving their common aims, based on the views that the more experienced National Trust had on the problem of heritage conservation. Those similarities 50

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

were more obvious during the first years followed the establishment of the German Foundation for Monument Protection, as its founders have consciously taken the British National Trust as a role model. Analysis of the gathered data in the latest period points out to the gradual development of nowadays significant differences, which are mostly the result of different directions of governance and policy evolution, views on the activities and the settings in whole within the two NGO’s were and still are active. The comparison between the National trust and the German Foundation for Monument Protection has been made on several main levels, according to the general facts that have an influence on functioning of the organisations and some historical circumstances, the organisation structure and governance, their program and activities, the way they shape membership policy and participation, management of the heritage they own and finally comparison on an economical level, concerning financing of the organisations and investments they are undertaking. The overview on the levels of this comprehensive comparison is as follows:

Comparison level 1 - General and historic circumstances Comparison level 2 - Organisation structure and governance Comparison level 3 - Program and activities Comparison level 4 - Membership policy and participation Comparison level 5 - Heritage management Comparison level 6 - Financing and investments The review of the basic comparison between the two selected NGO’s is listed in the table 4, on page 52.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Organization Founded Country Head Office Territory Motto Status Members Patron Lead by Governance organization Volunteers Financing Investments Total income Conservation projects Major tasks Publication Focus

1895. United Kingdom Swindon, Wilthshire England, Wales and Northern Ireland ‘For ever, for everyone’ NGO More than 3,6 million Royal family member Board of Trustees and the Coucil Country and Regional Committees, Advisory Panels , Committees / Board of Trustees , Committees / Council 49.000 in 2006/07 Membership fees, donations, legacies, commercial activity over 1 billion EUR till 2007 (over 177 million EUR a year) 2007 / 397 million EUR 2009 / 470 million EUR

1985. Germany Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalens German federal states Join in and help – for the sake of architecture NGO More than 180.000 (donors) President of the Republic Board of Directors Board of Trustees, Managing Director, Scientific Commission Around 1400 in whole Lottery; donations, endowments, legacies, commercial activity around 415 millions EUR so far 2008 / 17,3 million EUR

2009 / 110 million EUR

2008 / 15,2 million EUR

promoting and protecting places of certain significance and importance through ownership and management ‘National Trust Magazine’ owned heritage mostly

Financing preservation of endangered cultural monuments and promotion the idea of monument protection ‘Monuments’ financing preservation

Table 4. Basic comparison between the National Trust and The German Foundation for Monument Protection

3.2.1. Comparison level 1: General and historic circumstances Regarding overview on general potentials, the comparison between the territories and population between two countries of interest was made. The National Trust, operating within England, Wales and Northern Ireland, sets its 2 activities within the area of around 165.000 km , with a bit more than 56 million corresponding residents. The German Foundation for Monument Protection is active within all the federal 2 states of Germany, which makes the overall area of about 357.000 km and nearly 82 million people in whole. 52

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

This data shows that the Federal Republic of Germany covers twice as the UK territory where the National Trust is active. Regarding population, Germany has nearly 1,5 times larger population comparing to England, Wales and Northern Ireland all together. From the historical point of view, the National Trust has a long tradition of 115 years (founded in 1895), while the German Foundation for Monument Protection is active since 1985 (25 years). The time difference of 90 years between the two organizations distinguishes the National Trust as an advanced organization, with much more experience in the matter. The fact that the German Foundation was established with the National Trust as a role model favours the traditional values and achievements in cultural heritage management of the British organisation and sets them out as a prominent example. However, the obvious significant difference in the years of experience can be considered as a slight disadvantage for the research itself. Looking from historical point of view, the National Trust was founded thanks to the visionary group of enthusiasts during the time when the consciousness about the heritage just started to emerge, when the legal frame for purchasing and managing the heritage was less strict or even non-existing. This setting provided the positive opportunity for the National Trust to develop simultaneously, along with the rising awareness of the heritage significance and along with the development of national conservation policy. On the other side, the German Foundation for Monument Protection started its activities within rather different circumstances, with ready-made national conservation policy from the mid 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and within a strong legal framework. Huge impact on the functioning of the German Foundation, which at that time had still modest five years of experience, was made by the reunification of East and West Germany; different levels of economical development between the two reunified countries implied different conditions in which their built heritage was. This extraordinary situation made a significant influence on the German Foundation for Monument Protection, who was forced to redefine its policy and find the solutions of acting in emergency. General historic circumstances comparison showed at the first place significant disproportions in the time period the two analysed non-governmental organisations were active in. The circumstances under which both of the organisations were established and were gaining experience are also marked by significant varieties on cultural, social, economical and political levels. 3.2.2. Comparison level 2: Organisation structure and governance The size and the activities scope of the British National Trust reflected on its organisation scheme. It is lead by the Board of Trustees, made of usually 12 members, with the main role of general control and management of the administration of the charity. The Board is appointed and overseen by the Council, comprised of 26 people elected by the members of the Trust, and 26 people appointed by other organisations, whose work is related to that of the Trust. The German Foundation for Monument Protection has less comprehensive management structure, with the 6 members within Board of Directors, and 20 members of the Board of Trustees. These governing and decision-making boards for both of the organisations are lead by its Chairman and Deputy Chairman. The governing bodies are in both cases supported by advisory panels, in charge for various matters. In the case of the National Trust, these advisory panels provide advises for staff, and through them also to the Board of Trustees on different issues. The first level on the advisory scale concerns management and legal issues, performed by the Advisory Panels. They complement the skills of staff on specific professional issues, act as advocates for the 53

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Trust, assist with policy development and advise on major acquisitions and projects of significance to their expertise. The second advisory body within the British organisation is the response to the territorial organisation, as the Trust deals among the 11 regions it established within England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Members of Country and Regional Committees are providing advice and support to staff in these regions. The third advisory layer concerns the activities of the Trust; there are seven expert panels, which are covering the variety of areas of the Trust in fields of archaeology, architecture, arts, gardens and parks, land use, learning and nature conservation. The German Foundation has two advisory bodies. The Scientific Commission consists of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and seven experts, mostly in fields of architecture and history of art. Their role is to provide expert advices to the Board, mostly regarding applications for financial help in conservation, submitted to the Foundation. The financial support for conservation work within the framework of the budget is previously defined by the Board. The second advisory body is the Managing Director, in charge for management and legal issues. As charitable and other non-profit making organisations often seek an influential figurehead to act as patron, both of the organisations also enjoys patronage from influential political/royalty establishment. This relationship in both cases does not involve financial support, but the assistance through the contacts and charisma patrons have to raise funds and to promote the organisations itself. Regarding analysed data, it is possible to determine certain similarities between general organisation of the National Trust and the German Foundation for Monument Preservation in its basic structure. On the decision making level, both of the organisations are lead by the Boards, which are supported by the committee of experts in various fields. Radical differences can be determined in more complex range and development level of the National Trust organisation scheme, which can be explained by the Trusts significantly wider scope of activities and higher number of both owned heritage and number of members, compared to the German Foundation. In other words, the organisation with more than 3,5 million members, as the British Trust is, has more developed structure in its secondary level in order to address the needs and activities of its members. The German foundation is more modest in size and in its focus to more specific aims, which is showed on its organisation structure, formed as a simple and efficient one. Based on their general approach to governance, the National Trust is based upon commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. Therefore the Trust is appointing and selecting high-calibre volunteers, capable of overseeing the governance arrangements of the Trust, focused on achieving its aims efficiently and effectively. The transparency of the organisation is secured by involving members to participate in The National Trust Annual General Meeting (AGM), including the right to discuss and vote. On the other side, The German Foundation set its governance principles on a bit more conservative way. The decisions are a matter of the Board of Directors, based on the expertise by the Scientific Commission. Donors can specify for which project their money will be spent, otherwise it is also a matter of the Boards. The transparency of the governance activities regarding donors (members) is available only through the magazine, which is published and sent to them by the Foundation itself.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

3.2.3. Comparison level 3: Program and activities ‘For ever, for everyone’ is the official motto of the National Trust, which reveals its programme orientation. The Trust generates lots of efforts in supporting the needs of the people regarding heritage and their role in the process of its preservation, instead of focusing mainly on conservation process itself. The main standpoint for sustaining the heritage is therefore shifted to get people involved in experiencing the values the Trust stands for, through the approach on a personal level for every member, visitor or participant. The foundation is achieving this aims through collaboration, responding to people’s interests rather than pointing to what they ought to know, and encouraging them to explore not only what it is they have come to see, but why a property appears as it does.

Image 26 26. The National Trust learning programme52

The widest range of access opportunities and experiences is to be aspired at properties of the Trust through its stewardship and conservation work, providing pleasure, understanding and involvement in heritage. This objective should be achieved by promoting access and learning at Trusts properties (image 26) in order to develop own knowledge and experience including dialogue with those using the properties. The conservation itself achieves its objectives by involving people through providing many opportunities for mutual benefit. In achieving this goals, training in partnership with others is supported, where the Trust acts both as trainer and trainee, welcoming training opportunities and students provided by others, encouraging school placements, apprenticeships and practical learning as well as supporting academic training. The organisation promotes understanding the processes of conservation, which can help involve every member of society to take part in care for local environment and help them find words to argue for its care. Instead of completing restoration work behind closed doors, the Trust encourages visitors to watch progress or get involved at every stage.

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 27. 53 Events and workshops of the National Trust

The organization also opens its properties for the range of events, activities and workshops which should attract people of all generations and interests (image 27). Visits the National Trust is providing are in the forms of days-out, short visits and holidays. Visitors are welcomed not only to admire the heritage, take part in the workshop or in a lecture in order to gain some knowledge, but also to have fun and join events held on these properties, as an encouragement to the idea that heritage is not only to be preserved but to be enjoyed in as well. The Trust set the possibilities to rent out its cottages, visit their open air properties for a walk or bike routes (image 28, page 57), taste the traditional food and wine in its historic villages, enter preserved buildings. The National Trust focused its program and activities for people to experience the heritage, because the organisation believes that as soon as people are allowed to do that, they create special bond with it and accept it as their own. Promoting the idea that the heritage is open to and belongs to everybody motivates people to contribute, rather than being silent observers. The German Foundation for Monument Protection achieves its contribution to heritage preservation from different, rather conservative standpoint (image 29, page 58). The 53

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

programme of this organisation is more concerned about the issues of built heritage preservation from physical (tangible) and economical (financial) point of view. The Foundation sets its actions on collecting and directing the financial means towards physically endangered monuments. It is an organisation evolved to peoples instrument for financing heritage conservation activities where needed throughout the country. After the heritage conservation process is finished, the cultural asset gets its new function which brings new financial means to the Foundation and sustains the maintenance of the object itself. As the foundation is mainly active in fund raising activities, its actions are mainly in the range of organising various cultural and other events for the purpose of collecting the money, such as concerts, fund-raising dinners, study tours. Some activities of the organisation are aimed for gaining knowledge about historic conservation, with the coordination role for the nationwide European Heritage Day as an outstanding one (image 30, page 58).

Image 28. The National Trust routes (walking and cycling) and ‘days-out’ program54

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 29. 29. Training of the professionals by Denkmal Akademie55

Regarding program and activities, British and German organisation of interest set their aims on different bases. The National Trust focused on variety of heritage in its possession, as well as on its promotion and active participation of the people, while the German Foundation is concentrated on the fund-raising, conservation and promotion of the national built heritage.

Image 30. Events of the German Foundation for Monument Protection: the ‘Grundton D’ concert and the ‘Open Monuments Day’56

55 56

Source: http://www.denkmalakademie.de/ Sources: http://www.denkmalschutz.de/ and http://tag-des-offenen-denkmals.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

3.2.4. Comparison level 4: Membership policy and participation According to the general data, it is possible to made a comparison in order to get a rough overview on the approximate relation between the overall number of residents and their interaction with the analysed non-governmental organisations in both of the countries (as members, donors or visitors). In order to simplify the comparison, number of the residents is compared with the number of the people participated, without taking into the consideration whether they are at the same time residents of analysed country or not. The results of this rough comparison showed that statistically every 15th resident of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (6,4% of the population) supported actions of the National Trust and contributed to its financing through different forms of membership. The National Trust has 20 times more members comparing to the official number of donors of The German Foundation. Comparing the available data with the number of inhabitants, nearly 0,1% of the analysed UK territory residents provided volunteer work, 25% of the population visited some of the National Trusts properties, and around 89% people from the whole number of the residents were visitors to some of the Trusts open air properties. The donors of the German Foundation for Monument Protection makes only 0,22% comparing to the countries population. The number of the members and supporters obviously can have and effect on the quality and the quantity of the actions of an NGO. The reason for significant difference in the number of supporters in this case should be found in the membership policies of both of the compared NGOs. The National Trust based its policy on openness and transparency, and is strongly encouraging people to join in. It offers different kinds of personal memberships, or memberships that can be a gift to somebody else as well. Future members can choose between annual or life time involvement, with social varieties recognized within (individual, joint, family, family one adult, child, young person, pensioner, additional). This is the way to approach every individual separately and to put an accent on a standpoint that heritage belong to every member of the society equally and that every individual can support and contribute to the heritage conservation. The Trust also offers different programs and symbolic benefits to its members, such as free entry and parking on the locations belonging to the organization and those belonging to the National Trust of Scotland, and other similar organizations abroad as well, as the variety of free publications. By this way, sense of belonging and importance on individual level awakes among the members. From the variety of activities for the members and special memberships for this issue, the Education Group Membership stands out. Existing members are also supported to participate in The National Trust Annual General Meeting (AGM), with the possibility to discuss and vote, to participate in the raffle, or get involved into the care about some of the Trusts properties. Since 2006, the AGM have been broadcasted live via website,57 with the possibility for members to take part through the web-chat or e-mail, which made the event even more public and available. There is also a variety of different member groups within local associations, centres or clubs. Volunteer and education activities are ensuring promotion of the ideas of the Trust and supporting people to join in and renew membership, but are also providing the stronger feeling of identity and social connections (image 31, page 60).

http://www.national-trust.twofourdigital.net/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 31. 58 Volunteers of the National Trust

The core of The German Foundation for Monument Protection policy is set out within the motto ‘join in and help – for the sake of architecture’. The main focus of The Foundation is set on motivating individuals to donate in order conservation activities to be undertaken. Therefore, there is no classic form of membership – individuals who donated some financial means are automatically considered as ‘members’. The Foundation is updating its members/donors about its activities through their magazine ‘Monuments’, published six time per year (image 32, page 61). The foundation is offering some engagements for the people on voluntary bases, limited to active participation in local boards, active in and around their hometowns on info and trade fair stands, exhibitions and lectures (image 33, page 61). The local curators undertake regional information and public relations work for the Foundation as well. They are observing the goals set out in the Foundations statute, they raise public awareness about preserving the heritage or are engaged in looking after and broadening the large community of the Foundations' supporters and benefactors. Furthermore, volunteers support campaigns launched by the main office and compliment the Foundation's projects with their own local actions. In this way they are continually helping to generate interest for the Foundation's important work and gain new supporters for the cause of monument protection. The German Foundation for Monument Protection favours policy more oriented towards the activities on promoting the necessity for collecting the financial aid, mostly through ‘one-off donation without red-tape’ in order to secure the progress of conservation work (image 34, page 62). However, the Foundation within this setting establishes a buffer zone between experts – conservators on one side and people on the other and acts a corresponding role between the two sides. Experts and conservators in this approach are given the strict role to take care of the tangible heritage, while the public contribution is limited to the financial support, which will provide experts to continue working on monument preservation. When the money is donated, further contribution of the donors is limited and majority of the conservation work is to be done by the experts in the matter.

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 32. Covers of the ‚Magazine’ (National Trust) and ‘Monumente’ (German Foundation for Monument Protection). Both editions - spring 2010.

Image 33. The volunteer activities of the German Foundation for Monument Protection59

As a result of previous analysis, it is possible to conclude that actions which the National Trust is undertaking in the UK seem to be more motivating for the people to apply 59

Source: http://www.denkmalschutz.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

for membership and support the activities of the organization. Positive results of the National Trust policy are also visible if compared to the English Heritage governmental organization for heritage preservation. In this case, the National Trust with its 3,6 million members has nearly 5,5 times more memberships comparing to the English Heritage. Concerning the fact that both English Heritage and The German Foundation are lacking of activities for its members and are not involving members into running of the organisation provides the conclusion that the open and transparent approach does motivates people to join in and contribute. Mistification of monuments and creating barriers are creating stronger distance between the people and their heritage. This approach could be determined as one of the factors why NGO in UK is functioning with more efficiency comparing to The German Foundation.

Image 34. Donors of the German Foundation for Monument Protection60

3.2.5. Comparison level 5: Heritage management Comparing the number of the World Heritage Sites in both of the countries, there are 33 listed monuments in Germany and 28 in the United Kingdom. Six of them - around 20% of the British World Heritage Sites - are in ownership of the National Trust. This organisation deals mostly with the heritage it owns, which is characterized by a great variety. According to the official data, the National Trust possesses more than a 1000 kilometres of coastline, 254,000 hectares of land of natural beauty and various historic properties; from prehistoric sites, industrial buildings, houses, castles and gardens to the whole villages, museums, pubs and lighthouses. Most of the heritage under the National Trust ownership is held in perpetuity and their future protection is secured by the organisation. Those properties are open to the public and are a backbone of the various activities the Trust is organizing for its members and visitors. The diversity of heritage in possession provided such a variety of activities, ranging from usual workshops to guided tours, walking and biking tours, manifestations of different character and other events where the heritage in whole took the inspiring role. Visitors are supported to take an active involvement, from usual formal activities to various informal ways of learning through fun and socialisation. People also have the possibility to choose the way of supporting maintenance of the heritage according to their own tendencies, which can vary from taking an active part in the conservation process to renting a holiday cottage (image 35, page 63). 60

Source: http://www.denkmalschutz.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Therefore, the main users of the heritage the National Trust deals with are the people themselves - members and visitors - who are contributing to the preservation through their active or passive involvement in heritage discovering, enjoying and learning.

Image 35. The National Trust holiday cottages for rent61

The German Foundation for Monument Protection at the beginning followed the same pattern of gaining heritage under its ownership, modelled on the achievements of the National Trust. From the period of that policy, the Foundation today has 40 built heritage objects in its ownership, together with the non-profit organization the Castles of Brandenburg, founded in cooperation with the Brandenburg State Government. The approach to the cultural heritage management is the same for both of the related organisations, with the major difference in the area of its activities. The Castles of Brandenburg is focused specifically on the built heritage of the Brandenburg region, mostly with the castles and manor houses, surrounded by gardens and extensive park areas. Some of the heritage mentioned of around 14 castles, are in direct ownership of the German Foundation. Following the conservation work, organisation is involved into the search for a new owner of the built heritage. Desirable, proper solutions for the future use of the monuments are considered to be more conventional activities in forms of hotels, administrative buildings, museums (image 36, page 64). After the property has been rented out, with the new purpose defined in beforehand, the organisation benefits from the rent, and is usually no longer actively involved into the management of the heritage rented out, except in terms of maintenance in some occasions. The heritage rented out is usually not used for or included in the activities the German Foundation for Monument Protection is undertaking.

Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Image 36. Some of the castles in the ownership of ‘Branderburgische Schlösser’ GmbH62 (Castle Steinhöfel is turned into a hotel, Castle Reckahn into a museum, while Castle DoberlugKirchhain still doesn’t have a proper use)

While the National Trust took full responsibility for conservation, maintenance and management of its own properties of great diversity, recognising in them economical and cultural potentials for self-sustainability and involvement of the supporters, the German Foundation developed different strategy, setting its focus mostly on the built heritage and its conservation. Active role in heritage management in this case is shifted to the owners or renters of the monuments. 3.2.6. Comparison level 6: Financing and investments There are two major sources of financing of the activities the German Foundation for Monument Protection is undertaking (image 37, page 65). The first influx comes directly from the lottery ‘GlücksSpiralle’, donating one-third of its profit for the needs of the Foundation, while the second major source is provided by the citizens themselves.

Source: http://www.schloesser-gmbh.de/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

TRUST FOUNDATIONS TRUST FOUNDATION CAPITAL THEMATIC FUNDS

DONATIONS

LOANS

ENDANGERED MONUMENTS

Image 37 37. Financing scheme of the The German Foundation for Heritage Protection

Several different possibilities are provided for citizens to take part in financing the initiatives of The German Foundation: donations, endowments and legacies - all set within highly developed legal frame. As the Foundation mostly acts like a financial correspondent between endangered heritage and the society (image 38), it developed various approaches to motivate future donators. The Foundation even offers help in organizing private donation campaigns through promoting connection it established between financial support of the heritage conservation with some significant personal jubilees (such as birthdays, silver weddings, summer parties, company jubilee or class reunions).

Image 38. The German Foundation for Monument Protection: donation scheme63 and a specimen of the payment form

The people’s role in saving endangered monuments, promoted by the German Foundation for Monument Protection, is reflected on the content of their printed promoting material and its magazine ‘Monuments’. The role in heritage conservation for donators and 63

Source: http://www.denkmalschutz.de/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

benefactors who provided financial support is at the same time put to an end. Donators are offered only the possibility to passively follow the development of the project they supported in releases of the magazine or through personal visits to the site. According to the statements of the benefactors within the publications, most of them expressed the feeling of joy and are proud to see the new resplendence on photos or during the site visit. There is an option for donors to set its personal foundation within the Foundation, which means that beneficiaries can actively follow the renovation of the site and cultivate personal contact with the institutions and individuals responsible for the heritage. Other active involvement of the benefactors into the conservation project or further use of the site seems to be excluded.

Image 39. One of the National Trust shops64

The financing of The National Trust is realised through the three main groups. The majority of financial support comes from the people, through membership fees, donations and legacies mostly, as well as from the entrance fees the Trust is collecting on its properties. Regarding the official data, The National Trust with more than 3,5 million members and nearly 15 million visitors generates significant income from their supporters. The second major influx is achieved by benefactors, tenants and other partners. The third way of important financial influx is mostly from revenue raised from the Trusts commercial operations such as restaurants, shops and holiday cottages (image 39 and image 40 on the page 67). 64

Source: http://www.bath360.co.uk/ and http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

If a comparison is made (table 5, page 68) upon their financial issues using available official data, the differences are obvious; total income of the National Trust for the year 2008 was nearly 12 times higher comparing to the German Foundation for Monument Protection. On the other side, even the British organisation invested nearly 5 times more money on conservation projects comparing to the German organisation in 2008, when observed proportionally to their total yearly income the results are a bit different than expected; the National Trust spent only 23% of its total income for the conservation projects, while the German Foundation 56,5%. These facts can be explained by different activities and aims the two non-governmental organisations set as its major goals. While the German organisation for Monuments Protection stands mainly for built heritage conservation, the National Trust broadened its focuses on several others major groups of activities, what created other expenses. The diversity of activities and sources of income variety between the two analysed NGOs reflected on their financial structure.

Image 40. 65 The National Trust online shop

Source: http://shop.nationaltrust.org.uk/

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Organization

Major sources of income

Total income /2008/

Conservation projects investments

Other major costs

- membership subscript. (£122 mill), - direct property income (£95,8 mill), - enterprise income (£50,42 million), - appeals and gifts (£47,68) - legacies (£42,8 million) 470 million EUR /£423,1 million/

£98 million /109 million EUR /

- lottery (15 million EUR); - donations (14,7 million EUR), - endowments (2,7 million EUR), - commercial activity (2,2 million EUR), - property income (2 million EUR) 40 million EUR

15,2 million EUR + 7,4 million EUR on own heritage maintenance

- Costs of generating funds with enterprise costs included (£49 million / 55 million EUR) - Awareness rising activities - Charitable activities - routine (4,8 million EUR), property running costs, capital projects, conservation services, - Governance costs education (£345,3 / 383 million (5,2 million EUR) EUR) - Governance costs (£2,7 / 3 million EUR) Table 5. Income, conservation investments and costs comparison

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

C H A P T E R

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH OUTLOOK Even being a rather recent concept, the approach to the idea of heritage protection went through serious rethinking and transformations, strongly influenced by the general situation and changes within the society. Globalizing world at present is facing the most comprehensive changes so far and is experiencing various challenges, which are imposing questioning of previously defined values, at the same time setting up new systems of criteria. What to preserve, how, till what extent and which are the benefits of preservation became the main issues regarding physical heritage in contemporary cities. The conventional approach to the built heritage as a single building, protected from the state level, seems not to fit anymore within the framework of the modern society and became a burden for public financing. The new trends in heritage preservation gradually recognized the potential of people and human values, shifting them to the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage. Widening the scope of heritage had a result in further impacts on traditional management of tangible cultural heritage, while the role of volunteers within a framework of active citizenship kept getting on its importance. The final idea ended up within the tendency of involving everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural assets. Heritage therefore is not seen only as a matter of national policies anymore, but as a matter of the whole society – of the people themselves. All the listed changes and transformations in heritage preservation issues, and the importance of initiative of the citizens in it, contributed to the significance of the nongovernmental organisations within the matter. The comparison between one German and one British heritage preservation NGO supposed to illustrate the size of the discourse in heritage management and the role of people’s initiatives within, as well as its impact on urbanisation process. Comparison with the governmental heritage offices proved the significance of the third sector activities, both of the analysed organisations having outstanding role and influence on heritage preservation policy. The National Trust has developed into one of the larges and most influential heritage conservation organisation in the UK, while the German Foundation for Monument Protection takes the important role in sustaining conservation in the country of its activities. The comparison itself between the two NGOs showed the range of similarities and differences in the framework within the two organisations are achieving its aims. Regarding general circumstances, the German Foundation has nearly double gravitational potential in people and territory, comparing to the territories where the National Trust set its activities. From the historical point of view, a notable gap of 90 years in the existence between the two organisations makes the significant differences in traditional values and experience gained so far. 69

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Organisation structure is rather similar in its basic scheme. Both of the NGOs are lead by the Board, which is supported by experts and advisors bodies for various fields of concern. As the National Trust is characterised by wider scope of activities and higher number of both owned heritage and members/supporters, its secondary organisation scheme is more complex, in order to reach all the needs and expectations. The governance of the National Trust is based upon commitment to openness, transparency and accountability, with involvement of volunteer work, especially high-calibre one. The German Foundation is established more on hierarchical principles, with the leaders and experts holding a strong role in decision making and limited participation of people. Regarding programme and activities comparison, the National Trust is oriented towards making heritage available ‘for ever, for everyone’. It generated various activities, supporting involvement and wishes of people, reaching out of the conservation issues. On the other hand, the German Foundation for Monument Protection contributes to heritage preservation from a different, rather conservative standpoint, acting like a correspondent between the donors and the monuments in need. The National Trust promotes and supports active participation of the people within heritage issues, while the German Foundation acts predominantly in fund-raising, conservation and promotion of the national built heritage. As the focus of the German Foundation is set on motivating individuals to donate in order conservation activities to be undertaken, the actions the National Trust is undertaking through openness, transparency, and strong encouragement for participation are more motivating for the people to apply for membership and support the activities of the organization. While the National Trust took full responsibility for conservation, maintenance and management of its diverse heritage, promoting their economical and cultural potentials, the German Foundation developed strategy fixed mostly on the built heritage and its conservation. Active role in heritage management in this case is shifted to the owners or renters of the monuments. Regarding economical issues, the diversity of activities and sources of income between the two analysed NGOs reflected on their financial structure; the two organisations drastically differs both in the available amount of the financial assets, as well as in the ways the money is being generated and spent. Undoubtedly, the scope of activities and results that the National Trust achieved sets this organisation among the most important in the matter, which makes policy the Trust established an appropriate answer to ongoing range of changes on a global level, regarding heritage and its conservation. What makes the range and scale of the Trusts activities possible and fruitful is the engagement of vast numbers of volunteers and supporters. Its greatest standpoint is right in the shared commitment of the volunteers, members, staff, visitors, trustees and benefactors. Regarding this issue, the German Foundation for Monument Preservation hasn’t included participation and transparency enough into its policy, which makes it harder to cope with the ongoing transformations. Nevertheless, the activities and results both of the NGOs prove the importance of initiatives of people regarding heritage preservation on national and global level. Deciding what is historically significant is no longer the exclusive jurisdiction of the experts but involves the shared judgement of everyone with a stake or interest. Therefore, regarding issues of heritage preservation, it is possible to conclude that heritage belongs to the people and the strength to cope with the changes should be found right in the initiatives that are coming from the people themselves. Concerning the influence these NGOs are having on the process of urbanisation itself, as well as on the decision making and planning process in general, they can be regarded on the first place as guards of the cultural and spatial values inherited. However, their vision of 70

_ NebojĹĄa Ä&#x152;AMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

urbanisation is not in radical discourse with the actual standpoint of how the cities or countryside should be developing; they rather have the role of safeguarding the existing values and indicating the right ways to be followed in future. Closely following the activities of legible state departments, local politicians, associations and developers, often with the support of their patrons, who are usually members of political or royal establishment, these organisations obtruded itself as important lobbyists on a decision making level, for the aims they are striving for. Therefore, they are not opposing modernisation, but are during these process insuring values from the past to be respected, preserved, incorporated into the development process and therefore used on the best possible way. Through the massive, even rising support of its followers, these organisations became an unavoidable factor, which reached to have a strong influence on the stakeholders previously mentioned. As an example, the National Trust, being one of the biggest landowners in the United Kingdom, with more than 3,5 million of followers, has a logically huge influence on urbanisation and processes of planning for the future, but is not using its power to confront development. This conclusion can easily be drawn out of the current principles of the National Trust; through its principle of significance, this organisation points out to the values which must be preserved, but its second principle of integration defines conservation as a creative process of negotiation to reach solutions for conflicts of interest, such as, for example, finding new uses for redundant historic buildings without adversely affecting their significance. This principle can also be determined in the activities of the German Foundation, through the activities on finding a compromise between the proper conservation of heritage and proper new use of the objects, as a guarantee for sustainability. Taking a look back on the National Trust, its third principle concerns adverse changes, such as inappropriate development and economic policies. Through this principle, conservation activities are given the role of initiators of desirable change, which shows that the National Trust openly supports further development processes, but in a way to heritage preservation issues remain respected. With the fourth principle, natural and cultural heritage conservation is given the aim for sustainable access and engagement for the benefit of society. Regarding all the principles mentioned, as well as the strategy for 2010, where the National Trust highlighted improvement of conservation and environmental performance as one of its main purposes, there is no conflict with urbanisation or development to be determined. The activities of this and related organisations could therefore rather be seen as a supplement for sustaining a living environment of a certain quality and values, for the general benefit of developing society.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

B I B L I O G R A P H Y WEB-PAGES 1.

The National Trust

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

2. Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the UK Government

http://www.culture.gov.uk/

3. English Heritage

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/

4. The National Trust of Scotland

http://www.nts.org.uk/

5. Die Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz

http://www.denkmalschutz.de/ 6. Brandenburgische Schlösser GmbH

http://www.schloesser-gmbh.de/ 7. Denkmal Akademie

http://www.denkmalakademie.de/

8. Die deutsche Bundesregierung

http://www.bundesregierung.de/

9. Denkmal Aktiv

http://www.denkmal-aktiv.de/ 10. Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz

http://www.dnk.de/ 11. Initiative Architektur und Baukultur

http://www.architektur-baukultur.de/ 12. Die Bundesstiftung Baukultur

http://www.bundesstiftung-baukultur.de/ 13. Denkmal Liste – Denkmalverzeichnisse im Internet

http://www.denkmalliste.org/

14. Interessengemeinschaft Bauernhaus e.V. – IGB

http://www.igbauernhaus.de/

15. Unesco-Welterbe Deutschland

http://www.unesco-welterbe.de/

16. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

http://de.wikipedia.org/ 17. Inventory of heritage organisations in Europe

http://www.heritage-organisations.eu/ 18. Europa Nostra

http://www.europanostra.org/

19. The Open Heritage Day Germany

http://tag-des-offenen-denkmals.de/ 72

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

BOOKS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Gregory John Ashworth, Peter J. Larkham: Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, Routhledge, London, 1994. http://books.google.de/ Robert Pickard: Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation; Spon Press, New York, 2001. http://books.google.de/ David Potter: NGOs and Environmental Policies: Asia and Africa, Frank Cass & Co, London, 2002. Randall Mason: Economic and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature, University of Pennsylvania, The Brookings Institution, 2005. http://books.google.de/ Nystrom, Louise: City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability; The Swedish Urban Environment Council, 1999. Alsayyad, Nezar: Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage – Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2001.

ARTICLES 1.

Donovan D. Rypkema: Globalization, Urban Heritage and the 21st Century Economy http://www.globalurban.org/ 2. Joseph L. Sax: Heritage Preservation as a Public Duty http://www.jstor.org/pss/1289119 3. Keith Donohue: Preserving Our Heritage, Art, Culture and the National Agenda, Center for Arts and Culture, 2001.

MAGAZINES & PUBLICATIONS

The National Trust 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

‘Magazine’, The National Trust, Summer 2007. ‘Magazine’, The National Trust, number 93, Summer 2001. History and Place – Informing the Future, The National Trust, 2004. Conservation Principles; Central Conservation Directorate, The National Trust. Our Future-Join In, Our Strategy to 2010 and Beyond, The National Trust, 2007. rd The National Trust Governance Handbook, 3 edition - 2009, page ii. The National Thrust Annual Report 2008/2009, p. 46. Conservation Bulletin, The National Trust, Issue 60, Spring 2009. Annual Report and Financial Statements 2006/07, The National Trust, Swindon, 2007. Time Well Spent, Annual Report 2008/09, The National Trust, Swindon, 2009. Annual Review 2006/07, The National Trust, Swindon, 2007. Our Future – Join in, Annual Report 2007/08, The National Trust, Swindon, 2008. Our Future – Join in, Our Strategy to 2010 and Beyond, The National Trust, Swindon, 2007. 14. Report on the Governance of the National Trust, The National Trust, Swindon, April, 2003. 73

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

15. The National Trust Governance Handbook, 2nd Edition, The National Trust, Swindon, 2008. 16. The National Trust Governance Handbook, 3nd Edition, The National Trust, Swindon, 2009. 17. Going Local: Fresh Track Down Old Roads; Our strategy for the next decade, The National Trust, Swindon, 2010. 18. History and Place, Informing the Future, The National Trust Policy and Campaigns, London, 2004.

Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz 19. ‘Monumente’, Magazin für Denkmalkultur in Deutschland, , Nr. 1/2, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, February 2010. 20. ‘Monumente’, Magazin für Denkmalkultur in Deutschland, , Nr. 11/12, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Dezember 2009. 21. Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz Jahresbericht 2007; DSD, 2007. 22. Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz Jahresbericht 2008; DSD, 2008. 23. Veranstaltungen zur Denkmalkultur, Denkmal Akademie, 2010. 24. Deutschlands größte Bürgerinitiative für die Denkmalpflege, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn, Juli 2009. 25. Spenden – Stiftungen – Darlehen – Testamente, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn, February 2007. 26. Testamente und Vermächtnisse für Denkmalschutz, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn, February 2007. 27. Satzung der Deutschen Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz, Bonn

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (UK) 28. The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, A Literature Review for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Prince Waterhouse Coopers, June 2007. 29. Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Architecture and Historic Environment Division, London, June 2004. 30. World Heritage for the Nation: Identifying, Protecting, and promoting our World Heritage, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London, December 2008.

English Heritage 31. Comission Handbook, Code of Practice for Comissioners, English Heritage, London, August 2005. 32. English Heritage Strategy 2005 – 2010, Making the Past Part of Our Future, English Heritage, London, 2005. 33. English Heritage Information Pack 2009, English Heritage, London, 2009. 34. English Heritage Annual Report and Accounts 2008/09. 35. Peer Review of English Heritage, Summary of Findings and Recommendations, English Heritage, London, June/July 2006.

_ Nebojša ČAMPRAG / MASTER THESIS

Other sources 36. Convention concerning the protection of the World cultural and natural heritage, United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, General conference Paris, November 1972. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf 37. Heritage Care through Active Citizenship – General Report, European Conference on Civil Society Organisation active in the Field of Heritage, March 23-24, 2009, Mecheln, Belgium 38. J. Jokilehto: Definition of Cultural Heritage – References to Documents in History, ICCROM, 2005. 39. Draft Medium Term Plan (1990-1995), UNESCO, 25 C/4, General Conference, TwentyFifth Session, Paris, 1989. PRESENTATIONS Simon Murray: The National Trust’s new approach to Heritage Care through Active Citizenship, Civil Society and Heritage 2009 - European conference on civil society organisations active in the field of heritage, Mecheln, Belgium http://www.heritageorganisations.eu/?p=347 2. Dr. Holger Rescher: So that the past has a future – the German Foundation for Monument Protection, Civil Society and Heritage 2009 - European conference on civil society organisations active in the field of heritage, Mecheln, Belgium http://www.heritageorganisations.eu/?p=310 1.

_____