Study on the Economic Value of the connection to UNESCO Networks in Portugal

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, Geoparks and UNESCO Chairs December 2014

TECHNICAL DATA SHEET TITLE STUDY ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, Geoparks and UNESCO Chairs TECHNICAL TEAM UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS-OS-MONTES AND ALTO DOURO [EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CHAPTERS I, II, IV AND V]: João Rebelo (coordination), Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Cristina Ribeiro. PORTUGUESE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO [BACKGROUND NOTE AND CHAPTER III]: Rita Brasil de Brito (technical coordination), Clara Bertrand Cabral (World Heritage), Elizabeth Silva (geoparks, biosphere reserves, UNESCO chairs, category II centres), Anna Ormeche (UNESCO centres and clubs), Fátima Claudino (UNESCO network of associated schools, and associated libraries). The authors of the respective chapters are responsible for the selection and presentation of the data contained therein, and for the opinions expressed, which are not necessarily those of the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in no way compromise these organisms. TRANSLATION Highlinks GRAPHICS AND PAGINATION Mediaminds PRINTING 150 examples LEGAL DEPOSIT xxxxxx/xx ISBN 978-989-20-6274-7 PUBLISHER Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO/ Ministry of Foreign Affairs Largo das Necessidades 1350-215 Lisboa +351 21 394 66 52 www.unescoportugal.mne.pt cnu@mne.pt First Edition 2014 © UNESCO National Commission / Ministry of Foreign Affairs

BACKGROUND NOTE The Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO (CNU), like the National Commissions of other countries,1 with the support of Portugal's Permanent Delegation to UNESCO and following a practice recognised by UNESCO, envisaged with this work to accomplish a study on the economic value of the connections to the UNESCO networks in Portugal. Notwithstanding the purpose of UNESCO and its contribution to maintaining peace and security through international cooperation in the areas of education, science, culture and communication, and also the intangible values of belonging to UNESCO networks, this study seeks to quantify for the first time, in terms of costs and benefits, the economic value of being connected to the networks for the World Heritage sites, geoparks, biosphere reserves and UNESCO chairs in Portugal. In the following report, after an introduction (Chapter I) and a theoretical chapter (Chapter II), in Chapter III a brief, but hopefully appealing, short presentation of the UNESCO networks in Portugal is provided. We have tried in a summarised and illustrated manner, to inform the reader about the activities of the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO, and the rationale behind World Heritage sites, biosphere reserves, geoparks, UNESCO chairs, associated schools, UNESCO clubs and centres, i.e., all the programmes that belong to this wider family and that contribute, on a daily basis, to implement the principles and objectives of this international organisation. In Chapter IV, an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of the connections to the UNESCO networks is carried out, considering aspects such as the length and cost of the nomination processes for the various classifications, the costs of maintaining the UNESCO designation, the nature of income sources (governmental, private or external), also providing a first analysis of the indirect economic impacts (measured through the number of visitors, restaurants, average length of stay in the location and employment) of the connection to UNESCO networks. Finally, Chapter V presents the conclusions, highlighting the existence of a positive effect resulting from the UNESCO designation and the fact that UNESCO classifications results in benefits to the surrounding region. This study2 is intended to be the first step towards attaining a quantitative method to better determine the potential and/or the difficulties behind each classification belonging to UNESCO networks, as well as suggesting possible improvements. In this context, it should be underlined that the results presented should be considered and weight bearing in mind that this is a preliminary exploratory work, and that future in-depth research will certainly provide finer and more detailed understanding of the economic value of the UNESCO sites and territories in Portugal. The findings presented result exclusively from the analysis of the three questionnaires3 sent to the managers of the World Heritage sites, geoparks and biosphere reserves in Portugal. It was not possible to accomplish a separate and differentiated analysis for each classification. This

1 The first study of this kind to be accomplished by a UNESCO National Commission was the "Wider value of UNESCO to the UK": â&#x20AC;&#x153;http://www.unesco.org.uk/uploa ds/Wider%20Value%20of%20UNE SCO%20to%20UK%2020121 3 % 2 0 f u l l % 2 0 r e p o r t . p d f.

2 Available online at www.unescoportugal.mne.pt.

Three questionnaires were used in this study. Questionnaires A and B were adapted from the Study "Wider value of UNESCO to the UK". Questionnaire C was prepared by the UTAD team.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

circumstance means that the indicators presented and the interpretation of the questionnaires vis a vis the data supplied encompass an added difficulty in interpreting reality, especially regarding the management and impacts on local development, particularly the performance of territories with a UNESCO designation, as is the case of the biosphere reserves and the geoparks. Rather than “properties”, these are territories with strategies, functions and objectives that are very different from those classified as World Heritage sites, thus requiring questionnaires more closely targeted to that reality. This statement is based on the results presented by the Arouca Geopark Association (Annex 3 of the study), which are quite revealing regarding the extent of the economic impact of the Geopark in the territory. Furthermore, the conclusions of this study recommend that different questionnaires should be increasingly applied to various publics (visitors and residents), when dealing with World Heritage sites and the territories under analysis. They should be developed based on indicators that allow a better reading of the real economic value of the UNESCO designation. In this way it will be possible to identify the most suitable strategies to implement management plans and encourage a true sustainable development grounded on practical and innovative examples, capable of motivating and capturing more and better, direct and indirect, investments. Finally, it is concluded that it would also be positive to analyse other studies about sites and territories with the UNESCO designation, as well as about UNESCO chairs, in order to achieve a more concrete vision of the activities carried out and the results obtained in this context. Accordingly, this study is not an end in itself but rather the beginning of a new set of approaches related to this theme and reality, and should be understood as a first contribution that the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO offers to its readers, thus hoping to captivate and interest of the academic community and the general public in developing future studies that may deepen this approach and complement it with different perspectives and reflections. It was only possible to carry out this report with the support of the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), and we would like to express our gratitude to its Rector, Professor António Augusto Fontainhas Fernandes, for his interest and availability from the outset of this project. Special thanks is due to Professor João Rebelo, who accepted the challenge of carrying out this groundbreaking study within a limited timeframe, with all the difficulties related to the lack of existing data and the fact that for the first time an analysis in these terms, and with this purpose, was to be accomplished in Portugal. A special word of appreciation is also due to the managers of the World Heritage sites, geoparks and biosphere reserves in Portugal, as well as to those responsible for UNESCO chairs. Their valuable cooperation in filling out the questionnaires and sending the data on which this study is based was essential, since without them the work now presented could not have been completed. Lisbon, December 2014 The President of the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO Ana Martinho Ambassador

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The total net benefits of the connection to UNESCO networks (measured as the difference between the total benefits and costs accumulated since the inclusion) are globally very positive. This report aims at analysing the economic value resulting from the connection to UNESCO networks, in Portugal, of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, the biosphere reserves, geoparks and the UNESCO chairs. The preservation and promotion of the status of cultural or natural goods with world public interest generate additional costs that the managing entities are required to justify through the benefits achieved. This quantification of benefits is a complex task, since we are looking at public assets that generate positive externalities or spill over effets. The total economic value of cultural and natural assets and services results from the sum of the value of use (direct and indirect) and non-use, which includes the values of existence, legacy, and option. Given this multiplicity of benefits, the methods and techniques to assess economic value can be divided into methods for: direct assessment, market assessment or direct economic impact; indirect assessment, or non-market assessment, resorting to the concepts of revealed preferences or stated preferences. In this work, given the aim established and leaving the economic determination of the nonuse value component for future analyses, we have resorted to the direct assessment method, which enabled us to measure additional net benefits in the economic activity. To attain this goal, we applied three complementary questionnaires, aimed at obtaining the information needed to achieve a first approach to the economic value of the different groups of assets with the UNESCO designation in terms of costs, sources of income and impact on economic activity. The analysis carried out on the information provided by the managing entities confirmed the existence of differences among the types of classifications with a UNESCO designation both in terms of costs and benefits which, inevitably, limited general conclusions, but rather suggested the consideration of four groups: world heritage sites, biosphere reserves, geoparks and chairs. Given the longer-term affiliation to UNESCO, world heritage sites stand out from the other classifications in terms of nomination costs, UNESCO designation maintenance and in obtaining sources of income. The largest proportion of financial benefits comes from government sources, with the 5

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

exception of the biosphere reserves, where the external benefits are the main source of income. As a whole, and in relative terms, own revenues still have a reduced weight, indicating that there is still some way to go in order to capture funds which are not strictly public. The total overall net benefits of the connection to the UNESCO networks (measured as the difference between the total benefits and the costs accumulated since inclusion) are very positive. As for the impact on economic activity resulting from the UNESCO designation, a positive effect on most of the indicators selected for this study can be observed, and it is also possible to conclude that the connection to UNESCO brings benefits for the surrounding region. Of note for the biosphere reserves is the growth reported in terms of the number of visitors in general and from schools, the jobs created, the average expense per visitor and the supply of restaurants. Geoparks also showed an increased attraction in terms of visits from schools, as well as a positive trend regarding the number of visitors, average expense/visit and average length of stay. However, job creation has been tenuous. In world heritage sites it is possible to distinguish a dynamic in hotel infrastructure supply, most certainly to respond to the growing number of visitors. In contrast to the biosphere reserves and the geoparks, heritage sites show a decrease in visits from schools, consistent with the decrease in students and the greater diversity in the number of assets available for visiting. Despite these constraints, the inversion of this trend seems advisable to ensure the intergenerational value for this heritage. The analysis of the replies to the questionnaires allows inferring that no information systems are implemented that can swiftly provide the data required to undertake studies similar to this one. The conclusions reached would be more accurate if there was further and improved information concerning all the indicators. In the oldest classifications, dating back to the 1980s, it became particularly difficult to ascertain the costs for the aforementioned classification and maintenance. Also in these cases, the elapsed time between the situation before and after classification made it difficult to extract the â&#x20AC;&#x153;UNESCOâ&#x20AC;? effects from those of the good itself with regard to the surrounding economic activity. This separation of effects can only be attested through the collection of specific information (such as a regular survey of visitors to determine whether the UNESCO designation has had an influence on their visits, or by determining the difference in the value with and without the classification in a marginal willingness to pay study). In this context, a fundamental recommendation would be the need to implement better information systems to respond in an easier and more expeditious manner to the kind of issues raised in this study and to support the various stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; decision-making process. This aspect is even more important in a scenario where the role of the State in economy is being reduced, leading to a greater competition among the different public policies, and where institutions are increasingly required to justify their activity and consequent public funding. Considering that most assets with the UNESCO designation produce externalities that are widely spread throughout society, this aim becomes urgent and it is necessary to isolate the effects on the economic activity of region surrounding the site or territory with the UNESCO designation from those resulting from other forces acting simultaneously.

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and goal of the study In 2013, the UK National Commission for UNESCO published the study entitled Wider Value of UNESCO to the UK 20122013, which presented information on the entities and organisations with links to UNESCO, with particular focus on world heritage, biosphere reserves and geoparks classifications, as well as UNESCO chairs, trying to estimate the financial benefits resulting from this connection. This was considered a good practice by UNESCO and it encouraged the National Commissions of other Member States to carry out studies with similar goals. In this context, the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO (CNU) adopted a benchmarking perspective, and decided to publish an analytical work as a first approach to the economic value of the connections to UNESCO networks in Portugal. To accomplish this task, between July and October 2014 three questionnaires were sent by CNU (Annex 1) to the managers of the world heritage sites, biosphere reserves, geoparks and UNESCO chairs, which were afterwards statistically processed and analysed by the University of Trรกs-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD). The result of this partnership between CNU and UTAD4 led to the work that is now being presented, whose general objective is to carry out an exploratory analysis of the economic value of the connections to UNESCO networks in Portugal, by considering the net benefits of the affiliation and maintenance of the UNESCO designation that follows the acceptance of the nominations. In addition, and as a result of the limitations detected in the replies to the questionnaires, several recommendations are made to improve future economic impact assessments as well as the management processes of cultural and natural assets.

1.2 Methodology Since this is a first work involving the systematic collection of information on the value of the link to UNESCO networks, there was a prior need to establish a working methodology to define the problem, and to collect and analyse the information obtained. In order to define the problem, a literature review was carried out on the economic valuation of cultural, natural and environmental assets, which is presented in Chapter II. Overall, this review suggests that the links to UNESCO networks creates value and has significant economic impact on the economy. However, the economic valuation or monetary determination of the value of cultural, natural and tangible or intangible heritage assets in general seems to be a complex and difficult exercise, insofar

as they display characteristics of public goods and external benefits which are diffused throughout society, where sources of use and non-use value coexist. As such, the aim in this point is to use a simple format, without resorting to mathematical formalisation, so as to involve the reader in the dynamics related to the economic valuation (determining the value in monetary terms) of nonmarket goods and amenities5.

4 The UTAD team had the task and responsibility of defining the working structure, as well as all the text, apart from chapter III and Annex 3, while benefiting from the comments and suggestions made by the CNU

This is a term frequently used in economic literature to express the specific nature of this type of goods, understood as resources, services or benefits.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

The choice of the economic valuation method depends, above all, on the objectives of the exercise, on the existing and obtainable information and on the resources available (time, human and financial). In this case, since the aim is to determine the total net benefits resulting from the UNESCO designation, the “direct economic impact” method can be applied, following the procedure adopted in the report: “Wider value of UNESCO to the UK 2012-2013” from the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO. After identifying the economic valuation method, a brief presentation of the UNESCO classifications in Portugal (sites, biosphere reserves, geoparks and chairs) is presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV addresses the presentation, description and statistical analysis of information on direct and indirect costs and benefits, including those resulting

from the impact on other activities. Generically, costs resulting from nominations and from affiliation and maintenance of the UNESCO designation are expressed in Figure 1.1. To determine the costs resulting from the UNESCO designation, questionnaire A was sent to the managing entities of the above-mentioned classifications, requesting information on the costs involved in maintaining formal connections to UNESCO. The benefits resulting from the designation are translated, firstly, into financial resources from various sources (public and private) obtained by the managing entity of the good. Secondly, the classification may be the central core that promotes investment, both direct and indirect, to regenerate the good itself and its surrounding territories, supported by public and private funds. Questionnaire B provides financial information to meet these objectives, i.e., it requests an analysis of the various sources of funding to better

Figure 1.1: Overview of costs

COORDINATION

SUPPORTING STUDIES * Demonstration of the outstanding universal value * Management Plan and other nomination documents

NOMINATION (Preparation)

COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION (Stakeholders; community) RELATED: Dissemination

IMPROVEMENT OF SITES/WORK Infrastructure (accessibility, tourism)

COSTS

EXPERIENCE OF VISITORS (regeneration of the area and restoration of sites)

COSTS OF RELATED ACTIVITIES

AWARENESS (marketing)

MEETING UNESCO REQUIREMENTS * Monitoring Periodic Reporting * Fulfil the Management Plan

INSCRIPTION

INDIRECT IMPACT, CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED - Planning controls - Costs for the community in general (congestion)

Source: Adapted from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007)

understand the benefits to Portugal of the different classifications with the UNESCO designation. The integration in a UNESCO network may generate a wide range of benefits which are mainly expressed in terms of tourism and leisure activities. There is clearly a strong connection to tourism, with tour operators increasingly focusing on the value of heritage when programming their circuits and overnight stays (Guedes, 2014: 246-247). This author used a content analysis from a sample of tourism programmes provided by the six main markets for Portugal, and concluded that, firstly, organised tour operators operating in the area of culture and heritage may play the role of being a catalyst for tourist practices. In addition, there are patterns and programme structures which are mainly of a circular nature, but which travel through the territory according to a sequential nexus that establishes links between nodes from portals which administer a strategic function to clear elements of a peripheral nature or which, from the tourist point of view, are more opaque. Indeed tourism may, in a reciprocal manner, bring new life to the social and economic fabric (some in an intermittent state) and to the territory, being able to establish an exchange relationship, by transforming its endogenous stronghold and its cultural and heritage dimensions into a tourism resource with exchange and economic value. Questionnaire C sought to obtain information that allows quantifying potential impacts on other economic activities, in particular those related to tourism and leisure resulting from the UNESCO designation. Based on the information collected through the questionnaires, and the method of economic assessment chosen, in Chapter IV the costs and the benefits of a UNESCO designation in Portugal are analysed, thus fulfilling the main goal of this work. Chapter V presents some final conclusions and recommendations, specifically on the need to implement swift processes to systematically collect information that may be used in the monitoring and economic assessment of the respective classification.

The integration in a UNESCO network may generate a wide range of benefits that are expressed mainly in tourism and leisure activities 9

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

II. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL AMENITIES

Cultural and environmental amenities and, within these, t h o s e w i t h t h e U N E S CO designation, have been achieving a greater social and economic importance, and there has been a growth in the supply and demand of tangible and intangible heritage goods.

The classification is generally assumed to make an excellent contribution towards preserving and safeguarding monuments, sites, landscapes and territories. However, as Frey and Steiner (2011) have stated, along with these positive effects (e.g. widespread public attention, interest from policy makers, business angels and businesses) negative effects can also occur, particularly the attraction of excessive waves of tourists who may contribute to the good’s destruction, and the negative substitution effect, that is, the diversion of funds to preserve other assets towards those on the List which fall under greater public scrutiny. 7 The chairs also require “contract specifications” to support the activities mentioned in the nomination.

On the one hand, there will be more typologies which can be classified (typological extension) and, on the other hand, as time passes, more goods will acquire historic value, representing heritage for future generations (Benhamou, 1996). In the case of geoparks this involves geological time. 9

In the Portuguese case, this requirement is accentuated because of the economic and financial constraints that the country is facing, with bodies managing goods feeling the need to encourage and implement strategies leading to increased productivity, competitiveness and social well-being. 10 In the specific case of cultural heritage, most authors consider it as a good that meets the characteristics of a public good (e.g. Peacock, 1994; Mosseto, 1994; Benhamou, 1996, 1997; Hutter, 1997; Noonan, 2002).

2.1 Issues The main reason for World Heritage List inscription6 is to safeguard and preserve the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value for future generations. The UNESCO designation is aimed at promoting “an appropriate equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development” (Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, 2002) in the destinations that host classified goods. Even though the economic benefit does not reflect the essence, UNESCO classified goods must be financially sustainable in the long-term, and such a classification requires additional efforts to provide new support services, access infrastructures, supplementary facilities and communication, among others. In general, in the documents published by UNESCO it is assumed that, directly or indirectly, the inscription on the World Heritage List has a positive economic impact, especially in terms of tourism, and the impact is higher the more aware and involved the local community is (residents and firms from various sectors) on the importance of the good for the current and future development of the territory (Jimura, 2011). Specifically, in terms of demand, the inscription on an international list functions as an information signal and, subsequently, a tourist attraction hub (Mignosa, 2001). In this regard, Klamer (2003: 11) states that: “Get a cultural good listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, and people will value that good more”. The nomination and selection process can be time consuming and take up significant human and financial resources, for those promoting the nomination have to plan and implement a strategy for local development, based on the preservation and improvement of the amenity and the involvement of the local community. Furthermore, a

mandatory part of the world heritage nomination process is the presentation of the Management Plan7 for the good or site. As the number of classified cultural and natural heritage goods and services increases, a process which Benhamou (1996) attributes to typological extension and historic addition8, the need for financial resources to protect, preserve and promote them also increases. This issue becomes even more important for goods publicly owned and managed, the investment and operational costs of which are chiefly financed using public resources, making it even more pressing to determine and quantify the public and private benefits associated with these9. The determination of the economic value of such heritage, whether inscribed in the UNESCO list or not, implies the financial quantification of costs and benefits. While the determination of the former does not present serious calculation difficulties, the same cannot be said for the benefits, due to the nature of public goods to which this type of good normally belongs10 (no rivalry in consumption and no exclusion in benefits) and the spillover effects (positive externalities) generated. The non-rivalry in consumption means that once the good is being provided for (e.g. in the form of preservation) and consumed by a group of individuals, there is the possibility of more consumers enjoying the good at a null marginal cost. That is to say, except in situations involving overloading, further costs of preservation do not increase with additional consumers. The nonexclusion in benefits implies that nobody can be prevented from enjoying the benefits of the good being provided, even if his/her contribution has been null. In this way, the good becomes accessible to

everybody, such as is the case of a preserved cultural and/or natural landscape, where restricting access is practically impossible, or the architectural qualities of a building facade exposed to the public even though it is private property. As regards spillover effects, production externalities can be distinguished from consumption externalities. The former refer to the positive effects resulting from the good heritage (and use) in economic agents without any intervention concerning its provision, as for instance in tourism, heritage regeneration, job creation and local development (Koboldt, 1997). Some authors also refer to the attraction of other activities, such as urban reconstruction, as well as the increase in resident population self-esteem, with all the resulting benefits (e.g. Mossetto, 1992). However, Koboldt (1997) stresses the need to isolate the additional income that come from the heritage status vis a vis other resources which may affect tourism. Consumption externalities, on the other hand, reflect the benefits resulting from the good existence or use by society as a whole, such as the strengthening of national identity, additional education, positive effects from further research concerning the good in question (for its inscription and maintenance).

2.2 Economic value. Use and non-use values The economic value of non-market cultural and natural amenities is defined through the components of use and non-use values. The former comprises the (direct and indirect) benefits related to the use of the good, such as those enjoyed by the visitors to a cultural heritage site or a natural reserve, while the

Generally, in the documents published by UNESCO it is assumed that, directly or indirectly, the inscription on the World Heritage List has a positive economic impact, in particular on tourism. This impact is higher the more aware and involved the local community is (residents and firms from various sectors) on the importance of the good for the current and future development of the territory. 11

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

latter expresses the benefits resulting from its simple provision or availability spread through the population as a whole, not involving any type of use (Throsby, 2001).11 Use value is expressed in an intrinsic or experimental manner, while non-use arises in the form of existence, option and legacy value. The latter specifically falls into the category of utility or satisfaction that comes from the fact of knowing that the good or amenity exists, even though there is no intention of directly using it (existence value), of guaranteeing its access at a later moment (option value), or of ensuring the possibility for future generations to access the same resources as the current generation, in a sense of intergenerational equity and legacy value, within a perspective of sustainable development.

2.3 Costs The determination of net economic value entails knowing the costs associated with the UNESCO classifications. Essentially there are two cost categories: those related to the nomination12 (feasibility studies and the demonstration of the outstanding universal value; coordination and communication) and those resulting from maintaining the affiliation. This involves direct costs, some multiannual, related to the compliance with the requirements established by UNESCO or by management plans, as in the case of biosphere reserves and geoparks, and indirect costs arising mainly from constraints to individual free use, whose calculation is complex since it involves the use of the concept of opportunity cost.

2.4 Methods and techniques of economic valuation Distinct from private goods, public goods do not always have a clear correspondence between those who benefit from and those who pay for the goods. Since it is not possible to exclude someone who does not pay for consumption, the market mechanism based on the market price system fails to provide an optimal allocation of resources or an efficient solution. In addition, the spillover effects (costs and benefits over others), by affecting economic agents 12

(consumers and producers) that are not directly involved, are external to the market of the amenity in question. In this sense, a considerable part of the value of this (non-use value and externalities), is not captured by the market. Non-market valuation techniques seek to bridge the gaps explained, in order to obtain information regarding preferences and value not observed by the market. Despite the public nature of most cultural and natural goods, valuation follows the same principles of private goods, resorting to concepts from microeconomic consumer theory. In general, the economic value of the good may be calculated using methods of: (a) direct market assessment, or direct economic impact; (b) indirect or non-market evaluation, through revealed-preference or statedpreference methods. Direct economic impact This method assumes that the investment in a heritage and territory project generates tangible direct and indirect economic benefits and basically seeks to quantify the financial differential between the situation with a project/event/classification versus the base-line situation or without project. Economic impact studies measure, in a suitable manner, the added short-term net benefits from the economic activity (Seaman, 2003). To quantify the net benefits, investment and operational costs are considered as well as income directly associated with the project. In addition, the indirect effects, that is, those resulting from other activities, are calculated by applying multipliers or even through the direct economic assessment of the increase in related activities. This type of analysis provides a useful assessment of the direct use values and indirect effects. The total economic impact of the inscription on an international list depends, to a large extent, on the level of â&#x20AC;&#x153;clusteringâ&#x20AC;? or network of the various activities already existing or that will be created at the site, especially those connected to tourism, including information and educational centres, tourism visitors centres, accommodation and catering

units, shops, local products and souvenirs, companies connected to transportation, travel and other local attractions. The sustainability and economic success of many of these activities depend on reaching a minimal level, that is, a certain level of demand capable of sustaining the supply, which is interconnected with the way the economic agents deal with the seasonality of such tourism activities. In certain cases, the economic and financial viability implies the adoption of strategies to achieve economies of scale (for example, through cooperation networks) and of scope (by offering packs with a range of products and services, for example). In empirical terms, the use of this method involves adopting a financial-accounting perspective comparing the costs and benefits directly and indirectly associated with the project and, in relation to the indirect impact, this is quantified in the first stage through the additional number of tourists, length of stay, average expenditure, as well as the development of the supply infrastructure for the various activities. In a second stage, in order to determine the total economic impact multipliers are applied, for example, to tourists’ expenditures (Eusebio, 2006). This method is easy to apply and provides results whose robustness and reliability depend on the robustness of the information sources. It is therefore essential to implement in situ an on-going and efficient data collection system, capable of responding to the assessment and monitoring system to be developed. This method shows limitations related to the capture of just a part of the use value, does not consider nonuse value and only difficulty does it determine the value of the economic impact multiplier. As such, it is generally accepted as a partial analysis of the problem (Snowball, 2008). In view of these shortcomings, indirect or non-market assessment methods have arisen13 (e.g. Mitchell and Carson, 1989) which can be classified into two groups (Navrud and Ready, 2002), revealed-preference and stated-preference.

Revealed preference methods Revealed-preference methods consist in determining the value or “market price” from direct or “revealed” observation of the consumer behaviour. In this method, the hedonic pricing technique, the transference value and the travel cost can be highlighted. The hedonic pricing technique resorts to supplementary goods or goods related to heritage, to determine the value of the latter. For example, the added value of real estate properties located near a classified site or territory may offer clues about its economic value. This method is suitable to capture long-term growth in the production and economic development generated by the project in question (Seaman, 2003). In a way similar to hedonic pricing, the transference value also resorts to comparative values, but without the requirement of considering goods close by; as a result, values may be inferred from meta solutions or similar goods in any other location. For example, this method is often used to assess the “equivalent publicity value” in mass media. The travel cost method quantifies the value of the heritage good through a variable that quantifies travel expenses. The designation results from the fact that cultural and natural goods are generally provided at low cost, and the visit/consumption is influenced by the (direct and opportunity) cost associated to the journey. The economic value of the good is expressed by the consumer surplus value, which is determined from the estimated demand curve.

Regarding a potential improvement in water quality, Mitchell and Carson (1989) identify as direct use benefits those which arise from recreational and commercial activities, such as fishing and navigability, which may take place on the water or arise from activities close by (municipalities, agriculture and industry/trade). Indirect use benefits can be considered the effects of this quality on nearby activities, such as those related to the ecosystem (general support, such as the food chain or support for recreation) and aesthetic (promotion of related recreational activities, such as picnics, photography, watching ...). 12 In terms of economic analysis, this involves sunk costs, in the sense that once they are spent they should no longer be considered in decision-making. 13 These methods have special application to an asset/amenity or specific programme and in general involve the collection of information by survey and its analytical processing through econometric methods and techniques involving a certain degree of complexity.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Revealed-preference methods do not include the nonuse value in the calculations, a weakness that has been solved through stated-preference methods. Stated preference methods Stated-preference methods gather information about consumersÂ´ preferences by creating markets/hypothetical scenarios, so as to imitate real market transactions. The information is obtained by carrying out surveys, which requires significant financial and logistical efforts. This typology includes the contingent valuation method and choice modelling14 techniques, amongst which the discrete choices technique can be highlighted. The contingent valuation method, in a somewhat direct manner, makes it possible to obtain information about the maximum willingness to pay (minimum to be accepted) to ensure (do without) a hypothetical change in the availability of a non-market amenity. For example, using the requesting format in an open manner, the valuation question is something like: â&#x20AC;&#x153;what is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for an increase in the quality of good xâ&#x20AC;?. Using the referendum format (dichotomous question), the respondent is requested to indicate if he/she is willing or not to pay a specific financial amount to have access to the amenity or proposal presented. In this case, information from the yes/no replies is obtained in terms of financial amounts (price factors) presented to each respondent. This methodology, widely used in the environmental area and later transposed to the cultural field, is suitable when the purpose is valuing the product as a whole. However, this total dimension is often not addressed, particularly in the valuing of goods composed of various attributes or characteristics (multi-attribute goods, such as an item of cultural or geological heritage). The discrete choices technique overcomes this issue, by basing itself on the presumption that a good produces utility from its attributes, following the pioneering work of Lancaster (1966). In this sense, the discrete choices technique, within the contingent choices family, obtains information about preferences 14

and value through the choices made by respondents among various alternatives presented in choice sets. Each alternative represents a programme/project and is conceived by combining the attributes considered important to the good and the respective levels (such as the presence or absence of the attribute). Each respondent is requested to sequentially choose their preferred programme/project in various sets.

2.5 Conclusion Cultural and environmental amenities and, within these, those that present the UNESCO designation, have achieved a greater social and economic importance, and there has been a growth in the supply and demand of tangible and intangible heritage goods. The importance of the economic valuation of UNESCO classifications has increased due to alterations in the external environment (the importance of cultural and natural goods also as tourist destinations) and the actual competition to obtain public and private financial resources. As regards external constraints, cultural and nature destinations have been subject to a growing demand, exacerbating the need for the conservation and dissemination of the good (Montemagno, 2002). This evolution meant that the traditional perspective orientated towards supply has given way to an understanding of demand, with the adoption of preservation and marketing strategies towards keeping visitors and obtaining new publics. On the other hand, institutions associated with cultural and environmental amenities are in competition for financial resources with other institutions offering public goods, in particular public and patronage ones. In this sense, managing entities feel the need to justify the allocation of resources and funding based on the public benefits created and, for this reason, determining the economic value is increasingly becoming an important variable when taking decisions to preserve, conserve and promote those classifications bearing the UNESCO affiliation. Since most classified goods encompass public goods characteristics and spillover effects, where use and

non-use value coexist, economic valuation is a complex exercise, difficult to carry out. Valuation procedures with increasing analytical complexity have been developed, based in concepts taken from consumer microeconomic theory and in techniques and methods used in Statistics and Econometrics, even though the economic principle of cost-benefit is always present in its genesis. The choice of the economic valuation method to be applied depends primarily on the goals of the work, the information available and to be collected, and the resources (time, human and financial) willing to be allocated. In the case of this task, since it is intended to carry out a first approach to the total net benefits resulting from classifications with the UNESCO affiliation, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;direct economic impactâ&#x20AC;? method is to be recommended.

14 This includes the following techniques which differ in terms of choice task (Bateman et al., 2002): contingent ranking, contingent rating, paired comparisons and discrete choice experiments. In contingent ranking the respondents are requested to rank a set of alternatives according to their preferences. In contingent rating, the respondents give points on a numerical scale, and these alternatives are presented individually and, as such, do not involve a direct comparison of alternatives. In discrete choice experiments, the respondents choose the preferred alternative from the two presented to them, indicating the strength of the superiority of this choice, by using a scale.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

III. UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values and oriented towards sustainable development, a culture of peace, respect for human rights and the alleviation of poverty.

15 Article I of the Constitutive Act that created the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

16 Portugal initially joined UNESCO in 1965, and withdrew in 1972. It later rejoined in 1974.

3.1 UNESCO and the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO UNESCO or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialised agency of the United Nations system with the purpose of contributing to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms for all the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, gender, language or religion as established by the Charter of the United Nations.15 UNESCO was founded after World War II, through the adoption of its Constitutive Act at the Conference of London on November 16, 1945, which came into force on November 4, 1946, after ratification by 20 signatory countries.

ÂŠ UNESCO/Michel Ravassard

Figure 3.1: UNESCO Headquarters in Paris

There are currently 195 States and 9 associate UNESCO members. Portugal belongs to this international organisation since September 11, 197416.

supporting freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The Organisation has two global priorities: Africa and gender equality (United Nations 2014).

UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for shared common values and is oriented towards sustainable development, culture of peace, respect for human rights and the alleviation of poverty.

One of the specific aspects of UNESCO compared to other agencies within the United Nations family is its wide-ranging network of 198 National Commissions. Article VII of the UNESCO Constitution foresees the creation of national commissions to operate as advisory bodies of Member Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Governments in matters related to the Organisation and act as liaison agencies in all matters of interest.

UNESCO develops activities in the education, natural sciences, social and human sciences, culture, communication and information areas. Its objectives include: attaining quality education for all; promoting research in the natural and social sciences through international and intergovernmental scientific programmes that contribute to sustainable development; supporting the expression of cultural identities; protecting and enhancing the world's natural and cultural heritage, as well as its cultural diversity; promoting intercultural dialogue and a culture of peace;

It is therefore a constitutional obligation of each Member State to create a National Commission, whose main objective should be to involve the different ministries, agencies, institutions, universities, non-governmental organisations and individuals in the work of UNESCO and to serve as liaison agents with the Organisation. Established by the Governments of Member States, which are responsible for carrying out UNESCO

Figure 3.2: UNESCO areas of activity

EDUCATION

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

CULTURE

UNESCO AREAS OF ACTIVITY

EXACT AND NATURAL SCIENCES

HUMAN AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

The NatCom - Portugal is a structure of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros - MNE) (Article 1) with the mission of carrying out the aims envisaged in the UNESCO Constitutive Act (Article 2), and with the following organs: the President, who inherently is the Secretary General of the MNE, the ExecutiveSecretary and the Advisory Board (Article 3).

enlarged composition including, besides the CNU itself and the Permanent Delegate from Portugal to UNESCO, six members designated by the Government, representing the areas of the environment, science, media, culture, education and sport; two representatives of the Autonomous Regions, one from the Azores and the other from Madeira; a representative from the National Association of Portuguese Municipalities; three higher education teachers; two members designated by the Association of Representatives of Private and Cooperative Educational Establishments; three members elected among representatives of educational, cultural and scientific national institutions, foundations, associations or academies that carry out activities at a national level within UNESCO's scope; five members selected from representatives of non-governmental organisations legally constituted with consultative status at UNESCO (Article 6).

As recommended, the Advisory Board of the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO has an

CNU carries out a wide range of activities in the different areas of UNESCO's mandate. In the area of

objectives, the National Commissions should also function as “meeting points” and “connection bridges” between the national authorities and a vast range of national entities (UNESCO 2009). In Portugal, the National Commission for UNESCO (NatCom - Portugal) was created in 1979 and is currently regulated by Regularmentary-Decree No. 16/2012, of January 30, altered by RegulamentaryDecree No. 1/2013, of March 14, 2013.

For more information on the activities of the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO, please consult the website http://www.unescoportugal.mne.pt where its activities plan and annual report are available. 18 Some of these networks are international, common to many UNESCO Member States, while others are somewhat informal networks, set up by the initiative, or in parallel, with the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO.

The Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO develops a vast range of activities in different areas of UNESCO mandate, including technical support to nominations to the World Heritage List and to the Intangible Heritage lists in the context of the conventions ratified by Portugal, to the Geoparks, Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Chairs programmes and to the Creative Cities network; the coordination of working groups and national committees; the implementation of activities to promote sustainable development; the coordination of Centres and Clubs, Associated Schools and Associated Libraries Networks; the launching of competitions; the development of educational materials and their dissemination; the promotion of media literacy and the protection of Human Rights. 18

Culture, among other tasks it coordinates interministerial working groups and provides technical support to the presentation of nominations within the UNESCO conventions for the protection and safeguarding of cultural, natural and intangible heritage and for the Creative Cities Network; in the area of Science, it coordinates working groups and national committees in the context of UNESCO scientific programmes and the Portuguese Geoparks Forum, and promotes activities to enhance sustainable development; in the area of Education, it coordinates UNESCO libraries and associated schools networks, including the launching of school competitions and the production of educational and pedagogical materials; in the area of Communication, it promotes activities within the working group for media literacy and launches annually a prize for journalism on topics related to Human Rights.17

dissemination of information on the National Commission for UNESCO website and on social networks, enabling UNESCO's messages to reach many people. Moreover, many other activities are developed by CNU, and its role encouraging the different networks connected to UNESCO that exist in Portugal18 should be highlighted. A short description of all these networks will be presented in the following point, giving special attention to those considered in this study, namely Portuguese World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks networks, as well as the UNESCO Chairs. The UNESCO associated schools, centres and clubs, libraries and Category 2 Centres networks will also be briefly mentioned, since UNESCO considers them to be privileged vehicles to accomplish the Organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission.

Common to all areas is the importance given to the preparation of promotional materials such as brochures, pamphlets, exhibitions, as well as the

Figure 3.3: UNESCO sites, territories and networks in Portugal

WORLD HERITAGE (15) INTANGIBLE HERITAGE (3)

LIBRARIES (18)

ASSOCIATED SCHOOLS (67)

CENTRES AND CLUBS (30)

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO

UNESCO CHAIS (3)

GEOPARKS (4)

BIOSPHERE RESERVES (7)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Figure 3.4: UNESCO in Portugal

DISTRICT OF VILA REAL

DISTRICT OF VIANA DO CASTELO Biosphere Reserves Centres and Clubs

World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Associated Schools Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

1* 1

DISTRICT OF BRAGA World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Associated Schools Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

1 1* 1 3 1

1* 1* 3 2 1

DISTRICT OF BRAGANÇA World Heritage Geoparks Associated Schools Centres and Clubs

1* 1 1 1

DISTRICT OF PORTO World Heritage Chairs Associated Schools Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF VISEU

1 1 15 5 2

World Heritage Associated Schools Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF GUARDA

DISTRICT OF AVEIRO Geoparks Associated Schools Associated Libraries

World Heritage Associated Schools Centres and Clubs

1 3 2

Geoparks Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

1 1 4

World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Associated Schools Associated Libraries

2 1 2

DISTRICT OF LISBON World Heritage Intangible Heritage Associated Schools Centres and Clubs

1 1 4 2

DISTRICT OF PORTALEGRE 2 1 16 7

World Heritage Geoparks

1 1*

DISTRICT OF ÉVORA World Heritage Chairs Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF SETÚBAL Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

1* 1 1

DISTRICT OF SANTARÉM

DISTRICT OF LEIRIA World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Associated Libraries

1+1* 2 1

DISTRICT OF CASTELO BRANCO

DISTRICT OF COIMBRA World Heritage Chairs Associated Schools

1* 2 1

2 2

1 1 3

DISTRICT OF BEJA Intangible Heritage Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF FARO

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES World Heritage Geoparks Biosphere Reserves Associated Schools Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

1 1

Intangible Heritage Associated Schools Centres and Clubs Associated Libraries

2 1 3 2 1 1

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MADEIRA

OTHER COUTRIES

World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Associated Schools

Centres and Clubs

1 1 2

1 12 1 3

* Located in more than one district

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal

3.2.1 Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List

Only properties with outstanding universal value are inscribed on the World Heritage List. By June 2014, the Convention had been ratified by 191 States and the World Heritage List included 1007 properties located in 151 State Parties: 779 cultural, 197 natural and 31 mixed.

Cultural and natural heritage are among the priceless and irreplaceable goods of all Humanity and the loss, degradation or disappearance of any of these goods constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples in the world. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted on November 16, 1972 during the 1st session of the General Conference of UNESCO that took place at the headquarters of the Organisation in Paris. According to Article 1 of the Convention, the following shall be considered as cultural heritage: Monuments â&#x20AC;&#x201C; architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; Groups of buildings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; Sites â&#x20AC;&#x201C; works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historic, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view. According to Article 2, the following shall be considered as natural heritage: Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of

outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; Geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; and Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. Each of the State Parties to the Convention must ensure the identification, protection, conservation, enhancement and transmission to future generations of the natural and cultural heritage located within its territory. Paragraph no. 1 of Article 11 of the Convention states that every State Party shall submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of properties forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Such an inventory, which should not be considered exhaustive, should include documentation about the location of the property in question and its significance. This inventory was later given the name of Tentative List which, in Portugal, is currently undergoing a revision and updating (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=pt). Only properties with an outstanding universal value are inscribed on the World Heritage List. This value to all mankind, this outstanding worth, must be justified in the nomination dossier by meeting one or more of ten criteria (six cultural and four natural) and by providing 21

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Figure 3.5: World Heritage 1 - MONASTERY OF ALCOBAÇA 2 - HISTORIC CENTRE OF ANGRA DO HEROÍSMO IN THE AZORES 3 - MONASTERY OF BATALHA 4 - PREHISTORIC ROCK ART SITES IN THE COA VALLEY AND SIEGA VERDE 5 - UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA. ALTA E SOFIA

6 - CONVENT OF CHRIST IN TOMAR 7 - ALTO DOURO WINE REGION 8 - GARRISON BORDER TOWN OF ELVAS AND ITS FORTIFICATIONS 9 - HISTORIC CENTRE OF ÉVORA 10 - HISTORIC CENTRE OF GUIMARÃES 11 - LAURISILVA OF MADEIRA

12 - MONASTERY OF THE HIERONYMITES AND TOWER OF BELÉM IN LISBON 13 - CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE PICO ISLAND VINEYARD CULTURE OF THE ISLAND OF PICO 14 - HISTORIC CENTRE OF PORTO 15 - CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF SINTRA

evidence of the conditions of integrity for all properties and authenticity for cultural ones. While authenticity should be expressed in a truthful and credible way through a diversity of attributes (including form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and background; languages and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other intrinsic and extrinsic factors), integrity, in turn, is an assessment of the wholeness and the intactness of the property and its attributes. The loss of outstanding universal value may lead to the exclusion of a property from the World Heritage List (UNESCO 2013). In June 2014, the Convention had been ratified by 191 States and the World Heritage List consisted of 1007 properties located in 151 States Parties, including 779 cultural, 197 natural and 31 mixed. Portugal has currently fifteen properties on the World

Heritage List. The first sites, namely the “Central Zone of the Town of Angra do Heroismo in the Azores”, the “Monastery of the Hieronymites and Tower of Belém in Lisbon”, the “Monastery of Batalha” and the “Convent of Christ in Tomar” were inscribed in 1983 followed by, also in the 1980s, the “Historic Centre of Évora” in 1986 and the “Monastery of Alcobaça” in 1989. The new category of cultural landscapes, created by the World Heritage Committee in 1992, was rapidly adopted by Portugal, which classified the first site of this type in Europe in 1995, namely the “Cultural Landscape of Sintra”, with the subsequent classification of the cultural landscapes of the “Alto Douro Wine Region” in 2001 and the “Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture” in 2004. The “Laurisilva of Madeira”, the only natural property in Portugal, was inscribed in 1999. Other historic centres have been recognised by the World Heritage Committee, such as the “Historic Centre of

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Oporto” in 1996 and the “Historic Centre of Guimarães” in 2001.

For the purposes of this study (Table 3.1), the world heritage properties were aggregated into three analysis typologies: (i) Cultural landscapes, groups of sites and natural properties ; (ii) Historic centres and groups of buildings; (iii) Monuments.

With regard to serial nominations, the Prehistoric Rock Art Sites of the Coa River Valley, inscribed in 1998, were extended to Siega Verde in 2010, and are now a single transnational property, the “Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde “. The “Garrison Border Town of Elvas and its Fortifications”, classified in 2012, includes, in addition to the historic centre inside the walls, another six components (the Amoreira Aqueduct, the Fort of Santa Luzia, the Fort of Graça, and the Fortlets of São Mamede, São Pedro and São Domingos.). Finally, in 2013 the “University of Coimbra - Alta and Sofia” was inscribed, covering two distinct areas, namely the University and Sofia Street.

The World Heritage Network for Portugal was established in July 2014 with the aim of bringing the World Heritage site managers together through the debate of ideas on heritage management and rehabilitation, the exchange of knowledge and the discussion of issues of mutual interest, as well as to foster the joint participation in projects and initiatives that may generate value to the regions in which the properties are located and disseminate World Heritage in Portugal and in the World.

Tabela 3.1: Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List Name of the property

Classified Buffer zone19 Area (ha) (ha) Cultural landscapes, natural properties and groups of sites Inscription Criteria date

Typology

District (Municipality)

Bragança (Carrazeda de Ansiães, Torre de Moncorvo), Guarda (Vila Nova de Foz Coa), ALTO DOURO WINE REGION

2001

(iii)(iv)(v)

Cultural Landscape

24600

225400

Vila Real (Alijó, Mesão Frio, Peso da Régua, Sabrosa, Santa Marta de Penaguião, Vila Real), Viseu (Armamar, Lamego, São João da Pesqueira, Tabuaço)

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF SINTRA

1995

(ii)(iv)(v)

Cultural Landscape

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE PICO ISLAND VINEYARD CULTURE OF THE ISLAND OF PICO

2004

(iii)(v)

Cultural Landscape

987

1924

1998

(i)(iii)

Group of sites

174.86

20543.48

PREHISTORIC ROCK ART SITES IN THE COA VALLEY AND SIEGA VERDE

LAURISILVA OF MADEIRA

946

3641

Azores (São Roque do Pico, Madalena) Guarda (Vila Nova de Foz Coa, Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo, Mêda, Pinhel)

2010 1999

Lisbon (Sintra)

(ix)(x)

Natural property

15000

Madeira (Ponta do Sol, Calheta, Porto Moniz, São Vicente, Santana, Machico)

Historic centres and ensembles Azores (Angra do Heroísmo)

HISTORIC CENTRE OF ANGRA DO HEROÍSMO IN THE AZORES

1983

(iv)(vi)

Historic Centre

212,40

223,85

HISTORIC CENTRE OF GUIMARÃES

2001

(ii)(iii)(iv)

Historic Centre

Braga (Guimarães)

HISTORIC CENTRE OF PORTO

1996

(iv)

Historic Centre

Porto (Porto)

HISTORIC CENTRE OF ÉVORA

1986

(ii)(iv)

Historic Centre

104

Évora (Évora)

GARRISON BORDER TOWN OF ELVAS AND ITS FORTIFICATIONS

2012

(iv)

Group of buildings

179

690

Portalegre (Elvas)

UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA. ALTA E SOFIA

2013

(ii)(iv)(vi)

Group of buildings

Coimbra (Coimbra) Santarém (Tomar)

Monuments CONVENT OF CHRIST IN TOMAR

1983

(i)(vi)

Monument

1,436

20,890

MONASTERY OF BATALHA

1983

(i)(ii)

Monument

0.98

Leiria (Batalha)

MONASTERY OF ALCOBAÇA

1989

(i)(iv)

Monument

2,5

39,17

Leiria (Alcobaça)

MONASTERY OF THE HIERONYMITES AND TOWER OF BELÉM IN LISBON20

1983

(iii)(vi)

Monument

2.66

103

Lisbon (Lisbon)

19 Designed for the effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. The dossier proposing the inscription should include details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of the buffer zone, as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone. (UNESCO 2013: §104)

In the present study, data for the Monastery of the Hieronymites and the Tower of Belém in Lisbon were analysed separately, although it is a single World Heritage property.

Figure 3.6: World Heritage

HISTORIC CENTRE OF GUIMARÃES ALTO DOURO WINE REGION HISTORIC CENTRE OF PORTO PREHISTORIC ROCK ART SITES IN THE COA VALLEY AND SIEGA VERDE

UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA. ALTA E SOFIA

MONASTERY OF BATALHA MONASTERY OF ALCOBAÇA CONVENT OF CHRIST IN TOMAR GARRISON BORDER TOWN OF ELVAS AND ITS FORTIFICATIONS CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF SINTRA MONASTERY OF THE HIERONYMITES AND TOWER OF BELÉM IN LISBON HISTORIC CENTRE OF ÉVORA

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE PICO ISLAND VINEYARD CULTURE OF THE ISLAND OF PICO HISTORIC CENTRE OF ANGRA DO HEROÍSMO IN THE AZORES LAURISILVA OF MADEIRA

THE AZORES

MADEIRA

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.2 Biosphere reserves

Biosphere reserves are territories representative of the main world ecosystems (terrestrial, coastal and marine) where the three functions that consolidate and mutually complete them are promoted, such as the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems and species; sustainable development at the social, economic, cultural and economic levels; and their role as platforms for research, monitoring, education, awareness raising and the exchange of information – all accomplished with the involvement of the local communities and local development agents. The World Network of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves currently consists of 631 biosphere reserves in 119 countries throughout the world (September 2014).

Figura 3.7: Biosphere Reserves

TRANSBOUNDARY GERÊS/XURÉS BOQUILOBO, GOLEGÃ BERLENGAS, PENICHE CORVO, AZORES FLORES, AZORES GRACIOSA, AZORES

THE AZORES

MADEIRA

SANTANA, MADEIRA

In Portugal, there are seven biosphere reserves belonging to the World Network of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves (Figure 3.1): Boquilobo, Corvo, Graciosa, Flores, Transboundary Gerês/Xurés, Berlengas and Santana. They strive to contribute to the protection, valuation and enhancement of the natural heritage within the territory, to deepen and disseminate scientific knowledge, to foster tourism and sustainable development, and to promote the World Network of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Biosphere reserves are therefore privileged territories for the creation of important instruments and dynamics for the dissemination, visitation and conservation of natural, historic and cultural heritage, to foster nature tourism, to promote and encourage the manufacture of craft articles, to stimulate the trade of quality products, thus fostering entrepreneurship and economic activity, ensuring the permanence of local citizens and the consequent improvement in the standard of living of the local populations. These territories are representative of the main world ecosystems (terrestrial, coastal and marine) where the three functions that consolidate and mutually complete them are promoted, such as the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems and species; sustainable development at the social, economic, cultural and economic level; and their role as platforms for research, monitoring, education, awareness raising and exchange of information – all accomplished with the involvement of the local communities and local development agents. In this sense, biosphere reserves act as living laboratories for sustainability, as pilot areas representing an exemplary balance among nature conservation and cultural values, the management of natural resources and economic development. They also underpin the development of practices and strategies to combat desertification and resilience to climate change. On the other hand, biosphere reserves should function as engines for the promotion of tourism, visitation and the marketing of regional projects, stimulating the trade of traditional products, gastronomy, the certification of quality products, as well as the promotion of entrepreneurship and economic activities.

Biosphere Reserves are part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves established by the UNESCO Programme “Man and the Biosphere”. Launched in 1971, this is an intergovernmental scientific programme that envisages the establishment of a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationships between people and their environment. This Programme created the concept of biosphere reserve, initially very focused on nature conservation, but which has evolved over time and currently seeks to respond to the great challenges of the 21st century, such as the growth trend and spatial distribution of populations, the increase in energy needs and resources or the effect of the market economy in rural areas. The MAB Program also seeks to contribute to the goals of the major multilateral agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Agenda XXI, among others. The UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves currently includes 631 biosphere reserves in 119 countries throughout the world (September 2014).

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Figure 3.8: Biosphere Reserves 1 - BERLENGAS 2 - BOQUILOBO 3 - CORVO 4 - FLORES 5 - GERÊS-XURÊS 6 - GRACIOSA 7 - SANTANA

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.3 Geoparks

A geopark is a new concept in rural areas where an exceptional Geological Heritage is the base of a strategy to promote the well-being of the populations, while maintaining maximum respect for the environment. Its aims are preserving geological heritage for present and future generations; educating and teaching the general public about themes related with Earth Sciences and their relations with environmental issues; ensuring sustainable development at the social, economic and cultural levels; promoting multicultural bridges in heritage, conservation and maintenance of geological and cultural diversity, through partnerships; stimulating research in these territories; actively contributing to the existence of the Network through joint initiatives (publications, exchange of information, organisation of conferences, joint projects, etc.).

Figure 3.9: Geoparks

AROUCA TERRAS DE CAVALEIROS, MACEDO DE CAVALEIROS NATURTEJO DA MESETA MERIDIONAL THE AZORES

Figure 3.10: Portuguese Global Geoparks

TERRAS DE CAVALEIROS GLOBAL GEOPARK (2014)

NATURTEJO DA MESETA MERIDIONAL GLOBAL GEOPARK (2006)

PORTUGUESE GLOBAL GEOPARKS

AROUCA GLOBAL GEOPARK (2009)

AZORES GLOBAL GEOPARK (2013)

A geopark is a new concept in rural areas where an exceptional Geological Heritage is the base of a strategy to promote the well-being of the populations, while maintaining maximum respect for the environment. This sort of nature tourism provides an understanding of Geology, beyond mere aesthetic appreciation. As such, a geopark is not just an additional category of protected areas, but rather another way of understanding nature conservation and reconcile it with sustainable tourism, thus enabling the improvement of local residents’ living conditions. This new classification supported by UNESCO has sought to provide an answer to the necessary international recognition of national or regional important geological heritage, since there is not a specific international convention concerning geological heritage.

Their aims include preserving geological heritage for present and future generations; educating and teaching the general public about themes associated to Earth Sciences and their relations with environmental issues; ensuring sustainable development at the social, economic and cultural levels; promoting multicultural bridges in heritage, conservation and maintenance of geological and cultural diversity through partnerships; stimulating research in the territories; actively contributing to the existence of the Network through the implementation of joint initiatives (publications, exchange of information, organisation of conferences, common projects, etc.). UNESCO’s support to geoparks inscribed in the European Geoparks Network and Global Geoparks

Table 3.2: List of Geoparks Date of entry

Distinctive Geological aspects

Website

NATURTEJO DA MESETA MERIDIONAL GEOPARK

2006

Fossils and landforms

www.naturtejo.com

AROUCA GEOPARK

2009

Fossils and granite rocks

www.geoparquearouca.com

Name

District (Municipality) Castelo Branco (Idanha-a-Nova, Oleiros, Proença-a-Nova, Vila Velha de Rodão), Portalegre (Nisa) Aveiro (Arouca) The Azores (Angra do Heroísmo, Calheta, Corvo, Horta, Lagoa, Lajes das Flores, Lajes do Pico, Madalena, Nordeste,

THE AZORES GEOPARK

2013

Volcanoes and associated phenomena

www.azoresgeopark.com

Oceanic crust rocks

www.geoparkterrasdecavaleiros.com

Ponta Delgada, Povoação, Ribeira Grande, Santa Cruz da Graciosa, Santa Cruz das Flores, São Roque do Pico, Velas, Vila do Porto, Vila Franca do Campo, Vila Praia da Vitória.)

TERRAS DE CAVALEIROS GEOPARK

2014

Bragança (Macedo de Cavaleiros)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Figura 3.11: Portuguese Global Geoparks 1 - THE AZORES GEOPARK 2 - AROUCA GEOPARK 3 - NATURTEJO DA MESETA MERIDIONAL GEOPARK 4 - TERRAS DE CAVALEIROS GEOPARK

Network (EGN/GGN) seeks to provide an answer to the need to find a framework showing the value of Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heritage, its landscapes and geological formations, which are testimony to the history of life. The European Geoparks Network (EGN) was established in 2000 in order to encourage the exchange of experiences and to benefit from EU programmes for rural development. It currently has 64 Geoparks in 22 European countries (September

2014) and has shown a strong growth in response to the interest and support expressed by local authorities, companies, and scientific and academic associations. As for the Global Geoparks Network (GGN), it was established in 2004 and cooperates with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Network and has a privileged partnership with the European Geoparks Network (EGN). There 2

are currently 111 Geoparks in 36 countries worldwide (September 2014). In Portugal, there are currently four Geoparks: the Naturtejo Meseta Meridional Global Geopark (2006), the Arouca Global Geopark (2009), the Azores Global Geopark (2013) and the Terras de Cavaleiros Global Geopark (2014).

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.4 UNESCO Chairs

The UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs Programme aims to develop skills between higher education and research institutions through the exchange and sharing of knowledge in a spirit of international solidarity. These institutions work in collaboration with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), foundations and organisations from the public and private sector that play an important role in higher education. Their projects are mainly interdisciplinary and they participate in all sectors of the UNESCO programme. UNESCO chairs projects have proved their worth in the creation of new teaching programmes and the emergence of new ideas through research and reflection, thus contributing to the enrichment of existing university programmes. UNESCO chairs main objectives are to be promoters of bridges between academic circles and civil society, as well as with local communities and with scientific and research communities, contributing to the adoption of policy decisions. They equally seek to intensify North-South, South-South and NorthSouth-South cooperation; to create poles of excellence and innovation at regional and sub regional levels; to strengthen and foster these Networks. 34

By May 2013, there were 766 UNESCO chairs worldwide. Portugal has three UNESCO chairs (September 2014): UNESCO Chair in Bioethics - Portuguese Catholic University (2009); UNESCO Chair in Intangible Heritage and Traditional Know-How - University of Évora (2013); UNESCO Chair “Biodiversity and Sustainable Development” – University of Coimbra (2013).

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.5 Intangible Cultural Heritage

In addition to safeguarding the intangible heritage of communities, groups and individuals and raising awareness about the importance of intangible cultural heritage in general, the Convention has attracted huge interest as a mean for local promotion and sustainable development.

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted by UNESCO in 2003 and ratified by Portugal in 2008. According to this convention, The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

cultural heritage in general. It has attracted huge interest as a way of promoting sustainable local development, and there are currently three Portuguese elements inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity: “Fado” (Lisbon) in 2011; “Mediterranean Diet” (Tavira, Faro) in 2013 [transnational]; “Cante Alentejano” (Serpa, Beja) in 2014 (September 2014).

The 2003 Convention foresees that the intangible elements of a country might be inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity or on the List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. The Intergovernmental Committee may also select and promote programmes, projects and activities which it considers that best reflect the principles and objectives of the Convention. In addition to safeguarding, the Convention has as main objectives the respect for the intangible heritage of communities, groups and individuals and awareness-raising of the importance of intangible 35

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.6 UNESCO Associated Schools

In Portugal, the UNESCO Associated Schools Network (ASPnet) was launched in the early 1980s, and currently consists of 67 schools from pre-primary to secondary levels, technical and vocational schools, teacher's technical vocational education and training centres and Higher Schools of Education for teachers. They are distributed from the north to the south of Portugal - in the Continent, the Azores and Madeira Islands. Schools associated to UNESCO work to foster quality education, to promote human development, and to enhance international cooperation and peace. Figure 3.12: Network of UNESCO Associated Schools DISTRICT OF BRAGA Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF VILA REAL Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF PORTO Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF BRAGANÇA Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF AVEIRO Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF VISEU Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF GUARDA Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF COIMBRA Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF SANTARÉM Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF LISBON Associated Schools

DISTRICT OF FARO Associated Schools

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES Associated Schools

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MADEIRA Associated Schools

As a United Nations agency with a mandate in the area of education, the work of UNESCO and the UNESCO Associated Schools Network covers the development of education from pre-school to higher education, including technical vocational education and training, teacher training centres and non-formal education. The UNESCO Associated Schools Network was launched in 1953. There are currently 10 000 schools spread over 181 Member States, actively carrying out the ideals and principles of UNESCO’s Constitutive Act. In Portugal, the Network was launched in the early 1980s, and currently has 67 schools, from pre-primary to secondary levels, technical and vocational schools, teacher’s technical vocational education and training centres and Higher Schools of Education for teachers. They are distributed from the north to the south of Portugal - in the Continent and in the Azores and Madeira islands.

Schools associated to UNESCO work to foster quality education, to promote human development, and to enhance international cooperation and peace. These goals are achieved through the celebration of international days and years observed by the United Nations, by developing projects within UNESCO's activity areas and, in Portugal, by addressing issues such as heritage preservation – world, cultural and natural heritage, intangible heritage, underwater cultural heritage and the Evocation of the 1st centenary of World War I (2014-2018); environment protection – fight to desertification and education for water in school context; human rights; health education; education for sustainable development and post-2015 development goals. These schools are often called pilot schools and navigators for peace.

Table 3.3: UNESCO Associated Schools Network Districts

Municipalities

Total

AVEIRO

Águeda(1); Azeméis(1); Oliveira de Vagos/Calvão(1)

BRAGA

Esposende(1)

BRAGANÇA

Mirandela/Torre de Dona Chama(1)

COIMBRA

Coimbra(3); Figueira da Foz(1)

FARO

Albufeira/Ferreiras(1); Faro(1); Lagos(1); Loulé(1); Olhão(2); Portimão(3); Portimão/Mexilhoeira Grande(1); Vila do Bispo(1); Aljezur(1)

GUARDA

Seia (2)

LISBON

Cascais /São Domingos de Rana(1); Lisbon(8); Mafra/Malveira(1); Oeiras(4); Vila Franca de Xira(1); Vila Franca de Xira/Alhandra(1)

PORTO

Porto(12); Paredes/Lordelo(1); Felgueiras(1); Valongo/Ermesinde(1)

SANTARÉM

Santarém (3); Torres Novas (1)

VILA REAL

Peso da Régua(1); Murça(1); Vila Real(1)

VISEU

Lamego(1); Carregal do Sal(1)

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF MADEIRA

Santa Cruz/Caniço(1); Funchal(1)

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES

Angra do Heroísmo(2)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.7 UNESCO Centres and Clubs

The UNESCO Centres and Clubs aim at promoting UNESCO and its Programmes, spreading its ideals through activities inspired by the Organisation's own activities, contributing to the civic and democratic awareness of its members, supporting Human Rights, favouring international understanding and dialogue among peoples and spreading information concerning UNESCO to the public at a local level. In short, UNESCO Centres and Clubs play an important role in raising consciousness and may be considered extensions of the National Commissions' actions, of which they are privileged partners. Figure 3.13: UNESCO Centres and Clubs DISTRICT OF VIANA DO CASTELO Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF BRAGA Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF VILA REAL Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF PORTO Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF BRAGANÇA Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF VISEU Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF GUARDA Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF CASTELO BRANCO Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF ÉVORA Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF LISBOA Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF SETÚBAL Centres and Clubs

DISTRICT OF FARO Centres and Clubs

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES Centres and Clubs

FRANCE Centres and Clubs

36 38

UNESCO Centres and Clubs21 bring together groups non-profit associations, NGOs, schools, universities, foundations, cultural circles, social and administrative circles, national organisations with competences within UNESCO working areas and targeted to specific publics, of all ages, points of view and conditions, who believe in UNESCO ideals and support the Organisation by developing free disinterested activities related to its objectives and ideals, where first and foremost is the spirit for taking the initiative, the sense of responsibility and the joy of working together. These structures aim at promoting UNESCO and its Programmes, spreading its ideals through activities inspired by the Organisation’s own initiatives, contributing to the civic and democratic awareness of its members, supporting Human Rights, favouring international understanding and dialogue among

peoples and spreading information concerning UNESCO to the public at a local level. In short, UNESCO Centres and Clubs play an important role in raising consciousness and may be considered extensions of the National Commissions’ actions, of whom they are privileged partners. The Portuguese network has currently more than 30 Centres and Clubs22 from the north to the south of the country and in the autonomous regions, as well as in Paris, in the Portuguese section of the International School of Saint Germain-en-Laye. Their areas of action are vast and cover a diverse range of issues such as human rights, sustainable development, tangible and intangible heritage, youth, social inclusion, interculturality, arts education, ethics in sport, desertification, depopulation and biodiversity, among others.

Table 3.4: UNESCO Network for Centres and Clubs Districts

Municipalities

Total

BRAGA

Esposende(1); Fafe(1); Braga(2)

BRAGANÇA

Bragança(1)

CASTELO BRANCO

Castelo Branco(1)

ÉVORA

Évora(2); Montemor-o-Novo(1)

FARO

Lagos(1);

GUARDA

Vila Nova de Foz Coa(1)

LISBON

Lisbon(5); Loures(1); Loures/Santo António dos Cavaleiros(1);

PORTO

Porto(4); Maia(1);

SETÚBAL

Almada(1) ; Sesimbra/Quinta do Conde(1)

VIANA DO CASTELO

Viana do Castelo(1)

VILA REAL

Vila Real(1); Montalegre(1)

VISEU

Carregal do Sal/Cabanas de Viriato(1)

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES

Angra do Heroísmo(1)

FRANCE

Saint Germain-en-Laye (Portuguese Section of the International School)(1)

The difference between Centres and the Clubs lies in the fact that the Centres have a space opened to the public and have their own human and financial resources.

22 The Portuguese Federation for UNESCO Associations, Centres and Clubs (FPACU), was created in Porto on June 16, 2011, with the aim of encouraging the links among UNESCO Centres and Clubs in Portugal, fostering dialogue, sharing, and synergies among all members around UNESCO mission and the National Commission. It envisages to achieve a healthy and positive convergence in the development of the major objectives uniting the Federation, i.e., contributing to the process of constructing peace, fostering sustainable development, promoting intercultural dialogue, education, science, culture, communication and information, making citizens aware of global realities and committed to building a world based on the principles of human rights and in conformity with UNESCO Constitution. FPACU is part of FEACU - European Federation of UNESCO Associations, Centres and Clubs and FMACU - World Federation of UNESCO Associations, Centres and Clubs.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal

3.2.8. UNESCO Associated Libraries

The main objective of the UNESCO Associated Libraries Network is to encourage libraries that are open to the public to carry out activities in UNESCO areas such as the promotion of human rights and peace, intercultural dialogue, protection of the environment and the fight against illiteracy.

Figure 3.14: UNESCO Associated Libraries DISTRICT OF BRAGA Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF VILA REAL Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF PORTO Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF AVEIRO Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF CASTELO BRANCO Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF LEIRIA Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF SANTARÉM Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF BEJA Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF SETÚBAL Associated Libraries

DISTRICT OF FARO Associated Libraries

AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE AZORES Associated Libraries

The UNESCO Associated Libraries Network consists of 500 member establishments in Portugal. The network started in the middle of the 1990s, and at present consists of 18 associated libraries, from the north to the south of mainland Portugal and in the Azores Island. The main objective of the UNESCO Associated Libraries Network is to encourage libraries which are open to the public to carry out activities in UNESCO areas such as the promotion of human rights and peace, intercultural dialogue, protection of the

environment, and the fight against illiteracy. There are two groups of activities considered most suitable for the Libraries which are, on the one hand , exhibitions – bibliographic exhibitions, posters, photographs or others – and, on the other hand, organization of conferences, colloquia or debates about the different working areas of UNESCO. Other activities are encouraged, such as different literary events, which may include the reading of poetry or meetings with authors.

Table 3.5: UNESCO Associated Libraries Network Districts

Municipalities

Total

AZORES

Angra do Heroísmo(1)

AVEIRO

Espinho(1); Sever do Vouga(1)

BEJA

Beja(1)

CASTELO BRANCO

Fundão(1)

FARO

Olhão(1); Loulé(1); Silves(1)

BRAGA

Guimarães(1)

LEIRIA

Figueiró dos Vinhos(1); Batalha(1)

PORTO

Porto(1); Póvoa do Varzim(1)

SANTARÉM

Torres Novas(1); Santarém(1)

SETÚBAL

Alcochete(1); Sines(1)

VILA REAL

Montalegre(1)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

3.2. UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.9 Category 2 Centres

Category II centres are selected following proposals from the Member States based on the focus of their expertise in UNESCO's areas of competence. By sharing knowledge, training and research, they provide a valuable and unique contribution to the implementation of the UNESCO Programme strategic objectives, thus benefiting Member States. UNESCO currently has under its auspices 98 Category II International and Regional Centres (September 2014). Although these are not funded by UNESCO and hence their designation as Category II centres these Centres are associated with UNESCO through formal agreements approved by the General Conference. These Category II centres are selected following proposals from the Member States, based on the focus of their expertise in UNESCO's fields of competence. By sharing knowledge, training and research, they provide a valuable and unique contribution to the implementation of the UNESCO Programme strategic objectives, thus benefiting Member States. During the 35th Session of the UNESCO General Conference in October 2009, the Member States adopted a new integrated comprehensive strategy for (Category II) Institutes and Centres in document 35 C / Resolution 103. This integrated global strategy, as well as the guidelines regarding the creation of Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO (Category II), and the model agreement to be established between UNESCO and a Member State, are contained in document 35 C/22. In addition to this overall strategy, all UNESCO Programme sectors have also developed their own specific sector strategies on specific topics regarding their involvement and interaction with Category II Centres and Institutes. In Portugal, agreements were signed to set up two International Category II Centres in the area of 42

Sciences, under the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme and the International Basic Sciences Programme. International Centre for Coastal Ecohydrology (2009) The mission of the International Centre for Coastal Ecohydrology, as a UNESCO Centre, is to contribute to the implementation of UNESCO programmes, in particular the International Hydrological Programme, by developing activities and scientific, educational and cultural strategies, based on the concept of Ecohydrology, which will help minimize the impacts of human intervention in the aquatic ecosystems, promoting technology transfer, applied scientific research, advanced training, the dissemination of knowledge and international cooperation. This Centre is also devoted to cooperate with all regions of the world, even though its priority relations are with the Mediterranean and African regions, including the Portuguese speaking countries. International Centre for Advanced Training of Scientists from Portuguese-speaking countries for the Basic Sciences This scientific and technical Centre focus its work in the basic sciences domain23, in the areas of teaching, training, research and the dissemination of knowledge throughout the Community of Portuguese Language Speaking Countries (CPLP). It seeks to develop scientific capacities, as well as to enhance CPLP countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cooperation with

international North and South communities, to promote social responsibility, the mobility of scientists, and to fight scientific and technological â&#x20AC;&#x153;brain drainâ&#x20AC;? at the regional and international levels. It seeks to enable the transfer of knowledge, to reinforce capacities and to promote scientific cooperation in the field of basic sciences, at the regional and international levels, through the use or creation of advanced infrastructures and specialised knowledge networks of Portuguese universities and research centres. It also envisages the creation of opportunities to cooperate with higher educational institutions and research centres in CPLP countries, by fostering activities in science networks and contributing to the implementation of UNESCO programmes and objectives in the area of scientific and technological development and international cooperation in these domains.

Basic Sciences include Geology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

IV. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE CONNECTIONS TO THE UNESCO NETWORKS

As regards the impact on economic activity resulting from the UNESCO designation, a positive effect on most of the indicators of the groups of goods under consideration was perceived. It is therefore plausible to conclude that UNESCO classifications results in benefits to the surrounding region.

4.1 Information collected The subsequent data analysis seeks to assess the value of UNESCO classifications in Portugal in terms of costs, sources of income and impact on economic activity. As mentioned in the Introduction, to reach this overall goal, three questionnaires, A, B and C, were prepared and applied. Despite their specificities, they complemented each other to assess the impacts of the UNESCO designation. Questionnaire A is concerned with two issues. The first, (a), seeks to assess the cost of a UNESCO nomination, by considering two variables: time and costs. In terms of the variable time, the entity managing the property or the territory was requested to present an estimate of the time spent in preparing the UNESCO nomination process. For the variable cost, all the costs which the organisation had to bear to complete the UNESCO nomination process were considered. The second issue, (b), refers to the extra costs during affiliation, subdivided into three topics. The extra 44

costs were linked to the time the entityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employees spent on reporting information concerning the UNESCO designation. Questionnaire B considers the benefits of UNESCO certification/accreditation, by discriminating the sources of income. There is only one question divided into four topics: total and partial benefits (government, private and external sources). The evaluation of the indirect economic impacts was accomplished through questionnaire C, involving the collection of different economic indicators24, on a caseby-case and group basis, according to the respective classification. The questionnaires were administered by CNU between July and October 2014 and the UTAD team processed and analysed the information between October and November 2014. Naturally, the results described below result only and exclusively from the information contained in the questionnaires. The overall reply rate was high among the set of groups with the UNESCO designation, even though this was not the case with some questions in each of the questionnaires, indicating a possible lack of information or difficulty in interpreting what was requested. In the analysis which follows, the respective reply rate is quantified, while maintaining information confidentiality. In addition, given the impossibility of precisely determining the annual benefits, an estimate of the total net benefit accumulated from the nomination process until the present is shown25.

Visitors each year (Total, national and foreign); Average length of stay in the classified location (Total, national and foreign); Average expenditure per visitor/day (Total, national and foreign); Visitors from the school community; Tourism infrastructure provision (Hotel establishments, Beds available, Restaurants, Shops and Employment); Other relevant indicators. 25

Information collected from questionnaires A and B.

4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact 4.2.1 Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List

a) Costs » Nomination The estimated time spent in preparing the UNESCO nomination process was based on replies from nine institutions out of a total of sixteen. The duration of the nomination process for a UNESCO World Heritage designation was, on average, 48.2 months (48 months and 1 week). This item includes values in the range from 7 to 89 months. Given the unique nature of the world Heritage sites, an individual analysis was justified for: - monuments (Convent of Christ, Monastery of the Hieronymites, Monastery of Alcobaça, Monastery of Batalha and Tower of Belém); - historic centres and groups of buildings (Historic Centres of Angra do Heroísmo, Guimarães, Porto and Évora, Garrison Border Town of Elvas and its Fortifications, and University of Coimbra. Alta and Sofia); and - landscapes (Cultural, Natural or Group of sites: Alto Douro Wine Region, Laurisilva of Madeira, Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture and Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Coa River Valley and Siega Verde).

World Heritage sites

Using a box-plot26 it is possible to compare the length of world heritage nomination processes per property. The historic centres and groups of buildings’ nominations take longer (average of 58 months), between a minimum of 24 months and a maximum 84 months. The landscapes are, on average, the fastest, despite a greater variability (from 7 to 89 months), taking half of the promoters less than 25 months (Figure 4.1). The monuments did not mention the time devoted to the nomination process, which might be explained by the fact that their inscription dates back to the 1980s.

A graphical representation that shows the characteristics of the variable studied in the sample. This includes the following descriptive statistics: median (50th percentile), the first quartile (25th percentile), third quartile (75th percentile), the minimum and maximum value and any outliers (atypical values).

Figure 4.1: Nomination time for the world heritage sites per typology (months)

Historic Centres and groups of buildings

Landscapes

,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

Nomination Time (months)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

The costs estimate regarding the preparation of the nomination process to the World Heritage List was distributed among the following parameters: human resources; scientific works; marketing; management plans; nomination dossier. The cost of nomination is, on average, for the eight institutions that answered the question, €320 706, including amounts ranging from €50 000 to €884 126. Specifying by type of site, we see that the distribution of the nomination costs is similar for the historic centres and groups of buildings (average cost €364 161) and for the landscapes (average cost of €277 250). The historic centres show a variable cost between €70 000 and €900 000, with half of the entities presenting values below €200 000. The cost of a landscape nomination varies between €50 000 and €750 000 (Figure 4.2). For the monuments, the lack of data for this topic is certainly due to the reason given above.

World Heritage sites

Figure 4.2: Nomination cost for world heritage sites by type (euro)

Historic Centres and groups of buildings

Landscapes

0,00

200.000,00

400.000,00

600.000,00

800.000,00 1.000.000,00

Nomination cost (euros)

» With the maintenance of the UNESCO affiliation The maintenance of affiliation costs were presented by 15 entities. The description of the time spent and the number of employees necessary to report back the data was presented by 11 and 14 entities, respectively. The average annual cost of membership is €47 123, with a standard deviation of €89 134, showing a considerable variation of 0 to €322 000. For affiliation, the entities needed on average 4.2 employees and 95.9 days/year (Table 4.1). Table 4.1: Annual affiliation cost for the world heritage sites Annual affiliation cost (€) Valid replies

Human resources/year

Average

47 122,5

95,9

4,2

Standard deviation

89 133,8

125,5

5,5

Minimum

Maximum

322 000

450

706 837,5

1055

TOTAL

Time (days/year)

World Heritage sites

Breaking the affiliation costs down per typology, it is clear that the spread of values comes from the landscapes group, for this is the group that most contributed to the preceding statistics. Of note also is the lack of variability among the monuments, given that this type of entities mentioned the same annual affiliation costs (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Annual affiliation cost for the world heritage sites by type (euros)

Historic Centres and groups of buildings Landscapes

Monuments

0,00

100.000,00

200.000,00

300.000,00

400.000,00

Annual affiliation Cost (euro)

The breakdown of the costs resulting from belonging to the UNESCO designation points-out to expenses due to World Heritage rates and materials, fees for the Organisation of World Heritage Cities (OWHC), management and monitoring of the property, evaluation and conservation studies, institutional promotion and human resources.

b) Benefits For the managing bodies of the Portuguese World Heritage sites the benefits from the UNESCO designation come from three types of sources: public, private and/or external. The valid replies in questionnaire B vary according to the type of benefit (or source): response rate of 75% to the questions regarding public and private benefits and of 56% regarding external benefits, which confirms the existence of information gaps preventing full response to the questions. Table 4.2 presents the distribution of benefits throughout the various sources, showing that this type of good receives, on average, €7 627 162 from public entities, emphasising the disparity of the amount among the cultural goods analysed (as shown by the minimum, maximum and standard deviation). On average, €1 969 873 are received from private entities and €9 076 048.8 from external sources, totalling an average benefit of €14 060 633. Table 4.2: Sources of income for the world heritage sites Government benefits (€) Valid replies

Private benefits (€)

External benefits (€)

Average

7 627 162,2

1 969 873

9 076 048,8

Standard deviation

11 670 883

14 674 840

2 724 260

Minimum

Maximum

41 500 000

9 380 000

28 000 000

TOTAL

91 525 946,6

23 638 479,5

81 684 439,6

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

The distribution of benefits in terms of the different sources of income (Figure 4.4) points to the reduced importance of private sources (12%) and the significant weight of government (46%) and external (42%) benefits.

Figure 4.4 Distribution of sources of income for the world heritage sites

Governmental Benefits 42%

Private Benefits

46%

External Benefits 12%

By analysing the sources of income and the average amounts earned by type monuments, landscapes, and historic centres and groups of buildings - it is possible to specify the origin of the aforementioned benefits in greater detail. The landscapes stand out regarding public benefits, the historic centres and groups of buildings show external benefits, while the monuments, given their specific nature, stand out as concerns private benefits. Nevertheless, as far as the historic centres and groups of buildings and the landscapes are concerned, the breakdown of the sources of income remains unaltered, since these come mainly from government sources; these are also the ones that channel more benefits - €21 845 698 and €20 210 323 respectively (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5: Average sources of income for the world heritage sites by type (euros)

Monuments

Historic centres and groups of buildings

External Benefits

Private Benefits

Governmental Benefits

7 686 347€ 257 626€ 360 653€ 1 741 575€

Landscapes

10 187 810€

3 570 498€

11 400 261€ 12 154 323€

Public benefits come from public programmes (e.g. RECRIA - Regime Especial de Comparticipação na Recuperação de Imóveis Arrendados (Special Regime for Reimbursement in the Recovery of Leased Property); PORTOVIVO SRU - Sociedade de Reabilitação Urbana da Baixa Portuense (Urban Rehabilitation Company for Downtown Porto) S.A.; POLIS, IHRU- Instituto da Habitação e da Reabilitação Urbana (Institute for 48

Housing and Urban Rehabilitation); PIDDAC - Programa de Investimentos e Desenvolvimento da AdministraĂ§ĂŁo Central (Central Administration Programme of Investments and Development) for Central, Regional and Local Administration. External funds come from community funds such as the FEDER - Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (European Fund for Regional Development). Private benefits concern own revenues (e.g. ticket office) and patronage. It is possible to conclude that the UNESCO designation functioned as a catalysing factor for the regeneration of the property, or set of properties, as well as the surrounding urban component27, improving the image of the region and its attractiveness. In fact, it is an open question whether in the scope of the 2014-2020 Community Support Programme there will be the possibility to access and maintain investments in the preservation, regeneration (public and private) and dissemination of the properties with the UNESCO designation or whether alternative investment and fundraising strategies will have to be sought and implemented.

Regeneration is defined by Roberts and Sykes (2000) as an integrated vision and action that leads to the resolution of urban problems, by seeking an improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental conditions in the area subject to change.

c) Total net benefit Table 4.3 shows the total net benefits for the sites since their classification until the year 2013. For this purpose, the annual costs of affiliation were multiplied by the number of years of inclusion of each property. We see that the financial benefits resulting from the various sources outweighed the costs borne by the heritage managing entities. Total costs represent 7.2% of total benefits, suggesting a positive impact of the UNESCO designation. Table 4.3: Total net benefit, heritage 28

Total (â&#x201A;Ź)

Nomination cost

Total affiliation cost

Total cost28

Total benefits

Total net benefit

2 565 645,6

11 517 521,1

14 083 166,7

196 848 865,6

182 666 721,9

Sum of the cost of the nomination and cost of total affiliation.

d) Indirect economic impact The indirect economic impact was evaluated based on certain indicators, measured before and after the inclusion in the World Heritage List. Responses were obtained from seven World Heritage sites (rate of response of 44%) and data was mentioned, at most, regarding eight indicators30. As can be seen in Figure 4.6, the number of visitors increased by about 70% (considering the base value of 888 194), followed by the number of beds and hotels and similar establishments, an increase of 82% and 56%, respectively (for base values of 2 687 and 77). The number of restaurants, the average length of stay at the location and employment also showed positive growth rates, although more tenuous. Conversely, the average expenditure/visitor and the number of visitors from the school community did not follow the evolution observed in other indicators.

When no data was available before the classification, the last year with data recorded was considered. 30

The reply rate per indicator is variable: visitors 44%; average length of stay at the location 25%; Average expenditure per visitor/day 19%; Visitors from the school community 13%; Hotels and similar establishments 31%; Beds available 31%; Restaurants 19%; Employment 19%. The entities that did not respond to the indicators were not considered in the growth analysis..

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Figure 4.6: Impact on economic activity, world heritage sites (%)

Employment

Restaurants

Available beds

82%

Hotels and similar establishments Visitors from the School Community

56% -32%

Average expense per visitor/day

-3%

Average length of stay at the location

0,6%

Visitors

31 It was not possible to perform this analysis for the monuments, in so far as there was only one valid reply. However, this negatively influences the number of visitors from the school community in the joint analysis of the Sites.

Figure 4.7: Impact on economic activity, historic centres and ensembles (%)

70%

The average rate of growth in the historic centres and groups of buildings indicates a growth in the number of visitors and in the provision of infrastructures (number of beds and hotels and similar establishments) of 108%, 90% and 61%, respectively (with base values of 597 386, 2 121 and 44). The average expense per visitor and the average length of stay at the location decreased 5% (Figure 4.7).

Employment Restaurants

3% 0%

Available beds

90%

Hotels and similar establishments

61%

Average expense per visitor/day

-5%

Average length of stay at the location

-5%

Visitors

108%

In landscapes, growth could be seen in all indicators, especially in the number of available beds and hotels and similar establishments (with base values of 33 566 and 76 283 respectively), as shown in Figure 4.8.

Employment

Figure 4.8: Impact on economic activity, landscapes (%)

Restaurants

15%

Available beds

50%

Hotels and similar establishments Visitors from the School Community

46% 2%

Average expense per visitor/day Average length of stay at the location Visitors

20% 9% 19%

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact 4.2.2 Biosphere Reserves

a) Costs » ?Nomination The biosphere reserves managing entities only provided three valid responses, out of the seven possible, regarding the estimation of the time spent in preparing the UNESCO nomination process, thus providing a response rate of 43%. The average length of the nomination process for inclusion in the biosphere reserves network, was 5.75 months (5 months and 3 weeks), with a wide variation. The estimation of the costs related to the preparation of the nomination process was distributed into the following parameters: consulting and post-nomination monitoring; human resources; translation of documents. 32

One institution mentioned that “We had no costs in the acquisition of external services". This situation could be explained by the fact that the reserves are also natural parks and, as such, the costs are charged to the park.

With a response rate of 57%, it was calculated that the cost of a nomination to the UNESCO biosphere reserves network is, on average, €14 250, with a minimum of €0 and a maximum of €43 000.32 » ?With the maintenance of the UNESCO designation The valid responses, out of the seven possible, differ according to the cost of affiliation. By carrying out a joint analysis of the different units of measurement, it was concluded that the annual average affiliation cost was €2 760, aggregating reserves that do not present any cost and others that present annual costs of €7 200. The average time to report data was 5.7 days, involving an average of 4 employees (Table 4.4). Table 4.4: Annual affiliation cost for the biosphere reserves Annual affiliation cost (€) Valid replies

Time (days)

Human resources

2 760

5,7

3 469,6

2,6

Maximum

7 200

TOTAL

11 040

Average Standard deviation Minimum

These costs were due to the promotion of good practices inherent to biosphere reserves' rationale, dissemination materials, signage, improvements in pedestrian pathways and the work of specialised technicians (e.g. vigilants of nature).

b) Benefits The benefits for the managing entities of Portuguese biosphere reserves come from three types of sources: public, private and/or external. The valid responses to questionnaire B 52

are: three for government and external benefits and only two private benefits. Total benefits, on average, in the biosphere reserves were €957 789. Specifically, on average, each reserve received €274 703 from public entities, €274 629 from private entities and €500 000 from external sources (Table 4.5). Table 4.5: Sources of income in the biosphere reserves Government benefits (€) Valid replies

Private benefits (€)

External benefits (€)

Average

274 703,3

274 628,7

500 000

Standard deviation

424 899

331 815,1

500 000

40 000

Maximum

764 110

509 257,4

1 000 000

TOTAL

842 110

549 257,4

1 500 000

Minimum

The biosphere reserves channel total income from different sources. However, a high percentage cames from external benefits, followed by governmental and private benefits (Figure 4.9).

29%

Figure 4.9: Distribution of sources of income for the biosphere reserves

Governmental Benefits Private Benefits

52% 19%

External Benefits

A large part of the above-mentioned external benefits comes from the Operational Programme for Cross-border Cooperation: Spain – Portugal (POCTEP). Private benefits are obtained through the entity's own income involving the sale of products (merchandising and “Agricultural Wood”). In this good the investment related to the preservation and safeguarding with public funding was also important.

c) Total net benefit As regards the biosphere reserves, Table 4.6 suggests a positive overall net benefit regarding the UNESCO designation. The financial benefits coming from the various sources outweighed the costs incurred by the managing entities. Table 4.6: Total net benefit, biosphere reserves Total (€)

Nomination cost

Total affiliation cost

Total cost

Total benefits

Total net benefit

57 000

238 080

290 080

2873 367

2 809 687

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

d) Indirect economic impact 33

The reply rate indicator is variable: visitors 71%; average length of stay at the location 71%; Average expenditure per visitor/day 29%; Visitors from the school community 14%; Hotels and similar establishments 71%; Beds available 71%; Shops 29%; Restaurants 43%; Employment 57%. The entities that did not respond to the indicators were not considered in the growth analysis.

Figure 4.10: Impact on economic activity (%), biosphere reserves

The economic impact was assessed according to certain indicators, measured since their inclusion in the network of Portuguese biosphere reserves. This type of good shows a response rate of 71% (5 biosphere reserves), considering a maximum of 9 information indicators. Growth was positive in most of the indicators, of particular note being: the shops with a growth rate of 240% (base value of 5), the number of visitors from the school community with a variation of 266% (base value of 1 857), followed by the employment variable, the growth of which rose to 67% (in total, 31 job posts were created). Conversely, there was a slight decrease of 3.4% (with a base value of 2 369) in the number of available beds (Figure 4.10).

Employment

67%

Restaurants

33%

Shops Available beds Hotels and similar establishments

240% -3,4% 0%

Visitors from the School Community

166%

Average expense per visitor/day Average length of stay at the location Visitors

40% 5,4% 61%

4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact 4.2.3 Geoparques

a) Costs » Nomination All the managing entities of the geoparks network34 presented an estimation of the time spent in preparing the UNESCO nomination process; therefore, the three valid responses correspond to 100% representativeness.

34 Although Portugal has four geoparks, only three were considered in this study, because the last one only officially joined the Geoparks Global Network in September 2014.

The length of the nomination process for a geopark, since the information meeting until filling in the forms, was, on average, 26 months, varying between 19 and 36 months. The estimation of the costs incurred with the nomination process was broken down into various items: management and marketing plans, inventory, characterisation and assessment of the geological heritage, technical team and nomination dossier. The cost of a nomination to the UNESCO geoparks network is, on average, €54 968.6 ranging between €29 937 and €80 000, with 75% of valid responses corresponding to two geoparks. . » With the maintenance of the UNESCO designation Three valid responses were provided for the affiliation cost, differing in the units of measurement, time, euro and human resources expended to maintain the UNESCO designation. For this reason, it was decided to undertake a joint analysis. The average annual cost of affiliation was €5 417, varying between €3 500 and €6 700. The average time to report data was 6.7 days, involving an average of 4 employees (Table 4.7). Table 4.7: Annual affiliation cost for the geoparks Annual affiliation cost (€) Valid replies

Time (days)

Human resources

Average

5 416,7

6,7

3,7 3

Standard deviation

1 691,4

0,6

Minimum

3 500

Maximum

6 700

TOTAL

16 250

The affiliation costs correspond to the work of technicians (e.g. specialised administrative technicians), payment of rates (e.g. Promotional rate for the European Geoparks Network), and participation in meetings and conferences.

b) Benefits The benefits for Portuguese geoparks managing entities come from three types of sources: public, private and/or external. The valid responses to questionnaire B varied according to the type of benefit (or source): three (100%) private and two (67%) governmental and external. 55

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Table 4.8 shows the distribution of benefits of the various sources, indicating that this type of good receives, on average, €360 935 from public entities, €80 656 from private entities and €155 490 from external sources. Total average benefit is €424 940. Table 4.8: Sources of income in the geoparks (benefits) Government benefits (€) Valid replies

Private benefits (€)

External benefits (€)

Average

360 935,4

80 656

155 490,4

Standard deviation

219 896,6

428 415,3€

134 379,6

Minimum

58 000

Maximum

663 870,7

235 783,1

310 980,7

TOTAL

721 870,7

241 968,1

310 980,7

By analysing the distribution of the sources of income throughout the 3 categories, it can be seen that 57% comes from government sources, 24% from external sources and 19% from private sources (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11: Distribution of sources of income in the geoparks

Governmental Benefits

24%

Private Benefits 57%

External Benefits

19%

The entities mentioned that the municipality (or region) where the geopark is located is the main provider of public (or government) revenues..

c) Total net benefit The benefits obtained by geoparks from different sources outweighed the individual total costs, including nomination and affiliation ones (Table 4.9). There is evidence of positive net economic benefits for geoparks arising from their connections to UNESCO. Table 4.9: Total net benefit, geoparks Total (€)

Nomination cost

Total affiliation cost

Total cost

Total benefits

Total net benefit

109 937,2

55 400

165 337,2

1 274 819,5

1 109 483,4

d) Indirect economic impact The economic impact was assessed according to certain indicators measured before and after their inclusion in the geoparks network. 56

Three valid responses were provided and data was mentioned, at most, regarding eight indicators . The indicators with most evident growth were the visitors (around 103%) and the number of visitors from the school community (with a base value of 15 500, a growth of 57%), despite growth in all indicators. As regards infrastructures, entities also mentioned the creation of new tourist accommodation units, particularly rural tourism and camping sites (Figure 4.12).

Employment

Available beds Hotels and similar establishments

Figure 4.12: Impact of economic activity, geoparks

Restaurants

17% 0,7% 4% 57%

Visitors from the School Community Average expense per visitor/day Average length of stay at the location Visitors

35 The response rate per indicator is variable: visitors 100%; average length of stay in the place 67%; Average expenditure per visitor/day 33%; Visitors from the school community 67%; Hotels and similar establishments 67%; Beds available 67%; Restaurants 33%; Employment 33%. The entities that did not respond to the indicators were not considered in the growth analysis.

29% 10% 103%

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact 4.2.4 UNESCO Chairs

The managing entities of the UNESCO Chairs were requested to fill in only questionnaires A and B; therefore, this indirect economic impact analysis is not applicable. a) Cost » Nomination Two of the UNESCO chairs managing entities provided information regarding an estimation of the time spent preparing the nomination process, corresponding to a representativeness of 67%. The length of the nomination process for inclusion in the UNESCO Chairs network was, on average, 1.25 months, approximately 5 weeks, varying between 0.5 and two months (2 to 8 weeks). The estimation of the costs incurred related to the nomination process was divided between human resources and travels, and the responses from all the chairs were taken into consideration. The cost of a nomination to the UNESCO chairs network is, on average, €13 250, with considerable variation, ranging from €2 750 to €22 000. » With the maintenance of the UNESCO designation In this item, the replies provided had several gaps, thus restricting its validity and evaluation. Given these constraints, only the affiliation costs expressed in euro and human resources were considered. The average annual cost was €46 152 and the difference between the maximum and the minimum was €90 345. As for human resources, on average, they involved three members of staff per year (Table 4.10). Table 4.10: Annual affiliation cost for the chairs Annual affiliation cost (€) Valid replies

Human resources

Average

46 151,67

2,5

Standard deviation

47 666,35

0,7

Minimum

9 655

Maximum

100 000

TOTAL

138 455

The affiliation costs reported by the managing entities of this type of good were connected to human resources and participation in UNESCO Chair meetings and of the Executive Secretariat.

b) Benefits The benefits for the chairs come from two sources: public and/or private (100% of the chairs provided information on government benefits and 67% on private benefits). Table 4.11 shows the distribution of the benefits throughout the two sources. Each chair receives, on average, €34 000 from public entities and €15 667 from private entities, corresponding to a total average benefit of €49 667. Table 4.11: Sources of income for the chairs (benefits) Government benefits (€) Valid replies Average

Private benefits (€)

34 000

15 666,67

30 647,19

5 131,6

10 000

Maximum

59 500

20 000

TOTAL

102 000

47 000

Standard deviation Minimum

Figure 4.13 shows the sources of income for this good, showing the prevalence of government sources (68%).

32%

Figure 4.13: Breakdown of sources of income for the UNESCO chairs network

Governmental Benefits Private Benefits

68%

The main sources of benefit for the chairs come from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), the National Agency for Scientific Culture and from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. It can thus be seen that there is still a long way to go to reach possible income levels. However, these results must be understood within its context, since these chairs are extremely recent, i.e., their activity are just starting. Therefore, a more sustained analysis of this situation reasons would require more and better information, as well as a benchmarking study.

c) Total net benefit Dissimilar from the other classifications, in this case the financial benefits accrued are still lower than the costs incurred (Table 4.12), which is in line with the fact that we are considering recent functionalities, still on the rise with regard to obtaining benefits. Table 4.12: Total net benefit, chairs Total (€)

Nomination cost

Total affiliation cost

Total cost

Total benefits

Total net benefit

39 750

167 420

207 170

149 000

-58 170

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact

4.2.5 Comparative Analysis of the UNESCO classification is in Portugal

As regards the cost and time spent on UNESCO nominations, the heritage sites are notably different from the other groups, showing a high level of variability, being the World Heritage nominations the most time-consuming and costly. At the opposite end, chairs are more homogeneous and the nomination process is faster and less costly (Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.14: Time and cost of the nomination by type of good

Biosphere Reserves World Heritage Geoparks Chairs 0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

800.000,00

1.000.000,00

Nomination time (months) Biosphere Reserves World Heritage Geoparks Chairs 0,00

200.000,00

400.000,00

600.000,00

Nomination cost (euros)

The annual costs concerning a UNESCO affiliation are very similar in the different goods. However, the chairs stand out with regard to the larger amounts and two heritage sites show high values (outliers). The figures mentioned by the geoparks were very similar to each other, resulting in a reduced variability (Figure 4.15).

Figure 4.15: Affiliation cost for the different classifications

Biosphere Reserves World Heritage

Geoparks Chairs 0,00

100.000,00

200.000,00

300.000,00

400.000,00

Total affiliation cost (euro)

As for the benefits (government, private and external), the largest share of funding comes from governmental sources, with the exception of biosphere reserves where 52% of the sources of funding were external. Undoubtedly, it was the world heritage sites that received higher levels of benefits. The 60

average value amounted to â&#x201A;Ź14 060 633, which is not unrelated to the influence of high atypical values or outliers (Figure 4.16). Figure 4.16: Total benefits from the different classifications

Biosphere Reserves World Heritage

Geoparks Chairs 0,00

20.000.000,00

40.000.000,00

60.000.000,00

80.000.000,00

Total Benefits (euro)

Generically, it is perceptible that the world heritage sites stand out regarding the several variables on which information was obtained. It seems clear that the commitment to be connected to UNESCO networks has managed to attain a channelling of additional sources of income for this type of goods. As for the impact indicators concerning economic activity (Table 4.13), in all the groups analysed the number of visitors stood out, with a growth between 61% and 103%. The significant growth in the number of visitors from the school community in geoparks and biosphere reserves, and of employment in the latter, should be noted. As regards World Heritage, the dynamics in the economic activity have also been translated into growth in the provision of infrastructures (Hotels and similar establishments and available beds). Table 4.13: Growth in the different classifications (%) Visitors

Average length Average expenditure of stay per visitor/day

Visitors from the school community

Hotels and similar establishments

Available Beds

Restaurants Employment

World Heritage sites

70%

0,6%

-3%

-32%

55%

82%

Biosphere reserves

61%

5,4%

40%

166%

-3,4%

33%

67%

Geoparks

103%

10%

29%

57%

17%

Figure 4.17 summarizes the economic impact of UNESCO affiliation as expressed in the various economic and tourist indicators for the different assets.

Employment Restaurants Available beds

Hotels and similar establishments Visitors from the School Community Average expense per visitor/day Average length of stay at the location

Visitors

Geoparks

67%

3% 17% 4%

World Heritage sites

33%

1% -3,4%

82%

4% 0%

55% 57%

166%

-32% 29% -3%

Figure 4.17: Economic indicators in the different classifications (%)

Biosphere Reserves

40%

10% 5,4% 0,6% 61%

103% 70%

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The impact on economic activity resulting from the UNESCO designation is positive for most of the indicators in the groups of goods under consideration. It is therefore plausible to conclude that the UNESCO designation results in benefits to the surrounding region. This work sought to carry out an exploratory analysis of the economic value of the different UNESCO classifications in Portugal, particularly the sites inscribed on the world heritage list, biosphere reserves, geoparks and chairs.

interpretation of the questionnaires themselves visa-vis the data supplied present an added difficulty when interpreting reality, especially as regards management issues and the impacts on local development, particularly concerning the performance of territories with the UNESCO designation, as is the case with biosphere reserves and geoparks.

It was designed and developed by applying three complementary questionnaires, aimed at obtaining information that might enable a first approach to the economic value of the different classifications in terms of costs, income sources and impact on economic activities. At the same time, since this is the first work of this kind carried out in Portugal, it was also possible to detect a number of gaps, particularly at the level of the information systems in place, and subsequently suggest recommendations to adjust them.

As expected, given the specific nature of the sites, territories and chairs, the exploratory analysis carried out suggests that there are differences among the types of classification, both in terms of costs and benefits, which inevitably affect more general conclusions, suggesting an assessment divided into four groups. Table 5.1 summarises the main results of the study.

The conclusions drawn result entirely from the analysis of the three questionnaires sent to the managers of World Heritage sites, geoparks and biosphere reserves in Portugal, and a separate and differentiated analysis of the different classifications was not possible. This circumstance means that the indicators presented and the

The average time entities took to complete the nomination varied between 1.25 and 48.2 months. The nomination costs differed significantly per group, reaching greater values for the sites (world heritage), making them the most time-consuming and costly. The chairs and heritage sites are the goods that, on average, spend more resources on

Table 5.1: Key indicators by classification World Heritage sites AVERAGE TIME OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS (MONTHS) AVERAGE NOMINATION COST (€) AVERAGE ANNUAL AFFILIATION COST (€) AVERAGE TOTAL BENEFIT (€) REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE OF REVENUES (%) ECONOMIC IMPACT - MOST EVIDENT INDICATOR

Biosphere reserves

Geoparks

Chairs

48,2

5,75

1,25

320 706

14 250

54 969

13 250

47 123

2 760

5 417

46 152

14 060 633

957 789

424 940

49 667

Governamentais 46%

Externas 52%

Governamentais 57%

Governamentais 68%

Camas ?=82%

Estabel. comerciais ?=240%

Visitantes ?=103%

maintaining the UNESCO designation. As for sources of income, the entities managing heritage sites are those that attract greater amounts. As such, the latter stand out on the side of both costs and benefits, which is consistent with the expected given their greater long-term connection to UNESCO. The largest proportion of financial benefits comes from government sources, with the exception of the biosphere reserves, where external benefits are the main source of income. Own revenues, in relative terms, have a reduced weight, indicating there is still a way to go in terms of capturing private funds. As for the impact on economic activity resulting from the UNESCO designation, a positive effect on most assetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; indicators was observed. It is therefore plausible to conclude that UNESCO classifications result in benefits to the surrounding region. As concerns biosphere reserves, the growth reported in terms of the number of overall visits from the school community, jobs created, average expenditure per visitor and the supply of restaurants should be highlighted. However, there was no alteration in the number of hotels and similar establishments and the number of available beds decreased. Geoparks distinguish themselves due to their growing attraction to visitors from the school community, and showing a positive trend regarding the number of visitors, average expense/visitor, average time of stay and creation of local employment. In the world heritage sites there is evidence of an increase in hotel infrastructures, most certainly to provide an answer to growing number of visitors, on average terms. However, a decrease in the number of school visitors tends to be observed, which is consistent with the reduction of school population and the additional offer of assets that can be visited by the school community, which leads to a greater dispersion of visits with unfavourable consequences for assets without a novelty effect. Considering the intergenerational value of such goods, this trend

should be addressed by the responsible authorities. While not questioning the main findings and conclusions of the study, constraints were felt in the analysis phase, mainly related to gaps in the information provided. Firstly, the absence of systematic information, with the consequent low response rate to some questions. The lack of data was more evident in World Heritage sites, making it difficult to break this down by type, landscapes and sites, and the latter into monuments and historic centres. In addition, the quality of information did not allow a more exhaustive analytic procedure of the costs and benefits. In particular, the costs mentioned refer mainly to last year and as far as sources of income are concerned, the benefits mentioned were totals, either since the inclusion or with reference to a particular period. Additionally, also as regards benefits analysis, it was rather complex to perform their ranking through the various sources of income, and mismatches between total and partial benefits (governmental, non-governmental and external) were found. The global study of the impact on economic activity that results from belonging to the different UNESCO networks would be more accurate if further and better information about all the indicators mentioned in questionnaire C was available. The large variety of classifications as regards the type and experience within the UNESCO designation, made it difficult to accomplish a more robust analytical exercise. In the oldest classifications, dating back to the 1980s, it became particularly challenging to ascertain the costs for the aforementioned classification and maintenance. In these cases, the length of time elapsed between the situation before and after classification made it hard to distinguish the â&#x20AC;&#x153;UNESCOâ&#x20AC;? effects from those of the good itself in the surrounding economic activity. The unravelling of these effects can only be achieved through the collection of specific information; for example, by regularly surveying visitors to assess whether the fact of having the UNESCO designation 63

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

influenced or not their visit or, in a marginal willingness to pay study, ascertain the value differential of the site or territory with and without the classification. In terms of recommendations, the first is the one resulting from the main limitation to this study, namely the lack of an information system that would make it possible to reply easily and promptly to the questions raised in the three questionnaires. It is therefore suggested to the managing entities that an information system be implemented to facilitate the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the site, territory or chair, since these are essential management instruments. As examples we present the indicators from the Alto Douro Wine Region monitoring plan36 in place (Annex 2), as well as the Arouca Geopark case (Annex 3), whose management plan was referenced as a good practice. In a scenario of reduced State direct intervention in economic activity and consequent increase in the competition among different public policies, entities are increasingly required to justify their activity and consequent public funding, and must seek other sources of additional income as for instance from the European Union or the private sector. Considering that most UNESCO designations produce externalities that become widely spread throughout society, this goal becomes a priority, and it is necessary to isolate the effects of the UNESCO designation on the economic activity of the surrounding region from the effects resulting from other forces that act simultaneously.

The indicators were established by the site manager (CCDR-N / Douro Mission), following an assessment exercise carried out in 2013.

REFERENCES Bateman I., Carson R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones, A., M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. e Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK. Benhamou, F. (1996). Is Increased Public Spending for the Preservation of Historic Monuments Inevitable? The French Case. Journal of Cultural Economics, 20: 115-132. Benhamou, F. (1997). Conserving Historic Monuments in France: A Critique of Official Policies. In Hutter, M e Rizzo, I.; (eds.), Economic Perspetives on Cultural Heritage. St. Martin's Press, New York. Eusébio, M. C. A (2006). A avaliação do impacte económico do turismo a nível regional. O caso da Região Centro de Portugal. PhD Thesis, Aveiro University, Departament of Economy, Management and Industrial Engineering. Frey, B. S. e L. Steiner (2011). World Heritage List: does it make sense?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17 (5): 555-573. Guedes, Alexandre, S. (2014). O Domínio do Cultural no Turismo Organizado – O Caso Português: Da polarização territorial à valorização endógena e local. PhD Thesis. Salamanca University, Facultad de Geografia e Historia. Salamanca, Spain. Hutter, M. (1997). Economic Perspetives on Cultural Heritage: an Introduction. In Hutter, M. E Rizzo, I. (eds.), Economic Perspetives on Cultural Heritage. St. Martin's Press, New York. Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32: 288-296. Klamer, A. (2003). A pragmatic view on values in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 10 (2): 1-24. Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L.C., Rebelo, J. (2013a). Preservation of a rural and cultural landscape. Insights from the multinomial and error components logit model. NEW MEDIT. A Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment, 12 (2), 65 - 72. Mignosa, A. (2001). Attention Given to the Built Heritage: an Economic Analysis. Università degli Studi di Catania, Catania. Mitchell, R. e Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Montemagno, G. (2002). Heritage and Tourism. In Rizzo I. e Towse R. (eds.), The Economics ofHeritage. A study in the political economy of culture in Sicily. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK. 65

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Mossetto, G. (1992). A cultural good called Venice. In Towse, R. e Khaker, A. (eds.). Cultural Economics, Springer, Germany. Nações Unidas (2014). Factos Essenciais sobre as Nações Unidas. Department of Public Information on the United Nations. New York. Online version available at http://www.unric.org/pt/publicacao/31695-e-factos-essenciais-sobre-as-nacoes-unidas Noonan (2002). Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliograph. (working paper). The Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/CVMpapers/Noonan.html. Peacock, A. (1995). A Future for the Past: The Political Economy of Heritage. Online version available at http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/src/keynes94/7sec5b.html. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007). The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status: A literature review for the Department for Culture, media and Sport. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78450/P wC__literaturereview.pdf Roberts, E., Sykes H. (2000). Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Seaman, B. (2003). The economic impact of the arts. In Towse, R. (ed.), Handbook of Cultural Economics. Edward Elgar. Snowball, J. (2008). Measuring the value of culture. Methods and examples in cultural economics. Springer, Berlin. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and Culture. University Press, Cambridge, UK. UNESCO (2009). Architecture of National Commissions for UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Online version available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001842/184255e.pdf UNESCO (2013). The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ UK National Commission for UNESC0 (2013). Wider Value of UNESCO to the UK 2012-2013. London, UK

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and purpose of the study 1.2 Methodology

7 7 7

II. ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL AMENITIES 2.1 Issues 2.2 Economic value. Use and non-use values 2.3 Costs 2.4 Methods and techniques of economic valuation 2.5 Conclusion

10 10 11 12 12 14

III. UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL 3.1 UNESCO and the Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO 3.2 UNESCO networks in Portugal 3.2.1 The sites inscribed on the World Heritage List 3.2.2 Biosphere reserves 3.2.3 Geoparks 3.2.4 UNESCO Chairs 3.2.5 Intangible Cultural Heritage Assets 3.2.6 UNESCO Associated Schools 3.2.7 UNESCO Centres and Clubs 3.2.8 UNESCO Associated Libraries 3.2.9 Category II Centres

16 16 21 21 26 30 34 35 36 38 40 42

IV. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE LINKS TO THE UNESCO NETWORKS 4.1 Information collected 4.2 Costs, direct benefits and indirect economic impact 4.2.1 Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List 4.2.2 Biosphere Reserves 4.2.3 Geoparks 4.2.4 UNESCO Chairs 4.2.5 Comparative Analysis of the UNESCO classifications in Portugal

44 44 45 45 52 55 58 60

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF FIGURES INDEX OF TABLES

65 67 69 71

ANNEXES Annex 1: Questionnaires A, B and C Annex 2: Indicators of the Monitoring Plan for the Alto Douro Wine (ADWR) Region Anexo 3. Arouca Geopark indicators for the period between 2008-2014

72 72 77 81

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Overview of costs

Figure 3.1: UNESCO Headquarters in Paris

Figure 3.2: UNESCO areas of activity

Figure 3.3: UNESCO sites, territories and networks in Portugal

Figure 3.4: UNESCO in Portugal

Figure 3.5: World Heritage

Figure 3.6: World Heritage

Figure 3.7: Biosphere Reserves

Figure 3.8: Biosphere Reserves

Figure 3.9: Geoparks

Figure 3.10: Portuguese Global Geoparks

Figure 3.11: Portuguese Global Geoparks

Figure 3.12: Network of UNESCO Associated Schools

Figure 3.13: UNESCO Centres and Clubs

Figure 3.14: UNESCO Associated Libraries

Figure 4.1: Nomination time for the world heritage sites per typology (months)

Figure 4.2: Nomination cost for world heritage sites by type (euro)

Figure 4.3: Annual affiliation cost for the world heritage sites by type (euros)

Figure 4.4: Distribution of sources of income for the world heritage sites

Figure 4.5: Average sources of income for the world heritage sites by type (euros)

Figure 4.6: Impact on economic activity, world heritage sites (%)

Figure 4.7: Impact on economic activity, historic centres and ensembles (%)

Figure 4.8: Impact on economic activity, landscapes (%)

Figure 4.9: Distribution of sources of income for the biosphere reserves

Figure 4.10: Impact on economic activity (%), biosphere reserves

Figure 4.11: Distribution of sources of income in the geoparks

Figure 4.12: Impact of economic activity, geoparks

Figure 4.13: Breakdown of sources of income for the UNESCO chairs network

Figure 4.14: Time and cost of the nomination by type of good

Figure 4.15: Affiliation cost for the different classifications

Figure 4.16: Total benefits from the various classifications

Figure 4.17: Economic indicators in the different classifications (%)

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

INDEX OF TABLES Table 3.1: Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List

Table 3.2: List of Geoparks

Table 3.3: UNESCO Associated Schools Network

Table 3.4: UNESCO Network for Centres and Clubs

Table 3.5: UNESCO Associated Libraries Network

Table 4.1: Annual affiliation cost for the world heritage sites

Table 4.2: Source of income for the world heritage sites

Table 4.3: Total net benefit, heritage

Table 4.4: Annual affiliation cost for the biosphere reserves

Table 4.5: Sources of income in the biosphere reserves

Table 4.6: Total net benefit, biosphere reserves

Table 4.7: Annual affiliation cost for the geoparks

Table 4.8: Sources of income in the geoparks (benefits)

Table 4.9: Total net benefit, geoparks

Table 4.10: Annual affiliation cost for the chairs

Table 4.11: Sources of income for the chairs (benefits)

Table 4.12: Total net benefit, chairs

Table 4.13: Growth in the different classifications (%)

Table 5.1: Key indicators by classification

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

ANNEX 1: Questionnaires A, B and C

1.1. QUESTIONNAIRE A: Costs to Portuguese organisations with the UNESCO designation The Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO (CNU), which supervises UNESCO issues, requests information on the costs to an organisation/entity resulting from being connected to UNESCO. This information will contribute to the analysis of the benefits to Portugal, by showing how much, or how little, it costs to obtain and maintain a UNESCO certification/accreditation. To provide us with the data, we would be grateful if you could fill in this short questionnaire (5 questions). Name of Organisation/Entity

UNESCO programme and date of UNESCO affiliation (Year)

e.g. UNESCO Chairs Programme, World Heritage Site, “Man and the Biosphere” Programme – MAB, Geoparks

Report written by (Name and position) a) Costs of the UNESCO nomination or designation

How long did it take your organisation to complete the

(e.g. One full-time equivalent (FTE) person, 3 months to compile the

UNESCO nomination process?

information and complete the UNESCO nomination form)

How much did it cost your Organisation to complete the nomination? (costs include feasibility studies, consultancy services, etc.) b) On-going costs of the UNESCO affiliation or designation

What are the extra financial costs your organisation incurs to

€

maintain the UNESCO designation?

Please specify what the costs are and their frequency (e.g. annual

(costs which your organisation would not have to pay if it were not

membership fee to a network, cost of quadrennial expert revalidation

affiliated with UNESCO)

visit)

How much staff time is spent fulfilling any regular reporting

e.g. staff time spent on completing an annual report

requirements concerning the UNESCO designation?

Please give an indication of which staff member completes the

(if you are able to quantify the time in Euros, please do so);

reporting requirements e.g. programme coordinator, UNESCO Chairholder

Are there any other costs to your Organisation with the UNESCO designation? End of the questionnaire

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

1.2. QUESTIONNAIRE B: Breakdown of sources of income The Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO (CNU), which supervises UNESCO issues, requests an analysis of the different sources of financing for Portuguese entities with a UNESCO designation, to better understand the benefit to Portugal (whether from public entities, external funding or the private sector). To provide us with the empirical data required we would be grateful if you could fill in this short questionnaire (4 questions). Name of Organisation/Entity

UNESCO programme and date of establishment (Year)

e.g. UNESCO Chairs Programme, World Heritage Site, Man and the Biosphere Programme

Last year for which information is available (year)

e.g. 2009

Report written by (Name / Position)

e.g. 2011-2012

Financial Resources

TYPE Total financial benefits or contributions received by your

Amount €

Organisation

€

Estimate of the total since UNESCO status or annual, but please state which (e.g. total from grant funding, private investment, fees, donations, research grants, etc.)

How much of the total financial benefits came from Government funded sources?

€

(e.g. from Local Authorities, Research Councils, other Public Institutions)

How much of the total financial benefits came from nongovernment sources?

€

(e.g. from industry, private companies, patronage, private legacies, fees, tourism income, NGOs)

How much of the total financial benefits came from external sources? (e.g. from EU funding, research grants from overseas, fees from foreign students, UNESCO, other UN agencies) End of the questionnaire

€

1.3. QUESTIONNAIRE C: Indirect economic impact As part of the ongoing work, it is also considered very important to have information and knowledge about the benefits (impact) resulting from the UNESCO classification/designation on the economy, especially on tourism. We would be grateful, if you could fill in this brief questionnaire, possibly with the help of the local tourist authority or other institutions.

Before classification Reference year for the data Visitors per year

After classification

Notes (assumptions; data source; question suitability; lack of information; others)

2013 (preferred) Number

Number

Days/h

â&#x201A;Ź

- Total - National - Foreigners Average length of stay in the classified locality - Total - National - Foreigners Average expenditure per visitor/day (excluding entry price)

Items considered in the expense:

- Total - National - Foreigners Visitors from the school community

Number

- Students Tourism infrastructure (in the neighbouring area)

Area/zone considered:

- Hotels and similar establishments - Beds available - Restaurants

Type of employment:

- Shops - Employment Other relevant indicators -

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

ANNEX 2: Indicators of the Alto Douro Wine Region (ADWR) Monitoring Plan Strategic Objective (PAT PIOTADWR)* 1. Preservation and enhancement of the Authenticity and Integrity of the ADWR Landscape Monit Dim

Specific Objectives (PAT PIOTADWR)

Indicators

Unit

Recurrence

Disaggregation

Source

euros

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N

euros/hectare

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N

Training/awareness sessions for technicians and machine operators

no. (trainees)

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

Training/awareness sessions for technicians and machine operators

no. (actions)

annual

ADWR/RDD

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N

annual

Landscape/ADWR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N/ICNF

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

annual

ADWR/DDR

Local Authorities/CCDR-N

Landscaping integration works no. Works seeking to preserve and improve no. (interventions) buildings Type: Reconstruction no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Local Authorities/CCDR-N

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Type: Alteration

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Type: Extension

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Type: New Construction

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Use: Residential no. Works seeking to preserve and improve no. (interventions) buildings (cont.) Use: Warehouse no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Use: Industry

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Use: Wine warehouse

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

Use: Tourist resort

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N, DRC-N, INE

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Local Authorities/CCDR-N/IMT

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

CCDR-N/APA

Vineyard area converted annually investment Vineyard area supported - support to exploitation Production of guidance manuals 1.1 Preservation and enhancement of the landscape

PROCESSES

1.2 Preservation and promotion of cultural heritage (vernacular, archaeological and intangible)

1.3 Preservation and enhancement of natural heritage (flora and fauna)

1.4 Preservation and enhancement of public spaces and urban areas

Field actions and supervision (Managing body of the property, DRC-N, DRAP-N)

Reconstruction and construction of Km traditional Douro walls Recovery / reconstruction of vernacular euros heritage - investment Recovery / reconstruction of vernacular no. (interventions) heritage Activities to collect and disseminate no. (actions) cultural heritage Preservation of woods, forests, hectares shrubs and riparian galleries Upgrading and enhancement of public no. (interventions) spaces Upgrading and enhancement of public euros spaces - investment Promotion of activities to foster social cultural and economic dynamics

1.5 Integrating buildings for housing and economic purposes into the landscape

1.6 Enhancement and integration of quarries, areas surrounding dams, piers, and other intrusive elements in the landscape

Actions tending towards the elimination of environmental incompatibilities Projects subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

no.

*PAT = Territorial Action Programme (Programa de Ação Territorial). PIOT = Spatial Planning Intermunicipal Plan (Plano Intermunicipal de Ordenamento do Território.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Strategic Objective (PAT PIOTADWR). Fostering innovation capacities and dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge throughout the territory Monit Dim

Specific Objectives (PAT PIOTADWR)

Indicators

3.1 Support for research, development and innovation (R&D+I) activities, with economic impact on the territory

Innovation activities

3.2 Dissemination of knowledge by stakeholders in the territory

Activities to spread knowledge Number of operators in the DDR (Douro Demarcated Region)

4.1 Promoting competitiveness, internationalisation and sustainability for the wine sector

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES POPULATION DYNAMICS

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

UTAD/IPB/ADWRID/DRAP-N

no. + target audience

annual

ADWR/DDR

UTAD/IPB/ADWRID/DRAP-N DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds IVDP/INE

Port wine production

litres

annual

ADWR/DDR

Port wine sales

litres

annual

ADWR/DDR

Port wine sales

â&#x201A;Ź

annual

ADWR/DDR

litres

annual

ADWR/DDR

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

no. (beds)

annual

ADWR/DDR

no. (nights)

annual

ADWR/DDR

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

no. (vessels)

annual

ADWR/DDR

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Tour operators

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Awareness-raising activities for the local population

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Press Releases

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds

Licensed projects

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds

Young farmers who have settled in the region

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

DRAP-N

Indicators

Average Stay at the Establishment Visits to the Quintasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reception centres Fleet operating on the navigable part of the Douro Tourists in the navigable part of the Douro (at least one navigation lock)

Promotional activities (types: participation in fairs, organisation of workshops and seminars, etc.) Inserts (Advertising/articles) in local, regional, national and international newspapers

Source

ADWR/DDR

Accommodation capacity

Population dynamics

Disaggregation

annual

Overnight stays in hotels and similar establishments

4.3 Fostering complementary activities (agricultural products, crafts, local products)

Recurrence

no.

Production of other wines

4.2 Promoting competitiveness, internationalisation and sustainability for tourism

Unit

IVDP/INE DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds DRAP-N/CCDR-N/Tourism/bodies managing community funds

Unit

Recurrence

Disaggregation

Source

Resident Population - Total

no.

annual

District

INE

Resident Population - Men

no.

annual

District

INE

Resident Population - Women

no.

annual

District

INE

Resident Population - (15-64)

no.

annual

District

INE

Birth Rate (or Gross Birth Rate)

annual

District

INE

Ageing index

annual

District

INE

Students Enrolled in Primary Education

annual

District

INE

annual

District

INE

annual

District

INE

Students Enrolled in Secondary Education Students Enrolled in Higher Education

Strategic Objective (PAT PIOTADWR) 2. Dissemination and public appropriation of the values leading to ADWRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inscription by UNESCO Monit Dim

Specific Objectives (PAT PIOTADWR)

COMMUNICATION

2.1 Dissemination, recognition and public (national and international) appropriation of the ADWR World Heritage identity values

Indicators

Recurrence

Disaggregation

Promotional activities

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Promotional activities

no. (participants)

annual

ADWR/DDR

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

no. (participants)

annual

ADWR/DDR

Awareness raising activities

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Awareness raising activities

no. (participants)

annual

ADWR/DDR

Dissemination activities

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

News

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Visits to institutional websites

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Videos

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

Publications

no.

annual

ADWR/DDR

2.2 Appropriation of UNESCO inscription Awareness raising activities values by residents and actors within the territory. Awareness raising activities 2.3 Communication outreach and awareness-raising regarding agricultural, environmental and heritage good practices.

Unit

2.4 ADWR Communication

Source CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc. CCDR-N/Tourism/IVDP/LADPM/Museums/ Education Inst./Sectoral Assoc.

Source: Douro Mission Technical Office (2014). Monitoring Plan for Alto Douro Wine Region, CCDR-N/ESRVR/GTMD, Vila Real.

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

ANEXO 3. Arouca Geopark indicators for the period between 2008-2014 Strategic objective

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

Designation Interventions

Geosites object of intervention

1- Protect, enhance, promote natural and heritage resources

Interpretation centres

Activities to enhance heritage and resources Investments in qualification infrastructures /rehabilitation of historic / natural / Cultural spaces Signage / Interpretation

Strategic objective

Impact

Unit

Amount

no.

Enhanced areas

5000

Investment in geosites

€

New interpretation centres created

no.

181.500,00 €

Creation of direct job positions

no.

Visitors

no./year

30.000

Turnover

€ /year

32.000

€ total

250.000,00 €

Investment in interpretation centres

No. interventions

Enhanced areas

no./year

ha.

100

Water courses cleaned

no./year

No. of projects supported by EU funds (partners)

no.

Investment carried out (Local Authority)

€ total

Panels / hoardings placed

Investment accomplished

no. X

€ total

5.000.000,00 € 230 40.000,00 €

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation Training activities organised

Accomplishment

Result

Impact

Unit Total no.

Trainees certificates

Total no.

Investment accomplished Science Alive in Summer Activities carried out (AGA)

€

Ciência Viva no 2 - Organise Verão (Science Alive Science Alive in Summer and promote in Summer) Activities carried out education and Activities (Universities) environment Investment accomplished awareness Participants actions

Amount 8 120 16.000,00 €

Total no.

€

12.000,00 €

Total no.

1200

scientific papers

Scientific papers accomplished

no. / year

Scientific thesis

No. of academic thesis supported

no. / year

No.

Participants in scientific excursions

total no.

Scientific expeditions

Strategic objective

Result

Enhanced areas

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

Training courses

Accomplishment

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

3 - Organise, promote and Related business foster tourism initiatives within a perspective of economic development and job creation for sustainable development Guided tours with a local guide interpreter

6 300

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation

Accomplishment

Result

Impact

Unit

Amount 6

New related business initiatives

no.

Indirect investments accomplished

€

Indirect jobs created

300.000,00 €

no.

Entrepreneurs monitored/supported

no.

Panels/hoardings placed

no.

250

Investment accomplished

€

50.000,00 €

Average tourist visits organised into groups and with guides

no./year

Average tourists on guided tours

no./year

850

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Strategic objective

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

Tourism Fairs

4 - Organise and promote tourism and cultural events Thematic events

Strategic objective

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation

Accomplishment

Participation in International Tourism Fairs

no. / year

Average Investment accomplished

€/year

Average for organisation of own events

no. / year

Average investment accomplished by the Geopark management structure in the area of events

€ /year

3.000,00 €

Average investment on events by the local authority

€/year

200.000,00 €

Average event partnerships

total no.

Impact

Accomplishment

Investment accomplished (Local Authority)

Result

Impact

X X

Average answers to faceto-face information requests

Average number of students on educational visits accompanied by Geopark technicians

Visitors /tourists to the Arouca Geopark

Amount 2

3.000,00 € 6

Unit

Amount

total no. €

Average number of visitors (Day Trippers + Tourists)

5 - Promote the quality and excellence of the Arouca Geopark destination

Unit

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation No. of direct job posts created

Welcome Centre Arouca Geopark Tourism shop

Result

2 396.197,16 €

no. / year

4.000

no. / year

25.000

no. / year

5.000

Foreign visitors

Average overnight stays

no. / year

15%

New hotel units since 2008

total no.

7 797.500,00 €

21.350

Average estimated turnover for the Hospitality industry

€/year

Average participants in tourist entertainment activities

no. / year

Average estimated turnover for Tourist Entertainment

€/year

75.000,00 €

Average estimated turnover in museums

€/year

60.000,00 €

Average estimated turnover for restaurants

€/year

4.106.250,00 €

Average estimated turnover in the tourism sector

€/year

5.038.750,00 €

3.000

Strategic objective

Area / Theme / Activity / Action Nomination to EGN|GGN - UNESCO

Organisation of international congresses 6 - To promote knowledge and Exhibitions and recognition of competitions the Arouca Books published Geopark

Films, documentaries, Videos made

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation

Unit

Amount

no.

International congresses held

no.

Participants in international conferences

no.

569

Budget used for international congresses

€

Exhibitions and competitions held

no. / year

Publications launch

total no.

Making of videos/promotional spots

total no.

Making of scientific documentaries – Geosphere (30 min each)

total no.

Presentation and recognition of nomination to the EGN | GGN | UNESCO networks

Television audience for the Geosphere programme on RTP2 Total documentaries made

Strategic objective

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

no./TV viewers/ showing

X X

total no.

190.000,00 €

200.000 10

Amount

no.

total no.

Local products recognised with the “Arouca Geopark” Label

total no.

New related products created

total no.

10 5

RNPI Registration Domain Registration

“Arouca Geopark” Label

Establishments joining the “Arouca Geopark” Label

Arouca Geopark in the Media

Impact

Unit

Website Registration

7 - Execute Marketing Strategy and accomplish promotion and communicatio n activities

Result

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation

Arouca Geopark Brand

Promotion of local products

Accomplishment

Result

Impact

Published international news

no./year

Published national news

no./year

Published regional news

no./year

Published local news

no./year

Dissemination on national radio

no./year

Dissemination on regional radio

no./year

Participations on national TV programmes

no./year

Airtime on national TV programmes

min / year

STUDY ON THE

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CONNECTION TO UNESCO NETWORKS IN PORTUGAL

Strategic objective

Area / Theme / Activity / Action

Action plans (integrated within the strategic plan)

Arouca Geopark 2008-2014 Indicators Designation

Unit

Amount

no.

Activities envisaged within the 2008-2013 plan accomplished

total no.

Execution rate of actions 2008-2013

86%

Execution of the Strategic Plan

Accomplishment

Direct job posts created Total Budget spent 8Management structure promotion and partnership creation

Stimulating the AGA (Arouca Geopark management structure)

X X

Direct European funds leveraged

Impact

total no. average € / year € Total

10 250.000 € 1.000.000 €

Approved co-funded projects

no.

EGN | GGN | UNESCO assessment mission

no.

Entity Certified by ISO 9001:2008

no.

Audits ISO 9001:2008 subject

no.

Arouca Geopark Site Average no. of visitors

Result

Partnerships established

No. of strategic partnerships with established protocols

Associates

No. of Associates

no. / year

150.000

total no.