C O N T E X T 1 5 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 7 41 Conservation and democracy: some principles from the IHBC Director’s cut As I write this column, the media is ringing with the operational failure of UK democracy to address leadership needs in these complex hours of preBrexit talks, and the proven failure of US democracy to respond to the genuine needs of the many because its body politic – with voice enough, if only just, to articulate a frustration justified or otherwise – has presented near absolute authority to probably the only world leader capable of destroying generations of delicate, middle-east politicking while doing a sword-dance. Surely, many say, there must be a better way forward for people’s governance than this? Democracy itself may have been the better way before, but in our insta-face-snaptwit-osphere, has it had its day? Or could we do more to help electorates offer a more informed and effective contribution to a process that we might be condemning too fast? A not-dissimilar questioning of ‘conservation’ took place in very recent years. Threatened by a negative political environment, national agencies tried to recast conservation, some by removing the word from its bureaucratic structures, some by trying to reshape it into more manageable – if less meaningful – forms. That culminated in the legacy of the sad pleonasm of ‘constructive conservation’, which reflected a profound lack of understanding of our work. If conservation is not constructive, it is self-evidently not conservation. In the light of the comparable problems faced by democracy and conservation, it is worth exploring how the conservation sector is addressing its challenges, to see if there are any lessons to be offered to the democratic process. Perhaps surprisingly, the comparisons are both substantial and layered. Much of the problem is rooted in false expectations based on misunderstandings about the extent to which conservation – or democracy – can deliver a complex blend of beneficial outcomes (social, environmental and economic) to a diverse body of stakeholders that is mostly only sporadically engaged even with headline moments, whether consent applications or election days, and generally is totally ignorant of the mechanics and limitations of the most fundamental processes. Unfortunately, the detailed operations are too often dominated by powerful voices tied to lucre or self-interest, and populated by too many who would benefit a great deal with only a little effort, but are largely unaware of the opportunities within their grasp. The IHBC did not give up on conservation, so if we look to some transferrable strategies, we may not need to give up on democracy. The IHBC first needed to address some profound misunderstandings about the practice of conservation. This culminated in current preparations to print and distribute our own statement on conservation operations. The first iteration of our Conservation Professional Practice Principles is being prepared for issue to delegates at our Historic-England-supported annual school and, after that, to our members, production partners and beyond. It is worth focusing on what that new Practice Principles is, and what it is not. Although drafted first by IHBC past chair Dave Chetwyn, Practice Principles is not simply an internal organisational statement pandering to narrow corporate ideologies reinforced by like-minded members. Rather, reflecting the same inclusive fundamentals written into the document, it comes from a position of shared ownership, reaching across seemingly disparate interests. Our Practice Principles is a joint statement formally developed in consultation and partnership with a few representative, even paradigmatic, partners: Civic Voice, as England’s national charity for the civic movement, and the Historic Towns and Villages Forum, a UK membership body that supports effective planning practices and processes. Importantly, this triadic partnership does not define any collective exclusivity. Its significance lies instead in the symbolic reach of the grouping across what are often presented as polarised opposites: community, heritage practitioners and a planning system that upholds a directive that, however qualified by sustainability and development plans, is still founded on a presumption in favour of development. Equally, these joint Practice Principles should not be considered Areas of competence in the IHBC’s Conservation Cycle
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=