42 C O N T E X T 1 5 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 7 the absolute or final statement on all things ‘conservation’, nor is the document compromised by partisan or interested project funding. Like any good framework for progress, there is room for interpretation and reassessment, while the (low budget) production has been funded largely internally, without relying on lead external funding body. And while this 2017 publication is the historic first statement, we are already committed to future editions and refined content. Practice Principles takes a targeted approach, promoting conciseness and a real-world focus that makes it more accessible. There is already a trove of charters and models with which the IHBC does, can and will align, so our Practice Principles operates not by urging abstracted principles on users, but by describing the principled actions of members. Consequently the articulation of practice principles is developed from current standards of good practice. The big win is that we do not need to engage in high-investment training to disseminate the document: practitioners simply use the Principles to refine, regulate and communicate their practice. The little win – that is also a concomitant big win – is that the document is about as accessible as it could be. That is especially suited to non-specialists and civic interests. In terms of practice, the document is structured around three headline descriptions of what, why and how we operate. Part 1 covers what we do, outlining members’ activities that deliver conservation outcomes. Part 2 explains why we practice conservation the way we do, by recognising, understanding and articulating the value judgements that underpin the effective advice that our members deliver. Part 3 describes how we practice conservation, explaining how we reach judgements that can achieve the results sought. Usefully (although perhaps not obviously, as the draft is for our partnering collective) these three headline sections coincide with the headline objectives of our decade-old corporate planning framework. This explains our charitable operations in terms of charitable impacts: ‘Helping people’ (or, in the Practice Principles: ‘What IHBC members do to deliver conservation outcomes that benefit people’); ‘Helping conservation’ (or, in the Practice Principles: ‘Why the values we articulate are so central to delivering those conservation outcomes’); and ‘Helping conservation specialists’ (or, in the Practice Principles: ‘How we make those judgements, as we reconcile the different values). Together these linked parts offer an effective summary of what the IHBC needs to prioritise in its own operations, from the skills it supports and the services it offers (including networks, tools and guidance) to the evidence base that underpins our corporate planning. While Practice Principles is a resource for core members and partnerships, in line with our UK charitable obligations, the actual principles gain most credibility from their global context, and we are now also looking beyond the UK to better frame their standing. An evolving ‘international strategy’ reflects a more internal, IHBC-focused context to the content of our new document. Our practice model, the IHBC’s Conservation Cycle, defines conservation operations from evaluation and management to informed intervention, pinning down our standards in terms of the IHBC’s Areas of Competence. As these are formed in the context of international standards (such as ICOMOS guidelines on conservation training) and models (such as the World Bank’s model for environmental project management), a more substantial international oversight and guardianship of those bedrock statements seems sensible, and certainly is something trustees are increasingly keen to propagate. Our policy committee, for example, is exploring international standards and charters to add to those already on our members’ ToolBox, such as the building conservation standard, BS 7913. In the light of all this, what are the lessons for the democratic processes? First, we can not be sure that our Practice Principles will resolve the misunderstandings and misrepresentations about our discipline, but we can try. And the trajectory seems a sensible, nonconfrontational way to address widely recognised barriers to better outcomes. So perhaps democracy should have a document that explains what the democratic system is about, and at least offer it any interested voters. Trying to explain the value of voting on social media in the weeks before an election seems a perfect recipe for the failings recognised (not only by losers) in recent plebiscites and polls. What else might help? Our Practice Principles document carries both instructions and aspirations, partly as each on their own are decidedly less interesting to key audiences. Comparable guidance on the democratic process should also reach across such roles to secure conciseness and relevance. We adopted a collective, consultative approach. Surely getting the political parties to agree a statement on the whys and wherefores of democracy would not only be a good exercise for those parties, but would also offer people a reminder that politics is not only about opposition? Taking a few lessons from the IHBC on how to achieve a better standard of democracy might help make the case for why the UK does not need a written constitution. But some consolidated, accessible guidance on why we have a democratic process would certainly make such governance systems more likely to survive current pressures. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=