Context 156 - September 2018

30 C O N T E X T 1 5 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 8 the Civic Amenities Act (1967). While the three systems were in different countries, they all established the growing desire to protect the built and unbuilt heritage of our cultures. Eventually, international bodies were established to promote the protection of cultural heritage and disseminate knowledge across the world. These bodies were both non-governmental and inter-governmental, such as ICOMOS and ICCROM, respectively. Jokilehto continued to provide examples from various countries of their objectives. He explained the roles of the various administra- tive bodies, and the need to train them and the owners of the built heritage appropriately. Authorities needed to guide the process while experts provided knowledge to help stakeholders understand. This would require management to have a knowledge of the place. Schemes that were founded to provide education included the ICOMOS Comité International de la Formation (International Training Committee). The purpose of this committee, of which Jokilehto is an honorary president, is to ‘promote international coopera- tion in the field of training and education in the protection, conservation and revitalisation of monuments and sites, and the built heritage in general, in order to advance greater understand- ing in the recognition of such heritage, technol- ogy, management and doctrine, and to advise on the development of ICOMOS programmes in this field.’ Jokilehto pointed out that from the beginning of the conservation movement there had been a focus on monuments, which could be seen in some of the frameworks he mentioned, but throughout the course of the development of conservation philosophies, practices and the destruction or loss of buildings and communi- ties, there had been a moving focus towards intangible heritage.While the international bod- ies and national and local frameworks could provide useful guidance and support on the conservation of cultural heritage, it ultimately came down to the community again. The com- munity will decide what exactly the heritage is and what should be conserved. The Kyoto Vision in 2012, acknowledging the relationship between the community and heritage, provides a good summary of the main point that Jokilehto was trying to get across through his compelling talk. ‘Only through strengthened relationships between people and heritage, based on respect for cultural and biological diversity as a whole, integrating both tangible and intangible aspects and geared toward sustainable development, will the future we want become attainable.’ Clare Gayle Transforming heritage care in Ireland Ian Doyle, head of conservation, Heritage Council Ian Doyle introduced the transformation of heritage management in a fun and engaging way. Initially he described the Irish heritage protec- tion system and how it differs from the UK.The whole of Ireland is staffed by 15 people from the Heritage Council who have responsibility for cultural and natural heritage. Local authorities have recently woken up to heritage value as a tool to drive economic regeneration and tourism through engagement by the advocacy of the Heritage Council. Much of this has been developed through a network of heritage officers who engage, educate and advo- cate, and provide heritage plans and develop mechanisms for delivery. Heritage-led regeneration programmes have been developed through the Historic Towns Initiative, including five towns, such as Portlaoise. The findings of this have been published in Ballybrilliant . The result of these programmes has been increased local authority engagement with national heritage leadership, allowing the pro- motion of heritage through what local authori- ties do best: local delivery and close community relationships. This has resulted in the emerging Natural Heritage Plan. The audience was very receptive to this pres- entation, learning about a different approach seeking to be effective with limited resources in a different regulatory system, and hearing a new perspective on a heritage management system that is still evolving, and has numerous similari- ties and differences from the system in the UK. Alice Ullathorne Ian Doyle: responsibility for cultural and natural heritage is in the hands of 15 people.