Context 167 - March 2021

C O N T E X T 1 6 7 : M A R C H 2 0 2 1 51 make up the places we value, must be managed hand in hand, with open understanding and informed judgement. As Heathcote suggests, if society consistently and fairly balanced both in the management of place, then it could address some of the most damaging wastes in the modern world. The challenge to a wider adoption of such conservation principles is, however, substantial, not least because the barriers are so embedded in the legacies so well represented by Maslow. Even something as apparently straightforward as the accreditation of historic environment conservation is still widely – and almost exclusively - regarded as a ‘top up’ to a traditional profession. That thinking confines conservation to being thought of a technical skill – no more than a refinement of a comfortably familiar activity – precluding in most areas even the concept of the holistic conservation that should be our response to Heathcote’s big idea. Specialisation based on refined specification of familiar skills may be an absolutely sound position in a traditional profession. However, over-dependence on that in the 21st century actually pushes further apart those very sectors that must join together to achieve that for which Heathcote calls. Indeed, this attitude flies in the face of the plethora of modern reports that have highlighted the need to integrate skills in interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary practice to secure development that is sustainable, or even just viable. The management of ‘energy’ (or material) and ‘memory’ (or meaning) have roots in practices that are as distinct and distinguished as the humanities and the sciences, so specifying those skills as a refinement of historic skills can not deliver integration. In contrast, the IHBC’s accrediting framework looks across those historic confines, assessing the conjoined management of material and meaning expressed in Heathcote’s hypothesis. In another context, incongruities between historic pigeonholes and modern practice might be moot. But in the 21st century, when conservation outcomes are so critical to survival – with social and environmental impacts capable of wreaking planet-wide chaos individually, and even more so when operating in unison – restricting standards on those from past centuries is no more tenable than, say, the blasé adoption of a historic style without any understanding of just why it actually is ‘historic’, and a lot more dangerous. Instead, the IHBC’s approach to our conservation practice is constructed on the presumption that managing cultural and environmental values together is not only possible, but is fundamental to a sustainable trajectory for future society. From our specification of the eight Competences to our model ‘Conservation Cycle’ with its four generic Areas of Competence, the IHBC’s practice model bridges the historic chasm between the management strategies for energy and for memory. Members are required to operate equitably – and as far as possible – across a process that starts with the holistic valuing of a resource, including both its material presence and its meanings. That process should lead to informed actions on their change. Maslow’s 20th-century thinking is founded more on a cultural legacy rather than any formal logic, which supports Wikipedia’s faint- praise observation that ‘There is little scientific basis’ for his model. The IHBC also recognises the shortage of a broad science for our own holistic approach to conservation.While accepting that the causes for such shortcomings in science are entirely different, its failure to connect such threads as climate change and culture remains a serious challenge. One response to that limitation is the IHBC’s investment in developing and promoting its own research and evidence base. The web-based ToolBox collects and helps generate priority research in the form of digital ‘Notes’. And our new CREATIVE Conservation Fund serves in part as a platform for generating research funding. These both represent longer-term ambitions, so we have also pursued other responses to the limits of science today, including the suitably cost- effective adoption of protocols. The IHBC’s ‘Statement… for the production of standards’, also posted on our site, explains how ‘methodologies for identifying and interpreting evidence… in an interdisciplinary practice like conservation’ need to include ‘using aggregated evidence’. An abstract concept on the surface, perhaps, but an important statement that justifies how – where the science falls short – our guidance on practice should follow the general direction of evidence and logic, at least until more substantial evidence suggests otherwise. These conscious nods to science offer only part of a way forward for sound guidance on practice on the future. As the IHBC – any more than the planet – can not wait for the undeniable science that confirms the value of our work, in tandem with that focus on evidence, the institute has also expanded its advocacy. Most recently, and most substantially, the IHBC has redirected resources to offer secretarial support on a new, UK-wide All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Conservation, Places and People. The APPG is a platform that encourages – and offers itself to – the full spectrum and diversity of players helping save a planet in peril. For that reason the first inquiry of this APPG targets ‘21st century places: values and benefits’, as a topic purposefully open to anyone with the will and capacity to participate. Maslow’s legacy indicates the scale of the challenge faced, but hopefully the APPG’s work will unite, within a more powerful network, an awareness of the benefits to reap if we really can – more widely and with more focus – respond to Heathcote’s hypothesis. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk