Reconstitution de Pompéi

Towards a governance system for coordinating the updating and the implementation of the Management Plan of the Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata

First Expert/Stakeholder Meeting
Pompei, Italy – 17 November 2012

CONSIDERATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS RESULTING FROM WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP 1: HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION

1. It is important to remember that Pompei is an iconic site where anything that happens is newsworthy world-wide. If a stone falls, it will be in the media, as happens with only a few places such as the Taj Mahal and Stonehenge.

2. The past conservation history of Pompei has been reviewed. Current problems and needs are shaped by what has happened in the past.

3. At least since the First Special Law for Pompei (April, 12, 1976, n. 216), maintenance has always been funded from special funds rather than regular expenditure. The first time the costs and needs of the site were assessed was after the 1981 earthquake (done by mixed teams of military engineers and archaeologists brought in from universities over a 6-month period, when the special Superintendancy was also created). Each wall was numbered, measured and assessed. This was the first time that the needs of Pompei were assessed in this way. The maintenance of Pompei can be assessed and managed if there is a clear understanding of the needs of the site, and the resources required to meet them.
There had traditionally been three types of maintenance teams:
− Masons, who covered the tops of walls with tiles, and replaced lintels in wood; when short of money, teams knocked down loose stones for safety reasons and stored them for future re-use in restoration. Wall tops often leveled up.
− Mosaicists, dealing with mosaics and marble pavements. Apart from repairing mosaics, their main role was to cover and uncover unsheltered mosaics for each winter. This was done with clean river sand.
− Wall painting team: The Bourbons introduced a policy of varnishing important paintings with an alcohol/wax mix. Varnish was removed annually with hot iron and wool and replaced anew. This was still being done in 1970’s.

4. Archaeologists can be a threat to the site since major excavations inevitably destroy evidence and create further maintenance needs. It was in fact noted that current excavation at Pompei is small-scale and aimed at resolving specific problems or questions, such as dating artefacts.

5. It is strongly recognised that the conservation of Pompei is not just about what happens inside the site boundary, but also conserving the context of the site, visually and otherwise, within the surrounding territory. Since the 1930’s urban planning practice has treated the whole ancient city as ‘an area of respect’. In current Italian law, most effective protection would come from regional landscape plans (law of 2004, amended 2008) piano paesistico, which would override all local plans. Suggestions for the best way to conserve the context of the site are a large buffer zone, regional landscape plan (which could act also as a development plan), etc., although for the moment there is no agreement on how to move this forward.

6. Linked to conservation needs is the need to integrate the sites more with local communities to get support and commitment for their conservation, particularly of the landscape setting.

7. There is a need for training and capacity building to underpin all the work, both for those working on site but also for wider communities and other stakeholders.

WORKSHOP 2: DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

1. The outline of the chapter concerning the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) issues within the Management Plan for the World Heritage site has been drafted, using the “Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage” Manual (by UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, and IUCN) as a reference.

These are some of the elements considered:

The enumeration of the agencies responsible for DRM implementation (including local stakeholders); the creation/activation/updating of the DRM network at local, national/regional and international levels; the determination of the chain of decisions and interventions; the identification and assessment of the main disaster risks (using the MIBAC Risk Map and developing possible disaster scenarios); the definition of priority risk reduction measures/strategies/processes; the development of new tools, techniques and implementation strategies; the relationship of the Disaster Risk Management chapter within the Management Plan for the World Heritage site and within the Disaster Management systems for the Vesuvian Area; the relationship with legislation in force, etc.

The following phases and their related actions have been included:
− Prevention and mitigation (traditional knowledge systems for disaster mitigation, preparation of evacuation plan for movable heritage, creation/activation/updating of emergency response team, mock exercises and simulations, awareness raising, local capacity building and training activities for staff and volunteers);
− Emergency Preparedness and Response (emergency warning, activation of emergency response team, evacuation of movable items, communication issues …);
− Recovery (indirect and secondary risks, long-term recovery process including local sustainable development, the role of the World Heritage site in post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation …);
− Monitoring and maintenance (state of conservation of the World Heritage site, new risk assessment, revised mitigation measures, etc.)

2. The main threats identified for the World Heritage site area are: earthquakes, volcano eruption, an obsolete hydrogeological drainage system, mass tourism, heavy rain and climate change. It is suggested to proceed with a disaster risk assessment of the entire archaeological area and to identify the priorities. Risk scenarios should be developed and vulnerability zoning defined.

3. A DRM team should be created among the Superintendancy staff at the local level. A DRM network should be formed including local, national and international stakeholders and entities, such as the Vesuvius Observatory, volunteers, civil defence, fire fighters, the military, research institutions, universities, labour unions, etc.

4. Guidelines for the restoration of monuments and immovable heritage in seismic zones were established in Italy in 2009. The archaeological areas are not concerned by these guidelines. The case of the World Heritage site of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata, which includes not only ruins, but buildings sometimes with roofs and shelters, demonstrates that those guidelines need to be updated including concerns related to archaeological areas with built characteristics. Preservation/consolidation interventions could then have a more realistic technical reference framework.

5. The archaeological area of Pompei corresponds to a small town (around 90 ha). Currently there is no public evacuation plan. Escape routes for public evacuation should be identified in case of emergency and specific signposting designed. Mock exercises should be organised regularly.

6. All available resources on DRM issues should be collected, studied and further research could be developed also in collaboration with local universities and with the Vesuvius Observatory.

7. The World Heritage site is located in the red zone, regarding the potential maximum impact of a volcanic eruption. Mitigation measures for immovable heritage should be studied; priorities for the evacuation of movable heritage—including all documentation and inventory files—should be identified; a safe emergency storage area should be selected; handling, packing and transportation should be prepared in advance and the evacuation team identified and trained. The Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities is responsible for all security and emergency issues.

8. A training programme for Civil Defence teams at the regional level is foreseen. It is requested to add a component concerning the DRM of Cultural Heritage. Staff of MIBAC/SANP are encouraged to actively take part.

9. Communication concerning DRM measures should be studied, and the chain of communications and processes defined.

10. The Grande Progetto Pompei is composed of five “executive plans” (Piano della conoscenza, Piano delle oper, etc.). Studies, interventions and capacity building on DRM should be integrated into their related activities.

11. In the 1995 version of the Vesuvian Risk Management plan cultural heritage protection was incorporated. In the version of 2001 this component disappeared and in the current version, which will be approved in the following months, cultural heritage concerns are still not included. The safeguarding of cultural heritage should be included in the current risk management plan for the Vesuvian area and representatives of MIBAC/SANP should attend all the meetings of the Emergency Commission.

WORKSHOP 3: PUBLIC USE

1. Heritage values and communities
The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WH site that was used to justify UNESCO listing is that it “provides a complete and vivid picture of society and daily life at a specific moment in the past that is without parallel anywhere in the world”. There are other multiple values associated with Pompei held by different communities and individuals such as local residents living around Pompei, visitors to the archaeological site, academic/professional communities working at the site, those working at the sites, etc.

2. Local community: residents of modern Pompei and the Vesuvian area
Efforts were being made at Herculaneum, part of the WH site, in terms of community and stakeholder involvement. This should be encouraged at Pompei too. A balance between management and conservation issues and local interests in using the archaeological resource in support of sustainable development should be found.
There is a separation between the ancient and modern towns. Activities within the buffer zone could encourage interaction between the two realities so that local communities could benefit from the WH site.
Heritage interpretation was seen as a core management tool for involving local residents and engaging them in the importance of conservation issues, as is being attempted at Herculaneum, particularly through the Herculaneum Centre’s work with local residents, schools, etc. Some possible examples to engage local communities are:
− Opportunities for local residents to find training or employment related to the sites
− Initiatives for local residents and schools to engage with the sites using interpretation
− Improved access policies for residents, such as special free entry days or reduced ticket prices, etc.

3. International community: visitors (and non-visitors) to Pompei
The WH site already has good interpretation/communication material for visitors (maps, guide booklets, audio-guides, tour guide services, etc.) that could be further improved. A regional approach to promote heritage could be created so as to encompass the various archaeological areas that make up the WH site and their wider setting, including natural heritage like the Vesuvius National Park. Other existing programmes, such as UNESCO Man and the Biosphere for Vesuvius and the Miglio d’Oro, would also be of interest in this context. The lack of a good, functioning infrastructure (transport and diversified quality accommodation) at a regional level often hinders efforts made at a local level. These issues would need to be addressed. Strategies could be explored to engage international communities, stakeholders and visitors of the cathedral in the modern town of Pompei to gain their support in a sustainable manner.

4. Working community: those working at Pompei (Superintendancy-SANP staff, guides, scholars, etc.)
SANP should improve the relationship with local guides and custodians; increase their involvement in visitor management and ameliorate the visitor experience. The staff members living in the local area are also a valuable link between the site and the local community.
Given that guides are accredited by the regional council and have no official link to SANP, initiatives should be encouraged that create links between the institutions and also promote communication between SANP and guides. The support of the staff that work for the SANP and the scholars/academic community who are carrying out research there should be gained/increased through capacity development.

5. Bringing different Pompei communities together
The ‘touch and go’ tourism that takes place in general at Pompei should ideally be transformed over time into healthier forms of tourism that ties the heritage to its context, brings benefits to the local community and delocalises visitors so as to reduce pressure on the archaeological resource and its immediate surroundings.
Local community representatives and stakeholders (including the Municipality of Pompei, the National Park, local associations, professional groups, representatives of the academic community, etc.) should be present at these meetings and take an active role in the workshops.

WORKSHOP 4: GOVERNANCE, INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
1. Clarity in the phasing: clear milestones, 3yrs + 2yrs
The 3 year plan for spending the 105 million euro of the Grande Progetto Pompei should be accompanied by a longer term plan, perhaps 5 years, explaining: a) what will be done in years 4 and 5, and b) activities and action needed during the whole period in addition to the narrower focus of the Grande Progetto Pompei. This 5 year period will constitute the transition period to a new form of stability.

2. Improvements to internal organizational framework, then improvements to overall institutional framework
Given the urgency in the next 3 years to achieve the goals of the Grande Progetto Pompei, and considering the excess of institutional changes over the last 3-4 years, the institutional setting should be kept stable for the time being but improvements in internal organizational structures are recommended. These should include human resources, capacity building but also stronger consultative decision-making frameworks.
A new institutional design should be activated once the Grande Progetto Pompei has been executed for the period following the 5 year transition period. It should deliver a management framework which provides more flexibility to Pompei, probably through greater autonomy. In order to implement these changes in the timeframe of 4 to 5 years, analysis and design of these institutional changes need to be started soon.

3. Overcoming institutional fragmentation
A better definition of responsibility, greater accountability and some rationalization measures are needed to a) overcome the anomalies of the present governance situation in terms of two soprintendenze, Naples and Pompei, never totally merge, and b) ensure this governing body of a serial World Heritage property carries out this important responsibility but with due consideration for Stabiae, other properties and also the wider territory for which it is responsible and which are not World Heritage. The 5 year transition plan must address all the Soprintendenza’s Vesuvian area and verify the management interface with the Museum of Naples and the Naples sites.

4. Coordination and cooperation with the local authorities and other stakeholders
Greater institutional attention and resources need to be dedicated to cooperation between the various stakeholders, with a view to securing new forms of support after the 5 year transition period. Building bridges in the form of joint initiatives, particularly with the various local authorities, could also be central to improving the physical relationship of Pompei to its surrounds. Public parks and other opportunities assigning the archaeological site an identity and a purpose for the local community will also allow the heritage property to contribute to social cohesion and broader sustainable development in the local area.  These considerations need to be central to the 5 year transition plan which will shape long-term management stability.

5. Planning and managing philanthropic support and sponsorship
For the next 3 years, the priority of the Soprintendenza is to deliver the Grande Progetto Pompei, respecting the timetable and without compromising on quality. For the subsequent period, additional support from sponsors and donors will need to be garnered. However, preparatory activities must take place in the next 2 to 3 years to ensure the conditions are favorable for harnessing the most suitable forms of external support thereafter as Pompei’s management shifts to a more self-sustaining, long-term model.

6. Planning site enhancement and visitor management
Effort in developing the relationship with today and tomorrow’s ‘users’ must be developed. In the first years of the 5 year transition plan, data collection and analysis of visitors and visitor-oriented data (numbers, buying processes, need, experience etc.) must be carried out. This will ensure the proper data is available to identify ways to better exploit visitor potential that are compatible with the needs of the site when the attention shifts from the Grande Progetto Pompei to long-term sustainable management models.

7. Capacity building
All the above points require careful consideration in the 5 year transition plan but also depend on the development of a broader approach to capacity building. Initiatives must urgently target strengthening the capacities residing with the heritage specialists (in-house staff but also the pool of freelance professionals and specialist companies) and in the internal organization institutional framework, also to ensure the delivery of the Grande Progetto Pompei. In particular, in the short term attention must be given urgently to project management capabilities and then to general management issues.
In line with the World Heritage 2011 Strategy (whc11-35com-9Be), capacity building measures must also take a longer-term view beyond the 5 year transition period and aim to build capacities within those communities and networks with ongoing or potential future interest in Pompei.

8. Human resources
Though mentioned in the above points, in-house human resources merit particular attention given some key factors: the high average age of the Soprintendenza work force and their imminent retirement matched by a block on staff turnover and, even with new recruitment at Pompei, an ongoing lack of professional skills (relevant organizational and administrative expertise included). A thorough assessment of human resources - the current status quo and present and future needs - should be carried out as soon as possible. This will provide the base material to identify and develop phased solutions: in the short-term to reinforce work on the 3 year Grande Progetto Pompei, and thereafter to inform any institutional changes to favor long-term effective and sustainable management models.