REPORT: (In)tangible - Towards Integrated Heritage Approaches in Managing and Developing Sites

Report expert meeting

The meeting started with a presentation delivered by Tamara Nikolić Đerić on recent policy developments supporting people-centred and rights-based approaches to integrating tangible and intangible cultural heritage in safeguarding and management. A central point was the importance of a bidirectional perspective, considering this relationship from the standpoint of both heritage fields within the broader understanding of culture as a global public good. The presentation also stressed that distinguishing between the intangible dimensions of tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage recognised and transmitted by communities entails different safeguarding responsibilities, also when related to authenticity, given that communities continually recreate their living practices.

The policy review was followed by three case studies.

The presentation on the Beguinage of Bruges explored how historical research and community participation inform an integrated approach to tangible and intangible heritage. The discussion highlighted stakeholders’ different roles and levels of involvement, distinguishing participation from decision-making authority and recognising both formal and informal influence. Attention was given to historical research as a basis for interpreting authenticity, opening new perspectives and challenging established assumptions about the site’s character and uses.

María Claudia López presented Bogotá’s integrated approach to heritage management, linking tangible, intangible and natural heritage with spatial planning. The presentation offered many lessons and ideas for further exploration. Two main points stood out: the role of the Management Plan as a catalyst and platform for considering new forms of heritage, particularly the cable car and its significance for the community, and the approach to governance through the Integrated Heritage Observatory, which brings together professionals from different fields working in public administration.

Ahmed Skounti’s presentation on Jemaa El-Fna Square in Marrakech prompted discussion of the limited integration of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding within a regeneration project focused largely on contemporary design and architecture for visitors and tourists. A positive practice was the collaboration between designers and heritage bearers to develop ergonomic equipment for daily use, which the community considered useful. The discussion also highlighted uneven attention to different practices, with food-related activities receiving greater attention while performers, particularly acrobats, were less extensively consulted.

Summary of the plenary discussion following the three case presentations - Bruges, Bogotá and Marrakesh

The plenary discussion drew on the three case studies to critically reflect on established heritage concepts and explore the opportunities and challenges of more integrated heritage approaches. The cases also demonstrated how integrated heritage approaches can contribute to broader urban planning and development processes, moving beyond heritage management as a separate field of practice. Several key points emerged:

1. Interdisciplinary collaboration from the outset. Bringing together different fields of expertise from the conceptual phase onwards, and ensuring continuous dialogue throughout the process, is key to developing genuinely integrated approaches. This requires not only combining expertise, but also creating a shared understanding across disciplines.
    
2. Rethinking authenticity and heritage values. The cases challenged static understandings of authenticity. Historical and diachronic research can reveal how heritage places, their uses and meanings have evolved over time. Bringing together different historical sources, perspectives and community narratives can help question dominant interpretations and develop more nuanced understandings of heritage values.
    
3. Critical reflection on monitoring. Integrated approaches also invite us to reconsider established monitoring practices: what is particularly being monitored, by whom, according to which criteria, and whose values and perspectives are reflected in these assessments?
    
4. Funding and resource allocation. Meaningful engagement with communities and interdisciplinary collaboration require considerable time, resources and sustained commitment. Yet funding priorities still tend to favour the conservation and restoration of built heritage over the safeguarding of associated living heritage and the participation of communities.
    
5. Participation and decision-making. Participatory processes raise important questions about responsibilities, authority and decision-making. It is essential to clarify from the outset how participation will be organised, how different perspectives will inform decisions, and who ultimately holds decision-making authority. Transparency and clear expectations are crucial to meaningful participation. This also raises questions about how to navigate conflicting perspectives and whose voices are represented, particularly in increasingly diverse communities.
    
6. Education and capacity building. Education and capacity building are important to strengthen understanding of the interconnections between tangible and intangible cultural heritage, and to equip both professionals and communities with the knowledge and tools to reflect on heritage, its conservation, safeguarding and future development.

The Bruges Recommendations on Integrated Heritage Approaches

Jorijn Neyrinck (Vice-chair Flemish UNESCO Commission), Iris Steen (heritage expert) and Tamara Nikolić Đerić, (heritage expert) introduced the Bruges Recommendations as the main outcome of the expert meeting. 
Built on preparatory exchanges with international experts and the discussions in Bruges, the Recommendations aim to contribute to the ongoing international dialogue on more integrated approaches to heritage conservation, safeguarding and management.

Rather than proposing a single model, they seek to identify shared principles, practical approaches and policy directions that can help bridge different heritage frameworks, particularly those of the UNESCO 1972 and 2003 Conventions, while respecting their distinct concepts and methodologies.

The Recommendations are structured around three interconnected dimensions: principles, practice and policy.

They were further discussed and refined during the concluding plenary session, facilitated by Tamara Nikolić Đerić, with contributions from the participants.

The amendments and suggestions made during this discussion were incorporated into the final version of the The Bruges Recommendations on Integrated Heritage Approaches.

Follow-up

The Bruges Recommendations have been shared with UNESCO Headquarters and were also brought into the discussions at the international UNESCO expert meeting Towards the Naples Biennale on Cultural Heritage, held in Naples in October 2026.

The Flemish UNESCO Commission and its partners will continue to explore opportunities to share and promote the Recommendations within international heritage networks. Further exchanges, practical case studies and experimentation can help translate the Recommendations into concrete approaches and contribute to their continued development and application.