Cultural heritage researchers make the case for increased EU support
Some 50 coordinators of EU funded cultural heritage research projects gathered at a clustering workshop organised by the Commission in Brussels on 23 April, to present their work and discuss future perspectives in the field. High on the agenda was the level of support for cultural heritage research at EU level, both in financial terms and among policy makers. Having seen the budget for such activities go from 40 million euro under the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) to just ten million under FP6, this is an area of concern for many scientists dealing with cultural heritage. First, CORDIS News spoke to Dr Johanna Leissner, a former researcher now working for the urban sustainability and cultural heritage unit of the Commission's Research DG, and asked her why such research is important. 'Cultural heritage contributes to our European identity, delivering social as well as economic benefits,' said Dr Leissner, adding that such considerations are made all the more relevant with the enlargement of the EU to 25 countries. The reaction of researchers to reductions in financial support for their work was understandably not difficult to gauge, said Dr Leissner, given that only three to four projects per call could be supported under FP6, compared with around ten under the previous programme. Their disappointment is compounded by the lack of support for cultural heritage research at a national level, following the cancellation of the last such programme in Italy last year. Personally, however, Dr Leissner is convinced of the benefits of such activities, highlighting several valuable contributions: 'The EU's cultural heritage research programme has always been geared towards producing new technologies and tools, and innovation is a main selection criteria. It is also a truly multidisciplinary area, involving not just scientists, but also end-users, SMEs [small and medium sized enterprises], decision makers and public administrations.' There is also the added advantage that Europe is a world leader in the field, she said. Dr Leissner's hope, therefore, is that the EU will develop a greater appreciation of cultural heritage research and its economic and social benefits, not just for European citizens, but for the whole world. This universal aspect of cultural heritage was also highlighted by Dr Christina Sabbioni, from the institute of atmospheric sciences and climate of Italy's National Research Council, coordinator of two EU funded research initiatives. Dr Sabbioni believes that such research should be funded at EU level because 'cultural heritage is a common property, and is the basis of our common identity,' she told CORDIS News. The challenges facing historic monuments and artefacts, most pressingly issues of conservation and valorisation, are common ones therefore, and common solutions must also be found. Dr Sabbioni expressed her gratitude to the Commission for organising the Brussels workshop, as it allowed researchers from different disciplines across Europe to exchange views and see what others are doing in terms of exploiting the results of their work. 'As researchers, we must improve when it comes to exploiting the results of our work, but this is true of most areas of research, not just cultural heritage. Scientists simply aren't good at exploiting their results and stimulating a dialogue with society - they usually want to move straight on to the next research project,' she said. Dr Sabbioni concluded by warning that: 'If Europe considers itself to be a knowledge-based society, surely cultural heritage forms part of that knowledge, and if so, it needs science and technology to underpin and preserve it.' There is also a compelling environmental argument for preserving Europe's cultural heritage, according to another project coordinator, May Cassar, director of the centre for sustainable heritage at University College London in the UK. 'When you consider that most of Europe's historic buildings were handmade, with very little energy used in their construction, you can see them as an intensive reservoir of embodied energy capital,' she argues. 'If we had to replace these structures today, we would have to use the energy equivalent of some 15,000 litres of petrol to rebuild one typical 19th century residential building. Put that on a city scale, and you get an idea of what I mean,' explained Ms Cassar. Historic buildings typically take far less energy to maintain due to their design and construction, she added. Ms Cassar told CORDIS News that she does not advocate saving all historic buildings and monuments, as this would be pointless without assessments of their value and significance. Difficult decisions must be made on exactly what Europe is prepared to lose, and what should be preserved at all costs, which requires a deeper understanding of the materials that make up cultural heritage. 'That's where research comes into its own,' she said. To those who argue that countries such as Italy or Greece, where a disproportionate amount of Europe's cultural heritage is located, should feel extra responsibility for supporting such research, Ms Cassar had the following response: 'Just because cultural heritage is located in, say, Italy, look at who benefits from it. Tourists go there from all over Europe, and the Italian Renaissance itself led to great advances all over the continent. As tourists, we are all part of the problem, and must all be part of the solution.' The increased focus on large projects under FP6 has not benefited cultural heritage research, believes Ms Cassar. 'We work on a much smaller scale. We don't work with tens of researchers in tens of countries across Europe, but if a field is going to be penalised because of its scope, I'd call that sizeist!' Ms Cassar accepts, however, that there is shared responsibility for increasing support for cultural heritage initiatives, arguing that researchers must make their arguments more clearly to decision makers. 'We are talking to policy makers in our own countries, to the Commission, and to candidates for the European Parliament - we'd be silly not to. We have to become more politically savvy, as we don't have the size or resources to set up lobby groups in Brussels like some research fields do. We need to find more creative ways of getting our point across,' she explained. In conclusion, Ms Cassar argued: 'We [as cultural heritage researchers] need a European dimension, but more importantly, Europe needs a European dimension. [...] Cultural heritage research has something to offer that industrial research cannot - we need to feed our souls as well as our bodies and minds. This area of research speaks to us as human beings.'