Aller au contenu

Using our right to cultural heritage. The origine of Les oiseaux de passage platformcoop.

The Faro Convention, 2005

As we experience the combined effects of a political representativeness crisis, a less and less tenable business model, heightened socio-cultural tensions, the Council of Europe has decided to promote Cultural Heritage as a way to improve the environment and the living conditions, a streightened intercultural dialogue and a participatory democracy.

This new role ascribed to Cultural Heritage in Europe after 50 years working on « the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society » resulted, in 2005, in an innovating framework convention as the European Cultural Convention celebrated its 50th anniversary.

The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, called the Faro Convention, brings up to date the Common European Framework of Reference(s) for the Cultural Heritage in connection with the the nowadays European issues.

The Faro Convention shows that Democracy, Human Rights, Rule of Law, once upon a time sources of conflicts, are to-day the People of Europe’s’ common heritage.                

It gives every citizen, alone or in a collective organisation, a strengthened role in the governance and management of cultural heritage(s). Thus, the Faro Convention recognises this Right to Cultural Heritage by linking it to the Human Rights. It actually recommends to respect the various interpretations connected to Cultural Heritage – (the destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar was indeed a triggering event for this Convention) – relying onto the common European heritage.                                       

In the Faro Convention, the Cultural Heritage is a resource for our common future, it contributes in different ways to the European issues, and the member States are invited to head down this path:  dialogue, participatory democracy, improvement of the living conditions, new technologies, sustainable development, « contemporary additions to the environment without endangering its cultural values », etc…  (Sections II and III in the Convention)

Through these choices, the Council of Europe, first European institution founded after the second World War, fully honors its historical commitment: make the resolution of conflicts in Europe, latent or open, one of the major motives for European construction.

Almost half of the member States of the Council of Europe have adopted this Convention. It became effective in 2011 and held both the European Commission and the European Parliament attention. It does not create new rights but all member States are invited to engage in the ratification and implement of the framework convention. 

The interest that the text of this Convention has generated is proportional to the many questions that its implement and interpretation raise. 

Is it only a new category within all that is called « heritage » , some kind of an heritage that only citizens know of, similar to a so-called « small-scale  heritage », or « intangible heritage » ? A new Convention about « intangible heritage » following the footsteps of the UNESCO’s ? Does it stand up for a better defence of the  « priority neighbourhoods » while managing heritage ?

Marseille, 1994, a Faro process

© D. Poulain. Affiche Bel vedere a Grand Littoral

In the Northern districts of Marseille, Heritage curators, elected representatives, associations, citizens, artists, businessmen and managers (…) did not wait for the European institutions to take up and concretely experiment the many aspects of the Faro Convention.

The Marseille inner-harbour, which really extends far beyond the administrative boundaries of the Northern arrondissements of Marseille, conveys many stories about migratory ebb(s) and flow(s), the constantly evolving harbour, the industrial development, the old mansions (« bastides ») belonging once upon a time to the Marseille upper-class owners, the French colonial History…  Its inhabitants could be bearers of those stories as much as any local scholar or scientist studying these areas of Marseille. Yet, the sum of those stories does not constitute some sort of a collective narrative . Other stories do exist : some are pure fabrication, fiction, others a sheer touristic production, territorial marketing, media production… and these stories prevail over anything else…  .  

For the inhabitants of this huge and complex area (the Northern districts of Marseille), this situation exacerbates a feeling of abandonment, exclusion, and generates social segregation between the so-called « newcomers », the people living in housing estates, those living in village-like districts and the newly established companies and firms. The decision-makers responsible for the future of those districts do not grasp the inaudible stories belonging to the people living there, inhabitants consequently becoming almost invisible to their eyes. This attitude of denial leads to difficult if not impossible community harmony/living together and increasing distrust of politics and Institution.

Paradoxically, safeguarding the quality of the living environment has become one of the ways to start sharing collective stories. Where latent or open tensions start in connection with the living environment (destruction, outplacement, state of neglect…), groups of people form tenants’ associations, neighbourhood commitees, consortium of companies, residents and local representatives’ associations, artists’ collectives… The Narrative of a Collective Story starts with the many stories linked with tensions, fights and conflicts.

Faced with this situation, in 1994, Christine Breton, Heritage Curator, raised the alarm: the Urban Renewal Projects were destroying at full speed an actual heritage that Public Action simply ignored. She compared, in a manifesto, Marseille with Beirout: indeed the destruction(s) and construction(s) on building sites seemed to put aside, or really get rid of all that existed in those arrondissements at the Northern side of the town, the XVth and XVIth arrondissements running the length of the industrial inner harbour, where 90.000 people lived and still existed a very lively natural and cultural heritage.

As a reaction to Christine Breton’s manifesto, the City of Marseille, the Council of Europe, and the University set up a European mission for an Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage. Christine Breton’s position as an Heritage Curator became then, thanks to the City, very specialised and specific, a kind of « Heritage Public Service » for the benefit of the inhabitants. For about 15 years,this assignment made possible to experiment in the field the recommendations of the Council of Europe.

Using this « heritage public service », Christine Breton’s special position, associations, inhabitants, firms and companies form Heritage Communities, and start a substantial work of collecting, identifying, interpreting, and presenting the still living heritage. Outside contributors come and support them artists, architects, academics, writers (…). This « underground » work leads to publications, classification, artistic works and new ways to take into account and use heritage within a public action framework.

The European Heritage Days become for those Heritage Communities in 2005 a major annual meeting with the public, who is then invited to discover the result of their work(s) in the form of heritage walks. Thousands of visitors experiment them each year.

This co-construction of collective stories within a Public Action framework leads to comparing the stories, studying them, questionning them and putting them together, thus allowing a better understanding of the  environment in which the persons live. Depicting, positionning, acting evolve at the same time as the collective stories are constructed. It opens a path from the mode of accusing and criticizing as a single person to collective action.

This continuous « writing » process also helps to highlight the origin(s) of tension and/or conflicts : popular knowledge against academic/scientific knowledge, economic « necessity » against living environment, national narrative against minority narratives (…).

The Faro Convention, which was adopted in 2005, becomes an alternative for regulating such conflicts. On the initiative of the European Mission for an Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage, the Mayor of Marseille in the XVth and XVIth arrondissements, Samia Ghali, established (early 2009) an Heritage Commission (« Commission Patrimoine »), an official forum of dialogue(« espace de concertation ») about the local politics of heritage. The issues and conflicts connected to the cultural and natural heritage (using it, depicting it, destroying it…) were collectively debated there. Pascale Reynier, Deputy Mayor for Culture invited the heritage communities : associations safeguarding the quality of the living environment, tenants’ associations, artists’ collectives, neighbourhood commitees (…)  to get regularly together and debate heritage issues concerning their own districts. Public services, in connection with the topics on the agenda, could participate as well : urbanism, heritage, economy, culture (…)

On the occasion of the European Heritage Days, the Mayor of Marseille in the XVth and XVIth arrondissements Samia Ghali symbolically concurred with the principles of the Faro Conventionin the presence of the heritage communities, the Council of Europe, and a delegation from Venice using the Marseille experiment as an inspiring influence. Three other arrondissement mayors in Marseille will do the same in 2010 and 2011.

The Faro Conventionbecomes in this now huge area a common framework which allows a taking back of heritages as public goods and the surfacing of collective mindsets connected to them. The narrative, now a common ground, can be called heritage, it is a legitimate and shared knowledge, a necessary pre-requesite for political action. What was at first an individual issue has become a societal one.

By means of this heritage process, the heritage communities get both symbolic resources and a collective identity which enable political action. The heritage community has become a group of visible, legitimate spokespeople well endowed with interesting resources, thus allowed to exist and act.

The Faro Conventionmakes heritage a political matter: a shared responsibility based on an active and participatory citizenship. These heritage processes prove to be over the long term powerful tools for changes.

The Inhabitants’ cooperative Hôtel du Nord, 2010, a Faro application

The Venetian delegation had been greeted and hosted in 2009, and it helped imagining what could be Hôtel du Nord, coming forward with an hospitality offer in 2013, as Marseille (-Provence) is then European Capital of Culture. Creating a special hospitality offer – 50 BandB and/or guest houses, 50 heritage walks, 50 hosts – could not only generate some economic activity in districts where 25 % of the people living there are unemployed but also contrive to share the cultural heritages apart from the only European Heritage Days. 

The Hôtel du Nord goal at that time? Highlighting the Marseille XVth and XVIth arrondissements heritage in order to keep it alive, and help improve the lives of people working and living there.

Quite an ambitious challenge ! The Northern districts of Marseille (a huge area, almost half the town in size) do not even exist on the city maps offered to the tourists, and the media seem to be concerned only when they become the scene of gangland killings, not mentioning the deficiencies of the public transport system, and very little heritage protection  (only 12 % of the protected sites of the whole town) ; the sites, monuments, buildings  are most often in a state of neglect.

As early as 2010, the Marseille-Provence 2013 European Capital of Culture Association co-produces a special Hôtel du Nord stay, a pilot experiment which will meet with success as much from the media as from the tourists point of view. On the initiative of the Heritage Commission, the Hôtel du NordInhabitants’ Cooperativeis founded in 2011 by members from 7 different heritage communities. The cooperative principles are combined with  the Faro Convention ones to write the first Inhabitants’ Cooperative statutes in connection with Heritage issues. Local authorities and Foundations will participate in the structuring phase of the cooperative in 2011 and 2012.

The cooperative grows following two main lines: hospitality and discovery of heritages, provided by and for the inhabitants (who represent the majority by statute in the cooperative). Most of the inhabitants members of the cooperative are « hosts »: they offer hospitality in their own homes, but have also other ways to help discover the heritage of the inner-harbour districts of Marseille : urban walks, selling books and local products. Building an economy in order to keep cultural heritages alive, in favor of those who live, work, stay in these areas is the purpose of the cooperative and its members.

Hôtel du Nord  is evolving throughout the districts of 4 arrondissements town halls that have been committed since 2009 to applying the principles of the Faro Convention alongside the Civil Society. About 350.000 inhabitants are living in those districts. The Hôtel du Nord cooperative activity rested upon the identification of legal frameworks corresponding with its new ways to use and consider Heritage, therefore, the cooperative had to set up some necessary bases as:

  • the future hosts’ training and qualification by means of  the « older » members sharing their experience and knowledge through a « Hosts’ School »  (L’École des Hôtes);
  • the promotion and commercialisation of the hospitality offers and heritage discovery through its brand name Hôtel du Nord ;
  • its promotion and commercialisation website :

Cooperatives, their values and principles, were historically present in the Northern neighbourhoods, which for a century and a half were first of all working class, and those same cooperative basics served as a shared foundation to transform some Faro Convention principles into statutes for the Hôtel du Nord cooperative ; like in all cooperatives, membership is voluntary and open to all, authority is exercised democratically by the members under the rule : one member, one vote, the Hôtel du Nord cooperative is a democratic organisation controlled by the members (the inhabitants, who hold a majority according to the statutes and elect a Supervisory Board), a pooling of knowledge, through the Hosts’ School, strengthens the cohesion of the members and their understanding of the cooperative history, purposes and functionning, the brand name and joint web site are collectively owned, and, to finish, non-profit and independance are the other key words connected with the cooperative principles.

Part of the Hôtel du Nord cooperative financial reserves cannot be shared, statutorily, between the members. In case of the cooperative dissolution, this reserve will be transfered to another cooperative or public interest organisations. In this sense, one could say that Hôtel du Nord is a common heritage. 

One could say as well that the geographical horizon of the Hôtel du Nord cooperative is glocal; but historically, it covers  to begin with the XVth and XVIth arrondissements  of Marseille : those two arrondissements constitute its basis and origins. Its headquarters are there. Its economical horizon covers Marseille metropolitan area, a pooling resources area obviously necessary for the cooperative economic balance. Its political horizon is linked with other euro-mediterranean process, where reciprocity, networking with other movements help working on common purposes.

In 2013, as Marseille (and Provence) is European Capital of Culture, Hôtel du Nord has become a 40 members’ cooperative ; in the cooperative, or linked with it, about 50 hosts  (associations, artists, inhabitants, companies and firms, authors …) offer many forms of hospitality : welcoming people in their homes (40 BandB or urban lodges), inviting the many visitors in Marseille then to experience about one hundred heritage walks (about 70 among them will be part of the European Capital of Culture programme),  selling books and local products, and collaborating with important cultural institutions such as Marseille-Provence 2013, La Friche de la Belle de Mai, the Contemporary Art Museum ([MAC])

The cooperative found the necessary legislative frameworks which could facilitate implementation of European principles (guest house/bed and breakfast, lecturer’s statute, creative commons… and so on). It  started working with its partners  in order to make some legislative frameworks evolve in accordance with the Faro Convention issues like getting, for example, the authorisation to open Bed and Breakfasts in social housings (a proposal for an experimental implementation prior to legislation), or officialy recognising the inhabitants’ training (in order to become  competent and skilled hosts) as a vocational one, and taking into consideration partnerships – cooperatives –  in tourism sector so that they would not need depending  on travel agencies  to make their commercial offers.

The Faro Action Plan, 2013, a Faro Community

Successfully meeting all those challenges, the Hôtel du Nord cooperative will coordinate at the end of 2013 the « Marseilles Forum on the social value of heritage and the value of heritage for society ». Twenty-two euro-mediterranean countries will participate, at the invitation of the European Commission, the Council of Europe, Marseille-Provence 2013, the 4 arrondissements town halls agreeing with the Faro principles, and civil society’s representatives.

The participatory organisation of this Forum, with a panel of one hundred persons, brought together representatives from European, national and local institutions and members from local and non local heritage communities. Experiencing 4 different heritage walks followed with workshops, this panel learned many lessons from this Marseille experiment which could be transposed Europe-wide.

Subsequent to the Marseille Forum, the Council of Europe will define 9 criteria on the Social Value of Heritage and the Value of Heritage for Society, enabling to assess various contexts.  The Faro action plan 2013-2014 favours an approach focused on the inhabitants and their relation with heritage, and based on meeting the heritage communities. This approach as much as the criteria will be tried and tested in other towns taking inspiration from the Marseille experience (as in Venice in Italy, Pilsen in Czech Republic) or towns applying more or less similar experiments without using the Faro Convention as a frame of reference (Viscri in Romania).

This assessment process enables the integration of a variety of situations and actors. The territories used as « reference territories » have been the suburbs of Marseille conurbation experiencing post industrial conversion, the Arsenal urban renewal in Venice, the cultural programme of Pilsen, European Capital of Culture in 2015, and the rehabilitation of Viscri, a Saxon village, thanks to the Roma community.

Public authority’s involvement in those assessment processes is extremely diverse : whereas in some specific areas of Marseille councillars, deputy mayors, and local mayors are very much involved, the actual Town Hall stays in the background ; in Venice, an ad hoc office dedicated to the Arsenal is created ; the City of Pilsen delegates the event management to the Pilsen 2015 Association ; and at Viscri, finally, the Foundation which initiated the project collaborates with the local authorities.

The issues at stake are complex and multiform: in Marseille, enabling the voiceless and invisible ones to participate in the political debate ; in Venice, hoping a collective of associations very involved in the process that helped the Town to reclaim the Arsenal could remain active, heard and heeded during the  regeneration process ; in Pilsen, one of the important European challenges that the European Capital of Culture team focuses on is making the inhabitants participate in the cultural programme, and the post 2015 effects and projects ; At Viscri, the Roma community is at the heart of the village rehabilitation process.

With these « Faro appreciations » the  Council of Europe demonstrated the validity of the Faro principles and indicators  that had been studied during the Marseilles Forum on the Social Value of Heritage and the Value of Heritage for Society. Three main and common issues in those different places, towns and countries  arose and were corroborated during local forums on the actual spots that the Coucil of Europe organised at the end of 2015.

Difficulty/impossibility to share stories.

Balade patrimoniale sur la digue du Port de Marseille. Civic City 2013 ©

The first issue concerns the difficulty to make a contemporary collective story emerge, a story in which the heritage communities, wherever they come from, whatever migration history or crises they had to endure, can identify with. Their own stories never seem to be heard, having too often to face a dominant (and overpowering) one.

Viscri, with its Saxon fortified church, is listed as a UNESCO world heritage site ; it portrays itself as a village whose heritage is Saxon, thus brushing aside the importance of the Roma community in its history as well as in the present day. What is told about the Arsenal  in connection with the Serenissima always seems to erase the industrial aspects of the Arsenal (so evident from most of its buildings) or the to-day Arsenal,  its science  and art research activities, its shipyard production. Marseille, rather than telling about its industrial and colonial history open to the world  prefers  to hide behind the founding myth of the Greek City. Pilsen wants to show itself to Europe as a « piece of paradise », far from the « hidden city », a name and title for a participatory process which bears witness to a tumultuous history during the Second World War and the communist period.

The first hypothesis of the Marseilles Forum focused on « the imaginary order as a social cement » and the « heritagisation » conceived as a participatory process fostering the emergence of social imaginary orders that the philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis regarded as essential to establish and hold the various components of a society together. For Dardo and Laval, who wrote a reference book, published in 2014, about the Common, a « community »  does exist because there is an actual sharing of ideas, opinions, knowledge, and actions. The sharing activity determines the effective belonging  to the community as much as the community does exist via this sustained, deliberative and continuous pooling and sharing.

The Faro Convention could be a potential framework to surmount this « story sharing defect». When local councillors, elected representatives, heritage communities concur with the principles of the Faro Convention, it provides a framework where the pooling and sharing of stories may and can happen. It commits the authorities and public administration to « respect the diversity of interpretations  and establish processes for conciliation to deal equitably with situations where contradictory values are placed on the same cultural heritage by different communities »(article 7). Respecting Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law, a European common heritage resulting from experiencing past progress and conflicts, is indeed a framework wich makes it possible.

Heritage(s) as lived common goods

© Civic City. Savonnerie du Midi.

If the story-telling collective activity, and its sharing and pooling within the framework of public action help building and make the heritage community legitimate, in the various instances that could be assessed, the heritage community cannot be dissociated from the cultural heritage that it keeps alive and vice versa.

The heritage communities regard these heritages as « lived common goods », according to the definition of the philosopher and anthropologist François Flahaut. Considering that non-rivalry and non-exclusion are two criteria directly connected to common goods, François Flahaut adds that a number of people have to benefit from them to make them exist, and because those common goods are lived, they beget an affect, a feeling. Co-existence, right at the top of the list of those lived common goods, has been a founding element for most of the assessed heritage processes : co-existence between the Roma people and the Saxons in Viscri, co existence in Marseille between so culturally diverse inhabitants, between the tourists and the residents in Venice, between young and old people in Pilsen. 

But if there is no possible appropriation of the stories as a social imaginary order, the privatisation or centralisation of property, narrative and /or uses of the cultural heritage do not foster activity for the heritage communities, no more than it can foster co-existence.

Those appropriations – State classification, private sector organising tourism, local authority decisions regarding rehabilitation- can arouse conflicts :  popular  culture against scientific culture, economic reasons against living environment, national narrative against minorities’ narratives, and so on… In this respect, the heritage communities’ actions are not limited to the symbolic field. They can impact on the cultural heritages far beyond the narratives about them ; they can change the ways to use them, question their ownership, their legal framework, the enhancement decisions within, for instance,  economic growth policies, urban planning or cultural action policies.   

In practice, in Marseille for example, the heritage communities will decide to help in rehabilatating the Aygalades stream, in Pilsen, they will organise a collective taking back of an ex-convicts’ garden, in Venice, they will allow access and use of the Arsenal basins, and in Viscri, they will regulate the access to the communal meadows for the inhabitants to graze their animals.

Mutual distrust between elected representatives, institutions and civil society

The third and last issue at stake that local Faro forums pointed out in 2015 concerns the heritage communities’ participation process in the public policies.  In the four case studies, the participation has been locally organised within public policy (urban renewal programme in Marseille), public regulation  (regulation and Office Participation in Venice), encouragements from Europe  (criteria to become European Capital of culture in Pilsen) or EU directives (Roma community integration in Viscri)

Yet trust between the inhabitants and their institutions and elected representatives is very tenuous, if not antagonistic, as often in Europe. The local causes explaining this tension are many : the Mayor of Viscri’s building project  endangering communal meadows, the Mayor of Venice arrested on lagoon barrier (Moses) project corruption charges in 2014, the inhabitants of the Northern districts of Marseille feeling forsaken, a topic at the heart of the latest local elections in 2013 or the unusual citizen participation and mobilisation in Pilsen against the local Authority which had granted permission to build a new supermarket. In all those examples, the Civil Society questions the institutions and elected representatives’ ability to protect public interest.

Those public participation processes are most often adopted under the pressure of civil society groups (election promise) or under the European pressure without being fully accepted or understood locally. On one hand, the Public Administration do not trust the Civil Society’s expertise, competence and aptitude regarding those processes  eventhough the Civil Society is supposedly in charge ; in fact, the Public Administration only seeks to make people understand and accept decisions that are already taken. On the other hand, the Civil Society does not see the Public Administration and its elected representatives as reliable partners. The so-called participatory process is then established in a unilateral way, and, according to the various situations and backgrounds, it is either refused (Marseille), or ignored (Pilsen), or quite simply not understood (Romania).

In those very different settings and situations, the fact that the Public Institution and the Civil Society both can implement the Faro convention principles help build up new procedures of participation for the heritage communities to take part in local government. It redraws and updates the nature of the relation between Political Power, Public Institution and Heritage Communities.

Each may in a very definite way become legitimate (or legitimate again) in relation to a specific cultural heritage, whether he, or she is a scientist, an elected representative, a resident or a service user in the area… The responsabilities, functions/professions, culture/knowledge are not equivalent, not opposed or conflicting either (the scientist’s knowledge against the non professional or layperson’s knowledge) from the moment that they are named/designated and recognised  (the heritage community is linked to a specific heritage, the curator has got a public responsability, the elected representative a political mandate, and so on…) .

As mistrust against elected representatives and public institutions, generally speaking and/or in connection with the four studied cases (in Marseille, Venice, Pilsen and Viscri) seems to be the rule, the Faro processes  paradoxically assert their attachment to Democraty as much as their desire for Democracy and re-politicise  the debate about heritage and heritage itself.

The Faro Action Plan

The Faro Plan of Action that the Council of Europe has planned carries on with the reinforcement of the framework and applications of the Faro Convention by means of , on one hand, a reflection about the issues that were identified and remain to be analysed, and on the other hand, the development of mechanisms which could provide political and strategic support to the heritage communities, and even validate their action.

This first Faro Plan of Action clearly illustrates that the Faro Convention does not try to add a new heritage category, no more than it tries to recommend  showing more consideration to the citizens or contributing to a better protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The Faro Convention  takes an interest in Heritage as a process to find ways to live together. It argues that each and every one, alone or collectively, holds a part of the collective narrative that should be taken into consideration in order to make living together easier. Writing a Collective Narrative/Living  Together arises from citizens’ will, « within the framework of  Public Action » acting then as a warrantor in the narrative writing process. The Faro Convention is in itself an updated narrative of the « Principle of Hope », backed up and supported by the Council of Europe. 

Les oiseaux de passage

In August 2015 the French Parliament has approved the law on the New Territorial Organisation of the Republic (NOTRe), which requests in its article 103 that on every territory, the cultural rights of the citizens are guaranteed by the joint exercise of the competence regarding culture by the State and the local and regional authorities.

The « guarantee » that the cultural rights of the people will be everywhere and at any time respected is now a common responsibility – elected representatives, institutions and civil society  – provided by the legislation and, coherently, the French State should ratify the Faro Convention as soon as possible.

In 2015, Hotel du Nord has co founded a international cooperative with other partners to develop a common toolkit for promoting and commercialising hospitality offers in order to facilitate meeting, connecting and linking, exchanging, passing on knowledge, discovering new territories and inhabitants who live and work on the spot.

This common strategy, named “Les oiseaux de passage« , brings together more than 200 economic parties spread over about one hundred of villages and towns in France. Their backgrounds have to do with social tourism, open source, culture, art and craft, cooperative world…

As indeed to-day the human rights, the rule of law, the democracy are seriously undermined, Les oiseaux de passage reaffirms the necessity and inseparability of those universal rights, as especially the free movement of people, their right to participate in cultural life, their right to just and favourable remuneration, and holidays for all.

Two years of collaborative work have gone into the creation of this innovative platform , which is unique to those that already exist and fully responsive to the evolutions in use and the potential of the web. Les Oiseaux De Passage is a Cooperative Community-Oriented Enterprise (SCIC in France).

Les Oiseaux De Passage brings together stakeholders in tourism, culture, the social and solidarity economy, public education, local development and the cooperative sphere. They share the same values: hospitality, cooperation and humanity

Each of the members, more specifically, strives for one or several of the following causes: cultural entitlements; rights to equitable remuneration; rights to social protection; the right to holidays; the free movement of people and the conservation of the environment.

Les Oiseaux de Passage co-operative is a platform that provides another way to travel, from human to human.  The plateform is online since November 2018 for the local communities to implement thier offers and local stories. The platform will be public in 2019. The story continues …

Story of Bel Vedere. Les oiseaux de passage.

Prosper Wanner, manager of the Inhabitants’ Cooperative Hôtel du Nord and the association Faro Venezia. Co founder of Les oiseaux de passage.

Photo: Dominique Poulain, member of the Inhabitants’ Cooperative Hôtel du Nord.

The first version of this text was writen in 2016 for the volume « Cultural Heritage. Scenarios 2015-2017 », Ca Foscari University, Venice, Italy.

Internet Sites

Bibliography about Hôtel du Nord, Faro Convention and Faro Venezia

« Les Récit d’hospilatité d’Hôtel du Nord ». (10 books), Christine Breton, Ed. Commune, 2010-2016

« Letter of Marseille », William Kornblum, Dissent magazine, January, 2015

« GR 2013 Marseille-Provence : Autour de la mer de Berre et du massif de l’Etoile », Fédération Française de Randonnée, Ed. Wild project, 2013

 « Hôtel du Nord. La construction d’un patrimoine commun dans les quartiers nord de Marseille », Michèle Jolet, revue Metropolitique, 2012

« Il Fontego dei Tedeschi ». Studio LT2 Edition, 2009.

« Heritage and Beyond ». Ed. Council of Europe, 2009.

« Le patrimoine: principe actif du développement durable ». Agence Régionale du Patrimoine PACA, 2009.

« Deux exemples d’études sur les retombées économiques et sociales dans le domaine du patrimoine ». Ed. Fage, 2008.

« Le fond et la surface.  Regard photographique sur les mines de Provence », Fabienne Barre, Ed. Creaphis Editions, 2008.

« La dimension conflictuelle du patrimoine », Sandrine Alexie, Christine Breton, Jean Dhombres, Nadjib Ferhat, Ed. Fage, 2008.

« Valorisation partagée du patrimoine », Christine Breton, Emmanuelle Taurines, Prosper Wanner,  Ed. Fage, 2007.

« École de Filles de saint-André », collectif, Ed. La galerie à la mer, 2005

“Approche integree du patrimoine deux textes deux experiences en dialogue avec les musées”, Christine Breton, Collectif, Agnès Durand, Henri-Pierre Jeudy, Anne Lalaire, Yves Schaetzlé, Daniel Thérond, Ed. Fage 2004

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée.