context

50 C O N T E X T 1 7 9 : M A R C H 2 0 2 4 Conservation is inherently recognised as serving the public interest within charitable frameworks, but if we help conservation achieve a greater status through a charter, we can better help people by helping conservation. Helping conservation A telling reflection of the more pejorative informed takes on conservation identified earlier – as a cult or a sideline – is that there is no chartered body specifically tied to the conservation of the built and/or historic environment. This is despite the central role our conservation plays in everything from social well- being and economic viability to environmental and public health and culture. Indeed, in the PCO’s published history of charters, awarded since its inception in the 13th century, only one chartered body adopts conservation in its title. That, as expected, covers nature conservation. Reflecting that bias, the Treasury’s guiding Green Book cites natural capital but not, as yet, heritage capital. A number of heritage and built environment chartered bodies do cite conservation in their objectives. But in those mentions, necessarily and inevitably, conservation plays second fiddle to the priorities enshrined in the chartered name: architects, planning, archaeologists and so on. The award of a charter to a built environment body with conservation in its heart and title could be momentous, not only for society as a whole, but for the widest interests in heritage conservation. Whether or not we petition, or even succeed, our focus on built and historic environment conservation practice, and our decidedly modern take on individual interdisciplinary skills sets, could see closer ties to government not only as a benefit to people, but to the broadest constituency of conservation and, significantly, to our profession. Helping conservation professionals As a professional body and institute for specialist historic and built environment conservation practitioners, we have a huge body of expert members directly shaping conservation outcomes and, through that, delivering public benefit. Our members and their networks can play a critical role in all the processes of conservation, a point attested to from our joint statement on Conservation Professional Practice Principles (2017) to our support for both commercial and pro bono conservation outcomes. The breadth and depth of our membership across disciplines and numbers reinforces that case. We have secured some critical strategic successes even without a charter: the Office for National Statistics has introduced a more informed classification of our members’ roles in official government data; the Construction Skills Certification Scheme has recognised us as a professional body for select certifications; and our new membership levels serve as a de facto proxy for the structured career paths other disciplines enjoy. But the first, government classification, is only a draft, secured after more than a decade of work; the second, certification, took about that long and is very restricted; and the last, career support, has taken twice that long and will only ever be a proxy. That is slow going by any standards. Despite apparently rapid progress, we have not achieved nearly as much as we might or should with our advocacy and early career support exemplifying the barriers. Those barriers seem to centre on bureaucracies’ bemusement at our interdisciplinary approach to conservation. Traditional organisational structures and corporate planning work to boxes, raising problems for our advocacy. Whether we advocate conservation for its cultural benefits in the context of planning, its environmental benefits in economic contexts or, even more challenging, economic benefits in cultural contexts (and in any other combination), we start as the sideline interest to be sidelined, or the cult to avoid cultivating. Similarly, our attempts to kick-start future members’ careers with a dedicated apprenticeship standard, or even a stream within a generic standard aligned to historic environment advice, have simply failed. Structural barriers to interdisciplinary conservation practice are no less substantial. The absence of formal recognition of IHBC accreditation for project leads in funded repair projects sees conservation as only a discrete top-up facet of some single discipline, and so demands reaccreditation. Our accreditation represents an autonomous interdisciplinary profession that, like any other, uses continuing professional development and a code of conduct and disciplinary processes for regulatory oversight. All can appreciate the reasons for such precautions. But integrating our interdisciplinary members with those historic bureaucracies and systems that, for good or ill, shape their work might be easier with more formal ties to government under a charter. Indeed, as charitable status spurred the Association of Conservation Officers to extend its public services and specialist support as the IHBC, might a charter help the IHBC reach even greater heights? Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI0Mzk=