Page 1

European Heritage Congress Europa Nostra Annual Congress Amsterdam, 8-11 June 2011

Europa Nostra Forum Felix Meritis, Keizersgracht 324, 1016 EZ Amsterdam 10 June 2011


Organised as a contribution to:

in cooperation with:

with thanks to:

Reader prepared by: Marina Stojadinovic with Astrid Weij, Erfgoed Nederland in cooperation with: Laurie Neale and Louise van Rijckevorsel, Europa Nostra 1

Contents 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Context of the Europa Nostra Forum................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Who are we? ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 How to read the reader?.................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 European Year of Volunteering.......................................................................................................... 5

2 Volunteering and cultural heritage ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1 A joint story ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Importance of volunteers for cultural heritage ................................................................................. 7 2.3 Facts and measurement..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Unity in diversity? Different regions/models in Europe..................................................................... 9

3 Parallel Discussion I – Should I stay or should I go? ................................................................................ 11 3.1 Value based motivation ................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Utilitarian motives............................................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Social motives................................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Motives for staying away or quitting volunteering.......................................................................... 12 3.5 Example from the field: Family Volunteering - The National Trust, U.K. ........................................ 13

4 Parallel Discussion II – How to keep them happy? ................................................................................. 15 4.1 Are human resources and management for volunteers new concepts in heritage institutions? ... 15 4.2 Who is managing volunteers in heritage institutions? .................................................................... 15 4.3 Changes in society and styles of volunteering ................................................................................. 16 4.4 Example from the field: Results of a study on the volunteers of Open Monumentedag, the Netherlands............................................................................................................................................. 16

5 Parallel Discussion III – Who is the expert? Volunteers versus paid professionals ................................ 19 5.1 Who is the expert? ........................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Why not volunteers?........................................................................................................................ 19 5.3 Volunteer-run institutions versus professional institutions ............................................................ 20 5.4 Example from the field: Culture Ants - An educational model for cultural heritage, Turkey ........ 20


6 Parallel Discussion IV - Listen to me !...................................................................................................... 21 6.1 Citizens initiatives............................................................................................................................. 21 6.2 Heritage community......................................................................................................................... 21 6.3 Media ............................................................................................................................................... 22 6.4 Example from the field: Safeguarding buildings and art from the reconstruction period - Bond Heemschut, the Netherlands .................................................................................................................. 22

7 References.............................................................................................................................................. 24

Annex I - Case studies ................................................................................................................................. 32 Case Study 1: Pro Patrimonio, Romania................................................................................................. 32 Case Study 2: Szépmûvészeti Múzeum, Hungary................................................................................... 33 Case Study 3: German Foundation for Monument Protection, Germany ............................................. 34 Case Study 4: National Museum Kikinda, Serbia ................................................................................... 35 Case Study 5: « QUARANTE ANS APRES », Belgium .............................................................................. 37 Case Study 6: Faith in Maintenance, United Kingdom........................................................................... 38 Case Study 7: Museum Geelvinck Hinlopen Huis, The Netherlands ...................................................... 39 Case Study 8: Fedecarail, Europe ......................................................................................................... 400 Case Study 9: Corroy-le-Château, Belgium .......................................................................................... 411

Annex II - Forum Programme.................................................................................................................... 422

Annex III - Speakers Biographies ............................................................................................................... 455


1. Introduction

1.1 Context of the Europa Nostra Forum 2011 is the European Year of Volunteering. For Europa Nostra, this was a chance during its Annual Congress to highlight the work of the millions of European citizens who volunteer for the benefit of cultural heritage in a myriad of functions and capacities. Together with Bond Heemschut and Erfgoed Nederland, Europa Nostra decided to devote its annual Forum to discussing how important volunteers are for the heritage sector, as well as the concerns of heritage volunteers and the challenges of using their donated time, energy and skills in the most effective manner. The resulting Forum on volunteering and cultural heritage has as theme: “Volunteers: Added Value for Europe’s Heritage”. This Forum is a key event in the programme of the Europa Nostra Annual Congress (8-11 June 2011 in Amsterdam), this year dubbed the European Heritage Congress. It brings together Europa Nostra members and representatives of the broad cultural heritage movement from across Europe. It brings together volunteers and paid workers in the heritage sector. The Reader which you have now in your hands or on your screen, was written and collated in preparation for the Forum on Volunteering. We hope that you will be able to read it before the event of the morning of 10 June, and that it will inspire you with ideas and suggestions to contribute during the panels and discussions of the Forum, and afterwards in your continued work in the European heritage sector.

1.2 Who are we? The Forum has been organised in partnership between Europa Nostra, Erfgoed Nederland and Bond Heemschut. We are heritage institutions with a strong affiliation with volunteers and their work (Europan Nostra and Bond Heemschut) and Europe (Europa Nostra and Erfgoed Nederland). We therefore welcome the chance, and feel it our responsibility to discuss, question and raise awareness on volunteering in the European heritage field.


Europa Nostra represents European civil society caring for cultural heritage: “the Voice of Cultural Heritage in Europe”. In 45 years Europa Nostra has built a network of more than 400 member and associate organisations from all over Europe. The central actions of Europa Nostra are providing a powerful network for dialogue and debate; celebrating the best heritage achievements through its Awards; campaigning against threats to vulnerable heritage buildings, sites and landscapes; and lobbying for sustainable policies and high quality standards with regards to heritage.

Bond Heemschut is a private not for profit organisation which has worked continuously since 1911 to preserve Dutch cultural heritage. Each of the Dutch provinces and the City of Amsterdam has its own independent Heemschut committee. By organising campaigns, lobbying and consulting, Heemschut works to safeguard all monuments - listed and unlisted - all over the Netherlands.

Erfgoed Nederland (The Netherlands Institute for Heritage) works to enhance the position of cultural heritage in society and to emphasise the importance and meaning of cultural heritage in general. It develops and organises activities in the Netherlands and abroad, targeting professional heritage institutions, private organisations, the education sector, the media; and Dutch and foreign politicians.

1.3 How to read the reader? The Reader has been created with the purpose of introducing subjects, informing and inspiring participants; and provoking debate, hopefully beforehand, in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the Forum itself. The reader consists of seven chapters and three annexes. After the Introduction, the general context of volunteering in the cultural heritage field is discussed. The following four chapters are dedicated to the four themes which will be discussed in the Panel sessions during the Forum. Trying to distill the many relevant issues on the subject of volunteering in the cultural heritage sector, it was decided to concentrate the discussions into four actual themes: • • • •

Motivation (Should I stay or should I go?); Management and recruitment (How to keep them happy?); Volunteers versus paid professionals (Who is the expert?); and Citizens’ initiatives (Listen to me!).

We have provided information on main initiatives and subjects of researches and debates for each theme. We have also included a Case Study per theme, which will be presented by a heritage volunteer during the Panel discussions at the Forum. The seventh chapter of the reader is a literature list with sources and internet links for the further reading, especially on the management of volunteers. To make reading easy we have divided this chapter by themes. The first Annex contains nine case studies which will we hope, serve as inspiration. Case studies are contribution from Europa Nostra members from Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. The second Annex consists of the Programme of the Forum, and third Annex contains short resumés of the speakers.

1.4 European Year of Volunteering The European Union is populated by more than 500 million inhabitants. For the EU it is important that Europeans participate in society as active citizens. One of the ways of doing this is through voluntary work. It is estimated that in excess of 100 million EU citizens volunteer in various fields. The general idea of the European Year of Volunteering is to further promote, facilitate and develop volunteering in Europe. It has four main objectives: -To create an enabling and facilitating environment for volunteering in the EU; -To empower volunteer organisations and improve the quality of volunteering; -To reward and recognise volunteering activities; and -To raise awareness of the value and importance of volunteering. The aim is to involve individuals and orgnanisations working at all levels of involvement: European, national, regional and local. The emphasis on the European Year of Volunteering is a bottom-up approach. In this way the ownership of the European Year shall remain as much as possible with the volunteers and the volunteer organisations. Therefore, the Forum is aimed at both persons who are volunteers in cultural heritage sector, as well as individuals who work on a professional level with volunteers.


2 Volunteering and cultural heritage 2.1 A joint story Volunteering and cultural heritage – are two forces which have been mutually supporting, seemingly forever. Some heritage organizations based on volunteering exist for more than a century, e.g. Fortidsminneforeningen (Norway), Bond Heemschut (The Netherlands) etc. Since the beginning of the 20th century both subjects - volunteering and cultural heritage - truly developed, deepened and expanded. Below, some developments in the relationship between volunteers and cultural heritage are introduced: Volunteering and cultural heritage have been and remain the subjects of numerous discussions and publications, which have resulted in different approaches, developments and declarations. The main declarations are the Portoroz Declaration (2001) and Faro Convention (2005), both created under the auspices of the Council of Europe, and therefore potentially apply to the whole pan-European territory. •

In the year 2001, the Ministers of Council of Europe responsible for cultural heritage, signed the Declaration on the “Role of voluntary organisations in the field of cultural heritage”, the so called Portoroz Declaration named after Portoroz in Slovenia. This declaration drew attention to the huge potential of willing and able voluntary effort which exists in Europe. In the Declaration it is urged from Council of Europe to set up a twinning system where associations are made between new voluntary cultural heritage organisations and well established ones; to secure a regular contact forum in the form of European conferences; and to develop the European heritage network as a portal to an electronic forum.

In the year 2005, in Faro, Portugal, the Faro Convention on the “Value of cultural heritage for society” was created. Among other things, the Convention recognised the role of volunteer organisations both as partners in activities and as constructive critics of cultural heritage policies. Furthermore, it calls to encourage and respect volunteering initiatives which complement the roles of public authorities. The Faro Convention also sets out that the cultural heritage is both an asset and a source of collective memory, and is important to the needs of society, human progress and quality of life. The convention has as starting point, not the object of heritage to be protected, but the people who benefit from it, namely all citizens, taken alone or collectively, and that these bear collective responsibility towards the heritage.

Over the last ten years, several conferences, meetings and training sessions dealing with the subject of cultural heritage and civil society and volunteering and initiatives were organised by different organisers. Some of them are listed below: •


“The First European Conference on voluntary organisations in the field of cultural heritage” took place in Oslo (Norway) in the year 2000, hosted by the Council of Europe, the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, and the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage. Organised by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Council of Europe, the European Museum Forum Workshop took place in Bertinoro (Italy) in 2007. The discussion theme was: “Volunteers in cultural heritage and museums: promoting active citizenship”. The next initiative came from the Volunteers for cultural heritage project (VOCH). Three pilot training courses on how heritage organisations might work on and with volunteers were organised in Austria (2008), Italy (2009) and Slovenia (2009).

Within the framework of European civil society organisations active in the field of heritage, two conferences in Mechelen (Belgium) were organised. The first was in 2009 on “Heritage care trough active citizenship” and the second in 2010 dealt with theme “Heritage and civil society”. After the Europa Nostra Forum, a next conference on this subject will be in Graz (Austria), in October 2011, with a title “European heritage in our hands” organised by association for support of museum and collections in Styria (MUSIS).

The discussion on the subject of senior citizens as volunteers in the heritage field could be continued next year in the context of the plans for making 2012 the European Year for Active Aging.

2.2 Importance of volunteers for cultural heritage The fact that so many volunteers, millions of them, give freely of themselves through their active participation in cultural heritage related activities, lends legitimacy to the existence of heritage organisations by showing the importance and relevancy that cultural heritage has for the population and for society. Volunteers contribute their time, energies and often financial resources to the “cause” or organisation they are involved in, carrying out vital tasks. Volunteers can bring knowledge, expertise and inspiration to a heritage organisation. If given enough freedom, opportunities to participate in decisionmaking processes and access to information, volunteers can play an important role in monitoring the “health” of our cultural heritage and by participating in policy discussions and in offering constructive criticism within the cultural heritage world. They can help in developing a new audience and they can play a role as ambassadors for organisations towards local, regional or other levels of authorities. The positive impact of volunteers on local, regional, national and international heritage communities and societies in general is immense.

Intrinsic and Social Value of Volunteering

For people acting as volunteers, their contribution has a value independent of its impact on its stated cause, the value of giving. The definition of “volunteering” states that volunteering is done for the benefit of a third party rather than for one’s own benefit. However, volunteering also boosts a volunteer’s selfesteem, develops personal and practical skills and builds social capital, amongst many other benefits. Volunteering is a crucial renewable resource for solving social and environmental problems. It involves the promotion of social cohesion, as well as it supports social inclusion and integration. By valuing, protecting and actively maintaining their our own heritage, a respect towards the heritage of others can grow within the volunteers as well.

Economic Value of Volunteering

In addition to the intrinsic value of volunteering and its broader social impact, an extrinsic (instrumental) value of volunteering can also be seen through measuring its economic value. Some see this as a controversial point. There is an ongoing debate whether the economic value of volunteering is relevant and if it should be measured. A down-side of measuring voluntary work in monetary terms potentially lies in linking volunteering with unpaid labor and in advocating that the state can save money since volunteers are delivering some services for free. By bringing attention to the monetary value of volunteering, there may be a risk of


losing the focus on the intrinsic value of volunteering work. With people who volunteer for strong altruistic motives, the focus on the monetary value of their contributionss may also negatively influence the volunteers’ engagement and motivation. On the other hand, such monetary measurements could increase the number of people who get involved. Supporters of the monetary measuring argue that volunteering, although much more than only an economic activity, does also have a value that can be counted in economic terms. It addition, it can raise awareness of the huge development and support of the sector and therefore can contribute to a recognition and visibility of volunteering. For this purpose monetary valuing can certainly change attitudes of policy-makers, encourage governments to take volunteering seriously and thus improve the volunteer infrastructure in general. It is very important what kind of methodology is used for measuring the monetary value of volunteering, in order to achieve meaningful results and to develop useful and visible tools and instruments which will have an actual impact by being at the heart of volunteering activities, such as supporting social inclusion, active participation, personal development, social capital, and active participation.1 There are several ways for assessing the economic value of their volunteers that are used by some organisations, such as “the minimum wage” and “the replacement cost” tool. These have found that for every 1 euro organisations invest in volunteering, volunteers give back up to 14 times that figure.2 Also, it is estimated that volunteering account for up to 5% DGPs. Such figures can reinforce the case for a volunteering infrastructure by demonstrating the “return on investment”. Replacement cost methodology (hour based value) might be convenient in the sense that it is more simple, but the question is if it is able to grasp the real nature and value of volunteering. In the words of Mr Peter Scholten,3 if the cost savings are there but nobody values them (ie. by not being willing to pay for that service) the monetary value is not realistic. Therefore, he argued, the method of measuring should be more focused on the effect of voluntary work, not on the activities or hours. But because ”willingness to pay” questions can lead to false responses, it is better to rank and compare the results of voluntary work to those of other products and services with a known market value and who are relevant to their stakeholders.

2.3 Facts and measurement It would be nice to have and to be able to show facts and figures on voluntary work in relation to cultural heritage and to compare them. Unfortunately, facts and figures related to volunteering in general, but especially in heritage field in Europe, are often unstructured and non-standardised. •

On volunteering in general, the biggest contribution to such research in the wider Europe comes from the European Volunteer Centre (CEV). They aim to provide statistical data and information on various aspects of volunteering in different countries through national reports (these are listed on their website; see the Reference chapter of the Reader). Another important contribution of statistics comes from the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC). They presented a study based on national reports and wrote a

1 The issue of the economic value of volunteering was the main topic of the CEV conference ”Putting volunteering on the economic map of Europe” in 2008, in Ljubljana. Final report available from: 2 Ibid. 3 Peter Scholten co-introduced the SROI-methodology in Europe. For more information on SROI methodology, see:; ;and .


comparative analysis report on volunteering in the 27 EU member states, with a sector study on volunteering in sport. •

On volunteering in cultural heritage, we still don not have systematic facts and figures about volunteering on a pan-European level (nor European Union level). The main challenge in any attempt to do so is to compare the data of studies collected via different methodologies. The closest that we can get, is to use data for the volunteers in the cultural field (ie very wide seen: media, performing arts, etc). In the field of heritage, one European study stands out. It is the Volunteers for Cultural Heritage project -VOCH (LLL-Grundtvig project 2007-2009), which gives an insight into cultural volunteering in numerous European countries, looking at background information (legislative context, organisational models, volunteering infrastructure) and analysing case studies. However it does not include data on the numbers of volunteers in the heritage field within Europe.

Currently, the Johns Hopkins University, the European Volunteer Centre (CEV) and the Centro di Servizio per il Voluntarato del Lazio (SPES) are starting “The European Volunteer Measurement” project, in which they are setting up a permanent system for measuring volunteer work. The methodolgy of measuring volunteer work which they would like to use has been created and set out in a manual by the Johns Hopkins University under auspices of the International Labor Organisation (ILO). This manual establishes a common procedure for national statistical agencies to use in regularly measuring the amount, type, institutional auspices and economic value of volunteering. For the heritage field, it would be of importance to have such correct and comparable data about European volunteers. The manual is using coded systems for different types of organisations in the nonprofit sector. However, it does not recognise “heritage” as an independent field. Some of the types of organisations the study coded could be regarded as heritage but not exclusively. For example, all museums have the same code regardless of the type: art, technology, historical and scientific. Historical societies are in a separate group and disaster/emergency prevention and control has as well its own code. It will be difficult to distinguish what numbers of volunteers are involved in disaster/emergency control of heritage, e.g. heritage at risk, and which once are not. Organisations that promote the interests of, or provide services to, members belonging to a specific ethnic heritage has its own code. It remains dubious the way in which heritage field will learn about the number of its volunteers. At the moment The European Volunteer Measurement project is searching for partners who could help communicate and disseminate the manual in their own countries, since governments are not required to adopt it.

2.4 Unity in diversity? Different regions/models in Europe Europe is united in diversity. There are several ways in which it is possible to make divisions between regions in Europe. We adopted the division used by the VOCH project.4 This division is based on different religious, political and social backgrounds and histories. Five main models (regions) are identified. These models are: Rhine, Liberal, Socio-democratic, Mediterranean models and the Model of emerging culture of volunteering (former communist countries). The differences between the models can be seen through diverse experiences with volunteering, notions of volunteering and the different meanings of the word “volunteer”5.


Those models were identified by E. Archambault (2006:16-19) and VOCH added fifth, the ex-communist model. More on definition of volunteering for each EU Member state: EAC-EA Final Report, 2010: 50-56. Available from:



Making any generalisation about volunteering in certain regions has limitations and could result in improper interpretations. However, we believe that it is valuable to mention several models that exist in Europe, shaped by demographic, socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics. Every country has gone through several stages of these developments. It is possible, however, to notice general movements that have influenced the market stronger than other developments and have determined the situation in which the stage of volunteering in a particular country is at this very moment. •

Within the Rhine model (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and Luxemburg), the volunteering sector is characterised by the presence of institutional and professional voluntary organisations which operate in different fields (mainly leisure, culture and social care). It relies on the state supplying assistance.

In the liberal model (Ireland, Malta and UK) the government social welfare spending is included in the law and therefore the non-profit sector is relatively large. The volunteering sector has a long tradition, with roots in the 19th century.

The social-democratic model (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) has quite an extensive state-sponsored and state-delivered social welfare protection. However, non-profit organisations are active in these societies but they have a different role. They are not service providers but have a role of vehicles for expression of political, social or even recreational interests (Salaman and Sakowski, 2001:13).

The mediterranean model (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) reflects the rapid development of the volunteering sector in recent decades, mainly because of the shortage of public resources. Notwithstanding the recent changes, the sector is still strongly influenced by the predominant role of the church.

The model of the emerging culture of volunteering relates to former Soviet or communist countries. In this model, volunteering, particularly in cultural heritage, is in an early stage due to several factors. The bad economic situation, poverty and lack of work is leaving little time to work on a voluntary basis since all energy is concentrated to fulfillment of basic needs. In this context, volunteering is unfortunately not seen and used as a way to employment. The public perceives volunteering as “work for free” and as an “illusion for fools and those who are naive”, so the interest in volunteering is significantly decreased (Kisic, 2010). Another reason is the lack of social appreciation and trust in civil society. There is a belief that any services related to the common good, including heritage conservation, should be provided by the state. This is especially important related to heritage volunteering.

It is important to have in mind that most of the countries came under the influence of different political regimes in different periods, and this has exerted different influences and outcomes. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that regions and countries develop continuously. Therefore, it is not valid to identify certain countries exclusively with one model. In looking at particular cases, there are several others determinants, such as the condition or phase of the heritage institution in question: institutional development, organisation, level of knowledge management, policies and regulations related to volunteers.


3 Parallel Discussion I – Should I stay or should I go? What motivates people to devote their time and energy to work voluntarily in the heritage field? In this chapter we would like to discuss what makes you want to be a volunteer, and what volunteering means to these volunteers. We will analyse this issue through discussing three classes of motivations which are often found to dominate and coexist in volunteering (Mayer et all, 2007:499). Those are altruistic or value based (beliefs, supporting an important cause, helping others, etc); utilitarian or enhancing human capital (gaining work experience and job training, developing new skills, exploring career path or making useful contacts); and social motives (extending social network, because friends or family do so, responding to social pressure, etc). Motivation is shaped, apart from by personal motivation (personality, education, social capital, etc.), by age and social status. We should keep in mind that often volunteers are motivated by different motives at the same time. Some of the motives are typical for certain groups of volunteers. Therefore, retired people, teenagers, students and professionals could have different motives for joining some heritage organisation as volunteers. We will shortly mention certain groups of volunteers who could be driven by some of those motivations, although not exclusively and without falling into generalisations.

3.1 Value based motivation A value based motivation might be derived from wishing to help local or other heritage to be protected, or to help in running the specific project. This motivation can be recognised in citizens’ initiatives for example. People who want to do something for their neighborhood or something personally important for them, such as fighting for the heritage at risk. Value based motivated volunteering adds to the individual sense of social values, solidarity and creativity. The feeling of being useful can be one of the strong motives for retired people to volunteer. The demographic trend is that populations are ageing, due to low birth rate, rising life expectancy and the fact that the “baby boomers” generation is about to retire. After 2012, the European working-age population will start to shrink, while the over-60 population will continue to increase by about two million people a year6. However, the tendency of delaying retirement age might prevent older people from volunteering7. The year 2012 has been declared as the European Year of Active Ageing. Active ageing through volunteering will have an important place in this European Year. In the past, a number of projects were organised on the same subject, such as “Think future, volunteer together” and the Senior European Volunteers Exchange Network8. In the heritage field, retired people are seen as very active especially since some people love arts and history but they chose more pragmatic professions and when retired, still mentally and physically vital, they decide to start doing something that they really love. It is called the trend of the “second carrier”. One of the representative projects is CREATE (Voluntariado cultural para tercera edad) in Spain, creating a program for senior citizens as a guides through museums and cathedrals in Madrid.

6 In December 2010 contact seminar was organised with the subject of “Senior volunteers: Revitalizing Europe’s natural environment, cultural heritage and history”. For more information: 7 8


3.2 Utilitarian motives

Utilitarian motives are driven by the wish to gain work experience, learn new skills and develop a professional network. This motive might be typical for students in heritage related fields. Due to a lack of internship positions or in need or a freer framework, students and young professionals are becoming active in certain organisations and projects. Volunteering can provide unemployed individuals with the experience they need to integrate in the labor market. It is useful for young people to test out potential careers and make a good choice regarding future education and training pathways. About the education value of volunteering much can be said. Socrates Grundvig LIVE project was dealing with the subject of learning in volunteering work, having in partnership heritage organization from Barcelona - Amics de la Unesco. People who participate in volunteering activities gain know-how that they cannot attain through education. There are initiatives for volunteering to become officially recognised as a non-formal means of education. Volunteering increases the chances for unemployed people to find a job, gives higher earning potentials and enables the development of new skills. Therefore, this motive could attract unemployed people or one in the process of a change of profession to become active.

3.3 Social motives Social motives such as meeting new people, enriching one’s social life and the like, can be a strong driving force for joining volunteering. Those motives are strong drivers for young people. Each heritage organisation appreciates having young volunteers. They bring fresh energy, new ideas and give a good image to the organisation.9 A new trend in volunteering is family volunteering, where whole or parts of a family spend some quality time together while doing voluntary work. This new trend might be worth exploring as a good way to adapt volunteering to changing needs and lifestyles. More on family volunteering in the National Trust you can read at the end of this chapter under ‘Examples from the field’ section.

3.4 Motives for staying away or quitting volunteering Several prejudices can prevent the involvement of a person in volunteering, such as it having a negative connotation ( typical for former communist countries) or a lack of trust in civil society. From Spain, through Croatia to Hungary, the question of lack of wealth of the citizens and them having to struggle to fulfillment even basic needs is the most serious obstacle in developing volunteering, also in the heritage sector.10 Motivations for the volunteers to leave an organisation are numerous. Often these reasons are not communicated to the organisation. These reasons might be life changes: finding a new job, starting a family, moving to another area; as well as “burning out syndrome”. According to Josep Samaranch from


Interview with Ms Perxes and Mr Vives from Monumenta (Barcelona, Spain), March 2011


Interviews with Carmen Perxes and Jose Luis Vives from Monumenta, Barcelona; Miljenko Smokvina, Pro Torpedo Croatia; Cseri Miklós, Skanzen museum-Hungary


Amics de la Unesco, the most faithful volunteers are the ones between 30-40 years of age, because they have stable jobs, their lives are settled and they are more stable and trustworthy.

The characteristics and types of volunteering should not only be categorised according to the different kinds or stages of life of the people who volunteer, but also according to different stages in the process of volunteering (Leventhal, 2008). People may start to volunteer for certain reasons but continue to do so for different reasons, such as a change to social motives. There might be shifts in motivation in due time.

3.5 Example from the field: Family Volunteering – The National Trust, U.K. Thinking Differently about Volunteering Over 2010/11 the National Trust involved over 62,000 volunteers contributing approximately 3.6 million hours across a huge variety of tasks and roles. Our family volunteering programme came about because we received a growing number of calls from families wanting to get involved in a different way, spending time together and helping out doing something useful. We already have a huge range of family activities on offer but we felt it would be great to introduce a different angle, where families could participate more actively in our work. This seemed a fantastic opportunity for us to try out something new, so we piloted an approach, and found that there were huge benefits for us as well as the families. For families a chance to spend quality time together, learn new things, have fun and achieve something. For us a chance to get a diverse range of volunteers involved, broaden perceptions of what we offer as an organisation and get jobs done. Over the past year families have got involved in different ways at a number of Trust places and have contributed an estimated 700 hours of time. The really popular tasks have been doing things in the outdoors lending a hand with anything from scrub clearing, working in gardens to building dry stone walls. It has also been brilliant to see families involved in our houses, for example at Upton House and Gardens in Oxfordshire baking in the 1930s kitchen and sharing what they are doing with visitors. Or at Sutton House, where Rosa and her daughter Chelsea assist with all kinds of events, and also sit down with staff to help devise the year’s family programme. It's been fantastic to see those who wouldn't normally visit the Trust or think about volunteering really enjoying contributing something and getting a lot back too. A father at a recent tree planting day commented ‘I really want my kids to grow up to look after things around them. This was a

brilliant way of doing and learning about that together. Volunteering is a great way of spending time with each other; we really worked as a team today’. Whilst one mother who came to an event at Knightshayes Court in Devon with her family enjoyed the day so much she is now looking to volunteer with her children regularly and investigating the possibility of starting some horticultural training with the property. Perhaps the best endorsement for family volunteering so far came from an eight year old boy during a rhododendron clearing event at Attingham Park in Shropshire. After offering to cancel his plans for the next day (football practice) so he could come back said ‘this was better than Lego Land’!


Staff and volunteers have also gained from delivering activities. A gardener at Beningbrough Hall commented: ‘They (the existing volunteers) love this. It gives them a chance to share their skills with a younger generation. We all work together; the visitors think it’s great, they always ask if they can join in’. Over twenty properties have set up programmes and opportunities for families to get involved with our work, a number which we expect to grow in the coming years. We are in the process of setting up a website for families to search for volunteering options and are developing a resource so other organisations can see what we have done, and hopefully be inspired to get families more involved themselves. We want to make volunteering an option for everyone and to become more flexible about where and when this is possible. The dynamic of getting families involved in our work has helped us to be more adaptable and imaginative about the ways we get things done and who we get to do it. For further information contact or or visit our website Contributor: Mark Crosby The National Trust United Kingdom


4 Parallel Discussion II – How to keep them happy? As we previously saw, volunteers come, stay or go, depending very much on personal reasons and motivations. However, there are plenty of ways in which heritage organisations could contribute to volunteers’ decisions to join and stay involved, or to leave. Apart from being beneficial for the heritage organisation, volunteer experience should be personally rewarding. Mentioning of the terms such as management or recruitment in the context of volunteering, which is seen as a philanthropic, not-for-profit activity, can be considered as inappropriate by some, because this approach is too similar that taken in profit making organisations. Others see management of volunteers as a matter of professionalism and respect toward the volunteers, and as proof that volunteers and their work are not taken for granted.

4.1 Are human resources and management for volunteers new concepts in heritage institutions? Judging by the numerous web resources that provide practical tips and guidelines, the idea of volunteer management is alive and well. Managing volunteers specifically in the heritage sector is a less discussed subject. Although most of the initiatives that do exist come from the UK, USA and Australia, the question is if this Anglo-Saxon approach is good for Europe as a whole, at this moment. It seems that in the continental part of Europe, the idea of management of volunteers in the heritage sector has not yet flourished as much. However, there are several initiatives dealing with the subject. One initiative on a European level is the research and handbook of the VOCH project. In the Netherlands, two studies are dealing with this subject.11 It can also be noted that in the mentioned studies, attention is concentrated mainly on museum volunteers.

4.2 Who is managing volunteers in heritage institutions? One clear evidence that an organisation has a management strategy about volunteers is the existence of a new type of position, the position of a “volunteer coordinator”. When a volunteer coordinator (exclusively with this role or as one of responsibilities) does not exist, this means two things about that organisation. One can be that there are no volunteers in that organisation, or two, that the organisation is not taking care of its volunteers properly. Some organisations would strongly disagree with this statement since many of them function perfectly without volunteer coordinators, using marketing as a tool or having a strategy for attracting volunteers. The question is if the ‘old school’ model is still efficient. Who are or should be such volunteers coordinators? According to the U.S. Council for the Certification in Volunteer Administration, five core competencies are described. A volunteer coordinator should be sensitive on ethical questions, and competent in organisational management, human resource management, accountability and leadership/advocacy skills. Should coordinators has a special education and training for the position? Speaking about formal education, there are several Universities offering 11 Het museum als vrijwilligersorganisatie: De Vrijwilligersorganisatie:


specialisations in non-profit studies in Europe.12 These studies are usually Masters rogrammes. Having in mind that this role is often done by one of an organisation’s employees and that their formal education is mostly in the cultural sector, one of the solutions could be informal training in management and human resources skills. Good practices shows that given the lack of staff, time and/or money (which is unfortunately often a case amongst heritage organisations), a volunteers could be appointed to this role. An important way of enabling and optimising the environment for volunteering, is by informing the paid staff working with them about the benefits and the potential challenges that cooperation with volunteers might bring.

4.3 Changes in society and styles of volunteering For the heritage field, although it has a with very long volunteering tradition, it is important to keep changing and adapting strategies to new generations of volunteers, in order to keep pace with the changes and developments in society. Volunteering is gaining a new quality as a result of broader social and cultural change (Hustinx, 2010:249). The process of modernisation and individualisation of society brought some changes in the nature of volunteering which is showed for instance by new expressions such as ‘revolving-door’, ‘dropby’, ‘zip’, ‘plug-in’ or ‘micro’ volunteering. New generations might want to get involved in different ways, such as by ‘e-volunteering’. The generations Y (born in the 1980s) and Z (born in the 1990s) are individualistic and they are characterised by increased use and familiarity with modern communications meathods and styles, media, and digital technologies. The archetypical traditional volunteer no longer exists (Hustinx, 2010:236). Volunteers nowadays have less time, more appointments in their agenda, and they have an aversion of making long-term commitments. It is for volunteer coordinators to adopt programmes to these new tendencies and short term volunteering wishes. The vision of modern volunteering opportunites in practice is quite simple: they must become shorter, more project oriented and easier for potential volunteers (Meijs, 2004). Each heritage organisation should aim to have a volunteer management plan suitable to its own needs. Certain phases are unavoidable in good volunteer management, such as planning, recruitment, training, supervision and evaluation, review and recognition. In this paper we are not going to discuss in detail each of those phases and its challenges and opportunities. However, since it can be very useful to read more on this subject, we have provided a list of sources in the Refrerences chapter.

4.4 Example from the field: Results of a study on the volunteers of Open Monumentedag, the Netherlands Since 1987, the Dutch NGO Stichting Open Monumentendag has organised the “Open Monuments Day” – a celebration of cultural heritage monuments and sites in the Netherlands. In 2011 Open Monumentendag (OMD) celebrates its 25 year jubilee. Since then, the event has become one of the largest cultural events in the Netherlands with 900,000 visitors making 2 million site visits during the OMD weekend in

12 Some of which are: University Heidelberg in Germany(; University of Utrecht , The Netherlands (; Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (


September. As part of this jubilee year, a survey and evaluation was conducted to learn more about the volunteers, upon whom the success of the yearly Open Monuments Day event firmly rests. Every year during the second weekend of September, thousands of monuments are opened to the public free of charge. The aim is to raise awareness and interest in historic buildings and sites and to engage people in cultural heritage on a national and local level. By organising and promoting the Open Monumentendag each year, the Stichting Open Monumentendag offers the opportunity to visit and familiarise the public with historic buildings and sites, monuments, heritage and history. The concept is as simple as it is appealing - to invite people to come and look behind the doors of monuments – many of which are otherwise not open to the public – raising curiosity to discover their stories of history and heritage. Cultural heritage helps us understand the complexities of our history, but also shows its continuity. These Open Monument Days are accessible for everybody: of every age, every level of education, every level of prosperity, and from every background. The Stichting Open Monumentendag is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organisation which works together with governmental institutions, other NGOs, voluntary organisations and individual owners of monuments on a national level, while on a local level, works with around 350 involved local authorities. In each municipality there is a local OMD committee and between 80-90% of all Dutch municipalities participate in the annual event. The local committees work together with thousands of volunteers and monument owners to organise their own local OMD openings and events. Research on the volunteers involved in the Open Monumentendag In the cadre of the 25 year celebrations, a survey was conducted among members of the local municipal OMD Committees, to specifically investigate the role of the volunteers involved in the Open Monument Days event, focusing on the participation, profile and motivation of the volunteers, and with the aim of sustaining and improving the recruitment, guidance and loyalty of volunteers in future years. The study was sent out to 400 local OMD committees and of these, 165 completed and returned the survey resulting in a response rate of 41%. Numbers of volunteers The number of volunteers involved in organising these Open Monument Days in a municipality ranges from 0 to 1400 people. On average, there are about 45 volunteers in each Committee, of which 39 volunteer for the actual Open Monumentendag weekend as hosts, attendants and tour guides. When calculated at a national level, the total works out to be around 18,000 volunteers active for the benefit of the OMD event, of which as many as 15,600 volunteer for and are present on the Open Monumentendag itself. 68% of the committees indicated that they have enough volunteers for the required organisation and work, while 22% would like to attract more volunteers. Profile of volunteers The average age of the volunteers working for the OMD was 55 years old, with the range being from 40 to 70 years of age. 60% of the volunteers were men and 40% were women. The primary motivation of volunteers was found to be: - their interest in heritage monuments and sites (79%); - their involvement in the local community (68%); and - their personal connection with a particular monument (53%). Other motives are: - their involvement with monumentenzorg (heritage conservation organisations) (47%); and - the chance to socialise (37%).


A recorded motivating factor of volunteers which was not among the choices offered in the survey, was that of an interest in the history of the volunteer’s local area or community. Such volunteers included, for instance, members of an historical society or were motivated through their profession or hobbies which concerned local history. Recruiting of volunteers Volunteers are often acquired via-via: through personal contact and word of mouth (65%). Contact among existing groups of volunteers occurs by e-mail (81%), telephone (57%) and meetings (62%). Supervising of volunteers The supervision and management of the volunteers consists mainly of sending information, sharing tasks and responsibilities, and providing instruction and support. There is usually an appointed contact person within the committee for dealing with the volunteers. Some committees make a scenario of the days of the OMD event. Committees often reported that volunteers are highly self-motivated. Other committees motivate their volunteers by keeping them regularly informed and increasing their involvement within the OMD organisation, with snacks and drinks at the event, a thank-you gift, or an informal and sociable meeting afterwards, perhaps with a word of thanks from the Mayor or a Councilor. Appreciation is a key word volunteers need to feel valued. Types of volunteer work When asked what work is done by volunteers, common responses included 'everything!', 'organisation' and 'tours'. The committees distinguished between two groups of volunteers – one being a small group of volunteers involved beforehand in the organisation and preparation of the Open Monumentedag event, and then a large group active on the day itself. The former group often consisted of regular volunteers while the second group tended to be less consistent. Organisational procedure included creating a plan, coordinating volunteers, monument owners and schools, deciding on which monuments to open, devising appropriate activities and generating publicity towards stakeholders and visitors. The duties on the Open Monument Days themselves include giving tours, being an attendant, guiding other activities, traffic control, catering, selling books and plotting routes. Dramatic and musical activities, and demonstrations of old crafts, skills or traditional jobs, were also organised by volunteers. Loyalty and volunteer time investment On average, each volunteer spends 52 hours per year on the Open Monument Day event. The range runs from 1000 hours donated by a volunteer for the OMD, while the lowest was 2 hours. Volunteers worked an average of 5.5 years for the OMD. Reasons for stopping their volunteer work include advanced age (50%), lack of time (48%), waning of interest (15%), and investing their energies in voluntary work elsewhere (16%). Conclusion Annually, approximately 18,000 people volunteer for the Open Monunentedag, averaging 45 volunteers per municipality who have been recruited via-via. The average volunteer is 55 years old, has a great interest in monuments and a strong involvement in the local community. Most OMD volunteers are selfmotivated and willing to give a lot of time to the Open Monumentendag events, stays involved an average of 5.5 years. For them to stay involved, however, they do need to feel appreciated for their efforts. Contributor: Edith van Hartigh

Open Monumentendag The Netherlands


5 Parallel Discussion III – Who is the expert? Volunteers versus paid professionals In this chapter we would like to address the issue of the relationship between volunteers and paid staff inside heritage institutions, but also between volunteer-run institution and professional institutions.

5.1 Who is the expert? Volunteers are more than un-paid helpers of paid professionals. In the heritage institutions it is not unusual to have volunteers with a great experience and expertise in the field. This is the case, but not uniquely, with retired professionals who continue being active in the same field in their same function in their voluntary work. Another case is that nowadays volunteers have to manage more complex duties as they are increasingly engaged in more difficult contexts. The risk is then a shift from using professional services to using volunteers services, and then to pressure volunteers to professionalise their volunteering contribution or work. The challenge is in motivating them to continue doing their work in an unpaid manner. In this case there is no big difference in responsibilities between paid and unpaid staff. In fact, it can happen that volunteers are taking upon themselves the work load of a paid member of staff. This can be a consequence of a lack of working structure or a lack of clearly defined working tasks.

5.2 Why not volunteers? Though it could be perceived that every institution would like to have as many volunteers as possible, in practice different situations can be noted. Having volunteers also means having an extra work load. Employees are not always ready to spend their time and energy on training volunteers. This can be especially the case, as trends in volunteering are changing towards short-term, rather than long-term volunteering. There needs to also be a strategy concerning understanding the opportunities and challenges for volunteers, and how to keep the institutional knowledge within the organisation and to train employees who will work with the volunteers,. Another argument given against having volunteers is the fear of losing paid jobs. In Canada, it is not uncommon for labor unions to write provisions into collective agreements that attempt to protect paid staff against substitution by volunteers (Mook at al, 2008:2). Literature suggests that two opposite patterns in the paid staff-volunteer interchange may be occurring simultaneously (ibid:3). It seems that this trend depends very much on the budget of the institution. Paid staff is replacing volunteers primarily because of increased funding and a desire to become more professional. These trends are occurring in response to different social forces: budgetary changes, professionalisation of an institution (including the volunteers); and increased sophistication of volunteer roles. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) code of ethics advises that the governing bodies of museums should have a written policy on volunteer work that promotes a positive relationship between volunteers and members of the museum team and profession.


5.3 Volunteer-run institutions versus professional institutions In the best case scenario, the cooperation between volunteer-run institutions (or initiatives) and professional ones, is complementary. However, some differences and prejudices can exist. Volunteer-run organisations are usually criticised for their lack of expertise. In the words of Mr Smokvina (Vice-President of the Croatian volunteer-run heritage society Pro Torpedo)13, in the countries where volunteering is still not valued enough or where the tradition of volunteering is not well established, there is a tendency of having prejudices about volunteering as some activity which lack professionalism and seriousness. On the other hand, professional organisations are seen as not very flexible, as much protocolised and as lacking enthusiasm. Lack of enthusiasm is seen as their biggest sin by Smokvina. This relation could be defined as speaking of different tongues.

5.4 Example from the Field: Culture Ants - An educational model for cultural heritage, Turkey As an original/unique educational model, Cultural Ants Project is developed by a team of pedagogue, psychologist, art historian and educators. Specially-trained, university student/graduate young culture volunteers take part in this project as trainers. This educational model is based on a learning type that involves “sight-seeing, perceiving, sensing and firsthand experience”; where tour of cultural sites acts as stimulant for introduction of cultural values. Collection of stimulants is enriched with addition of complementary drama, drawing, sculpture, essay writing, music courses and further enhanced with five senses activities. Child-centered interactive approach is implemented in small groups throughout this educational programme. According to pre-post tests evaluation results , at the completion of this 2-year educational programme, children became aware of the cultural value of their districts, cities and developed a sense of urban culture. Moreover, regarding culture volunteers as their role-models, children raised their educational goals and through diverse art courses taken during this programme, they have discovered their talents. In addition, by taking part in this Project, young culture volunteers gained a thorough knowledge of the cultural values of their city, developed their communication skills, sharpened their leadership skills and firsthand project management experience When conservation of our cultural heritage is concerned, education starts as early as elementary school age and involves introduction of cultural values in a format designed for this age group, in a manner that addresses their emotional intelligence so that children can love and embrace their cultural values and develop an urban conscience. In order for children to internalise these values taught in this programme, it is imperative that they are recognized as separate “individuals” and treated with respect. Children, who become aware of living in a metropolitan city like Istanbul which has been hosting different cultures for centuries, are anticipated to feel as a member of multicultural Europe in future. Contributor: Baris Altan Europa Nostra-Turkey office


Phone interview conducted in March 2011.


6 Parallel Discussion IV - Listen to me ! Listen to me! brings to mind an activist approach. It is, and this is of importance because when citizens become active in preserving cultural heritage it means that they care about cultural heritage. Citizens initiatives have been topical for decades. Some current heritage organisations have their roots in active citizens approaches. They were established in the beginning of the 20th century when much cultural heritage was very vulnerable and the heritage was being demolished because of the expansion of cities, and then because of Modernist ideology. The activists’ approach is evident, for instance, with campaigns led by heritage organisations including Europa Nostra, to try and save endangered cultural heritage buildings and sites. The list of endangered heritage is alarmingly long.

6.1 Citizens initiatives The Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society refers to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) which say that: ”Recognising that every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice, while respecting the rights and freedoms of others, as an aspect of the right freely to participate in cultural life.“ Citizens initiatives is a bottom-up approach to volunteering. Most of the time citizen initiatives are proactive rather than reactive, when faced with a case of heritage in danger, and they depend on when citizens hear about what plans exist concerning the heritage that might be at risk. Having in mind these conventions and declarations, governments should take citizen initiatives seriously. The communities would like to be taken serious as well because they care about the heritage that might be at risk and which is valuable for them. However, there might be a risk of instrumentalisation of citizen initiatives since it might be seen as an instrument for dealing with problems or providing services governments cannot provide. Nevertheless, often activist approaches are taken seriously by governments having in mind several success stories of citizen initiatives. Civil society is the process through which individuals negotiate, argue, struggle against or agree with each other and with the centers of political and economical authority. Through voluntary associations, movements, parties or unions, the individual is able to act publicly (Kaldor, 2003).

6.2 Heritage community Listen to me! shows the value of cultural heritage for society. The already mentioned Faro convention introduced a so-called “heritage community”. A heritage community is ”a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independent of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from interaction between people and places through time.“ On the first of June 2011, the Faro Convention entered into force. Ten countries have ratified the convention. An interesting question, however, is why the convention is mainly ratifies by new or “to be” members of the European Union? There is an opinion that ratification of the convention would for these countries, speed up the integration process, help them catch up with common trends, to achieve better


access to information, get access to different funding sources, as well as to expert assistance. A second answer might be that in ratifying this convention, the countries are sending a positive signal to the international community that expects seriousness and dedication in reform processes (Filipovic, 2009:47). The question remains though as to why the older members of the European Union have not been so forthcoming in signing the Faro Convention.

6.3 Media How to establish citizen initiatives? With the current and expanding influence of social media, citizens initiatives are becoming easier to establish and activate. In former times, signing petitions and handing them over to persons in authority was a method to show how many citizens supported the aims of activists. Nowadays, other media are used. With the growing number and influence of social media and professional blogging sites, people are incleasingly getting their information from these digital chanels. People are organising themselves through non-traditional outlets. Web-based soft ware, new and social media are ways for managing actions and communications in local-based communities, which in turn become increasingly specialised in effectively using these outlets and tools.14 However, old media channels should not be underestimated. In Rijeka-Pro Torpedo is a non-profit organisation dealing with industrial heritage in Croatia. Their work is based on and dependent on volunteers. Regarding the media, they make use of classical media such as newspapers and television to keep people informed and motivated. These media tools work very well for this organisation. The Association of the Friends of the Castles (Barcelona, Spain) is recruiting their volunteers mainly by word of mouth or through their activities, and they barely use new social media. Yet they still have a large number of committed volunteers. The group Skanzen in Szentendre, Hungary, used the radio as a medium to activate citizens: this open-air museum suffered during a flood, and after it got some radio attention about the damage caused by the flood, many volunteers offered their help to the museum.

6.4 Example from the field: Safeguarding buildings and art from the reconstruction period – Bond Heemschut, the Netherlands The bumpy road of communication with the city council of Flushing The former hotel Britannia at the seaside promenade of Flushing (Zeeland, NL) was designed in 1954 by Joost Boks and provided with a ceramic frieze of circa 120 metres, a real masterpiece made by Louis van Roode. During the course of the time parts of the hotel were altered a clumsy way, but nevertheless sufficient elements remained, justifying restoration. In 2004 a permit for demolition was granted by the city council to the owner of the hotel, a real estate development company. Heemschut objected but this protest was discarded; however since the new building plans were far too expensive so no hotel company was interested. (to buy.)

14 For example, a free web-based software for managing activities and communication within location-based communities:


Two years later, after the alderman of the city council refused any discussion, Heemschut pleaded successfully for a temporary protection awaiting the possible incorporation in the list of national monuments. Support to preservation of the pavilion was given by nearly all Dutch institutions, including the National Board. Until 2007 the owner and local authorities refused any discussion about their plans for Britannia. This changed when a new mayor was appointed who supported the Heemschut plans, also as they were cheaper than demolition and a new building. However in the city council a majority opposed against it and once more the permit for demolition was granted but with the restriction that the mosaic should be removed and integrated in the new building. In 2009 a Group Friends of Britannia was founded in Flushing which supported the Heemschut plans of safeguarding the pavilion. Two public presentations were given and the Heemschut plan comprising restoration of both the mosaics and the pavilion was accepted. The hotel tower should be demolished but the mosaics present there should be removed by a specialist and safeguarded. The firm Art Conservation started restoring the mosaics on the pavilion. An external supervisor was appointed by the city, but he unfortunately was not capable and created problems particularly by trying to remove the mosaics from the Hotel tower by his own demolisher. The friends of Britannia stopped these harmful activities by forming a human shield, preventing in this way severe damage to the mosaics. With civil servants of the department we agreed to start the restoration of the pavilion first, because therefore no special permit was necessary and the mosaics were deteriorating rapidly. A specialized restoration firm and some other companies were interested in buying Britannia. However the city council suddenly decided to consider the complex as a whole and only to start building as soon as plans for the whole complex were granted which meant a further delay of at least four years. On top of that they required an experienced development company and afterwards also an entrepreneur, which Heemschut was able to provide. However the city council judged that this was still not sufficient and they will put the complex in an European tender with once more the risk of demolition. The consortium that Heemschut has put together will register as the most experienced in this field. So we all hope that this unique seaside hotel Britannia will keep ruling the waves. This is only one example of series of buildings and monumental Works of art from the reconstruction period which are at risk. The Heemschut working Group has safeguarding projects at Amsterdam, St. Maartensdijk, Doetinchem , Breda and Bergen op Zoom. Contributor: Willem Heijbroek Bond Heemschut The Netherlands


7 References In this chapter you will find the literature and sources used in the Reader, as well as sources for the further reading. To make reading easy we divided this chapter by themes.

Introduction Organizers of the Europa Nostra Forum 2011: Bond Heemshut. Available from: Erfgoed Nederland. Available from: Europa Nostra. Available from: On the European Year of Volunteering 2011: Bolzonello, F. and Maucher, M., 2010. Policy paper: Volunteering and the European Year of Volunteering 2011. SOLIDAR. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. European Year of Volunteering 2011- European Commission. Available from: [Accessed December 2010]. EVY 2011 Alliance. Available from: [Accessed December 2010]. Official page of EYV 2011. Available from: [Accessed December 2010].

Volunteering and cultural heritage Documents: Council of Europe, 2005. Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). COE, Department of Culture and Cultural heritage. Available from: [Accessed December 2010]. Cultural Heritage Committee of the Council of Europe, 2001. Declaration on the role of voluntary organizations in the field of cultural heritage (Portoroz Declaration). Available from: [Accessed December 2010].

European Parliament resolution of 22 April 2008 on the role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion (2007/2149(INI)). Available from: [Accessed May 2011]. ICNL and ECNL, 2009. Laws and Policies Affecting Volunteerism since 2001. UNV


Conferences and trainings: Conference “European heritage in our hands” (Graz, October 2011). For more information: [Accessed February 2010]. Conference “Civil Society and heritage” (Mechelen, 2010). For more information: [Accessed December 2010]. Conference “Heritage Care through Active Citizenship” (Mechelen, 2009). For more information: [Accessed December 2010]. Volunteers for cultural heritage (VOCH) workshops (Austria 2008, Italy 2009 and Slovenia 2009). For more information: [Accessed December 2010]. Volunteers for cultural heritage project (VOCH). For more information: On importance of volunteering for cultural heritage: Group of authors, 2009. Heritage and Beyond. Council of Europe Publishing Europa Nostra, 2005. Cultural heritage counts for Europe. Available from: [Accessed March 2011]. Reilly, C., 2008. Volunteering and the Historic Environment . Volunteer Development Scotland. Available from: df [Accessed May 2011]. On intrinsic and social value: Brown, E. and Ferris, J. M., 2007. Social Capital and Philanthropy: An Analysis of the Impact of Social Capital on Individual Giving and Volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 36 (1), 85-99.

Center for Volunteer research-Volunteer impact assessment toolkit. Available from: olkit/tabid/138/Default.aspx [Accessed January 2011].

CEV Manifesto for Volunteering in Europe. Available from: [Accessed January 2011]. DG AEC, 2007. Special Eurobarametar - European Cultural Values. DG AEC

On economical value: European Commission, 2006. The Economy of Culture in Europe. Available from: [Accessed December 2010].


Final Report of the CEV conference �Putting volunteering on the economic map of Europe� (Ljubljana, 2008). Available from: [Accessed March 2011]. KEA European Affair, Media Group and MKW Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, 2009. Economy of Culture in Europe. European Commission. Available from: [Accessed March 2011]. Peter Scholten company. For more information: Social Return on investment. For more information: Value game. For more information:

On Facts and Measurements: Centro per il Volontariato del Lazio (SPES). For more information: International Labor Organisation (ILO). For more information: International Labor Organisation, 2008. ILO Manual on the Measuring of Volunteer Work. Available from: ork_Draft_20Nov2008.pdf

Johns Hopkins University-Center for Civil Society Studies. For more information: The Institute for Volunteering Research. For more information:

On Regions: Archambault, E., 2006. Le benevolat en France et en Europe. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (16-19). CEV, 2007. Bibliography on volunteering-research in Europe. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. CEV Facts and Figures Reports. Available from: [Accessed January 2011]. Da Milano, C. et al. (ed), 2009. Volunteers in museums and cultural heritage-A European Handbook. Ljubljana: Slovenian Museum Association Dekker, P. and Halman, L.(ed), 2003. The value of volunteering: cross-cultural perspectives. New York: Kluwer Academic Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of European Commission, 2010. Final Report: Volunteering in the European Union. Brussels: GHK. Available from: [Accessed December 2010]. Eurobarometar (73). 2010. Public opinion in the European Union. DGC


Eurostat yearbook 2010. Available from: [Accessed December 2010]. Eurostat. 2007. Cultural statistics. Available from: [Accessed March 2011].

Inventory of Heritage Organizations in Europe (IHOE Project). For more information: [Accessed April 2010]. Kisic, V., 2010. Volunteering in museums in Serbia: between social contribution and misunderstanding. Master Thesis on University of Arts in Belgrade and Universitie Lumiere Lyon 2. Available from: ng.pdf [Accessed April 2011] Salmon, L. and Sokolowski,W., 2001. Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from 24 countries. Johns Hopkins University. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. VOCH. 2009. Research report “Volunteers in Museums and Cultural Heritage: A European Overview�. Available from: [Accessed December 2010].

Should I stay or should I go? On value based motivation: European year for Active aging. For more information: [Accessed April 2011]. Think Future Volunteer Together Project. For more information: [Accessed March 2011]. Voluntariado cultural para tercera edad-CREA Project. For more information: [Accessed May 2011]. World Volunteer Web, 2006. Delaying retirement will stop older people volunteering. Available from: [Accessed March 2011]. On utilitarian motives: Amics de la Unesco Barcelona. For more information: CEV. 2007. Final report: Volunteering as a route (back) to employment. Available from: EV%20Vol-Emplo%20Conf%20Report%202007.pdf [Accessed March 2010]. Grundtvig LIVE Project. For more information: [Accessed April 2010].


Mayer, B. Fraccastoro, K. and McNary, K., 2007. The relationship among organizational-based selfesteem and various factors motivating volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 36 (2), 327340. Meijs, L. et al. 2010. A Cross-Cultural Examination of Student Volunteering: Is It All About Resume Building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 39 (3), 498-523. On social motives: Graham M., 2003. Volunteering in Heritage/ Volunteering as Heritage, in Volunteering as a leisure. y+needs+and+potential+volunteers&ots=xbmf75Dyp_&sig=D_TBkGJq6AN2SRtAZjxhJrtK4XA#v=onepag e&q&f=true [Accessed December 2011] Stukas A., et al., 2009. The Matching of Motivations to Affordances in the Volunteer Enviroment: An index for Assessing the Impact of Multiple Matches on Volunteer Outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38, 5-28. On motives for quitting volunteering: Hustinx, L., 2010. I Quit, therefore I am? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 39 (2), 236-255. Leventhal, D. Bragal, D., 2008. The volunteering stages and transitions model: Organisational Socialisation of Volunteers. Human relations 61 (1), 67-102. Monumenta - Asociación de Propietarios de Castillos y Edificios Catalogados de Cataluña. For more information: Pro Torpedo - Association for the Promotion and protection of the Rijeka Industrial Heritage. For more information: Szentendre Open Air Museum. For more information:

How to keep them happy? On position of volunteer coordinator: Council for Certification in Volunteer Administration 2008. The body on knowledge in volunteer administration. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. EHow. How to start a new volunteer coordinator role. Available from: [Accessed May 2011]. E-How. Volunteer coordinator training. Available from: [Accessed May 2011]. Practical advices and guides on managing volunteers: Brudney, J. and Meijs, L., 2009. It Ain’t Natural - Toward a New (Natural) Resource Conceptualization for Volunteer Management. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 564-581. SAGE [online]. Available from: [Accessed February 2011].


Brudney, J., 2009. The effective use of volunteers: Best Practices for the Public Sector. Law and

Contemporary Problems, 62 (4) , 219-155. Campbell, K.N. and Ellis, J. 2004. The (Help) I-Don’t-Have-Time Guide to Volunteer management. Energize Inc. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. Chambers, D. , 1997. British Association of Friends of Museums. Survey of Heritage Volunteer Training. London: Institute for Volunteer Research Comptroller and Auditor general. 2009. Promoting Participation with the Historic Environment. National Audit Office. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. Citizens Advice Board - Managing Volunteers: a good practice guide. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. Cultural Volunteer Web Page. For more information: [Accessed February 2011]. Ellis, S., 2002. The Volunteer Recruitment Book. Energize Inc. Experts in Volunteering. For more information: [Accessed January 2011]. Heritage Alliance UK - Volunteer management resources. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. Hong, S. et al., 2009. Engaging Older Adults in Volunteering: Conceptualizing and Measuring Institutional Capacity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 200-219. SAGE [online]. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. How to set up microvolunteering project? For more information: [Accessed April 2011]. Jarvis, S., 2007. Recruitment and Retention of Volunteers. Volunteer Development Scotland. Available from: [Accessed may 2011]. McCurley, S. and Lynch, R., 1998. Essential volunteer management. London: Directory of Social Change Meijs, L., 2010. Reinventing Strategic Philanthropy: the sustainable organization of voluntary action for impact. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Meijs, L. and Haski-Leventhal, D., 2010. The volunteer matrix: Positioning of volunteer organizations.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing National Trust - Volunteering. For more information: Popovic, M.Boss, E. Tockens, L., 2010. Het museum als vrijwilligersorganisatie. Movisie. Available from: [Accessed February 2011].


Shannon, C., 2009. An Untapped Resource: Understanding Volunteers Aged 8 to 12. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 828-845. SAGE [online]. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. Tang, F. et al., 2009. Inclusion of Diverse Older Populations in Volunteering- The Importance of Institutional Facilitation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 810-827. SAGE [online]. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. Taylor, R. and Davis, M., 2000. Valuing volunteers. Museum Practice, The Museums Association, 13 (5/1), 45-47. Tonckens, L., 2008. De Vrijwilligersorganisatie: Tips en adviezen om het vrijwilligerswerk in kleine musea efficiënter te organiseren. Zutphen: Gelders Erfgoed. Available from: [Accessed March 2011]. UNV, 2006. A “How-To” Guide for Volunteer Coordinators of Conference Volunteers. New Delhi: UNV. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. Vinkenburg, B. Syderius, T. And Beerepoot, R., 2010. De wenselijkheid van een waarderingsprijs voor vrijwillingers in het cultureel erfgoed. Berenschot. On changes in society and style of volunteering: CEV. 2010. Effectively communicating volunteering: role of PR, media and raising public awareness. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. Meijs, L., 2004. The resilient society: volunteering, civil society and corporate community involvement in transition. Rotterdam School of Management / ERIM Rotterdam. Microvolunteering. For more information: [Accessed May 2011]. Microvolunteering network. From more information: [Accessed May 2011]. Rigby, B., 2008. Mobilizing Generation 2.0: A Practical Guide to Using Web 2.0 Technologies to Recruit, Organize and Engage Youth. John Willey &Sons: U.S.A

Who is the expert? International Council of Museums, 2006. ICOM code of ethics for museums. Available from: [Accessed April 2011]. McCloughan, P. et al., 2011. Participation in volunteering and unpaid work. Eurofond. Available from: [Accessed February 2011].


Mook, L. Handy, F. Quarter, J., 2008. The Interchangeability of Paid Staff and Volunteers in Nonprofit Organizations. University of Pennsylvania: ScholarlyCommons. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. The International Association for Volunteer Effort. For more information: VOICE, 2006. Seminar Report: Strategic Resourcing in Humanitarian NGOs: Towards the Coexistence of Professionalism and Voluntarism? Available from: [Accessed February 2011].

Listen to me! Asociacion Espanola de Amigos de los Castillos. For more information: Baines, D., 2010. Neoliberal Restructuring, Activism/Participation, and Social Unionism in the Nonprofit Social Service. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 10-28. SAGE [online]. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. Community Tools Software. Available from: [Accessed February 2011]. Kaldor, M., 2003. The idea of global civil society. International affairs, 79 (3). pp. 583-593 Interviews Asociacion Española de Amigos de los Castillos, Barcelona-Spain. Personal Interview. March 2011. Cseri, Miklós (Skanzen open air museum, Szentendre-Hungary). Personal interview conducted by Astrid Weij. March 2011. Kovács, Zsuzsa (Skanzen open air museum, Szentendre-Hungary). Telephone interview. March 2011. Samaranch, Josep Maria (Club d’ Amics de la UNESCO de Barcelona, Barcelona-Spain), Telephone

interview, March 2011. Scholten, Peter (Peter Scholten Holding BV, Amsterdam-The Netherlands). Peronal Interview. May 2011. Smokvina, Miljenko (ProTorpedo, Rijeka-Croatia). Telephone interview. March 2011. Vives, José Luis and Perxes Carmen (Monumenta, Barcelona-Spain). Personal Interview. March 2011.


Annex I - Case studies In this annex you will find inspirational case studies. Europa Nostra members have very rich and extensive experience in working with volunteers, therefore we asked them to share this experience with us. Nine case studies are result of their contribution. Case studies come from seven different countries in Europe: Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. We would like to thank all contributors.

Case Study 1: Pro Patrimonio, Romania Pro Patrimonio has constantly involved, over the years, volunteers in its rescue, restoration and training activities directed at endangered assets, be they vernacular households, manor houses or parklands. ARA (The Association “Architecture. Restoration. Archaeology”) has carried out during the past four years emergency conservation works, documentation and research programmes and systematic restoration projects aimed at saving, preserving, enhancing and promoting the cultural heritage of Roşia Montană all with volunteer involvement. The actions started in summer 2007 with a campaign of documentation and research on the architectural heritage of the site, followed by a first publication in a planned series of architecture documents: historic churches of Roşia Montană, public edifices, houses and features of the rich technical heritage, are included in this first volume. The second volume is due in autumn 2011. The publication was followed by an exhibition prepared with volunteers, put on display in Bucharest and Roşia Montană. Emergency interventions - propping and repairs - were carried out at two abandoned parish houses, Calvinist and Unitarian, in the historic centre of Roşia Montană. The actions, based on partnerships drawn with the two parishes, were meant to precede full restoration projects. In the summer of 2009, after a planning period, started the restoration of the Unitarian Parish House, which will host a training centre for traditional architecture. The works were continued in 2010 and are due in autumn 2011. They were carried out with constant involvement of local craftsmen and with the participation of volunteers, students from the faculties of architecture of Bucharest and Cluj-Napoca. All these activities were possible with continuous implication of volunteers at all levels, from local craftsmen to planners, lecturers, tutors and the students. For more information:

Contributor: Alexandra Chiliman ARA (The Association “Architecture. Restoration. Archaeology”) Romania


Case Study 2: Szépmûvészeti Múzeum, Hungary ’It is great to work with you. I come here to be invigorated :) - such a good feeling. I feel so sorry for those who never get a taste of this. Like other people, I also struggle with permanent financial problems, I work really hard, yet I feel content because I can help others and get trained, both in the field of arts and through the practice of foreign languages. And I can even build my confidence and creativity. To put it short, I LOVE working here.’ Gabriella Moór, volunteer The idea of the volunteer programme arose in August 2006 inspired by similar examples of the most prestigious museums of the world. Our goal, in the first place, was to provide staff with the then missing visitors’ information desk. Today we work with just under one hundred members. Since the beginning of the programme, our enthusiastic volunteers have donated 28640 working hours, that is, 3579 workdays. They continue to help the regular staff of the museum and maintain the high standards of our services. Unlike the American or British volunteer programmes, our staff primarily consists of university students and young graduates. We also have a smaller number of pensioners, so the elderly are also welcome in our activities. This colourful team assists the activities of the museum in various fields. The Information Desk in the entrance hall of the Museum of Fine Arts is operated exclusively by trained volunteers. From September 2010 volunteers share their knowledge of ancient Egyptian artwork at the Hands on! table. Volunteers help the children’s programmes in the Classical Antiquities department and the family days of Museum of Fine Arts’ museum education programme „Szépmőhely”. The Library also needs volunteers; each of them receives an individual, personalised task there. Besides this there is the opportunity to help with photocopying, IT, or translation. With the help of volunteers we have been able to start a free English language course for the guards, and have completed the topographical survey of the museum. Our volunteers have provided invaluable help with their ideas for the betterment of the Museum’s services. Another program of the Museum of Fine Arts Budapest is The Docent Program, which has a 15-yearold tradition of bridging cultures by providing volunteer tours in English through the Museum’s permanent collections. Over the years, the volunteer group has grown. At the beginning of 2007, the Museum of Fine Arts Budapest recognized the value of this volunteer docent program by incorporating the Docent Program into the Museum’s Educational Department. For more information: or write an e-mail to the coordinator of the programme, Ms Izabella Csordás, at And for the Docent Program: Contributor: Fejerdy Tomas DLA National office for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Hungary


Case Study 3: German Foundation for Monument Protection Youth Masonry Guilds

To motivate young people to a more intensive engagement with cultural heritage is a particular concern of German Foundation for Monument Protection. We want to show the young generation that monument preservation is something that could interest them. Encounters with monuments open up for opportunities for youths to try out different things and develop a wide array of talents, so that their awareness and appreciation for cultural artifacts can grow. The "Youth Masonry Guilds" (Jugendbauhütten) initiated by the Foundation have provided for a number of years the framework for a "year of voluntary civic service in monument preservation". This special form of civic service offers practical experience and initial vocational orientation. For over a year young persons aged between 16 and 26 can work in crafts and building firms, architecture and planning offices or monument agencies. Accompanying seminars address a broad range of theoretical aspects: style and materials, research and working methods, the basics of monument preservation, and the significance of Europe’s cultural heritage. Twelve Youth Masonry Guilds have been set up. Youth masonry guilds are located in Wismar (Mecklenburg-West Pomerania), Romrod (Hesse), Duisburg/Raesfeld (North Rhine-Westphalia), Görlitz (Saxony), Mühlhausen (Thuringia), Quedlinburg (Saxony-Anhalt), Berlin/Brandenburg, Stralsund (Mecklenburg-West Pomerania), Soest (North Rhine-Westphalia) Stade (Lower Saxony), Regensburg (Bavaria) and the international Youth Masonry Guild for Garden monuments located in Potsdam (Brandenburg). The future of these youth masonry guilds is very much dependent however on the financial backing generated by donations and fiduciary foundations as well as official recognition. Honorary engagement of local curators Many committed people working on an honorary basis energetically support the efforts of the German Foundation for Monument Protection locally. With info and trade fair stands, exhibitions and lectures these local boards are frequently active in and around their hometowns. What do the volunteer groups actually do? The local curators undertake regional information and public relations work for the German Foundation for Monument Protection. Observing the goals set out in the Foundation's statutes, they raise public awareness for how necessary it is to preserve our cultural heritage.They are actively engaged in looking after and broadening the large community of the Foundation's supporters and benefactors. Furthermore, they support campaigns launched by the main office and compliment the Foundation's projects with their own local actions. In this way they are continually helping to generate interest for the Foundation's important work and gain new supporters for the cause of monument protection. Currently around 60 local commities with almost 400 members are actively advancing the concerns of the German Foundation for Monument Protection. Contributor: Holger Rescher Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz Germany


Case Study 4: National Museum Kikinda, Serbia KEY DATA: Place: National Museum in Kikinda, Serbia Beginning of program: 2007 Aim: • bring high school kids to museum • reach new audiences • create manifestations that community is going to identify with • communicate with the youngest population Tasks: participation in communication with audience during Museum Night and Mammoth Fest Number and profile of volunteers: 40 high school kids annually (over 100 kids since 2007) Volunteer hours (annually): 600 Volunteer expenses (annually): 500 euro NATIONAL MUSEUM in KIKINDA, SERBIA: National museum in Kikinda was founded in 1946 as a local museum of complex type, encompassing five collections related to Kikinda and its surrounding municipalities. It has 14 employees and average yearly attendance of 18 000 visitors. “KIKA” mammoth: KIKINDA’S OLDEST CITIZEN: In 1996 in the clay pit of factory Toza Markovic in Kikinda fossil remains of a steppe mammoth around 500 000 years old were found. With the help of European Commission, museum implemented project KIKA MAMMOTH in 2006 in order to make KIKA cultural symbol of Kikinda and driver of local development. With this project museum decided to engage more in community life, particularly through annual manifestations such as Mammoth Fest and Museum Night. Due to the lack of staff able to fully engage in the work with audience during these manifestations, museum decided to start engaging volunteers. TARGET GROUP: Museum recognized that volunteers should be both their helpers and their audience. As highschool kids were group which is hardest to attract to visit museum, museum hoped that targeting them as volunteers is a way to provide museum with enthusiastic and young volunteers, while at the same time bringing in more people of their age. RECRUITMENT: Museum needs 30 volunteers for event to be successful. Initial recruitment started through professor of Kikinda highschool who recruited her pupils for the Museum Night in 2007. As it was a very sucessful event, volunteering became „in“ and volunteers have become one of the most popular kids in their school. They were the only one to have T-shirts with Museum Night slogan, which museum gave them as a reward for their contribution. They all came to volunteer for the next event. Furthermore, „mouth to mouth“ effect was that big that museum did not have to advertise volunteering program in any other way in order to recruit new helpers. From then on, there’s no need to call kids to volunteer, because they are the one to call the museum! A month before these manifestations ex-volunteers and new kids call museum to ask when is the deadline for applying to volunteer. The interest is that big that museum has to reject late applicants. VOLUNTEERS’ ENGAGEMENT: Since each Museum Night has a specific theme, main volunteers’ task is to dress up in accordance with the theme and make museum display alive by role playing and giving basic information to visitors. For Mammoth Fest they assist education department in kids workshops and talk about KIKA, thus engaging the youngest population in Kikinda. There are two meetings taking place after recruitment where volunteers get introduced with their tasks and get all necessary information. Museum leaves space for volunteers’ spontainity and improvisation,


thinking that its the reciepe for increasing kids creativity and responsability, showing you trust them and securing their fun during the event. OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS OF THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM: Volunteer involvement in Museum Night and Mammuth Fest has had great positive impact on National Museum in Kikinda, volunteers, audience and local community. Museum significantly increased quantity and quality of services which it offers to audience, without having to pay for additional human resources. It succeeded in creating manifestations which are very popular among local community, improved communication and relationship with local community, broaden its audience and created better image of museums. Only for the Museum Night around 3 500 visitors go through the museum, which is one fifth of yearly visits. Through volunteering museum succeeded in attracting high school kids to museum, which was the hardest target group to attract. Volunteers are the public face of museum during that night and suceed in making museum objects alive and making museum displays atractive to diverse public, thus taking an important role as public relations people. Furthermore, they have brought to museum totally new public: their friends and other kids of same age, their parents, grandparents, cousins, who have never or rarely visited to museum before. This has helped that these events become real community festivals and museum to be seen as an acitve participant in town’s life. Mammuth Fest, made museum recognizable in the local community as a keeper of a very important common heritage and volunteers contributed a great deal to communication with the youngest audience, for whom this is a favorite event of the year. Audience participates in interesting cultural events and enhances their knowledge on topics of exhibitions/manifestations, especially since most of them started going to museum during the rest of the year. Mammoth fest has contributed to the building of the town’s identity, and citizens of Kikinda are refering to mammuth as „our KIKA“ and always take their guests to museum. With volunteer program, museum has succeed to put museum in the mind map of its community. Volunteers had a great time, spread their network of people, did something useful for the community, learned about heritage of their region and enhanced their communication and public speaking skills. All of them state tast that the biggest motivational factor is not only to learn, but to have a good time, feel appreciated and socialize, which clearly pictures how volunteer engagement contributes to their social and emotional wellbeing. For more information: and

Contributor: Višnja Kisić Europa Nostra Serbia Case study taken from research: Volunteering in Museums in Serbia: Between Social Contribution and Missunderstanding, Visnja Kisic, MA, University of Arts, Belgrade, October 2010.


Case Study 5: « QUARANTE ANS APRES », Belgium La petite histoire des fondateurs du Quartier des Arts ASBL

Nous avions à peine plus de trente ans. Nous aimions la Belgique et Bruxelles. Nous étions humiliés par les démolitions scandaleuses, par les constructions horribles et par des projets de spéculateurs immobiliers sans goût. Nous étions choqués et révoltés. La Maison du Peuple de Victor Horta avait été détruite et remplacée par une tour disproportionnée près de l’Eglise de la Chapelle. Le Hilton s’élevait au-dessus de l’élégant Palais d’Egmont. Les principales banques rivalisaient pour la tour la plus haute, dans le quartier.. Nous étions jeunes, idéalistes, désintéressés, et bien décidés à sauver ce qui pouvait l’être du charme et de la culture de notre ville. Nous en parlions entre amis et connaissances. Le 21 avril 1966, le Soir publia un article de Jean Tordeur : « Plaidoyer pour une zone bruxelloise de musées et de sites architecturaux ». Daniel Janssen qui habitait 14 Place du Petit Sablon lui écrivit – sans le connaître – et l’invita à en parler. Ils se retrouvèrent en juin, discutèrent de l’objectif à atteindre et la manière d’y arriver : Jean Tordeur clarifia l’objectif : « par le dépôt d’un PPA (Plan Particulier d’Aménagement) par la Ville de Bruxelles ». Daniel Janssen réunit chez lui, dès septembre, les six passionnés : Jean Tordeur, Michel Didisheim, Alain Camu, Mickey Boël et Pierre Laconte. Ils se retrouvèrent tous les mardis soir pour organiser la contre-attaque. Ils travaillèrent passionnément tout l’hiver. Ils étaient conscients de leur jeunesse et que pour réussir ils devaient convaincre des personnalités éminentes et influentes. Albert Thys, le grand homme de l’électricité en Belgique, fut séduit dès la première visite par le projet et par ces jeunes enthousiastes : il connaissait « tout le monde » en Belgique et aimait profondément Bruxelles, ses Institutions et les beaux bâtiments. Il accepta de devenir Président du Conseil d’Administration de l’ASBL « Quartier des Arts » à créer, et de convaincre Pierre De Rons, Echevin des Travaux Publics et des Finances de la Ville de Bruxelles d’en devenir Vice-Président. Puis, Michel Didisheim nous emmena parler à son patron, S.A.R. le Prince Albert : Il nous accueillit avec gentillesse et humour, et était déjà tellement convaincu qu’Il accepta immédiatement de devenir Président du Comité d’Honneur « pour autant que mon frère le Roi Baudouin et le Premier Ministre n’aient pas d’objection ». Le Bourgmestre Cooremans, acceptera de devenir Vice-président du Comité d’Honneur. Après avoir ainsi enthousiasmé les convaincus, séduit les sceptiques, neutralisé les opposants, rassemblé des influents dans tous les Conseils et Comité de l’ASBL, le printemps venu, le premier Conseil d’Administration se tint le 12 juin 1967, en présence de S.A.R. le Prince Albert et sous la Présidence d’Albert Thys. Nous avions commencé à arrêter les destructions, notamment celle de la partie nord de la Place du Sablon, menacée par une extension de la RTT, et celle de l’Hospice Pacheco, et à mettre en route l’animation et la défense du Quartier des Arts. Nous avions sans doute aussi donné un exemple – au cœur du Royaume – d’un des premiers « Comités de Quartier » où les citoyens prennent en charge l’histoire, la culture, la beauté et l’animation de leur quartier … Contributors: Mickey Boël, Alain Camu, Michel Didisheim, Daniel Janssen, Pierre Laconte and Jean Tordeur; Foundation for the Urban Environment Belgium


Case Study 6: Faith in Maintenance, United Kingdom The Faith in Maintenance project (FiM) is run by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and funded mainly by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Its aim is to train churchwardens and their equivalents in other faiths on maintenance – the routine work needed to keep historic buildings in good condition – and help them carry out their volunteer roles better. Faith in Maintenance offers free one-day training courses to volunteers from all faiths who care for historic places of worship in England and Wales. From 2007 to the end of 2010 the project has: • Run 108 courses throughout England and Wales. • Trained 3,500 volunteers to care for their place of worship better. • Trained volunteers from the Church of England, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Baptist Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Religious Society of Friends and the Jewish community. • Run 10 courses specifically for young people, mainly in the 14-16 age group, to help them understand more about historic buildings and why it is important to care for them. Research carried out among Faith in Maintenance delegates has shown that of those who responded: • 87% agreed or strongly agreed that the course had increased their interest in their voluntary role. • 80% agreed or strongly agreed that the course had increased their enjoyment of their voluntary role. • 81% agreed or strongly agreed that the course had made them more motivated to deliver their voluntary role. Here are some of the comments made by delegates about the course and how it has helped them in their volunteer role: “I found the day very informative and will use the knowledge gained to look at our buildings with new eyes. Many thanks for your help. I did enjoy the seminar and gained a good deal of useful ideas as to buildings maintenance and recognition of problems. I hope to put into practice some of these ideas.” (Keswick, 2010) “Please pass on my thanks to Sara Crofts for her excellent course yesterday. Inspired by the course, I checked today the gullies to our soakaways and removed a great deal of silt that stopped them working properly.” (Wingerworth, 2009) “I wanted to thank you at SPAB and especially Sara for the excellent, entertaining, and down to earth day. I had concerns that this was going to go over my head but came away with some clear messages and practical checklists that will greatly help me both in my role as warden of my own parish church as well as in my half-time employment running the office and liaising with the wardens of my neighbouring parish.” (West Chiltington, 2009) “Just a note to say the course was EXCELLENT! Sara Crofts managed to make the Faith in Maintenance course, a dry topic to say the least, most interesting. I found the information very helpful and just what I was looking for.” (Leeds, 2008) Contributor: Kate Minnis The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) United Kingdom


Case Study 7: Museum Geelvinck Hinlopen Huis, The Netherlands The Geelvinck Hinlopen Huis is a private grand canal-mansion dating back to 1687. Together with its lush secluded garden, its living rooms celebrate a hidden wealth of historic design. It is located on the most prestigious part of the Herengracht within the Amsterdam Canal District, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Once home of one of the richest oligarch families of the Republic, the private museum focuses on urban lifestyle at home in the living room, today and in the past; especially in the period between the Dutch Golden Age and the era of industrialization. Within this focus, there are four recurring themes: chamber music, city garden, heritage food and cultural dialogue. In 2010, the museum received over 31.000 visitors. Twenty years ago, the museum was established by the Buisman-family and about ten years ago, a first start was made for developing a volunteer team for welcoming the visitors. Six years ago, a volunteer coordinator, Mrs Mary Kuijer, was attracted and since the team has grown to about 60 volunteers. Last year, Mrs Kuijer received the biannual Gerard Evers Award from the Association of Friends of Museums for her effort. Today, the museum, with a small professional staff working on a shoestring budget, would not have sustained without its team of volunteers. Not only the volunteers host and guide the visitors 6 days per week the whole year through. In addition, volunteers do all the gardening, perform nearly all preparations and part of the research for our exhibitions, and organise the weekly chamber music concerts. This month (25th June - 3rd July), we will have our first musical festival focussed on the square piano (18 concerts, two competitions and a discussion forum), which is also mainly organised by volunteers. The volunteer team is coordinated by two volunteers, while the team of the garden volunteers and the team of the volunteers for research and preparations of exhibitions are separately co-ordinated, each by a volunteer with a professional background. It is our intention to have the team grown to about 100 volunteers by the end of 2012, because in 2013 – the Year of the Amsterdam Canals – the museum will be open 7 days a week to be able cope with the expected increased flow of visitors. The team of volunteers consists mainly of women of the age group of over 50 years. They are of all layers of the Amsterdam community. In addition, there are several people in the team, who have socially disadvantaged background, and through their involvement in the volunteer team are given the possibility to reintegrate into society. For quite a significant part of the team, our museum has in a certain way become their home and circle of friends. The team is very loyal and there is not much fall-out. Except for a small travel cost reimbursement, no remuneration is given for volunteer work. However, the team does organise three or four times a year an event, such as a New Year Party or a trip to another museum, which is paid by the tips collected from visitors for the free guided tour through the house. The museum does not receive any government or municipal subsidies, nor any other funding. For more information on the museum: Contributor: Jurn Buisman Museum Geelvinck Huis The Netherlands


Case Study 8: Fedecarail, Europe FEDECRAIL is a volunteer organisation, set up under Belgian law in 1994. It unites European museum and tourist railways, railway museums, mainline heritage train operators and locomotive groups. Its members are often national umbrella organisations, and their sub-members total 610+ organisations. Our Council has seven volunteer members from different European countries. The goals of Fedecrail are international cooperation in order to have a good representation in the EU and in any other international and supra-national organisations. Its lobby in the European Parliament has been very successful. FEDECRAIL has members in 27 European countries. The museum and tourist railways (often operated exclusively by skilled volunteers) do play an important role in sustainable all-weather tourism and their regional economy. In 2010, the members in France, Britain and Germany alone had 17.2 Million guests and a turnover of 174 Million Euro’s. There were 16,900 historic vehicles kept. 3,800 employees and 26,300 active volunteers operated the railways. This shows that without volunteer input, a serious loss of historic vehicles would have occurred but also an economic disadvantage of a considerable size. One should realise that the turnover of museum and tourist railways is one side, but the multiplier effect another: guests want to ride the historic train, but also eat, drink, sleep, buy souvenirs and tank petrol in the area. This is a reason why regional and local Councils are often prepared to invest in tourist railways. The motivation of these volunteers may have many faces. To some it is working with guests on a historic (steam) train, others may prefer to do organisation, catering, PR, IT, technical work (train restoration, maintenance), brochure writing, archiving, gardening. It is important to let the volunteers have a role which appeals to them, a challenge maybe to let the railway flourish better than ever, even if it is less glamorous than that of the “King of the Road” alias steam engine driver. All these volunteers contribute together in a nice hobby. As soon as any paid staff can be afforded, careful attention is needed to avoid volunteer´s feelings of being lesser in status or skills. The volunteer motivation is like a plant that needs to be nursed well. When that is the case, the organisation can offer a great place for a wide range of free time activities. For more information: / Contributor: Livius J. Kooy Fedecrail The Netherlands


Case Study 9: Corroy-le-Ch창teau, Belgium Corroy-le-Ch창teau is a medieval casle located in the middle of a Belgian village of around 2000 inhabitants. We organize for thirty years concerts and theater plays which take place during the summer time. The costs of such an organization should be unbearable if we were not helped by volunteers. Since the beginning, people of the village come freely to slip the invitations into the envelops, put the poststamps, receive the public, help everyone to find its seat and prepare large buffets for the auditors attending. We are now at the third generation of those fantastic friends of the heritage. This experience is regarded in Belgium as the awareness by the villagers of the value of the monuments built for centuries on their territory which are nowadays considered as theirs. It is an encouraging sign for the future.

Contributor: Marquess of Trazegnies Corroy-le-Chateau Belgium


Annex II - Forum Programme EUROPA NOSTRA FORUM Organised in cooperation with Bond Heemschut & Erfgoed Nederland


Venue: Felix Meritis, Keizersgracht 324, 1016 EZ Amsterdam Date: 10th June 2011(09h00 – 13h00)

Europa Nostra has taken advantage of 2011 being the European Year of Volunteering, using the theme of volunteering in the heritage sector throughout our European Heritage Congress 2011 in Amsterdam. The key event on this subject is the Europa Nostra Forum. Volunteers in the heritage sector demonstrate the importance that cultural heritage has for European citizens. Our Forum will highlight the crucial importance of volunteers for animating and keeping the heritage sector possible and viable.

09.00-09.30 Arrival of participants and coffee

09.30-10.35 Opening session



Opening by Karel Loeff, Director of Bond Heemschut, and Astrid Weij, International Relations, Erfgoed Nederland


Welcome and introduction by John Sell, Executive Vice-President of Europa Nostra


Judith van Kranendonk, Director General for Culture and Media, Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

09. 55-10.15

Prof. Lucas C.P.M. Meijs, Professor of Volunteering, Civil Society and Businesses and Professor of Strategic Philanthropy

10. 15-10.35

Dame Fiona Reynolds, Director General, The National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

10.45-11.45 Parallel discussion sessions

Form: Four parallel discussion sessions of approximately 50 participants for every group. Each session will have a short introduction on the theme and there will be one person moderating the discussion and one person reporting to the concluding session.


1. Engaging new volunteers: ‘social interns’, lifelong learning, difference between regions. Should I stay or should I go? What motivates a person to volunteer for cultural heritage? Three classes of motivations are often found in volunteers: altruistic or value based, utilitarian or enhancing human capital (a person’s skills and experience), and social interaction motives. These motivations also change over time (past vs today, length of volunteering service) depending on many factors throughout the period of volunteer service. What benefits does involvement in the heritage field bring to the volunteers? Is motivation very individual or can some generalisations be drawn depending on different social groups and/or regions in Europe? Moderator: Tomislav Sola (European Heritage Organisation / The Best in Heritage, Croatia) Rapporteur: Claire Giraud-Labalte (Université Catholique de l’Ouest Angers / ENCATC, France) Example from the field: Lilian Grootswagers (European Network for Historic Places of Worship)

2. Management of volunteers from the organisation’s point of view, how is knowledge kept in an organisation, difference between regions, return on investment. How do we keep them happy? How to keep volunteers motivated and engaged in their work so that they want to stay in an organisation? In heritage organisations, personnel in management roles and the volunteers they work with, have different challenges. Effective volunteer management involves a planned and organised process similar to that required for any employees. Why is volunteer management still done in an improvising manner in some institutions? Should the social and economic value of volunteers be more apparent (ie return on investment)? What problems do volunteers encounter in everyday practice? What do they need and how those needs are changing? Moderator: Piet Jaspaert (Europa Nostra Board member, Belgium) Rapporteur: Simon Molesworth (INTO, Chairman Executive Committee, Australia) Example from the field: Cornelis Zweegman (Open Monumentendag Gouda, the Netherlands)


3. Volunteers vs professionals, professionalisation of the voluntary sector, difference between regions Who is the expert? Possible tensions between volunteers and paid professionals can be created as a result of lack of good organisation and the management of the human resources in an institution. From the point of view of paid professionals threats may be seen in: fear of losing paid jobs, threats to professionalism and loss of time spent on training volunteers. On the other hand, volunteers may feel that they are not rewarded enough for their work which may cover the same tasks/functions as paid staff, and (not unusually) taking over excess work loads. The increasing professional nature of staff employed in the voluntary sector brings up the question: who is the expert? If volunteers are able to meet high demands of institution, will they remain willing to do so in an unpaid fashion? What is the position of Interns working unpaid to get any employment and experience? Moderator: Martin Scicluna (Europa Nostra Board member, Vice President Din lArt Helwa, Malta) Rapporteur: Roger Woodley (Heritage Jury member Category 1, Committee member Europa Nostra UK) Example from the field: Baris Altan (Europa Nostra Turkey)

4. Types of Citizens initiatives, the new position of volunteers, old vs new styles, opportunities, challenges; the role of social media’ motivations for volunteers; differences between regions. Listen to me! Citizens’ initiatives, whether acting as individuals or organised in groups, have a long tradition in the heritage sector. Examples of types of volunteers will be covered in the Reader. How is the world of volunteering in the heritage field changing? For instance, what will be the effect of the way volunteers are motivated and recruited with the growth of social media and professional blogging sites, and other non-traditional outlets? Are heritage volunteers becoming more activist? Should they? Are volunteers representing the voice and the will of citizens, listened to and by whom? Who is NOT listening to this voice who should be and why not? What is the situation in countries where the faith in civil society has been lost during repressive times and it needs to be recuperated? What is the Faro convention adding to the phenomenon of volunteering and the sense of public ‘ownership’ of our heritage? Moderator: Philippe Biéler (Président Patrimoine Suisse, Switzerland) Rapporteur: Kriton Arsenis (Member of the European Parliament, Greece) Example from the field: Willem Heijbroek (Bond Heemschut, the Netherlands)


Concluding session moderated by Karel Loeff (Bond Heemschut) and Astrid Weij (Erfgoed Nederland)

Address by Alexander Rinnooy Kan, President of the Social and Economic Council in the Netherlands and member of the Committee of Honour of the Amsterdam Congress

Panel discussion including conclusions from the four discussion sessions (with the rapporteurs and the opening keynote speakers) Conclusions by - Ann Branch, Head of Unit Culture, DG Education and Culture, European Commission - John Sell, Europa Nostra Executive Vice-President


Annex III - Speakers Biographies Karel Loeff, Director of Bond Heemschut Heemschut is a private organization which has worked continuously since 1911 to preserve the Dutch cultural heritage. Karel Loeff also works as a freelance advisor and researcher. As an architectural historian, in 1994 Karel was co-opted to the Province of Utrecht’s ‘Monumenten Selectie Project’, the aim of which was to select buildings from the period 1850-1940 worthy of being listed as national landmarks. Four and a half years later, Karel decided to set up on his own as a freelance researcher and advisor in the fields of history of architecture, cultural history and education. In 1999 he formed his own company ‘’. He has since carried out surveys for the Dutch government, provinces, city councils, foundations, developers and private individuals. Karel also was an expert in the dutch television series 'Restauratie' (Restauration) and 'Het mooiste pand van Nederland' (the most beautifull house in the Netherlands). As a volunteer he was for 12 years the chairman of the local historical society in his hometown Laren NH.

Astrid Weij, International Relations, Erfgoed Nederland Astrid is programme manager at the Netherlands Institute for Heritage. In this position she was responsible for international affairs within the institute. The main issues within this programme are heritage and Europe and common cultural heritage on a global scale. Astrid was personal assistant of the Director General for Culture and Media at the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Before she became PA, Astrid was Advisor on International Affairs at the Directorate of Cultural Heritage at the same Ministry where she worked since 2001. Subjects Astrid Weij dealt with are among others mobility of collections within a national as well as a European context and digitisation of heritage on a European level. From 1996 till 2003 Astrid Weij had a position at the Netherlands Museums Association as a co-ordinator for Central and Eastern Europe, where she managed bilateral projects concerning museum management. Astrid Weij has a Bachelor and Master of Arts in museology, the topic of graduation where museology and ethics and museum accreditation. Astrid Weij is born in Rotterdam, Netherlands on 17 July 1969 and she lives in Overveen (near Haarlem).

John Sell CBE, FSA, FRSA, AABC, Dip Cons(AA), Executive Vice-president of Europa Nostra

John Sell is a Chairman of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies (those organisations given a specific role in heritage protection under English law) and Chairman of the Historic Environment Forum (the body which brings together both governmental and non-governmental heritage organisations in England). He is the founder and former trustee of the Heritage Alliance, the umbrella body for all nongovernmental heritage organisations in England. In his rich working history he was chairman of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (the oldest heritage organisation in the UK, founded by William Morris in 1877) and member of National Trust Council. As architect he is working on the repair of historic buildings for more than 35 years. His experience includes work on churches, country houses, farm and other vernacular buildings. Clients include English Heritage, the National Trust, the Crown Estate as well as many private clients. He has particular experience working in central and eastern Europe and in tourism projects based on the cultural heritage. He has been a consultant on cultural heritage to the British Council in Bosnia-


Herzegovina. Publications include ‘First aid repair to war damaged buildings’ and ‘Heritage and reconciliation in Bosnia’.

Lucas C.P.M. Meijs, Professor of Volunteering, Civil Society and Businesses and Professor of Strategic Philanthropy Lucas Meijs (1963) is a (part-time) Professor of Volunteering, Civil Society and Businesses (starting 2003) at the department of Business-Society Management and a (part-time) Professor of Strategic Philanthropy (starting 2010) at the Erasmus Centre for Strategic Philanthropy (ECSP). He teaches bachelor minors Service learning, Strategic Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship. At master level he teaches an elective on Strategic Philanthropy and several courses on business-nonprofit relations. In the summer of 2003 he was a guest researcher at the QUT (Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit studies, Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Business), Brisbane Australia. In the summer of 1999 he was a visiting scholar at the Department of Political Science and the School of Social Work at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Recent and current research focuses on issues related to strategic philanthropy, volunteer/nonprofit management, corporate community involvement, business-society partnerships, voluntary energy as a natural resource, re-embedding voluntary energy, student-volunteering and involved learning (life long development by volunteering).

Ann Branch, Head of Unite Culture, DG Education and Culture, European Commission She holds both British and Finnish nationalities. Ann Branch has been working in the European Union institutions for the past twelve years in a variety of roles and departments. She is currently responsible for the European Union's culture programme, and other cultural initiatives including the European Capitals of Culture, the European Heritage Label, and the European Union prizes for cultural heritage, contemporary architecture, music and contemporary literature. She has a political science degree from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and a Master of Philosophy from Oxford University.

Dame Fiona Reynolds, Director General, The national Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland She has been director general of the National Trust (U.K.) since January 2001. Before taking up the post she was Director of the Women’s Unit in the Cabinet Office and was previously Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (now Campaign to Protect Rural England) and Secretary to the Council for National Parks. Currently the National Trust (U.K.) cares for more than 600,000 acres of land and more than 700 miles of coastline, in addition to the hundreds of historic houses in its care. With a membership of 3.6 million and over 100 million visits each year, the Trust has embarked on a series of programs to engage its members, improve conservation and its properties, and reduce its environmental footprint. Fiona has a first class honours degree in Geography/Land Economy and an examined Masters in Land Economy from Cambridge University.

Judith van Kranendonk, Director General for Culture and media, Netherlands Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science She is Director-General for Culture and Media at the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Prior to her appointment she was District Secretary (stadsdeelsecretaris) for the districts of Amsterdam


Oud Zuid (1998-2003), Amsterdam Zuid (1997-1998) and Amsterdam Noord (1986-1991). Between 19911997 Judith van Kranendonk was Managing Director of the City of Amsterdam Bus Company and managing director of Stadsmobiel, which provides public transport for the elderly and the disabled. Between 1985-1999 she was Supervisory director of publisher B.V. Weekbladpers. Judith van Kranendonk has served as a member on a range of boards that currently include being a Member of the Executive Board of the Fourth and Fifth of May Committee (ComitĂŠ 4 en 5 mei) and Member of the Board and vicechairman of the City of Amsterdam Institute of Directors. Alexander Rinnooy Kan, President of the Social and Economic Council in the Netherlands and member

of the Committee of Honour of the Amsterdam Congress Rinnooy Kan was born in the Netherlands. He holds degrees in Mathematics from Leiden University and Econometrics from Amsterdam University. He was employed as mathematics editor at the Spectrum Encyclopaedia for the period of a year, and at the University of Delft for three years. In 1977 he moved to Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where he became a professor in operational research in 1980, Director of the Econometric Institute in 1983 and Rector Magnificus in 1986. In the meantime he was also visiting professor at Berkeley, California and MIT, Boston, among others. In 1991 he became Chairman of the Confederation of Dutch Industry VNO, which became VNO-NCW in 1995, Mr. Rinnooy Kan joined the Executive Board of ING and became Chairman of the Board of both ING Insurance Central Europe and ING Insurance & Asset Management Asia/Pacific. He held these positions until June 2006. As of August 2006 he is President of the Social-Economic Council (SER).


Volunteers:added value for Europe's heritage - Europa Nostra Forum  

Reader of the Europa Nostra Forum that took place as part of the European Heritage Congress in Amstedam 8-11 June 2011 in cooperation with m...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you