UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring · assess the contribution of Culture to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The ... UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring

UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring Culture in the SDGs

UNESCO Headquarters, 7-8 September 2017 Division for Creativity

Working Paper for Discussion

MEASURING CULTURE’S CONTRIBUTION IN AGENDA 2030 SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT GOALS

UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring Culture in the SDGs / 7-8 Sept 2017 / Working Paper for Discussion p.2

Table of contents

Acronyms and abbreviations 3

1. Introduction 4

1.1. Objective of the Working paper and Expert Workshop 4

1.2. Context: Culture’s Contribution to the Agenda 2030 5

1.3. Why and What to Measure about Culture in the SDG6 6

1.4. Progress and Experience 7

2. Building an Approach to Measuring Culture in the Agenda 2030 9

2.1. Selecting an Approach 9

2.2. Elaborating a Framework for the Indicators 10

2.3. Considerations for Proposed Indicators 11

2.4. Proposed Criteria for the Selection of Indicators 13

2.5. A Working List of Proposed Indicators 13

2.6. Technical Note on the Typology of Proposed Indicators: Statistics and Checklists 27

2.7. Additional Considerations on Data Sources 28

2.7.1. National Data Sources 28

2.7.2. International Data Sources 29

2.7.3. UNESCO Periodic Reports 29

Annexes 30

Annex 1 – UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (UIS-FCS 2009) 30

Annex 2 – Methodology illustrations 34


Acronyms CDIS UNESCO Culture for Development Indicators

COICOP Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

EFA Education for All

EU European Union

FCS Framework for Cultural Statistics

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ICH Intangible Cultural Heritage

ISCED International Standard Classification of Education

ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations

ISIC International Standard Industrial Classification

ITU International Telecommunication Union

LFS Labor force survey

NGO Non-governmental organization

NSA National Statistics Accounts

NSO National Statistical Office

OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNWTO World Tourism Organization

WHCL World heritage and cultural landscape

WIPO World International Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization


1. Introduction

1.1. Objective of the Working Paper and Expert Workshop

The Expert Workshop aims to reflect on and propose a measurement system or a suite of indicators to effectively assess the contribution of Culture to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The measurement system will target in particular policies, programmes and activities undertaken by national or local authorities in line with UNESCO’s mandate, thematic priorities and normative tools in the field of culture.

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda represents a unique opportunity to reflect on existing approaches to measuring the contribution of culture to development and assess whether alternative frameworks may be necessary. In the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets (SDGs), Culture is explicitly referenced in Target 11.4, ‘Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.’ The globally agreed upon indicator for this is Indicator 11.4.1 which has been defined as ‘Total expenditure (public and private) per capita spent on the preservation, protection and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage.’ The mandate for elaborating this indicator and reporting on the data is with UNESCO with the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).

Beyond Target 11.4, which explicitly targets culture, UNESCO believes that culture contributes both as a sector of activity and transversally across other sectors as a driver and an enabler for sustainable development. For culture’s role in Agenda 2030 to be enhanced, means of measurement are necessary to evaluate impacts and progress. Indicators and a measurement system are needed to assess the contribution of culture across all relevant SDGs and targets.

In the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UNESCO developed the Culture for Development Indicators (CDIS) to assess the contribution of culture to national development and to the achievement of ten MDGs. While SDGs indicators focus on a single statistical measure, the CDIS includes a range of qualitative and quantitative assessments, which may provide an important complement to the SDG indicators. UNESCO CDIS has been successfully implemented in seventeen countries and has resulted in policy changes and the integration of culture into numerous development policies.

The task of measuring culture is complex and daunting. It is easy to dismiss the effort of measuring culture in the SDGs as ‘impossible’ or to oversimplify it: all that can be counted is not always what is meaningful to count. In recent years, several methodologies and approaches for measuring culture’s contribution to development have been tested and recognized and many scholars have analyzed and proposed ways forward. Our task in the Expert Workshop is to review existing measures and tools and determine whether alternative frameworks may be necessary to measure culture in the SDGs. Revisions and modifications to an existing measurement system can be considered to better reflect ways in which the activities and actions of UNESCO Member States – as supported by UNESCO’s Culture Sector – contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. However, it does not seek to provide a comparative analysis at the global level. The priority is for countries (and/or or cities) to be able to measure their own progress rather than a global ranking. Furthermore, the indicators should be feasible to collect across the different Member States in all regions, regardless of their respective political, legal or statistical systems and should require a minimal level of financial investment for data collection to be compatible with national or local resources.

The purpose of this working paper is to provide inputs for discussion for the Expert Workshop and facilitate a focused debate. Research towards the Workshop has involved a reflection on the broader role and contribution of culture in sustainable development under the new SDGs framework, a review of recent methodologies and approaches to measuring culture, as well as analysis and reflection on the UNESCO’s experience in implementing the Culture for Development Indicators (CDIS). The paper does not document all of this research. Rather, as a synthesis, it proposes a first outline for an alternative framework and a tentative list of indicators to measure culture in the SDGs that builds on the merits of the CDIS (and attempts to overcome its limitations). While some of the research was done by the UNESCO team, two of the experts who have extensively helped in the implementation of CDIS over a number of years, Simon Ellis and Naima Bourgaut, have helped to review the experience of CDIS and elaborate the working list of proposed indicators.


1.2. Context: Culture’s Contribution to the Agenda 2030

With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the international community has recognized – for the first time – the role of culture in sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda implicitly refers to culture across many of its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets, particularly in SDG 11 on sustainable cities. Culture has also been integrated into the New Urban Agenda, recently adopted at HABITAT III in Quito, Ecuador, which will guide urban development for the next two decades.

UNESCO is the only UN Agency with a mandate for culture. The Organization is committed to supporting Member States in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda, which provides an important opportunity to integrate culture into development policies and interventions. While the safeguarding and promotion of culture represents an end in itself, it also contributes directly to many of the SDGs — including those on sustainable cities, decent work and economic growth, reduced inequalities, the environment, promoting gender inequality and peaceful and inclusive societies.

The SDGs enshrine on the one hand, a conceptual shift in thinking about development beyond economic growth to human development, and on the other, in envisioning a desirable future as one that is equitable, inclusive in social and economic terms, peaceful, and environmentally sustainable. This bold vision demands creative approaches beyond the typical linear and sectoral ones. The SDGs, reflect a broad view of culture that includes cultural heritage, creative industries, local culture and products, creativity and innovation, culture’s contribution to sustainable development, local communities, local materials, and cultural diversity. At the same time, the experience of development projects and interventions have demonstrated, time, and time again, the importance of local knowledge and community participation in order to achieve sustainable development – from health to education. Such a view demands that we consider culture’s contribution to sustainable development more broadly than the economic value it generates to ways to promote – and measure – social cohesion and cultural diversity.

If the SDGs are grouped around the economic, social, and environmental objectives as the three pillars of sustainable development, then culture and creativity contribute to each of these pillars transversally. Moreover, in turn, the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development contribute to promote the safeguarding of cultural heritage and nurturing creativity. Furthermore, some goals such as education and health are human development goals that can be more effectively achieved with culture. UNESCO sees culture as both a driver that contributes directly for instance in bringing economic and social benefits; and as an enabler that contributes to the effectiveness of development, interventions such as those aimed at environmental and human development outcomes.

Culture’s role in the implementation of the SDGs is both specific to those activities that are directly related to culture as well as other policies and sectors transversally. Such an approach also emphasizes the importance of sustainable processes leading up to the achievement of targets as well as webbed approaches that connect across sectors moving simultaneously towards the achievement of multiple Goals rather than viewing the goals and their targets in narrow silos measured only by their statistical indicators.

The Sustainable Development Goals identify culture’s role, most specifically in Goal 11, ‘Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ /11.4 mentioned above, but also in Goal 16, ‘Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’ (Target 16.4). Culture’s contribution is also most significant in strengthening the recovery and return of stolen assets (target 16.4) and protecting fundamental freedom with respect to artistic expressions (target 16.10). In addition to those, it contributes towards cultural entrepreneurship (target 8.3), job creation through sustainable tourism (target 8.9), or through the education goal via skill development (target 4.4). The additional document “Contribution of Culture to implementation of SDGs through UNESCO instruments, programmes and activities” provides an exhaustive list of the ways in which culture contributes to attaining SDGs and its targets.


1.3. Why and What to Measure about Culture in the SDGs

As Amartya Sen1 has pointed out, culture is both an end and a means for achieving development. Yet, culture has remained difficult to count, quantify, and measure with regard to its resources, impacts, outcomes, and transversal enabling role. Culture is a vast field and defined variously from the conceptual and theoretical to the operational and administrative. Although its importance is widely recognized in sustainable development discourse, the difficulties in measuring culture’s contribution have meant that it remains less visible. Development investments and initiatives are not able to measure the enhancements brought about by them. Culture’s contribution to sustainable development is complex and multifaceted from contributing with resources, to the development processes, participation, and the income generated through activities in cultural domains.

The difficulties in measurement have meant that monitoring and assessment of culture’s contribution are challenging, as are efforts to enhance that contribution or build on the cultural resources of a country or region. So that despite wide recognition of the importance of culture to sustainable development, it has remained marginalized in development plans and policies at the international, national, and urban levels. As is evident in the SDGs, culture is most explicitly recognized in target, 11.4, “To strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”. Yet this is measured by an indicator that by no means captures the numerous ways in which culture contributes, and could contribute to the implementation of the SDGs. In other words, Goal 11 provides many entry points for enhancing the role of culture and creativity at the urban/local level as it does in some other Goals and targets such as Goal 4, 8, or 12. The key issue being that overall the SDGs provides a unique opportunity to integrate culture and development policies in the implementation of the Agenda 2030 and the New Urban Agenda.

Placing culture at the heart of sustainable development policies is to build on its transversal value and contribution across each of these pillars and use culture’s power to strengthen them. While there is much agreement in development discourse on the importance of including culture in development, the precise role and contribution of culture to sustainable development needs to be systematically measured, and enhanced. As the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals moves forward, further work is necessary to build a systematic and measurable evidence base to demonstrate each of the contributions of culture to sustainable development. Furthermore, clarifying the intricate connections between safeguarding and promoting cultural heritage, diversity and creative expressions and sustainable development should mean that sustainable development should result in better safeguarding and promotion of culture. What is needed is a measurement system that captures the contribution of culture across all the relevant SDGs and targets.

1.4. Progress and Experience

The international community has seen much progress and experience with regard Culture and Development over the last decade or so. The conceptual relationship between culture and sustainable development has progressed with UNESCO’s position of culture as both a driver and an enabler for sustainable development and being both the ends and means for achieving sustainable development. Recent theoretical developments also recognize sustainable development as having social, cultural, and environmental outcomes in addition to economic ones.

Programmatically, the role of culture for sustainable urban development has been increasingly a focus of UNESCO’s programmatic work, both in the implementation of Conventions and through its networks including the World Heritage Cities Program and the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN). UNESCO’s major Culture Conventions have each worked to integrate sustainable development into their policy frameworks and operational directives. The UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation is also one that reinforces the relationship between culture and sustainable development.

In 2015, UNESCO launched the Culture for Sustainable Urban Development Initiative, recognizing that culture is a key tool for promoting sustainable urban development through the safeguarding of cultural heritage and the

1 Sen, Amartya. “The Ends and Means of Sustainability” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhd20 Published online: 28 Feb 2013.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhd20


promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. In this framework, the City of Hangzhou, China, hosted the international conference “Culture for Sustainable Cities” in December 2015. The conference concluded with the adoption of the Hangzhou Outcomes, which placed culture at the heart of an integrated, place-based and innovative approach to working towards inclusive, people-centred and culturally-sensitive urban development.

Building on the Hangzhou Outcomes, the UNESCO Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development “Culture: Urban Future”, launched at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, in October 2016, presented the results of a first-ever global survey on urban heritage conducted in cooperation with nine partner institutions, with contributions from over 60 high-level experts, mayors and organizations, and 111 case studies from around the world. The Report proposes strategic guidelines to support decision-makers at national and local levels, experts and other stakeholders involved in urban development: (i) people-centred cities are culture-centred spaces; (ii) quality urban environments are shaped by culture; and (iii) sustainable cities need integrated policy-making that builds on culture. In addition, the report puts forward the need for a new culture-based urban model adapted to national and local frameworks to incorporate culture in urban planning tools, address the knowledge gap on culture and heritage at the urban level through partnerships with universities, develop innovative financing, and strengthen training for urban professionals.

UNESCO is in the process of renewing its cooperation with UN Habitat on the integration of culture into Goal 11 and the New Urban Agenda. In July 2017, the World Bank and UNESCO renewed their commitment to sustainable development by signing a Memorandum of Understanding to develop joint initiatives for sustainable urban development, building on cultural heritage and creativity as resources and assets.

In 2015, UNESCO also published the first Global Report, “Re|Shaping Cultural Policies” that monitors the implementation and impact of the 2005 Convention in support of evidence-based policy-making in the field of culture. A monitoring framework, comprising 33 core indicators, with related means of verification, has been developed to analyse global trends and policy changes over time in the Convention’s four main areas of intervention: sustainable systems of governance for culture; trade and flows of cultural goods and services, as well as mobility of artists and cultural professionals; culture in sustainable development frameworks; and human rights and fundamental freedoms. The second edition of the report will be published in December 2017 and will provide new evidence for how promoting the diversity of cultural expressions can contribute towards the achievement of the SDGs. The UIS also released a new database of sex-disaggregated cultural employment statistics that focuses on the economic contribution of cultural industries in 63 countries and territories. The data will help formulate evidence-based cultural policies and feed into efforts to meet SDG 8, which calls for full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men by 2030.

In accordance with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) launched a process to develop indicators to measure the implementation of the SDGs. In relation to Target 11.4 to “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”, the UIS is formulating an internationally-comparable indicator to reflect the total expenditure per capita of each country in protecting their cultural and natural heritage. It includes public and private sources of expenditure, and investments made at the local, national and international levels.

The multidimensional and abstract nature of Culture represents a methodological challenge for statisticians and economists. Nevertheless, over the last fifteen years numerous studies and research, have developed widely accepted approaches. Numerous scholars, academics, international agencies and organizations, and national governments have all made significant progress in the measurement of culture – some at the national level and some at subnational levels. Scholars like David Throsby and Xavier Greffe, organizations like OECD, the World Bank, Eurostat, the Joint Research Center, and Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, and national governments like those of Columbia and Georgia are among those who have led the way in measuring culture’s value and contribution. The objectives, methodologies, indicators, and sources of data for each have been different. Some have aimed to assess the value of culture where as others have developed methods for measuring a variety of well-being indicators that touch on culture or imply it.


As none of the existing methods aimed to measure Culture for the SDGs and the implementation of Agenda 2030 and the New Urban Agenda, we see a need to develop such a measurement system. This could be done by applying, extending, or modifying one of the existing systems or developing one from the very beginning. In the remaining sections of the paper we propose an approach, a methodology, and a tentative set of indicators to facilitate a focused and productive discussion during the Expert Workshop on Measuring Culture for the SDGs.


2. Building an Approach to Measuring Culture in the Agenda 2030

2.1. Selecting an Approach

Policies and public action to integrate culture in the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs should be based on relevant and reliable quantitative and qualitative information and evidence. Our initial review of over thirty different existing approaches to measuring culture and development led to the conclusion that the Culture for Development Indicators (CDIS) developed and implemented previously by UNESCO could be a good foundation on which an updated measurement system, responsive to Agenda 2030, could be built.

UNESCO developed and implemented the CDIS from 2009-2014 in the context of the Millennium Development Goals. It is an international tool specifically designed for “data poor” countries with limited statistical capacities. Its 22 indicators generate data that allows the analysis of the context in which culture evolves in a given country and its contribution to different national development process. CDIS refers to culture both as a sector of organized activity and as the values that orient individual and collective action. It comprises several type of indicators - simple indicators, composite indices, quantitative and qualitative – ranging from the contribution of cultural activities to GDP, to cultural employment, to questions of training, participation and efficiency of cultural policy frameworks and their degree of inclusiveness, to trust of others, or access to cultural infrastructures.

UNESCO piloted the CDIS in Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia, testing the reliability and validity of the indicators. Many experts and statisticians were part of the CDIS development, which received a generous financial support from the Spanish International Cooperation Agency (AECID). The CDIS development was informed and built upon previous UNESCO work on culture, including the joint initiative with the Human Development Report/UNDP team to create a culture composite index (1997-2000), or the Asian regional working group on cultural industries statistics (UNDP, WIPO, UNIDO) to previous cultural indicators initiatives in the late 80s.

To date 17 countries have successfully implemented CDIS resulting in significant policy changes. UNESCO CDIS has established itself as the only standardized information tool for middle income and least developed countries - MICs & LDCs - and played an important pilot role on effectively engaging in policy dialogue and change in a number of countries. The new SDG context raises the question of how to maintain, promote and outsource CDIS knowledge and how to make it evolve and feed in new processes and actors including the new Urban Agenda.

The possibility to transpose the measurement system at a local scale was one of the guiding threads in developing a new system for measuring culture for the SDGs that should have the following attributes:

Be applicable by all member States taking into account the differing levels of statistical capacity and data availability in each country;

Be easily transposed at the local/urban level;

Wherever possible rely on existing data, minimizing the need to collect additional information, limiting the costs of implementation;

Be in line with the SDGs as well as the UNESCO’s mandate, programs, and instruments in Culture.

Provide evidence of change over time in the same place rather than global comparability

Recognize opportunities to aspire and improve rather than achieve or fail absolute benchmarks

The priority was not simply to go after what is simple and verifiable to measure but what is meaningful to the objectives of the measurement. A hybrid set of quantitative and qualitative indicators or a set of parametric and non-parametric indicators could be interpreted together to provide a composite profile.


2.2. Elaborating a Framework for the Indicators

With the idea that culture’s contribution to the SDGs is across its 169 Targets in a number of ways, the first step was to identify the relevant SDG targets where Culture contributes (or could contribute) to its implementation. This was done with a focus on the six major UNESCO Culture Conventions as key areas of UNESCO activities in the Culture Sector.2 This exercise was done at both the national and urban levels with the idea that different types of information are available at the two different levels of administration, and thus attempting to go beyond the mandate of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), who is currently entrusted with the task of monitoring and evaluating progress to Target 11.4 “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (see Tables in additional document on “Contribution of Culture to implementation of SDGs through UNESCO instruments, programmes and activities”).

As a second step, we reviewed several frameworks that could be relevant to apply to organize new indicators, including:

The economic, social, and environmental indicators as representing the three pillars of sustainable development

The SDG Targets as a globally accepted framework for the Sustainable Development Goals The indicators for People, Planet, Prosperity, Partnerships, and Peace as the 5 Ps of sustainable

development

The existing framework of dimensions for the UNESCO CDIS. Seven dimensions of CDIS include

Economy, Education, Governance, Social participation, Gender equality, Communication, Heritage.3

The analytical framework has to translate into an overall understanding of the measurement system. It also has to provide a systematic approach to integrate culture in the development processes. Some principles for the framework are that:

It reflects a contemporary understanding of sustainable development discourse, It takes into account the dual role of culture as both enabler and driver of sustainable development, It considers all UNESCO fields of action in Culture (Conventions, other instruments, and programs) as

entry points, It offers a common understanding of culture’s contribution across all relevant SDGs, Its fosters Culture’s integration in the implementation of SDGs and should be applicable at both the

national and the urban level, It addresses Culture as both an end and a means of sustainable development, It sees Culture’s contribution to sustainable development both a sector of activity as well as transversally

across other sectors, It analyses Culture’s role in the economic, social, and environmental outcomes of development.

From this perspective and as a third step we propose a framework of indicators organized as a matrix combining the pillars of sustainable development with ways to track performance over time namely:

Inputs

Processes

Outputs

Economic Social Environmental Culture

2 Mandates and areas of intervention are framed with a primary focus on the six main UNESCO Conventions: 1954, 1970, 1972, 2001, 2003 and 2005. 3 Analytical Framework written by David Throsby for the CDIS, 2012; Resources, Process, Results


The first three dimensions of axis x, would reflect the three pillars of sustainable development and the fourth shows the importance of a vibrant culture sector as a desirable end of sustainable development. Axis y would look into Culture’s contribution to SDGs not only in the outcomes, but also in the available cultural resources, and the processes of implementation. In order to enhance the monitoring and evaluation of culture and development policies, measures and actions, the analytical framework should include consistent transversal reading. The CDIS analytical framework drafted by David Throsby could be a relevant starting point. Better interconnections between cultural resources, processes/environment and outputs would allow to better highlighting correlations between culture and development.

2.3. Considerations for Proposed Indicators

Reflection and analysis of the key lessons learned from the implementation of the CDIS in the 17 countries as well as some extensions at the subnational level informed the selection of proposed indicators. One major learning was that more precision was required in addressing the creative economy in the cultural subsectors that need to be differentiated and accounted for. Another was that the data generated (micro and macro) must be useful to the decision-making of institutional actors (in politics and administration) as well as for private cultural operators.

Hence, we propose that all indicators (economic and social) should be disaggregated when possible according the cultural domains of the UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics4 (see table in Annex 2). This approach will present more detail on cultural activities of creation and expression to better understand the specificities of cultural and creative industries to push further the analysis of quantitative indicators, especially economic ones, already used by the CDIS. Therefore, beside the CDIS indicators and their very macroeconomic approach, a large number of microeconomic indicators are proposed for consideration.

4 http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/unesco-framework-for-cultural-statistics-2009-en_0.pdf

http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/unesco-framework-for-cultural-statistics-2009-en_0.pdf


Cultural Domains – following UNESCO FCS (UIS 2009)

A – Cultural and Natural Heritage

B – Performance and Celebration As transversal domains:

C – Visual arts and Crafts - Intangible Cultural Heritage

D – Book and Press - Education and Training

E – Audio-visual and Interactive Media - Archiving and Preserving

F – Design and Creative Services - Equipment and Supporting Materials

G – Tourism (related domain)

H – Sports and recreation (related domain)

Some of the proposed indicators will be applicable at either the national and urban scale, using or not the same databases. Others will be exclusively dedicated to one scale of implementation depending on the relevance and availability of data. For instance, it will be more relevant and easy to capture creative clusters and major festival at the local rather than national scale. However, the data for economic indicators based on the National Accounts and population census will not always be available at the city level. According different methods it is now possible to assess the direct and indirect contributions of culture on other areas such as economy – employment and growth – education and training, health, environment and management of natural & cultural resources, social cohesion, etc. as well as the enabling conditions for all individuals to fully express themselves, create and take part in the cultural life. Hence, the indicators proposed may express the direct or indirect contributions of culture.

The proposed indicators expect to rely on existing sources and databases, in order to avoid supplementary costs related to primary data collection for its partners. The system of measurement must meet the different methodological limitations and statistical capacities of 193 UNESCO member states and their cities.

CDIS indicators were based on a static or ‘snapshot’ view of culture in a country at a specific time (year), but we have also included indicators for which data are frequently available allowing the monitoring of significant trends. Whereas statistical indicators for static views tend to be based on percentages of e.g. population or GDP, statistical trends can be based on ‘raw’ numbers (e.g., attendees at cultural facilities) as it is the percentage change, which make the indicators meaningful. Such indicators may be crucial in some countries for example those without a recent population census.

The proposed list of indicators covers the widest possible range of activities and considers a very wide range of sources.

As UNESCO considers culture as both a driver and an objective of sustainable growth as well as a facilitator of the development process, it is not possible to quantify all the complex interactions between culture and development. In order to address this issue, it is proposed to construct checklists, in addition to statistical indicators, to evaluate the policy conditions supporting cultural activities and sustainable development.

The outcome of the measuring culture for the SDGs would not aim to calculate an overall composite indicator. The objective is not to create international comparisons or rankings with a single component (that may be faulty for hiding many underlying issues). Rather, through observation of available resources, engagement (checklists) trends, progress, and potential correlations, promote enhancement of culture’s contribution to the SDGs.

2.4. Proposed Criteria for the Selection of Indicators The list below includes some of the data quality criteria applied in selecting the proposed indicators:

Relevance: It is essential to build a pertinent data reflecting as accurately as possible the determined objectives. The validity of chosen indicator (whether it measures what it is intended to measure) can be


additionally assessed by using statistical techniques. Data which are not required for analysis or which do not meet the objective should not be collected.

Alignment: To ensure a reliable measure of the objectives, no matter the nature of the indicator, it is necessary to rely on standards of classification, norms and recommendations, which have been adopted at the national and international levels. The measurement of different variables raises challenges over both data targeting and calculation methods. These challenges also vary according to whether they are implemented a t the national or local levels.

Feasibility: data should be collected on a regular basis and the costs of collection should not be prohibitive.

Interpretation and communication: The selected indicator must be easy to understand and lead to a

clear interpretation of the related objectives and potential progress to be made.

All indicators should be accompanied by methodological documentation. Such transparency in how an indicator is calculated and what it means helps with communication and advocacy. Indicators should also be selected depending on the needs and capacities of national and local partners.

2.5. A Working List of Proposed Indicators

The table below presents a first, tentative list of indicators, proposed for discussion. This working list is a long one

to be as encompassing as possible. It would need to be reduced to a shorter list of the most practical relevant

indicators. Each indicator is described in a succinct manner and includes a few comments on the calculation

method, potential sources and issues regarding availability and data collection. Proposed indicators are grouped

into (a) statistical indicators and (b) checklists as two main methodological approaches.

This is work in progress and further work is necessary on most of the indicators proposed in order to:

Refine definitions based on standard classifications Improve relevancy and data quality Take into account practical availability and costs of data collection

N° Name of the indicator Dimension5 Objective Method (definition, data sources and formula)

A. STATISTICAL INDICATORS

1 Multilingual education, in primary and secondary education

SOC SDG4.4 Calculation method: Percentage of annual hours dedicated to 1. Multilinguism by official, local and international languages 2. Arts education (by contents) within the total instructional hours Definitions: In line with ISCED 3 (levels of education)

2 Artistic and cultural education

CLT SDG4.4

3 Coverage of professional training in the field of culture

SOC SDG4.4 Calculation methods: Number of TVET and tertiary training courses per capita across the country/city

5 The dimensions refer to the proposed framework for indicators (see paragraph 2.2) with ECO as economic, SOC as social, ENV as environmental and CLT as culture.


4 Participation in professional training in the field of culture

CLT SDG4.4 Calculation methods: Percentage of students in TVET and tertiary training in cultural courses across the country/city Definitions: Based on UIS enrolment rates, currently available for TVET programmes in formal education, FCS domains

5 Cultural and artistic literature available in public libraries

SOC SDG4.4 Calculation method: Percentage of texts (books, music recordings) in public libraries devoted to cultural subjects. Definitions: Based on Dewey Classification or Universal Decimal Classification (available for 130 countries). Data sources: International library statistics covered by UIS/IFLA/ISO standard

6 Culture and creative industries contribution to GDP

ECO SDG8.3 Calculation method: Percentage of the value added of cultural activities set against the value added of all activities. Definitions: of cultural productive activities in line with ISIC Rev. 4 and FCS cultural domains Data sources: National Accounts, Census (privileged at national level) Business and tax register (both national/urban level)

7 Cultural employment ECO SDG8.3SDG5.5

Calculation method: Percentage of employment in cultural occupations within the total employed population.Definitions: of cultural occupations in line with ISCO -08 and FCS cultural domains. Alternative/additional method: looking at cultural employment through occupation in cultural establishments (ISIC rev 4)Data sources: same as above

8 Trade of cultural goods and services

ECO SDG8.3 Calculation method: Percentage of cultural goods and services exports set against all exports Data Sources: National customs and revenue, UNCTAD

9 Creation of cultural and creative industries

ECO SDG8.3 Calculation method: number of cultural and creative micro-businesses created in the last five years set against the total number of businesses created in the same period Data source: Business and/or tax registers (national/local)

10 Household expenditures on culture

ECO SDG8.3 Calculation method: Percentage of household expenditure on cultural activities, goods and services, set against total household expenditures. Definitions: of cultural activities, goods and services in line with COICOP and FCS cultural domains


11 Public expenditures for culture (encompassing all sectors)

CLT SDG8.3 Calculation method: Percentage of public expenditure dedicated to culture set against all public expenditure Per capita or not.

12 Government budget devoted to culture

CLT SDG8.3SDG11.4

Calculation method: Percentage of government budget dedicated to culture By a) FCS domain b) level of government c) type of expenditure Per capita or not

13 Revenue from cultural tourism

ECO SDG8.3 SDG8.9

Calculation method: Percentage of national/municipal revenue derived from cultural tourism Source: Periodic reporting for 1972 Convention

14 Distribution of cultural sites and infrastructure

CLT SDG11.4 Calculation method: Distribution of cultural infrastructure per capita and across the country. Definition: Selected infrastructures : museums, exhibition venues, libraries

15 Visits to cultural sites and infrastructure

SOC Calculation method: Number of visits to cultural sites in last twelve months per 1000 population Source: Administrative data based on survey or ticket sales

16 ‘Visits’ to web sites of cultural attractions

SOC Calculation method: Number of visits to web sites of cultural attractions. (By week, month, quarter and year?) Source: Google Analytic Definition: Cultural attractions e.g. museums, galleries, concerts, festivals, etc.

17 Participation in going-out cultural activities

SOC Calculation method: Percentage of population that have participated at least once in one going-out cultural activity in the last 12 months Sources: National Accounts, Household surveys and census about time use, International surveys (World Value Survey, Barometers, etc.)


18 Participation in identity-building activities

SOC Calculation method: Percentage of population that have participated at least once in one identity-building cultural activity in the last 12 months Sources: National Accounts, Household surveys and census about time use, International surveys (World Value Survey, Barometers, etc.)

19 Participation in cultural activities at home (reading, playing music)

SOC Calculation method: Average amount of time spent by the population in home-based cultural practices. Sources: National Accounts, Household surveys and census about time use, International surveys (World Value Survey, Barometers, etc.)

20 Participation in online cultural activities

SOC Calculation method: Percentage of population that have participated at least once in cultural activities at home in the last 12 months Sources: National Accounts, Household surveys and census about time use, International surveys (World Value Survey, Barometers, etc.)

21 Open spaces used for cultural activities

ENV SDG11.7 Calculation method: Percentage of urban area which is open space access for all and which is used for cultural activities

22 Public buildings used for cultural purposes

ENV SDG11.7 Method: Number of public buildings used for cultural purposes as a percentage of all public buildings

23 Coverage of festivals registered

SOC SDG8.3 SDG11.4

Method: Number of officially recognized municipal festivals together with attendance (attendance per festival)

24 Inclusive strategies of heritage properties

SOC SDG8.9 Method: Percentage of heritage properties with a management mechanism that have formalized a framework for community participation

25 Inclusive management of heritage properties

SOC SDG16.7 Method: Percentage of women and members of local communities in the management mechanism of heritage sites

26 Capacity-building programmes in Heritage management

CLT SDG8.9 Method Percentage of properties having site-specific capacity building plans or programmes that develop local expertise and that contribute to the transfer of skills for the conservation and management of the heritage property

27 Protected sites at risk from climate change

ENV SDG13.1 Method: Percentage of protected heritage sites at risk from climate change set against total number of protected heritage


28 Protection of coastal and marine areas

ENV SDG14.5 Method: Percentage of conserved coastal and marine areas

29 Protection of shorelines ENV SDG14.5 Method: Percentage of shoreline (area between high and low water marks) which is protected against physical development, and ‘over fishing’

30 Accessibility of shorelines ENV SDG14.7 Method: Percentage of shoreline (area between high and low water marks) which is open access to the public

31 Recognition of endangered species

ENV SDG2.5 SDG13.1

Method: Number of species (fauna)/genus (flora) per 1000 listed as endangered

32 Gender parity index in political, education and labor domains

SOC SDG5.5 Calculation method: Index of the gaps between women and men in political, education and labour domains and in gender-equity legislative frameworks Sources: national data (especially the labour force survey). If unavailable consider Women in Parliament Database (Inter-parliamentary Union); UIS;

33 Perceived freedom of expression and index of the media freedom

SOC SDG16.10 Calculation method: Index of print, broadcast, and internet-based media freedom Additional: Percentage of individuals who feel that freedom of expression is fully guaranteed Sources: 1/Freedom House's Freedom of the Press Index; 2/ NSA

34 Tolerance of other cultures SOC SDG16.B Calculation method: Degree of tolerance within a society toward people with different cultural backgrounds Sources: World Values Survey, Official national surveys, regional surveys (Barometers, etc.)

35 Interpersonal trust SOC SDG16 Calculation method: Degree of interpersonal trust Sources: National and/or regional surveys (i.e. Barometers); World Values Survey

36 Freedom of self-determination

SOC SDG16 Calculation method: Median score of perceived freedom of self-determination Sources: National official surveys, World Values Survey, Regional survey (Barometers)

N° Name of the indicator Dimension* Objective Method (definition, data sources and formula)

B. CHECKLISTS


37 Recognition of culture's role in the educational system

SOC SDG4.7 Method: Culture’s role in sustainable development explicitly mentioned in: a) national education policies, b) curricula, c) teacher education, d) student assessment

38 Standard-Setting, policy and institutional framework for culture and creative industries

CLT SDG8.3 Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to promote the development of cultural and creative industries

39 Standard-setting framework to facilitate cultural flows and exchanges

CLT SDG17.4 SDG10.A

Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to facilitate cultural flows and exchanges

40 Cultural Cooperation between public, private and civil society organizations

CLT SDG17.17 Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to facilitate cultural cooperation between public, private and civil society; and existence of such cooperations By FCS domains Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

41 Standard-setting framework for cultural and creative clusters

CLT SDG11.4 Method: By FCS domains Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

42 Cultural and Creative clusters description

CLT SDG11 Method: Description of any cultural clusters in your city/ region/ country (arts, crafts, design, other) Sources: Business registers, Industry surveys and censuses, public institutions, civil society organizations,

43 Legislative and regulatory framework to safeguard and promote cultural diversity

CLT SDG17.4 Method: Implementation of international and national binding instruments for human and cultural rights

44 Legislative and regulatory framework for cultural and natural heritage

CLT SDG11 Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.


45 Legislative and regulatory framework for intangible cultural heritage


46 Legislative and regulatory framework for subaquatic cultural heritage


47 Legislative and regulatory framework for the tourism sustainability

CLT SDG8.9 Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to promote sustainable tourism Definitions: UNWTO Framework Data Sources: UNWTO; UNESCO Periodic reporting for the 1972 Convention

48 Legislative and regulatory framework to protect cultural heritage in case of armed conflict


49 Legislative and regulatory framework to fight against illegal transfer of cultural property

CLT SDG16.A Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to fight against illegal transfer of cultural property Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

50 Standard-Setting Framework for gender equality, safety and empowerment

CLT SDG5.C Method: Existence of legislations/policies/measures and institutional framework to promote gender equality, safety and empowerment Data Sources: OECD's Gender, Institutions, and Development Database

51 Recognition of the specific status of artists

CLT SDG16.7 Method: Level of Protection and promotion of the status of the artist. Sources: National legislation and policy framework on life condition of artists; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

52 Civil Society participation in cultural governance

SOC SDG16.7 Method: Level of participation of specific groups and cultural professionals in the formulation and implementation of cultural policies, measures and programmes that concern them

53 Bilateral and multilateral cooperation on cultural issues

SOC SDG17.9 Method: Involvement in international cooperations addressing cultural issues. By FCS cultural domains Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.


54 Level of integration of intangible cultural heritage in policies and measures to sustain the production system and a resilient agriculture

ENV SDG2.4 Data Sources: National legislation and policy framework on agriculture, ecosystem and local practices / Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

55 Level of recognition of traditional medicines

ENV SDG3 Data Sources: National legislation and policy framework on health, medicine and intangible cultural heritage practices / Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

56 Sustainable management of cultural and natural heritage to prevent climate-related hazards and natural disasters

ENV SDG13.1 Method: Level of integration of intangible cultural heritage in the management of natural heritage and biosphere reserves. Data Sources: National legislation and policy framework on natural heritage / Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

57 Sustainable management of coastal heritage and underwater cultural heritage

ENV SDG14.7 Method: Level of integration of intangible cultural heritage in the management of coastal heritage and biosphere reserves and underwater cultural heritage. Sources: National legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.


58 Sustainable management of water-related ecosystem of natural heritage

ENV SDG6.6 Method: Level of integration of intangible cultural heritage in the management of water-related ecosystem of natural heritage. Definitions: Water-related ecosystems include mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes Data Sources: National legislation and policy framework on natural heritage / Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

59 Sustainable management of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services

ENV SDG15.1 Method: Level of integration of intangible cultural heritage in the management of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems include in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and dry lands. Data Sources: National legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

60 Sustainable management of heritage sites

CLT Sources: national legislation and policy framework; Public institutions, civil society organizations, higher education training courses involved in these topics.

2.6. Technical Note on the Typology of Proposed Indicators: Statistics and Checklists

The reflection provided in this paper is in line with the growing trend to construct issue-specific sets of sustainable development indicators, both with a view to track policy implementation and to inform the general public and attract media attention. They tend to be hybrid indicator sets combining different types of qualitative and quantitative information. In the area of social sciences and policies, composite indicators based on checklists containing information in textual or descriptive form are increasingly used and have proven their value. Composite indicators are particularly appropriate to measure the complexity and multidimensionality of culture and cultural related phenomena.

Statistical indicators are important in providing scalable measures of culture-related activities. Their use of international standard classification and definitions makes them clear and precise. Checklists have the advantage that they are able to account for the presence or absence of particular culture-related activities and policies that cannot be easily quantified. It is not possible within this short paper to set out every element checklists can cover, but examples are provided in Annex 3


By checklists we mean a list of questions with Yes or No answers usually relating to signature of international conventions and existence of national policies or committees (e.g. ethnic minorities, regional consultation, expert advisory groups, etc.). There are two major limitations of such dimensions: Yes/No answers are too ‘black or white’ in other words a ‘Yes’ looks like a fully positive result while a ‘No’

looks like a fully negative result when reality is more ‘grey’ between the two extremes. For example, even if there is not national cultural policy adopted, a working draft may already be operational or committee structures established.

Committees/policies may be in place but ‘in name only’ – they may not be effective. This is the point most famously addressed for development by Sen’s capabilities approach in which he emphasizes that for example although minorities/girls have the right to go to school other barriers may mean that they cannot exercise that right, or having graduated they cannot make use of the education because of other social barriers (e.g. ‘glass ceilings’).

In operational terms, those implementing CDIS as international experts have sought to address these limitations by: Asking for formal documents that demonstrate that a ‘Yes’ answer in a checklist is supported by evidence of

action or implementation. Providing commentary in the text to nuance a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer. For example, commenting that although

no national cultural policy has been adopted that one is out to consultation.

It is clear that an indicator suite that builds on the CDIS must include an assessment of policy, and it seems clear that this must begin with a checklist: do such policies exist? Have the conventions been signed? Laws passed? The issue is more about what kind of evidence for action is required and how should this be presented. References to web sites and published documents are the easiest to include in the methodology/publication, but is there need for further evidence and what would this look like?

2.7. Additional Considerations on Data Sources

2.7.1. National Data Sources

The robustness and relevance of indicators often depend on the entity in charge of collecting and processing the data used for its construction. For global and national analysis, the data obtained from surveys carried out by the National Statistical Office (NSO) are recommended as they offer better guarantee of comparability of the results. The following part gives an overview of potentially available sources and their respective potential and limitations.

National Statistical Offices (NSO)

They provide a wide diversity of data sources through surveys, censuses, public registers (business, taxes and trade registers). Public registers may also be useful at the urban level.

They use national coding systems which align with International classifications of activities (including industries), occupations and products, thus simplifying the processing of data and allowing global comparisons.

The quality of data depends on the number of digits6 effectively used for their classification. Low quality data, i.e. classified at a low digit level (two or less), are very aggregated and make it impossible to distinguish culture-related data from others. Experience at national level shows that four digits are necessary in order to adequately differentiate cultural activities. This will not be available for all countries, but is becoming more and more common especially as concerns the main economic classifications of ISCO and ISIC.

6 The Summary report of the 2013 UIS cultural Employment Metadata Survey offer a very good insight on data availability at international level : http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/summary-report-of-the-2013-culture-employment-metadata-survey-en.pdf

http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/summary-report-of-the-2013-culture-employment-metadata-survey-en.pdf

http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/summary-report-of-the-2013-culture-employment-metadata-survey-en.pdf


Disaggregation of data by socio-demographic variables like gender, age, level of education, income quintile, etc. allows more accurate analyses revealing potential inequalities between specific groups. Such disaggregation also represents a major component of monitoring all the SDGs.

Most economic data only include formal activities. In developing countries where informal economy can be more important than formal economy, indicators only give on overview for the tip of the iceberg. A growing number of countries are introducing standardized surveys of the informal economy but these do not as yet highlight cultural and creative industries.

Other relevant national data sources

Allocations or budgets of public bodies at different levels of governance (national, regional, municipal) Effective expenditures7 of public bodies at different levels of governance (national, regional, municipal) Relevant Ministries and Public bodies (Education, Economy and Finance, Communication, Environment,

Agriculture etc.) Tourism Offices Provincial Ministries of Culture, Observatories and public agencies, e.g. to get the number of declared artists Trade Unions Professional and volunteers association, NGOs University and academics Civil Society

2.7.2. International Data Sources

Wherever possible national data sources are to be preferred to ensure as much ownership as possible by the country concerned and because national data are used for setting and monitoring national policy. If no national data are available then it is appropriate to examine international data sources, though even here it is important to note that most international data are derived from national data (eg UNESCO education data are collected from national sources). International agencies and NGOs offer alternative data on some topics where there are less data available at national level. They may also be comparable at the international level.

Three international data sources were systematically used in the CDIS methodology: OECD Gender Index (data on legislation to prevent rape and physical violence against women) for the

indicator ‘Gender Equality output’ Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press Index for the indicator ‘Freedom of Expression’ World Values Survey for the indicators ‘Tolerance of Other Cultures’, ‘Interpersonal Trust’ and ‘Freedom

of Self-determination’

However, many other sources could also be of interest depending on national context: UN agencies databases provide information about International treaty and Conventions ratified, as well

as all the core SDG statistical indicators Data from regional agencies may also be further explored. Eurostat and OECD are the prime examples

but bodies in other regions may also have relevant data eg in Latin America, Convenio Andres Bello, RICYT, Mercosur and the Organization of American States.

UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and the USAid supported Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) provide data about the circumstances of children and families including gender equality (medical, financial, familial etc)

International surveys such as World Value Survey and/or Barometer Programmes include indicators for participation in cultural activities and involvement in cultural associations, religion, etc.

Online data (Google Trends and Analytics, Trip Advisor etc.) are becoming more common in a variety of national and international statistical indicators. It will be important to include indicators based on ‘visits’ to cultural web sites, cultural activities (eg music downloads) and social media participation.

7 Budgets are often more easily available, but effective expenditures better account for public bodies’ involvement in safeguarding and promoting culture.


2.7.3. UNESCO Periodic Reports

Countries that have ratified one of the major UNESCO Culture Conventions are required to report on national progress in the implementation of the Convention every 4-6 years. Such periodic reports are required for the 1972, 2003, and 2005 Conventions and help with the monitoring of the implementation of the Conventions. At the moment, the periodic reports report numerical data only for a small part. However, some of the questions and data required in the periodic reports could be aligned more with the proposed framework and system of measurement and thus become another valuable source of national data monitoring.

Annexes

Annex 1 – UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (UIS-FCS 2009)

UIS – FCS Cultural Domains (2009)

Source Framework for cultural statistic, UIS 2009, p.25


Table of correspondence between the International Industrial Standard Classification and the Framework

for Cultural Statistics (FCS-UIS, 2009)

Illustration of the table used to identify cultural codes prior the official request to National Statistics Office in the

process of construction of all economic indicators

Cultural productive activities distributed by cultural domains (FCS-UIS 2009)

Domains Productive Activities

ISIC rev. 4 Description

A. Cultural and Natural

Heritage

9000* Creative, arts and entertainment activities

9102 Museums activities and operation of historical sites and buildings

9103 Botanical and zoological gardens and nature reserves activities

4774 Retail sale of second-hand goods5

B. Performance and

Celebration


3220 Manufacture of musical instruments

5920* Sound recording and music publishing activities

4762* Retail sale of music and video recording in specialized stores

C. Visual Arts and

Crafts

9000* Creative, arts and entertainment activities9

7420 Photographic activities

5819 Other publishing activities

3211 Manufacture of jewellery and related articles

7220 Research and experimental development on social sciences and humanities

D. Books and Press

9101 Library and archives activities

5811 Book publishing

5813 Publishing of newspaper, journals and periodicals

5819 Other publishing activities

4761 Retail sale of books, newspaper and stationary in specialized stores

6391 News agencies activities

6399 Other information service activities n.e.c.

4649* Wholesale of other household goods


E. Audio-visual and

Interactive Media

5820 Software publishing

5911 Motion picture, video and television programme production activities

5912 Motion picture, video and television programme post-production activities

5913 Motion picture, video and television programme distribution activities

5920* Sound recording and music publishing activities

5914 Motion picture projection activities

6010 Radio broadcasting

6020 Television programming and broadcasting activities

6312 Web portals

7722 Renting of video tapes and disks


6391 News agencies activities

4762* Retail sale of music and video recording in specialized stores

4791 Retail sail via mail order houses or via Internet

F. Design and Creative

Services

7410 Specialized design activities

7110* Architectural and engineering activities and related technical consultancy

7310 Advertising

TRANSVERSAL DOMAINS

Cultural Education

8522* Technical and vocational secondary education

8530* Higher education

8542 Cultural education

RELATED DOMAINS

Domain Productive Activities

ISIC 4 Description

G. Tourism

4911* Passenger rail transport, interurban

4922* Other passenger land transport

5011 Sea and coastal passenger water transport

5110 Passenger air transport

5510 Short-term accomodation activities

5520* Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks

7911 Travel agency activities

7912 Tour operator activities

7990 Other reservation service and related activities

9000* : ISIC codes in italic marked with a star are just partly taken into account. Some of the activities registered

under these codes are not cultural at all. Cf The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics to see the detail

of cultural and culture-related activities selected by UIS.

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS OF CULTURAL DOMAINS

Domain Productive Activities1

ISIC 4 Description

B. Perfomance and

Celebration

1820 Reproducton of recorded media

3290* Other manufacturing n.e.c.

2640* Manufacture of consumer electronics

C. Visual Arts and

Crafts

2022* Manufacture of paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing ink and mastics

2670* Manufacture of optical instruments and photographic equipment

2029* Manufacture of other chemical products n.e.c.

D. Books and Press

5813 Publishing of newspapers, journals and periodicals

1811 Printing

2829* Manufacture of other special-purpose machinery

E. Audio-visual and

Interactive Media

2610* Manufacture of electronic components and boards

2620 Manufacture of computers and peripheral equipment

2630* Manufacture of communication equipment


2640* Manufacture of consumer electronics

2670* Manufacture of optical instruments and equipment

2680* Manufacture of magnetic and optical media

3290* Other manufacturing n.e.c.

5820 Software publishing

6201 Computer programming activities

6202 Computer consultancy and computer facilities management activities

6020 Television programming and braodcasting activities

6110 Wired telecommunication activities

6120 Wireless telecoomunications activities

6311* Data processing, hosting and related activities2

6312 Web portals

7730* Renting and leasing of other machinery, equipment and tangible goods

4742 retail sale of audio and video equipment in specialized sotes

4651 Wholesale of computers, computer peripheral equipment and software

4652* Wholesale of electronic and telecommunications equipment and parts3

9511 Repair of computers and peripheral equipment

3320* Installation of industrial machniery and equipment

6209 Other information technology and computer service activities

F. Design and

Creative Services 7310 Advertising

Source : UIS (2009), « The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS) »

Annex 2 – Methodology illustrations Examples of potential checklists

Data table for the Checklist Indicator 44 ‘Legislative and regulatory framework for cultural and natural

heritage’ (proposal)

Description Index of development of a multidimensional framework for heritage sustainability

Purpose This indicator offers a global picture of the strengths and shortcomings of public efforts

deployed for the protection and promotion of natural and cultural heritage sustainability through

the analysis of three key components: 1) the establishment and further development of national

and international registers and inventories; 2) the efforts made to protect, conserve, safeguard

and manage natural and cultural heritage while involving all stakeholders and fostering its

sustainability; and 3) the strategies established to raise awareness and mobilize support a in

favor of safe-guarding and revitalizing heritage.

Method To construct the indicator, the Data Table must be completed by answering yes (inserting “Y”)

or no (inserting “N”) in the relevant cell, in light of the situation and context of the country. The

benchmark indicator is thus automatically constructed. All additional information inserted in the

'Data' column is purely descriptive and to be used in the analysis of results at the national level.


When responding yes to a particular item, it is recommended to detail the policies, measures,

programmes or actions considered in the Sources column of the Data Table

Note This data table is inspired from the CDIS Heritage Sustainability Indicator. While the initial

method proposed a single table to assess all forms of heritage we propose to construct a table

with specific items according to each UNESCO Convention to better illustrate the different

approaches. Each Heritage Data table should be revised and approved by relevant UNESCO

Section and stakeholders. The responses from the checklist would not be built up into an

overall ‘numeric’ score but would be assessed using a 5 point scale eg A-E. This would avoid

the issue of applying a numeric value to a non-parametric scale.

This table included many items that could/should be extracted to construct other relevant data

tables (e.g. Museums, Illegal Trafficking, Heritage endangered, Disaster Risk Management etc.)

to reduce the number of item by checklist and most of all avoid double counting with other

checklist.

Answer

(Y/N)

1. REGISTRATIONS AND INSCRIPTIONS

International Level

UNESCO 1972 Convention - Creation and submission of tentative lists or inventories of cultural and natural heritage to the

UNESCO World Heritage Center in the last 5 years

UNESCO 1972 Convention - Inscription of cultural, natural or mixed heritage sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List

(Number of inscriptions by type of heritage)

Inscription of a site on the UNESCO World Heritage List in danger (Number of inscriptions)

National Level

Existence of a national natural and cultural heritage registry or list (Number of items inventoried)

The national natural and cultural heritage registry or list has been updated at least once in the last 5 years (Date of the last

update)

At least one of the natural and heritage heritage inventories existing at the national or sub-national level has been updated

in the last 5 years (Date of the last update)

Existence of a list or inventory of protected natural and cultural property (Number of items inventoried)

The list or inventory of protected cultural property has been updated in the last 5 years (Date of the last update)

2. PROTECTION, SAFEGUARDING AND MANAGEMENT

Conservation, Valorization and Management

Dedicated annual budget at the national level for the identification, protection, safeguarding, conservation and management

of natural & cultural heritage (Amount)

National operational center/entity in charge of the protection, safeguarding and promotion of heritage at national level

established and operational


National legislation/policies/measures regulating archaeological excavation adopted: for example supervision of

archaeological excavations, in situ preservation, reservation of areas for future archaeological research (Date of adoption)

Measures for preventing the illicit trafficking of protected cultural property adopted: for example measures to control the

export of cultural property - such as certificates authorizing the export cultural property; measures to control the acquisition

of cultural property -such as mechanisms to prevent museums, cultural dealers and similar institutions from acquiring

cultural property exported illegally, etc. (Date(s) of adoption)

Existence of specialized units in the police and customs forces for the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects and

movable heritage

Existence of Museums holding permanent collections of heritage (Number of museums)

Management plan(s) elaborated or updated in the last 3 years for registered heritage sites at the sub-national, national or

international level (Date(s) of publication)

Existence of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) plan(s) for major heritage sites in cases of hazard and vulnerability (Date(s)

of publication)

Documentation entities for natural and cultural heritage established and operational (Number of centers)

At least one scientific study identifying actions to address the dangers threatening natural andcultural heritage conducted in

the last 2 years

Explicit reference to the role of cultural heritage for development integrated into the current national development plans

(Date of the plan)

Knowledge and Capacity-Building

Existence of operational national centre(s) for capacity-building in heritage related areas and addressed to heritage

professionals (Number of centres)

Existence of capacity-building and training programme(s) implemented in the last 3 years, to increase heritage site

management staff's expertise in protection and conservation of natural and tangible cultural heritage (Number of

programmes)

Existence of specific capacity-building and training programme(s), implemented in the last 3 years, for the armed forces on

the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. (Number of programmes)

Existence of capacity-building and training programme(s), implemented in the last 3 years, to increase expertise in the fight

against the illicit trafficking of cultural property involving police forces, customs, museum staff, and governmental

representatives (Number of programmes)


Community Involvement

Evidence of community involvement during the decision-making process of identifying natural and tangible cultural heritage

elements and registering them.

Measures and practices to strengthen the role of communities in the protection of cultural heritage and the fight against the

illicit trafficking of cultural objects implemented in the last 2 years.

Existence of heritage site management committees with local community representation.

Measures and practices to involve local communities and/or indigenous peoples in heritage protection, conservation,

safeguarding and transmission implemented in the last 2 years.

Measures taken to respect customary practices governing access to specific aspects of natural and cultural heritage

implemented in the last 2 years.

3. TRANSMISSION AND MOBILIZATION OF SUPPORT

Raising Awareness and Education

World Heritage sites and major national cultural heritage sites inscribed in national registries are clearly identified for visitors

to recognize their status as heritage sites.

Existence of visitor interpretation centres or services for the transmission and presentation of cultural and/or natural heritage

to the general public at the 3 most visited sites.

Existence of community centres and associations created and managed by communities themselves intended to support the

protection and promotion of cultural heritage and inform the general public about its importance for those communities.

Existence of differential pricing (lower) for national visitors at heritage sites.

National awareness-raising programmes or actions on cultural and natural heritage implemented in the last 2 years,

informing and educating the general public on the significance, value and fragile wealth of heritage ( i.e long term public

education programmes, national heritage day or week, etc).

Capacity-building and training activities intended to increase heritage expertise amongst teachers and educators

implemented in the last 2 years (Number of programmes).

School programmes to raise awareness and promote natural and cultural heritage among primary students implemented in

the last 2 years (Number of programmes).

Media campaign intended to raise awareness of heritage among the general public launched in the last 2 years.


Stimulating Support

Specific measures to involve civil society and/or private sector in heritage protection, conservation, and transmission

implemented in the last 2 years (Date of adoption).

Existences of formal agreements with tour operators for the protection, conservation and transmission of heritage sites

(number of agreements).

Existence of private foundations or associations working for heritage advocacy and funding protection initiatives.

Result

Data table (proposal) for the indicator 51 ‘Recognition of the specific status of artists’

Status of the Artist Source and Evidences Comment

Universal Recommendations (soft law) whose

content and principles have been explicitly

integrated into national laws and / or regulations

UNESCO 1980 Recommendation concerning the

Status of the Artist

National legislative and regulatory framework

Existence of laws/decrees to create propitious

environments for the protection and promotion of the

status of the artist

Existence of policies/measures to promote the social

status of artists

Existence of administrative unit in charge of the

registration of professional artist (number of

professional artists registered by cultural domain)

Documents

UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring · assess the contribution of Culture to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The ... UNESCO Expert Workshop on Measuring