Cultural Strategy Review (ESC)

Education, Sport and Culture Department

Report

Subject:  States Cultural Strategy Review

Exempt  Date:  17 June, 2010 Clause:

Author: Rod McLoughlin

1. Introduction

1. The first States Cultural Strategy was debated and adopted in September 2005, following extensive public consultation and close working with groups across the cultural spectrum. It followed an earlier report which addressing some related issues in the cultural sector.[1]
2. Broadly  speaking,  the  strategy  sought  to  achieve  a  number  of  different outcomes: agreeing a vision and mission for the States to reflect the importance of cultural activity; setting a range of cultural objectives for the States and its partner organisations; and establishing a new framework for working across the cultural sector.
3. This report provides a review of progress. It also notes some issues and matters of wider principle which the department is currently addressing.

2. Scope of the Cultural Strategy

1. Culture' is a notoriously difficult word to define and is used in two distinct, though complementary senses: it is both a broad term to define the characteristics of a group of people and the way they interact but it is also used more narrowly to apply to the arts and humanities. A further complication lies in the debate about whether culture should be judged important in itself (intrinsic value), or because it contributes to other agendas (instrumental value). The cultural strategy steers a mid-course, adopting a broad definition and stressing the importance of culture per se but also relating it to questions of Island identity, and social and economic value. However, essentially the strategy is about the role which government plays in encouraging cultural activity, either through supporting independent bodies funded by the States or those services which are provided directly (e.g. the Public Library, the Jersey Youth Service).

2. It makes it clear that "it is not the role of government to prescribe or attempt to control culture'" but rather to create the conditions in which it can best flourish. This has been achieved by the so-called arms length' relationship between government and the cultural sector where, for the most part, government acts largely as facilitator rather than providing cultural services directly. The principle underlies the relationship between independent boards of the cultural bodies, which account for public funds by means of agreements and periodic reporting with publication of annual accounts, and the DfESC.
3. These arrangements are currently being reviewed in relation to the Jersey Heritage Trust in the context of the structural deficit which exists in its finances. DfESC has accepted the need to revise the existing documents in the light of recent independent reports.
4. It is important to remember that the provision of cultural services in Jersey has its origin in the voluntary sector. The Société Jersiaise was established in 1873 and ran a museum adjacent to the present one until the late 1980s when the new museum was developed by the Jersey Heritage Trust, a non-profit organisation established by the States with representation from the Société. The Trust subsequently accepted responsibility for a number of other sites by agreement with different partners, including the States. The National Trust for Jersey is an important custodian of land for the Island though it is not funded by government; it has practical working relationships with the Jersey Heritage Trust and the Société, notably over the operation of Hamptonne. Much of the work of the sector is sustained by the contribution of volunteers or of the non-profit organisations.
5. A similar pattern emerges on the arts side. The Jersey Arts Council was established immediately after the Occupation to draw together the interests of a network of voluntary organisations. It was re-formed and registered in the Royal Court in 1970 under the 1862 Loi sur les teneures en fidéicommis et l'incorporation d'associations with objects including the establishment of an arts centre. It brought together a wide range of artistic interests from the many clubs and societies which make up the fabric of Island life. The Council raised the bulk of the funds required to establish the Jersey Arts Centre (opened 1983) privately; it later revised its constitution to become the Jersey Arts Centre Association with the creation in 1994 of the Jersey Arts Trust. The Trust championed the acquisition and refurbishment of the Jersey Opera House (re-opened 2000) which is run by a company owned by the Trust.
6. These developments pre-date the adoption of any formal statement of support for cultural activities by the States though, of course, the involvement of the States through the Education and, subsequently, Finance and Economics Committees was crucial to these developments. But culture was not on the wider governmental agenda. The adoption of the Cultural Strategy marked a transition from support by means of individual grants to a strategic effort to raise the profile of cultural activity and to clarify the role of government in cultural provision. It has, therefore, a powerful value in stating the importance of culture for the States of Jersey.
7. It is also very important to acknowledge that important aspects of cultural activity take place without formal support from the States, either because they rely entirely on the voluntary sector or because they are commercially self-sustaining. However, many still rely on the indirect support of the States through provision of funded venues or advice and other support provided by the States or its cultural partners.

3. The Strategy

1. The strategy comprises a vision for culture, a mission for the States and seven aims which are developed in a series of objectives. The aims are as follows:

Aim 1: To foster, develop and strengthen the Island's identity

Aim 2: To make cultural activities integral to the economic and social development of Jersey

Aim 3: To help develop and boost economic activity

Aim 4: To enrich the quality of life for all residents and enhance our visitors' experience

Aim 5: To help develop culture at the grass roots

Aim 6: To help foster lifelong learning

Aim 7: To widen access to, and participation in, cultural activities

2. The strategy also proposes a reorganisation of the relationship of the States, through the Education, Sport and Culture Department, and the funded cultural organisations; and the creation of a broader Council for Culture attempting to bring together the diverse interests that make up the sector.
3. In addition, it contains 53 specific objectives, the result of broad consultation with the cultural sector in the preparation of the document. They are a mixture of specific projects and wider aspirations, some relating to the States itself, others to the cultural sector and some to both.

4 The cost of implementing the cultural strategy

1. It is not possible to answer the question what is the cost of implementing the cultural strategy?' because not all its aims are measurable, nor is it specific about the amount of funding which should be provided to support existing activity. However, the strategy did make it clear that the funding available for the cultural sector – essentially what had been provided previously by the Finance and Economics Committee transferred to the Education, Sport and Culture Committee – would not be sufficient to sustain the ambitions of the strategy or indeed the sustainability of the individual organisations. It will be clear from what follows that while aspects of the strategy can be delivered by means of co-operation between a range of bodies both within and outside the States, other specific initiatives require additional funding.

2. However, in addition to the costs of any new activity, the strategy identifies another area of cost which is in many respects more significant: the additional support needed to sustain the arts and heritage organisations in their current work. The cultural strategy is founded on the contribution of the organisations which the States funds to support cultural activity. As the strategy puts it:

"Research suggests that currently the funding levels of most of Jersey's major cultural institutions have been set at or not much above the minimum amount necessary for their survival. This has hampered their development. It has led to blander and less distinctive programming. It will make it difficult for them to work in a meaningful way towards many of the aims and objectives set out in this section because improvements in quality and increases in access and education work cannot happen without first paying the core organisational costs – staff costs, building overheads

"The inescapable conclusion is that the States must either increase the level of funding significantly to the major cultural institutions if it wishes to ensure their sustainability or it must accept cuts in services – and the services which are most likely to be cut are precisely those which most would like to see preserved and enhanced."

3. The comment was prophetic: it anticipated the financial crisis at the Jersey Opera House in 2005, and the issue has again achieved prominence because of the serious financial problems faced by the Jersey Heritage Trust. The latter have been addressed in detail elsewhere: it will suffice to note that to avoid further, and permanent, cuts in service the Trust requires an addition to its revenue grant of £200,000 per annum and funding to support the on-going refreshment of the sites for which it has responsibility of £465,000 per annum.
4. As far as the other organisations are concerned, the level of support required from government is related to the level of activity undertaken and the ambitions of the organisations. Over the period since its re-organisation in 2005, the Jersey Opera House has operated within the financial parameters implied by the annual grant (currently £456,202) though it should be noted that as a consequence its artistic aspirations have been modified significantly compared with the original business plans on which the refurbishment programme was predicated.
5. Support for the Jersey Arts Trust was increased in 2010 to reflect the organisation's realignment of objectives, following the recommendations of the strategy. Although financial support for the voluntary sector as currently provided remains largely unchanged, funding for the Trust's work as a whole is currently matched to its objectives, and there has been a burgeoning of activity in the past two years, providing enhanced opportunities for local writers and artists, in particular. However, there is a gap in provision in terms of funding for larger activities which elsewhere would qualify for funding from national sources – e.g. the UK Film Fund, the Arts Council etc. Hitherto larger projects – for example, occasional film projects, the Branchage Film Festival, larger festivals – have been funded from Tourism-based grants in Jersey, whether from departmental budget or from the TDF. However, as budgets are subject to increasing pressure, it becomes more important to ensure that there is an appropriate source of support for cultural projects with applications for

help considered against appropriate cultural goals. The Jersey Arts Trust already has the mechanism to process such applications with an independent board and professional officer assistance.

6. The Jersey Arts Centre has operated on the basis of slight deficits in the past two years and has also made reductions to its programme, including suspension of a theatre-in-education initiative which is directly related to aim 7 of the cultural strategy. It has also reduced some of its other outreach work as a result of loss of funding from EDD.
7. Since the purpose of the cultural strategy is to take a broad look at cultural provision from the perspective of the States as a whole, it is important to draw attention to the financial implications of a number of other matters.
8. A specific objective of the strategy (2.6) is to investigate whether the States should take over the existing loan for the development of the Jersey Opera House'. The circumstances of the loan are unusual because while the freehold of the Opera House is owned by the States, the Assembly agreed to underwrite a loan for the refurbishment rather than to fund it conventionally from a capital vote. A consequence is that the interest repayments of £572,000 (until 2020) exceed the revenue grant provided to the Jersey Opera House and indeed constitute approximately a third of the funding to the arts sector as a whole. Following the recommendation of the strategy, the matter was raised by the Minister for ESC but no benefit was identified by the Treasury in paying off the loan.
9. The current funding proposals to ensure the sustainability of the Jersey Heritage Trust do not include an immediate resolution of the future of Hamptonne, an example of a partnership project between Jersey Heritage, the National Trust for Jersey and La Société Jersiaise which has benefited from considerable private sector funding. The proposals put to the States to secure the sustainability of the Jersey Heritage Trust include maintaining Hamptonne and making it available for occasional use but its long-term future needs to be resolved by agreement with the stakeholders. A bid was prepared for the fiscal stimulus fund of £295,000 to provide self-catering accommodation which would generate income towards its operating costs. More fundamentally, there is currently no provision for capital investment into completing Hamptonne as a country life museum, as was originally intended; however, indications have been given that it might benefit from the refreshment/refurbishment fund which it is proposed is established for the properties managed by the Jersey Heritage Trust.
10. There are no leases on two important buildings in the cultural estate: the Jersey Opera House and the Jersey Archive. This is symptomatic of the need for agreement on long-term maintenance costs which are currently dealt with on an informal basis by Property Holdings.
11. There is also no provision for capital investment in other aspects of the cultural sector though the strategy refers to a rationalization of the cultural estate. In this connection, it should be noted, for example, that parts of the Jersey Opera House

remain  to  be  refurbished[2]  and  completion  of  St  James  or,  alternatively,  making appropriate arrangements to re-site activities currently taking place there, remain outstanding. The long-term future of the Jersey Arts Centre, a building which has had little investment since its opening (in stages between 1983 and 1986) is also unresolved. The DfESC is currently undertaking an appraisal, at the request of Property Holdings, of future building needs in the cultural sector (see 9, below).

12. Finally, the Jersey Archive provides an important cultural service, in addition to helping the States fulfil the obligations of the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002. In 2004, public access to the Jersey Archive was reduced as a cost-saving measure and there are currently inadequate resources to undertake cataloguing of new material in a timely fashion. The implications are addressed in the recent audit report on the archive commissioned by the Trust from Dr Norman James of the National Archive (see 13 below).

5.  Funding for the cultural strategy

1. Although the cultural strategy clearly states that it will be necessary for additional funding to be provided from the States, little additional funding has been identified on a permanent basis. (Emergency funding from carry forwards has been provided to Jersey Heritage and additional funding has been provided on a one-off basis to help with maintenance issues arising at the Jersey Arts Centre.)
2. It has, therefore, been necessary to address the strategy largely on the basis of existing resources.
3. The structural changes set out in section 6 of the strategy have been achieved. There is now a direct relationship between the DfESC and the arts organisations (previously the Arts Trust had funded the Jersey Opera House and Jersey Arts Centre). It should be noted in the case of the Jersey Opera House that this direct relationship with the strengthened accountability it brings, has coincided with a period of greater financial stability. Currently, the DfESC is working with Jersey Opera House Limited, the Jersey Arts Trust and the Law Officers' Department to formalise the legal aspects of the new relationship.
4. Simultaneously, an advisory body comprising an alliance of the funded cultural organisations has been created with a commitment to deliver a plenary annual conference as set out R.C.95/2006. (Feedback from the 2009 annual conference is set out in Appendices A and B.)

6 Strategy progress

1. The strategy is a mixture of aims to be delivered by the States and by the cultural sector. Most are ongoing, so that the strategy will never be completed: rather, it provides an indication of the direction of travel.
2. It should also be noted that much of the daily business as usual' of the cultural organisations entails delivering these aims. This is not surprising because the strategy was produced following extensive consultation with those bodies and reflects many of their ambitions. It is, therefore, desirable also to look at the annual reports of the organisations to gauge the detailed success of particular initiatives or specific pieces of work. Equally, with regard to services provided directly by DfESC (e.g. the Public Library, the Jersey Youth Service), those departments report directly to the department in detail on their work. The responsibility for other aspects of the strategy is undertaken by other departments though they have strong links with the department. In the case, for instance, of the historic buildings service and the maintenance  of  the  property  listing  system,  this  is  undertaken  by  SLA  between Jersey Heritage and Planning and Environment. Nonetheless, the table overleaf, set out to follow the strategy objectives, gives some indication of areas of progress and those where work remains to be undertaken. It also updates the strategy by setting out key partners within the States and public sector whose support will be crucial in making further progress.

3. The following represent the immediate action points for the department in further progressing the strategy:

• Strengthen partnerships with all cultural organisations especially those from the voluntary and non-profit sector.

• Develop closer working with States Departments, including Economic Development, Treasury and Resources, Transport and Technical Services and the Chief Minister's Department.

• Develop greater recognition of the different needs of the heritage and cultural organisations whilst encouraging joint working relations where appropriate.

• Finalise financial arrangements to secure the long-term future of the Jersey Heritage Trust.

• Address issues faced by the Jersey Archive to enable requirements of relevant legislation and records management to be met.

• Review policy on provision of performance spaces and other facilities used by arts organisations.

• Work with the Economic Development Department to provide appropriate support for the development of cultural projects designed to enhance the cultural offering for both islanders and visitors alike.

• Develop cultural events website in partnership with the Economic Development department.

• Agree long-term maintenance costs, capital investment and responsibility for properties administered by the cultural organisations with Jersey Property Holdings (including the Jersey Archive and the Jersey Opera House).

• Work with arts and heritage organisations and individuals to further develop the key policy issues identified at the 2009 Council for Culture Conference.

• Develop the Heritage Alliance' and promote the value of a unified voice from the cultural sector.

CULTURAL STRATEGY – AIMS AND UNDERPINNING OBJECTIVES Aim 1: To foster, develop and strengthen the Island's identity

Rrais

Aim 2: To make cultural activities integral to the development of Jersey

Aim 3: To help develop and boost economic activity

4: To enrich the quality of life for all residents and enhance our visitors' experience

Aim 5: To help strengthen culture at the grass roots

Aim 6: To encourage all the major cultural providers to become learning organisations dedicated to helping their staff and volunteers in their self-development

Aim 7: To widen access to, and participation in, cultural activities

7  The Council for Culture

1. Extensive  consultation  on  the  format  of  the  Council  for  Culture  followed adoption of the Cultural Strategy; it was generally agreed that it would be unwise to establish an entirely new body, creating a further tier between the DfESC and the cultural organisations which it funds. Rather, a body should be created to bring

together the cultural organisations in receipt of States funding to encourage co- operative working and to establish ad hoc groups to explore specific issues. In addition, to avoid the implication that wider cultural interests were being excluded, an annual conference has been established (June 2008 and November 2009) in which the wider public has the opportunity to participate. As a result of the focus in 2008 on public value, survey work was undertaken to report on public attitudes to heritage; a summary report was circulated at the 2009 conference. The programme for the last conference is included as Appendix C.

2. While the absence of significant additional funding and the individual financial problems which some of the organisations have faced have not provided fertile soil for joint-working, there has, nonetheless, been considerable progress in terms of consolidating the positions of the organisations and encouraging joint-working where this is appropriate. A number of worthwhile initiatives have been driven by the Council core group including:

• The establishment of an annual literature week around National Poetry Day

• Collaborative arts projects in heritage sites

• Expansion of the blue plaque scheme through consultation between JHT and SJ

• Educational workshops in conjunction with Jersey Live

• Establishment of an artist in residency programme involving the Jersey Public Sculpture Trust, Jersey Arts Trust, Jersey Heritage Trust and the DfESC with a programme of participative workshops

In addition, a number of co-operative initiatives have been launched independently between the groups; for example, the establishment at the Jersey Opera House of a small scale performance space (the Attic') suitable for readings which has been programmed by the Jersey Arts Trust. This has focussed on providing opportunities for local poets to read their work and to benefit from workshops and readings by visiting writers.

Ad hoc groups have been established to connect with the Planning Department's percentage for art initiative (see 10, below), to work with DfESC on a local history component for the primary curriculum (see 12, below), to establish responsibility for curatorship of historic pieces of public art, and to explore the feasibility of seeking a World Heritage designation with independent research funded jointly with the Planning Department (see 11 below).

3. The two annual conferences generated interest on a broad basis and led in 2009 to a clear statement about cultural needs for the arts and heritage sectors. In turn, this has led to a piece of work exploring ways in which the Island's heritage organisations (both those funded by the States and the independent sector) could work more closely together on projects of common interest. Simultaneously, the funded arts organisations have met as a separate group; the intention is to work to strengthen these groups in order that they can feed back at a higher strategic level into the Council for Culture model.
4. DfESC is currently in the process of developing separate heritage and arts policies, taking into account the priorities expressed at the last Council for Culture conference and the work undertaken with the heritage organisations which followed that conference.

8 Cultural Policy Development

1. In the light of the 2009 Council for Culture conference, the process of developing separate strands of cultural policy relating to heritage and the arts and the subsequent drawing together of those policies was begun. Workshops were held as part of the conference to distil issues of importance to the arts and heritage sectors.
2. The heritage session identified the need for further discussion between participating bodies to work towards agreeing an agenda for co-operation and the achieving of a unified voice without compromising the identities of the organisations concerned. This led to the commissioning of a piece of work from one of the conference participants KVS Ltd. to begin to develop this agenda. In February 2010 a series of meetings with held with the seven principal bodies[3] which were followed up by the completion of a template to set out areas of potential co-operation. The responses were collated and conclusions set out in a short report undertaken by KVS.
3. The report identified ten areas of common endeavour and aspiration:

• Direct staffing for public services

• Other staff or agency scenarios (covers volunteers, agreements with the States etc.)

• Maintenance and development of buildings

• Historic sites and monuments

• Collection and organisation of electronic data

• Acquisition of public access to important landscape areas

• Education and publication

• Policy and marketing

• Enhancement and management of collections

• Development of heritage profile nationally

4. It set out a series of recommendations arising from the submissions of the heritage organisations, including the creation of an alliance of bodies to articulate a single voice on heritage issues of importance. "It is recommended that the groups be encouraged to establish a new Heritage Alliance'to discuss and agree the single voice' to government. It could also provide a new impetus for community involvement and support for the sector and a potential for clearer and more focussed discussions with other agencies, including tourism and planning." The full report is set out at Appendix D. DfESC will shortly be bringing the principal organisations together to discuss the operation of a Heritage Alliance'.

5. The arts workshop held at the conference revealed a wide range of views on across the sector with regard to key policy issues. These were summarised as follows:

• An audit of cultural facilities followed by a clear statement of the importance of maintaining them and provision of the necessary financial support.

• Co-ordination of cultural activity including an up-to-date cultural website and on-line ticketing facilities.

• Expansion of percentage for art policy with proceeds able to be used for non- permanent, as well as permanent, projects.

• The need to embrace both youth culture and also traditional' forms of cultural activity.

• Consideration of broadening our cultural outlook through programmes celebrating the culture of other nationalities resident in Jersey.

• Consideration of fiscal measures to encourage creative individuals in Jersey.

• The re-introduction of a Festival to raise the profile of the arts and to assist in drawing visitors to the Island.

• The possibility of securing a proportion of funding from the Lottery to support arts projects.

• The need to devise strategies to keep creative students in Jersey or encourage them back after university.

• The pursuit of ways to involve local artists in States-generated work – for instance, using local artists in States' publications.

6. A further workshop was held at the request of the three funded arts bodies to help identify areas of synergy in their working. Principal issues raised at the workshop were:

• The need for the arts bodies to report effectively on the contribution which they made to the aims of the Cultural Strategy.

• The need to create a structure which allowed a coherent view from the sector to be articulated to the Minister for DfESC (without the creation of cumbersome administrative structures).

• While accepting the considerable co-operation which currently exists between the arts organisations, the need to explore any potential for further joint working.

A follow-up, also involving a representative from Fort Regent, looked at ways in which the organisations could share knowledge to maximise the value of marketing. In view of improvements to internet ticket sales and an internet portal to provide access to the box offices of Fort Regent, the Jersey Arts Centre and Jersey Opera House, it is intended to explore ways of bringing together the programmes at the three venues using the internet. It was agreed that this initial discussion would lead to regular meetings between DfESC and the three funded arts organisations (the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Opera House and Jersey Arts Trust) within the context of the Council for Culture structure.

9 Facilities review

1. In 2008 the Jersey Arts Centre undertook a strategic review. Among the issues addressed was whether the existing Phillips Street premises could continue to accommodate the work of the centre. (It should be noted that this work is currently split between Phillips Street and the St James site, and that half of the full-time staff, with the staff of the Jersey Arts Trust, are accommodated at St James.) The centre has limited public space beyond the Benjamin Meaker Theatre and the Berni Gallery. DfESC has undertaken to review the future needs of the Jersey Arts Centre in the context of other needs within the arts sector.
2. An aspect of this work involves looking at provision for the visual arts in the light of the 2008 National Gallery steering group report. That report set out the case for better facilities to display the public collections held for the people of Jersey (a very small proportion of which is currently on display) and it also argued that collections work millions of pounds from private collectors could be available to the public with suitable facilities. In addition, the facility would show a range of touring exhibitions. The report accepted the need to raise substantial sums of private finance to enable engagement with the States over a site for the gallery; the plan was predicated on the creation of an endowment to meet the ongoing revenue costs of running the gallery. The steering group is currently reviewing the position and will consider whether any enlarged facility for the visual arts at the Jersey Arts Centre could relate to the plan to establish a new public gallery for the Island.
3. The Jersey Opera House has advanced a bid for support from the Fiscal Stimulus Fund to help complete parts of the building which could not be included in the original refurbishment. The principal gain will be to open up the area once used as a private social club overlooking Sand Street for a multi-purpose space which can be used for workshops, sponsors' receptions, small performances or lectures etc. Other changes will see an enhancement of the current bar/catering facilities and box office improvements.
4. The new service level agreement currently being agreed with Jersey Heritage includes provisions relating to the use of money from a separate refurbishment fund to refresh existing sites which come under the administration of the Trust. Discussions have already taken place between the bodies involved in the operation of Hamptonne (Jersey Heritage, the National Trust for Jersey and the Société Jersiaise) over finding ways to generate additional income to sustain the site if investment can be generated. In addition, the new agreement makes provision to advance larger capital projects through the States capital programme; for instance, it has been accepted for some time that Elizabeth Castle would benefit from investment of the sort that has made Mont Orgueil Castle the Trust's most successful site in current income-generating terms.
5. It should also be noted that space is limited at the Jersey Archive and that the requirements of the Public Records Law and the broader cultural remit of the service mean that the present storage space will have to be reviewed in the future. In 2009 25 cubic meters of records were transferred to the archive. The latest report to the States of the archivist notes that, although the recent trend of diminishing annual deposits may continue, if transfers were to stabilise at the 2009 rate, the Jersey Archive repository would be full by 2017.

6. The review will also address the adequacy of current facilities for Youth Culture at La Motte Street and for the Jersey Instrumental Music Service, at present split between Mont Cantel and Fort Regent.

10 Public Art

1. Following consultation between the Minister for Planning and Environment and the then Assistant Minister with responsibility for culture, the former published supplementary planning guidance for a percentage for art policy in December 2006. This follows reference to percentage for art included in the 2001 Island Plan at the request of the Jersey Public Sculpture Trust and further encouragement afforded by the Cultural Strategy.
2. By agreement a panel was established to assist in the process, comprising representatives of the Jersey Arts Trust, Jersey Heritage Trust, Jersey Arts Centre Association and Jersey Public Sculpture Trust. The panel, at the request of the Ministers for ESC and P&E, agreed to commission a public art strategy which would include consideration of some of the key principles which should underpin the commissioning of public art. The Minister for Planning and Environment requested production of the strategy as a prelude to the involvement of the panel in providing advice.
3. Key recommendations of the strategy were public art should respond to Jersey's unique environment to contribute to cultural distinctiveness, and that the opportunity should be taken to engage with the public. The strategy recommended re-using the following criteria, developed by the Waterfront Advisory Group, for commissioning works. The work should:

• Develop local culture

• Create partnerships

• Reflect local distinctiveness

• Promote diversity

• Respond to place

• React to consultation

4. The strategy (the executive summary of which is reproduced as Appendix E) was published in November 2009 and the DfESC is currently working with the Planning and Environment Department to agree the way in which in which it would wish to receive wider cultural advice about the policy to link it to key objectives of the Cultural Strategy; in particular, the links with the local artistic community:

Objective 3.5 To support individual artistsand [help] support a market for their works and activities

Objective 3.6 To commission local artists and crafts-workers wherever possible to enhance new public developments and to encourage the private sector to do likewise in their new developments.

5. Particular issues identified by the advisory panel, irrespective of whether commissioned artists are local or from outside the Island, are first the importance of ensuring that commissions are founded in some way in the Island's culture or

informed by an awareness of that culture so that new works are genuinely distinctive and help generate pride in what makes the Island distinctive; and secondly, the desirability of using the commissioning mechanism to forge links with the community. These may be participative in the case of public consultation over works at, for instance, residential developments, or educational in the case of workshops, mentoring or public lectures which can add to the cultural value of the presence of a creative artist in the Island.

11 The World Heritage Convention

1. Following the extension of the World Heritage Convention to the Island in the 1990s, three sites[4]  were proposed as potential World Heritage sites: none was accepted for inclusion on the United Kingdom's Tentative List[5]. More recently representatives of La Société Jersiaise suggested that a cross-island bid from the Channel Islands might be more likely to succeed. A working party was established in 2007 to consider the matter and a report commissioned jointly by DfESC and the Planning and Environment Department from Kate Clark. The extract relating to the potential for Channel Islands fortifications to be advanced for evaluation as a prospective World Heritage site is attached as Appendix F.
2. The report made two principal observations, quoting from the executive summary:

"[It] concludes that more could be done to understand the value of heritage to Jersey both as a factor in the quality of life for residents and as an element in attracting visitors. This would also help to underpin a better understanding of the role of heritage amongst decision-makers.

"The report also notes that the fortifications of the Channel Islands as a whole represent a very significant group, and that there may be some potential in putting them forward for inclusion on the UK Tentative List, as and when it is revised. This would require close working between the Sociétés on the islands, as a basis for a joint approach. "

3. In response to the first recommendation that more could be done to help understand the value of heritage, the theme of the 2008 Council for Culture conference (at which Kate Clark was invited to speak) was the way the value of culture can be understood. This was followed by a collaboration between DfESC, the Planning and Environment Department and the Jersey Heritage Trust over a survey conducted by the Statistics Unit into public attitudes to heritage in Jersey. The survey considered both attitudes to the wider place of heritage of the lives of the community and also more specific attitudes to buildings as an element of Jersey's heritage. This research, which is available in full on the States' website, has also helped inform policy with regard to securing the sustainability of the Jersey Heritage Trust. Almost three-quarters of respondents believed that the States of Jersey should subsidise heritage sites with 64% giving strong assent to the proposition. More than half of those replying (54%) thought that new exhibitions or displays would encourage them to visit sites more often. The issue of providing support to update sites and exhibitions was subsequently identified as crucial in the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, BDO Alto and Locum Consulting.

4. To address the second recommendation in the Clark report, which relates to the World Heritage Convention, representatives of the Société Jersiaise have undertaken a number of meetings with counterparts from Guernsey, Alderney and Sark to prepare a list of sites which might form the basis of a submission of a group of fortifications based on the exceptional historical span of the fortifications, their density in the Channel Islands and their diversity.
5. A full investigation of the costs and benefits of making a formal submission remains to be undertaken in the light of the final list which is produced. Moreover, developments in the UK, following a recent review of designation under the convention, mean that it is not at present clear when it might be possible, assuming it was deemed desirable, to seek admission to the Tentative List. However, there is clear benefit in the collaboration of the voluntary and governmental sectors in this area, irrespective of whether a decision is taken to try to advance a formal bid. To make that assessment the views of a number of States Departments would need to be obtained including the Economic Development Department to assess potential tourism benefits to the Island.

12 Educational work: Citizenship

1. An important element in the development of the citizenship programme is an understanding of local culture. In 2007, following a pilot visit, a programme was introduced with the States Greffe to introduce all Year Five Children to the history of the States of Jersey and to the process of decision-making by debate; the work culminates in a visit by every primary school, state and private, to the States Chamber. It is supported by teachers' materials, including an introductory DVD produced in partnership with Highlands Media Department.
2. This work is being consolidated by the introduction of a newly devised component in the primary curriculum to increase awareness of local history as it relates to the Island's relationship with the Crown and the privileges extended to Jersey which led to the emergence of the States of Jersey[6]. The work is intended to link in to the programme of States visits. The initial proposal developed for the DfESC set out the rationale as follows:

"A first stage in the project was the setting up of visits to the States Assembly for all Year 5 pupils. This has been operating since September 2007If these visits are taught in isolation, pupils  will  be  done  a  disservice  as they will not necessarily understand how Jersey came to be able to make its own decisions in the States and the impact this has on the status of Jersey. This isn't just about historical links with the past; it's about what those links mean for us today

"Key stages in the development of Jersey's independent status and relationship with the Crown have been identified:

1204 Mont Orgueil Castle

1594 Elizabeth Castle

1661 The gift of the Royal Mace

1781 The Battle of Jersey

1887 The opening of the new' States Assembly 1940-45 The Occupation and the restoration of freedom

"It is hoped that children will be given the opportunity to investigate each of these stages during their time at Primary School. They may be undertaken through a topic, through artwork (some excellent paintings are being made available through this project) through visits or perhaps through a Jersey Week'"

3. A further element in raising awareness of Island culture is the development of a Jèrriais unit within the primary citizenship programme. Currently, Jèrriais is available to some children at Primary school outside the normal school day through the teaching programme provided by the Don Balleine and funded by ESC as part of wider efforts to safeguard and promote the language. Between 175 and 200 primary children currently take lessons each year. The introduction of the new Citizenship component will mean that each primary school receives a visit from one of the Jèrriais teachers to provide a taster session to all children in a selected year group. As is the case with the programme of primary visits to the States Chamber, it will in time mean that all children leave school having had this experience; in this case, enjoying some awareness of the fact that the Island has an historic language inherited from its Norman past and being able to recognise it in place names, signage and in other public contexts.

13 The Jersey Archive

1. As  noted  in  the  proposition  on  the  Jersey  Heritage  Trust  brought  by  the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture (p75/2010), there remain issues to be resolved in the funding and operation of the Jersey Archive. The Minister has indicated that he intends to bring a separate proposition about the archive.
2. In 2008 Jersey Heritage commissioned an audit of the Archive from Dr N.W. James who summarised the current operation as follows:

"The archives service in Jersey is professionally run in line with best practice from purpose-built accommodation. This should, once environmental conditions are stabilised throughout the year within the recommended BS 5454 parameters, continue to provide an excellent platform for the preservation of, and access to, Jersey's public records and deposited private material. The service does not however, currently have the staff resources needed to carry out the tasks allotted to it especially under the Public Records (Jersey) Law of 2002. Future outreach and development are also being compromised and lack of staff is preventing the fruits of capital investment in the building from being fully realised. Access to holdings is much poorer in terms of opening times than in the UK or indeed comparable operations in the Isle of Man. Cataloguing backlogs are also growing and despite the high commitment and morale of staff there is a real danger that they will feel increasingly frustrated as time goes on. On present trends, the scope of their tasks is likely to grow to unmanageable proportions thereby undermining morale. A promising service which was forging ahead in 2002 has been held back since the cuts of 2004 and now needs to be reinforced so that its skilled and dedicated staff are empowered to make it an operation with something to offer for all islanders, tourists and other external users and not just those able to come in the middle of the week. When scored using The National Archives' self-assessment methodology and compared with English county record offices of similar size, its rating for quality of access is at a low level, and its rating for documentation of collections is also weakening despite the overall excellence of the archive building and the high level of service offered within limited opening hours. At present, the service does not have the resources to meet UK national standards for staffing and access as set out in The National Archives' Standard for Record Repositories (2004) which it aspires to meet. The Trust is conducting archival operations efficiently, but there is a growing gap between the responsibilities imposed on the service and its ability to meet them within the current financial settlement."

3. The issue was raised in the context of the detailed work undertaken by BDO Alto into the Jersey Heritage Trust, in the light of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Part II of the BDO report noted that one approach to the gap in funding which currently exists was to:

"Obtain central' funding to recognise the role played by the Archive in the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002: we note in Part I to the report that the Archive services all of the States departments, as well as the Parishes and utilities. Either a user pays' charge of a central contribution to the costs of running the Archive (via the Chief Minister's Department) calculated to reflect these responsibilities should be considered."

4. As has been noted above in connection with the physical requirements of the cultural estate, the storage space of the Archive is finite and attention will also have to be given to future storage requirements.

14 Formal Agreements and Constitutional Changes  

1. The C&AG's report into Jersey Heritage recommended the replacement of the existing partnership agreement with a more detailed Service Level Agreement, currently being agreed with Jersey Heritage with the assistance of the Treasury and Resources Department. When the new agreement has been signed, the DfESC will review its agreements with the other cultural organisations to ensure that what has been agreed as best practice is applied to the sector as a whole.
2. The greater formality associated with the Service Level Agreement is intended to achieve clarity between the States and the Trust, and to protect the States' interests. When the most recent version of the Trust's constitution was approved, it was envisaged that the continued representation on the Trust of the then administering committee would be an advantage. However, the DfESC accepts that it is more satisfactory to review the performance of the cultural organisations it supports against agreed criteria set out in a Service Level Agreement, rather than have direct political representation on the relevant board. Consequently, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture will in due course be seeking formally to amend the constitution to withdraw his representative from the Trust, as was also suggested in the recent Public Accounts Committee report.

3. The agreement will also capture the broader framework within which Jersey Heritage operates. This consists not only of agreements with other States departments (for instance the Historic Buildings Agreement with Planning and Environment) but also a number of important agreements within the sector. These include the 1987 agreement (see Appendix G) with the Société Jersiaise which sets out the basis under the collections owned by the Société are transferred to the Trust "for their conversation, storage and display", and the agreement between the National Trust for Jersey, the Société Jersiaise and the Jersey Heritage Trust for the operation of Hamptonne. DfESC recognises the importance of ensuring that the formal agreement with Jersey Heritage takes account of the obligations which the Trust has to its fellow organisations within the heritage sector, and that their contributions are appropriately acknowledged. In the case of the agreement with the Société it raises matters of principle about the Société Library facilities and their relationship with the Archive and local studies provision within the Public Library.
4. The approach which will be taken in relation to the Jersey Heritage Trust constitution (see 14.2) will also be taken with the Jersey Arts Trust. It has been agreed by the Ministries named in its constitution that, for the same reasons, the operation of the Trust will now better be monitored by its agreement with DfESC rather than by direction representation.
5. In addition to the formal aims and objectives of the Cultural Strategy, the document also contained important recommendations regarding the re-organisation of the links between DfESC and the cultural organisations. From a practical perspective, these have been achieved but there remain a number of formalities to be completed. The Jersey Arts Trust no longer acts as conduit for funding to the Jersey Opera House and Jersey Arts Centre which both have direct relationships with DfESC. However, there remains a legal link between the Jersey Arts Trust and Jersey Opera House Limited; the former is the sole shareholder of the latter. With the agreement of both parties, DfESC is currently exploring with the Law Officers' Department the most appropriate legal model to adopt to replace this relationship with an independent Jersey Opera House accountable directly to the DfESC.

15 Off-island links

1. DfESC also wishes to explore further objective 1.10 of the Cultural Strategy which relates to the wider uses of culture in strengthening the Island's profile internationally. There have been some striking examples of this in terms of the loan of parts of the Island's picture collection to overseas institutions which are chronicled in the regular reporting undertaken by the Jersey Heritage Trust. The Jersey Arts Centre Youtheatre' has made a number of visits to Bad Wurzach to strengthen the twinning between that town and St Helier and it also helped raise the profile of the Island in Corfu by touring the stage adaptation of My Family and Other Animals, developed as a theatre-in-education project.

2. Discussions have been initiated to try to develop further cultural links with Normandy and Brittany, and a dialogue is currently in progress between the Jersey Arts Centre and cultural officers from Ille-et-Vilaine.
3. There already exist close working relationships within the cultural sector between Jersey and Guernsey. The Channel Islands Music Council, established in 1974 and comprising representatives in Jersey of DfESC and Jersey Arts Centre, coordinates a programme of concerts for the public and schools across the Channel Islands; they involve jazz and world music, as well as classical concerts. There are also close working relationships between DfESC and Jersey Arts Trust, and counterparts at the Guernsey Arts Commission with a number of projects organised by the Trust also taking place in Guernsey. Representatives of DfESC and La Société Jersiaise recently gave papers at the second Arts and Islands conference in Guernsey. There is potential for further collaborative work between the islands and for the sharing of expertise in specific areas of cultural activity.

16 Strategy development

1. Objective 2.7 of the Cultural Strategy charges the DfESC with monitoring and updating the strategy. The forthcoming policy statements on arts and heritage, together with the initiatives to work with the alliance of heritage organisations on a agenda developed through consultation with the sector, and with the arts organisations as a group constitute the next step in taking forward key priorities arising from the strategy.
2. However, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture recognises that further progress on a number of objectives in the strategy will depend on successful inter- departmental initiatives working with partner departments indicated on the table of current progress, above. The recent States debate on the Jersey Heritage Trust reinforced, for instance, the potential link with Transport and Technical Service with regard to securing better access to heritage sites, for example. Many other aspects of the strategy cannot be achieved by DfESC alone: they depend upon engagement by a number of departments with its mission statement: "the States of Jersey is committed to creating an environment in which the development of the Island's identity and cultural activities can flourish."
3. The KVS report into areas of collaboration between the heritage bodies draws attention to the potential for joint-working towards a heritage tourism strategy which would involve not only sites administered by Jersey Heritage but also those owned by the National Trust and the Société. This is one example of a number of important connections with the Economic Development Department.
4. In the light of the policy statements and meetings of the arts and heritage bodies, the DfESC will publish an action plan which further hones the objectives within the strategy in the light of available resources. This will require both the continued support of the funded-cultural sector and the broader engagement of the States.

Index of Appendices

A Public feedback from Arts Workshop at 2009 Council for Culture Conference. B Public feedback from Heritage Workshop at 2009 Council for Culture Conference.

C Programmes for 2008 and 2009 conferences.

D KVS report commissioned as follow-up to 2009 conference.

E Extract from Public Art Strategy published 2009.

F Extract from Valuing the Heritage of the Channel Islands'

G 1987 agreement between the Jersey Heritage Trust and the Société Jersiaise.

APPENDIX A

Feedback from the arts and heritage open sessions held at the Council for Culture public conference on 28 November 2009.

Arts group workshop: summary report

The workshop discussions were in two parts involving approximately 60 people, with the Assistant Minister attending the first session and the Minister the second.

The focus was the department's need to develop separate policy for arts and heritage in the light of the Cultural Strategy, and the reality that the increased resources envisaged by the strategy were unlikely to be available in the immediate future.

Participants divided into five groups and were invited to consider a number of questions, leading towards what they regarded as key issues to address in an arts policy adopted by government but linked to, and driven by, the needs of the community.

The following is a digest of the principal points made or those common to more than one group.

The arts play an important role in how we are perceived. How do we currently view ourselves and the profile of the arts?

• Some identified an apparent conflict between the high level of arts activity within the Island and the perception that the arts had a low profile; particularly relating to the external perception of the Island where it was thought the arts were unlikely to feature highly.

• One group described the arts as effectively constituting an island' within Jersey; they should be more closely connected to wider cultural scene in Island life.

• Nevertheless, all groups identified a wide range of events which reflected positively on the image of the Island and which should be recognised as making a broad contribution to the cultural landscape.

• More than one group expressed the view that the value' of the arts in terms of community enrichment was not sufficiently widely understood; another drew attention to the economic contribution of a thriving arts sector.

• The view was expressed that Jersey was suffering a loss of cultural identity; its language and literature were cited as examples of areas of the arts which received insufficient attention but which constituted part of a unique identity.

• It was felt that the number of people interested, or involved, in the arts was not widely recognised with the result that the arts received a lower priority than they should on government's agenda.

• There was a strong view that the arts were capable of exerting a strong influence for social good and that some of the traditional principles of taking the arts to as wide an audience as possible should be more strongly espoused.

• Equally, attention was drawn to the need, while taking the arts to a broad audience, to avoid the tendency to dumb down'.

• Some groups suggested that there was a danger of too much going on and that audience development, rather than provision of additional events or activity, was an important goal.

Is there scope for greater working together to achieve more? If so, in what areas?

• The majority of groups drew attention to the need for closer co-operation between those involved in the arts locally, whether venues or individual organisations.

• A number of groups expressed the view that a clearer voice for the arts was needed to counteract the practical problem that many individual organisations were preoccupied with ensuring the own survival.

• Recurrent messages were the need for wider championing of the arts and co- ordination of what was happening locally. Specific suggestions included: a comprehensive calendar of arts events for the Island and better methods of communicating among local groups - a central news board was suggested.

• It was widely agreed that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture had to receive a strong and positive message from the arts community. Further thought should be given to the source of such leadership; it was suggested that the arts needed a higher profile within the department.

• There was support for linking the box offices of the main venues to ease access to tickets and information on-line.

Are the arts facilities currently provided adequate? Do we have what we need?

• The majority of groups expressed the view that there was a clear need for a sense of direction in relation to cultural facilities. Concern was expressed over the maintenance of existing buildings, in particular St James whose use was compromised by its condition.

• There was a need to ensure that proper arrangements were in place to ensure that the fabric of existing buildings was properly maintained.

• It was suggested that if St James could not be properly restored for cultural use, it could be sold with the proceeds being applied either to providing better facilities at the Arts Centre or enhancing provision at Fort Regent's Gloucester Hall (for larger events).

What support to the sector is required to develop the arts? On what basis should such support be given?

• It was recognised that the Jersey Arts Trust was the body charged with giving support to local individuals and organisations and that the Trust made grants available by a fair and transparent process.

• However, concern was expressed at the ability of smaller community groups to meet their current costs, and there was a call to undertake further work on the basis that grants were available. A comparison with support for sporting bodies/individuals was suggested.

• In relation to funding priorities, the view was expressed that the arts did not enjoy the prominence they should in government's agenda.

• One group advocated seeking private patronage to address any shortfall in funding.

What key issues should a States arts policy address?

• An audit of cultural facilities followed by a clear statement of the importance of maintaining them and provision of the necessary financial support.

• Co-ordination of cultural activity including an up-to-date cultural website and on-line ticketing facilities.

• Expansion of percentage for art policy with proceeds able to be used for non- permanent, as well as permanent, projects.

• The need to embrace both youth culture and also traditional' forms of cultural activity.

• Consideration of broadening our cultural outlook through programmes celebrating the culture of other nationalities resident in Jersey.

• Consideration of fiscal measures to encourage creative individuals in Jersey.

• The re-introduction of a Festival to raise the profile of the arts and to assist in drawing visitors to the Island.

• The possibility of securing a proportion of funding from the Lottery to support arts projects.

• The need to devise strategies to keep creative students in Jersey or encourage them back after university.

• The pursuit of ways to involve local artists in States-generated work – for instance, using local artists in States' publications.

APPENDIX B

Heritage group workshop: summary report

The workshop discussions were in two parts with the first session in the morning followed by a "conclusions" session in the afternoon.

Approximately 40 people attended representing the majority of heritage, language and landscape interest groups in Jersey. The Minister participated in the first session, and the Assistant Minister was present for the second session.

Clear focus was provided for the workshop by the Department's stated wish to develop a new Governmental policy and plan for the Island's cultural heritage.

The Chairman provided a list of discussion questions which workshop members agreed were particularly relevant to debate in the light of the Department's new initiative in this area.

The questions were as follows:

1. What is the public perception of the "heritage community"?
2. What is the political perception?

3. What do you think is done well and not so well?
4. What should be given greater/lesser emphasis?
5. Is heritage promoted strongly enough by government

- educationally? – for tourism?

6. Do you think there is a heritage "champion" in government?
7. Could you present a list of your six priorities for more government assistance?
8. Are there areas where you think it would be helpful to work in partnership projects with other heritage organizations?
9. Is there any possibility of reaching a consensus across all organizations of the 20 main issues which we would like to see in the new government policy for heritage and culture?
10. Would you be willing to participate in further discussions like this to establish a common agenda over the next few months?

The points made in relation to each of these questions were: What is the public perception of the "heritage community"?

• Most people felt that the public perception of the work undertaken by the various heritage organizations was high.

• However, it was agreed that the picture for many was fractured by a lack of co- ordination and co-operation between the various groups and societies.

What is the political perception?

• There was a general, if reluctant, agreement that the political perception of the heritage community was one that was important for the community, but that attempting to lead the cultural heritage agenda was seen as a troublesome issue with heavy cost implications.

• It was suggested that the fragmented nature of the various groups led to a political perception that the community as a whole might not be receiving "best value for money" in some areas of the Government investment

• However, others felt that there was a miss-match between what the Government has publicly stated in relation to the value of heritage, and the money made available through the Department to support it.

• There was general agreement from all sides that a new "vision" and practical Government co-ordinated plan for heritage would be a helpful new initiative.

• The separate considerations of "Arts" and "Heritage", was seen as a necessary process initially in order to provide a clear focus in each area, but ultimately, the synergy benefits of a union of the two areas for the community were seen as important for the future.

What do you think is done well and not so well?

• Each group represented felt that their contributions were important, but that their effectiveness was restricted by lack of available funding

• It was also recognized that effectiveness in progressing the heritage agenda was hampered by the lack of any expressed cohesive view from the sector.

• It was generally felt that the "historic landscape" of Jersey was a prime community asset (as revealed by the recent States of Jersey Statistics Unit survey on Heritage) and one of the most strongly valued aspects by the public

• However, it was agreed that the implications of this were not adequately reflected in the priorities and programmes of the work of the various heritage groups

• It was recognized that the quality of the work of the various individuals and groups was high, but that more could be achieved by greater co-operation and planning.

What should be given greater/lesser emphasis?

• Again, emphasis was suggested for greater working together in accordance with a new Government level plan for the Island's heritage

• Several representatives indicated a dissatisfaction with previous meetings and discussions about the heritage agenda, and that now was the time for action

• Several speakers felt that access to adequate project funding was very difficult for people who were not formally part of a particular organization

- for example, contemporary documentary film-makers.

• There was a perceived lack of pooled-funding which could be generally accessed

• It was recognized that the previously published Cultural Strategy was not proving as effective as had been hoped, partly due to the fact that it lacked clearly defined funding and strategic priorities.

Is heritage promoted strongly enough by government

- Educationally? – for Tourism?

• It was generally agreed that a stronger definition of leadership of the cultural heritage sector from Government would be appreciated.

• It was felt that not enough credit and value had been attributed by Government to the contribution made by heritage to the Government's education and tourism agendas.

• The lack of a cultural-heritage tourism strategy was seen as a lost opportunity for added value from the sector.

• It was felt that there could be more co-ordination between different Government Departments in relation to an holistic heritage agenda.

Do you think there is a heritage "champion" in government?

• There were mixed feelings in relation to this.

• Whereas people recognized the conduit of support through the Department of Education Sport and Culture, there was a strong perception of a lack of political leadership of the cultural-heritage agenda

• It was felt that the political appreciation of the sector was much less than the public appreciation of the sector.

Could you present a list of your six priorities for more government assistance?

• Most representatives seemed to accept that while they were pursuing clear objectives within their own organizations and societies, these objectives had not yet been made sufficiently clear to Government.

• There was a general willingness to try and provide a clearer picture of the perceived priorities to assist the new Government plan

• Assistance was requested in developing a clear format for submitting these priorities in a way which could subsequently be co-ordinated and prioritized within the wider plan for cultural heritage.

Are there areas where you think it would be helpful to work in partnership projects with other heritage organizations?

• All those present agreed that there were areas of work where greater co- operation and joint working would be helpful.

Is there any possibility of reaching a consensus across all organizations of the 20 main issues which we would like to see in the new government policy for heritage and culture?

• While accepting that this would be a new way of approaching the sector's requirements, and recognizing that making contributions to the creation of a co-ordinated Governmental level plan would be as new experience and process for many, it was generally felt that clear and co-ordinated priorities could and should emerge from such an exercise.

• The goal of "a unified voice" for the sector was seen as being achievable, but with a recognition that the individual identities, integrity and independence of the various organizations should be preserved.

Would you be willing to participate in further discussions like this to establish a common agenda over the next few months?

• There was a general enthusiasm to be involved with the new initiative by the Department to formulate a new plan based on discussions to establish a prioritized agenda.

• People felt encouraged and appreciative of the Minister's and Assistant Minister's presence at the workshop.

• Where it would be linked to the clear momentum of progressing such a plan, there was a general enthusiasm to take part in further such meetings.

• However, there was also a strong feeling from many that previous meetings were not perceived to have resulted in actions and progress of any consequence and there was a reluctance to be involved in further meetings which might not have as clear a focus as this particular workshop.

APPENDIX C

Education, Sport and Culture

Council for Culture Conference

Challenges and Opportunities

in the 21st Century

Saturday, 28th November 2009 at Hautlieu School

Welcome

On behalf of Education, Sport and Culture, I am delighted to welcome you to the second Council for Culture conference. It offers both the opportunity to benefit from wider thinking on cultural planning in small islands generally and also to contribute to addressing specific challenges in Jersey.

While there has been progress in a number of important areas since the last conference, there are still many issues that need to be dealt with. Securing resources against competing demands is difficult in the present economic climate and there is a need to work together if we are to maximise the value of support the States gives to cultural activity. As was reported at last summer's conference much has been achieved in the Cultural Strategy but resources are limited and this is bound to impact on some of its broader aims.

Now more than ever there is a need for Islanders, and ultimately the States, to be clear about what level of cultural activity is required and how it will be provided for. I have undertaken to review the Cultural Strategy and in the coming months; the Education, Sport and Culture Department will be working with the principal cultural organisations to produce separate policy strands for the arts and heritage to achieve greater clarity in these two important areas.

This conference provides an opportunity for individual views to be taken into consideration and in order to gain the greatest benefit from the time available we are offering concurrent workshops for the arts and heritage.

We hope you find the day stimulating as our distinguished guests from Orkney, the Isle of Man and Guernsey share their experiences with us. There will also be an opportunity to hear about the new strategic approach to public art and how it aims to address a key theme in the Cultural Strategy, the need to provide opportunities for local artists.

I would like to thank everyone associated with the conference for their involvement and hope you enjoy participating in this event.

Deputy James Reed

Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

Timetable

Conference Format

This conference comprises four contributions by visiting speakers with the opportunity after each presentation for the audience to ask questions. The speakers have been chosen in order to contribute to debate about challenges which face small islands culturally. Another purpose of the conference is to allow you to contribute and this is especially important as ESC works with the cultural organisations to develop a cultural policy to underpin the support given to culture in the Island. To increase the opportunity for feedback, we are dividing the conference at this point so that we can explore arts and heritage issues independently. After lunch in the afternoon plenary session we shall bring responses from the two sessions together to consider some of the feedback with the help of some of key- stakeholder groups.

A digest of the issues raised will be published on the States website following the conference.

Keynote Speakers

1. Glenys Hughes, Director, St Magnus Festival, Orkney

The Impact of the St Magnus Festival on the island of Orkney'

The Orkney archipelago comprises some 70 islands of which 21 are currently inhabited; a population of 20,000 includes around 7,600 in the capital, Kirkwall. In 1977 the composer Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, who had moved to one of the islands six years earlier, established the St Magnus Festival which has now become one of Britain's leading classical music festivals. Branded as Orkney's Midsummer Celebration of the Arts', it includes dance, drama, literature and the visual arts though its principal focus is on classical music. It brings leading international musicians to Orkney but is also notable for the emphasis it places on generating new music and on the development of musical skills through courses in composing and conducting. In spite of Orkney's location and relatively small population, the festival creates huge interest each year with the Tourist Board reporting the impossibility of securing accommodation during the festival. Meanwhile, the festival gains wide media coverage in the quality national press and music magazines. Our first keynote speaker explores the development of the St Magnus Festival and the effect is has had on island life.

Glenys Hughes studied music at Cardiff University. After graduating, she taught in London before moving to Orkney in the mid 1970s. In Orkney she taught music in a variety of schools throughout the islands, becoming involved with the St Magnus Festival from the early 1980s, first as a member of the committee, then, from 1986, as a voluntary co-artistic director alongside Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Orkney's distinguished resident composer and Festival founder.

During her time as a teacher she had the privilege of premièring many of Sir Peter Maxwell Davies' works for children, which were written specially for her and her pupils.

In 1998 she resigned from teaching to take up the full-time post of Festival Director. She retains her close connections with Orkney's schools through the arts education and community projects which are at the heart of each Festival programme. Between 2004 and 2005, Glenys took a year's leave of absence from her Festival post to work as a volunteer in Malawi, where she taught in primary schools and worked with local choirs.

She retains her Malawian links and visits regularly, having set up the Malawi Music Fund, which runs a programme of residential music and arts workshops for orphaned children. At home in Orkney, she directs the St Magnus Festival Chorus and plays the harpsichord and piano with local chamber ensemble, Orkney Camerata.

2. Stephen Harris on, MBE, former Director of Manx National Heritage and current Chairman of the European Museum Forum

Heritage and the sense of Cultural Identity'

The Isle of Man has been particularly successful in encapsulating a strong sense of its cultural identity, in no small measure the result of the efforts of Manx National Heritage. It has enjoyed conspicuous success, winning a number of awards and successfully promoting an understanding of the island's past through The Story of Mann', a narrative that links the many museum sites, interpretative centres and historical monuments for which it has responsibility. Building a constituency among the wider public, Manx National Heritage has championed the notion of the eco-museum, a museum which is not confined by a site or series of sites but rather extends into the wider cultural landscape. Stephen Harris on explores the relationship of the organisation to the wider public, its success in raising the profile of heritage in the island and the benefits this brings, and particularly the extent to which a sense of cultural belonging depends on conveying ideas about a shared past.

Stephen Harris on has an international reputation as one of Europe's leading heritage professionals. As Director and CEO for 25 years, he led the Isle of Man Government's statutory heritage organization, Manx National Heritage, to a series of international awards, including winning the British Museum of the Year Award twice.

He has been in regular demand as  a consultant for heritage development projects  in  Europe  where  he  has  lectured  widely  on  strategic  heritage development  and  has  advised  on  a  number  of  international  heritage development projects, working with teams in Norway, Iceland, Slovenia, Italy, Hungary, Scotland and Ireland.

He has sat on a number of Government committees, including the Isle of Man's National Branding Committee, and has been a judge of the Isle of Man's annual "Awards for Excellence" competition for international businesses and community organizations. He is currently Chairman of the European Museum Forum which organises the annual European Museum of the Year Award - the primary awards event each year for museums of excellence throughout Europe. He is a Fellow of the Museums Association of Great Britain and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and of Scotland. He was awarded the MBE by the Queen in 2005 for services to heritage.

As a consultant across the range of heritage development potential, he is currently helping to develop a new cultural heritage tourism strategy for the Isle of Man Government. Through his distinguished career in the heritage and interpretation industry, and his positions held with important organizations at the European level, he is well placed to provide high level advice across a broad range of specialist subject areas and to explain the successful incorporation of cultural heritage within the national branding of the Isle of Man.

3  Wiard Sterk, Executive Director, Safle

Public Art – A Strategic Approach'

Largely thanks to the work of the Jersey Public Sculpture Trust over the past two decades, public sculpture reappeared in the Island after a gap of virtually a century. The best known example from this period of renaissance, the Liberation Sculpture, now enjoys iconic status as one of the most often used island images, not only in encapsulating the experience of Liberation but in promoting Jersey generally. Recently the Planning and Environment Department has given further encouragement in the form of a percentage for art policy which encourages the use of art in public places to enhance new development. Last year Safle were commissioned to produce a strategy to give guidance to help maximise  the  benefit  of  public  art,  the  release  of  which  has  been  timed  to  coincide  with  this conference. It addresses many key issues: how does public art contribute to the identity of a place? What principles should be employed to ensure that new work connects with its surroundings, and how can  we  balance  the  aims  of  attracting  experienced  artists  from  elsewhere  with  involving  and developing our local creative talent? Our third keynote speaker explores the benefits of a strategic approach in encouraging public art and points to examples where it has worked elsewhere.

Wiard Sterk was born and raised in the Netherlands. He moved to London in 1982, and has worked and lived in Wales since 1984.

After  working  in  theatre  production,  he  joined  CBAT  the  Arts  & Regeneration  Agency  as  Commissions  Officer.  He  became  CBAT's Commissions Director in 1998 and its Director in 2003, and was instrumental in the artistic and organisational development of the company over more than a decade. He developed and secured extensive commissions programmes in Cardiff, Blaenau Gwent and Wolverhampton and has led on the development of several strategies, including an Art in Transport strategy for Essex County Council, and Public Art Strategies for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.

In April 2007 CBAT merged with Cywaith Cymru/Artworks Wales, to form Safle and Wiard was appointed as its first Executive Director. Safle receives financial support from the Arts Council of Wales and Cardiff County Council to promote and develop the integration of artistic practice in the built environment. It operates as a commissioning agency working with the public and private sectors, and manages a large portfolio of public art commissions in Cardiff or across Wales. Safle also ventures across the Welsh borders, with projects in Derry, Belfast, and the West Midlands.

Wiard has undertaken extensive research into public art commissioning programmes in major cities, including in Rotterdam, Berlin, Barcelona, Boston and Phoenix. This research culminated in the first Urban Legacies conference in Cardiff in May 2004, which explored the impact of creative practice in the regeneration and development of post-industrial cities. Urban Legacies 2 was held in October 2006, again in Cardiff and continued this exploration through a particular focus on the work by the recently  deceased  Dutch  artist  Constant  and  his  work  on  Situationist  architectural  project  New Babylon. Further conferences are planned for the near future.

Wiard is a regular contributor to national and international conferences and writes from time to time for the Art & Architecture Journal, Public Art Review, Touchstone and Agenda. He is a Visiting Fellow of the University of Glamorgan and a Fellow of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, as well as the RSA.

4  Joanna Littlejohns, Head of Arts Development, Guernsey Arts Commission

Sense of Place'

The Guernsey Arts Commission was established in 2008 and, as well as being the funding body for the arts in Guernsey, has developed a broad programme of arts in the community, in addition to building on the high profile which the visual arts already enjoyed in the island, to a significant extent the consequence  of  a  bold  international  residency  programme  introduced  by  the  College  of  Further Education in 1996. Last year's Art and Islands Conference brought leading artists and academics to Castle Cornet, including the artist Antony Gormley whose sentinel-like sculptures have extended their stay at the Castle to coincide with the recent publication of Gormley in Guernsey. The Commission often works in partnership and recently collaborated with the Jersey Arts Trust on a Channel Islands Radio Drama Competition, and a co-operative approach between the islands has also meant that there has  been  cross  islands  take  up  for  JAT-organised  projects  like  the  Channel  Islands  Writers Competition and the Open Studios programme. Among notable GAC events in Guernsey have been a series of lectures which have included Sir Peter Blake, Professor Renfrew, Wayne Hemingway and Andy Goldsworthy. How does the Arts Commission contribute to Guernsey's sense of place and how does it balance its mandate of being a voice for the arts while embracing broader aspirations which put the island on the international cultural map?

Joanna Littlejohns worked for two decades in the visual arts firstly in  London  (Royal  Academy  and  Cork  Street),  then  New  York (Museum of Modern Art) before becoming a freelance contemporary art curator. This role led to her realising projects in several cities including  Berlin,  Paris,  Chicago,  Toronto,  Birmingham,  and  San Diego. In 1995, she co-founded the International Artist in Residence Programme and in her present role helped facilitate, for 2008, an Antony Gormley installation at Castle Cornet and the inaugural Art and  Islands  Conference.  The  latter  is  being  staged  again  in partnership  with  the  Small  Island  Cultures  Institute's  6th  Annual Conference in June 2010.

Her current role, as Head of Arts Development, has greatly widened her areas of responsibility. From a new SMT post, created in 2005, within the Culture & Leisure Department she developed the first Arts Strategy for Guernsey, and set up the greenhouse project space for exhibitions, performances and workshops. Over the last four years her team has grown to three and is augmented regularly by placements working on specific projects. In 2007, the decision was taken to create a Guernsey Arts Commission. She was instrumental in setting this up, writing its mandate, and working on the make-up and structure of the Board.

The Commission was launched in June 2008 and since then funding for the arts has increased by over 25%.  She  has  been  involved  in  creating  a  number  of  sub-committees  (Performing  Arts,  Music, Funding,  Film  Prose  &  Poetry  and  Public  Art)  and  is  currently  Chair  of  the  Conference  Sub- Committee. She straddles the role of representing (and being an advocate for) the arts within the States of Guernsey and heading the Guernsey Arts Commission's office.

She has an MA in Arts & Cultural Management, is an International Member of the Association of Art Critics and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Workshop Sessions

The purpose of the two workshop sessions is to obtain the input of the conference into the process of developing cultural policy in Jersey. This year to maximise precious time, we shall be offering two concurrent sessions: one for heritage and one for the arts. Then, in the afternoon, we shall reassemble in a plenary session, using some of those involved locally in cultural provision, to develop some of the issues raised and give the opportunity for further discussion.

Conference Venue Details

The conference takes place in the main hall at Hautlieu School. Parking is available in the car park opposite the entrance to the school (accessed by turning left at the top of Wellington Road, opposite the junction with Bagatelle Lane. Additional parking is available to the rear of the school via Bon Air Lane and taking the first turning to the right after the main entrance to the school.

A finger buffet lunch will be provided in the dining-room which is marked on the plan overleaf. Registration will take place in the foyer and refreshments will be available in the main corridor (the Street') between the hall and the dining room. Directions will be provided to the library (above the dining-room) and other areas used for break-out rooms. Toilets are marked on the plan overleaf.

The Minister is grateful for the assistance of all those who have participated in or assisted with the conference, and especially to the staff at Hautlieu.

APPENDIX D

HERITAGE SECTOR GROUPS IN JERSEY Consultation On The Potential For Increased Co-operation And Partnership Working.

1. The Brief for the Report page 2
2. Background page 2
3. Strategic Approach page 3
4. Consultation page 3
5. General Response from the Heritage Groups page 4
6. Results of the Consultation page 4
7. Conclusions – the Outcomes of the Exercise page 9
8. Recommendations page 10
9. Next Steps Recommendations page 18

APPENDIX 1 – Minister's Letter to Heritage Groups, January 2010  page 20

THE BRIEF FOR THE REPORT

Following Council of Culture meeting in November 2009, KVS was commissioned to undertake a review of the working relationships and agendas of seven Jersey heritage groups. This has involved:

• Reading and analysis of key Jersey Governmental and Education Sport and Culture (DfESC) documents, including the Cultural Policy and the Government Strategic Plan.

• Discussions and meetings with seven heritage groups to assist in aligning their aims and objectives within the forthcoming department cultural policy.

• Writing up and following up the group meetings and reporting to ESC on any issues or problems with the process.

• Analysing with DfESC the submissions in terms of overlap, internal strife agendas, potential partnership development etc.

• Interim report back to the groups setting out initial response to, or required clarification of submissions, and chairing a further meeting of the major stakeholders to facilitate further co operation and potential partnership opportunities.

• Discuss with DfESC the potential for responses from the exercise to be incorporated within the departmental heritage policy.

BACKGROUND

Following discussions with DfESC and other cultural heritage and political representatives, it is clear that the official Cultural Strategy for Jersey is not yet fully implemented or generally regarded as a success. It is also clear that there is a general perception that this lack of success results from two main deficiencies within the sector – a perceived lack of Government support and the lack of a "common voice" from and a certain degree of "fighting and rival lobbying" within the sector.

DfESC wishes to develop the good intentions of the Cultural Strategy and particularly to engender a more "joined-up" approach within the heritage groups. Seminars in June 2008 and November 2009 were specifically designed to help bring the sector together in terms of mission and strategy.

It is generally recognized that without a recognizable "common cause" amongst the sector, DfESC is not in a position to manage and promote cultural heritage effectively. DfESC seeks to establish the potential for more partnership and collaborative working in the heritage sector.

There appears to be a political perception that a vicious circle exists within which the heritage groups are asking Government to define what it wants of them, but Government has no clear picture of what the sector as a whole is trying to do, why, how, and more recently, whether, it can or should pay for it.

Meanwhile, the heritage groups feel that they have no "champion" within Government and DfESC feels that the sector does not help itself politically by appearing "difficult" when compared to the wider cultural and sports sectors. Politically it is felt that the heritage sector should be more clearly and accountably linked into the Government's cultural heritage and national policies.

There is a further unhelpful perception amongst all parties that there is a further vicious circle of "more talk and meetings without outcomes".

STRATEGIC APPROACH

With the full support of the DfESC Minister, a strategy was adopted to look beyond the current difficulties and restraints to a ten-year plan for culture and heritage. ESC is offering the cultural heritage sector "a new chance to state its aims and objectives and to speak with one voice to Government".

The DfESC Minister wrote to the seven main heritage groups on 7th January 2010 indicating the new policy approach and seeking co-operation to develop partnership projects (copy attached as an appendix to this report).

Following the Minister's initiative KVS devised a template system in order to collect agenda statements, top-ten priorities and potential partnership proposals from the groups.

KVS has undertaken a series of meetings with the group representatives and has acted as an intermediary and interpreter of agendas and requests, but with an overriding mission to seek to identify collaboration and partnership projects wherever possible and direct links to Government and Departmental policies.

CONSULTATION

As part of this work, from 2nd- 4th February 2010, a series of discussion meetings was held in Jersey with representatives of ESC and seven heritage groups:

• Jersey Heritage

• National Trust for Jersey

• Societe Jersiaise

• Channel Islands Occupation Society

• Save Jersey's Heritage

• Council for the Protection of Jersey's Heritage

• Friends of Jersey Maritime Museum

 At the request of the three major stakeholders from these groups (Jersey Heritage, NT

Jersey, and Societe Jersiaise) ESC organized a second meeting, facilitated by KVS to clarify and develop agenda issues and to further explore the potential for future working partnerships. This round table' discussion took place in Jersey on 23 April 2010.

GENERAL RESPONSE FROM THE HERITAGE GROUPS

There is a general recognition that the heritage sector will need to strengthen its relationship and advocacy with the Government if the challenges and aspirations for Jersey's heritage are to be met in the current and future economic climate.

There was a general welcome for the Minister's new initiative proposing a more partnership basis of operation. All groups agree that the sector needs a political champion and that the current DfESC Minister would be the best person to provide this. All agreed that this would be helped by providing "one voice" for the sector, but also by a more concerted voice within and across Government Departments

 However, within the groups there was a differing level of understanding of how an effective response to this initiative might affect their future actions and behaviour. Some groups saw great advantages to be gained by working in partnership, others, while accepting this potential, were more defensive of their own positions and the aspirations of others.

Detailed discussions with each group examined the various viewpoints and agendas. In the light of these discussions, a large amount of common ground was established and a number of opportunities for more co-ordinated and co-operative progress in the future identified. These opportunities were discussed with the DofESC and the Department wishes to further encourage this trend towards co-operation within the heritage sector.

RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION

Representatives of all seven organizations attended the February 2010 discussion meetings. Six out of the seven groups responded to the template request for information, some more fully than others (- no written response was received from the Channel Islands Occupation Society.)

Clearly, as all groups are involved in wide-ranging aspects of the heritage agenda within the Island, most groups are involved in similar areas, some with a more comprehensive brief than others.

Despite previous impressions of animosity between some groups, there was a strong and universally shared welcome of the Minister's initiative and agreement that the heritage groups could, and should, work more closely together and in partnership wherever appropriate. The importance being placed on this by Government was clearly recognized and generally thought to be a good thing. A successful outcome of the initiative was perceived as comprising:

• a new spirit of co-operation and co-ordination between the groups

• a new recognition by Government of the importance of the heritage sector for the Island

• a new level of confidence and trust between the sector and Government leading to

• continued independence of the organizations, but a clearer agreement with regard to duties and responsibilities on behalf of the community, with a stronger champion of the heritage sector in Government, through ESC.

In terms of potential areas of common purpose and the increased potential for partnership working, the consultation discussions and written submissions have revealed ten main areas of common endeavour and aspiration:

1. Direct staffing for public services
2. Other staff or agency scenarios
3. Maintenance and development of buildings
4. Historic sites and monuments
5. Collection and organization of electronic data
6. Acquisition and public access to important landscape areas
7. Education and publications
8. Policy and marketing
9. Enhancement and management of collections
10. Development of the heritage profile nationally

Specific issues highlighted in these categories were:

1. Direct staffing for public services

1. Possibilities for better co-ordinated staffing of sites
2. Need for better co-ordination in relation to archive/library staffing
3. Common need for educational/outreach staff
4. Assistance with the governance of Government funding (especially capital)

2. Other Staff or Agency Scenarios

a. Scope to extend and co-operate in relation to volunteer projects

b. Potential for co-operation in relation to property holdings and management agreements, both within the groups and with Government departments. Suggestions were made in relation to assistance with land management and restoration projects, and supply of masons' teams, etc.

c. Stronger emphasis on service level agreements between the groups and with Government (eg. JH agreement with Planning and Environment for Registered Buildings and SAAHs.)

d. Need to clarify terms and requirements of the service grant from ESC to SocJ via JH

e. Archive partnerships

- JH and SocJ, and Government Departmental public records officers

f. Possible link to ESC library services

g. Better links desired with tourism agencies

h. Co-operative agendas in relation to Countryside Renewal scheme and Coastline Campaign

i. Scope for joint volunteer training programmes

j. Amplification of allied staff in Government

- eg. need for an archaeologist in the Planning Department.

k. Possible apprenticeships through Highlands College

3. Maintenance and development of buildings

1. A strong remit for building conservation and protection programmes linked to public understanding
2. Promotion of flagship' headquarters sites
3. Existing buildings maintenance
4. Disabled access provision
5. Renewal and refreshing of existing structures for visitors

4. Historic sites and monuments

a. Emphasis on fortification sites, towers and Dolmens

b. Need to resurvey historic sites, buildings and monuments

c. Duties to maintain accurate inventories and information

d. Desire to share' the heritage resource to provide best public service and value

e. Support for Government's recent Historic Environment White Paper

- desire to work with Government to identify and promote key assets

f. Perceived need for a combined buildings preservation trust'.

g. Recording and maintenance of 11 main SSSI sites

5. Collection and organization of electronic data

a. Develop on-line public access to historic environment records

- ensure compatibility with Planning and Environment database

b. Link computer based access across the organizations

- especially in relation to archive resources and Family History research

c. Develop a heritage education portal'

d. Develop more co-ordinated volunteer cataloguing programmes

e. Help each other with staff training in IT possibilities, needs and access

- eg. FMM digitization of Seamen's Benefit Soc records.

f. Inventory of island archaeology and architecture, linked to GIS mapping

6. Acquisition and public access to important landscape areas

a. A general desire to acquire and preserve more of the Island's scenic and environmentally sensitive landscape

- general consensus regarding the importance of Plemont being in public ownership.

b. Co-operate to provide conservation management plans for all publicly owned sites

7. Education and publications

a. General desire for more interaction and impact with schools through a co- ordinated education policy across the heritage organizations

b. Desire to link educational programmes to site visits

c. Strengthen archaeological research and publication agenda

d. Combine to develop policy on opinion research

e. Develop heritage at risk' register

f. Publication of new sites survey

- linked to new Historic Environment White Paper

g. Co-operate on policies for life-long learning

h. Better co-ordination of teachers' requirements through ESC

i. More efficient and regular production of heritage publications

- through better co-ordination of programmes and resources

j. Need for an annual journal for the sector

8. Policy and marketing

a. Potential for a unified "Heritage Alliance" to provide the vehicle for the desired single sector voice'

- possibly linked to St Helier product show' and new political approaches

b. Potential pooling of marketing resource across the sector

c. Develop positive proposals to support new agenda of green tourism' and cultural tourism' initiatives for the Island

d. Need to develop an agreed approach to membership and private sector sponsorship support across the groups

- possibly linked to joint incentives and the synergy of image and potential marketing of the proposed Heritage Alliance'.

9. Enhancement and management of collections

a. A general desire for better records and better storage conditions

b. Jersey archive funding deficit seen as default on legal duty

- lack of clarity of roles also recognized between JH and SocJ and some Government Departments.

c. Strong concern at Maritime Museum funding gap

d. Agreed need for better co-ordinated collection policies

- public records and photographs

- lack of co-ordinated collection policy does not assist further acquisitions

e. Added value of collections not explored or fully developed

- eg. the Maritime Museum's heritage fleet.

10. Development of the heritage profile nationally

1. General desire to expand membership and public support, but in a co-ordinated and non-competitive way
2. Desire to present publicly the provision of an integrated national heritage service

3. Generally agreed recognition of the need for a stakeholder partnership approach to the Government, on the back of joined-up heritage policies
4. Desire for more joined-up heritage policy within Government
5. Desire for stronger conduits of dialogue with Government to ensure clear and agreed objectives, maintaining arms-length principle where appropriate
6. Desire for ESC to act as the sector's champion'
7. Acceptance that to achieve this requires a unity of vision through the groups, particularly through JH, SocJ and NTJ
8. Heritage Forum' public launch seen as potentially important
9. Desire to see Jersey's heritage as part of the national brand, promoted by public and private partners
10. General support for the principle of a Channel Islands UNESCO World Heritage submission of the fortification sites

CONCLUSIONS

The Outcomes of the Exercise

Clearly this exercise was not designed to solve all problems relating to the activities of heritage groups within the Island. Neither was it designed to solve all currently perceived financial issues.

However, the exercise has provided a new tool to develop ways of working for the future which could alleviate a number of these problems and provide Government with the "single voice" it needs to hear from the heritage sector in order to develop a cohesive and effective policy and action plan for cultural heritage over the next ten years.

As with all new initiatives, there are different levels of appreciation and appetite within the stakeholder groups. The strong basic support for the Minister's new initiative which has been revealed by the consultation will need to be further developed and motivated by strong leadership from ESC and a judicious application of "stick and carrot".

If these measures are put in place in relation to the following recommendations, there is a very strong prospect of successful delivery of some of the main objectives envisaged in the Minister's initiative:

1. To develop a "single voice to Government" from the heritage sector
2. To develop a new emphasis on partnership projects within the sector
3. To identify specific partnership projects and areas of operation which might ultimately bring efficiencies to the sector's endeavours
4. To develop a firmer relationship between the NTJ and ESC to cement the Departmental relationship with the three main stakeholders (JH, SocJ and NTJ)
5. To tackle and resolve the difficulties in the SocJ – JH relationship
6. To develop a firm base of proposals and incentives for the sector to participate more productively in the development of the longer term ESC policy for cultural heritage.
7. To develop a firm foundation for ESC to develop policy, act as champion for the sector, and to stimulate a more joined-up approach to cultural heritage within Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To develop a "single voice to Government" from the heritage sector

This issue was strongly emphasised during the consultation. All groups agreed with the

principle. A specific proposal was floated, the principle of which was agreed as possible and desirable by all groups.

It is recommended that the groups be encouraged to establish a new "Heritage Alliance" – charitable status could be considered. This body could provide the forum to discuss and agree "the single voice" to Government. It could also provide a new impetus for community involvement and support for the sector and a potential for clearer and more focussed discussions with other agencies, including tourism and planning. The Alliance's mission would take full advantage of the synergy to be gained through the reciprocal benefits of its own agreed policy and the policy of DfESC. A freshly structured statement of agreed intent from the Alliance should be of major assistance to the DfESC in forming its policy for the future while also actively promoting the missions of the individual member organizations. It could serve the function as a heritage sector "trade association" providing clarity and co-ordination of the sector's needs and aspirations for Government and the public.

In order to avoid any perception of competition issues, it might not be appropriate at this stage for the Heritage Alliance to develop a "combined membership." However, for the future some kind of joint membership, duly discounted, might do much to remove the current rivalry and suspicion in relation to any membership drive by JH, NTJ and SocJ and might be a natural evolution of the successful new public partnership represented by the Heritage Alliance. Single membership of specific organizations could continue, but the Heritage Alliance would be a new option and could attract new members. The Heritage Alliance should be seen as a facilitating conduit rather than a competing over-arching body.

With regard to potential sponsorship, Heritage Alliance marketing should be focussed on specific partnership projects, thereby again eliminating the danger of competition within the groups and providing a more powerful and co-ordinated approach base which may be more attractive to the private sector and for the Government's national brand. The generally agreed desire to acquire and protect more of Jersey's scenic and sensitive landscape could be a clear and non-competitively focussed area of this new approach.

During the consultation discussions it was agreed that the spirit and opportunity for partnerships could be enhanced, both publicly and politically, by considering a "market place" display from all the relevant groups in a central St Helier building. This should be linked to a public launch of the new body where all groups present a new "product market-place" to the resident and political communities. The purpose would be to highlight to public and political communities the breadth, depth, and common purpose of the various cultural organizations within the community in an informal and inviting way, encouraging new support and membership.

Consideration should be given to establishing a Heritage Alliance web-site to provide a new platform for joint group and public communication, information and debate.

The creation of the Heritage Alliance and its web-site promotion would not be at the expense of individual organizational identities. Indeed, it would actively promote the individual organizations and act as a public statement of the synergy of community benefit which can be achieved by more co-operative working.

2. To develop a new emphasis on partnership projects within the sector

This has been achieved through the Minister's initiative and letter of January 2010 to the heritage groups, and actively followed up through the consultation exercise which is the subject of this report.

Significant progress has been made in changing attitudes towards the potential of this new way of working, which in turn, offer great potential for more effective and efficient working in the future.

However, for the desired outcomes to be achieved, and for this initiative not to be ultimately regarded as "another talking shop", it is recommended that clear decisions are made with regard to the recommendations made in this report, and a strong feeling of Government/DfESC momentum is regularly conveyed to the stakeholder groups. The potential for linking the groups directly into Governmental projects, such as those proposed in the Heritage Protection Regime White Paper of January 2010, will facilitate this new momentum of co-operative working and will begin to address the call within the groups for "a stronger conduit of dialogue with Government."

3. To identify specific partnership projects and areas of operation which might ultimately bring efficiencies to the sector's endeavours

1. Hamptonne

Partnership working is the essence of the Minister's new initiative. However, the potential closure of Hamptonne means that one current excellent example of partnership working between JH, SocJ and NTJ is currently under threat. During discussion it was agreed by all partners that this was counterproductive in terms of its example as a successful example of partnership in operation.

It is recommended that consideration should be given to making full (rather than a partial) site closure for next year, thereby providing an initial cost saving and also allowing the public to appreciate what they will be missing. However, it is important to salvage a positive aspect to this with a new scenario being developed during the year of closure.

In accordance with discussions with JH and NTJ, it is recommended that the scheme to develop self-catering accommodation at the site be resurrected, as a new partnership project between JH, NTJ and SocJ. Although initially refused funding through the Fiscal Stimulus Fund, reconsideration may be possible in the light of the potential willingness of all parties to develop this new income stream for the future of the site. This new spirit of partnership, with a clear financial benefits plan, may be considered a viable new basis for a resubmission of the scheme for initial development funding through the FSF. JH has indicated that once developed, such a scheme could provide the income for the site to "wash its face" for the foreseeable future, thereby contributing a long-term saving.

Estimated costs of the conversion are c.£300,000. Estimated potential income from the re-modelled site is c.£30-40,000 per annum. Estimated current running costs of the site are c.£60,000 per annum. It would appear therefore that initial capital investment would be a positive move to help to significantly reduce the annual operating deficit for the site. This would provide a significant ongoing annual saving for Government.

Both JH and NTJ have indicated the further possibility of mobilizing a rota of volunteers from the joint membership organizations of JH/NT/SocJ to staff the admissions-hut/shop – thereby continuing to deliver staff cost savings in the long term.

2. The historic photographic archive and family history research

are clear candidates for a more joined-up approach. The national photographic archive resource is currently physically split between the JH and SocJ holdings, which has been a bone of contention. It is recommended that the codification of this part of the national archive becomes the subject of a partnership challenge fund submission from SocJ and JH, and is promoted vigorously as a new and exciting resource for the public.

It is estimated by SocJ that the photographic archive requires annual funding of c.£80,000. The current SocJ Government subvention (via JH) is c.£42,000. It is recommended that consideration is given by JH in relation to any funds it might be able to transfer to SocJ to take over agency responsibility for the national photographic archive. In acknowledgement of the level of public financial support, this could then become the subject of the desired agency agreement with SocJ for delivery of clear annual progress in this area according to an agreed plan involving all the other stakeholder groups.

3. Family History Research Toolkit

A number of the consulted groups stressed the importance of family history studies for the local population and for international visitors. It is recommended that the development of a family history research toolkit is developed for the public. This would provide a guide to using all the available resources emphasising the links between the resources held by various heritage organizations, and in particular by JH and SocJ.

4. Large-Scale Partnership Project with Government

All groups have mentioned the lack of a unified heritage records database. It is recommended that a large partnership project, linked with Government policy and Departmental remits be developed, reflecting the need for a Jersey National Heritage Record. There are at least three areas of possible application. The proposals in the new White Paper reviewing the heritage protection regime, the survey of publicly owned buildings, and the UNESCO World Heritage proposal.

The requirement to re-survey c.4,000 historic buildings in accordance with the new White Paper's suggestions for a change in listing procedures, (Review of the Heritage Protection Regime, January 2010) would provide an excellent opportunity for partnership teams to be formed to support the expert survey, research and analysis required over the next two years.

5. UNESCO World Heritage Designation

There is strong support across the various groups for the proposal to submit the network of Channel Island fortifications for UNESCO World Heritage recognition. There is an enthusiasm and common accord for this project which should not be lost. Although there have been some unofficial estimates of the ultimate cost of such a designation (c.£500,000) there is much that can be done by the groups themselves at relatively little cost.

It is recommended that a strategy is developed which links the partnership momentum already available via this project, initially in the areas of least cost.

As well as defining an important area of partnership working across the groups, support for the project would also provide an important statement of heritage support at the international Governmental level.

6. Cultural Heritage Tourism Strategy

Some groups (for example JH and the Channel Islands Occupation Society) are already making a contribution to the great potential for increasing the economic value of cultural heritage tourism to the Island.

However, there is currently no clearly defined strategic plan for cultural heritage tourism to Jersey. This is an important aspect of the sustainability of tourism for the Island's future and for the contribution it can make to the strength of a diversified economy. It is recommended that advice is taken to develop a detailed cultural heritage tourism strategy for Jersey similar to those strategies being developed elsewhere. KVS

has recently undertaken such a commission for the Isle of Man.

7. Co-ordinated Education Programmes

All the heritage groups place "education" at the centre of their activities. However, there is no co-ordinated programme for progressing this enthusiasm, or for effectively utilising the combined heritage resource the Island has to offer.

It is recommended that DfESC leads a new initiative to develop a synergy of effort in this area, linked to the specific requirements of the national educational curriculum and allocating each group specific programme delivery responsibilities.

8. Heritage Alliance Joint Publication

There are a number of publication aspirations amongst the groups. It is recommended that the groups consider together the production of a joint publication promoting and explaining the role and importance of the proposed new Heritage Alliance.

4. To develop a firmer relationship between the NTJ and DfESC

NTJ would welcome a closer relationship with ESC which still allowed for its

independent role within the community.

The current CEO of NTJ has played a proactive and productive part in the consultation exercise and it is recommended that he should be encouraged to play a leading role in the creation and development of the new Heritage Alliance.

Specifically, the possibility was mentioned of "consolidation" of adjoining land ownership with NT and Government. The NTJ is also interested in the possibility of providing its staff and volunteer skills and experience as a source of agency support for some aspects of Governmental land management responsibilities such as the provision of conservation crafts training to relevant areas of Government and the wider community.

It is recommended that both these possibilities are given active consideration by ESC and the other appropriate areas of Government with a view to establishing firm service agreements for agreed project work or annual service delivery targets.

5. To tackle and resolve the difficulties in the SocJ – JH relationship

It is recommended that the main issues of grievance from SocJ could be relatively easily resolved by JH taking the following action:

- being proactive in inviting a new spirit of co-operation and partnership, on the back of the Minister's initiative. Both parties must understand that, with regard to potential Government (DfESC funding) unhelpful competition between themselves must be replaced with competition to release funds through partnership proposals.

- committing to a more obvious recognition of the important role and contribution of SocJ in all JH promotional and other appropriate literature

- examining the possibility of specific promotion and direction to the SocJ facilities in the foyer area of Jersey Museum

- possible specific promotion of the Dolmens in a way which could be clearly seen to be a recognition of the SocJ's assets

- possible page of recognition on JH web-site for SocJ

- strong proposals for partnership projects (see Partnership Projects recommendations)

- considering the possibility of offering to devolve some aspect of the JH service, with some measure of resource, to SocJ (eg. publications/research – management of a property – photo library – family history package)

- a clear agency agreement from JH (as the agent of DfESC) to SocJ for management and development of the national photograph archive would be an excellent "healing" project (- see Partnership Projects proposals.)

- consideration of an expansion and strengthening of the Jersey Heritage Brand to allow for the inclusion of a number of formal "in association with" scenarios, ensuring that no accusation can be made of JH promoting a "selfish and overpowering brand" within the community. Active and full participation in the proposed new Heritage Alliance by JH would reflect this requirement.

In return, SocJ will need to recognize that they have no grounds for criticism of JH and that such attitudes will not find favour with DfESC.

SocJ will also need to prove the value of the service they offer in return for their Government grant, through a better defined service agreement with JH with clearly defined and deliverable outcomes. SocJ needs to become quickly accustomed to the principle of accountable delivery in exchange for Government support.

SocJ will need to carefully consider its current less than wholehearted partnership participation if they are not to be seen as being left behind by the new spirit of co- operation through the proposed Heritage Alliance, and in the light of their static membership numbers and dwindling financial resource.