. . .

Citizen participation in Cultural Heritage management: The Integrity Pact pilot program


The aims of this paper are to describe the experience of Integrity Pact pilot project in Sibari managed, since 2015, by ActionAid Italy. The Integrity Pact is a tool developed by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International to avoid the corruption and the officials’ misconduct during a public procurement process. The project is focused on the monitoring activities allowed by this tool of two interventions funded by European funds for the National Archaeological Museum and the Archaeological Park of Sibari. One of the most important Integrity Pacts task regard citizen participation and their engagement in several project activities.


“All of us, we all specialists, do care about the Cultural Heritage: the visions, the strategies and the answers we give to a problem might be different, but the problem is common. Somebody thinks that the laws and the restrictions are enough, somebody else wishes the safeguard might be more active, more participated, more social.” (Volpe 2018)

On October 10th 2019, after a long parliamentary proceeding, the Convention by the Council of Europe on the value of the Cultural Heritage for the society, better known as Faro Convention, has been ratified by the Senate House (Senate House 2019) and it is on waiting for the passage to the Camera House. It defines some commitments taken by the countries members of the Council of Europe for the strengthening of the tie between the Cultural Heritage and the communities the heritage was born in or hosted by, with the focus not on its ideal or innate value, but on its value as a social, politic and economic resource, “emphasising the value and potential of cultural heritage wisely used as a resource for sustainable development and quality of life in a constantly evolving society” (Faro Convention).

Due to the connection with the territorial development, the Cultural Heritage requires some participatory processes for enhancement involving all the subjects who give value to that heritage, defined by the Convention as “community of inheritance”, whose material and immaterial quality of life must increase thanks to the Cultural Heritage. Even from the preamble the Faro Convention underlines “the need to involve everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage”. The Section III – articles 11-14 – is focused on the shared responsibility for Cultural Heritage and on the public participation, and states the involvement of institutions to promote a participative approach in the organization of public responsibilities for Cultural Heritage and to encourage the access to it, also through the use of the formal education and the digital technologies. Actually, the Italian Code of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape, according to articles 111 and 112, clause 4, encourages collaborative networks and highlights the social value of private participation to enhance both the public and the non-public Cultural Heritage.

The involvement of the public in the Cultural Heritage management is possible through different participatory instruments (European Commission 2018) enabling the dialogue and the debate among institutions, associations, companies and citizens, reflecting on the difference between state initiatives and public initiatives (Manacorda 2016). This topic  is being discussed in the last years by a huge literature (Sani 2015; Halme et al. 2018; Chavarria 2019).

There has been some institutional initiatives at the European level, particularly the Council conclusions on participative governance of cultural heritage (EUR-Lex 2014) and those ones on the need to bring cultural heritage to the fore across policies in the EU (EUR-Lex 2018). During the European year of the Cultural Heritage (European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018) the  Council of Europe requested yet a report on participatory governance, aimed to promote “innovative models of participative governance and management of Cultural Heritage, engaging all the stakeholders, including the public authorities, the sector of the Cultural Heritage, the private actors and the organizations of the civil society”; finding “innovative approaches to the multilevel governance of tangible, intangible and digital heritage which involve the public sector, private stakeholders and the civil society” (European Commission 2018).

The promotion of citizens participation has been the subject of some initiatives from institutions at the national level as well. In 2018 the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage created an internal commission – Museum Networks and Territorial Systems – to define an action plan and to engage some targeted state and public actors in the management of local Cultural Heritage sites (MiBACT 2018). The National Inner Area Strategy (PonGovernance 2020) 2016-2022 is contributing to a reorganization of all public services, including those related to the Cultural Heritage, based on a need assessment expressed by the local population.

 Also a lot of initiatives led by local associations and communities across Europe can be evaluated as good practices. In Finland thanks to Adopt a Monument (2020) citizens and associations with the help of the administrations are dealing with the management of a monument or an archaeological site, with the goal “to help communities become actively involved in the conservation and interpretation of their local archaeological and Cultural Heritage sites”.

Some italian cases: Monumenti Aperti (Open Monuments) is a contest promoted and coordinated by a local association, Imago Mundi, at first in Sardinia, then also in other cities of Italy. Another iniziative in Sardinia, Community archaeology, is focusing on the perception of archaeological sites as a part of local identity (Pinna 2019). In Catania, Officine Culturali association has turned a benedectine monastery into a common space for the integration, educational and recreational services. The LabGov (2020) is testing a model of participative management based on the Faro Convention on the Centocelle Park in Rome. The cooperative company La Paranza manages the Catacombs of Saint Gennaro and Saint Gaudioso in Napoli, hiring 34 people in a very difficult neighborhood of Naples, the so-called Rione Sanità (Catacombe di Napoli 2020). These initiatives have highlighted that the citizen participation shouldn’t be just an act of simple reception (ActionAid Italy 2019), but it must be proactive and it must gratify the players involved. To reach this goal three elements have to be stated:

  • the acknowledgment of the value of the people and  their role in the project;
  • the share of responsibility, to realise a new distribution of the leadership roles and to increase the democratic practices between all the actors involved;
  • the consideration of the participants experiences, through the monitoring and the narration of their experiences.

The ongoing pilot project in Sibari is far from the former ones, because of the typology of the action and the role of ActionAid Italy as a broker between the public and the institutions, however it can be considered a huge step in the Italian scenario. It is promoting a participatory approach to anti-corruption, by involving the civil society organizations in the monitoring of public interventions from the tendering phase to the contract execution in the field of Cultural Heritage. Eventually the Integrity Pact may become another useful participatory tool for the application of the Faro Convention, focusing on the monitoring of the investments on Cultural Heritage: projects are of higher quality when civil society organizations and citizens are engaged in selection and delivery. In addition, this kind of engagement generates ownership.

What is an Integrity Pact

The Integrity Pacts are an instrument developed by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International starting from the 90’s. It consists of some agreements legally binding subscribed by a contracting authority and the bidders companies to avoid the corruption and the officials’ misconduct, guaranteed by a supervising independent subject acting as monitoring authority. The Italian law already provides for the adoption of the Integrity Pact as a binding contract between the Contracting Authority and the bidders companies in a tender, without the involvement of civil society (Law 190/2012).

In 2015 the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, responsible for EU policy on regions and cities, launched a pilot program called Integrity Pacts – Civil Control Mechanism for Safeguarding EU Funds, to test the adoption of the Integrity Pacts in the public procurement procedures funded by the European Structural Funds with the goal to evaluate its impact in terms of improving the quality of the investments.

The pilot program is testing an advanced model that provides a larger engagement of the public through the selection of the monitoring authority between the civil society organizations. There are 15 partner organizations, in different member states of the European Union, including three in Italy. It has an interesting cover of levels of government and sectors of interventions, that might enable to test the Integrity Pact under different conditions (Table 1).

In June 2019, the pilot program received the European Ombudsman’s Award for Good Administration in the category “Excellence in open administration” (European Ombudsman 2019). In July it was also included in the special G20 Compendium as a global good practice for promoting integrity and transparency in infrastructure development (European Commission 2020). On July 2019 the 4th Italian National Action Plan for Open Government 2019-2021, section about corruption prevention, also mentioned the IPs actually ongoing in Italy under the EU pilot program: the Sicily Region, together with University of Messina and Municipality of Palermo, is going to implement an advanced Integrity Pact, with the involvement of a third part as independent supervisor (Team OGP Italia 2019). In the Italian National Anti-Corruption Plan, issued in November 2019, a section relating to the involvement of the civil society was added: “the public administrations – implementing an IP – can evaluate to strengthen the participatory approaches for civil society in the various phases of the public procurement process”, followed by a specific reference to this pilot program (ANAC 2019).

The program will end in December 2021.

Some historical and archaeological notes on Sybaris

“The Archaeological Park of Sybaris, in the heart of Calabria, preserves the remains of one of the richest and most important cities of Magna Graecia and represents for the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and for the whole country a great challenge of redemption. In Pompeii as well as in Sybaris we have the possibility to reverse a wrong perception of a whole territory, rich in archaeological treasures and opportunities” (MiBACT 2019a).

The Archaeological Park of Sybaris (in the municipality of Cassano allo Ionio, province of Cosenza), is located in the homonymous Plain of Sybaris, the largest plain in the Calabria Region, and it is split by the state highway number 106 (so called Jonica) in two areas: Parco del Cavallo (that sounds like Horse Park) on one side, Casa Bianca (that sounds as White House) and Prolungamento Strada (that sounds as Extension of the Road) on the other. In the archaeological site there are evidences of Sybaris, one of the richest Greek colonies of Magna Graecia (Guzzo 1993) founded by emigrants from Greece (Greco 2013) in the 8th century BC and fell in 540 ca. (the story of the fall of Sybaris is so compelling and full of legends, that it was the inspiring source of the novel “Il mantello della Sosandra” written by Professor Emanuele Greco). Then the Panhellenic colony of Turi and the Roman foundation of Copia partly overlapped on Sybaris itself. The site lasted centuries until the progressive decline, due to the swamping of the area in the 5th-6th centuries AD and its definitive abandonment in the 7th century. The first surveys in the area are documented between 1879-1888, but only the digs managed between 1969 and 1974 (Guzzo 1992) revealed an overall picture of the history of the settlement. Studies and researches are still in progress, thanks to the collaboration with the Italian Archaeological School of Athens. In spite of its great archaeological and historical value, the situation of the site of Sybaris is critical, due to the flooding problems, the difficulties of ordinary management and its hard accessibility.

The National Archaeological Museum of the Sybaris territory from 1996 exhibits finds from the surrounding area, including pre-colonial finds from the sites of Francavilla Marittima and Castiglione di Paludi, as well as those from the overlapping Greek cities of Sybaris and Turi and the Roman one, Copia. Among the most important finds there is a bronze sculpture of a kicking bull found in 2004 in the Casa Bianca area (Gagliano 2017). Given its importance, the Park was recently included among the national museums that received self-administration (MiBACT 2019b).

Table 2. List of interventions co-funded by the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Sibari. The projects piloting Integrity Pact and monitored by ActionAid Italia are highlighted in bold..

The European investments in Sybaris

The Archaeological Park of Sybaris and the National Archaeological Museum of the Sybaris territory are cultural centres of great historical and archaeological value. Especially the Park, because of the high hydrogeological risk and the various floods, has received numerous national and European funds.

The two projects monitored by the Integrity Pact, which we will explain in detail later, are included in a broader program, Museum Excellence Centers in the South, promoted since 2006 by the Ministry for Cultural Heritage together with the once so-called Department for Cohesion and Economic Development (Mumex 2020). It was co-funded by European funds from the former European budget – namely by the Operational Program Cultural, natural and tourism attractors.

It financed interventions to enhance museums and archaeological sites in Southern Italy on the basis of the importance of their collections or of their existing or potential flux of visitors, with the aim of adapting the offer to international standards, increasing the number of visitors, increasing the level of attractiveness of the area. Therefore, the number of museums was not increased – in Italy it is already vast – whereas it was decided to fund interventions on the already existing museums to develop them into centres of attraction.

The program Museum Centers funded also a host of projects for Sibari worth around €20 millions (Table 2).

Fig. 1. Area of archaeological Park called Casa Bianca (White House). (Credits: GianPaolo Colucci, archaeologist working for Archeo Scarl Srl).

The financed interventions allowed to enlarge the current exhibition itinerary from 5 to 7 rooms through the construction of a new building, called Ippodameo (from the name of the architect Hippodamus of Miletus, who planned the urban grid of Sybaris). Inside, the screening of reconstructive films on the three overlapping cities of Sybaris, Turi and Copia will allow the visitors an immersive experience. In addition, new multimedia and the renovation of the didactic presentations, showcases and panels have been planned.

A new warehouse was built near the Museum, replacing the previous one located inside the Archaeological Park, for the collection, restoration and cataloguing of the finds, as well as a space for educational workshops.

The funds for the works in the Archaeological Park also included the construction of a new reception building. The overall financial plan also includes the construction of a parking area and its entrance from the state highway number 106, as well as further works of completion and upgrade. In addition, a farmhouse located inside the Park area (called Masseria Rizzo) became a refreshment room on the ground floor and a meeting room on the upper floor.

The financial plan also included some safety and enhancement works that were necessary to make possible opening to the public the area of the Park called Casa Bianca. Here some digs recently revealed the presence of a sanctuary (Figure 1).

In the Archaeological Park some interventions were also carried out to limit the hydrogeological risk, after the river Crati, which flows in the area, in January 2013: the draining trenches and urgent works of preservation and conservation.

The drainage trenches were designed and financed to replace the old surface pumps, which since the 70s have kept the Archaeological Park dry despite the emergence of groundwater. They consist of a horizontal drainage system under the basement of the Roman road in the area of the Park called Parco del Cavallo. The trenches prevent the flooding of the excavations and allow the park at any season, thanks to their permeability which allow them to absorb the groundwater. The water is then delivered into tanks equipped with rising pumps and fed into a canal.

The two projects monitored are currently at an advanced stage of execution. The interventions were split into two lots, the first for works, the second for services and supplies.

For the Museum intervention, the first lot was awarded on 6 July 2018 to the Research Consorzio Stabile (Naples) The cost of work based on lowest bid (-25%) is € 467,294.51 (Segretariato Regionale per la Calabria 2017).

For the Park intervention, the first lot was awarded on 14 May 2018 to a temporary association of companies formed by Clamar di Bongiorno Calogero (Agrigento), F.lli Di Carlo (Lucera) and D’Alessandro Restauri Srl (Matera). The cost of work based on the lowest bid (17.5%) is 214,824.23 € (Segretariato Regionale per la Calabria 2018).

The first lots are both completed and awaiting the testing certifications (Figure 2).

The second lot for Museum services and supplies was published on 31 October 2019 and it isn’t awarded yet (Invitalia 2019). Instead the second lot of the Park isn’t in the tendering phase yet.

Fig. 2. Area of archaeological Park called Casa Bianca (White House). New tour itinerary. (Credits: GianPaolo Colucci, archaeologist working for Archeo Scarl Srl).

The Sybaris pilot project

The pilot project, which will run until the end of 2021, provides for three types of actions: 1) technical monitoring; 2) institutional communication aimed at the general public; 3) involvement of a targeted group of citizens and/or associations.

Technical monitoring actions

The technical monitoring actions are carried out with the help of a legal consultant and an archaeologist consultant and consist in the analysis of the whole documentation of the two monitored public procurement procedures from design to tendering and awarding until the complete execution of the contract. For each of these phases, ActionAid Italia, as independent supervisor, produces recommendations and technical monitoring reports which the Contracting Authority, according to the signed Integrity Pact (Signed IP 2015), has to answer to.

The clauses of the Integrity Agreement provide for transparency, communication and training obligations for both the Contracting Authority and the winner bidder (Signed IP): among these, the inclusion of the Integrity Pact as a requirement to participate in the tender, the full access to all documents relating to the two monitored procedures by the independent supervisor, the commitment of the officials and the winner bidder’s employees involved in the procedures monitored to participate in training sessions by ActionAid Italia on whistleblowing tools – institutional or made available by the pilot project. The project website provides a free reporting tool for possible offences, criticalities and proposals (MonitorAppalti 2020) and a reporting tool called Anti-Corruption Alert (ALAC 2020) for the anonymous and protected reporting of actual cases of corruption.

In parallel with the technical monitoring activities, from the beginning ActionAid Italia has promoted the involvement in the pilot project of a group of citizens and associations in that area, to promote a wider community interested in civic monitoring of public spending.

Involvement of a targeted group of citizens and/or associations

The Integrity Pact provides different means of participation for a multi-stakeholders audience: the communities affected by (or benefiting from) a project, potential bidders, government agencies and authorities in charge of formulating policies relevant to the public procurement process, development agencies, civil society organisations, the media and, in the end, the citizens. These means depend on the social accountability model adopted by the independent supervisor.

As already written, the European Commission program is testing an advanced model of Integrity Pact tool with the involvement of a civil society organization as independent monitor.

There are different social accountability models that a civil society organisation can follow during the implementation of an Integrity Pacts:

  • Minimal social accountability: the independent supervisor predominantly monitors the compliance of both the contracting authority and the contractor with the clauses of the Integrity pact signed. The involvement of affected stakeholders is limited to whistleblowing. The communication activities are via digital media or press.
  • Medium social accountability: also in this model, the independent supervisor predominantly monitors the compliance of both the contracting authority and the contractor with the clauses of the Integrity pact signed. But unlike previous models, there is clear engagement with the affected stakeholders beyond whistleblowing. Affected stakeholders could be involved directly by bringing together a group of community representatives or activists from the local community or indirectly via local associations or social movements. In this case, the monitor invests time in discussing the progress of the monitoring activities i.e. by presenting the outcome of the monitoring reports and by organising some site visits and by receiving feedback from citizens. Stakeholders could be also potentially consulted whenever irregularities happen to agree on a collective action plan.
  • High social accountability: the monitoring activities are carried out together with affected stakeholders, involved as co-supervisors to have access to the required information, review documents, analyse the information and data, undertake site visits, take part in institutionalised participatory processes, perform social audits and collaborate to raise awareness on a specific issue, such as anti-corruption. Affected stakeholders could also contribute to recommendations and monitoring reports for the Contracting Authority. In this case, the independent Supervisor might provide some capacity building to affected stakeholders to allow them to have the knowledge base to perform an active role as co-supervisors.

ActionAid Italy is trying to get from a medium to a high social accountability model. From the very beginning, we wanted affected communities to understand the public procurement process and to practice monitoring. Efforts to fight corruption and mismanagement in public procurement should also involve citizens. This is a matter of sustainability and impact. By investing in raising the awareness of citizens and building their capacity, some of those citizens could continue to monitor other public procurement processes after the conclusion of ActionAid works. Also, the citizens’ engagement maximises the impact because they would tend to hold the public administrations and the policy makers to account for the quality of the services provided.

ActionAid Italy wanted to involve the local communities living around the monitored projects. First (first semester of 2016) we did a preliminary stakeholder mapping, focusing on sectors that are somehow linked to the project such as the cultural sector, local tourism, anti‐mafia movement, active citizenship and local development. We first identified a short list of trusted and verified people belonging to personal networks of partner organisations and asked them to recommend or involve other trusted people. At first, we identified 300 local contacts belonging to different communities ‐ mainly from academia and civil society. 

We started with a one‐week field visit (July 2016) and two rounds of phone interviews (July-September 2016).

During the field visit we undertook 14 face‐to‐face meetings with 24 people from different municipalities and from different backgrounds: researchers, teachers, university professors, students and activists in local associations. Based on the feedback from these meetings, we decided to organise a series of civic monitoring schools.

During the phone interviews we discussed with each of the shortlisted contacts the following topics: communities/ associations they could involve; main issues they and their communities might be interested in; topics they want to teach and/or learn during the civic monitoring schools; preferred logistics arrangement for the civic monitoring schools.

In February 2017, before the first civic monitoring school took place, we developed civic monitoring regulations every civic monitor had to sign, in order to avoid the risk of potential conflicts of interest. The regulations also helped to show that we are taking seriously the citizens’ engagement.

The civic monitor regulations include basic information about civic monitors (name, contact details, occupation, potential conflicts of interest and formal and non‐formal membership in political parties or associations) and clauses such as:

  • declaration that participation in civic monitoring activities in a personal capacity, without any interest other than that relating to the public good;
  • acceptance that the only subject of the civic monitoring is the collaboration in making evidence‐based monitoring reports, focusing solely on the monitored interventions;
  • duty to not disclose or disseminate the information acquired through the civic monitoring activities before a discussion with the independent supervisor; etc.

The civic monitoring schools are structured as training of trainers to allow civic monitors involved to share the acquired knowledge and skills with other citizens. Given the technical nature of public procurement, we first identified a set of knowledge and skills that citizens need to have in order to perform their civic monitoring role.

There were 3 schools until now. A fourth is being planned, divided into two different sessions in the first and second half of 2020. We have dealt with the following topics: national legislation on public procurement and transparency, European funds planning, governance of cultural heritage, structure and content of the Integrity Pact, digital tools to use open data related to tenders, tools for crowd-mapping activities. From the beginning, the lawyer and archaeologist consultant have been explaining the main administrative and technical aspects of the awarded contract including the key features of the winning offer (Figure 3).

There were also meetings with civic monitors: the first with the Regional Secretary, Salvatore Patamia, the second with the Sole Project Manager for the Museum project, Adele Bonofiglio, who guided the citizens in a visit to the old Museum setup (Figure 4). During the first two years of the project, ActionAid Italia also carried out outreach activities in a local high school. There was also a first site visit at the beginning of 2019 and since then regular updates on the progress of the works have been carried out (Figure 5).

The Involvement of the targeted group of citizens and/or associations consists not only in live opportunities, but also remotely through different tools. The progress of the monitored projects and other updates on the topics of common interest – such as public procurement, initiatives promoted by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage in Calabria, fight against corruption – are discussed through a mailing list, an instant messaging group and regular webinars.

Fig. 5. Citizens involved as civic monitors during a site visit in february 2019.

Lessons learned

In order to get citizens interested in such a complex issue as the monitoring of a public procurement procedure, it was necessary to simplify the vocabulary and the message by linking the project goal to the possible economic development rather than to abstract messages of  anti‐corruption values. People are not primarily interested in the archaeological value of the site, rather they do care more about how the archaeological value of Sybaris might foster the social and economic development in the region.

We highlighted the binding nature of the Integrity Pact, the commitment by the European Commission and the credibility of the partner organisations, such as Transparency International. This increased citizens’ level of trust in the project and their willingness to engage. Moreover, the explanation of the role the monitor must be clear for all the engaged parts, in order to mitigate the reputational risk, by providing clear information about the terms of the Integrity Pact and the escalation steps to do in case of red flags.

The capacity building aiming to give the involved citizens and associations knowledge and skills to be applied in future monitoring actions was an incentive to participation. It is an opportunity for the people to have access to a new set of knowledge and skills including how to use new tools for monitoring public funds related also to other issues such as environmental protection, waste‐management, health, anti‐mafia etc.

It is important the inclusion in the Integrity Pact of clauses that oblige the Contracting Authority and the winner bidder to accept the involvement of citizens in the technical monitoring actions, sending comments to the independent supervisor. In addition, they are required to participate in public debates to discuss the progresses of the works and technical monitoring actions, as well as in the visits to construction sites open to the public. These meetings create avenues for interaction between citizens and public authorities and offer an opportunity for both parties to get closer and build relationships of trust and collaboration. For civic monitors, it was important to listen first-hand to the officials about their plans and the challenges they deal with. For the Contracting Authority, it was good to listen to civic monitors, who represent the wider constituency that will benefit from the project, and to observe their commitment and curiosity. The civic monitoring schools also prepare citizens for interactions with public authorities.

It matters also the participatory definition of the agenda of the civic monitoring schools to identify the topics to be covered and how to communicate the project to other citizens.

Finally, since theoretical, legal and technical training-sessions on public procurement and the analysis of documents can become very boring, we often organise social events at bars or restaurants as part of the civic monitoring schools or during field visits. These events add a social element to engagement, increase trust amongst the participants and between them and us and contribute to building a shared identity.


Among the lessons learned in the participatory monitoring process led with the citizens and the local associations, there is the linking between the project goal and the economic development rather than abstract values such as the archaeological value of Sybaris, since it matters for the stakeholders if it can promote the social and economic development of the region. This pushed us to organise in July 2019 an in-depth workshop on the Faro Convention and some examples of participatory management of Cultural Heritage (MonitorAppalti 2019).

By recalling the shared responsibility, the Convention of Faro has the potential to start new processes of definition of the cultural policies towards a sustainable development, which requires to adopt some tools of participative management and new models of governance. The concept of community of heritage the Convention introduces actually broadens the management of the Cultural Heritage to all the people living in a territory and determining its own meaning and value, within a new democratic vision that refuses any top-down approach.

With this approach, the participants should be involved in all the phases of the cycle of management of the Cultural Heritage, including definition, planning, realization, monitoring and evaluation of the related policies and programs. The largest transparency possible is necessary to reach this goal, since the participation can actually happen only if all the people engaged are able to access updated and correct sources of information.

In this direction, the Integrity Pact on test in the pilot program of European Commission could be a helpful tool. His advanced model allows the involvement of a larger audience with the mediation carried by an organization of civil society and raises a larger awareness also on the themes related to transparency and the fight against corruption. An important role in this direction have also the communication actions for the general public, which consist of updates on the progress of monitored interventions and procedures in a language accessible to all, as well as training sessions for a targeted group of citizens or representatives of local associations, to transfer useful tools and skills to carry out civic monitoring actions on public spending independently.

This experimental model might lead to new forms of dialogue between the citizens and the public administration, which will reinforce the relationship of mutual trust and might bring in the future to new forms of shared and participative management of the Cultural Heritage. We can mention what is happening in Sibari. Despite its extraordinary archaeological and historic relevance, the Park is in a critical situation, due to several reasons: the floods caused by the water layer uprising, the difficulties of the ordinary management and the hard accessibility. The situation is so critical, that the organization Europa Nostra proposed to put the park in the list of the first seven cultural sites in Europe more in danger: the 7 Most Endangered 2020 (Italia Nostra 2019).

This makes even more urgent the creation of an alliance as large as possible with the stakeholders on the territory, with the identification of them and the development of a common vision about the future of the Archaeological Park. In the long term, it can increase the effectiveness of the huge investments already made in the area and it can create an environment more open to the exchange of expertise and knowledge.

ActionAid Italy 2019. Heritage sites and people power: what’s the best approach?. Available at: https://voices.transparency.org/heritage-sites-and-people-power-whats-the-best-approach-ab309f7db7d2 (Accessed March 3, 2020).

Adopt a Monument 2020. Home Page. Available at: https://adoptoimonumentti.fi/?lang=en (Accessed March 20, 2020).

ALAC 2020. Anti-Corruption Alert Home Page. Available at:  allertaanticorruzione.transparency.it/ (Accessed March 20, 2020).

ANAC 2019. Delibera numero 1064 del 13 novembre 2019. Available at: http://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/public/classic/AttivitaAutorita/AttiDellAutorita/_Atto?id=8ed911d50a778042061d7a5d0028cba2  (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Catacombe di Napoli 2020. Chi Siamo. Accessed at: https://www.catacombedinapoli.it/it/about (Accessed March 3, 2020).

Chavarría A. 2019 (ed). Participatory research in archaeology. Legal issues and good practices. European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies. 9, Mantova: SAP.

EUR-Lex 2014. Council conclusion on participatory governance of cultural heritage. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014XG1223(01)&from=IT (Accessed March 3, 2020).

EUR-Lex 2018. Council conclusion on the need to bring cultural heritage to the fore across policies in the EU.  Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018XG0608(02)&from=EN (Accessed March 3, 2020).

European Commission 2018. Participatory governance of Cultural Heritage. Report of the OMC (Open Method of Coordination) working group of Member States’ experts – Study. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b8837a15-437c-11e8-a9f4-01aa75ed71a1 (Accessed March 20, 2020).

European Commission 2020. Integrity Pacts included in the G20 Compendium of good practices promoting integrity and transparency in infrastructure development. Available at : https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2019/07/07-10-2019-integrity-pacts-included-in-the-g20-compendium-of-good-practices-promoting-integrity-and-transparency-in-infrastructure-development (Accessed March 20, 2020).

European Ombudsman 2019. Ombudsman announces Award for Good Administration 2019 winners. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/press-release/en/115766 (Accessed March 3, 2020).

European year of Cultural Heritage 2018. Home Page Available at: https://europa.eu/cultural-heritage/european-year-cultural-heritage_en.html (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Gagliano E. 2017. Il toro bronzeo da Sibari (loc. Casa Bianca). Esame autoptico e considerazioni iconografiche. In Dialoghi sull’Archeologia della Magna Grecia e del Mediterraneo. I.5: pp. 1185-1195. Paestum: Edizione Pandemos.

Greco E. 2013. Su alcuni aspetti di una possibile storia archeologica di Sibari e Thurii. In  G. Andreassi, A. Cocchiaro & A. Dell’Aglio (eds) Vetustis novitatem dare: temi di antichità e archeologia in ricordo di Grazia Angela Maruggi. Taranto: Scorpione Editrice.

Guzzo P. G. 1992. Sibari e la Sibaritide: materiali per un bilancio della conoscenza archeologica. Revue Archéologique. 1: pp. 3-35.

Guzzo P. G. 1993. Sibari: materiali per un bilancio archeologico. In Sibari e la sibaritide: atti del trentaduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia: Taranto-Sibari, 7-12 ottobre 1992, pp. 50-81. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Halme A., Mustonen T., Taavitsainen J-P., Thomas S. & Weij A. 2018 (eds). Heritage is Ours – Citizens Participating in Decision Making, Europa Nostra Finland. Available at: https://www.europanostra.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-heritage-is-ours.pdf (Accessed March 3, 2020).

Invitalia 2019. Allestimenti museali e multimediali presso il Museo archeologico nazionale della Sibaritide. Available at: gareappalti.invitalia.it/tendering/tenders/000171-2019/view/detail/1. (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Italia Nostra 2019. Il Parco archeologico di Sibari segnalato a Europa Nostra per i “7 most endangered 2020”, i sette siti culturali più in pericolo d’Europa.  Available at: https://www.italianostra.org/il-parco-archeologico-di-sibari-segnalato-a-europa-nostra-per-i-7-most-endangered-2020-i-sette-siti-culturali-piu-in-pericolo-deuropa/ (Accessed March 20, 2020).

LabGov 2020. Our Vision: the City as Commons. Available at: https://labgov.city/city-as-a-commons/#PUB (Accessed March 3, 2020).

Manacorda D. 2016. La Convenzione di Faro e la tradizione culturale italiana. In P. Feliciati (ed), La Convenzione di Faro e la tradizione culturale italiana. Il capitale culturale, Supplemento 5, pp. 28-31.

MiBACT 2018. Musei, al Mibact una commissione per fare rete con i sistemi territoriali. Available at: http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/Contenuti/MibacUnif/Comunicati/visualizza_asset.html_2132226873.html (Accessed March 20, 2020).

MiBACT 2019a. Cultura, Franceschini: il parco archeologico di Sibari diventa autonomo. Available at: www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/Contenuti/MibacUnif/Comunicati/visualizza_asset.html_1426675701.html (Accessed March 20, 2020).

MiBACT 2019b. Cultura, Franceschini: nascono sette nuovi musei autonomi. Available at: www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/Contenuti/MibacUnif/Comunicati/visualizza_asset.html_406433429.html (Accessed March 20, 2020).

MonitorAppalti 2019. Un seminario sul coinvolgimento dei cittadini nella gestione e valorizzazione del Patrimonio culturale. Available at: http://monitorappalti.it/notizia/un-seminario-sul-coinvolgimento-dei-cittadini-nella-gestione-e-valorizzazione-del-patrimonio (Accessed March 20, 2020).

MonitorAppalti 2020. Segnalazione libera. Available at: http://monitorappalti.it/transparency/segnalazione-libera (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Mumex 2020. Home page. Available at: http://www.mumex.it/opencms/opencms/ (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Officine Culturali 2020. Home Page. Available at:  http://www.officineculturali.net/ (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Monumenti Aperti 2020. Home Page. Available at:  https://monumentiaperti.com/it/ (Accessed March 3, 2020).

Pinna F. 2019. Archeologia e costruzione partecipata dell’identità locale: percorsi di archeologia di comunità in Sardegna. In A. Chavarria (ed), Participatory research in archaeology. Legal issues and good practices, European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies. 9, pp. 123-146.

Sani M. 2015. Participatory governance of cultural heritage. Available at: http://www.interarts.net/descargas/interarts2538.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Segretariato Regionale per la Calabria 2017. PON CULTURA – Cassano allo Ionio (CS) loc. Sibari. Museo Archeologico Nazionale.  Available at: www.beniculturalicalabria.it/bandi.php?action=VIEW&id=61 (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Segretariato Regionale per la Calabria 2018. Avviso di aggiudicazione.  Available at: www.beniculturalicalabria.it/echoweb/echofiles/allegati/25_PON_SibariCasaBianca_AvvisoAppaltoAgg.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Senate House 2019. Ratification and implementation of the Convention by the Council of Europe on the value of the Cultural Heritage for the society made in Faro on October 27th, 2005. Available at: http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/01124321.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Signed IP 2015. Accordo di monitoraggio. Available at: monitorappalti.it/sites/default/files/Accordo%20di%20Monitoraggio%20sottoscritto.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2020).

PonGovernance 2020. La strategia nazionale per le aree interne e i nuovi assetti istituzionali.  Available at: http://www.pongovernance1420.gov.it/it/progetto/la-strategia-nazionale-per-le-aree-interne-e-i-nuovi-assetti-istituzionali/ (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Team OGP Italia 2019. 4° Piano di Azione Nazionale per l’Open Government 2019-2021. Ministero per la Pubblica Amministrazione. Available at:  http://www.funzionepubblica.gov.it/sites/funzionepubblica.gov.it/files/Quarto_Piano_Azione_Nazionale.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2020).

Volpe G. 2018. Il bene nostro. Un impegno per il patrimonio culturale. Bari: Edipuglia.

Volume 3 - 2019

Museum Archaeology

CC BY 4.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to cite

Buttiglione, P.L. & Marras, A.M. 2019. Citizen participation in Cultural Heritage management: The Integrity Pact pilot program. 3: pp. 85-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23821/2019_4b/