La Culture, un Pillier Stratégique de la Résilience, pas un Secteur

Thinking Sustainability to the End 1
Thinking Sustainability to its End
a plea for the acknowledgment of culture as one of the four strategic pillars of societal development and of public plan-
ning
a reminder and a wake-up call
by Luciano Gloor
INTRODUCTION
This is the report of a fascinating journey along the borderline between official declarations,
scholarly science and the daily practice in the field of meaningful public planning of the future of
communities. It consisted of almost a decade of searching for enlightenment and an answer to
why, from a strategic point of view, culture puts itself in a defensive position and continues play-
ing a marginal role in politics, public planning and public budgets, despite the on-going evolution
of our societies is calling for the contrary. Intrinsically connected is the question on the role of
culture in sustainable development
1
, in times where the future of human life conditions on this
planet are seriously put in danger by mankind itself, and the question why cultural sciences seem
not to feel the urge to contribute to the debate on the necessary shift towards fundamentally new
solutions.
My working with culture actors and small cities with great passion but strong developmental
needs from countries in transition to the East of the EU motivated me to the considerations that
I present with this paper. I am thankful to the project PASSION CAPITAL 3.0 for providing me
with this opportunity. A European Co-Creativity Lab Stimulating Collaborative Economy and
Participatory Governance of Culture within Small and Medium Size Cities seems to be the most
valuable and fruitful context for communicating my reflections.
Originally I thought naively that I would be touching unsearched grounds, as in almost twenty
years dealing with development and culture I never came across any reference to the fundamental
relation between strategic development planning and culture, and no expert ever addressed these
topics. The research for this paper proved me being wrong and forced me to revise my concept
repeatedly. I will not tell the world anything new, I am humbly reporting what has been thought
and written by scholars before, but has been either forgotten, overseen, maybe even put to the
side, at least in Europe.
The paper will have achieved its purpose if it inspires civil society and culture actors as well as
policy planners and decision makers involved in public development planning to get familiar with
some approaches and ways of thinking proposed here.
EXPOSITION – AND INCITING INCIDENT
2
The term “sustainability” has been vaguely present in my (not only professional) life since the
70ies, when the Club of Rome published its first report in 1972
3
. In our circles of 68 activists it
was seen as a welcomed contribution to our anti-capitalist discourse but the focus of our envi-
ronmental concerns turned essentially around the risks of nuclear energy more than the planet
running out of resources, an option the report made us aware of, but we perceived it as a danger
far away. I must admit that the Brundtland Report published by the UN in 1985 “Our Common
1
The term of „sustainable development“ has been over-used in the course of the last two decades; to the point that
many think it has no specific meaning any more. Some propose to replace it by the term „regenerative develop-
ment“, a wording that directly addresses the envisaged goal. I am in favour of proposal. Nevertheless, in this paper I
stick to the term to which the whole literature refers.
2
Coming from story-telling, I will tell my story along a 3 act structure, an attempt not to be taken too seriously.
3
Club of Rome (1972): The Limits of Growth, Rome

2 Thinking Sustainability to the End
Future” did not catch much of my attention, as I was fully engaged in launching my career as a
cultural entrepreneur. The Brundtland Report delivered the first definition of the notion of sus-
tainable development
4
. In 1994, John Elkington
5
coined the phrase of the triple bottom line
(TBL) that characterised sustainable business as encompassing economic, environmental and
social values. It should be noted that Elkington was not referring to public planning, but reflect-
ing on corporate social responsibility (CSR). He intended to define sustainability for business, as
the title of his book suggests. Subsequently, political decision makers, public planners and schol-
ars dealing with public planning have absorbed this notion, without additional reflections regard-
ing necessary adaptions or extensions in view of the specificities of its use in public planning, as
opposed to business planning. It might even have been an instrument in enhancing an exclusively
economic view of the world. At least this is suggested by the fact that all references to sustainable
development go back to Elkington’s definition of the triple bottom line. Since then guidelines on
public panning propose a sustainability framework with the three categories being the economy,
the environment and the social domain.
To return to my story: although having worked 40 years in the creative economy, I came only
across the issue of sustainable societal development in connection with culture in the last two
decades, when I started dedicating myself mainly to capacity building and technical assistance on
policy, strategy development and strategic management. My work took mainly place in the field
of international cooperation between first Switzerland and then the EU and the Eastern Partner-
ship countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine). Working as a trainer,
expert and team leader for cultural programs I got the notion of sustainability connected to cul-
ture programs or policies on my table every day. No document on policies or public planning
that would not use the term as an adjective or a noun in its name or in the wording of objectives,
be it issued by the UN, the EU, be it national or local authorities. The other omnipresent phrase
that became a standard in those times in connection with culture was, and still is, that “culture
contributes to economic growth”. It were the years after the adoption of the Millennium Devel-
opment Goals (MDG)
6
of the UN (2000) and the EU’s 2007 European Agenda for Culture
7
, fol-
lowed by the discussion on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with its Sustainable
Development Goals SDG
8
.
Being tasked with promoting and motivating cultural policy reforms, our team of experts
9
got to
read many cultural strategy and urban planning documents, was requested to provide feedback
with regard to the role of culture and was invited to conferences, mainly by small and middle
sized cities of Ukraine and Georgia, for giving input. The specific insight gained from these expe-
riences led to the observation that although all levels of authorities officially attribute to culture a
high priority for public planning and policies, the daily reality of written and implemented (or not
implemented) plans and related decision making shows regularly an impressive discrepancy with
the official statements.
4
UNWCED (1987): Brundtland Report - Our Common Future
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
5
Elkington John in Henriques, Adrian, Richardson, Julie, NetLibrary, Inc (2004): The triple bottom line, does it all add
up?, London
Elkington 2004:1,3 „In the simplest terms, the TBL agenda focuses corporations not just on the economic value that
they add, but also on the environmental and social value that they add – or destroy.
6
United Nations (2000): Millennium Development Goals
7
EC (2007): European Agenda for Culture, Bruxelles
8
United Nations (2015): 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – Sustainable Development Goals (adopted by all UM
member states in 2015
9
of the Eastern Partnership Culture Program Phase I financed by the EU; the team operating under a technical
assistance service contract with the EC

Thinking Sustainability to the End 3
Something felt not right. I could not get the logic of perceiving “economy/economic”, “envi-
ronment/environmental” and “social” as strategic paradigms against which policies, programs
and projects for development had to be measured, while “culture” was tolerated to helping out
with “contributions”. Since the beginning, the impression grew that there was a serious underval-
uation of culture in public planning and in politics in general and I wondered why culture schol-
ars and practitioners did not argue. I remembered how in the 70s Western European metropolis
failed with many or their urban city “modernisations” projects that resulted in deserted areas; or
the failed youth policies leading to massive social unrest (to mention just two examples), because
policy makers had forgotten to take into consideration the cultural factors inherent to the project
or the policy in question. Similarly, in the region of operation of our culture program, the coun-
tries to the East of the EU, almost no conflict, and there were a whole number of them, be it
frozen or virulent, that had not cultural roots and that did not break out because of the negli-
gence of dealing with those cultural issues. Starting to reflect which factors might have been con-
tributing to what I felt was a flawed policy planning process in connection with culture, my pre-
liminary findings basing on my practical experience were as follows:
1) Guidelines of International organisations on planning sustainable development define a
framework that encompasses the environment, the social domain and the economy. Thus
guided, planners and policy makers work along these strands. In consequence, the inclu-
sion of other top-level domains or strands in the reflections of the planning processes is
excluded, so to say by the system, concerning particularly culture.
2) The concept of culture was and still is not perceived in its overarching meaning of the
values, attitudes, patterns and behaviours that define societies and hold them together,
which then are manifested or mirrored in both, cultural activities of the population, as
well as of the cultural sector. The notion is instead reduced to the sector in society that is
professionally dealing with culture. Thus, the view get lost on the role culture is playing all
across society, beside and in addition to the direct impact of culture sector activities,
which culture policies should address as well. And the view gets lost on the role culture
could be playing in all policies, other than culture policies.
3) Mainly in the last decade, the focus of research and of the policy debate has been on the
economic value of culture, on culture as a contributor to economic growth. As a conse-
quence the Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) attracted high attention, while a whole
range of other impacts and roles got neglected through which culture, both, as a sector, as
well as in its overall meaning, contributes to society.
This paper attempts to verify these findings from daily experience and to elaborate on an argu-
mentation that is favourable to acknowledging culture as the fourth pillar of societal develop-
ment.
ACT I - WHEN CULTURE SEEMS TO LEAD – BUT DOESN’T
City Development Plans: the Gap between Brand and Plan
Due to our project’s workshops and on invitation by some cities to their congresses, in the year
2013 we had the opportunity to discuss City Development Plans or City’s Culture Development
Plans with local authorities and local culture actors from civil society in Lviv, Lutsk, Gori,
Vynnitsia and Tbilisi. As the whole question this paper discusses grew out of practice it is appro-
priate to make reference to those experiences.
The following discussion on city strategies serves to shed some light on practiced public planning
concerning the topic of this paper, which is the inclusion of culture under a strategic point of
view.

4 Thinking Sustainability to the End
Two samples shall be discussed, for illustrating the cause. The two cities that came to have elabo-
rated new development plans invited our team to giving feedback under the perspective of cul-
tural policy reforms. This allowed for a very close exchange with city authorities. . A summary of
the plans is put in the annexe. Then, some reflections follow, to outline key similarities or differ-
ences in planning approaches and plans between small German cities and these two cities from
countries in a process of transition.
The Vinnytsia 2020 Development Strategy (2013)
10
Economically, Vinnytsia, located South-West of Kyiv in the heart of Ukraine (371’000 inhabit-
ants), profits from hosting the headquarters and a number of production facilities of ROCHEN,
the chocolate imperium of the oligarch Petro Poroshenko, since June 2015 president of Ukraine.
In 2013, Volodymyr Groysman was mayor of Vinnytsia, a close ally of Poroshenko who followed
him to Kyiv, where he was sworn in Prime Minister in April 2016. This economic background
and political context might explain, why the strategy does not express any major economic ur-
gency.
The short form of the strategy’s vision formulates an image, a brand that shall characterise Vin-
nytsia in the future: to become a smiling city, populated by friendly and happy people. The single
components of the vision share one specific characteristic. Building a strong community requires
a strong sense of belonging, based on shared values. Equally, a modern, interesting, liveable and
energetic city will need inhabitants who share the values and feel ownership in the type of city
that shall be developed. Some of these values may be social, but most of them will be cultural
values. The so worded vision together with the short-form brand suggest that they head a strate-
gic approach that is strongly marked by cultural components, if not to say it being a culture-led
strategy. Surprisingly, the goals barely make reference to values, not to speak of culture, except
where the strategy addresses specifically goals and measures for the culture sector.
Let’s assume the planners would have added a fourth key principle, worded, for instance, as fol-
lows: “Cultural vitality as the source for our values, for our creativity and for our force of innova-
tion”. It is safe to expect, that it would have triggered a whole range of considerations with regard
to those strategic priorities, goals and measures that relate to values, behavioural, social and cul-
tural patterns and traditions, shaping new or influencing actual measures with a cultural dimen-
sion that would give the strategy a new orientation, closer to the idea behind the vision. Now
missing transversal cultural components would strengthen community building and ownership,
support creativity, orientate education and ensure a type of urban development that places the
citizen and their needs in the centre.
The Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) wave had not reached Vinnytsia yet, at that time,
while it was clearly noticeable in the capital. The strategy also, surprisingly does not manifest any
shortage of financial means with regard to the cultural sector. From the preliminary findings
listed in the introduction above, number 1 (the planning framework leads to a negligence of cul-
ture) and 2 (notion of culture is reduced to culture as a sector) can be deemed being confirmed,
while number 3 seems not applicable for Vinnytsia.
The Tbilisi City Development Plan (2011)
11
Tbilisi is the capital of the Republic of Georgia, is located in the centre of the country and has 1.1
million in habitants. The year after the endorsement of the strategy discussed here, Georgian par-
10
https://civitas.eu/document/development-strategy-vinnytsia-2020-0
11
https://www.scribd.com/document/103716754/City-Development-Strategies-Volume-2

Thinking Sustainability to the End 5
liamentary elections held in 2012 led to the first peaceful shift of power in Georgia, which subse-
quently also resulted in the election of a new mayor of Tbilisi. As a usual procedure in Georgia’s
public administration, plans and projects initiated by predecessors are put on hold or stopped.
This strategy, hence, was no in force a year after it had been endorsed. It is, however, still an illus-
tration of the public planning approaches by the previous as well as by the actual administration.
The brand chosen by the document is an emotional one, a cultural one, so to say: “Tbilisi - the
city that loves you”. The strategy document does not further elaborate on this slogan, it can be
assumed that the wording of the vision shall make the slogan tangible. It describes the vision of a
citizen-friendly city, a tourist-friendly city and a business-friendly city. Topics addressed relate to
the economy, the social domain and the environment. Culture is not mentioned. The mission
describes roles and/or adjectives that the city shall earn/deserve if developing as planned: a re-
gional key player, being proactive, being sensitive, being balanced. While the first two relate to
strength (influence and energy), the latter two relate to soft qualities (respect for citizens, heritage
and environment, inclusiveness), to cultural values, one could say. Of four strategic objectives, at
least three offer opportunities for creativity and culture playing a relevant role: international rela-
tions, competitive economy and finally attractiveness and liveability. Even the fourth strategic
objective “well governed city” contains more than just administrative efficiency, as it includes
also the objective to improving citizens’ participation in public decision-making.
Analysing the programs that are allocated to each of the objectives, as well as the projects under
the programs, the first impression of a strong fervour for a cultural approach proves being
wrong. There are a whole number of programs that one would expect to include strong cultural
components, but either they are absent or they are exploiting cultural activities for image building
purposes of the Georgian leadership. International cultural events are the only culture related
project, beside cultural heritage initiatives. They consist either in promoting Tbilisi abroad, or in
inviting international stars to the capital. The latter are barely accessible to the large audience,
seen the poverty of the population. Tourism is merely addressed as a prosperous business, with-
out connecting it neither to culture and cultural heritage nor for instance to sustainable tourism.
None of the mentioned culture related projects does make any offers to the population. Cultural
heritage is focused on rehabilitation, documentation and capacity building for heritage workers. It
has to be said, however, that Georgia has very strong popular cultural traditions, and on many
occasions Georgians sing and dance, folk choirs and dance groups have a loyal audience and
children often learn to play a music instrument.
The document does not introduce any framework that informed the elaboration process. In fact,
the document gives the impression of an approach by key words and listing evident major topics
needing to be addressed by a city development plan. The logic between Vision, Mission and Stra-
tegic Objectives is not transparent.
Let’s assume again, a planning framework would have included culture, for instance by playing
with variances of the city’s central slogan, “Tbilisi – the city that loves you”. A simple framework
would have been created by specifying the “you” in the slogan, in the form of “the city that loves
its citizens” “… that loves its visitors”, “,,, that loves its environment”, and so on, allowing to ask
under each strategic objective, program or project, how the “love” transforms into plans and
actions. It is again safe to expect, that a more consistent and coherent plan with a clear cultural
orientation would have resulted by this simple structuring framework.
The conclusions with regard to the verification of the findings mentioned in the introduction
look as follows: finding number 1 (the planning framework leads to a negligence of culture) can
be confirmed for the city plan of Tbilisi; no clear framework could be identified, a missing
framework having the same effect. Finding number 2 (notion of culture is reduced to culture as a
sector) is confirmed, the strategy even reduces the culture sector to cultural heritage. Finding