Lazare Eloundou

Alens Bernards

Toshiya Zako

Kai

Direction

Ukraine (574), Uzbekistan (278) Group 3 7341

Executive summary Introduction

The 2015 Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society (the "2015 Recommendation") was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 38th session in 2015 (38 C/Resolution 49). This standard-setting instrument reflects the commitment of Member States to assisting museums in fulfilling their role in contemporary society, so that they are partners in sustainable development through the safeguarding and protection of heritage, the promotion of cultural diversity, the transmission of scientific knowledge, the development of educational policies and lifelong learning, and fostering the creative economy and sustainable tourism. The 2015 Recommendation also highlights the importance of integrating these global guidelines for the protection and promotion of museums and collections in legislations and national policies.

According to article VIII of UNESCO's Constitution, which requires that Member States report on the legislative and administrative provisions made, as well as on any other measures taken to implement UNESCO conventions and recommendations, the Secretariat submitted to the Executive Board, at its 206th session, the first consolidated report on the implementation by Member States of the 2015 Recommendation, in view of its submission to the General Conference at its 40th session.

Report on the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation

In preparing the consolidated report, reporting guidelines and a survey were prepared by the Secretariat and approved by the Executive Board at its 202nd session (202 EX/Decision 24.VII). Following the consultations launched by the Director-General in December 2017, 56 Member States 1 submitted their national reports. The breakdown of responses from electoral groups was as follows: 10 from Group I, 15 from Group II, 7 from Group III, 9 from Group IV, 11 from Group V(a) and 4 from Group V(b). Further to a thorough analysis of the national reports, a meeting bringing together one expert from each of the UNESCO regional groups and a representative from the International Council of Museums (ICOM) was organized at UNESCO Headquarters on 9 and 10 January 2019 to analyse the results of the consultation.

The consolidated report examines existing legislation and statistics in the field of museums and the way in which Member States implement policies and measures to strengthen the primary functions of museums. Furthermore, it presents emerging challenges faced by Member States in guiding museums to fulfil their missions as well as examples of good practices at the national level in the museum sector.

Legislation and statistics in the field of museums

The majority of Member States responding to the survey considered that their national legislation was largely in line with the guiding principles of the 2015 Recommendation: 8 considered that the guiding principles were fully reflected in their national legislation, 24 considered that they were well reflected, 1 Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Zimbabwe. 17 considered that they were reflected fairly closely, 4 said that they were reflected slightly and 3 deemed that the guidelines were not yet reflected in their national legislations.

All responding Member States confirmed the existence of legislation relating to museums and collections. Almost half of the responding Member States (25) had amended their legislation (laws, decrees or orders) since the adoption of the 2015 Recommendation. Several Member States have used or intend to use the 2015 Recommendation to adapt their respective legislations and strategies (Angola, Armenia, Bulgaria, Chad, Finland, Lesotho, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Togo, Tunisia and Ukraine).

The majority of the Member States that responded to the survey adhered to the existing international instruments and principles relating to museums and collections, in particular relevant UNESCO cultural conventions. 2 A smaller number of Member States have ratified the UNIDROIT Convention of 1995.

As regards statistics, cross-country comparisons and data aggregation do not provide significant findings due to the significant disparity between the tools used by Member States to collect and publish comparable statistical data. For instance, most responding Member States had different rules for defining museum establishments as well as for conducting a census. The monitoring of museum statistics is also limited.

Museum functions

Nearly all Member States that responded to the questionnaire have a service or department in charge of museums within a ministry, usually the Ministry of Culture. Three Member States (Brazil, Islamic Republic of Iran and Sweden) have specific agencies or independent bodies in charge of museums. Most Member States have a National Committee of ICOM. Most countries also have at least one museum association and up to eight different associations according to the type of museum.

As regards legislative instruments (laws, decrees, orders, internal documents) adopted by Member States to support museums in fulfilling their primary functions of preservation, research, education and communication, significant differences were noted among the responding Member States (13 States had less than 4 instruments for all functions; 20 had between 4 and 7; 22 had between 7 and 15; and 10 had between 15 and 30). With regard to ethics and professional standards, 25 Member States referred mainly to the ICOM Code of Ethics, while 12 referred to their own legislation. Several Member States indicated good practices in the selection and training of museum personnel (such as Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Republic of Korea and Spain), management (Netherlands), and the consideration of local specificities and participation (Brazil, Egypt, Finland, Netherlands and Portugal).

Efforts to disseminate the 2015 Recommendation have been deployed by a number of responding Member States, including through the translation of the text of the Recommendation into national languages, the organization of conferences or workshops, and through the Internet (Albania, Brazil, Eritrea, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland and Uzbekistan). Furthermore, Poland has established an institute to promote its museum policy and Egypt is reorganizing its administration in response to the Recommendation.

Nearly all Member States who responded to the survey noted the existence of national legislation on collections. Approximately half of the Member States have taken steps to digitize their collections with guidance on standards of data formats and data storage. More than half of the Member States keep statistical data on their collections. The majority of Member States report having legislation referring to non-museum collections.

Emerging issues for museums in society

While most Member States who responded to the survey have not provided an estimate of their overall allocation to museums, they consider that adequate resourcing is a crucial challenge. About half of the Member States consider museums as agents for economic development. However, the role that museums can play in sustainable development is still underexplored. Despite this, more than onethird of the respondent Member States have developed specific legislation to promote corporate sponsorship and donations (Angola, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Russian Federation, Switzerland and Ukraine).

As for the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), most survey respondents reported the use of new technologies for the promotion of museums throughout the world. Internet access is widespread in museums for the majority of Member States, while a large number of States have put in place programmes for the digitization of collections (Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania and Portugal), developed consultation platforms or cyber-museums (Czech Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Russian Federation and Uzbekistan) and adopted specific legislation in the field of copyright (Georgia, Netherlands, Panama and Ukraine). Some Member States reported only the use of basic infrastructure such as access to computers.

The social role of museums has been recognized by many respondents. However, major challenges have been identified by Member States in the contribution of museums to the strengthening of social ties and promoting the participation of all citizens in cultural life. While numerous museums have developed innovative initiatives in this regard, most of them are related to measures encouraging access to school children and disadvantaged communities. The evaluation of this area remains weak but a few responding Member States (Brazil, Finland, and Portugal) keep statistics on visitor attendance.

In terms of the promotion of openness to societal challenges, Member States provided examples of initiatives, in particular exhibitions, in which museums play an active role in fostering social cohesion and human rights. For example, Angola has established a traditional court in one of its museums to deliberate about pressing societal issues; Argentina has organized activities on human rights and restitution; the Republic of Korea has created a national museum on women's history; Portugal has explored issues relating to museums, gender equality and slavery; the Islamic Republic of Iran has established a museum for peace; some Mexican museums conducted activities targeting disadvantaged communities; Brazil has developed a network of "memory spots"; the Netherlands has developed a programme to promote tolerance; and Bulgaria and Czech Republic have developed a strategy for the promotion of gender equality in the field of museums.

The majority of Member States reported the development of exhibitions and public programmes within the scope of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development through museums, mainly through science museums. There are however significant differences in the efforts deployed by Member States.

Member States requested UNESCO's support to raise awareness about the Recommendation (Chad and Togo), on the development of standardization measures (Albania, Islamic Republic of Iran and Lesotho), developing training and seminars, including digitization of collections and fundraising (Eritrea, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Nigeria and Slovenia). Numerous responding Member States (Mexico, Namibia, and Netherlands) requested new assessment and guidance tools to assess the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation. Most Member States stated that adequate resources are required for the effective implementation of the Recommendation.

The results of this first evaluation of the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation reflect the important work carried out by most responding Member States in this area. In their responses, many Member States express their wish to continue their efforts. It is also clear, from the reports of the Member States, that Museums play a significant role in society.

Disparities in the responses received from Member States reveal that regional specificities should continue to be one of the guiding principles of the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation in order to better utilize the potential of museums throughout the world.

Introduction

This report is a synthesis of the answers to the questionnaire submitted by UNESCO to Member States as part of the follow-up to the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society, adopted in November 2015. It aims to provide a summary of the answers given by those responsible for completing the questionnaire and is therefore based on the declarations of the Member States. To this effect, it does not purport to reflect the state of museums in the responding countries, as a site visit would have allowed to envisage, nor to present a synthesis of the state of museums in the world. The report aims to summarize how Member States have sought to implement the UNESCO Recommendation.

The purpose of this introduction is to recall the history of the process that led to the drafting of the report, the general issues of the 2015 Recommendation and the structure of this document.

History of the process

UNESCO adopted the Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society during the 38th session of its General Conference on 17 November 20153 . As a follow-up to the Recommendation, the first session of the UNESCO High-Level Forum on Museums was organized one year later in Shenzhen, China, from 9 to 12 November 2016, following which the Shenzhen Declaration on Museums and Collections was adopted by the Forum participants4 . It re-emphasizes the diversity of museums and collections, as well as their role in protecting heritage in times of peace and conflict, their responsibilities as regards ethics, technology development and community involvement. Finally, it emphasizes national and international cooperation between museums.

Article VIII of the Organization's Constitution requires Member States to submit a report on the legislative and administrative provisions and any other measures taken to implement UNESCO's conventions and recommendations. In this context, the Executive Board approved, during its 202nd session in October 2017, the guidelines and the questionnaire for the preparation of reports on the application by Member States of the 2015 Recommendation (202 EX/Decision 24.VII) and requested the Secretariat to submit a first consolidated report for its 206th session in spring 2019 for communication to the General Conference at its 40th session in autumn 2019.

The questionnaire sent to Member States included 18 pages (see Appendix 1). It was structured as follows:

-A general assessment question (G) on the consideration of the Recommendation; -Seven statistical questions (S1 to S7) on museums and the legislative provisions of the Member States; -Questions on general and functional policies for museums;

1. Respect for existing international instruments and principles 2. Allocation of financial and human resources 3. Diversity of museums and collections -Questions on the functional policies of the museum sector;

4. The essential functions of museums and public participation 5. The survey on the implementation of the Recommendation was sent by the Director-General in December 2017 to all UNESCO Member States. Two reminders were sent. The deadline for replying to the questionnaire was 30 August and extended to 30 September 2018. Fifty-six Member States replied.

A meeting comprising an expert from each of UNESCO's regional electoral groups, an ICOM representative and UNESCO officials was organized at UNESCO Headquarters on 9 and 10 January 2019 to analyse the answers to the questionnaire, and to prepare the consolidated report and this report on the implementation of the Recommendation.

General issues of the Recommendation

The Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society is the first recommendation specifically related to the world of museums, since the recommendation concerning the most effective means of making museums accessible to all, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 11th session, on 14 December 1960. The 2015 Recommendation recognizes the significant transformation of museum institutions in recent decades, as well as the significant role that museums can play in society, particularly for the protection and promotion of cultural and natural diversity, but also for dialogue, education, development and social cohesion.

The Recommendation aims to propose a reference framework for museums and collections:

1. It defines the museum, the collection and the heritage. 2. It recalls the main functions of a museum, namely preservation, research, communication and education. 3. It mentions the main challenges for museums in society: a. Globalization, allowing greater mobility of collections, professionals, visitors and ideas. b. The relations of museums with the economy and quality of life, with museums participating in the urban or tourist development of cities and regions. The Recommendation recalls that economic challenges and income generation must not be at the expense of the main functions of museums. c. The social role of museums, which can play a central role in social cohesion, the building of citizenship and reflection on collective identities. d. Information and communication technologies (ICTs), which also offer major development opportunities for both museums and their users. 4. In this context, it presents the policies to be implemented by the Member States a. General policies and in particular international instruments must be implemented by museums. Member States must adopt policies to ensure the promotion and protection of museums. b. Functional policies related to museum functions, inventories, protection of nonmuseum collections, ethics, training, funding, ICT development, public development and the social role of museums.

Presentation of the structure of the report

The structure of this report is based on the questionnaire sent to Member States, but also on the structure of the Recommendation. In the first part, the report presents a general portrait of the Member States that answered the questionnaire, as well as statistics on museums, collection items and legislative tools used by the Member States.

The second part analyses the Member States' answers concerning the adaptation of their legislation for museums. First, the measures recommended by the Recommendation are recalled. The national legislative framework (laws, policies, guidelines, etc.) put in place by States is then analysed, as well as the framework defined for listing museums and collections. The implementation and development of links with international instruments (conventions) are also analysed.

Museum functions are discussed in Part Three. These are first described based on the framework defined by the Recommendation. The administrative framework related to the application of these tools is also analysed, as well as the specific legislative tools developed to respond to the framework referred to in the Recommendation. A fourth section discusses the measures taken to implement the Recommendation. The treatment of collections, particularly highlighted in this last document, is the subject of a special analysis.

The fourth part, finally, deals with the challenges museums face at the dawn of the 21st century, within society. These challenges, as defined in the Recommendation, are the subject of a first reminder. These are essentially the issues of museum resources and funding, the role of ICTs and the social role of museums. The answers of the Member States to each of these challenges are the subject of a specific analysis.

The conclusion summarizes the main lines of a general assessment of the activity of the Member States with regard to museums. The limitations of the questionnaire in this context are discussed, as well as the requests of Member States mentioned in the answers. The report concludes by examining the role that UNESCO can play in the protection and promotion of museums in relation to the Recommendation.

I. Member States that answered the questionnaire

The questionnaire sent to Member States enabled the collection of a large amount of information on how museums are organized by public authorities around the world. This is certainly not an exhaustive result, but the answers given allow us to have a view, which, if it does not perfectly represent the world of museums, at least provides a good idea of the way they are perceived and managed throughout the world, as the answers came from all regions of the globe.

Answers to the questionnaire

A total of 56 responses were received by the General Secretariat by 31 December 2018. The origin of these answers is well distributed with regard to the regional electoral groups represented within UNESCO (Fig. 1 and Tab.1).

Museums counted by the Member States that answered the questionnaire

It is regrettable that a number of States with a particularly dense network of museums did not answer the questionnaire. However, several Member States which have returned the questionnaire have a significant museum network, testifying to the importance of the museum phenomenon throughout the world. It may therefore seem of interest to total up the number of museums that Member States claim as forming their museum network.

The most frequent figures given to estimate the number of museums in the world indicate that there are some 50 to 60,000 institutions worldwide, this number increasing from 22,000 in 1975 to 49,000 in 2004, and more than 55,000 in 2012, based mainly on the Museums of the World directory 5 .

In comparison with these figures, if we add up the number of museums (based on the typological administrative classification proposed by UNESCO) of the various Member States that answered the questionnaire, we come up with a first total of 31,246 establishments (Fig. 3 and Tab.2). The museum network of the various Member States differs significantly, ranging from a single unit (Timor-Leste) to 5415 (Russian Federation). Group 2 appears here as the one with the most museums (almost a third of all establishments). It is followed by the museums in Group 3 and Group 4, then, only after these, those in Group 1. The museum network represented by the Group 5 Member States is smaller. It should be noted that this does not perfectly reflect the reality of the museum networks of States around the world. Theoretically, the number of museums in Group 1 should be much higher if a number of Member States had answered (Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, excluding the United States, whose network is estimated to be between 17,500 and 33,000 museums according to statistics).

Group 1 5933

Group 5b 209 Egypt (86), Iraq [START_REF][END_REF], Saudi Arabia (36), Tunisia (80)

Assessment of the coherence of States with their legislation

A first, general question (question G) was asked of Member States in order to find out their overall feeling on how the guiding principles of the Recommendation were taken into account in their countries' laws, policies and guidelines. A scale of 1 to 5 was thus proposed to the Member States (1: not at all, 2: a little, 3: moderately, 4: a lot, 5: totally).

The majority of the Member States that answered the questionnaire consider that their national legislation largely reflects the principles related to the Recommendation: 8 countries consider that it corresponds totally, 24 countries consider that it corresponds a lot to the recommendations, 17 countries consider that it answers moderately, 4 countries that it corresponds a little; only one country considers that it does not correspond yet (two countries did not answer the question) (Fig. 4) [START_REF]Number of cooperation actions between Member States (Fig. 13)[END_REF] .

6 Calculated by Olivia Guiragossian on the basis of the statistics reported by the Member States in their reports. [START_REF][END_REF] SAUER, Museums of the World, München, KG Sauer Verlag/ De Gruyter, 2016 (23rd ed.). See Appendix 1. [START_REF]Number of cooperation actions between Member States (Fig. 13)[END_REF] The data used to create the graphs are presented in Appendix 2.

The list of countries presented in the various categories is given in appendix for each of the graphs

Overall, therefore, and without distinguishing between the various regional political groups, the officials who answered the questionnaire consider that the principles of the Recommendation are very largely taken into account by the legislative and policy tools implemented by the public authorities.

This first self-assessment, while reflecting the satisfaction of Member States with their work in translating the spirit of the Recommendation, will be completed in the next two parts relating to the implementation of tools to protect and promote museums.

II. Adaptation of legislation for museums and museum statistics

This section first discusses the main measures mentioned in the Recommendation and the way in which Member States have responded to these. It then examines how museum statistics are presented by the Member States, and how the latter have integrated international instruments, and more particularly UNESCO Conventions.

Reminder of the measures to be taken in the Recommendation

The measures in favour of museums presented by the Recommendation are articulated between general policy measures ( § 20 to 23 of the Recommendation) and functional policy measures ( § 24 to 35).

General policies

Member States should take appropriate measures to ensure that museums and collections in territories under their jurisdiction or control can benefit from the protection and promotion measures granted by international instruments ( §20). The Recommendation puts the emphasis on the fight against illicit trafficking and respect for professional ethics ( §21). The Recommendation also emphasizes support for museums, through the provision of adequate human, physical and financial resources ( §22), and the need to improve their quality by drawing inspiration from international standards while respecting museum diversity ( §23).

Functional policies

Member States must support all functional museum policies (preservation, research, communication and education) and work in a collaborative and participatory way with the audiences, in particular communities ( §24). Special care must be given to collection inventories and digitization ( §25).

Member States are invited to draw inspiration from international good practices, particularly in the field of ethics, through the ICOM Code of Ethics ( §26). The development of museums is ensured by the quality of the staff and its continuous training ( §27), on the one hand, and by adequate funding (public or private) on the other hand ( §28). ICT access to museums is encouraged ( §29)

The social role of museums is also put forward, as well as the need to make them accessible to all (1960 Recommendation) ( §30) and the cooperation within the museum sector ( §31). The protection of nonmuseum collections is also emphasized ( §32).

Image 1 -UNESCO 2015 Recommendation on museums and collections

Member States are encouraged to develop plans and policies in order to implement these Recommendations on their territory ( §33), to prepare inclusive public development policies ( §34) and promote international cooperation between institutions ( §35).

Overall analysis of the legislative framework

All Member States confirm the existence of specific legislation in favour of museums. This legislation is more or less regularly adapted (questions S5 and S6).

Number of national instruments

Taking into account laws, policies and directives and implementing decrees (S5 and S6), the number of instruments related to the legislative and policy framework varies greatly between Member States (Fig. 5).

At this stage, it should be stressed that the analysis which can be presented here is not based on the content of the documents implemented by the States, but on their number or the year of promulgation, since the legislative documents have not been provided (nor translated into a language that would allow analysis). These two indicators can only indirectly reflect the quality of the current legislative framework. Some laws (one or two documents) can indeed be very precise and can handle all the requests presented in the Recommendation. The number of tools, as well as the year of promulgation, are therefore indicators related to the sophistication of the system and its adaptation over the years. However, it can be assumed that a fairly large number of recent documents reflect a real desire to adapt the legal framework as closely as possible to current conditions, as described in the Recommendation. Half of the Member States that answered the questionnaire have a particularly large number of instruments, estimated at an average of about a dozen documents. Some countries, such as Mexico, Poland, Sweden and Ukraine, have submitted up to more than 50 different documents.

Date of implementation of national instruments

The existing legislation (question S5) appears to be relatively modern for a large number of Member States, the legislative framework having very regularly been supplemented with new laws aimed at adapting the operation of museums to the current context and the challenges presented in the Recommendation. Some 15 countries have also adapted their legislation since its approval in 2015 (it is not possible at this stage to infer that the Recommendation was the sole driving force behind these changes) (Fig. 6). This result is even more significant if we take into account all the instruments developed by the Member States (laws, decrees, policies, directives, S5 and S6) (Fig. 7). More than half of the Member States have thus developed instruments (implementing decrees, directives, policies, etc.) to support the development of museums at the beginning of the 21st century.

It is difficult to identify a perfect correspondence between the results of the general assessment of the extent to which the principles of the Recommendation have been taken into account and the number or date of national instruments put in place, but there is a certain correlation between the fact that Member States that have developed a number of important tools, the most recent of which have been put in place, consider that their legislation reflects much or all of the elements presented in the Recommendation.

Museum statistics

The questionnaire sent to the Member States included a significant number of questions concerning the statistical tools used to list museums according to their administrative responsibility (question S1) and the theme of their collections (S2), but also regarding the number of items held in the collections (S3), and the existence of other statistical sources available in the country (S4).

The question of typologies

The typologies presented by UNESCO as regards administrative and thematic matters were as follows (Tab. 3). While such typologies make it possible to specify in some detail the supervision of the various institutions or the type of collections housed (in particular to determine the number of museums associated with World Heritage sites), they have proved to be of complex use for Member States. It should be stressed that there is currently no international consensus on any typology. For example, the Ambrose and Paine manual, Museum Basics, distinguishes between five different types of classifications (collection, supervision, dissemination area, type of audience, types of exhibitions presented) and, as regards the collections, lists 11 categories (general, art, archaeology, history, ethnography, natural history, science, geology, industry, military, intangible heritage) 10 . The manual on Museology by Gob and Drouguet, for its part, draws on the classification of Rivière (art museums, museums of human sciences, museums of natural sciences, museums of science and technology, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary museums) as well as that of Edson (essentially based on the Art, History and Science themes) 11 . Zubiaur Carreño, in his Curso de museología, analyses some ten different typologies, including the one presented by ICOM in 1977 (art, natural history, ethnology, history, science and technology, social sciences, commerce, agriculture) 12 . The statistics department of the French Ministry of Culture includes four categories (Nature science and technology, society and civilisation, history, art) 13 .

Typology according to the administrative responsibility as regards museums

No consensus on the subject of listing collections has emerged in this sense, which could have led to some confusion since Member States had to "translate" their own typology in order to list museums according to the one proposed in the UNESCO questionnaire. As a result, the number of establishments listed by the Member States from an administrative point of view (31,246) differs significantly from that presented in terms of the nature of the collections (22,298), as several States did not answer the latter question. From this perspective, the relative analysis (in %) of the main types of museums (grouped into more robust categories) seems the most relevant (Fig. 8).

The two main types of administrative supervision are the central authority (national, federal, the international category not being significant) which represents a quarter of the establishments, and the more local level of cities and municipalities, which appears by far the most important, representing one third of the sample. National, federal and international Regional City, municipalities and districts Community, trust, association, non-profit, private Religious institutions, universities

Businesses and others supervision appears to be in the majority in this context, accounting for more than 70% of all institutions.

Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the thematic distribution (Fig. 9) of museums reveals two particularly important categories: history museums, which represent almost half (40%) of the sample, and art and archaeology museums, which represent a quarter. Museums of science and ethnography represent about 14% of the sample, while the other institutions do not fall within a more precise disciplinary framework (other, thematic museums, etc.).

Museum collections

Of the 56 Member States that answered the survey, 30 present statistics on objects in collections (7 States, however, report particularly low statistics, probably incorporating only a very small part of the inventories).

In this context, if the total number of objects collected by museums is around half a billion (479,269,883 objects), no real estimate of the number of objects kept in the museum network of these 56 Member States can give rise to any real interpretation. In emphasizing these issues, the 2015 Recommendation also referred to the risks, for heritage protection, of not having complete inventories for museums, such a lack of documents making theft and illicit trafficking easier. The majority number of Member States able to present statistics on their collections does not cancel the fact that almost half of the Member States were unable to answer this question, and that their museum network suggests a certain fragility in this respect. However, the distribution of these collections can be presented based on the previously mentioned headings (Fig. 10). The distribution between collection items differs significantly from that of museums. The collections of art and archaeology museums (and overwhelmingly, those of archaeology museums) represent a quarter of the sample; the collections of history museums represent only 7%, when institutions represent 40% of the sample. In contrast, the collections of natural science and science museums (8% of museums) represent almost a third of all museum collections. The last third includes the collections of the general museums and other museums.

Knowledge of closed museums and other statistical sources on museums

Just over half of the Member States (29 out of 56) can provide information on museums that are closed or not in operation (for whatever reason) (S7; details, see Annex 3). This indicator enables us to partially verify the level of reliability of existing museum statistics, since it is based on an update of the database listing the institutions.

On the other hand, only 17 Member States mention the existence of other sources of museum statistics (in connection with other ministries, such as the ministry of tourism, statistical offices, etc.). These two indicators, as well as the other statistics presented above, are thought-provoking.

Need for statistical harmonization

While significant disparities can be expected within the global museum network, which only reflects cultural diversity as valued by UNESCO and its Member States, it is also important to note the disparity that can be observed in the identification and designation of museums around the world. Finland, among others, thus chose to include in its statistics only museums managed and opened during the year, with at least one full-time and professional employee, thus excluding about a thousand local museums or collections managed by associations or local authorities, foundations, etc., essentially open on a part-time and voluntary basis. On the other hand, other Member States have made different choices, with particularly rich networks, but whose criteria for selecting the institutions that make up the network differ greatly from those mentioned above and cannot be compared with the latter.

While most Member States refer to the definition of the museum jointly given by ICOM and UNESCO, this definition should be clarified (by defining, for example, the minimum number of days of operation, or by specifying the qualities expected of the staff working in the museum) in order to establish a precise basis for statistical comparison. In this perspective, many questions remain central, in particular the need or not to have a collection to define a museum (the Pontos de memoria in Brazil do not rely on this logic and are integrated into the museum network), etc. The process of redefining the museum, initiated by ICOM in 2016 and which could lead to a new definition in 2019, makes a very broad reference to these various issues relating to the limits of the museum field 14 .

The issue of museum typologies, in this perspective, in turn leads to the need for better harmonization in order to allow real statistical comparisons between the different Member States, and a better understanding of the nature of the world museum field.

UNESCO, in partnership with ICOM, could play a fundamental role in harmonizing museum typologies and statistics as a whole.

Use of international instruments (conventions)

Most of the 56 Member States that answered the questionnaire have adhered to the international instruments promoted by UNESCO and related to the heritage field (question 1.1).

These are:

- Member States have made a large number of suggestions in order to better integrate the principles of the Recommendation with other international instruments.

In general, Member States emphasize the need to work with UNESCO National Commissions to better integrate the conventions (Andorra), the importance of raising awareness among cultural operators (Belgium and Chad), as the visibility of the Recommendation seems to them to be still reduced (Switzerland). Albania and Burkina Faso suggest training, as well as Argentina (through the Ibermuseos network), Georgia advocates strengthening intersectoral collaborations. Mexico suggests strengthening museum management and administration. The Republic of Korea details a plan aiming to enhance knowledge of the Recommendation through translations, a summary of the main points (which Namibia also requests), specific answers to the main questions related to it, and cooperation with other UNESCO heritage programmes. Nigeria also suggests partnerships with ICOMOS. 15 It should be noted, however, that the answers given in the questionnaires differed significantly from the lists of Member States listed as parties to these conventions. For this question, we used the UNESCO website, which lists the various Recommendations. Brazil, on the other hand, recommends that the main wishes for cooperation by Member States with regard to the Recommendation be identified, as well as the points that they would like to see addressed as a matter of priority. National delegations with common interests could thus engage in a constructive dialogue, and the most frequently raised points could be presented as priorities by UNESCO.

III. Museum functions

This section presents the way in which Member States have integrated into their legislative or administrative systems the overall framework from which museum activity can develop. After a reminder of the main functions of museums, the report presents the administrative framework that has been put in place by the Member States, within the administration or through professional organisations, as well as the cooperation actions developed between the institutions. Thirdly, the legislative tools used by the Member States to specify museum functions are analysed. The actions taken by Member States to publicize the Recommendation are then discussed. Finally, the place of collections within the museum system is the subject of a special analysis.

Reminder of museum functions, based on the Recommendation

Museums have evolved considerably over the years, and more precisely over the last five decades. The ICOM definition of the museum (which is currently undergoing a revision process) distinguishes five functions of the museum: it acquires, conserves, researches, exhibits and communicates. UNESCO adopts a functional framework for the museum based on four functions: preservation, research, communication and education.

Preservation

The term preservation includes the many activities related to the acquisition and management of collections, including their storage, safeguarding, but also the development of preventive measures (security, emergency plans, preventive and curative conservation, restoration). Maintaining an inventory of collections is especially stressed, as it constitutes a central document for the activity of institutions, in particular to manage the collection and fight against illicit trafficking.

Research

Research work is presented as one of the core activities of museums. Research refers to the study and interpretation of collections. Research can be conducted in partnership with other institutions, such as universities or research institutes.

Communication

The term communication includes exhibition activities, interpretation of collections, publications and various mediation activities. The issue of mediations is specified in the following function (education) and also includes integration or social inclusion actions. In this perspective, the work of museums with audiences, but also the knowledge of audiences, is particularly important.

Education

Strictly speaking, and in particular according to the logic of the PRC model (Preservation, Research, Communication) 16 , education is integrated into the communication function. UNESCO wished to highlight the educational work of museums, through formal and non-formal education, lifelong learning, the transmission of knowledge, etc. This concerns the development of educational programmes, particularly in partnership with other institutions (schools).

Administrative framework for the organization of the museum sector

The overall framework for organizing museum life is essentially based on two pillars: public agencies or administrations on the one hand, and professional associations on the other.

Departments in charge of museums and reporting to the administration

Overall, almost all the Member States that answered the questionnaire have a department responsible for museums within their administration (question 10.2, Tab. 4). This is usually a department specifically dedicated to museums, within the heritage administration. Sometimes the organisation of the museum system is very broadly integrated (Art and Culture Department), sometimes more specifically, when the museums depend on the administration of Antiquities. A few countries have an agency that reports directly to the administration but enjoys special recognition, in particular Brazil (with IBRAM, which plays a very active role in coordination and information) or Iran (with ICHTO), Mauritius (the Museum Council), or Zimbabwe (National Museums and Monuments). Sweden has a National Heritage Board reflecting the principles of "arms length" (independence of the direct organization by the public authorities) found in several Anglo-Saxon countries.

Ministry

Professional associations

The associative fabric is a particularly important element with regard to the organization of museums (question 10.3). The first professional association, the Museums Association, was created in 1889 and its main objective was to professionalise the sector through conferences, exchanges of good practice and the creation of a network. The International Council of Museums (ICOM), which came after the International Office of Museums, was created in 1946 and has its headquarters within UNESCO. Most Member States have at least one and often two professional associations (Fig. 12). In the case where the State has only one association, it is most often composed by the ICOM National Committee.

When the country has a second association, it is often a national professional association, formed in parallel with the ICOM National Committee. However, some Member States have a much higher number of professional associations, reflecting a level of organization according to specific themes (regional museums, associations of museum directors, agricultural museums, etc.). These include Australia, Brazil (8 associations) and Poland (9 associations).

Cooperation actions

The questionnaire raised the question of cooperation between museums, either technical (exchanges of collections, exchanges of exhibitions, joint research) or relating to human resources (question 10.1). The question was asked at the national, regional, international level, or through public-private partnerships. This information seemed difficult to collect for a large number of Member States (24 Member States could not give precise answers). The number of actions presented thus differs considerably from one country to another (some countries seem to have statistics on the lending of objects, others have only identified the main actions (Fig. 13). Thus, 8 Member States have identified more than 50 cooperation actions, including the Russian Federation (2359), Japan (906) and Georgia (411).

Specific legislative means and tools to respond to the framework referred to in the Recommendation

The questionnaire on functional policies asked Member States to specify legislation, policies and guidelines to assist museums in fulfilling their main functions as regards preservation (acquisition, inventory, collection management, risk analysis, contingency planning, security, conservation, restoration), research, education (formal and non-formal, learning, knowledge transmission, educational programmes, partnerships) and communication (interpretation, knowledge transfer, exhibitions, activities, access, social inclusion).

General index linked to Member States' policy commitment

Most administrations use the same documents for different actions. In this perspective, an index has been calculated to determine the commitment of Member States, through these documents, to a functional policy. This index includes answers to questions concerning human resources policy, training programmes, the number of specific tools used by Member States that were counted from the answers given, the taking into account of local specificities and the participatory actions with stakeholders [START_REF]Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Botswana, Brazil[END_REF] (Fig. 14). The question relating to the size of the budget allocated each year to the national museum [START_REF]Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Botswana, Brazil[END_REF] These are questions 2.

Code of Ethics

The Recommendation puts particular emphasis on the respect for the ethical rules of the profession, referring in particular to the ICOM Code of Ethics. A specific question on the existence of national legislation or specific instructions on ethics had been raised in this regard in the questionnaire (question 6, Fig. 15).

It should be noted that 18 Member States did not answer this question, suggesting that no framework is specifically explained on this subject. In total, 11 Member States refer to their national legislation on this issue and 5 Member States refer to both the ICOM Code of Ethics and the legislation or other national framework. However, the largest number of responses refer to the ICOM Code of Ethics, which appears as an indisputable international reference.

Good practices as regards functional policies and resources

Several Member States mentioned good practices in their functional policies, in particular as regards staff selection and training, management, local specificities or participatory activities with stakeholders. In terms of management, in the Netherlands, it is worth mentioning the long-standing privatisation policy of the Netherlands, which aims to encourage institutions to organize themselves, based on funding from the Heritage Act to finance activities in favour of the public, as well as additional funding through foundations; museums lease state-owned buildings and are considered privatised organisations.

In terms of participation and policies in favour of local communities, many good practices can be mentioned, notably Brazil, with the "points of memory" (pontos de memoria) programme to encourage social museology. Brazil has also developed a network training process linked to the "National Museum education policy" through the public and private sectors, including IBRAM and educational networks.

Egypt has developed several programmes in partnership with NGOs, and supports private initiatives, such as "Museums are ours", an initiative of museology students at Helwan University, to promote the cultural activities of museums. Finland has initiated, through the Ministries of Culture and Environment, "cultural environment commitment" programmes 18 , and seeks to integrate specific groups, in particular refugees. The Netherlands has also developed new specific programmes, in the policies "Culture in an open society" and "Heritage counts", in 2018, in which different groups in society are encouraged to develop participatory actions, supported by a participatory fund. There is also a passport system for young people to make them more frequent visitors to museums. Portugal has also developed several initiatives, particularly in connection with the opening of its new national museum: Museu Nacional da Resistência e da Liberdade, launched in 2017, in association with former prisoners, researchers, etc., to initiate participatory research in order to collect testimonies.

Measures taken to implement the Recommendation

Four questions were asked from Member States to clarify the measures they had taken in order to implement the Recommendation (questions 12.1 to 12.4). An index has been set up in order to summarize the efforts made by Member States 19 (Fig. 16).

Just over two thirds of Member States answered these questions and identified measures to best implement the Recommendation. A third have taken measures either to promote or revise public plans and policies, to designate institutions or agencies to lead the process of implementing the Recommendation, or to organize meetings or activities related to its implementation.

The measures taken are very diverse (Tab. 5):

Tab. 5. Types of measures taken by Member States

19 Each of the four questions was coded in the same way, with one point per positive and explicit answer (explanation of the measures taken). As regards communication, many Member States have taken special publicity measures, either by translating the UNESCO document into their national language or by disseminating it, for example on the Internet, or by organizing meetings and debates on the issues at stake in the Recommendation. Brazil devoted its annual forum, which brought together museum professionals (more than a thousand participants), to this subject.

Several Member States have sought to assess their current policies in relation to the text of the Recommendation, and a number of them (16 out of 56) report that they have developed new legislation or plans (or intend to do so in the near future) to better support the text of the Recommendation. Several training courses were also organized, and two Member States (Poland and Egypt) decided to create a new institute or department to guide their museum policy.

The questionnaire also raised the question (3.1) of the number of new museum diversity initiatives, through the creation of new museums or the reorganization of new institutions, since 2015. A little more than thirty Member States provided an answer to this question, sometimes referring to a very large number of new or reorganized structures (question 3, Fig. 17).

Four Member States (Brazil, Iran, Latvia, Russian Federation) report having created or reorganized up to almost 250 museums (for the Russian Federation), while seven others have created between 11 and 30. It should be noted, however, that these creations or reorganizations cannot simply be attributed to the implementation of the Recommendation, but reflect the vitality and diversity of the museum network.

Collection handling (legislation, statistics, non-museum collections)

Several questions focused more specifically on how collections were handled in museums, including issues of inventory, record-keeping or periodic monitoring, standardization of inventories at the national level and digitization of collections. An index (a scale ranging from one to five) has thus been set up in order to identify the effort made by Member States on this issue 20 .

More than half of the Member States have high indices (4 or 5), reporting important activities in favour of inventorying, digitization or standardization (these responses come from almost all groups) (Fig. 18). We will remember (II. 3 and Fig. 10) that of the 56 museums that answered the survey, only about thirty presented collection statistics and about twenty were eligible for relatively complete statistics. This statistic reflects the existence of more or less precise inventories, making it possible to extract the requested figures.

Good practices as regards inventory and digitization

A very large number of Member States report good practices in the inventory of collections. Several have developed specific inventory software in order to develop common standards: these include Andorra (Museum plus), Argentina (CONar), Belgium (AICIM), Brazil (SICG), Cyprus (CADiP), Mexico (SIGROPRAM), Portugal (Matriznet), Spain (Spectrum or CIDOC), Sweden (Spectrum) and Tunisia (Virgile).

A very large number of Member States have also adopted specific digitization plans for their collections, including Argentina (CONar and MEMORar), Belgium (PEPS Plan), Brazil (INBCM), Czech 20 One point per number of yes-answers including explanations, integrating the four questions of question 5, and question 7.2. Republic (CESONLINE and ELVIS programme), Finland (National Digital library), Latvia (Kopkatalogs), Lithuania (LIMIS and E-paveldas), Mexico (Directorate of ITC of Min. of Culture), the Netherlands (Dutch knowledge Center/DEN), Sweden (Digisam). Finland, in addition to its overall digitization plan, has also published practical guides for inventory and collection management.

Among the many other good practices related to the issue of collections are the inventory standards published online by Portugal (which has produced many guides on this subject)21 , the portal on digitization produced by Sweden, including many reports in this field22 , the programme for the description, registration of collections and creation of a national database produced by the Czech Republic (in Czech and English) 23 , the very precise legislative provisions and the catalogue listing the collections of Latvia24 , or that of Lithuania25 , as well as the national centre for the conservation and management of collections (INBA) which was put in place in Mexico and which includes its annual programme of collection verification. Most countries with good practices in this area are more likely to emerge from Groups 1 and 2.

Image 5 -Project: Development of Virtual Electronic Heritage System © National Library of Lithuania

Valuation of collections

It also seemed appropriate to add to these questions on collections those on the economic valuation of collections (7.2. of the questionnaire), the answer to which also makes it possible to understand the importance given or not to collections by Member States, in particular because of their potential financial valuation. This question has been understood in different ways. A number of Member States value their collections financially, in their national accounts or at least in the reports of each museum. Andorra does this for 8 of its museums, Albania refers to the estimation of collections in its annual reports, Estonia values the collections of national museums (for objects with a value of more than 5000 euros at the time of acquisition), as well as Latvia, Slovenia and Australia (the data are included in the museums' reports). Lithuania has developed a methodology for the valuation of a museum object 26 . Egypt includes the acquisition price in the data related to the collections.

Several other Member States mention the valuation of their collections (especially as national property), but not in an economic way. This is the case for Cyprus, Bulgaria (depending on the budget, collections are considered as fixed assets of historical or artistic value), Afghanistan, Eritrea, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Mauritius, or Zimbabwe.

In this perspective, it should also be noted that Finland, Mexico and Namibia also referred to the overall economic evaluation of museum activity, in terms of economic contributions by museums to the market economy 27 .

Non-museum collections

The questionnaire also included two further questions (11.1 and 11.2) on non-museum collections, asking Member States whether or not there are laws for these collections and whether there are mechanisms to promote them. A small majority (30 responses out of 56) answered yes to at least one of the two questions and 18 States answered yes to both questions.

The context in which these non-museum collections are mentioned is either related to antiquities (as in the case of Cyprus, Myanmar or Saudi Arabia) or based on references in various deeds relating to heritage, libraries and archives (Australia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Iran, Japan, Latvia, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine (which includes in particular church heritage). Portugal, in article 4 of the Museums bill, defines the concept of "Visitable Collections" and refers to the way in which they can benefit from state support; the Netherlands refers to these collections in the context of property protection in the Netherlands, when they are owned by private individuals. The Czech Republic has a register of collections, and collectors can register and are required to follow the instructions given to them, but this system is not binding (

IV. Challenges for museums in society

While the implementation of the Recommendation requires the development of museums' functions, it also addresses the changing context in which museums operate, which, at the beginning of the 21st century, face considerable challenges.

Reminder of the challenges raised by the Recommendation

The Recommendation on the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society essentially mentions four issues for the future of museums.

Globalization

The issue of globalization (mobility of collections, professionals or visitors) potentially entails a risk of homogenization of practices. Respect for diversity, particularly with regard to the identity of museums and their functions, is a major challenge with far-reaching consequences.

Museums' relations with the economy and quality of life

Museums are economic stakeholders in society, although this is not their main function. They generate income, either through their direct activities or indirectly, through tourism or by contributing to the quality of life in the regions in which they are located. But their function cannot be estimated solely in financial terms.

Social role

The reminder, by the Recommendation, of the 1972 Declaration of Santiago of Chile, positions the social role of museums as a key role, already ancient, but to be continuously reactivated. Museums are public spaces for society as a whole and as such can play an important role as regards social cohesion, citizenship education and collective identities. This issue appeared to be one of the central areas of focus of the Recommendation, particularly as regards the issues of accessibility of museums to disadvantaged groups, or the participatory actions with indigenous populations in relation to the cultural heritage held by museums.

Museums and information and communication technologies (ICTs)

The issue of the upheaval caused by ICTs appears to museums as an opportunity in terms of communication, but also as a difficulty in terms of accessibility to these technologies.

The report will first focus on the relationship of museums to the economy and funding methods, and then on the issue of ICTs. The social role of museums, which has generated a large number of comments, will be dealt with last.

The issue of museum resources and funding

Economic issues are increasingly emerging as key issues for museums, both in terms of their funding and in terms of the economic role they can play. Two questions were asked in the questionnaire, on the government's strategies for funding partnership (by other sectors), and whether museums or collections in Member States were considered national assets, evaluated in financial terms (questions 7.1 and 7.2).

A two-point index 28 provides a general orientation on the measures taken by Member States in terms of financing (Fig. 19).

Only 34 Member States replied to at least one of the questions or took a measure, while 15 States replied positively to both questions. Adequate funding appears to States as a major challenge, with several pointing out the difficulties in meeting the conditions set out in the Recommendation (particularly in terms of social role) for adequate funding. This issue of the economic valuation of collections has already been addressed above. A majority of Member States are aware of the potential for valuation of their collections, but only a small number consider this principle of valuation in truly economic terms, and an even smaller number (notably Finland and Mexico) have sought to measure the economic impact of museums on the national territory. 28 One point was given if the answer was positive and detailed. As regards funding, more than a third of the Member States have sought to develop alternative resources to public funding for the museum network. The first principle, the most widely mentioned, is the development of laws favouring patronage and sponsorship, or the fact that museums are encouraged to go to such sources. Such measures are claimed by Albania, Angola, Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, or Ukraine.

Many Member States also seek to promote museums through many partnerships. Panama and Chad refer to relationships with tourist offices, which help to attract more visitors to the museums, Botswana emphasizes the role of business financing, while Eritrea and Nigeria refer to bank financing (including the World Bank or the Central Bank). Zimbabwe also recalls the role of other United Nations bodies, such as UNICEF.

Several Member States highlight good practices as regards cross-financing. Burkina Faso gives examples of co-financing, and Namibia refers in particular, in this context, to the role of museum associations. Japan points out the possibilities offered by crowdfunding, which has been implemented in that country. With regard to funding through donations or patronage, Australia presented its 2013 "Public performance and accountability act" system, Mexico mentioned the possibility of providing foundations to certain museums in order to receive donations, and the Netherlands mentioned the importance of several sources of funding, giving their hybrid system as an example (funding through grants under the Heritage Act, assistance through a lottery (Bank Giro Lottery) and through foundations (Rembrandt Foundation)).

Egypt recalls, in this context, the need to develop a clear strategy, combining discussions with the various ministries.

The role of ICTs

Four questions were asked concerning the ICTs: Member States were asked whether their governments provided access to ICTs for museums, whether they had laws on the use of ICTs in collection management work, whether they encouraged free electronic access to collections and whether they had laws or guidelines on intellectual property and copyright and digital reproduction (questions 8.1 to 8.4).

A first index was established based on the positive (and explicit) answers to these four questions (Fig. 20).

A very large number of countries report at least a minimum ICT policy; only 9 countries have not answered or have answered negatively to these four questions. On the other hand, almost half of the Member States replied positively to the four questions (they represent all groups, with the exception of group 5a), and there are representatives of all groups who answered positively to at least three questions. Digital projects and in particular the design of cybermuseums also appear to be solutions for the Member States. Uzbekistan mentions its general catalogue and the establishment of virtual museums, Iran presents virtual tours of its sites, and an electronic ticketing system, Japan has also developed portals for online access to cultural heritage. Egypt highlights the integration of ICTs into the Grand Egyptian Museum project.

Some States have reported only basic ICT access to museums (provision of computers

The social role of museums

The questionnaire included four questions directly related to the social role of museums (questions 9.1 to 9.4); a question on participatory principles with stakeholders (question 4.3) had already been asked as part of functional policies. Member States were therefore asked whether they were taking specific measures to integrate the principles of the social role of museums (integration and cohesion, strengthening social links), whether they were taking measures to facilitate physical and intellectual access to museums and collections, whether they were promoting contemporary societal issues (human rights, gender equality), whether they had undertaken efforts to promote dialogue and partnerships between museums and populations in connection with collections, and whether they were participating in dialogues for the return or restitution of property. A first index was calculated from these questions, with a scale from 1 to 6 29 (Fig. 21).

On reading this index, it appears that the social role is understood in different ways by Member States, but no correlation can be envisaged between groups of States: representatives of all groups are found in most categories of the index. Overall, therefore, very few States show, through their replies, only limited interest in this question, and most Member States appear to be particularly interested in the 29 One point is given if the answer is positive and if examples are given (for questions 9.1 to 9.4), question 9.4, with two categories, counts for two points, one point has been added for answer 4.3 (in the case of substantiated positive answers), concerning collaboration with stakeholders. A large number of good practices were identified in the responses. Among these, several different types can be distinguished.

Origin and restitution of cultural property

Several Member States reported good practices in the restitution of stolen or spoliated property. Thus, the Austrian "Commission for provenance research", established in 1998 to inventory public collections and recover spoliated works, has been very active in this field and mentions several cases of restitution. Under this law, many objects which the State possesses may be returned to their original owner or heirs. The Czech Republic also points to the restitution process established since 1990, in order to right the wrongs perpetrated by totalitarian regimes during the 20th century. A legislative mechanism has thus been put in place for the restitution of collections acquired by the State, confiscated or nationalised after 1948, as well as for victims of the Shoah, between 1938 and 1945.

Some Member States stressed the importance of working to facilitate the return of stolen and illegally exported objects from their territory. This is the case of Cyprus.

The Cultural Heritage Administration of the Republic of Korea, and the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs, signed a partnership agreement on cooperation in the protection, research and restitution of cultural property in July 2014. This cooperation has resulted in the return of remarkable objects (including royal seals) to the Republic of Korea.

Angola also refers to the role of the Museu do Planalto in Huambu and the Museu dos Reis do Kongo in Mbanza Kongo, which organize dialogue programmes with the population with a view to recovering collections looted during the civil war.

Cultural diversity and accessibility

A great many actions are being taken by Member States to develop and maintain cultural diversity, or to increase the accessibility of museums to all.

Finland has initiated a number of actions in this field and reports, inter alia, the action of the Finnish Centre for the Promotion of the Arts (TAIKE), which distributes grants to museums seeking to promote actions related to cultural diversity and activities against racism, or in favour of vulnerable communities 30 . The "Culture for All" department, funded by the Ministry of Culture and Education, promotes inclusive cultural services that integrate multiple audiences and provides tools and information for professionals in the cultural sector seeking to improve the accessibility of their institutions 31 .

Portugal and Spain also appear to be particularly active, in particular through publications such as "Comunicação Acessível e Inclusiva em Monumentos, Palácios e Museus" (accessible and inclusive communication in monuments, palaces and museums), or through the organization of exhibitions on gender and art: "body, sexuality, identity and resistance" was an exhibition organized by the Museu do Chiado -Museu Nacional de Arte Contemporânea (2017-2018), to combat gender stereotypes. Spain developed a Plan for a more social museum in 2013, which resulted in several projects, such as "Tejiendo un futuro" (weaving a future), at the Museum of the Americas, in collaboration with women in prison (in 2017), or the project "La frontera de lo desconocido. Arte y salud mental", on mental health organized in 2015 at the National Museum of decorative art, an exhibition on the diversity of identities and gender, etc.

The Netherlands has also published a document, "Culture in an open society", presenting culture as a cohesive force for all, in an increasingly diverse society, with citizens having increasingly complex roots. The "Voices of Tolerance" programme at the Ons'Lieve Heer op Solder Museum in Amsterdam also questioned the meaning and values of religious freedom and tolerance, particularly with secondary school students, in order to come up with solutions.

In the Czech Republic, the Museum of Roma Culture, an independent but state-funded organization, works to integrate the Roma minority. Community Week in Hungary is entirely dedicated to events that focus on communities and aim to express their values, through their initiatives, ideas, social cooperation projects, and of course active participation in projects. The program is organized during the months of May 32 .

In Argentina, the "Public and Community Programme" seeks to promote processes and spaces of social inclusion in national museums, through the development of collaborative projects with communities.

Brazil, through the activities of IBRAM, has developed a recognised competence in social museology, which plays a very important role in Brazilian museology. Among the various activities organized in this context are the "Points de mémoire" programme, the national education policy, Museum Week, 31 http://www.kulttuuriakaikille.fi/en.php 32 (https://kozossegekhete.hu/

Image 7 -Exhibitions on gender and art © Museu Nacional de Arte Contemporânea do Chiado, Lisbon, Portugal

Museum Spring and the National Museum Forum. The theme of each of these events is related to issues of social participation and audience development, for example work on "Indian memories" or "museums in a sustainable society".

Finally, the Namibian Museum Association is working on a circulating exhibition that will use the history of the genocide in Namibia to inform the discussions of schoolchildren about human rights and the harm caused by their non-compliance.

Some other noteworthy actions

A large number of actions developed more specifically by one or other museum deserve to be highlighted. In this context, we can mention the following:

The Paper Money Museum in Porto, Portugal, which has developed a special programme called "financial regime" to help families define their priorities and save money. This project is particularly important for many people living in a neighbourhood marked by marginality and poverty. Some groups of women, or Roma families in particular, have been able to benefit from this programme and gain autonomy, maturity and respect for themselves.

The City Museum of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, seeks to involve the city's inhabitants in the development of exhibitions and projects, in order to decide together what constitutes the city's heritage. The objective of this active participation of the inhabitants is to promote links between the different groups of citizens within the city.

The Estancia Jesuitica Museum in Alta Gracia, Argentina, has created children's orchestras as part of the Andrés Chazarreta programme. These orchestras are made up of popular instruments, the children come from marginalised populations. The National Museum of Costume History also develops programs to bring communities together through popular activities, such as embroidery and weaving. The Estancia Jesuitica Museum has also set up a programme with the University of Cordoba called "liberating the muses" in prisons, aimed at working on the identity of women deprived of their liberty, in order to enhance their life stories and certain objects that are precious to them. In Brazil, the Museu da Abolição de Recife has developed activities based on the demand of local societies: each year, based on a theme announced in the press, many activities are organized in conjunction with civil society and public or private institutions to promote participation. In 2016, the theme was black women leaders or protagonists, in 2017, respect for African-American religions, and in 2018, the abolition of slavery in Brazil.

The José Maria Velasco Gallery, located in one of the poorest districts of Mexico City, Mexico, with the highest rate of violence, has been working for 65 years to develop the artistic production in this area, despite the fact that it is constrained by an unfavourable environment.

Image 8 -Permanent program of free workshops for the community © Galería José María Velasco / Image 9children's orchestras © Museo Nacional Estancia Jesuítica de Alta Gracia y Casa del Virrey Liniers

In Iran, the Peace Museum, located in Tehran, seeks to show the terrible consequences of war and violence, in order to promote a culture of peace and friendship between peoples and nations.

The National Women's History Exhibition Hall in the Republic of Korea, founded in 2002, aims to raise public awareness of gender equality.

The Museo dos Reis do Kongo, located in Angola, has established a traditional court within the museum to provide fair solutions in the event of conflict, in accordance with tradition, for the surrounding community.

Finally, in Eritrea, the National Museum seeks to work particularly with several marginalized groups, including orphans, war invalids or people with disabilities, by inviting them to the museum and offering them a private tour. In addition, the role of women, mothers and combatants during the thirty years of conflict in Eritrea is particularly highlighted within the national museum.

The issue of audience development

The text of the Recommendation invites Member States to implement inclusive audience development policies and, in this context, two questions were asked concerning these policies, the first concerning the development of museum audiences, the second concerning the improvement of the quality of the visit (questions 13.1 and 13.2).

About twenty countries answered positively to one of the questions, and about twenty answered positively to both questions, citing many good practices (Fig. 22).

The types of responses can be summarized by presenting them in four categories: questions relating to free and practical access, questions relating to conferences and special events, questions relating audience study and more specific questions about the quality of the visit.

Initiatives aimed at the accessibility of specific groups have been presented above; the measures mentioned here are more general and cover all audiences. In this context, several Member States, in particular Belgium and Honduras, mention free entrances to stimulate demand, for example one free Sunday per month. Finland also has an annual museum card, which gives access, after acquisition, to 250 museums on its territory.

Knowledge of audiences

In this context, knowledge of the audience appears to be very important information, which is far from being developed in the same way by all Member States (question 13).

Several Member States report assessments through questionnaires, national surveys or guest books, including Chad, Georgia and Mexico. Finland refers to a framework for museum evaluation and development. In 2015, Portugal launched, in partnership with the University of Lisbon, a national survey of museum visitors, the results of which, presented from 2016 onwards, aimed to better understand visitors to national museums, analyse their expectations and evaluate their visit. In Brazil, IBRAM has established, in partnership with the Ibero-American Observatory of Museums, a system for collecting data on audiences, based on information provided by museums, in order to measure and evaluate museum attendance and subsidize new activities. The data analysed are either annual (filled in by all Brazilian museums) or monthly (filled in by museums directly dependent on IBRAM). Conferences and study courses can also be organized in this context. The Netherlands reports on a conference held in 2018, entitled "Museums for All?", discussing the more or less strong links between museums and the country's inhabitants, as part of the wish to integrate the museum sector and to be increasingly inclusive.

With regard to strengthening the quality of the experience, Brazil, through the IBRAM public laboratory and the national museum education policy, supports the good practices of its institutions; for example the course "Elements of Afro-Brazilian History and Culture", designed to train some 60 teachers to better use the museum, was offered by the Museum of Abolition in Recife; the same museum has also put in place courses for teachers in municipal schools related to inter-ethnic relationships.

In Australia, the Australian Museum of Democracy located in the Former Parliament (MoAD) organizes events to attract visitors who would not otherwise participate and actively engages with nontraditional museum audiences in exhibition spaces such as PlayUP, the permanent exhibition for children exploring the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the Republic of Korea, the "Humanities on the Road" programme was created to support projects combining the humanities and the content of public, private and university museums registered with the Government of the Republic of Korea, so that the meaning and values of humanity can be promoted and realized from everyday life. Finally, in Botswana, a mobile outreach education programme for primary schools and rural communities has been implemented.

The issue of sustainable development and the role of exhibitions

A question was asked in the questionnaire in order to measure the influence of the museum sector on efforts to achieve the objectives adopted for the Sustainable Development Programme by 2030 (question 14). Member States were thus asked to specify the number of museums presenting a permanent exhibition or temporary activities devoted to the themes of the objectives related to the programme, in particular with regard to food security, water, economic growth, climate change, technologies, sustainable development, but also human rights, gender equality, cultural diversity, etc. (Fig. 23).

Conclusions

In this last part, the comments of the Member States on the questionnaire are grouped together, as well as a first analysis of the results presented in the replies. On the basis of these two elements, a general synthesis is formulated on the activity of Member States with regard to the implementation of the Recommendation, as well as on the role that UNESCO can play in this context.

Comments by Member States on the implementation of the Recommendation

Through a final question, Member States could provide any additional information concerning the situation of museums in their countries, and in particular the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the Recommendation and the assistance expected from UNESCO in this field (question 15). A large number of Member States replied to this question and UNESCO has noted their requests. Some States, such as Portugal, mention the fact that the work they had done on the museums law in the early 2000s enabled them to deal with most of the points raised in the Recommendation. Key challenges for the future remain, such as improving communication and quality, developing participation and partnerships, and promoting sustainable development and human resources.

Overall, the answers to this question can be presented in several reaction categories:

Raising awareness among stakeholders Some Member States, notably Burkina Faso, Chad and Togo, request UNESCO to support them in their efforts to raise awareness among stakeholders as to the importance of the Recommendation.

Standardisation measures

Several Member States mention the need to develop standards and indicators. Albania suggests that UNESCO should focus in particular on the unification of standards for collection management, the skills of museum staff and training, and digitisation. Mexico is also interested in developing indicators to identify strategies to guide the museum network. Iran also refers to the standardisation of methods, allowing better exchanges between countries. Vanuatu and Lesotho also emphasize these issues, particularly with regard to collection management and conservation. Namibia suggests that, in this perspective, the text of the Recommendation should be translated into a more practical form, through a checklist, in order to assess the progress made. More generally, and in particular with regard to working with communities, whether they are classical museums or community museums that do not meet the ICOM definition, the Netherlands would like to see the exchange of good practices between States.

Training needs

Other Member States insist on training needs with a view to better implement the Recommendation. The Czech Republic would like post-graduate projects to be developed, based on international cooperation, with museum visits abroad for Czech museum managers, in order to benefit from external good practices. Moldova also stresses that one of the greatest challenges in this regard is the lack of specialists to organise courses and workshops for museum specialists. In this perspective, UNESCO's assistance would be welcome. Eritrea and Myanmar would like assistance for museum training, including conservation, laboratory development, etc. Angola also insists on the organization of workshops, and Mauritius, in this perspective, underlines its need for assistance in digitization.

Funding

Several Member States report a lack of funding to implement the Recommendation. Spain highlights in particular the fact that the museum's social role requires significant human and economic resources, which are often lacking. Bulgaria, Eritrea, Nigeria and Slovenia also raise this issue, more generally, with Slovenia requesting UNESCO's assistance in developing other alternative resources. This is also the case for Armenia, which would be interested in exchanging good practices on these methods.

Restitutions

Several Member States note that the protection and restitution of cultural property is an area that requires great attention at an international level, as regards provenance research practices with a view to enabling private collectors to return objects to auction houses and museums.

Statistics

Finally, two countries, Australia and Finland, raised the issue of museum statistics, explaining their choices in this regard and giving the reasons why they do not list all museums (including many community museums, for Finland, and non-national museums) in the answers to the questionnaire.

Reminder of the limitations of the survey

Before presenting an initial analysis of the results mentioned in the previous pages, three biases inherent in the method used to obtain the information should be mentioned.

A total of 56 answers

In this first survey, the number of responses provided by Member States was 56 out of a total of 193 Member States. Just over a quarter of Member States therefore answered the questionnaire, with responses from all UNESCO groups, to varying degrees (including an over-representation of Group 2 compared to other regional groups). The survey cannot claim to be exhaustive or to be perfectly representative of the diversity of museums in the world. However, it has the merit of illustrating the diversity of museums in many countries, with very rich cultural policies.

Declarative answers

It is also worth recalling the limitations of the questionnaire format. The time required to complete the latter, which was quite long (some 20 pages), may have been an obstacle for some Member States, as the expected answers sometimes required the involvement of several different departments. It should also be noted that the answers by the Member States necessarily depend on those who coded them or coordinated all the replies. This declarative method induces, on the one hand, a bias linked to the subjectivity of certain responses (assessment of the work carried out by Member States, choice of good practices), and, on the other hand, errors, as evidenced by the question of Member States' adherence to international conventions (significant differences between the answers given by Member States and the situation reported on UNESCO's website).

Answers that are difficult to synthesize

Finally, a large part of the answers submitted by the Member States -reflecting considerable workconcerned data on legislation, policies or directives to promote the development of the museum network. While a number of quantitative assessments have been mentioned in the preceding pages, it is worth highlighting, once again, the limitations of this assessment method, the only one that can be used here. In order to establish a comparison of the policies adopted by the Member States, it would be desirable to acquaint oneself with all the documents (law on museums, directives, etc.) implemented by the Member States; the quality of a text may differ greatly, either in its accuracy or in the way it approaches certain areas.

Moreover, the diversity of cultures, which is a major focus of UNESCO's attention, is not reflected as precisely in this type of response, which would be made possible by a more detailed analysis, on site, of the various places, in order to give a more accurate account of the overall situation of museums throughout the world.

General analysis of the activity of States in implementing the Recommendation

The synthesis method, used here to present a global vision of the museum field through the answers to the questionnaire, probably does not allow us to perfectly reflect the extent of the diversity of museums and their mode of operation. This diversity is of course apparent in the statistics: the networks of a few museums, developed by some Member States, coexist with other networks of several thousand institutions; investments in infrastructure or technology differ, as does the framework implemented to protect and promote museums. Nevertheless, it is only in the field, through the concrete examples of museums and the activities they carry out for their audiences, that this diversity is most widely expressed. Many aspects of this can be seen through the good practices described by Member States. Nevertheless, the mere description of these activities, in a few lines, only makes it possible to mention these differences, without really highlighting them perfectly.

Recognition of the role of UNESCO and ICOM

In any case, the report shows the important activity undertaken by Member States to supervise museums, and in particular the activity implemented since the publication of the Recommendation in 2015. Many States mention the sometimes considerable increase in their museum network and most of them have also reported on all the activities put in place to implement the content of the Recommendation.

In this perspective, the role of the Recommendation carried by UNESCO appears to be paramount. The replies mention its interest, as well as the central role played by ICOM as an organization bringing together museum professionals, and for its important activity in terms of standards -the definition of the museum and the code of ethics -and networking.

The majority of Member States consider themselves satisfied with the measures that have been taken to ensure that their legislative framework is in line with the recommendations of the text of the Recommendation. Nevertheless, for each of the questions asked in the questionnaire, covering preservation measures, research, exhibition and education, economic issues, the social role of museums and the development of ICTs, the answers could be coded into several categories, reflecting the more or less significant investment of Member States in these areas. These include issues of inventories, or ICT investment, which appear to be quite distinct. It should be noted, in this perspective, that these categories do not reflect any geographical, political or economic distribution of Member States, and that representatives of all regional groups are very generally found in most categories. This fact highlights the importance of the museum phenomenon throughout the world, although it is not uniformly distributed.

At this stage, stricto sensu, no comparison should really be possible between Member States as regards the number of establishments, each State listing museums on the basis of its own criteria. These derive from the definition of the museum given by ICOM and included in the Recommendation. But this definition needs to be clarified in order to be used statistically (how to measure openness to the public, whether a minimum number of objects in a collection should be defined, whether a museum should include professional or non-professional staff, etc.). In this respect, it seems imperative that recommendations can be made at the international level in order to allow for better comparisons.

The comparison questions at the legislative level require, in turn, a more precise examination than could be carried out on the basis of the questionnaire. Work on written sources (legislation, guidelines, policies) would indeed indicate how Member States have been able to translate the different functions and roles of the museum into their reference documents, identify best practices in this regard, and establish differences.

The analysis presented by the Member States could be supplemented by an on site survey of the museums themselves in order to document more accurately all the good practices described in the replies. A large amount of information, particularly visual information (photos, videos), would make it possible to better present the often essentially quantitative information contained in the replies, in order to disseminate it to other Member States -a wish expressed by the latter.

The value of good practices

The large amount of information provided by Member States on good practices is a perfect illustration of the quality of the information that can be evoked by this contribution. As the space reserved for this information was relatively limited, reading the questionnaires only provided a brief overview of the good practices that can be observed in museums or the strategies of the various Member States.

In particular, such information would benefit from being more systematically illustrated, through testimonies (from visitors or professional actors), photos and diagrams, or even films, so that it could be better communicated around the world.

An outstanding example of the transmission of good practices, developed by UNESCO in association with ICOM, deserves to be highlighted here. This is Kenneth Hudson's 1977 book, Museums for the 1980s. A survey of world trends33 , whose research has been largely funded by UNESCO. This report, the result of several months of research, numerous visits around the world, as well as questionnaires, presents an overview of museums on the eve of the 1980s, in order to better understand the evolution of museums. The book only very briefly addresses issues of legislation or representation of museums around the world, to discuss how museums organize themselves in practice and how they play their role in society. The issues of collection, conservation, building, visitors (a very large place is reserved for them), training and management are successively addressed, through many examples from all over the world (Hudson having travelled the world to collect first-hand information). The book, which was widely distributed, not only made it possible to draw up a report on the state of museums on the eve of this decade, but also helped a large number of museum professionals and inspired Member States through the many examples of good practices mentioned throughout the chapters.

It would be a pleasure to imagine a survey of this type being implemented again, in order to collect and disseminate this information on the world museum network.

Specific role of UNESCO in relation to the Recommendation

UNESCO's role in protecting and promoting museums, their diversity and their role in society, is paramount in this respect. Together with other international partners specializing in heritage, UNESCO can build a network of Member States and professionals to develop the entire global museum network and enable museums to play their full role in society.

A statistical role

The analysis of the report showed disparities in the presentation of the results, particularly in the assessment of the museum network and its activities, but also in its relations with the public. The aim is to define both the diversity of the museum world (and to represent it), while developing tools to better understand its scope, in a sufficiently coherent way throughout the world. UNESCO, through its Member States, could play a major role in developing appropriate standards and operational definitions to present appropriate statistical comparison tools around the world.

A communication role

As emphasized by several Member States, UNESCO's role in the dissemination of the Recommendation should be strengthened, on the one hand by associating it with the work carried out under the main international conventions (1954, 1970, 1972, 2001, 2003 and 2005) and on the other hand by developing tools resulting from the Recommendation, enabling it to better understand its essence: synthesis of the document, questions and answers, workshops on the Recommendation.

Several Member States mentioned the need to define priorities for addressing some of the themes related to the Recommendation. This principle was reiterated in 205 EX/39 Decision on risk prevention management, in response to the destruction of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, mentioning the need to address this issue, particularly at the next edition of the High-Level Forum on Museums. However, it is difficult to establish priorities on the basis of the data collected in this questionnaire, as the question has not been explicitly asked, and needs appear, to varying degrees, at all levels: inventory of collections, research, digitization, development of financial resources, etc. Nevertheless, UNESCO should consider setting up a specific programme to support Member States in their efforts to prepare museums for disaster risks.

At first glance, however, the issues surrounding the inventory, but also the consideration of the audience and visitors, appear central to all (social role, accessibility measures, participation, visitor studies); however, knowledge of these different audiences and their expectations still appears to be limited.

A unifying role in terms of good practices

The principle of examples or good practices that can be disseminated throughout the world seems particularly important to promote. The quality but also the diversity of the practices mentioned in the questionnaire testify to this. Work to promote these good practices (such as that presented by Kenneth Hudson in the 1970s) would benefit the entire global museum network.

In the context of the follow-up of the Recommendation and in particular of meetings and dissemination or training activities that could be organized, UNESCO could play a central role, based on these principles, in the centralization and dissemination of good practices not only with regard to heritage preservation, but also with regard to research, communication and education, as well as the follow-up of the issues identified by UNESCO in the areas of economics, ICT and social role.

Promotion of UNESCO's priorities

Finally, it is clear from the answers given by Member States that museums in Member States could play a significant role in society, within UNESCO's mandate and in relation to the priority actions carried out by the Organization, whether it be the construction of knowledge societies, freedom of expression or the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development.

The Role of Museums in Local and Sustainable Development

Afşin Altaylı, Museums and Society Coordinator, ICOM Secretariat Institutions change as does society. They often follow fixed patterns, regularly rethink their missions to reflect contemporary issues and societal trends, but they rarely experience a paradigm shift. The latter requires distancing oneself from the usual and freeing oneself from past and present conditioning, which may no longer be adequate when seeking new and persistent ways to address societal challenges such as inequality or environmental issues like climate change.

Today's museum environment reflects such a paradigm shift. Our expectations and the role museums assume within society have become substantially different from what they were in the past. The growing emphasis on the social role of museums today necessitates a close watch on societal trends as well as a willingness to address contemporary societal issues, which are often contested and political in nature, in a proactive manner.

Solutions can only be found if we are willing to encounter path dependencies, go beyond the existing dichotomies and divisions that dominate our civilisation and our minds (such as culture/nature, rational/emotional, east-west, global south and north) and de-marginalise opposition. This is only possible through the principles of restorative justice, if we can repair historical and contemporary injustices, not only those inflicted by humans on other humans, but also on memories and material cultures (or heritages), on nature, on other species, on all beautiful stories that have ever been told or all forms of life that have been imagined and experienced so far by diverse cultures and peoples, and therefore on future generations.

Just a decade ago, it was difficult to envisage holistically what local development and sustainability would mean for museums from a social, economic, environmental and intergenerational ethics perspective. Today, museums' contribution to community wellbeing and social inclusion is being acknowledged increasingly within the local development discourse, even by the finance/business sector. In order to achieve greater social impact local and regional governments are involving museums in local and regional policy-making processes. Implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is no longer limited to the activities of a specific group of concerned museums (e.g. science or natural history museums); it is increasingly perceived as the collective responsibility of all museum types, a responsibility to be pursued through engagement with their respective and diverse communities and through cross-sectoral collaboration.

Museums are exploring, and will need to continue exploring, innovative strategies in local and global sustainability practices, in order to support society to meet today's unprecedented challenges. As museums are at the nexus between tradition, innovation and communities, they have a part to play in nurturing sustainable futures. Together we can help to maximise their collective impact and benefit. It is therefore essential that UNESCO and its Member States support professional organisations and NGOs at local, regional and international level, to ensure that museums and museum professionals have a voice in defining our common future. One of these organisations is ICOM, the only international organisation dedicated to museums and museum professionals, who contributed to the drafting of the 2015 Recommendation and who was represented significantly within the expert group34 who contributed to the drafting of the consolidated report and to the preparation of this report.

Inclusive Museum, Policies and SDGs

Professor Dr. Amareswar Galla, Chief Curator, Amaravathi The relevance and benefits of museums (non-binary natural and cultural) are continually being interrogated. Multiple understandings of what they mean is pluralistic. While, standard setting instruments and definitions are critical to facilitate shared professional practice, one should be careful not to homogenise the diversity of discourses. Visitors are no longer the universal individual citizen of our recent modern aspirations. Visitors of today are recognizably diverse. What are the forms of engagement -what is the role today of the reader, the viewer, the audience, the citizen, the customer, the patron? What are the modalities of representation in the emerging communications environment-in which image, sound and word are all made of the same digital stuff-affords new openings for museums and new challenges.

The institution of the museum as a civic space in all its manifestations has become more and more significant in every corner of the world. We are at the cross roads of psychological decolonisation; return, restitution and repatriation of cultural property; reconciling fractured identities; searching for models and modalities of inclusion; locating culture, especially museums in SDGs; strategizing gender and SDG 5 across the UN 2030 Agenda; and promoting cultural democracy in the digital domain.

Heritage, health and wellbeing though integrated local area planning is still only aspirational for many.

A collective consciousness should be envisaged.

Museums could be facilitating more in-depth intercultural and interfaith dialogue, enabling new forms of networking and collaboration; developing strategies for raising greater awareness of the unique and often poorly understood role of cultural heritage in society; and inspiring, incubating, and catalysing several creative and unorthodox/unconventional projects across generations, regions, disciplines, and sectors. The call for innovation and bold initiatives has become urgent to address the cultural dimension of climate change.

Tourism continues to be the leading growth industry for almost two decades. In its way this growth is seriously minimising our heritage values and their signifiers, be they natural or cultural, movable or immovable, tangible and intangible. These are non-renewable heritage resources. Much needs to be done to raise heritage consciousness so that the local custodians, carriers and transmitters of knowledge systems are self-empowered to safeguard their values and resources. Who owns whose heritage -who interprets whose heritage -who benefits from whose heritage, are ongoing refrains for decades now. We need to understand the process of investment in tourism by governments and the private sector and then make appropriate interventions to locate museums at the heart of sustainable (Amareswar Galla and George Okello Abungu), another International Committee Chair (Darko Babić, ICOM/ICTOP) and a board member of one of ICOM's national and standing committees (Anne-Marie Afeiche, ICOM Lebanon and ICOM/SAREC). 35 (http://inclusivemuseum.org/conferences/inclusive-museum/) tourism development.

Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030 provide a framework with measurables. We need to go beyond the binaries and the tyranny of legacies and stereotypes to be inclusive, holistic and sustainable in our responsibilities to posterity. We need thinktanks to deal with various situations, be they emergent, emergency or transformative. New voices need be heard. More of the same will not do. This Report evidences the imperative for clear and well-articulated museum and heritage policies and strategies that are transparent and accountable. At the core should be the contextuality of museums; ethical engagement of all stakeholders and most importantly an inclusive understanding of what heritage means to the primary stakeholder communities and that it is honoured and respected as a living process of their sense of place.

in general, for museum workers, and/or support measures for continuous professional training, including mobility?

Diversity of museums and collections

  Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society

2

  The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005), the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property (1970) and the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954). The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) will be included in the guidelines for the next consultation of the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation.

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Consideration of the principles of the Recommendation in laws, policies and directives

Fig 5 .

 5 Fig 5. Number of legislative tools (laws, decrees, policies) put in place

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 6. Date of the last main legislative tools

Fig. 8 .

 8 Fig. 8. Distribution of museums from an administrative point of view

Fig. 9 .

 9 Fig. 9. Distribution of museums from a thematic point of view

Fig. 10 .

 10 Fig. 10. Thematic distribution of collections

  The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999); -The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970); -The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972); -The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001); -The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003); -The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005).

  Image 3 -logos of UNESCO Cultural Conventions 14 See BRULON SOARES B., BROWN K., NAZOR O. (Ed.), Defining Museums of the 21 st century: plural experiences. Paris, ICOFOM, 2018; CHUNG Yun Shun Susie, LESHCHENKO Anna, BRULON SOARES Bruno, Defining the Museum of the 21 st Century. Evolving Multiculturalism in Museums in the United States, Paris, ICOFOM/ICOM. As one of the Member States noted and regretted (Spain), the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was not the subject of a question in the survey; its role in heritage protection is important, particularly with regard to underwater archaeology and its links with illicit trafficking. It should be addressed in a future questionnaire. Almost all the Member States that answered the survey (about 50 out of 56 States; sometimes all States, for the 1972 Convention) have ratified or adhered to the 1954, 1970, 1972, 2003 and 2005 UNESCO Conventions (Fig. 11). Only a smaller number of member States (25) have ratified the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention promoted by UNESCO 15 .

Fig. 11 .

 11 Fig. 11. Conventions signed by Member States

Fig. 12 .

 12 Fig. 12. Number of professional associations

Fig. 13 .Fig. 14 .

 1314 Fig. 13. Number of cooperation actions between museums

Fig. 15 .

 15 Fig. 15. Respect for museum ethics

  18 https://commitment2050.fi/Image 4 -Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collectionAbram Powell © Australian Museum*

Fig. 16 .

 16 Fig. 16. Measures to implement the Recommendation

Fig. 17 .

 17 Fig. 17. Actions taken by Member States since 2015

Fig. 18 .

 18 Fig. 18. Index on collection policies

  Fig. 19. Funding Index

Fig. 20 .

 20 Fig. 20. Index concerning the use of ITCs

Fig. 21 .

 21 Fig. 21. Index concerning the social role of museums

Image 10 -

 10 Mosul Museum Before the destruction / Image 11 -Mosul Museum after the destruction ©UNESCO

Fig. 22 .

 22 Fig. 22. Member States and the public

Fig. 23 .

 23 Fig. 23. Actions for the Agenda 2030 programme

  Western European and North American States) and Group 2 (Eastern European States) are slightly over-represented compared to the other groups. Group 2 is also the only group in which more than a majority of Member States, which are part of the group, have answered (more than 60%). Groups 3 (Latin-American and Caribbean States), 4 (Asian and Pacific States), 5a (African States) and 5b (Arab States) are presented with up to 20% of the Member States which are part of these groups (Fig.2).

	Group 1 (
		Fig. 1. Countries that answered the questionnaire
	Group 1
	Group 2
	Group 3
	Group 4
	Group 5a
	Group 5b
	0	2	4	6	8	10	12	14	16
				Responding countries
	Group 1	10	Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, the Netherlands,
			Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
	Group 2	16	Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia,
			Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Russian
			Federation, Slovenia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
	Group 3	7	Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela
	Group 4	8	Afghanistan, Australia, Iran, Japan, Myanmar, Republic of Korea,
			Timor-Leste, Vanuatu
	Group 5a	11	Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Lesotho, Mauritius,
			Namibia, Nigeria, Togo, Zimbabwe
	Group 5b	4	Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia
		Tab. 1. List of countries that answered the questionnaire

Typology according to the major theme of the collection

		Museums	Museums
	International	9 Art	3348
	State, central or national	6676 Archaeology	1979
	Federal	688 Museums associated with World	242
		Heritage sites
	Regional	4369 History (regional, of cities, of	8009
		population, etc.)
	Municipal/of city	8765 Memorial	961
	Of a neighborhood	252 Natural history and natural sciences	863
	Of a community	804 Literature	189
	Of a public group, a public foundation	1099 Science and technology	985
	Of a private non-profit organization	2744 Popular arts, ethnography and	1379
		anthropology
	Of a trade association	227 Music	59
	Of an association	1033 General	542
	Of a private, individual or family	907 Inter-or Multidisciplinary	2228
	company
	Of religious institutions	926 Other	1514
	Of a university	508
	Other	2233
	Tab. 3. Typologies proposed by UNESCO for the classification of museums 9

In terms of selection and training, several

  Member States refer to the role played by professional associations. Australia has implemented a development programme for Aboriginal communities and the people in the Torres Strait Islands, based on participation and double learning (each side learning from the other). The Czech Republic has established a development centre, in particular at the University of Brno (UNESCO Chair of Museology), and museum education courses given by the Moravian Museum, with the support of associations (for museum professionals). Brazil, through IBRAM, has developed a distance-learning tool, "Saber museum" and has organized several courses in recent years. The Republic of Korea has developed courses organized by the Museum Association, or the National Museum, for young professionals. Spain has developed a system of administrative selection by competitive examination, which includes scholarships for young or mid-career professionals, and regularly organizes courses and promotes the mobility of civil servants.

  Heritage Centre & Museum, India; Executive Director & Founder of the International Institute for the Inclusive Museum, India/Australia/USA. One of the priority concerns across the world has been exploring the future role of museums, with a particular focus on how best they could become inclusive. Scoping and understanding of discursive crossings across cultural borders have been slow and steady, especially intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, ability, language, faith, economic status, age, regionalism, sexuality and more. UNESCO 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and its Action Plan; UNESCO 2015 Recommendation concerning the Protection and Promotion of Museums and Collections; ICOM Code of Ethics; and ICOM Cultural Diversity Charter provide the guiding framework. 35

6. Code of Ethics and Professional Standards

  3.1 During the period covered by this survey, how many new initiatives reflecting the diversification of museums and collections in your country have been launched, particularly for the purposes of diversity, and what is their nature? Does your government have laws, policies and guidelines to assist museums in carrying out their core functions of preservation, research, education and communication? 4.2 If so, do these laws, policies and guidelines take into account local specificities? 4.3 Does your Government provide guidance and take concrete measures to promote participatory and collaborative efforts among the various stakeholders that influence or play a role in the museum sector (e.g. urban planning authorities, educational institutions, civil society groups, young people, persons with special needs, or groups of persons with a specific link to or interest in museum collections)? Does your government have laws, policies or guidelines to conduct inventories of collections, public or private, using basic, manual or digital elements? 5.2 Does your government enforce, through legislation, a periodic inventory control for museum collections? 5.3 Does your government enforce a standardized/unified inventory system (manual or digital) at the national level (or other as appropriate) by providing guidance on documentation standards? 5.4 Does your government enforce or recommend the digitization of collections by providing guidance on standards for data presentation and storage? 6.1. Do your government's existing laws, policies and guidelines indicate the need to adopt a code of ethics for stakeholders in museums and similar institutions to guide their professional activities and behaviour so that they are in compliance with ethical standards of conduct?

	Functional policies
	4. Essential functions of museums and audience participation
	4.1 5. Documentation of museum collections
	5.1

7. Funding mechanism and partnerships

  7.1 Does your government have strategies, policies or guidelines for funding partnerships or in-kind contribution programs for museums of the different sectors? 7.2 Are your country's museums/collections considered as national assets, assessed in financial terms? Does your government provide access to ICTs for museums, for example as part of an online administration policy? 8.2 Does your government have any legislation, policies or guidelines regarding the use of ICTs in the management of museum collections? 8.3 Does your government encourage free electronic access to collections through legislation, policies or directives? 8.4 Does your government have any laws, policies or guidelines regarding intellectual property and copyright for digital reproduction and other virtual resources that are published, in relation to the collections?9. Social role of museums9.1 Has your government taken specific measures to integrate the principles of the social roles of museums, such as encouraging social integration and cohesion and strengthening social ties by promoting activities related to these aspects? 9.2 Has your government taken specific measures to facilitate safe physical and intellectual access to museums and collections for all, including children, the elderly and disadvantaged groups? (This also refers to Objective 11.7 of the Sustainable Development Programme for 2030) 9.3 Has a specific programme been set up to promote issues related to contemporary societal concerns, including human rights and gender equality, in the museum sector in your country? 9.4 Has your government made efforts to promote dialogue and partnerships between museums and populations with specific links to collections, and, where appropriate, initiated or responded to requests for the return or restitution of heritage objects, in accordance with applicable laws and policies? If so, please specify. Does your government have data on cooperation and partnerships established during the period of this survey? If yes, please specify: 10.2 Does your country have a national agency or a section dedicated to the museum sector (such as the Directorate General of Museums, the Museums Section) within the relevant ministries? 10.3 Does your country have a public or national non-governmental museum association, including the national committees of the International Council of Museums (ICOM)?

	8. Museums and ICTs 8.1 10. Multi-level cooperation 10.1

11. Collections held in other institutions

  11.1 Does your government have specific definitions and laws for collections that are not stored in museums managed by public authorities? 11.2 Does your government have specific laws, policies and guidelines to promote access to collections owned by individuals or institutions other than museums managed by public authorities?

12. Measures concerning the 2015 UNESCO Recommendation

  12.1 Since the adoption of the 2015 Recommendation, has your government taken appropriate measures to promote it among all relevant stakeholders? 12.2 What initiatives have been taken to revise public plans and policies regarding the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation? Provide as much information as possible on the steps your country is taking to integrate the principles of the 2015 Recommendation into constitutional, legal and policy frameworks. 12.3 Have institutions/agencies been designated and involved at the national level to lead the process of implementing the 2015 Recommendation? 12.4 Since the adoption of the 2015 Recommendation, have any initiatives been taken to implement it, including the establishment of new

museums, the organization of meetings, capacity-building and professional training activities

  in accordance with the provisions of the Recommendation, including those concerning national, regional and international partnerships, in particular with UNESCO? If so, please explain. Does your government have specific policies regarding the development of museum audiences? 13.2 Does your government have specific policies to encourage

	13. Audience development
	13.1

the quality of the visit? Museums and Sustainable Development Program by 2030

14. Please indicate the number and references of national initiatives that you believe contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed sustainable development goals.

All the texts are available on the UNESCO website: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/museums/recommendation-on-the-protection-and-promotion-ofmuseums-and-collections/

 4 The text of the Declaration is available on UNESCO's website: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Shenzhen_Declaration-en.pdf

Counting carried out by Olivia Guiragossian on the basis of statistics presented by the Member States.

DESVALLEES A., MAIRESSE F. (dir.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie, Paris, Armand Colin, 2011.

http://matriznet.dgpc.pt/MatrizNet/NormasInventario.aspx

http://www.digisam.se/leveranser/rapporter/

http://ces.mkcr.cz/ces

http://nmkk.lv/

http://www.epaveldas.lt/home

Methodology for Evaluation at Fair Value of the Movable Cultural Valuables Protected in Museums: (https://www.etar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/1d14deb09bf411e48dcdae4eb2005eaf. The Recommendations of the Evaluation of the Museum Objects (Exhibits): (https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.6A50B6729194/CWccCGrUtH).

 27 See Economic Effectiveness of museums (https://www.univaasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-503-9.pdf), published in Finnish.

http://www.taike.fi/en/grants-and-subsidies

Hudson K., Museums for the 1980s. A Survey of World Trends, Paris and London, UNESCO and Macmillan Press, 1977.

Representatives included International Committee Chair (François Mairesse, ICOM/ICOFOM) who authored this consolidated and global report, a representative of ICOM Secretariat office (Afşin Altaylı), two former Vice-presidents

Acknowledgements

UNESCO Secretariat would like to thank the Member States, their delegations, the relevant ministries, agencies, and museums for their detailed and meticulous responses on which the first report on the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation on museums and collections is based. The Secretariat is also grateful to Mr François Mairesse and his team of the Université Sorbonne Nouvelle -Paris 3, for the analysis of the contributions provided by Member States and for the drafting of the present report. The Secretariat would also like to extend its deep gratitude to the experts representing the regional groups, for their scientific contribution and their participation in the meeting organized at UNESCO for the drafting of the report: Mr George Abungu, Ms Anne-Marie Afeiche, Mr Afşin Altayli, Mr Darko Babić, Mr Amareswar Galla, Ms Laurella Rinçon, and Ms Natalie Urquhart. The Secretariat expresses its gratitude to the financial support of the Zhi Zheng Art Museum. The Entity of Culture and Emergencies of UNESCO assumed the overall supervision of the conception of the report.

Some 30 Member States reported at least one action in line with this objective, representing more than half of the Member States that answered the questionnaire. The number of actions listed could be difficult to collect; of the Member States that answered this question, almost half declared between 1 and 5 exhibitions or activities, and this number decreases quite rapidly. Only five countries report more than 15 projects or activities: Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Netherlands and Portugal.

The challenges museums face within society

Apart from the question of globalization, mentioned in the Recommendation, the issues presented in the questionnaire reflected economic issues, information and communication technologies, and the social role of museums.

Image 12 -Façade of the Musée national du Burkina Faso © Musée national du Burkina Faso / Image 13 -Female Statue © Musée national du Burkina Faso Member States often highlight the funding difficulties associated with the operation of the museum and the implementation of the Recommendation. The economic role of museums appears, in this perspective, still rather vaguely identified. Many Member States have sought, through their legislation and other tools, to encourage the search for other financial resources (partnerships, sponsorships, collaborations). Museums, and in particular their collections, are most often identified as important resources, and clearly identified as a national heritage, but the collections are not identified as financial assets, and the economic role of museums is currently still relatively unaddressed, except by a few Member States that have tackled these issues. This is to be welcomed, as the text of the Recommendation recalls that the main functions of these institutions are not economic, but linked to the role of heritage preservation and promotion.

The issue of information and communication technologies appears to be the most divisive. Some Member States have invested heavily in this area, through digital plans, while others have given priority to other sectors. Quite significant differences can therefore be observed at this level.

However, the digital and economic stakes appear to be relatively low compared to the social role of museums. This role is widely recognised by Member States, through the many good practices implemented throughout the world. This aspect undoubtedly best illustrates the efforts to integrate audiences, and in particular vulnerable groups -children, ethnic minorities, disadvantaged populations, etc. The museum as a unifying and inclusive centre thus appears to be a major stakeholder, reflected throughout the world.

While the principle of the social role of museums appears to be widespread throughout the world, the fact remains that knowing the audience, or more precisely, the visitors, is still a relatively neglected activity. Some Member States report generalised surveys or public awareness schemes, but these systems are relatively rare.

Difficulties in comparing

The report has already mentioned the difficulties encountered in comparing data provided by Member States. These difficulties are statistical in nature, but also intrinsically linked to the nature of the questions in the questionnaire.

ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO MEMBER STATES

(condensed version)

General

G1.

In your country, to what extent are the guiding principles of the 2015 Recommendation (e.g. the main functions of museums, their social, cultural, educational and economic role, cultural diversity and tolerance, equality and the fight against discrimination, peace and non-violence, justice, human rights, gender equality, survival and well-being of the human species, sustainable development, intercultural dialogue, etc.) taken into account in your country's laws/policies/directive on museums and collections?

Statistics

Indicate the most recent general statistics at the national level on museums and collections in your country. Specify the source and year of the data S1.

Number of museums and similar institutions registered in terms of administrative responsibility S2.

Number of museums and similar institutions registered in terms of major themes and collections S3.

Number of items by collection category (if known) S4.

Do you have any data sources available other than government / public sources for museum statistics in your country? S5.

Is there a specific legislation or legal provisions, policies and guidelines for museums and collections? S6.

If you answered yes to question 5, are there any decrees implementing this law(s)? S7.

Operational status: Do some museums not operate or are closed for any reason whatever?

General and functional policies

1. Respect for existing international instruments and principles 1.1 Does your government have laws, policies and guidelines regulating the missions and activities of museums to ensure that they comply with existing international instruments? If so, explain how they were implemented in accordance with the conventions listed below. 1.2 With particular reference to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, do your government's existing laws, policies and guidelines provide guidance to museums, similar institutions, private collections and owners on the following points?

Allocation of financial and human resources

2.1 Is your government's policy on the allocation of human, physical and financial resources based on an assessment of the needs of museums and similar institutions? 2.2 Indicate the budget volume allocated each year to the national museum sector (overall volume or by activity/function) and its percentage in relation to the total budget allocated to heritage/culture. 2.3 Does your government have human resources policies that apply to museums, such as a public examination for the selection of qualified museum professionals or the provision of a given number of graduates in relevant disciplines that is appropriate to the number of positions to be filled, in the short and long term? 2.4 Does your government offer scholarships and training programs for mid-career professionals and, APPENDIX 2

DATA USED TO CREATE THE GRAPHS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT

1. Consideration of the principles of the Recommendation in laws, policies and guidelines (Fig. 4) Image marked with an asterisk (*) does not fall under the CC-BY-SA licence and may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the copyright holders.