Liam Smyth, LPIP Hub Place Fellow, discusses his recent briefing paper on how the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill could be triangulated with a place-based cultural development context to herald in a watershed moment for community-owned culture and heritage in England.
A place’s identity is shaped not only by its physical assets but by the living traditions, skills, and practices that communities carry forward. Implementation of the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)[1], combined with the new duties emerging from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presents a generational opportunity to centre living heritage as a driver of inclusive growth, wellbeing, and place identity in regions across England.
Intangible Cultural Heritage and local place identity
The Bill and Convention arrive at a particularly fractious time for communities in England. There exists a complex identity landscape with variable attachments to national, regional, and local place, culture and history (YouGov, 2025; ONS, 2022). Coupled with this, declining public trust in national institutions – considered inadequate representatives at a time when inequality is rising (National Centre for Social Research, 2024). There is growing recognition of the need to address these challenges by empowering regional governance, strengthening local institutions, promoting inclusive cultural narratives, and fostering a sense of belonging through community-led initiatives.
The UK Government’s ratification of the ICH convention in April 2024 could be a game-changer for the UK. ICH (or ‘living heritage’) shifts our cultural gaze away from a historic fixation with buildings, land and artefacts, to the stories, dialect, craftsmanship, music, culinary traditions, festivals, ceremonies and knowledge that are essential to the social fabric of a place. Ratification of the ICH convention does not automatically place any additional duties on local, regional or national government, but it does commit the UK to creating and maintaining inventories of living heritage and implementing ongoing safeguarding practices.
Compatibility and frictions with cultural management frameworks
Because the Convention is likely to cross different sectors as well as governments (e.g. pantomime, Nos Galan road races, fossil collecting, kilt making), it could create tensions within existing cultural management frameworks, and it is not yet clear how responsibility will be apportioned. Importantly, ICH has an indissoluble connection with the identity of its bearers and community (Lenzerini, 2011), which echoes the current devolution agenda and move toward bottom-up accountability.
The Convention’s participation requirement finds practical vehicles in the Bill’s neighbourhood governance duty. The Bill will decentralise powers to strategic authorities across England to make decisions based on local strengths and priorities. Local Growth Plans, introduced by the Bill, have the potential to create inclusive development strategies tailored to the unique tangible and intangible assets in a place. Mazzucato (2025) identified a perspective ICH element of the Notting Hill Carnival for its capacity to “foster self-worth and belonging [which] leads to greater civic engagement and economic participation”.
The forums and spaces that support the transmission of ICH could be safeguarded by the stronger rights for community ownership and neighbourhood governance ushered in through the Bill. For instance, community-owned pubs are one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK’s co-operative economy, having increased 51% over five years and 13% in the last year (Co-operatives UK, 2025). Pubs and other assets of community value are important transmission spaces for this country’s ICH elements and could be protected for community use by the Bill’s Right to Buy.
Further, the £5bn Pride in Place strategy (announced 25 September 2025) could light a fire under the Bill and Convention to work in synchronicity. The strategy explicitly references the ICH convention as a viable route for promoting communities and heritage (Art. 69, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2025).
The following briefing makes a case for triangulating these dual policy changes with a place-based cultural development context that would strengthen and enrich Local Growth Plans. I set out to explain the Convention and Bill, how they complement one another, where frictions and risks could arise, and recommendations for strategic authorities, Arms’-Length Bodies and funders, and cultural and community organisations.
References:
- ONS. 2022. National identity, England and Wales: Census 2021. [Online]. 29 November. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
- National Centre for Social Research. 2024. Trust and confidence in Britain’s system of government at record low. British Social Attitudes (BSA) report. [Online]. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
- Lenzerini, F. 2011. Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples. European Journal of International Law. [Online]. 22(1). pp.101-120.
- Mazzucato, M. 2025. The Public Value of Arts and Culture. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. [Online].
- Co-operatives UK. 2025. Co-operative and Mutual Economy Report. Co-operatives UK. [Online]. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
- Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2025. Pride in Place Strategy. [Online]. 25 September. [Accessed 25 January 2025].
- YouGov. 2025. How strong are regional identities in Britain? [Online]. 29 May. [Accessed 29 September 2025].
[1] “Intangible cultural heritage (or living heritage) concerns a range of domains, including oral expressions such as poetry and song, performing arts such as dance and theatre, social practices, including rituals and festive events, foodways, and skills and knowledge involved in craftsmanship, as well as knowledge related to nature and the universe, encompassing agricultural practices and fisheries. These forms of knowledge and practice are typically enacted and transmitted by communities, groups or individuals (hereafter ‘communities’), which they consider as part of their living heritage” (UNESCO, 2024)
This blog was written by Liam Smyth, MBA CMgr, Programme Lead, UK National Commission for UNESCO. Liam is a LPIP Hub Place Fellow.
Find out more about the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.