Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T07:32:30.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Colonial Heritage in Paramaribo, Suriname: Legislation and Senses of Ownership, a Dilemma in Preservation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

Eugenio van Maanen
Affiliation:
NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, the Netherlands. Email: maanen.e@nhtv.nl.
Gregory Ashworth
Affiliation:
Groningen University, Groningen, the Netherlands. Email: g.j.ashworth@rug.nl.

Abstract

In this article, the preservation of the monumental built environment from the colonial period is related to and discussed within the perspective of heritage ownership. It contributes to a debate in which heritage resource preservation is approached and connected to several heritage ownership issues. It argues that an effective built environmental preservation policy for colonial heritage is strongly related to and dependent on issues such as legal property ownership, legislation on listed buildings, enforcement of such legislation, and the willingness among different categories of potential owners to participate and support such preservation. Especially, when it comes to built colonial heritage as an imported alien resource from a colonial past, these issues are particularly interesting and sensitive. A good illustration of these issues is the case of Paramaribo, Suriname. The national government policy following the inscription of the historic inner city of Paramaribo on the World Heritage List of UNESCO in 2002 clearly demonstrates an area of tension and difficulty between and within the interested parties. It shows that monumental preservation and heritage management and interpretation are strongly affected and determined by concepts such as ownership, affinity, interest, economic priorities, and political will. By referring to the actual problems encountered in the preservation efforts relating to the built colonial heritage in Paramaribo and subsequently explaining these problems in relation to specific ownership issues, this article throws light on a number of dilemmas. Conclusions are drawn widening the argument and contributing to the ongoing debate on heritage ownership issues and monument preservation policies especially as it relates to the global issue of managing the relics of now defunct empires.

In recent years an increasing interest can be detected in issues concerning the legal property ownership of heritage. This growth in interest focuses in particular on the legislation in relationship to property ownership issues. An important aim of national governments is to use legislation to safeguard their cultural property by embedding it in law, especially, when this cultural property has a high monetary or identity value (as stressed by Fechner, 1998). Additionally, the growing awareness and recognition of heritage as a valuable economic, sociopsychological and environmental asset is receiving increasing international attention. For example, the international acknowledgment that heritage resources are under pressure from all kinds of processes and impacts has encouraged the need for an extension of international legal measures. Consequently, this international interest, often expressed in conventions, charters, and treaties, encourages national and local initiatives (Techera, 2011). An interesting complication to this issue is the question that arises where it involves the monumental built environment from the colonial period that is being preserved and restored, as it may be viewed as a heritage based on alien resources. In particular the acceptance, recognition, and role of what may be viewed as an imported colonial built environment in a multicultural and multiethnic context, may impact effective legislation. Although the discussion about the roles of heritage within a plural cultural and ethnic society has already begun (recently emphasized by Van Maanen, 2011; Ashworth, Graham, & Tunbridge, 2007), it is still an underresearched topic when it comes to legal property ownership as part of a management strategy for preserving built colonial heritage resources.

This article examines in particular the effectiveness of policies and laws pursued in Suriname as an instrument for the preservation of resources. It highlights the legal and administrative challenges facing the implementation, management, and enforcement of these strategies and measures. The first part of this article examines the debate about the approach and strategy in using law in conservation and preservation policies. Then the article proceeds to introduce Suriname as an instructive case study. It describes the existing multiethnic context of Suriname and the evolution of legislative policy for the historic inner city of the capital, Paramaribo, with its monumental built environment from the colonial period. By using field data, the article continues with an analysis of the effectiveness and impacts of this administrative and legal framework established in Suriname. It examines in detail the main problems encountered and the extent to which this strategy is supported by the key stakeholders.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABS. “Census 2004: Coverage Evaluation.” In Seventh General Population and Housing Census in Suriname. Paramaribo: Algemeen Bureau van de Statistiek, 2006.Google Scholar
Advertentieblad van de Republiek Suriname. No. 65, Tuesday 17 August 1999.Google Scholar
Ashworth, G. J., Graham, Brian, and Tunbridge, J. E.. Pluralising Pasts; Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies. London: Pluto Press, 2007.Google Scholar
De Back, Aimee. “Monumentenkaart Van Paramaribo.” Paramaribo: ME Productions, 2008.Google Scholar
Elsorady, Dalia A.Heritage Conservation in Alexandria, Egypt: Managing Tensions between Ownership and Legislation.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 17, no. 5 (2011): 497513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, Frank G.The Fundamental Aims of Cultural Property Law.” International Journal of Cultural Property 7, no. 2 (1998): 376–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fokké, Stephen A.“Monumentenzorg in Suriname in Historisch Persepectief.” Paramaribo: Stichting Gebouwd Erfgoed Suriname, 2009.Google Scholar
Hall, Colin Michael. Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
Haughey, Patrick, and Basolo, Victoria. “The Effect of Dual Local and National Register of Historic District Designations on Single-Family Housing Prices in New Orleans.” Appraisal Journal 69, no. 3 (2000): 283–89.Google Scholar
Iamandi, Cristina. “Paramaribo World Heritage Site Management Plan Outline.” Paramaribo Delft: University of Technology Delft, 2008.Google Scholar
ICOMOS. “Paramaribo (Suriname) No 940rev.” Budapest: World Heritage Committee, April 2002. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/940rev.pdf.Google Scholar
Landford, Chris. “A Framework for Sustainable Heritage Management: A Study of UK Industrial Heritage Sites.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 15, no. 6 (2009): 494510.Google Scholar
Meerjarenontwikkelingsplan (MOP). “Meerjarenontwikkelingsplan 2006–2011; Strategie Voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling Republiek Suriname.” Paramaribo: Regering van de Republiek Suriname, 2006.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Community Development (MINOV). “Beleidsnota 2005–2010.” Paramaribo: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Volksontwikkeling, 2006.Google Scholar
Ozinga, M. D.Historische Monumenten in Suriname. ‘s-Gravenhage: Uitgeverij van het Kabinet van de Vice Minister President, 1963.Google Scholar
Ozinga, M. D.Proeve Van Een Monumentenlijst Voor Surinamee.” 1961.Google Scholar
Sedky, Ahmed. “The Politics of Area Conservation in Cairo.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, no. 2 (2005): 113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, Louise. “Heritage through Property.” IPA Review (2006): 45.Google Scholar
Staatsblad van de Republiek Suriname No. 68, 2007. ‘Wet van 29 april 2007, tot Vaststelling van de 13-e afdeling van de Begroting van Uitgaven en Ontvangsten voor het Dienstjaar 2007 betreffende het Ministerie van Onderwijs en Volksontwikkeling.’ No. 68, 2007.Google Scholar
Techera, Erika J.Safeguarding Cultural Heritage: Law and Policy in Fiji.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 12 (2011): 329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temminck Groll, C. L., and Djie, A. R. H. Tjin a. De Architectuur Van Suriname, 1667–1930. Zutphen: Walburg Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Tunbridge, J. E., and Ashworth, G. J.. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
Uden Masman, H.Kort Verslag Van Den Zwaren Brand Te Paramaribo, Hoofdplaats Der Kolonie Suriname Op Den 21 Januari 1821 Voorgevallen. Amsterdam: Leeneman van der Kroe, 1821.Google Scholar
UNESCO. “Historic Inner City of Paramaribo.” 2002. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/940/.Google Scholar
Van Dun, Peter, and Van Oers, Ron. “Hout Voor Goud, Monumentenzorg in Suriname.” Zeist: Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg (RDMZ), 1994.Google Scholar
Van Dun, Peter. “Hout En Goud, Concept Monumentenplan Paramaribo.” Zeist: Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg (RDMZ), 1995a.Google Scholar
Van Dun, Peter. “Hout Is Goud, Monumentenplan Paramaribo.” Zeist: Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg (RDMZ), 1995b.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, Eugenio G. O. M.Colonial Heritage and Ethnic Pluralism: Its Socio Psychological Meaning in a Multiethnic Community. The Case of Paramaribo, Surinam. Breda: NRIT Media, 2011.Google Scholar
Volders, J. L.Bouwkunst in Suriname: Driehonderd Jaar Nationale Architectuur, 2nd ed. Paramaribo: Kersten, 1973.Google Scholar