From participation to polarisation: The Faro Convention's unintended consequences for heritage practice

The Faro Convention (Council of Europe, 2005) redefined cultural heritage as a "democratic resource", giving heritage communities a leading role in heritage processes. However, the lack of precise operational definitions is generating a paradox: rather than promoting dialogue, the Convention's application fuels polarisation between heritage professionals and civil society, with consequences for conservation sustainability itself. In countries lacking consolidated laws and regulations, the vagueness of its key concepts has transformed the Convention into an uncritical normative compass. Interpreters (administrators, cultural mediators, educators) often find themselves unprepared to facilitate dialogue when heritage communities spontaneously form around contested heritage, claiming exclusive legitimacy over narratives and conservation choices. This excludes marginalised voices: ethnic minorities, local residents outside of organised groups, and those with specialised technical knowledge. The Faro Venice case exemplifies what doesn't work: goals of countering mass tourism and repopulating the historic centre entrusted primarily to community mobilisation, proved ineffective without structured institutional mediation and integration of technical expertise. On the contrary, Bolzano's Finance Palace intervention demonstrates the potential of heritage interpretation as a connection practice through guided co-design. To overcome polarisation, interpreters need multi-level competencies: facilitation skills, heritage literacy, technical-narrative abilities, and sustainability ethics. This paper proposes a mediated co-design model, including institutional accompaniment, plural interpretation forums, narrative transparency protocols, and ethical interpreter accreditation: transforming heritage into an effective democratic resource that connects rather than divides.