Evaluation – BES Monuments Act

Last year, we contributed in the evaluation of the Monuments Act (Monumentenwet) for Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba (BES). We conducted interviews with stakeholders and examined what is needed to protect the islands’ unique heritage. We are sharing some of the results, which were published this spring.

Evaluating the Monuments Act BES is an initiative of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Ecorys conducted a study on the current state of the Monuments Act on the Caribbean Netherlands (BES) islands. Together with the Social Design Foundation, we conducted part of the research. Lyongo Juliana was involved in the research based on his expertise as an architect and former board member of monument care organizations on several of the Dutch Caribbean islands.

Why conduct a research?

The Monument Act BES has never been evaluated since its implementation in 2010. There were therefore many questions about whether the legislation reflects reality. The evaluation period of the Monuments Act BES covers the years from its implementation in 2010 through 2024. Lyongo conducted interviews with heritage professionals and stakeholders, together with researchers from Ecorys. A key conclusion of the study is: the law provides a solid legal foundation on paper and allows sufficient room for local interpretation. However, implementation appears to be difficult on all three islands. For example, no new monuments have been designated for the past years. Therefore, the research team opted for a legal provision in the Monuments Act BES that states that obliges the government to appoint an authority (the monuments council) with tasks and responsibilities clearly defined.

Lyongo: “Another key point that emerged during the interviews is the great need for clear and unambiguous information provision. This leads to uncertainty about which objects are legally protected. It’s important to note that each island faces different challenges. Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius cannot be considered a single homogeneous group. They each have their own history, landscape, and social development—and thus a distinct heritage with different stories to tell.” This is besides the difference in population size and island size.

We have summarized the most important results for each island.

In total, Bonaire has 25 protected monuments and 2 protected cityscapes/villages. However, the monuments are in poor condition. It has been indicated that there are approximately 800 objects on the island that could benefit from heritage protection. These are now also at risk of deterioration. An archaeological value map is available, and since 2024, a landscape biography has also been available. Bonaire has an archaeological value map, drawn up by NAAM (Curaçao), but this has never been formalized.

Bonaire’s population has increased significantly in recent years, from 15,000 in 2010 to 28,000 today. This growth has proven difficult to manage, and interviews indicate that it also poses a threat to heritage preservation. The problem on Bonaire is that implementation of the law has largely halted, partly due to a lack of capacity and resources, but mostly because of lack of political interest. There is no active monument council dedicated to heritage protection. Heritage protection is currently handled through Spatial Planning, but it also lacks the expertise to fully address this. Moreover, there is no structural funding for the restoration of the heritage. Heritage organizations report that contact with local government is tedious and that they therefore often seek out parties from the European Netherlands. Besides that, it is necessary to raise awareness of the importance of heritage preservation, both among government agencies and residents.

On St. Eustatius, there are currently 11 protected monuments, 1 protected cityscape, and an archaeological value map. It is unclear how many potential monuments there are. Owners are likely uninformed about the monumental status of their properties. This affects the deterioration and the condition of the (potential) monuments. A positive note is that an heritage inspector was appointed by the local government in 2023 but the position is vacant again since the beginning of this year.

The Monuments Act has been partially implemented in the past, primarily for built monuments. On Statia, there is very limited expertise and capacity regarding heritage, archaeology, and traditional building techniques and materials. Currently, there is no active monument council and limited registration. There is also no structural funding, resulting in a lack of capacity and expertise. A restart of the implementation is needed, and a new council needs to be established.

Furthermore, it is noted that specific regulations are lacking for archaeological monuments and other heritage sites, such as undocumented cemeteries. The discovery of human remains outside of recognized cemeteries is a concern, partly because there are 76 plantations with graves on Sint Eustatius. Although archaeological monuments can now be granted monument status under general legislation, it is considered desirable to create a separate status for them.

Saba has no protected monuments, although there is a draft list of 10 potential monuments and an archaeological forecast map. Unfortunately, these potential monuments are in poor condition. In the past thirty years, Saba has lost approximately half of its potentially monument-worthy buildings.

The law and ordinance have not yet been implemented; the monument preservation process here is still in its initial phase. There is considerable community interest in preserving the heritage, and a working group is establishing a monument council and conducting an inventory. However, there is still no structural funding available for renovation or maintenance.

Limited expertise is available on Saba regarding heritage, archaeology, and traditional building techniques and materials. The building and housing regulations on Saba do oversee the color, architecture, and materials of building projects. However, this is more of a guideline and is seen as a social agreement, not a regulatory instrument. There is ambiguity regarding the definition and interpretation of monuments. It is unclear whether landscape features, graves and burial sites, museum collections, maritime heritage, and archaeological objects can also be protected.

Difference with the European Netherlands

There is a big difference between in the European Netherlands (via the Heritage Act/Erfgoedwet) and the Dutch Caribbean (via the Monuments Act BES/Monumentenwet BES) on how heritage is being preserved. In the European Netherlands, heritage protection is regulated by the Heritage Act and the Environment Act (Omgevingswet), which provide a comprehensive framework for monuments, archaeology, and museum objects. The national government plays an active role in this process and designates national monuments. A wide range of financing options is available for preserving or restoring heritage. Municipalities (and provinces) are responsible for designating municipal (and provincial) monuments and drafting regulations, with support from the Municipal Fund (Gemeentefonds). In the Caribbean Netherlands, these financing options and the comprehensive Heritage Act do not apply. The available subsidies or loans are incidental and are often aimed at business owners. For private owners it is not very attractive to invest in preservation, since they have limited tax benefits due to the lack of official monument status.

A solution that was brought forward was to have the BES Islands also comply to the Heritage Act from here on. This would provide them with more access to structural financing and create a level playing field between the Caribbean and European Netherlands. On the other hand, there are strong concerns that full application of the Heritage Act would be too complex and bureaucratic for the scale and context of the BES islands. You could see if there is an alternative, where you can adopt certain sections or definitions – and with that open up funding opportunities for the Caribbean Netherlands.

Banner Captains Quarters

Captains Quarters Saba

In conclusion

Lyongo: “It was very interesting to be part of this project. There are some things that – in my opinion – need improvement. If we are serious about being one Kingdom and see the special municipalities not as less important, we should view the preservation of monuments as a shared Kingdom responsibility. These sites are not only important to the islands themselves, but also to the collective history, identity, and cultural legacy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole.”

You can read the full report by Ecorys in the three languages.