Human recovery needs assessment - UNESCO · 13.5 DIRECT COMMUNAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND...

United Nations Development Group

Human recovery needs assessment Methodological guidance

Cultural Heritage

Version 1.0, August 2011

United Nations Development Group 2

13.1 INTRODUCTION Assessment stages Cultural heritage defined Processes underpinning the culture sector

Cultural considerations in carrying out post-disaster interventions Expected results and structure of the PDNA Culture

13.2 RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO CARRYING OUT THE PDNA CULTURE Key information requirement: pre-disaster baseline conditions Preparing the assessment Collecting field data Desk review: summing-up and formulating results

13.3 DISASTER IMPACT ON THE CULTURE SECTOR Direct physical damage to material properties and goods Impact on and interruption of cultural production processes (public and private) Interruption of critical cultural manifestations / essential practices for maintaining a sense of

normalcy Impact on communities, households, individuals and societal processes (human impacts)

13.4 ECONOMIC DAMAGE AND LOSS VALUATION 13.5 DIRECT COMMUNAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DAMAGE, LOSS AND

NEEDS EVALUATION Damage and losses to livelihoods, households and community incomes and human

development Damage to Intangible Cultural Heritage Needs identification strategy

13.6 CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Existing capacity in early recovery response Existing development stakeholders’ capacity Identification of capacity among new/potential stakeholders Gaps in required capacity for early/long-term recovery and relevant strategies

13.7 OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSE FOR THE CULTURE SECTOR 13.8 VULNERABILITY AND RISK PROFILE 13.9 VALUE ADDED FROM CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS DURING THE RECOVERY PROCESS 13.10 SECTOR OUTCOME, RECOVERY STRATEGY, OUTPUTS AND

MONITORING/EVALUATION INDICATORS AND TARGETS Statement on the desired long-term recovery outcome in the sector Prioritized response options

13.11 GENDER AND AGE DISAGGREGATED DATA Annex 1. Summary of general approximate distribution of physical and human resources components within Cultural Heritage domains Annex 2: Fictitious case study illustrating why post disaster interventions may benefit from socio-cultural impact assessment in planning phases Annex 3. Examples of questions/indicators that can be used in the assessment Annex 4. Methodologies for the calculation of direct damages and indirect losses Annex 5. Example of main priority areas for the Recovery Strategy, with indicators Annex 6. Further essential references

Table of content


At times, these cultural manifestations have been translated into important sources of employment and revenue generation for individuals and governments, either as part of the formal or informal economy. Culture is also a sector in which marginalized, or capital poor members of society can easily engage, either for their own spiritual needs, or for a source of income. Above all, culture resides in the minds and spirits of people. The challenge in carrying out a PDNA for culture lies in finding ways of identifying and incorporating the value added of culture in the post-disaster recovery, both in terms of getting the economy going again (e.g. jobs, cash flow), but also in re-establishing societal reference points (both major, such as icons of national/regional identity, important cultural manifestations, and minor, such as cherished local practices) that may go a long way in re-establishing a sense of meaning, purpose, normalcy for affected people. In dealing with culture more broadly, we hope also to improve the foundations upon which other post disaster recovery efforts are built, making those efforts more sustainable and effective. Clearly assigning a monetary value to all aspects of culture is not straightforward, but recognizing the fundamental contributions in addressing culture in the PDNA process and incorporating this recognition in suitable

response strategies should be a fundamental component of the recovery process. ASSUMPTIONS: Given the specific nature of each disaster, of the affected country’s heritage profile and of the variation in national capacity, these guidelines should be liberally interpreted to ensure best adaptation to local realities. The guidelines assume that the team carrying out the PDNA will have a good knowledge of the range of cultural properties and profiles (tangible and intangible), of the relationship between these assets and general livelihoods, as well as the strong interdependence of sustainable development and cultural diversity (see: www.unesco.org/culture/emergencysituations/www.undp.org/mdgf – Culture and development Window).

13.1 Introduction Carrying out a Post Disaster Needs Assessment for culture is likely more challenging than for most other sectors. Culture is a broad concept, encompassing a very wide range of elements, from a community’s identify-enforcing rituals, which contribute to social cohesion, to national iconic heritage sites representing deep-rooted cultural reference points. Culture is manifested in many ways – through millennial tangible structures and ephemeral celebratory events.


Culture sector domains defined Though culture is manifested in many ways, for the immediate purposes of these guidelines seven main domains have been identified, as follows:

1. Built Heritage and Cultural Sites: Buildings/structures with deep cultural significance. They can range from a coherent grouping of structures (e.g. historic districts, rural and urban settlements) to a single building or site (archaeological, monuments, modern and contemporary masterpieces) to infrastructure (bridge, port facilities) imbued with recognized cultural values (by local, national or international mechanisms).

2. Natural heritage: Nature parks and their management infrastructure, both within urban settings and in the hinterlands. Zoos, regional, national parks, etc.

3. Cultural goods industry: Production, distribution and sale of music, crafts, audio visual, books, etc.

4. Cultural expressions of wide social importance recognized as meaningful by the community, large-scale events (e.g. festivals, pilgrimages, celebrations), which involve the broader community, contribute to local economies and whose regular occurrence contribute to a sense of community normalcy.

5. Traditional knowledge systems/practices: Those aspects of cultural manifestations/knowledge cherished by many, but perhaps sometimes managed by few; practitioners of traditional crafts, practices the disappearance of which could contribute to a wider sense of loss in the local or broader community.

6. Movable properties and collections: Works of art, archaeological artefacts, etc.

7. Repositories of heritage: Museums, libraries and archives, cultural institutions, vocational training structures, zoological/botanical gardens with their auxiliary installations (specialized laboratories, storerooms, etc.).

Processes underpinning the culture sector The afore-listed domains of cultural heritage contribute to the local economy and social well-being owing in large part to several attendant factors. In carrying out the PDNA, evaluators must ensure that damage and loss related to these attendant factors be well assessed. They include: • Physical infrastructure and services necessary for the related cultural manifestations. Buildings, community halls,

bridges, water/electrical supply;

• Human resources: Artists, holders of traditional knowledge, intermediary services, caretakers, managers, security and cleaning staff, specialized professional and technical staff;

• Organizational networks: Guilds, cultural associations and such networks often key to maintaining a particular activity;

• Agencies/groups responsible for the management/conservation of cultural heritage: Government ministries, departments, NGOs at the national and local levels, festival/event associations;

• Private sector stakeholders in the hosting, distribution, marketing, conservation of cultural goods; and

• Tourism stakeholders: The PDNA should assess and ensure that damage and losses to the infrastructure that helps generate tourism-related benefits from culture are accounted for. This can include hotels servicing cultural heritage sites/events, logistical infrastructure (buses) and other such components.

Annex 1 can be used as a basic checklist to determine the relevance of each component in the afore-listed cultural domains, while assessing damage and losses and identifying needs. While assessing damage and losses, it should be kept in mind that culture is often nurtured by formal and non-formal sectors (i.e. often representing a person’s second job). In some cases it could be difficult to distinguish clearly between the roles of the public and the private sector. In many countries, creative industries have a great potential as drivers of economic and social development. Most of them in developing countries are household-based or small and medium enterprises (SMEs), often owned and operated by women. Similarly, one must be mindful of the CBOs and SMEs that operate in the cultural tourism sector, both in terms of services related to tourism facilities, or in the cultural and natural resources management and maintenance.


Cultural considerations in carrying out post-disaster interventions Planning for any post disaster intervention should include a systematic consideration of the cultural environment in which such interventions are to take place. We have all heard stories of high inefficiencies, and low sustainability of post-disaster investments caused by poor consideration of socio-cultural contexts in which these investments were made. Religious, gender, ethnic, socio-economic status, are just a few considerations to keep in mind when planning interventions. UNESCO strongly urges a careful “socio-cultural impact assessment” process be carried out during the post-disaster assessment and intervention planning phase, to increase the likelihood of efficient and sustainable interventions. See Annex 2, which gives a fictitious, but illustrative case study on this type of question. Expected results and structure of the PDNA Culture The PDNA Culture Report should aim at setting a long-term recovery basis for national policies and focus the attention of cultural stakeholders and donors on the identified domains requiring support. The recommended structure of the PDNA Culture is as follows: 1. Brief report describing the main features of cultural heritage in the country with specific reference to affected areas:

inventory of cultural domains (using the above-identified list), affected people and cultural aspects relevant for their lives, strengths and potential elements that can contribute to a sustainable recovery. This chapter will further contribute to inform responses from other sectors.

2. State of the Disaster Risk Preparedness Plan and conditions for its improvement.

3. Damage and losses report.

4. Ongoing threats and risks to cultural heritage from various sources (institutional, structural, economic)

5. Needs identification and opportunities.

6. Early-recovery Action Plan Matrix.


13.2 Recommended approach to carrying out a PDNA culture

Team composition A team of up to four or five specialists working together, supported by one or two backstopping and secondary data collection agents. Expertise should include, as a minimum: architect/conservator or structural engineer, archaeologist, libraries and archives expert and an anthropologist, with experience in disaster risk-preparedness plans. The team should coordinate with the housing sector specialists to ensure that there is no duplication of estimates for cultural institutions (when built heritage is not listed per se on national or international inventories). Further liaising should be ensured with the gender specialist, to better frame the interviews and to estimate the differential impact of the disaster on women. At times, assessment may be coordinated with experts from the education Sector, to link culture to formal and non-formal education, vocational training and other relevant matters, as well as interactions with the employment specialist (e.g. entrepreneurship and business skills for arts and craft SMEs, vocational training).

Assessment stages Timing assessment is essential to prevent further deterioration of damage to tangible and living heritage. The assessment should start with a rapid survey to help gauge the extent and nature of the disaster impact on culture, followed by a more in-depth exercise to define recovery needs in greater detail.

Rapid survey: A rapid survey should be carried out within four weeks of the disaster and last no more than one week. It should be carried out by three to four staff members and involve meeting with the authorities concerned (local, district, national) in order to determine focal points in the field (contact persons) and main resources available that can be mobilized (human capacity: i.e. fire brigade, police, etc.; infrastructural capacity: i.e. buildings to secure cultural properties; means of transport to evacuate fragile properties/manuscripts from endangered buildings, etc.), and specific expert profiles required for the full assessment, and possibly to quantify an initial evaluation of damage and losses in the culture sector. It should provide clear terms of reference for carrying out the PDNA, as well as identifying more urgent interventions.

Full assessment: This should be completed within a three-week time frame by a small team of experienced professionals. It serves to complete the damage and losses evaluation carried out in the rapid survey, update resources available and needs, formulate priorities of cultural heritage issues, provide baseline data to be used in M&E of cultural heritage-related interventions, and provide inputs for early recovery planning. It should include a plan of action validated by the country’s Ministry of Culture and other pertinent ministries (Tourism, Industry, etc.), and a quantified budget. Figures should be justifiable as much as possible. The assessment should look at affected areas, but should also consider areas that could be further affected, depending on the nature of the catastrophe. This latter consideration can be helpful in developing a Risk Preparedness Plan and to assemble, if absent, reliable baseline information.

Key information requirement: pre-disaster baseline conditions Pre-disaster conditions are fundamental in assessing the extent and impact of natural catastrophes and constitute the baselines of what is considered as “normal” (e.g. if the structural changes in a historic building are due to the normal decay process or to the disaster). In most of the country, baseline data for cultural heritage, more or less developed and sophisticated or in different formats (comprehensive digitalized database and/or portal, websites), is available. However the quality of the data can be questionable because of the lack of standardized indicators and statistics. Ideally, the baseline is established before the assessment, with corresponding indicators, which serve for future sound monitoring and evaluation work. It is recommended to make sure to coordinate data collection and recording with existing relevant central database and inventories of the concerned ministries. This requires aligning with and adopting the same indicators (if considered appropriate new indicators should be added). The new data collected should also then be integrated in the central database/national inventory/culture sector portal, in view of strengthening post-disaster response planning.

Generally, data can be obtained from different sources:


• Data available at country government level (particularly at district level): e.g. national inventories of protected cultural assets, museums, archives; lists of ministerial staff and officials and their qualification/office of pertinence/location, payment roll; reports, data of previous assessments, including those done for national planning processes, and possibly previous PDNA.

• In-country associations of cultural practitioners, society of authors, cooperatives of artisans and cultural producers: e.g. lists of members with geographical distribution, sometimes (e.g. national association of intellectual property rights in WIPO Member States) accompanied by royalties income or dividends received from the association, hence providing data on the contribution to the country’s GPD.

• Aid banks and foundations: e.g. data on SMEs development, micro-credit programmes, etc.

• In-country cultural, academic institutions, research departments on cultural heritage (archaeology, anthropology, etc.): e.g. any domain or theme in the sector, often accompanied by statistics.

• Internationally available data come from cultural, research and academic institutions, as well specialized training and professional associations, as well as United Nations agencies and NGO databases and reports: e.g. UNESCO World Heritage Lists submission files, monitoring of WHS conditions cycle reports, UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, online Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger; any other United Nations agency, international organization database or country project/programme report; statistics for the countries where MDG evaluation and reports are available, MDG-F programmes; FAO country profiles platforms often integrating mapping tools relevant to ethnical groups distribution/customary laws vs. land tenure issues; WIPO list of SMEs that have applied to patent their cultural products; ICCROM, ICOM, ICOMOS, IFLA, ICA and affiliated organizations members lists and data, etc.

Preparing the assessment Four to five days should be dedicated to gathering and analysing background materials available from diverse sources. This will help save time on the ground during the assessment and to identify the more pertinent domains of culture that need to be assessed with priority (selected geographic and/or thematic areas), to check available baseline information and possibly to enter into initial comparison of existing data. This exercise can be useful especially when resources are insufficient to cover the affected areas. Secondary data collection could be collected from: (i) local resources available, (ii) local knowledge (existing databases in the country) and (iii) synergies and coping mechanism (data available from national and international institutions, scientific and cultural networks, cultural associations, media).

Collecting field data If it is not possible to carry out rapid pre-assessment surveys, the assessment should combine the full assessment with in-depth analysis for selected representative areas. Results so generated could then be extrapolated to the totality of the affected region. Annex 3 draws together some key sample questions that the post-disaster culture needs assessment team should strive to answer, along with recommended indicators. The assessment team should rely on the gathering of primary data obtained through (i) visual inspections (including flyover, satellite imagery, etc.), (ii) key informant surveys (household surveys, first-hand knowledge people), to validate available secondary data and further integrate them when needed. Random or purposive interviews could be organized when the affected area/population is particularly vast or inaccessible. If primary data gathering is constrained by the inaccessibility of affected/vulnerable areas the assessment team should rely on secondary data. Ideally, the assessment team should inspect at least three representative affected areas per culture domain. Thematic maps for cultural resources (i.e. archaeological sites), state GIS inventories, UNOSAT mapping tools and satellite images (Google Earth) for large areas, on-site, aerial or satellite photographs or films could render reasonably accurate definitions of the state of built heritage, natural resources and protected areas before and after the disaster occurred. Gathering this information should allow the culture specialist to undertake the comprehensive qualitative and quantitative study, and enable further monitoring of large-scale site and natural resources, especially when land transport and patrol prove difficult to be provided (lack of vehicles and, communication systems, interrupted roads, etc.).


Desk review: summing up and formulating results Once the field assessment has been completed, data should be compared to identify endangered areas and contexts where immediate intervention is needed or where damage is quickly reparable, and to assess the related projected risks. All these elements should enable the desk review to evaluate damage and losses and prioritize subsequent needs. The assessor might identify heritage not yet listed which deserve special attention and protection (tangible and intangible) on national inventories or on international lists of heritage in danger (UNESCO, ICOMOS, etc.). These cases should be highlighted to the relevant authorities.

Table 1. Summary of overall assessment process: Steps Targets TimeframeRapid survey 3-4 staff

• Elaboration of the Terms of Reference for carrying out PDNA (including the identification of specific experts’ profiles required for the on-field assessment)

• Establishing local focal points for geographical areas or themes

3-5 days

Preparatory desk study 1-2 back-stopping staff

• Gathering and analysing background materials available • Identifying culture domains more pertinent to the situation, prioritizing

assessments (selected geographic and/or thematic areas) • Check baseline data available and eventually enter into initial comparison of data

up to 4-5 days It could be undertaken concurrently with the rapid survey

Field assessment 4-5 staff members

• Elaboration of the initial Recovery Action Plan • Assess response capacities of the Ministry of Culture and other pertinent

ministries and resource persons on the ground. Gather primary data, testing and verifying secondary data previously collected

• Assess capacity of cultural institutions able to actively participate in the reconstruction of the country

• Damage and losses assessment in the affected and sensible cultural domains • Identification of prevailing risks and threats

up to 15 days, according to the magnitude of disaster’s effects and extension

Desk review assessment team

• Prioritization of needs (early recovery, recovery), definition of areas of action, targets, indicators, Early Recovery Action Plan

• Damage and losses results, and RF initial formulation

up to 6 days


13.3 Disaster impact on the cultural sector

The impact depends on the nature and magnitude (intensity, duration, extension) of the disaster, as well as the vulnerability of the affected cultural assets to various potential hazards. The PDNA team will need to quickly assess these factors. Generally, the PDNA team should consider:

Direct physical damage to material properties and goods • Violent weather events, earthquakes and fires can compromise the stability of buildings and of infrastructure critical

to cultural activity management and operations (halls, production centres, buildings associated with worship and community gatherings), leading to their collapse (partial, complete), and to damage of auxiliary installations and related equipment. Also, extreme heat can weaken the structural integrity of structures while leaving no visible traces.

• In densely settled areas and urban settings, the collapse of other non-culture-related structures can compromise and put at risk neighbouring culturally relevant structures.

• Collections and movable properties can be partially or completely destroyed, dispersed or burned (books and manuscripts), looted or seriously damaged.

• Nature parks, particularly small ones, can be destroyed, or their infrastructure lost. Poaching may be a problem. Resources contained therein may be illegally targeted for reconstruction (wood), impacting ecosystems.

• Water, sewage, electricity, fuel supply lines and pipes (e.g. natural gas) may be blocked or severed, in turn increasing risks of secondary damages by fire, explosions or water.

Impact on and interruption of cultural production processes (public and private) • Reduced access to, or loss of raw material may disrupt the production of cultural goods, threatening jobs, and,

eventually, the entire value-chain including the traditional knowledge associated with it.

• Interruption of basic services (electricity, water, etc.), lack of transport services for staff (specialized/ technical/support, etc.) to reach their workplace and to carry out their duties, could result in temporary or prolonged closure of archives, museums, libraries, conservation institutes and cultural institutions in general, leading to the degradation or looting of the contents and of heritage at sites at risk.

• Although small enterprises generally may react more flexibly, damage to production of cultural goods provoke stagnation of the market, market fluctuation and finally accrue market disruption, with consequences on the country GPD.

Interruption of critical cultural manifestations/essential practices for maintaining a sense of normalcy

• Interruption of seasonal, regularly scheduled festivals and celebrations that usually provide opportunities for affected populations to focus on shared socio-cultural values. It is fundamental to identify the requirements to ensure that such events can take place (staff, infrastructure, supplies such as electricity, materials).

• Cultural goods shortage, cultural life disruption due to limited access to cultural heritage sites and events relevant for cultural practitioners and producers. If such situations continue, they may lead to social unrest and accentuate the sense of instability, isolation and vulnerability, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized groups.


Impact on communities, households, individuals and societal processes (human impacts) • With the loss of human lives, there is a loss in artisans, craftspeople, artists, musicians, etc., which constitute the

core actors of the country’s cultural life.

• Loss of human lives also results in lack of professional and technical staff providing essential services for the sector, hence interrupting the daily care, monitoring and conservation of cultural assets.

• With the loss of human lives, intangible heritage can disappear altogether or, if underperformed, diminish, thereby threatening the survival of a given endangered heritage of a group or a community, particularly if remote and isolated.

• Household and community-based services can be affected if the demand for cultural tourism services and cultural goods diminishes or ceases completely.

• Inaccessibility to damaged and endangered assets provokes income losses in basic services associated with cultural tourism, visitation and cultural performances’ earnings (tickets, etc.).

• Disenfranchisement of women (often entrepreneurs in the sector) and the reduction of their share of productive activities in the formal and informal sectors, causing a sharp rise in their unemployment.

Qualitative ranking of damage and losses can be useful when the assessment involves numerous data (Table 2): estimated damage should be ranked by severity, for instance over four progressive categories, from (i) slight, (ii) moderate, (iii) severe, to (iv) very severe (for complete destruction), which should be consistent as much as possible with existing country classification systems, with indicated overarching criteria and principles, to serve as comparable baseline data. At a later stage this rapid assessment will make it possible to better position the sector needs within the RF plan, preparing for prioritization. Table 2. Example table of qualitative ranking of damage and losses:

Property Damage on cultural assets and profiles Losses on cultural assets and profiles Slight Moderate Severe Very severe Slight moderate Severe very severe

Built heritage and cultural sites

X

Nature parks Cultural goods industry Cultural expressions X X Traditional knowledge Movable property Heritage repositories X


13.4 Economic damage and loss valuation

Direct economic damage coincides with physical damage (movable and immovable properties) and can affect any domain. See Annex 3 under Physical direct damage for assessment questions. To avoid double accounting and overlapping on specific areas of assessment, the economic valuation of damage should be undertaken in agreement with those carrying out the PDNA for the housing sector with regard to the assessment of cultural institutions, museums, libraries and archives’ premises, when the built heritage is not listed on national or international inventories.

When assessing economic damage in PDNA, the following constraints should be taken into account: (i) absence of markets for most cultural “services”; (ii) little time available for carrying out the assessment; (iii) variability of quality of baseline data available for the sector, and (iv) financial resources available to carry out the assessment.

In many cases, it will not be possible to ascertain the effective damage and losses until the humanitarian phase is completed. Yet, some aspects will prove impossible to estimate, either because of lack of available baseline data. For non-market properties and services, the total value will inevitably be under-estimated: when it cannot be determined through an economic costing approach, it should be qualified as inestimable. In such cases, a qualitative description of the socio-cultural value of the damaged / destroyed / lost asset, and the gap its loss creates, should be provided.1

The rapid survey and assessment should use the same template matrix used for the economic valuation (Table 3), clearly referring to the method used and reporting on the consistency of the sampling basis over the total estimate of country’s asset, e.g.: Number of inspected assets; percentage of inspected damaged units over the total. The geographical sampling should be previously agreed to with other members of the assessment team. For each domain, the assessor should report the monetary value (conventionally converted to United States dollars), using the method indicated in Annex 4 and broken down by public and private sector, in order to determine where the weight of the reconstruction effort might fall. Table 3. Summary table for damage and losses:

Domain Damage Losses Total USD Public sector Private sector Total Public sector Private sector Total

National heritage assets (of which lost/destroyed: #) US $ US $

Cultural goods & production US $ US $ US $ Movable property and collection (of which lost: #) US $ US $ US $

(a) Calculating Direct Damage: Annex 4(a) summarizes various methodologies recommended to calculate direct damage. The selection of the suitable method should be context-specific and based on the significance of the destroyed/lost heritage, the beneficiaries and benefits. For the purpose of the PDNA, the following methods can be used for estimating the economic value of the cultural capital: Replacement cost method: it is most commonly relying on the Damages and Losses Assessment (DaLA) criteria. This approach uses the “book value” or depreciated value of the lost asset in its pre-disaster condition. It could also be applied for destroyed marketable goods (crafts, books, works of art); (ii) The restoration costs methods, which can be applied (as is the case with DaLA) to market and non-market property/goods, when heritage is partly damaged. The replacement cost method for non-market destroyed heritage should be discouraged, since it underestimates the cultural value embedded in the property (see authenticity and integrity as fundamental values enshrined in the UNESCO 1972 Convention): a replica may resemble very closely the original, but it never has the same value (according to this same principle, a copy is not sold at the same price as the authentic/original masterpiece).

E.g.: “This festival, though not of significant economic impact, has been held annually for the past 233 years, and represents the most important community rallying

point for the entire region. Assuring the holding of this festival, despite the ravages caused by the disaster, would send a strong message to the entire

community/affected region – that the disaster and its impacts will be overcome.”


Benefit transfer method (assessment of the good or service based on an assessed value of an appropriate substitute obtained through some of previously done valuation method) may be the most suitable approach, often requiring limited financial resources to be implemented, but can be applied if previous valuations exist. A useful alternative approach, particularly for built heritage, is the enhanced replacement cost method where the costs of replacing the damaged/lost cultural asset with a new and enhanced cultural asset is used as a proxy (it includes competition, tender and project costs, assessment of value of lost/damaged heritage costs). It is usually desirable to cross-check estimates from multiple sources. Other economic calculations can make use of the following: The contingent assessment methods (CM) – with for example the Delphi approach – (which are potentially capable of estimating both use and non-use values) – though in a PDNA, the time available and the cost make it quite difficult to use this method. Nevertheless, if such studies for any of the affected areas existed before the disaster, then this method should be used to estimate damage.

Multi-attribute valuation methods are generally used for in-depth analysis of damage of cultural assets and needs assessment, especially when there are several damaged assets. It can also be useful to identify priorities.

Hedonic Methods (HM) and Travel Cost Method (TCM) can efficiently be used only when sufficient statistical data are available. TCM is limited to countries and places where the data on the total expenditures of visitors to sites are available and has been collected prior to the occurrence of the disaster: Such data are often unavailable for developing countries.

(b) Calculating indirect losses: Annex 4(b) summarizes how indirect losses are calculated. At the macro-economic level, the overall impact on the culture sector corresponds to the decrease in percentage of the sector’s contribution to national GPD and potential losses of cultural good exports. Revenue reduction and loss of jobs and wages are used to calculate the impact on employment (salaries according to professional ranking multiplied by the number of persons), while the increases in production costs due to variation in economic flows (losses of production, etc.), inflation and depreciation contribute to determine the sector’s impact on poverty.


13.5 Direct communal, social, cultural, and institutional damage, loss, and needs evaluation

(a) Damage and losses to livelihoods, households and community incomes and human development

Cultural activities often enable poor communities to earn at least a basic livelihood, or at least may contribute to overall household income (e.g. local economic development related to cultural tourism services and sites). For this reason, damage and losses at the community and household level should be integrated in the matrices of Annex 4. While for institutional damage and losses, a clear idea can be obtained in the short term, a thorough overview of communal and societal impacts may be more difficult to carry out. Since it may not be possible to capture them from secondary data, attention should be paid to damage and losses at the community level, during the field assessment, through liaising with community leaders (interviews, forums, etc.). See Annex 3 questions under Household /Community impact, and Annex 4c for suggested methodologies for calculating them. Attention should be paid to recording damage and losses directly impacting women’s income generation activities in the field of culture. This entails collecting sex and age disaggregated data and identifying particular needs per category (women, youth, vulnerable groups, etc.).

(b) Damage to intangible cultural heritage A natural disaster may undermine an already vulnerable expression of intangible cultural heritage. Valued customs, oral traditions, traditional manifestations, music, know-how (as in crafts) may be placed in a particularly risky situation after a disaster, as practitioners may be killed, injured, or otherwise permanently distracted from the pursuit traditions by the simple task of ensuring their survival. The losses to intangible cultural heritage are usually difficult to assess. In addition, its consequences and weight can be considered only in the medium and long term, often affecting other sectors (see Table 6 for potential linkages).

Needs Identification Strategy Those institutional and community needs considered above and beyond immediate recovery needs should be organized around main areas of action and budgeted according to a clear timeframe, as follows:

(a) Financial needs to ensure the repairing and restoration of material assets damaged (pre-disaster baseline conditions), including evacuation and transport of rubble, etc.

(b) Financial needs corresponding to the additional costs required, in line with the “building better” strategy, to: o Integrate minimum quality improvement (i.e. costs of labour and public works) to scale up tailored building

requirements, security of collections and premises, etc.); o Introduce/improve standards in terms of disaster-resilience and disaster mitigation plan; o Integrate maintenance investment as much as possible, as well as potential inflation rates (according to the

specific reconstruction time frame foreseen); o Costs to enforce/update existing laws and regulatory frameworks (studies, training, advocacy).

While identifying needs, all possible opportunities should be taken into account. For instance, cultural assets and values not considered relevant by a community, or only shared by few people, in post-disaster situations may become a pivotal bonding factor, providing a sense of shared identity for a larger group or a community, due to the disaster impact and subsequent constraints, as well as different situations arising from them (e.g. shared living conditions and disaster experiences, new forms of aggregation and exposure of a community’s socio-cultural practices and beliefs to other new communities, encouraging cultural exchange and creation of shared values among groups, etc.). Furthermore, the scarcity of traditional raw materials may in turn enhance creativity, stimulating opportunities to explore new forms of artistic production and cultural performances, introducing alternative (locally available) and innovative materials, to produce new cultural goods and assets as well as to promote a more sustainable use of natural resources (e.g. energy saving systems).


Table 4: Sample matrix for tabulating costs against different culture domains Domain Up to 6 months 18 months 3 years Total Built heritage and cultural sites Natural heritage Cultural goods industry Cultural expressions Traditional knowledge Movable property Heritage repositories Risk-preparedness plan

Example of main areas of actions and related needs that should be assessed:Disaster response at the time of the assessment including early recovery response

o Main Action: Gathering dispersed heritage/manuscripts/books/museums’ and collections’ artefacts Needs: identification and arrangement of alternative premises, safe storerooms, equipment, transport, temporary relocation of more critical artefacts, staff, coordination of volunteers

o Main Action: Identify monuments/built assets at risks in danger of rapidly collapsing and provide urgent critical reinforcement/stabilization measures

Needs in terms of urgent restoration works, temporary roofing, equipment, TA at least on structures considered of national/regional importance

o Main Action: Prevent further damage to cultural heritage Needs concerning packing of artefacts, protecting and “packing” monuments, etc.

o Main Action: Incorporate as much as possible the intangible cultural heritage component in post-disaster response, with particular reference to respect for cultural diversity, practices and beliefs

Needs and practical issues that should be taken into consideration in designing shelter and temporary camps, which directly or indirectly conflict with cultural, religious beliefs and behaviours of affected and/or marginalized groups.


13.6 Capacity assessment

The assessor should identify (with all relevant contact information) and evaluate the available resources that that can be mobilized at the country level to respond to the identified damage and losses in the culture sector. The rapid survey and the subsequent assessment should focus on:

Existing capacity in early recovery response • The Ministry of Culture and other relevant ministry resources (human resources, infrastructures and equipment)

and its capacity to elaborate, coordinate and implement, monitor strategies and contingency plans.

• Resource persons on the ground (their safety and operational capacity) as focal points throughout the entire process: rapid survey, assessment, response formulation, implementation, M&E of interventions and RF. Resources persons may be represented by: (i) technical and professional staff, connected with cultural institutions; (ii) contact persons for any cultural associations of practitioners, cooperatives of artisans, community-based organizations, community or religious leaders.

• Fire brigade, cultural heritage police or any other specific police or army department/body entitled to cordon off built heritage/cultural institutions’ premises at imminent risk of collapse and evacuate premises to avoid further loss of life.

• Professional staff to provide technical guidance in collecting/rescuing fragmented, dispersed cultural heritage artefacts, monuments, prior to/during the careful removal of rubble in cultural sites (rescue, documentation of frescos, broken fragile materials, “first-aid” repair and conservation of fragments, etc.).

• Community and religious leaders: to coordinate voluntary basis contribution in retrieval of dispersed artefacts/manuscripts/books, etc. and to protect/”pack” monuments and assets from further damage.

• National, community associations, NGOs involved in culture, e.g., ICOMOS, ICOM, IFLA local chapters.

Existing development stakeholders’ capacity Because of the general weak understanding of and low priority given to culture in emergency plans, decision-makers, key development stakeholders and political partners must be involved from the beginning, with a view to: (i) preparing the basis for the sustainability of the reconstruction process, appropriately addressing the reconstruction process and integrating concern for cultural heritage into the general framework of development and planning; and (ii) strengthening or setting up the country disaster risk preparedness (DRP) and early warning mechanisms for the culture sector, and integrating it into the overall national DRP Plan.

The following items should be assessed.

• Education, vocational training and research institutions capacity to support education and awareness-raising campaigns to disseminate information broadly for the protection of cultural heritage, before, during and after disasters (e.g. develop specific training for architecture, engineering and planning professionals to enable them to act appropriately in response and recovery activities involving culture).

• Cultural and creative industry inventory/database of resources available within repository entities (institutional or communal), to start as early as possible to bring these vital forces in the assessment, follow-up, and reconstruction processes.

Identification of capacity among new/potential stakeholders • It is necessary to determine if and what type of outside technical expertise is required. External TA could be

particularly valuable in building up a region-wide set of data to support region-wide resilience, while strengthening support within relevant global institutions for reducing risks at cultural heritage properties (including WHS).

• International assistance donors, e.g. ICOM, ICOMOS, IFLA, ICA, ICCROM, etc.


Gaps in required capacity for early/long-term recovery and relevant strategies Guiding strategic principles should be as follows: (i) preparing for capacity-building; investment in skills creation should start as early as possible; and (ii) building on existing local mechanisms, which is fundamental to enforce Disaster Risk Preparedness (DRP) Plans.

Early Recovery – Recovery response: Unnecessary further damage and harm to cultural heritage as a result of the disaster should be avoided as much as possible, for instance, through:

• Appropriately addressing the concerns of speed versus quality in the reconstruction process: e.g.

o Inventory and documentation of cultural heritage is vital and should rely on timesaving and cost-effective means of recording (e.g. photogrammetric recording, etc.).

o Alignment with proper institutional framework, establishing or reinforcing guidelines and best practices to indicate appropriate interventions. Planning for response should be aligned and refer to the principles contained in the relevant conservation charters and doctrinal texts, including the 1964 Venice Charter, and the many subsequent ICOMOS national and scientific texts, UNESCO, IFLA-ICA, BlueShield and ICOM Guidelines and documents (see list of references in Annex 6). For instance, structural reinforcement measures should always follow the principle of minimal impact on the property value, incorporating non-invasive techniques, the effectiveness of which is proved, wherever possible, by non-destructive testing. To this purpose, land use, building guidelines and codes review should be respected;

o Make available guidelines and other relevant materials to professionals, development stakeholders, developers and contractors, to ensure correct practices of recovery, rescuing techniques and procedures, setting or reviewing local or national building codes, specifically concerning traditional and historical built heritage and its particularities in conservation requirements;

o Capacity building of cultural institutions conducive to the promotion of restoration/reconstruction. This should include training in performing urgent tasks, visual inspection, rapid identification of structural cracks that may quickly worsen, documentation of cultural heritage, rescuing and collecting fragmented properties, use of treatment boxes, conservation freezing and drying of cultural objects especially books, etc.;

o Strong participation of the local communities and large public awareness raising. In many cases the lack of knowledge on cultural heritage causes further threats to cultural contexts. For instance, when a cultural place/building is used as a temporary rescuing facility for injured people, the public should be made aware of the appropriate preventive measures (e.g. packing, covering, etc.)

DRP Strategy: In line with the set of principles expressed in the Kobe-Tokyo Declaration on Risk Preparedness for Cultural Heritage (1997),2 a two-pronged approach should be envisaged for capacity building:

• Training of staff at all levels and tailored training from management staff in particular at the district level (prevention, preparation, vigilance, early detection and application of established procedures).

o Training material and toolkits developed for specific domains should be used and integrated: e.g. UNESCO/ICOM Museum Training Kit (manual, trainer's manual and needs assessment sheet), UNESCO Cultural Heritage Protection Handbooks, IFLA Core Programme for Preservation and Conservation (PAC), UNESCO Memory of the World and Blue Shield programmes for Libraries and Archives (IFLA-ICA); Museum Emergency Programme (MEP) for museums (ICOM-ICCROM) and the pilot project Teamwork for Integrated Emergency Management (TIEM) within the framework of the MEP, jointly coordinated by UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOM and the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI).

o Training of staff should be anticipated as much as possible, especially in countries at risk of disasters occurrence.

Sensitization and advocacy of communities, especially at the local level. Communities should be prepared to better “respond” to disasters (e.g. how to cooperate with technicians, persons to contact to rescue cultural heritage, etc.). 2 See Kobe 2005, http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/thematic-sessions/thematic-reports/report-session-3-3.pdf.


13.7 Overview of the response for the culture sector

The PDNA team should also report the response undertaken by the national/regional culture sector entities launched after the disaster and ongoing at the time of the assessment in order to avoid duplication of efforts and better identify gaps.


13.8 Vulnerability and risk profile

Vulnerability varies considerably within a community and over time and can arise from different physical (at structural or material levels), socio-economic and institutional factors. Examples may include:

o Poor design and structural defects in buildings, poor or inappropriate previous restoration work;

o Inadequate protection of cultural assets and profiles, lack of maintenance;

o Lack of public information and awareness;

o Limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures.

Risks: Besides the specificity of each country, there are some general predictable risks stemming from the effects of a natural disaster, which in all likelihood could appear from the very early aftermath, or even during the disaster (e.g. cyclic devastation effects, continuing seismic aftershocks). Sometimes such effects require medium- and long-term frameworks to be effectively measured. But, if no timely action is taken to prevent or fight against them, they might rapidly worsen.

o Loss of authenticity or falsification for instance due to: (i) adoption of rescue and relief measures (especially within the first 48 hours after the disaster occurs) that are carried out with no regard to heritage value of damaged areas (e.g. water damage from fire fighting, debris removal with no regard to heritage value) or following schemes insensitive to the social traditions of their inhabitants; (ii) increased pressure on cultural heritage (e.g. uncontrolled location of camps for displaced peoples within the property boundaries); and (iii) inappropriate restoration methodologies (e.g. use of non appropriate materials and techniques, reconstructions).

o Encroachment, pressure from illegal or uncontrolled development.

o Looting and illicit traffic of cultural property if not rapidly addressed can result in a long-term problem.

o Vandalism and plundering of historical buildings.

o Conflicts, tensions aggravated or generated by deterioration in living conditions, or lack of respect of cultural and religious beliefs and behaviours, cultural displacement due to forced migration, the introduction of culturally inappropriate (external) practices (e.g. unacceptable burial practices of local communities, etc.).

As for the needs, risks should be integrated in the matrix, indicating the required activities to prevent/mitigate them and the budget for the short and medium term, and related indicators (Table 5).

Table 5. Summary table of risks and actions to reduce risks: Risk Action Indicators Timeframe Total

US $ 18 months 3 years Inappropriate restoration methodologies / increased pressure on cultural heritage

Encroachment, development pressure / illegal or uncontrolled development

Looting and illicit traffic Vandalism, plundering Conflict prevention Cultural displacement Piracy/infringement of copyright regulations Other risks


13.9 Value added from cultural considerations during the recovery process

Over the long term, safeguarding of cultural heritage is a critical ingredient in the reconstruction of post-disaster societies. The sooner such attention is given, the more it promotes respect for human rights and facilitates dialogue, promoting coping mechanisms and improving disaster prevention strategies. Any sector’s intervention should be culturally sensitive to be effective and sustainable for social and human development. Humanitarian intervention should also be conducted in a cultural sensitive manner.

Recent studies and documents have underlined that cultural heritage is not a passive entity exposed to potential damage in the event of a disaster, but it has a significant role to play in reducing the impact of disasters on lives, properties and livelihoods, before, during and after a disaster occurs. For example, fostering traditional knowledge assists in disaster preparedness. Similarly, it is known that most traditional structures (using local building techniques and materials) performed much better than poorly built “modern” structures (poor quality and defects in materials, improper bonding, etc.). Moreover, safeguarding heritage in times of disaster provides the affected community with a sense of continuity and shared identity; it mitigates the psychosocial impact of disaster: performing arts help overcome traumas, provide a sense of normalcy, stability, inclusiveness and hope for the future. Given its prominent place in the community, cultural heritage also significantly contributes to promoting dialogue and preventing tensions and conflicts that might arise (e.g. using familiar cultural paradigms facilitates comprehension, learning and communication in a given community). Artists, artisans and craft workers should substantially contribute to the reconstruction process, bridging traditional and innovative production’s aspects, quality and continuity of traditions.

Cross-cutting issues: Given the ramifications of the effects of cultural heritage and socio-cultural behaviours in all sectors of society, understanding cultural behaviours and practices and mainstreaming them into recovery plans contribute to achieving more effective programmes of response: See Assessment questions under Cross-cutting issues of Annex 3. The results of the culture sector assessment should complement and inform other sectors as indicated in table 6 below:

Table 6. Summary table of culture sector’s contribution to other sectors/themes: Sector Themes Examples of = culture’s contribution to the sector/theme Shelter Housing, temporary

camps Designing housing and temporary camps should integrate specific features embedded in the affected community’s culture/religious behaviours, to better accommodate traditional lifestyles: e.g. location of shelter, community gathering points, gender issues vs. services access and timing (e.g. latrines), spaces for sport opportunities for youth and children, etc. Ensure that traditional family roles for men/ women can be maintained, thus reducing a sense of displacement; (disaster resilience) traditional construction materials and techniques should be integrated in design and construction requirements.

Land management Issues related to customary laws/local cultural behaviours; taboos may hinder access/use/occupation’s modalities of specific plots of land (e.g. due to their sacred features, the growing of species considered impure for specific tribes, etc.), as well as land inheritance rights (women not allowed to own land, etc.); reactivation of ancient moat and channels, etc. can foster better land management.

Livelihood Livelihoods Social protection, nutrition

Damage and losses analysis in the culture sector informs the livelihood, employment and social protection statistics: e.g. discriminatory practices vis-à-vis marginalized or vulnerable groups due to cultural beliefs (e.g. ethnicity, etc.; early marriages, female genital mutilation, corporal punishment due to cultural practices, etc.); nutrition: reluctance of a community to assume specific foods due to cultural and religious beliefs, etc.

Education Education for all Issues related to languages, cultural contents to support quality education, formal and non-formal education; use performing arts to enhance learning, etc.

HIV & AIDS Socio-cultural behaviours which may hamper HIV and AIDS prevention (e.g. widow-cleansing practices, etc.); Promotion of a culturally appropriate approach to HIV and AIDS (e.g. using traditional tales, music and performing arts as vehicle of campaign message)

Gender The contribution of women to the culture sector to help consolidate post-disaster recovery efforts; family cohesion, education, health.


13.10 Sector outcome, recovery strategy, outputs and monitoring/evaluation indicators and targets

Statement on the desired long-term recovery outcome in the sector In defining the Recovery Strategy statement on the desired long-term recovery outcome for culture, the PDNA team should aim not only restore the pre-disaster situation, but should also seek to lay the foundations for consolidating the culture sector, to rebuild more sustainably and to address the weaknesses or gaps found in the sector while carrying out the assessment. The ultimate objective is to contribute to the long-term national strategic development plan. Prioritized response options Emphasis should be put on priorities, based on activities, expected results, with indicators. Priorities should be devised on the basis of: (i) the identified needs per domain, directly observed and as expressed by key local actors and households; (ii) activities that are pre-requisite/indispensable for the development of other urgent or planned activities; (iii) feasibility and synergies which may support its implementation. There should be no more than five or six priorities. Quantitative and qualitative indicators should be given. MDG indicators should be used to the greatest extent possible (disaggregated by sex and urban/rural environment). According to the expected results and objectives, activities should be broken down by timeframe, as short-term (18 months) to medium-term (3 years) and budgeted accordingly. The assessment should also try to anticipate long-term needs (e.g. for the next national planning exercise, generally a five-year timeframe), will have to take into account national rebuilding (up to 10 years). At the time of the PDNA appraisal, it may not be possible to fully identify and cost these needs, but the basis for such long-term assessment should nevertheless be established. An example of main priority areas for the recovery strategy, with indicators is found in Annex 5. As a guiding principle, the PDNA team should ensure that the PDNA is effectively used and monitored. Examples are given below:

a. Build a comprehensive M&E framework, prepare and train personnel on the ground able to effectively monitor the PDNA-based planning.

Indicator 1: Representativeness of actors involved and national cultural institutions involved in the M&E. Indicator 2: Re-evaluate periodically PDNA results to ascertain needs and priorities, appropriateness of responses, lessons learnt Indicator 3: Number of staff which use currently the PDNA as planning basis tool Indicator 4: Number of successfully trained staff Indicator 5: Percentage of baseline preparation carried out at local and community level.

b. Link on the PDNA results the Culture Sector risk-preparedness and the national strategic planning, both at the recovery and development level

Indicator 1: How far PDNA is mainstreamed in the country planning at national regional and local level Indicator 2: Volume of government investment in risk preparedness in the sector of culture Indicator 3: number of effective partnerships with civil society Indicator 4: Property occupants and users and concerned community involved in planning for DRP plans Indicator 5: Alignment with international operative requirements Indicator 6: Extent to which polices and concern for disaster reduction are incorporated within management plans and systems

c. Bridge PDNA with other emergency response planning, especially the Post-Conflict Strategic Response (in many cases the two are closely interlinked), and joint post-crisis and development programmes (intra-ministerial, United Nations agencies/World Bank and donors).

Indicator 1: Coherence and correspondence among different emergency’s tools. Indicator 2: Quality and number of joint programming effectively implemented. Indicator 3: Bridges with existing concurrent joint appraisal at country level for post-crisis transition/development framework (i.e. CCA, UNDAF) Indicator 4: Commitment and coordination between stakeholders. Indicator 5: Effective investments made in the country’s comprehensive database for culture (with baselines and statistics), management and continuous update.


GENDER AND AGE DISAGGREGATED DATA The PDNA team should ensure that throughout the entire assessment process “different voices” – in ethnicity, gender, age, profession, state, religion, are heard. Moreover, the non-homogeneous socio-cultural background of the affected population (religious, ethnic composition, stable or migrating groups, etc) should be taken into account. The definition of age categories of respondents and that of vulnerable groups should be consistent as much as possible with those used by other sectors carrying out separate PDNAs, in order to allow for easy compilation, exchange and interpretation of intersectoral data.


Annex 1

Summary of general approximate distribution of physical and human resources components within Cultural Heritage domains. The following table is designed to help those carrying out the PDNA develop a quick understanding the breadth of elements that may require attention. These include both material and human resources. Authorities’ Implementation Capacity

Infrastructure, Material Components required

Personnel, practitioners and users involved

Adherence to legal framework, policies and overall management of the sector

• Office infrastructure and refurbishing general management and administration equipment (computers, etc.)

• transportation & communication equipment

• Ministerial bodies, at central, regional, local level (management staff of directorates / administrative staff / general services); their families.

Cultural Domain Infrastructure, Material Components

required Personnel, practitioners and users involved

1. Built heritage and cultural sites: These can range from a coherent grouping of structures (e.g. historic districts, rural and urban settlements) to single building or site (archaeological, monuments, modern and contemporary masterpieces) to infrastructure (bridge, port facilities) imbued with recognized cultural values (by local, national or international mechanisms).

Historic districts: • Infrastructure / Refurbishing • Equipment

• Maintenance and conservation staff operating often from centralised conservation centre (cultural institution)

Historic buildings, modern and contemporary architecture: • Infrastructure / refurbishing • equipment component (security, fire-

control, temperature control, air-conditioning system, etc.)

• Personnel (sometime limited/inexistent if private property and use: management staff / administrative staff / general services (cleaning and security)

• Maintenance and conservation staff operating often from centralised conservation centre (Cultural institution) / ministerial branches

Archaeological sites, historical gardens • Infrastructure / Refurbishing • Equipment (site interpretation,

presentation, information centres & facilities, visitor services)

• Personnel (at least management staff / administrative staff / general services delivery staff (including cleaning), visit (guides) and security (guards) related staff

• Maintenance and conservation staff (which may refer only to a central entity and be not site-specific)

• Communities living within and round the protected area, associations of ‘site friends’, volunteer networks

2.Natural heritage: Nature parks and their management infrastructure, both within urban settings and in the hinterlands. Zoos, regional, national parks etc.

• Infrastructure, buildings • Equipment / Refurbishing (site

interpretation, presentation, information centres & facilities, visitor services)

• For zoos – on-going care of animals.

• Personnel (at least management staff / administrative staff / general services, including visit (guides) and security (guards)

• Specific natural resources specialised staff (i.e. monitoring) (which may refer to a central entity and be not site-specific)

• Park rangers • Communities living within and round the protected

area, associations of park, zoo supporters, geological associations, volunteer networks

3.Cultural goods industry: Production, distribution and sale of music, crafts, audio-visual, books, etc.

• Infrastructure / Refurbishing (sometimes modest, mainly at household level), production studios, printing establishments

• Equipment • Distribution infrastructure / warehouses

• Personnel (most of the time households and SMEs)

• Users, cultural practitioners & producers


4. Cultural expressions of wide social importance recognised as meaningful by the community, large scale events

Religious and spiritual places: • Infrastructure / Refurbishing (sometime

modest: open air space, etc.) • Stadium, theatres etc. • Related equipment

• Personnel (sometime very limited: religious / services, etc.)

• Volunteer services and religious practitioners • Logistics personnel

5.Traditional knowledge systems / practices: Those aspects of cultural manifestations made vulnerable by the disaster

• Infrastructure / refurbishment (sometimes modest)

• Equipment (sometimes modest)

• Users & cultural practitioners and producers, usually an important component

6. Moveable properties and collections

See Museums, public and private collection premises

• Specialised personnel mainly operating from a centralised conservation/training centre

7. Museums, libraries and archives, cultural institutions, vocational training structures, zoological/botanical gardens with their auxiliary installations (specialised laboratories, storerooms, etc.).

• Infrastructure / Refurbishing of premises and auxiliary installations (laboratories, storerooms, deposits, etc.)

• Consistent component of specialised equipment for labs (conservation, diagnostic, documentation, photos), including temperature control, appropriate lighting system, etc.

• Management staff / administrative staff / general services staff

• Specialised personnel for specific functions (conservation, documentation, marketing, promotional and educational activities, etc.)

• Teachers and apprentices • Volunteers and “Friends of museums”

associations


Annex 2

Fictitious case study illustrating why post disaster interventions may benefit from socio-cultural impact assessment in planning phases. The fictitious case study below relates to a potential intervention in the field of culture, and the domain of crafts. However, the considerations raised in this case study are illustrative of the many challenges and pitfalls involved in planning post-disaster interventions, not only in the culture sector, but also in other sectors. The purpose of this case study is to convey to those carrying out PDNA and those planning for post disaster interventions, the importance of taking full account of the socio-cultural context in which their work is taking place. Doing so will increase efficiencies and the likelihood of longer term sustainability of their efforts. CATASTROPHIC FLOOD IN PATRIMONIA A thousand-year flood has inundated large parts of the territory of the Republic of Patrimonia. Some 60% of the region’s farmland has been underwater for six weeks, and along with it the homes of 70% of the Republic’s population. Planning is underway to resettle large numbers of the flood-displaced population into temporary camps, with the expectation that it will take from 24 to 36 months to replace a substantial part of the housing stock and allow people to return to their ancestral villages. A PDNA field team is assessing possibilities for income generation and social recovery during the anticipated displacement period of up to three years. One of the three large ethnic groups that makes up Patrimonia’s population, the Broder people, is well-known for its intricate embroidery skills, and at the suggestion of the Minister of Industry (herself a native of the region and a member of the Broder ethnicity), the PDNA team is exploring whether this traditional handicraft might appropriately be the subject of development and recovery efforts. What questions could the PDNA team be asking?

• Within Broder tradition, are the skills of embroidery actively practised and transmitted? Are the skills evenly distributed among different age cohorts or practised more by people of a certain generation (and if so, which?)? What are the contexts within which transmission takes place (parent to child? Grandparent to grandchild? Within kin groups?) Or is there institutionalized transmission in schools, workshops or other settings?

• What are the gender dimensions of Broder embroidery? Is it practised by men, women or both? Does one gender take responsibility for certain aspects (harvesting, spinning, dying, weaving, embroidering)? Does one gender take responsibility for purchasing materials and selling finished goods?

• Are Broder embroideries bought and sold through commercial streams, or bartered, gifted or conveyed through non-monetary exchanges? Are there wholesalers, entrepreneurs, pieceworkers, or other specialized roles within the division of labour? Are these gender-stratified, age-stratified or ethnicity-stratified?

• If Broder embroideries have been a source of family income, who controls the household economy? Are embroiderers the primary wage-earners, or supplementary wage-earners? How does the income from embroidery compare to other sources of income (farming, fishing, industry, professions)? If embroidery becomes the subject of economic intensification, could that disrupt family dynamics?

• Has there been a value-chain analysis of Broder embroidery? What are the potentials for new markets? What are the potentials for new products? To what extent are the embroidery skills of the Broder appropriate to intensification of production?

• When is Broder embroidery done (seasonally, year-round, by day, by night, in leisure time, during working hours)? Where is Broder embroidery done (at home, in the field between agricultural tasks, in a workshop, etc.)?

• In the displacement camp setting, how could embroidery provide meaningful activity for a part of the flood survivors, and how could it provide them a sense of fulfilment and contribute to psychological wellness?

• Within the multicultural environment of Patrimonia, do other ethnic groups practise similar needlework skills? Do people of other ethnic groups acquire and use Broder embroideries? Are there traditional trade and exchange relations in which Broder embroideries are provided to other ethnic groups? Can people of other ethnic groups learn Broder embroidery and practise it without creating cultural tensions or conflict?


• Is there one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage of Patrimonia? Is Broder embroidery already included in such inventories? Are there specialized inventories of Broder heritage, or of needle crafts throughout Patrimonia? Are there archives or museum collections (in Patrimonia or abroad) in which historical examples of Broder embroideries can be studied and their techniques and motifs documented?

• Does the domestic law of Patrimonia provide intellectual property (IP) protection for embroidery motifs, patterns, or techniques? Have such things already been registered within the IP system? If so, will that create obstacles or sensitivities for the planned intensification of production? If not, are IP protections needed to reduce the likelihood of misappropriation?

• If only Broder can practise their particular style of embroidery, are there other handicrafts among other ethnic groups that could be the subject of development or recovery interventions, so that social or cultural inequality is not created or aggravated?

• Are there health or safety considerations (dyestuffs, working conditions)? Are there environmental issues with regard to access to resources (fibres, dyestuffs, etc.)? Are there sensitivities with regard to child labour?


Annex 3

Examples of questions/indicators that can be used in the assessment ***When formulating questions, prior thought should be given to how the data will be used. Themes Assessment Questions Addressed to Potential Indicators and steps

CORE THEMES Direct physical damages to institutions, cultural site structures

• Mission and function of the assessed institution/context

Director/mana-ger of institution, built heritage, archaeological sites, natural parks, gardens

• % of existing cultural institutions affected by the disaster

• Proportion of evident structural and non structural damages, looses (from visual assessment)

• Structural damages ratio (pre- and post-crisis) • % of equipment no more functioning / lost • Type of equipment lost/damaged -Verify carrying capacity and stability of structural systems, indentifying (recommended tool: ICOMOS assessment structural capacity sheet): -parts which are in urgent need of supports to stop their collapse (emergency shoring and propping) -personnel available to carry out their tasks, additional assistance needed Requirements / Needs in terms of: -appropriate supplies -equipment -TA, immediate training

• Entity of the structural and non structural damages to infrastructures, refurbish, equipment

Owner of private dwelling/director or manager of institution, built heritage

• Personnel (#, qualification) Director/mana-ger of institution, archaeological site, natural park, garden,

• Eventual relation between central institution and periphery affiliation in different districts

• Lacks, deficiencies of the institution/building already occurring before the disaster

Director of institution, archaeological site, natural park, garden, private owner of building, specialised staff

• deficiencies/lacks which have been aggravated / provoked by the crisis • National and international projects which have been interrupted by the crisis • Actions and projects which need to be develop in response of the current situation • Priorities in needs ranking

Further questions below reported integrate the assessment per domain/theme:


Theme Assessment Questions Addressed to Potential Indicators and steps

CORE THEMES Government capacity, coordination and national policies

• Are there policies and plans in place for responding to Cultural heritage in emergencies?

• Were local policy makers and the community as a whole made more aware of the potential role of cultural heritage, intangible heritage and cultural and creative industries in post disaster situations?

Central & local authorities

• % of affected Districts with emergency preparedness plans in place that cover Culture

• What types and level of support is necessary to local authorities in order for them to best respond to identified culture sector needs?

District, local authorities (M/F)

• Effectiveness of local and regional government bodies and coordination

• How Cultural Heritage international and national organisations (UNESCO, etc.) / institutions and associations (e.g. ICCROM, ICOMOS, ICA, IFLA) can cope?

Central & local authorities (M/F) • Quality of the intervention and coordination

among CH stakeholders and associations involved in emergency plans

Community involvement

• What community-based efforts already under way can be built upon during the Culture sector emergency response?

Community leaders & members (M/F)

• % of districts in the affected area with active community-based efforts undertaken

• What resources to support participation are available and how can additional resources be mobilized?

Community leaders & members (M/F) / Local authorities (M/F)

• Types, amount of resources available and # of initiatives begun by community members to mobilize assistance / rescuing threatened cultural heritage, as well as to prevent/support fight against looting

• Do vulnerable groups feel to be represented in? how they are given a voice?

Community leaders & members (M/F)

• % of youth, women, others from key identified vulnerable groups involved and actively participating

• Use of community and social media to express marginalized voices

Knowledge based and information sharing

• Is there a comprehensive database for the Culture Sector/portal?

• If yes, at which level the database/portal is accessible to users?

• Which is the recurrence of updating of statistics for Culture?

Central & local authorities / Institutions’ directors

• # of directorates and public using the national database and portal;

• # of users accessing the database/portal, representing different stakeholders and at different level (central, regional. District, etc.)

• Quantitative baseline data generated


• How far is implemented the UNESCO Strategy for Reducing Risks at World heritage properties (WHC-07/31.COM/7.2)?

Yes/No, describe how

• # of risk management plans developed for World Heritage Sites

• Do potential further areas have a Risk Preparedness Plan? Is it effectively tested /functioning?

• % of potential threatened sites/institutions with DRP in place

• In cultural institutions and sites, have Disaster Response and/or Risk prevention officers been appointed from the institutions staff?

• Have been identified places in which emergency conservation treatment of collections can be carried out?

• Availability of guidelines and other relevant materials to help site managers and others design risk preparedness strategies for cultural heritage

• # of civil society associations established to support rescue operations for cultural heritage in the event of a disaster

• Effectiveness of the DPR plans Yes / No Names of the officers Yes / No, list of places (if possible) Yes / No, location of list of contacts and back-up copies

• Have lists been set reporting contact persons, external staff, services providers, etc.?

• Are these lists readily accessible? Where are they kept?

• For institutions, have been secured and are available back-up copies data?

Idem

• Are there traditional knowledge which promote disaster resilience / prevention / alarming on incoming disasters?

Central & local authorities / Community leaders / sites managers

• Recognition of traditional knowledge in DRP

• Is training available for staff / civil society organizations and does it correspond to prioritized needs? Who benefit from these training?

• % of officials, professional staff and civil society organization (M/F) trained on crisis-related topics and risk management at cultural sites / World Heritage Sites

• % of property occupants, users and concerned community in general involved in planning for disaster risk reduction plans

Please refer to tailored tool for specific domains, e.g.: -UNESCO/ICOM Museum Training Kit (Manual, trainer's manual and needs assessment sheet) -UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS/IUCN Resource Manual on 'Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage' 2010 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/630)

• In Ministerial offices/cultural institutions are essential services functioning (electricity, water)? How does it compare with the pre-disaster situation?


• # of staff, personnel injured • Reduction in institutions operating hours

• Can staff safely reach the existing institutions / museums / working spaces, to perform their tasks?

Institutions’ director & staff (M/F)

• Estimated Attendance Rate (M/F/total) • Report of personnel (M/F) who feel safe

travelling to and from working places in the affected areas


Basic services, access and Safety of staff

• Is there a cultural police in place? With which body currently the police/army cooperates in cordoning off cultural properties at risk of collapse?

Central & local authorities /

• Safety and coordination Government, cultural institutions, etc.

• How many people (officials, staff, users, etc.) were present at the time of the event?

• # of persons, staff, personnel injured

• In Ministerial offices/cultural institutions are essential services functioning (electricity, water)? How does it compare with the pre-disaster situation?


• # of staff, personnel injured • Reduction in institutions operating hours

• Can staff safely reach the existing institutions / museums / working spaces, to perform their tasks?

Institutions’ director & staff (M/F)

• Estimated Attendance Rate (M/F/total) • Report of personnel (M/F) who feel safe

travelling to and from working places in the affected areas

• Which cultural heritage protection services are now available? Does it cover sufficiently all relevant fields? How does this compare to what existed before the crisis?

• Is there acceptable access ensured to cultural sites/ institutions, centres?

Central & local authorities / Institutions’ directors

• % of existing cultural institutions able to continuing providing (basic) services

Archives and libraries

• Do (still) exist digital/on paper inventories for archives and libraries?

• Are documents / books still on shelves (original location as for inventories?)

• Are these able to ascertain dispersed / lost documents, manuscripts, etc.?

Institution’ director & staff

• Documentation of tangible heritage

• Is security ensured? Since the disaster occurred, have been there any theft and plundering and which has been the target? How this compare with the pre-disaster situation?

• % of secured properties Targets: furnishing & equipment, supplies (electrical plugs, etc.) / hosted inventories (books, manuscripts, documents, etc.)

• Is there a complete inventory of the collections?

• Yes / No (documentation of tangible cultural heritage)

• Are the premises regularly inspected?

• Yes / No [Relevance for Disaster Risk preparedness]

• Does the building ensure present conservation/protection for the hosted collections or there is a need to move them in a temporary safe location/storage?

• Protection of collections and properties

• Are there manuscripts / specific documents / books which require particular conservation measures? Are these measures still ensured and where they provided before the disaster?

• Current needs

• Conservation of manuscripts, documents • Needs in terms of : -appropriate supplies, equipment, appropriate treatments, restoration laboratories, storage conditions for archives, libraries

• Are archives sufficiently organized to ensure safeguarding of affected population collective memory the proper protection and public accessibility?

Idem • [Relevance on good governance and democracy]


• Are libraries sufficient in size and number to meet the learning needs of the affected populations?

Idem / Users (students, citizens)

• % of libraries / archives spaces (re)opened (pre-crisis compared to in/post-crisis)

• [Relevance on non formal education and education for all]

Museums and cultural institutions

• Does the building ensure present conservation/protection for the hosted collections or there is a need to move them in a temporary safe location/storage?


• Protection of collections and properties

• Is security enough ensured for artifacts? Have there been theft and plundering? How does it compare with the pre-disaster situation?


• % of secured properties Targets: furnishing & equipment, supplies (electrical plugs, etc.) / hosted inventories

• Are there any inventories/ databases/ information management systems for collections in place?

• Are collections completely inventoried?

• Documentation of tangible cultural heritage • Collections fully inventoried / Partially

inventoried • How many artifacts, which types

and which conservation measures are urgent to be ensured?

• Which are the conditions of storerooms and which were they before the disaster occurred?

• Conservation of cultural property

• Needs in terms of: -appropriate supplies, equipment, treatments, restoration laboratories, storage conditions for museum’ collections

• Are there conservation laboratories to fulfill the museum’s requirements? And compared with pre-disaster situation?

• Proportion of museums and cultural institutions furniture lost

• From where have been procured specialized equipment?

• In-country availability

• Are the premises regularly inspected?

• Yes / No [Relevance for Disaster Risk preparedness]

• Do museums provide outreach activities for general public, schools and amateurs, links with the educational system and on-site hands course / experiences?

• Is there in place a voluntary mechanism, alliances, supporting mechanisms as i.e. “friends of..” mechanism?

• How these efforts can contribute to mobilizing support for urgent interventions and then to go back to normalcy?

• Yes/No • Primary and secondary school / university / • Programmers enhanced through

partnerships/linkages with the education system

• Learning platform supporting the notion of “life-long learning”

For Museums’ needs, please refer to the UNESCO/ICOM museum management evaluation questionnaire (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35511&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) covering: A. General Information; B. Governance; C. Governing Body; D. Staff; E. Space Allocation; F. Safety and Security; G. Collections; H. Research; I. Preservation and Conservation; J. Public Relations and Marketing; K. Exhibitions; L. Programs / Education; M. Publications; N. Training Needs


Built heritage (single and clustered heritage)

• What have been the damages and losses? Infrastructures / equipment and essential material?


• Proportion of evident structural and non structural damages, losses (from visual assessment)

Identify: parts which are in urgent need of supports to stop their collapse

• What can be conserved of the authenticity of the heritage and what requires a new project intervention to ensure the compatible use of such heritage?

Idem Specialised staff

• Conservation and compatibility of use • % of existing historical buildings requiring

immediate measure of stabilizations/ preservation

• Is the property threatened by theft and plundering? How does it compare with the pre-crisis situation?


• Security

• Are experienced and qualified professionals available to carry out urgent necessary repair, stabilization and conservation?

• Which are the local skills available for conservation, restoration and new project intervention?

• Are necessary conservation materials, equipment and products available?

Specialised staff

• Availability of restoration material, labors, architects, structural engineers, specialists, etc.

Archaeologi-cal sites

• Does the protected area cover the real site’s extension?

Site’s director / Specialised staff

• Integrity of Cultural Heritage sites

• Is defined the full potential for research and on-site studies?

Idem • Research

• Among not directly affected sites, which are inaccessible due to the disaster’s effects?

• Which site could be further damaged by the projected disaster’s effects?

Idem • Accessibility of sites • Prevention

• Are there comprehensive plans (conservation, management, HIV & AIDS & marketing) for listed Heritage Sites?

• Are they implemented?

Idem • Proportion of sites with comprehensive plans implemented

• Which is the general role of local communities in the management / presentation / maintenance plans?

Site manager / Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• Role of communities in management, maintenance, monitoring systems

• Is there a first-aid system in place for archaeological sites?

Site’s director / Specialised staff

• Role of preventive conservation

• Are there cases of illegal digging activities? How does it compare with the pre-disaster situation?

• What can be done to stop it?

Site’s director / Specialised staff / Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• % of illegal excavation reduced Rescue excavation could be taken into consideration for worse cases.


Natural resources

• Which is the vulnerability of sites to natural hazards?

Site’s manager / Specialised staff

• Site’s vulnerability

• Is the site management plan effectively addressing the site’ critical issues?

idem • Management plans effectiveness

• Are communities and users aware of the value and sustainable use of such resources?

Site’s director / Specialised staff / Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• % increase in awareness, knowledge and understanding of sustainable use of and recognition of cultural/natural heritage

Personnel

• What have been the effects of the disaster on Culture sector’s staff?

All Staff

• % of staff affected by the disaster: dead, missing, injured, displaced

• Estimated attendance of staff • Who is available to perform urgent

priority tasks? (Location / qualification)

• Are staff wages continued to be provided as before the disaster?

• Is staff receiving incentive from other sources?

• % of available qualified staff (based on national standards)

• Ratio of female to males in institutions management

• % of staff receiving salaries from the Government and/or incentives or support from the community or other sources

• In normal conditions, is on-job training and continuing professional development available for staff / and does it cover priority needs?

• What should it cover?

• # of institutions, bodies and community-based organizations with increased capacity, strategies, structures

• Professional development • Needs of the personnel involved and training

requirements • What are the conditions of work

for the other Cultural Heritage personnel?

• Are still available administrators, guards, etc.?

• % of other CH personnel receiving salaries from the MoC (or affiliate) and/or incentives or support from the community or other sources

• Training needs? Priorities? • Needs: tailored training for professional, focusing principally on: -conservation, “First Aid” measures -documentation systems (photogrammetry, collection and information management databases etc.) in order to rationalize what lost, damaged and undamaged, etc...


Intangible Heritage (oral traditions and expressions, performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, traditional craftsmanship)

• Are there national inventories of Intangible Cultural heritage? Which coverage do they have?

Central & local authorities / Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• Documentation of Intangible Cultural Heritage

• To which cultural manifestations/believes/practices your community recognize fundamental shared values and which should be protected? How does it compare with the pre-disaster situation?

• Opportunities’ conditions identification

• What losses and damages in the domain of their representatives cultural values the affected communities feel?

Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• Representativeness of Intangible Cultural Heritage

• What are the conditions/ organizational requirements to allow people to continuing holding and performing the relevant CH manifestations (i.e. festivals, parades, etc.)? Which materials/supports could be used to enable CH manifestations and practices to be carried out replacing unavailable traditional materials?

• % of interrupted activities Identify requirements

• Do you feel that community traditional practices/believes have place enough to be expressed?

• Recognition of traditional knowledge

• Are Cultural Traditional Knowledge systems accessible and integrated into the education system and professional curricula (i.e. urban planning, building construction, etc.)?

• Traditional knowledge integrated in formal education systems/curricula


• Do cultural/creative industries represent your sustaining incomes source? Are they a fulltime job?

Household SME / CBO manager

• # of people sustained by cultural and creative industries job related

• # of people for whom cultural activities’ performance represents the 2nd job / hobbies

• Under normal circumstances, at this time of the year, what are the most relevant ways in which households in this area sell their cultural goods/cultural performances?

• Roughly, what proportion of households in the district/area are equally engaged in this kind of activities?

• What would be the (projected) average of incomes from such activities? What are the current incomes?

• How many persons work on the production of cultural goods in your enterprise?

• Poverty and income rate of households • Entities of cultural enterprises: Small / Medium

Enterprise

• Do you receive incentives / financial support and from which private/public kind of credit institution? Is this sufficient to boost your enterprise?

• Monetary value of the incentive?

• % of supported, boosted enterprises • Monetary value per SME

• Damages and losses which the disaster have affected your household / community

• Where do you get your stock /raw materials, supplies from? Have been any disruption to supplies since the disaster? Why?

• Procurement of raw material, stock, goods

• Which are the priority needs for your enterprise to restart operate again?

• Are there row materials suitable to replace unavailable materials due to the disasters of which could produce alternative/new valuable cultural products?

• Identify Priority Needs for cultural and creative SMEs and CBOs: -premises & workshops’ infrastructures, equipment, incentives for setting up/relieve cultural & creative industries -Opportunities’ conditions identification

Cultural and creative industries

• Is the legal and operational framework / environment of market conducive for cultural industries?

• Which restrictions you fell?

• # of local cultural/traditional markets boosted and revived

• Are there specific market event, national, regional fairs, cultural events in the agenda which have been disrupted due to the emergency?

• How can these be rescheduled with minimal disruption to performance?

• % of disrupted activities Quantify the losses


Household / Community Impact

• Loss of property, cultural goods (private historic or traditional dwellings, collections), traditional inventories (waving tools, etc.)?

• Loss of income (goods and services: i.e. cultural tourism services)?

• Which increases in costs for household for cultural production?

• Which losses in business opportunity (i.e. fairs, cultural events, cultural tourism services)?

• Ability to access market? • Did the living conditions of the

youth and women improve through the income generated by the sales of their products?

• Could cultural goods production enable a diversification of income sources for households and the community as a whole?

• Did the self-confidence of cultural producers and artisans improve?

Household/ Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• % of households – particularly women headed households - getting income from cultural goods production and from Cultural Tourism contributes (MDG1)

• % of increase in (target) community members (particularly women and youth)’ wage & regular income deriving from cultural good market and cultural tourism associated service providing

• Opportunity of diversification of sources of incomes at community and household levels

• Are there tour guides, community tour guides? Are they formally trained?

• For those informally trained but well performing, has been foreseen / is foreseeable a recognition by the formal system of accreditation?

Community’s leader & members (M/F)

• Formal and informal training of community guides

Respect for Cultural diversity and rights (social impact)

• Do you feel that there is an increased social stress?

• Do you feel that there are resurgences of tensions (ethnic, social, religious)? Why?

All respondents

• # and relevance of initiatives and programmes arising from dialogue platform

Describe briefly reasons

Cultural tourism

• Are you visiting and how much expending to on visits to historical sites, public parks and zoos?

National & international operators

• Household expenditure on visits to historical/cultural/ archaeological sites, parks and zoos

• How many operators/service related (excluded at community level) are still operating in the cultural tourism sector?

• What is the difference in incomes from normal and current time?

• % of operators receiving regular income deriving from cultural tourism

Intellectual Property (IP)

• Do cultural practitioners and cultural goods producers feel that their intellectual property rights (IPR) are sufficiently protected? Why?

Cultural practitioners & producers

• # of people sensitized on issues of piracy & IP related to handicraft products; Market linkages & opportunities fostered

• % of cultural practitioners, producers who fell insufficiently protected. Raisons


CROSS CUTTING ISSUES: Youth • What are the main occupations of

youth and children in temporary camps?

• Which cultural and creative activities could be performed?

• Is there a mobile library and spaces available to allow groups to express their cultural manifestations?

• Which kind of equipment, facilities should be provided for?

Affected population

• Access to Cultural Heritage

Identification of needs, projects

Shelter • How designing housings, temporary camps, take into account and integrate issues embedded in the community’s culture / religious behaviours?

Idem • Respect for human and cultural rights

Land tenure • Customary law vs. land property Idem • Sustainable utilization of cultural / natural assets

WASH • Are there cultural and symbolic barriers hindering Water, Sanitation and Hygiene campaigns?

Idem • Improvement in effectiveness for WASH campaigns

Education • In promoting Quality education and Education for All are native languages integrated?

Idem • Improved Education objectives

HIV / AIDS prevention

• Are there cultural issues and practices hindering HIV and AID pandemic prevention?

• How musicians, artists can positively contribute to fight against the HIV / AIDS prevention’s campaigns?

Idem • Improvement in HIV and AIDS prevention’s awareness campaigns

Protection • Has emergency assistance introduced practices which you feel contrasting with your cultural religious believes? Which and Why?

Idem • Respect for human and cultural rights Identification of cultural factors and their needs


Annex 4

Methodologies for the calculation of direct damages and indirect losses 4A. Summary matrix for direct damages:

Domain Damages How direct damages are calculated Built heritage (isolated / aggregated), archaeological sites, etc (including WHL sites)

Single property: Restorable As per DaLA methodology, damages can be approximated by estimating the cost of rehabilitating or recovering the assets [same standard of the pre-disaster situation]: Cost for restoration works (materials & labours) + refurbish & equipment (for specialised equip. unavailable in the country, maintenance, insurance and transport costs must be included)

Better calculation method has to be identified on the base of the case’s specificity

Destroyed (i) If the property does not have a market value: Enhanced replacement cost method provides credible monetary valuation, although it may require time (hence it could result more appropriate during the thorough/detailed assessment of damages and needs). If statistics are available, HM could suit. (ii) If the asset has a real estate market valuation, the property price should be kept as proxy valuation (DaLA).

Aggregated: A cluster should be considered as a whole.

Restorable Same as single building: main difference is that economic damages should be broken down between private and public sector accordingly.

Avoid double counting with Housing sector)

Destroyed As for single building “destroyed” heritage case. When it is a market-property, the bid price identified the monetary value.

Natural assets and protected areas (including WHS)

Avoid eventual double counting with the Environment Sector

Compromised Same criteria as for built heritage and environment. An indirect estimate made after consulting users about the value that they ascribe to the environmental goods for which there is no market (CV), can be used for both use and non-use values.

Recoverable Same as above. Cultural goods, traditional products

Partially destroyed

As trade-market product, the damages occurred can be appraised directly using market price of the good/product: Good’s price on the market (+ inflation rate and augmentation of related good price)

Destroyed

Moveable properties

Rare books, manuscripts, works of art, archaeological, ethnological artefacts:

Recoverable Restoration cost Lost / Destroyed

although they are not a traded-good, a proxy valuation can be made: price estimated by Auction Houses, e.g. Christies, Sotheby’s (indirect WTP / WTA methods)

Premises of ministerial offices (at central and local level), cultural institutions, libraries and archives, museums

Building not endowed of recognised / recognisable cultural value Avoid double counting with the Housing Sector

Restorable damages can be evaluated with the methodology for new buildings (used in the housing sector, DaLA): value of: demolishing + rebuilding the unit + eventual renting/adapting on purpose temporary premises + transportation of contains to, and back again to the new premises)

Building listed on national/international inventories

Restorable the evaluation method should follow the same of the above-category of built heritage

Non cultural asset Destroyed As for Housing sector Cultural asset Same as for build heritage’ domain


4B. Methodologies for the calculation of indirect losses: Indirect loss Due to How indirect loss are calculated Impact on

Closure/inaccessibility of cultural institutions / museums, libraries and archives

Lack of basic services (electricity, water, etc.)

loss of staff incomes x timeframe for the restoration works and recovery of contents (when their recovery is not instantaneous) + loss of institution income from entrance fees, scheduled exhibitions, activities & events’ earnings (ticket, bookshops, etc.)

-employment -poverty -social capital (accrued lack of service for the entire community implying a reduction of social capital, identity growth)

Closure/inaccessibility of natural assets, zoos and protected areas

Lack of basic services, lack of visitors security

loss of staff income x timeframe for the restoration of infrastructures and the natural capital + loss of incomes from entrance fees, scheduled activities’ earnings (ticket, guided visits, etc.)

-employment -cultural capital

Delay/interruption of production of cultural goods

Inaccessibility / disappearance of raw material

loss in enterprise’s incomes linked to cultural goods’ production x predictable delay/interruption time

-poverty (prices’ increase; inflation; depreciation of goods) -macro-economy (market stagnation / fluctuation/ disruption, with consequences on country GPD)

Additional deterioration of cultural artefacts and buildings

Disruption of services by Conservation institutes / training centres (hurt by the catastrophe)

Additional costs requested to carry out the restoration works (including workers) x the timeframe

-cultural capital

Revocation of special events / festivals / fairs / Art performances

Inaccessibility / compromising of the location / cultural place

Losses can be calculated with TCM (expected on the basis of previous, expected or already booked travel attendance) or investment costs

-poverty -social capital

Losses in Cultural Tourism incomes volume

Less / inaccessibility of assets affecting services associated with cultural tourism destinations (guesthouses, etc.)

% of reduction in the total value of entrance fees or tourist taxes applied in Cultural locations/sites + losses in associated performances, hosting services, sub-sector wages, etc.

-poverty (reduction on overall tourist arrival)

Losses in incentives, loans

Damaged production Value of subsides / incentives/ loans, micro-credit form + (eventual) interests

-poverty


4C. Methodologies for the calculation of communal and social damages and losses: Impact on the Culture sector

Damages and losses How they are calculated

Human losses • Professionals, management & administration, services’ staff (functioning of the sector)

• Artisans, craftsmen, artists, musicians, traditional dancers, etc. (cultural practitioners and producers, cultural and creative industries)

victims, Injured, affected persons - #

Households / community impact Assessment questions under Households / Community impact of Annex 3

• loss of property, cultural goods (private historic or traditional dwellings, collections), traditional inventories and equipment (waving tools, etc.)

• loss of income (goods and services: e.g. cultural tourism services)

• Increases household costs • losses in business opportunity (e.g. fairs, cultural

events, cultural tourism services) • inability / reduced opportunities to access market • Loss of operating capital (cash/material resources) for

women, reduction of their share of productive activities in the formal and informal sectors

Direct damages calculated as in matrix 4a, indirect losses in matrix 4b of this Annex (4). Women’s capital loss: # (or % in a given community) of women who had to leave their job to take care of their family / community; reduction in women contribution to unemployment rate

Intangible Cultural Heritage Assessment questions under Intangible Cultural Heritage of Annex 3

• Disappearance/disruption of use of languages, oral traditions, traditional manifestations, traditional music, know-how (in craft, etc.)

• Festivals, celebrations, seasonal rituals, etc. (the costs for ensuring they continue despite the catastrophe can be calculated).

If damages can be repaired (disruption): the costs for ensuring they continue despite the catastrophe can be calculated or the costs to reviving a language, etc., a traditional know-how at risk (in terms of documentation, training, incentives for apprentices, over the time required to recovery such heritage). However it might not be possible to evaluate it on the short time for lack of realistic baselines, lack of immediate beneficiaries’ reference basis.

If heritage disappears: Inestimable. In a few cases could be evaluated using CM (Delphi approach) or other context specificity methods.

Social impact Assessment questions under Social impact of Annex 3

• Increased stress, cultural displacement due to forced migration, etc.

• Psychological traumas • Resurgence of tensions (ethnic, social, religious)

Analysis of response options and needs: -identify direct and immediate responses and long-term responses strengthening livelihood options (complementarities between immediate and long-term response options) -pro and cons of various response options


Annex 5

1. Prepare affected or sensible areas to better prevent / mitigate disaster impact (incoming, e.g. accrued flooding, or secondary “waves”, e.g. earthquake’s subsequent tremors)

a. Put in place or make more effective, coherent and proactive risks readiness and disaster management i. Indicator: % of risk reduction strategy envisaged as advance planning / effectiveness of risk reduction strategy for

Cultural Heritage. b. Advocacy and spreading knowledge of people about disaster prevention & reduction plans

i. Indicator: # of government officials, institutions, civil society members, reached and effectively contributing to the strategy.

c. Legal and regulatory framework, policies and norms, to improve structural resilience of cultural contexts (e.g. specific anti-seismic regulation for historic buildings). i. Indicator: Effective regulation in place

2. Promote viability of Intangible Cultural Heritage, enabling people to continue expressing their cultural practices, and provide them with a platform for social inclusiveness, particularly among young people

a. Psycho-social aspects, integration of impacted persons in society, helping particularly children and youth to cope with disaster i. Indicators: % of post-disaster traumas successfully healed using cultural activities.

b. Foster respect for cultural and human rights within interventions, whilst intercultural understanding is promoted (e.g. traditional burial practices respected)

i. Indicator: % increase in the recognition of cultural diversity and cultural rights of the affected population in (early-recovery and) recovery intervention’s programmes

3. Give a chance and a voice to communities providing a platform for cultural practitioners and producers to actively participate in the reconstruction process

i. Indicator. # of artists, artisans, cultural practitioners and producers involved in the reconstruction process; # projects entailing their involvement for implementation.

4. Inventory and document cultural heritage (tangible and intangible) i. Indicator. # of properties recorded

5. Restore endangered monuments and built heritage i. Indicator. # of (previously threatened) properties protected and available for compatible use

6. Reactivate interrupted fundamental services in and ensure access to cultural institutions, vocational training structures, libraries, archives, museums, as well as to cultural and natural sites (i.e. urgent repairing works, temporary roofing, equipment etc.)

i. Indicator. # of cultural institutions providing (basic) services. 7. Secure collections and most endangered assets and profiles, including World Heritage Sites

a. Ensure security systems for museums, libraries & archives, storage facilities, standing monuments, major sites (including World Heritage sites and the sites on the Tentative List)

i. Indicator. % of retrieved & secured properties; % of security staff successfully operating (e.g. site guards and patrols, etc.) ; # of contexts prevent form collapse and rapid decay.

b. First-aid measures and restoration interventions for most critical damaged artefacts and collections i. Indicator. # of artefacts temporally protected awaiting further conservation measures

c. Providing a platform for requesting the return of stolen and illicitly exported property to the country if such acquisition and/or export have already taken place

i. Indicator. Legislation in place to fight against illicit traffic / % of returned cultural properties to the country of origin. 8. Support SMEs and CBOs to enable/create a viable environment to support market opportunities for individuals / communities for

cultural products and goods a. Provide a platform to facilitate access to market for cultural producers and practitioners

i. Indicator. # of partnerships with other Development partners created/established b. Tailored training programmes for SMEs and CBOs to foster their entrepreneurship and business skills as well as to

upgrade the quality of their cultural products i. Indicator: # of successfully trained SMEs and CBOs.

c. Create a legal environment conducive to cultural industries through multi-sectoral policies development i. Indicator: Review of national policies, strategy and legal framework to support creative and cultural industries initiated.

9. Align national policies and strategies to international standards and the solid normative foundation provided by international conventions, recommendations, declarations and tools elaborated by UNESCO in the field of Culture.

i. Indicator: Alignment and operative framework for relevant international conventions applications fostered.


Example of Recovery Matrix: Component / Objective Expected results Activity Indicators Duration Total cost

18 months 3 years

USD USD USD Total USD


Annex 5

Further essential references P. PICHARD: Emergency Measures and Damage Assessment After an Earthquake (Studies and Documents on the Cultural Heritage; 6), Paris, UNESCO, [1984]

IFLA and ICA: Lost memory –libraries and archives destroyed in the twentieth century (prepared by UNESCO on behalf of IFLA, by Hans van der Hoeven and on behalf of ICA by John van Albada), Paris, UNESCO, 1996

IFLA: General Guidelines for the Safeguarding of the documentary heritage (prepared for UNESCO, on behalf of IFLA, by Stephen Foster, Jan Lyall, Duncan Marshall and Roslyn Russel), Paris, UNESCO, 1996

H. STOVEL: Management Guidelines for Risk Preparedness for World Cultural Heritage (UNESCO-ICOMOS-ICCROM), 1998 (www.iccrom.org/pdf/ICCROM_17_RiskPreparedness_en.pdf.)

V. DORGE, SHARON L. JONES: Building an Emergency Plan. A Guide for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1999 (www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/emegency_plan.pdf)

H. GÖKÇEKUS (ed.): EHRMR’ 99, Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Hazard and Risk in the Mediterranean Region, Lefkosa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, 18-22 October 1999 / organized and sponsored by Near East University. Lefkosa, Educational Foundation of Near East University, [2000] (ISBN 975-8359-03-7)

F. SWIFT: “Museum Management, Part 5: Planning for Emergencies”. In Museum Practice, London, UK, The Museums Association, No. 18 (Vol. 6, No 3), 2001, pp. 41-43 (ISSN 1359-771X)

IFLA Principles for the Care and Handling of Library Material. Compiled and edited by Edward P. Adcock with the assistance of Marie-Thérèse Varlamoff and Virginie Kremp, International Preservation Issues (IPI) n. 1, the International Federation of Library Associations and institutions (IFLA) Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC), Paris, (http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/pchlm.pdf)

M. ROOSA: Care, Handling, and Storage of Photographs, Library of Congress, Revised and updated by Andrew Robb, International Preservation Issues (IPI) n. 5, the International Federation of Library Associations and institutions (IFLA) Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC), Paris, 2002 (http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi5-e.pdf)

ECLAC, Handbook for estimating the Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2003

C. KOCH (ed.): A Blue Shield for the Protection of our Endangered Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the Open Session co-organized by PAC Core Activity and the Section on National Libraries, International Preservation Issues (IPI) n. 4, the International Federation of Library Associations and institutions (IFLA) Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC), Paris, 2003 (http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi4-e.pdf)

ICOM: Cultural Heritage Disaster Preparedness and Response / Patrimonio Cultural: Preparación y Reacción ante los Desastres / Patrimoine culturel : prévention et gestion des catastrophes. International Symposium Proceedings, Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad, India, 23-27 November 2003, ICOM, MEP-Museum Emegency Programme, 2004 (http://archives.icom.museum/disaster_preparedness_book/index.html)

J. KAMARA: Indigenous knowledge in natural disaster reduction in Africa, The Environment Times, 2005, retrieved 11 August 2006 (www.environmenttimes.net/article.cfm?pageID=132)

IFLA Rare Books and Manuscripts Section: Operationalization of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register criteria, Den Haag: IFLA, 2005

KOBE REPORT draft, Report of Session 3.3, Thematic Cluster 3. Cultural Heritage Risk Management. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan (http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/thematic-sessions/thematic-reports/report-session-3-3.pdf.)

BOEN, T. and R. JIGYASU: ‘Cultural Considerations for Post-Disaster Recovery: Challenges for Post-Tsunami’, Asian disaster management news, vol. 11, no. 2, 2005, pp. 10-11, retrieved 11 August 2006, (www.adpc.net/Infores/newsletter/2005/4-6/02.pdf)

J. KING, G. WIJESURIYA, J. COPITHORNE: Integrating traditional knowledge systems and concern for cultural and natural heritage into risk management strategies. Proceedings from the special session organized by ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre for the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland, 31 August 2006

K. VECVAGARS, Valuating damage and losses in cultural assets after a disaster: concept paper and research options, (Estudios y perspectivas, 56), CEPAL, Mexico D.F., September 2006


J. MCILWAINE: IFLA Disaster Preparedness and Planning. A Brief Manual, University College London Under the direction of Marie-Thérèse Varlamoff IFLA-PAC Director, IPI n. 6, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC), Paris, 2006 (http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi6-en.pdf)

C. KOCH (ed.): Proceedings of the International Symposium The 3-D’s of Preservation Disasters, Displays, Digitization. Actes du Symposium International La Conservation en trois Dimensions Catastrophes, Expositions, Numérisation. Organisé par la Bibliothèque nationale de France avec la collaboration de l’IFLA, Paris, 8-10 mars 2006, IPI n. 7, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC), Paris, 2006 (http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi7-en.pdf)

UNESCO, WHC-07/31.COM/7.2 Paris, 10 May 2007: Item 7.2 of the Provisional Agenda: Issues related to the state of conservation of World Heritage properties: Strategy for Reducing Risks from Disasters at World Heritage properties, Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Heritage Committee, Thirty first Session, Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June – 2 July 2007 (www.whc.unesco.org/document/8864)

World Bank: Safer Homes, Stronger Communities - Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters: Chapter 11: Cultural Heritage Conservation, World Bank, 2010 (http://www.housingreconstruction.org/housing/Chapter11)

UNESCO: The Cultural Diversity Programming Lens Toolkit, May 2010

UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN: Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage, UNESCO, Paris, June 2010 (English and French version available on http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/630)

UNESCO portal resources:

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/emergencysituations

UNESCO, Intersectoral Platform on Small Island Developing States “Natural and Environmental Disasters: UNESCO’s Role and Contribution,” http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31605&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO: Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session. Paris, 16 November 1972 (www.whc.unesco.org/en/convention)

UNESCO: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

UNESCO: Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970

UNESCO: Kobe-Tokyo Declaration on Risk preparedness for Cultural Heritage, Kobe/Tokyo International Symposium on Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties, 1997 UNESCO: Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Paris, 2001

UNESCO: Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage , Paris, 2003

UNESCO: Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, Paris, 2005

UNESCO: Cultural Heritage Protection Handbook Series, UNESCO Paris (ENG/FR/RUS/SP/AR, + several local languages): n. 1 (Security at museums, 2006), n. 2 (Care and handling of manuscripts, 2006), n. 3 (Documentation of artefacts' collections, 2009), n. 4 (Disaster risk management for museums, 2009), n. 5 (Handling of collection in storage, 2010) (unesdoc.unesco.org / http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35516&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html ; http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=36473&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Museums: Teamwork for Integrated Emergency Management (TIEM) programme (cf: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=40048&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)

UNESCO/ICOM museum management manual and trainer's manual, with an evaluation questionnaire, ENG/FR/SP/RUS/CH/ARB (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35511&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)

UNESCO/ICCROM Tools for preventive conservation in museums: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=40039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html


Other internet resources:

www.undp.org/mdgf Culture and development Window

http://icom.museum/what-we-do/programmes/museums-emergency-programme.html

MEP-Museum Emergency preparedness: for Web Sites Emergency Preparedness and Response see http://archives.icom.museum/disaster_preparedness_book/resources/websites.pdf IFLA Core Activity on Preservation and Conservation (PAC): http://www.ifla.org/pac

United Nations Development Group

Post‐disaster Needs Assessment HUMAN RECOVERY NEEDS ASSESSMENT CULTURAL HERITAGE

AUGUST 2011

Human recovery needs assessment - UNESCO · 13.5 DIRECT COMMUNAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND...

Documents

Transcript of Human recovery needs assessment - UNESCO · 13.5 DIRECT COMMUNAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND...