EXECUTIVE SUMMARY‘The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Intangible Cultural Heritage and Natural
Disasters’ was convened from 7–9 December 2018 in Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.
Workshop sessions were held on DAY 1 and DAY 3 at the Sendai International Centre,
while DAY 2 had an excursion scheduled to visit the coastal town of Onagawa (Miyagi
Prefecture) (see Annex 2 for the detailed programme of the workshop). The workshop
was organised by IRCI in cooperation with Tokyo National Research Institute forCultural Properties (as co-organiser) and the Center for Northeast Asian Studies,
Tohoku University (as cooperating body).
Participants were invited by IRCI from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region
including Australia, Bangladesh, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nepal,
the Philippines, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. The workshop also welcomed therepresentative of UNESCO and the UNESCO Category 2 Centres in the Asia-Pacificregion, namely CRIHAP (China) and ICHCAP (the Republic of Korea). Another UNESCO
Category 2 Centre in Latin America (CRESPIAL) also contributed to the workshop. The
workshop was not open to the public; however, a certain number of observers were
accepted through pre-registration. Accordingly, a total of 45 researchers andspecialists in the fields of culture, heritage, and DRM attended the workshop (Figure1) (see Annex 3 for the list of participants). The discussions over the three days
concluded with the adoption of ‘Statements and Recommendations for Safeguarding
ICH in Disasters and Mobilising ICH for Disaster Risk Reduction’ (Annex 1).
A summary of the three days of the workshop is presented below. Details ofpresentations and reports by participants are included in this volume1.

DAY 1

7 December 2018
Meeting Room 8, 3rd floor, Conference Bldg., Sendai International Center

Opening remarks
The workshop started with opening remarks by Wataru Iwamoto, Director-General of
IRCI, who welcomed the participants and expressed his expectations that theworkshop would become a valuable opportunity to exchange various case studies andideas among researchers, contributing to the enhancement of further research forsafeguarding ICH in the context of natural hazards and disasters. He also noted thesignificance of holding the workshop in Sendai, which was devastated by the Great
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, and where the ongoing international1

All papers were submitted by participants based on presentations made at the workshop. The titleof the paper may be different from the presentation title on the workshop programme (Annex 2).
The editors of this volume engaged in minimum editing of these papers, and each author is
responsible for the contents of his/her paper.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

005

framework for DRR, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030’ hasbeen adopted.
Then, Emiko Yamanashi, Acting Director-General of Tokyo National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties, which co-organised the workshop, took her turn to deliver her
opening remarks. Referring to the Institute’s commitment to the heritage rescue andheritage doctor programmes that commenced about a month a�er the 2011
earthquake and tsunami disaster, which were largely focused on tangible cultural
heritage, she noted that there were also many intangible elements such as rituals andfestivals that were affected by the disaster and that the revitalisation of suchintangibles actually encouraged the recovery of the affected people and communities.
She stated that she hoped that the workshop would enhance our understanding of
the importance of ICH in DRR.
Finally, on behalf of UNESCO, Himalchuli Gurung (Programme Specialist for Culture,
UNESCO Oﬃce in Beijing) explained UNESCO’s perspectives on the theme of ICH inemergency situations with reference to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) andthe Sendai Framework. Using the term ‘living heritage’ to enable a better
understanding of the nature of ICH, she explained the importance of ICH in crisis
management: while ICH is subjected to protection by the DRR framework, therichness and diversity of living heritage provide community-based, culturally sensitive,
and sustainable resources for preventive, preparedness, and response measures. Beingin the process of conceptualising and transforming the knowledge and experiences
acquired into methodological guidance for the state parties, she expressed that
UNESCO welcomes efforts of the international communities such as this workshop to
explore and understand creative ways of maintaining ICH through dialogues, and thatthe outcome of the workshop would provide valuable insights.

Figure 1006

Workshop participants.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Introduction to the workshop
Before the workshop sessions began, Yoko Nojima (IRCI) briefly explained the projectbackground and objectives (as summarised in the introductory paper in this volume),
and programmes scheduled over the three days (Annex 2). She also introduced thedefinitions of key terms that would be frequently used during the workshop:‘intangible cultural heritage (ICH)’, ‘local (or indigenous) knowledge’, and ‘(natural)
disaster’. While referring to the definitions by UNESCO and UNISDR as examples, she
stated that these concepts are considered as broadly and flexibly as possible in theworkshop to accommodate various viewpoints and opinions.
She noted criticism concerning the term ‘natural disaster’ especially in the field of
DRR, stating that a disaster occurs when a natural hazard disrupts people in someways and that there are always human factors in disasters. She remarked that
although the term is still commonly used internationally and was also used in the titleof the workshop, it refers to ‘a disaster caused by natural hazards’. Similar statements
regarding avoiding the term ‘natural disaster’ were also made in the course of theworkshop by other participants such as Fadjar I. Thufail (Research Center for Regional
Resources, Indonesian Institute of Sciences) and JC Gaillard (The University of
Auckland), and this was also noted by Meredith Wilson (Stepwise Heritage andTourism Pty Ltd) (this volume).
She also distributed the first dra� of the recommendation to the participants to seek
their input. This dra� was revised by organisers a�er DAY 2 to reflect findings of theworkshop, and was again distributed to the participants on the morning of DAY 3 to be
used in the final discussion.
Session 1: Natural hazards/disasters and the transmission of ICH
In the first session facilitated by Hiroki Takakura (Center for Northeast Asian Studies,
Tohoku University), three papers were presented by anthropologists from Myanmar,
Vietnam, and the Philippines.
Mya Mya Khin (University of Yangon) introduced three case studies she had
conducted in Myanmar: agricultural practices of Anaul Phwa Saw near Bagan; pottery
traditions in Twentay (southwest Yangon); and ICH, including religious beliefs in Thidar
village in the Ayeyarwady region. While reporting on the impact of climate change on
soil productivity and agricultural practices near Bagan, investments in the area led thevillages to abandon their agricultural land. Similarly, Khin pointed out the high impactof ‘manmade’ factors on the transmission of ICH, such as the construction of Twantay
canal that blocked the potters’ access to clay sources, as well as the�, violence, andcorruption by the government.
Introducing current ICH policies in Vietnam, Phan Phuong Anh (Vietnam National
University) pointed out limitations of existing ICH management as a top-down,
product-oriented approach without suﬃcient consideration of the drivers of viability,
sustainability, or the decline of ICH, as well as the tendency to capture ICH as a fixed
object regardless of its changing socio-cultural and environmental contexts, drawing
on the case of Bá Trạo, a ritual opera that is essentially a part of whale worship. She

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

007

also pointed out the limited linkages between ICH and DRM in Vietnam, such as a lackof capacity and interest from the culture sector in DRM, and a lack of recognition
among the DRM sector of the role of ICH, and called for the development of new
tools and frameworks to support the integration of ICH in DRR policies and practices
and vice versa.
Soledad N. Dalisay (University of the Philippines-Diliman) approached the transmissionof ICH from a different angle: ‘remembering disasters’. Introducing a series ofpractices in response to disastrous typhoons in the Philippines such as Yolanda(Haiyan) in 2013 and Reming (Durian) in 2006, she demonstrated the vital role of bothmaterial culture and certain domains of ICH as tools for remembering andcommemorating. She noted that disaster events sometimes add new narratives to oldlegends (i.e. the stories of Sam Ryan in Guiuan), or even create new heritage
conveying the memory of disaster, such as the crosses in Albay, the astrodome andbeached ship in Tacloban, and community-wide commemorative events like thecandle-lighting ritual.
Discussion:
Several points were discussed during the session.
Concerning the story introduced by Phan that related that more than 100 villagers
survived a landslide that buried the village because one man who identified a crack inthe surroundings urged the villagers to evacuate, Wilson questioned whether thisstory had been formalised in some way for disaster knowledge, or whether it could beconsidered ICH, as it reflects that person’s understanding of that particular place. Phan
responded that this could be considered a new form of ICH – knowledge of a disasterand memory of a disaster – but more research is required to confirm this point. Vu
Canh Toan (ISET-International) expressed his view that knowledge and experiences ofdisasters are very important, as they can contribute to resilience; however, hecautioned that relying on past experience could become problematic in the context ofchanging climate as well as changing socio-economic conditions and urbanisation,
which change the nature of disasters. Dalisay added the point the culture is adaptive
and cultural knowledge and practices are also changing as presented in her casestudy; therefore, it is necessary to document changes in both landscape and culture.
Takakura asked Khin and Phan the role of communities in ICH safeguarding in
Myanmar and Vietnam, as their presentations emphasised the role of thegovernment. In the same vein, he asked Dalisay, who discussed the role ofcommunities, the role of the government and international agencies. Khin answeredthat in Myanmar, where the military government dominates, the abilities of local
communities are limited. Phan noted that there are some good practices, but inprinciple, ICH safeguarding in Vietnam takes place in a top-down manner, and theelements that have been inscribed in UNESCO lists become state assets andproperties, o�en without communities being aware of these consequences. Dalisay
said that many programmes are implemented by international organisations, especiallyin relation to SDGs. Wilson expressed her viewpoint that ICH safeguarding plans are
essentially meant to be defined in association with the community; we as researchers

008

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

may be able to play a role in ge�ng people to think about disasters and their impacts,
but ultimately, the plan needs to protect the integrity and viability of ICH according to
the community.
From the DRR point of view, Gaillard questioned how we manage to incorporate
culture and ICH, which are so fluid and flexible, into DRR frameworks that are morerigid. This was a question that could be further explored in Session 3. Phan andDalisay both emphasised the importance of cooperation and multidisciplinary
dialogue, saying that all, not just those in natural sciences and technology, shouldcome together to dra� DRR plans. Dalisay further asserted that a good plan shouldhave flexibility to incorporate local perspectives and other elements that occur in theprocess of implementation. Phan added that ICH safeguarding also has problems withmany frameworks and policies, but it is a part of management and is thus operational.
Referring to the flood managing system in Bangladesh, Amanullah Bin Mahmood(former staff of FAO Oﬃce in Dhaka) added that there are some cases in which local
traditional knowledge and engineering is very effective and that this should beconsidered as an option.
Session 2: Challenges and lessons learnt from disaster experiences, and thepotentials of local knowledge
In session 2 facilitated by Tomo Ishimura (Tokyo National Research Institute forCultural Properties), participants from Nepal, Vanuatu, Fiji, and Indonesia presented
papers, drawing on certain disaster events and experiences in their respective
countries, some of them highlighting the recent re-evaluation of traditional, local
knowledge.
Yamuna Maharjan (National Museum of Nepal) reported the impact of the Gorkha
Earthquake in 2015. While the earthquake destroyed or damaged a wide range oftangible heritage properties such as temples, stupas, monasteries, and historicalbuildings, she noted that intangible elements such as religious practices and cultural
festivals were thriving in the post-disaster context. However, it should be noted thatthe earthquake brought about drastic changes in tangible and intangible cultures in
Barpak, a tiny settlement near the epicentre of the earthquake, such as the loss of
traditional architecture and building materials, which also reflects changing lifestyles
and cultural consciousnesses.
Richard Shing (Vanuatu Cultural Centre) emphasised the importance of traditional
knowledge in the Vanuatu context and introduced the recent efforts of the Vanuatu
Cultural Centre to promote ICH knowledge and practices in the country, which
focused on traditional architecture, subsistence systems, and food preservation. Lastly,
he reported the ongoing volcanic eruption on Ambae, which relocated the island’s
entire population to the neighbouring islands of Santo and Maewo, noting that the
Vanuatu Cultural Centre has just conducted an assessment of their ICH, and that there
is a strong will among the evacuated people to return to the island, which includes
the expectation that the ash fall will contribute to increasing the fertility of the soil.
Melaia Tikoitoga (iTaukei Institute of Language and Culture, Fiji) presented ways in

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY009

which iTaukei (=indigenous people in Fiji) knowledge and practices could assist andcontribute to existing DRR in Fiji. Pointing out the limitations of current DRR systems,
such as the dissemination of warnings and the distribution of food supplies to remoteareas, she highlighted the role of the traditional chiefly system of governance,
traditional architecture, and traditional system of early warning, with particularattention to the impact of tropical cyclones. She concluded that these ideas should be
re-examined in the context of DRR, and those that are beneficial in the contemporary
context should be promoted.
Fadjar I. Thufail focused his presentation on the story of Mbah Maridjan, who was the
local leader and a ‘caretaker’ of Mt Merapi, and whose death in the 2010 eruption
provoked a controversy between the scientists and the local people, and gave rise to
the discussion on how the early warning system was shaped in Javanese cosmology.
He emphasised that the recognition of ICH should take into account the humannonhuman relationship, such as the ability to talk to the mountain, and that certain
spaces should be guaranteed for local people to continue this communication when
there is an intervention by scientists or the government.
Discussion:
Questions were raised concerning the specific situations in each presentation.
Concerning Nepal, Gaillard asked whether wildlife is considered a part of heritage andhazards, recognising that DRR is currently trying to incorporate wildlife. Maharjan
responded that in Nepal, wildlife is important in rituals as sacrifices to the gods, whileat the same time they are considered vehicles of gods. Takakura asked if the country
had any legal policy to safeguard traditional practices before ratifying the 2003
Convention for ICH, given that the term ‘folklore’ had been used. Maharjan
commented that there was no national policy, but there were community-levelsystems to safeguard ICH practices.
For Vanuatu, ongoing volcanic eruption events on Ambae was highlighted. A�er being
requested by Wilson, Shing explained the process of relocation, stating that the
government designated the island of Maewo as the major destination given the strong
connections between the two islands; however, many locals preferred to go to Santo,
the second-biggest urban centre in Vanuatu, as they had relatives or family members
there.
Responding to Ishimura’s comment that Vanuatu showcases the resilience of local
communities, Shing emphasised that all casualties at the time of Cyclone Pam were
due to imported, non-traditional materials such as corrugated iron, which iscommonly and improperly used for roofing. He also added some information about
the earthquake that occurred near Vanuatu just a few days before the workshop,
saying that the island of Aneityum was hit by a 4–5 m tsunami but there were nocasualties, as everyone had been evacuated, although houses and properties weredamaged.
Yu Fukuda (Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University) asked about

010

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

programmes for passing down ICH other than school education. Shing responded thattraditional methods for learning ICH are through spending time with elders in local
communities via conversations, actions, and practices. However, children are becoming
dissociated from local culture as they attend schools around provincial centres; thus,
the Cultural Centre has been attempting to maintain their interest.
Concerning the traditional indicators for early warning systems in Fiji, Abner O.
Lawangen (Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Oﬃce of Tublay, Philippines)
asked if there are indicators with specific yearly patterns that have changed or are nolonger applicable in the context of changing climate patterns in recent years. Tikoitoga
responded that they remain accurate in Fiji at the moment especially in rural areas.
She also noted that certain indicators such as particular varieties of bananas orbreadfruit are no longer available in urbanised areas.
Finally, Iwamoto questioned about the value of local knowledge, how it could be
differentiated from superstition, and if there is any evidence to confirm its value.
Thurail, referring to his study on the story of Mbah Maridjan, responded that forscientists, it would be considered a superstition without any evidence, but emphasisedthat the important part is not the evidence but the actors who take part in thisprocess, and to understand the local context.
Session 3: Enhancing dialogue between ICH and disaster risk management
Session 3, facilitated by Yoko Nojima, consisted of three presentations by researchers
in the field of DRM and environmental science in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and thePhilippines, to understand their viewpoints on ICH for enhancing positive dialogue andfuture cooperation.
Amanullah Bin Mahmood reported the recent DRM policy development in Bangladesh.
It is noteworthy that new policies and programmes started to address thesafeguarding of ICH more directly, including the new National Disaster Management
Policy (2015) and the 7th Five Year Plan (2016-2020). However, he pointed out that
there are no policies or strategies that are dedicated to safeguarding ICH from disasterrisks, and thus more effort in the field of ICH is required, including inventories,
educational programmes, and campaigns for raising awareness.
Outlining the current DRR policies and organisational structures in Vietnam, Vu Canh
Toan explained challenges in mainstreaming ICH into DRR practices and policies inVietnam. He pointed out that DRR in Vietnam is still dominated by top-down andtechnocratic approaches, which limits the involvement of communities and ICH
holders in decision-making, and sometimes results in adding risks and disasters
instead of reducing risks. Also noting different perceptions of risk – typically, floods are
beneficial and are a source of livelihood for the people in the Mekong Delta rather
than a hazard – he stressed the need of DRR that is socially and culturally constructed
and accepts different forms of knowledge.
Abner O. Lawangen introduced a community project integrating indigenous resiliency
culture into the community’s DRR through ‘participatory three dimensional mapping

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

011

(P3DM)’, which was implemented in the municipality of Tublay in Benguet, Northern
Philippines. He demonstrated that P3DM is an interactive and inclusive tool thatencourages the participation of various stakeholders. Interestingly, the mapping
included cultural landmarks and places, which enabled the local people to discuss
their risks and capacities, including local knowledge and ICH, and to integrate these
aspects in resiliency efforts.
Discussion:
A major discussion centred on metrics – how we measure ICH or local knowledge, orwhether we should measure it. Noting that the Sendai Framework acknowledges local
culture and local knowledge and that governments need to submit reports, Gaillard
first questioned how we could include culture and ICH, for instance, to the loss
database. Vu suggested the possibility of breaking down the concept of ICH into
knowledge, people, and space/location, and then examining each component.
Mahmood noted that some elements could be valued in terms of economic activities
or ecosystems. Lawangen stressed the importance of defining specific values to allow
people to regard ICH as something valuable for them and stated that we would needsome methodology or tool to do this; however, he added that considering the ‘living’nature of ICH, deeper analysis would be required. Agreeing with this point, Vu also
called for the need for organisations that could play a facilitator/knowledge-brokerrole between culture and DRM sectors between local people and at the higher level,referring to the limited effectiveness of international programmes in Vietnam that are
generally implemented with limited knowledge of local contexts.
Citing the case of the Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu that killed only a few people, Wilson
questioned how we could measure the extent to which local knowledge prevented theloss of life, and wondered whether metrics are required for that or whether we needincreased collaboration and understanding on both sides. Responding to her question,
Vu stated that having some sort of documentation demonstrating the contribution androle of local knowledge and ICH for reducing risks would be beneficial for convincing
people in the DRM sector. Gaillard stated that metrics can be used to get attention,a�er which we can move to emphasise intangibles over figures and numbers.
In relation to community-based disaster risk reduction, Wilson raised a question aboutcommunity consultation – who you would need to speak to in order to talk about DRR
in communities, while in ICH we need to identify the right practitioners. Vu responded
that they would speak first with local leaders who are influential to gain a better
understanding of other community members. Gaillard commented that this issue isrelated to power relations at the local level and that would be applied for ICH, as ICH
holders may not be willing to disclose everything.
Concerning the P3DM presented by Lawangen, Shing noted its visual effectiveness in
helping local people to understand and exchange information about disasters,
reflecting on his observations of a similar model in Vanuatu. Lawangen further
explained its purpose, emphasising that it was meant to be an interactive, living tool
for the community that would be constantly updated by the community. Wilson asked
if there is any way to include historical dimensions in the map. Lawangen agreed that

012

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

a history of disasters would be a good component of P3DM, as it is necessary for
capturing resilience.

DAY 2

8 December 2018
Onagawa Town Government Building, and Takenoura Community Center

On DAY 2, an excursion, ‘Revitalisation of shishifuri folk performance in Takenoura
Community, Onagawa Town (Miyagi Prefecture)’, was programmed, and participants
took a trip to Onagawa. The excursion was divided into two major programmes: 1)
introductory lectures at the Onagawa Town Government Building (in the morning),
and 2) the visit to the Takenoura community to learn about local people’s efforts torevitalise their shishifuri performance.
Upon arrival at the Onagawa Town Government Building, participants observed thetown centre of Onagawa that was still under reconstruction and heard stories about
the destruction of the entire town by the massive tsunami triggered by the Great East

Figure 2

Participants walk up the slope to theshrine in Takenoura. The signboard
on the wall indicates the height thetsunami reached on 11 March
2011. (Source: IRCI)

Figure 3

Figure 4

Scenes from the shishifuri experience at the Takenoura Community Center. On the right,
Shigeo Suzuki shows a lion head that was made with a cushion and slippers just a few
months a�er the disaster while evacuation was still in place. (Source: IRCI)The precinct of the shrine, where
people were evacuated during thetsunami. (Source: IRCI)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY013

Japan Earthquake on 11 March 2011.
In the lecture room, Hiromichi Kubota (Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties) first explained the background of shishifuri/shishimai, or lion dance
performances in the region, including their history and variations, noting that similar
performances are widespread and can be found in other countries in Asia.
Subsequently, Eiichi Hiratsuka (Secretariat of the Onagawa Town Committee for the
Reconstruction of shishifuri Performance) talked about the revitalisation of shishifuri
performances in the communities in Onagawa a�er the 2011 earthquake and tsunami
disaster, including the damage caused by the tsunami, how the community received
support to restore necessary tools, and the footage of the recovery. He emphasisedthat shishifuri performances that were upheld in each community in Onagawa have an
important role in forming strong solidarity among the community members, and thus,
the recovery of the performance is closely linked to the recovery of the community.
In the a�ernoon, participants moved to Takenoura, which is located approximately 5.5
km east of the town centre, to observe its shishifuri performance. Led by Shigeo
Suzuki (Leader of the Takenoura community) and Tadashi Abe (member of thecommunity and leader of the Takenoura Committee for the Preservation of shishifuri
performance), participants had an opportunity to walk to the local shrine where themajority of the community members found refuge when the tsunami hit (Figures 2 &3). Photographs taken by Abe at the time of the disaster were posted at the site,which visually recounted the devastation at that time.
At the Takenoura Community Center, participants were welcomed with a performanceof shishifuri by community members including the elderly, youth, and children. The
day in fact coincided with the occasion on which the community members and thechildren practised their performances, and they took turns practising on drums andflutes (Figure 4). Participants also joined the performance and had the precious
opportunity to communicate with community members. Suzuki explained that
Takenoura’s shishifuri had been open to girls even before the 2011 tsunami disasterand children have been practising it every month, demonstrating the viability of thepractice in this community. ‘No festival, no reconstruction’, said the members of thecommunity.
Cited below are some reflections made by the participants:• Shishifuri ICH played a vital role in revitalising Onagawa and uniting people a�er
the disaster. There is a symbolic dimension of ICH restoration: the revitalisationof ICH reflects the actual rehabilitation of life in a post-disaster context.
• The restoration of ICH itself gathers the community on a common journey,
including fundraising, performance, and training activities.
• In Onagawa and Takenoura, community members did not wait for others to
help; the revitalisation of ICH was started proactively by the community. ICH
restoration needs to come from the community, as they know what is best for

014

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

them.
• As a researcher, I asked myself how I could introduce community members’
necessities to local/state governments to protect their ICH.
• ICH need to be safeguarded for people, not for itself.
• This is a good example of how ICH contributes to increasing social capital,
which is important for DRR. This can be a good lesson for other communities in
responding to DRR and in preserving and revitalising their ICH.
• Rehabilitation has always been portrayed as physical, but it is important toconsider the mental stability of the victims.

DAY 3

9 December 2018
Conference Room ‘Shirakashi’ 1, 3rd floor, Conference Bldg., Sendai International Center

Special session: Eﬀorts of post-disaster revitalisation of ICH in Japan
This session was composed of a series of papers on case studies by Japanese
researchers who have been committed to research on ICH in the Tohoku region. The
majority of presentations focused on cases of folk performing arts a�er the Great East
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 (Figure 5). The session was facilitated by
Hiromichi Kubota, who also presented a paper.
As the first presenter in the session, Kubota referred to the case of the shishifuri
performances in Onagawa that were observed in the excursion on DAY 2 and pointed
out that the revival of the performance provided emotional support and also
contributed significantly to community cohesion. In this respect, safeguarding ICH,
especially those maintained by the community, is analogous with safeguarding thecommunity for sustainable development. He also proposed a framework for
categorising ICH in terms of contributing to post-disaster restoration, in which hehypothesised the following three categories: 1) those maintained by the community(o�en related to religion/spirituality); 2) those requiring specialised skills or techniques
performed by certain individuals or dedicated associations (often related tooccupation and livelihood); and 3) those upheld unconsciously as part of everyday life,
including local knowledge.
Drawing on the case of Ogatsu-hoin-kagura in the Ogatsu area of Ishinomaki (Miyagi
Prefecture) that has been designated as a national intangible folk cultural property,
Ryusuke Kodani (Tohoku History Museum) advocated the ‘heritagisation of local
culture’, through which certain ICH elements are disconnected from the local culturalcontext while the heritage recognition/designation gives greater opportunities forpreservation and protection. He also cited cases in which tiny shrines for Myojin-sama(the god that protects homes) were rebuilt on the destroyed house compounds intsunami-affected areas. Such local traditions and beliefs are considered trivial, but havebeen an essential part of the lives of the people there; therefore, it is important tolook into and recover such modest local cultural elements along with heritagisedelements, as they are also part of local communities and are indispensable for thetransmission of ICH into the future.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

015

Tomoko Ichiyanagi (Koriyama Women’s College) presented two cases of Taueodori
performances in the areas of Hamadori (Fukushima Prefecture): the Murakami
Taueodori Society and the Murohara Folk Performing-Arts Society, noting thepsychological effect of performing arts that evoke the desire to come together. Parts
of Hamadori were severely affected by the nuclear accident that followed the tsunami
in 2011 in addition to the damage caused by the tsunami itself. In these cases, postdisaster recovery is still an ongoing process and people are unable to return;therefore, the continuation and transmission of Taueodori remains a challenge.
Interestingly, the society in Murakami loosened its membership requirements tocontinue its performance; whereas the Murohara society has held its performance
every seven years without accepting any outsiders.
Shuichi Kawashima (International Research Institute of Disaster Sciences, Tohoku
University) introduced the case of the revival of fishery techniques in Shinchi-machi(Fukushima Prefecture), which was affected by both the 2011 tsunami and the nuclear
accident, through the strictly controlled implementation of a ‘trial fishing’ system by
the government to monitor radioactive contamination, while providing opportunities
for fishermen to maintain their livelihoods. While the fishermen endure many
restrictions, he noted that the traditional system of mutual cooperation among them
contributed significantly to restarting fishing operations, and that more attention
should be paid to intangible factors such as the customary practices of the fishingcommunities.
The final presenter, Hiroki Takakura, questioned why disaster-affected people perform
rituals in the post-disaster context and examined the role of ritual-related ICH in postdisaster contexts using the cases of shishimai of Shimoniida village (Iwaki city) andNagareyama dance in Futaba town in Fukushima Prefecture, introducing EvansPritchard’s concepts of ‘ecological time’ and ‘structural time’. Agreeing with otherstudies that point out ritual performances’ role of evoking a sense of daily life and forsocial integration, he added that the historical-geographical depth of rituals
contributes to the renewal of social relations.
Discussion:
Dalisay questioned whether there has been any case of revitalisation or resurgence of
ICH in resettlement areas, as diaspora studies note many instances in which culturalactivities are programmed among immigrant communities. Kubota responded that
there are many such instances and noted that young people who have moved to alarger city return to their hometowns to participate in ICH performances. Kodani
added the case of toramai being practised among the immigrants from Miyagi
prefecture in Mexico, which is also a case of ‘heritagisaion’, in which toramai has beentransmitted in a new context.
Issues concerning the use of the term ‘cultural properties’ were raised by Thufail, whostated that its standardised use is generally associated with the state, and that theconcept should be decentralised to acknowledge communities. Explaining thebackground that the concept has been used in the Japanese government’s cultural
policy for many decades, Kodani noted that owing to the introduction of the concept

016

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Figure 5
Session on DAY 3.
(Source: IRCI)of ICH, the notion of ‘cultural properties’ has been shi�ing to include the communitycentred view, and in this new context they have been able to conduct emergency
research of intangible folk cultural properties in the tsunami-affected communities in
Tohoku.
Takakura noted that the categorisation of ICH as posed by Kubota is a very important
point and further argued. Unfortunately, the time was too short to discuss this issue;
however, recognising its importance, this point was included in the Recommendations(see 4.1 of Annex 1).
While our discussions on DAY 1 centred on ICH for disaster prevention and risk
reduction, this session was more on the role of ICH in recovery. Reiterating this point,
Kubota expressed his hope that these cases in Japan could add another angle tofurther discussions.
Report on ICH Safeguarding and Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean
The workshop welcomed two participants from the Regional Centre for the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL), Adriana
Molano and Lucas Roque Dos Santos, who shared the situation of ICH safeguarding
and disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean, noting that this was the first
approach by CRESPIAL to understand the ICH-disaster situations in the region.
Reviewing the ICH-disaster situations for Ecuador, in which PDNA was applied for ICHa�er the earthquake in 2016; Peru, in which the influence of El Niño is pronounced;
the Uru people and water management in Bolivia; the initiatives in the Caribbean
region that take ICH into account in disasters; and identifying major challenges,
CRESPIAL proposed to develop a consultancy in Latin America to diagnose ICH in
disasters and multinational projects on this subject.
Final Discussion
The final discussion was divided into two parts: (1) a summary of the workshop by therapporteur and general comments by the resource person, and (2) a discussion based

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

017

on the dra� recommendation to be adopted at the end of the workshop.
(1) Workshop summary and general comments
First, as the resource person and rapporteur of the workshop, Meredith Wilsonsummarised a wide range of ideas and viewpoints presented at the workshop whilereferring to the findings from her desk study prepared for UNESCO ICH Headquarters
in 2017 as well as her collaboration with IRCI since 2016. She summarised major
issues limiting our ability to embed ICH in a DRR context, such as the greater
emphasis given on tangible heritage; ICH being defined and understood in terms of
DRR, disregarding its local context; and the absence of national DRR policy relating tocommunity-led DRR and ICH. She also mentioned the heritagisation of culture, thepoint raised by Kodani, stating that we need to be mindful about what we privilege,
and respect living culture. Re-presenting the model of ‘People, Place, and Story (PPS)’,
she lastly proposed a framework through which ICH and DRR fields may work
together.
Subsequently, JC Gaillard as resource person provided comments from the perspectiveof disaster studies. First, he noted the importance of local researchers andpractitioners talking about their own localities and experiences in the workshop,
contrasting disaster studies and DRR fields that are dominated and biased by Western
researchers and epistemologies. He then specified current challenges in the field of
disaster studies, which are also challenges in the ICH field, as well as challenges forbringing both fields together. These include the issues surrounding listing or labelling
things and people, and the tension between moral imperative and respecting local
culture that might further marginalise certain people. He also noted that toincorporate ICH in DRR, we need to look at ICH as a form of capacities and groundthis in the regular social fabric to strengthen people’s livelihood.
Some discussions followed concerning Western bias on DRR. Thufail, acknowledging
Gaillard for raising this issue, expressed that we need to move forward beyond thehegemony to reach some sort of practical understanding, saying that local knowledge
is also problematic in some ways. He agreed regarding the issue of listing, andrequested that the participants not take the lists that UNESCO has created for
granted, but try to work in between the lists to find alternative lists that address the
problems they find on the ground.
Agreeing on the important role of local researchers and understanding the reflective
view of Western science, Takakura continued that we should cooperate internationallyin implementing DRR, given that the purpose of disaster studies is to contribute to
local people’s recovery and risk reduction. Gaillard, in response, added that current
DRR practices are too o�en driven by outside researchers without local partners,
which in the end limits their contribution and impact, despite their goodwill.
(2) Recommendations for safeguarding ICH in disasters and mobilising ICH for DRM
To encourage active participation in the discussion, all participants, including
observers, broke up into four groups to discuss the points listed on the dra�
recommendations (Figure 6). Group discussions proceeded section by section, taking

018

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS10–15 minutes each; each group was provided with a magnified copy of the sectionsof the dra�, blank papers, and a marker. A�er discussing a section, each group briefly
reported some points to be added or deleted, then moved on to discuss the next
section.
Beginning with Section 1) understand the nature of disaster impacts on ICH, the group
discussion examined Section 2) understand and further explore the active roles of ICH
in community-based disaster risk management and post-disaster recovery; Section 3)
further promote community-based safeguarding and mobilisation of ICH in disaster
context; and Section 4) further enhance ICH-DRM dialogue to ensure that ICH andother cultural factors are incorporated into DRM planning at local and national levels.
During the group discussion, Wilson and Nojima examined the revisions made byparticipants and displayed them on the screen.
A�er the group discussions were completed and the proposed revisions weredisplayed as a dra� on the screen, Iwamoto, as the Director-General of IRCI, took thefloor to ask whether the recommendations discussed above could be adopted as theoutcome document of the workshop. Given that there were no substantial changes tothe dra�, he sought the participants’ authorisation to the secretariat in consultation
with Wilson and Gaillard to finalise the document a�er adding cosmetic changes on
wording and expressions without changing the substance, and to be sent to theparticipants within a week. The floor agreed to his proposal, and thus, ‘Statements
and Recommendations for Safeguarding ICH in Disasters and Mobilising ICH for
Disaster Risk Reduction’ was adopted (see Annex 1 for the final version of the
document).
Takakura then questioned how IRCI would distribute the document. Iwamoto said that

Figure 6

Group discussion examining the recommendations (right).
(Source: IRCI)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY019

it would be made accessible on IRCI’s website and also included in the proceedings tobe published by the end of March 2019, which will be widely distributed to UNESCO
and its member states, national commissions, and related researchers. Gaillard
suggested that the document could also be shared through the PreventionWeb by
UNISDR, which is the major portal and repository for DRR that are widely accessed byacademics, practitioners, and policymakers. Gurung also added that in addition to the
IRCI secretariat, each participant is responsible for disseminating the document once
they receive it.
Closing
To conclude the workshop, Hiroki Takakura, on behalf of the Center for Northeast
Asian Studies of Tohoku University, thanked the participants for their active
discussions over the three days of the workshop. As he and his research centre joined
this workshop as a cooperating body, he proposed further collaboration anddiscussions on this theme of ICH and disasters, with extended geographical focuses,
including Northeast Asia, the Northern Pacific-rim, and indigenous communities inNorth America, which should enable us to devise stronger and more universal
statements, theories, and policy suggestions.
Finally, Iwamoto took his turn to express his gratitude to all the participants for theiractive discussions. Citing an episode in The Legends of Tono (Tono monogatari)
published in 1910 by the Japanese folklorist Kunio Yanagida, in which a man who lost
his wife in the 1891 tsunami in the Tohoku region meets her ghost with her former
lover, he suggested that, if ICH is a vehicle of memory contributing to thesustainability of communities, it is our task to consider how we can transmit thismemory to future generations. Before ending his closing remarks, he extended his
gratitude to the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, the Center
for Northeast Asian Studies of Tohoku University, simultaneous interpreters, logistic
supporters from the Inter Group Cooperation Sendai Oﬃce, and the members of the
IRCI secretariat for organising the workshop.

020

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
AND NATURAL DISASTERS