JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES

世界遺産学研究
Special Issue 2019:
Proceedings of the Third Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation in Asia and the Paciﬁc 2018
September 21 - October 1, 2018, Tsukuba, Japan

DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

災害とレジリエンス

UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation

筑 波 大 学・世 界 遺 産 専 攻・世 界 文 化 遺 産 学 専 攻
U n i v e r s i t y o f T s u k u b a・W o r l d H e r i t a g e S t u d i e sCopyright: © 2019 University of Tsukuba.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without priorwritten permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of thispublication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the
copyright holder.
Citation: Ishizawa, Maya, Inaba, Nobuko and Yoshida, Masahito, Eds. (2019). Proceedings of the Third Capacity
Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, Asia and the Pacific 2018. Disasters
and Resilience. Journal of World Heritage Studies, University of Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba. 184 pp.
Editorial Board of the Journal of World Heritage Studies:
Yasufumi Uekita (Chief editor)
Hiromu Ito and Mariko Ikeda (Associate editors)
Edited by: Maya Ishizawa, Nobuko Inaba and Masahito Yoshida
Editorial assistance: Claudia Uribe Chinen
Available from:
UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation
World Heritage Studies, University of Tsukuba
1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
Japan 305-8571
Tel +81-29-853-6344
Fax +81-29-853-7099
office@heritage.tsukuba.ac.jp
http://conservation.tsukuba.ac.jp/UNESCO-Chair/
ISSN:2189-4728

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIESSpecial Issue 2019:
Proceedings of the Third Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in
Asia and the Pacific 2018

DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

災害とレジリエンス
Organized by

UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation

In collaboration with
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration ofCultural Property (ICCROM)
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)SEPTEMBER 21 - OCTOBER 1, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA, TSUKUBA, JAPANTable of Contents■ Foreword.......................................................................................................................................... 1■ Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3■ Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... 5■ Part One: Proceedings of the Third Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation. Disasters and Resilience

Historic Cities of The Straits of Malacca UNESCO World Heritage Site: Threats and Challenges, by
Rohayah Che Amat............................................................................................................................ 9
Lamu Old Town: Balancing Economic Development with Heritage Conservation, by Hoseah
Wanderi.......................................................................................................................................... 16
Exploring a Nature-Culture Approach to Improve the Resilience of a Heritage Site: A Case Studyof Dujiangyan Old Town, China, by Huaiyun Kou............................................................................ 23
The Galle Fort World Heritage Site: A Nature-Culture Approach to the Conservation of Cultural
Heritage along the Southern Coast of Sri Lanka, by Wijerathne Bohingamuwa............................ 29
Integrated Approach for Nature-Culture Linkage at Mahasthan Heritage Site, by Mohammad
Sazzad Hossain................................................................................................................................ 38
The Mixed Heritage Values of Mount Mayon Natural Park: A Case Study on Harnessing a PeopleCentered Approach to Nature-Culture Linkages Conservation in a Multi-Hazard Context, byJefferson M. Chua........................................................................................................................... 44
Promoting Traditional Cultural Practices for Disaster Risk Reduction: A Preliminary Study on the
Use of Gotong-Royong in Siosar Protected Forest in North Sumatra, Indonesia, by Petrayuna Dian
Omega............................................................................................................................................ 53
Post-Earthquake Recovery of Traditional Tibetan Villages in Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and HistoricInterest Area, Natural World Heritage, by Hongtao Liu................................................................. 59
Nature – Culture Linkages in The Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve, by Thao Le
Ngoc................................................................................................................................................ 66
Disaster Risk Reduction at UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves, by Irina Pavlova. 73
Nature–Culture Linkages of Pulicat Lagoon: a Cultural Landscape Protecting The Coromandel
Coast, by Xavier Benedict............................................................................................................... 78
The Cultural and Natural Heritage of Kaho’olawe Island, by Ryan Yamane................................... 85

Rapa Nui World Heritage Site – Initiatives and Challenges for the Risk Management, by María
Andrea Margotta Ruiz..................................................................................................................... 92
Nature-Culture Mapping in the Trans-Himalayas, by Radhika Kothari........................................... 99■ Part Two: Report on the Third Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation. Disasters and Resilience.

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 108
Module 1: International Symposium............................................................................................ 112
Module 2: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the context of Disasters and Resilience.... 145
Module 3: Management, Implementation and Governance in Disasters and Resilience............ 159
Module 4: Reflection on Theory and Practice.............................................................................. 166■ Annexes
Annex 1: CBWNCL 2018 Participants Abstracts........................................................................... 175
Annex 2: List of Participants......................................................................................................... 179
Annex 3: Program of the CBWNCL 2018....................................................................................... 181

List of Acronyms

ACA

Agency for Cultural Affairs (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, Japan)

BR

Biosphere Reserve

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CBWNCLCapacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages

CREATE

Climate Resilience Evaluation for Adaptation Through Empowerment (IUCN)

DRM

Disaster Risk Management

Eco-DRR

Eco-Disaster Risk Reduction (IUCN)

GIAHS

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (UN FAO)

HUL

Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO)ICCROM

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property

ICH

Intangible Cultural Heritage

ICOMOSInternational Council on Monuments and Sites

ICORP

International Scientific Committee on Risk Preparedness (ICOMOS)IUCNInternational Union for Conservation of Nature

MAFF

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Japan

MEXT

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan

MIDAS

Multi-Internationally Designated Areas

MLIT

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan

MoE

Ministry of the Environment, JapanOUVOutstanding Universal Value (UNESCO World Heritage Convention)

RLE

Red List of Ecosystems (IUCN)RRF

Rapid Response Facility

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal (UN Agenda 2030)

SPs

State Parties

UN

United Nations

UNDRR

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (formerly UNISDR)UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFAO

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

UNISDR

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

WHLP

World Heritage Leadership ProgrammeForeword

UNESCO is playing an important role in connecting culture to disaster risk management and post-disasters
recovery, since building resilience to disasters is a critical challenge where cultural and natural heritage can playa key role.
Continuing with the implementation of the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy adopted by theWorld Heritage Committee in 2011, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in cooperation with the Advisory
Bodies to the World Heritage Convention (IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS) have been developing training
courses and capacity building about disaster risk management and about the relationships between natureculture-communities, including through the World Heritage Leadership Programme. In partnership withthese initiatives, for the third consecutive year, the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation at the University of Tsukuba held a Capacity-Building Workshop where the themes of natureculture linkages and disasters and resilience were explored simultaneously. This is the first course thatinterrelates the two themes, with interesting outcomes about how the exploration of nature-culture linkages
in vulnerable landscapes could contribute to build their resilience.
There is an urgency to address these issues and develop concrete actions in line of the various
decisions related to disasters taken by the World Heritage Committee, such as a Strategy for Reducing Risk
from Disasters at World Heritage properties, Climate Change Policy for World Heritage and the World Heritage
Policy on Sustainable Development . In this task, the partnership of UNESCO Chairs and Category 2 Centres is
crucial for the dissemination and delivery of training and capacity building.
This special issue of the Journal of World Heritage Studies of the University of Tsukuba includes
the outcomes of the workshop and the International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation on Disasters and Resilience, where renowned international and Japanese experts shared theirexperience in including disaster risk management as an integral part of the conservation of cultural heritageand in using natural heritage as a solution for disaster risk reduction at global and local levels.
Furthermore, the proceedings of the CBWNCL 2018 cover fourteen cases, twelve in Asia and thePacific, one in Africa and one in Latin America, which include cultural landscapes composed of archaeologicalsites, historical cities, natural protected areas, biosphere reserves, geoparks, from which six are UNESCO World
Heritage properties, two on the Tentative Lists of their respective countries, bringing out a rich array of casestudy experience from the region and beyond.
It is the sharing of such experiences among different stakeholders, which contributes to the continuous
evolution in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention advancing heritage conservation globally.
Mechtild Rössler
Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre1

2

Introduction

The Third Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia and thePacific focused on the theme of “Disasters and Resilience” was organized by the UNESCO Chair on NatureCulture Linkages at the University of Tsukuba, Japan, in collaboration with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,
ICCROM, IUCN, and ICOMOS. This workshop was the third in a series of four workshops, running from 2016
to 2019. It gathered fifteen heritage practitioners from both the culture and nature sectors from Australia,
Bangladesh, Chile, China, Hawaii (US), India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, andVietnam, as well as four students from the Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation at the University ofTsukuba, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Sudan, who took part in the process
as observers.
In the following special issue of the Journal of World Heritage Studies, we have, on the first part, theproceedings of the workshop. We have collected fourteen articles from the fifteen case studies presented
during the workshop (see Annex 1).
In the second part, we report the activities developed during the workshop, structured by modules.
In Module 1: International Symposium, the keynotes and debates are reported. Five international
experts participated: representatives from the partner organizations, the IUCN, ICCROM, and ICOMOS, as wellas two representatives of the Japanese Government, one from the Ministry of the Environment and anotherfrom the Agency for Cultural Affairs. The roundtable discussion is presented, including the guest speakers andparticipants’ reflections during the symposium debates, regarding the challenges faced in disasters within theregion and globally as well as the need to build up the resilience of landscapes and communities.
In Module 2: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Disasters and Resilience,lecturers and participants were invited to the University’s campus for three days. The lectures given by theinternational experts in the field of heritage, in both the nature and culture sectors, have been summarized.
The report includes summaries of the participants’ case study presentations and discussions, focusing on themain issues regarding disasters and resilience.
For Module 3: Management, Implementation, and Governance in Disasters and Resilience, there is arecount of the four-day field trip to the Tohoku region, affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami.
In Module 4: Reflection on Theory and Practice, the working groups’ exercise is presented. The
outcomes of their analysis and recommendations for the places visited are reported as well as summaries ofthe lessons they learned during the workshop.
In the annexes, the abstract of the presentations of all workshop participants (Annex 1), the list ofparticipants (Annex 2) and the program of the workshop (Annex 3) can be found.

3

4

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the editorial board of the Journal of World Heritage Studies for their continuous
support in the publication of the CBWNCL Proceedings as a special issue of the Journal.
We would like to acknowledge and thank the collaboration of our partners, ICCROM, IUCN, ICOMOS
and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and their support to the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation. Moreover, we would like to especially thank Jessica Brown, Kristal Buckley, Rohit
Jigyasu, Radhika Murti, Thomas Schaaf and Gamini Wijesuriya for accepting collaborating as reviewers of thisthird special issue of the Journal of World Heritage Studies. Special thanks go to Dr. Mechtild Rössler, Directorof the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for her kind support and collaboration. We would like to acknowledge
as well, the cooperation of the authors who have patiently work on their articles, contributing to a diverse andrich illustration of the landscapes and their issues in relation to increasing disasters and building resilience inAsia and the Pacific region and beyond.
Thanks are also due to the academic and administrative staff of the World Heritage Studies andCertificate Programme on Nature Conservation at the University of Tsukuba for accompanying this project. The
cooperation of students involved in these programs is also appreciated, their support during the symposium
has been indispensable.
Maya Ishizawa, Nobuko Inaba and Masahito Yoshida
Kigali and Tsukuba, 20195

6

Part One:
Proceedings of the Third
Capacity Building
Workshop on NatureCulture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation,
Asia and the Pacific
DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

7

8

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Historic Cities of The Straitsof Malacca UNESCO World
Heritage Site: Threats andChallenges
Rohayah Che Amat

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Kuala Lumpur, Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Jalan Sultan Yahya
Petra; 54100 Kuala Lumpur; +6 (03)22031349, + (6)019617555, rohayah.cheamat@utm.my■■Abstract

This paper presents the impacts of new development projects on the UNESCO World Heritage Site of
the Straits of Malacca, which is composed of two cities: Melaka and George Town. Apart from potentiallyaffecting their World Heritage status, these intrusions could erode the character of the heritage sites due toinadequate urban planning and a lack of proper zoning for urban development that respects the boundariesof the protected cultural heritage properties. There are legal instruments for the conservation of both cities,
but the absence of a management plan and effective enforcement is causing the erosion of their values.
Moreover, there is no specific model or management system for controlling the vulnerabilities to hazards inboth cities, which could increase due to the new development projects.

KEY WORDS: Straits of Malacca, UNESCO World Heritage Site, Management■■1. Introduction(UNESCO 2009). Both cities are jointly inscribed as a
WHS due to sharing a footprint of rich multi-cultural
trading heritage that associates with colonialism andforeign cultures (UNESCO 2009).

The Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca,
consisting of George Town and Melaka, were
inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS)
on 7th July 2008. These two cities claim to be themost extensive historical port settlements in thehistory of Malaysia. Their urban patterns dateback to the 16th Century (Melaka) and the 18 th
Century (George Town). George Town represents
200 years and Melaka 500 years of multi-cultural
trading exchanges between the West and theEast, which created both tangible and intangible
heritage. These elements convey the multi-cultural
identity of these cities. The heritage values ofGeorge Town and Melaka have been recognised asdemonstrating Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)
through their inscription on the World Heritage List,
based on criterion (ii), as exceptional examples ofmulti-cultural trading towns; criterion (iii), as living
testimonies of multi-cultural heritage, tangible
and intangible; and criterion (iv), as melting potsof unique architecture, culture, and townscape■■2. Significance of the Historic Cities of the Straitsof Malacca
The Straits of Malacca are located between the
Peninsular of Malaysia and the island of Sumatra,Indonesia [Fig. 1A]. This area is one of the mostecologically vulnerable, also known as “Sunda
Hotspots,” which contains essential biodiversity for
the world’s total endemic plant species and endemic
vertebrates (Wuff et al. 2013). Historically, thiswaterway was an important highway for maritime
traders and merchants from all over the world.
The Straits played an important role in the politicalexpansion and economic development of the Malay
Kingdom (SAP 2013). Not only were they the busiest
highways, but the Straits of Malacca were also the
only waterway for spice routes and contributed to
the growth of Melaka as an entrepot. Melaka [Fig.
9

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

1B] was established as an important regional empire
during the Malay sultanate in the 15th century,
followed by the Portuguese colonization, between
1511-1641, the Dutch occupation, between 16411824, and the British era in 1824-1957 (UNESCO
2009). The founder of Melaka was Parameswara,
the prince of Palembang (Winstedt 1948). The
footprint of Melaka town was from Hindu-Buddhist
Srivijayan heritage (Hitchcock, King & Parnwell 2010);
although, this was demolished during the colonial
periods. Like George Town, Melaka began as a small
fishing settlement. The mouth of the Melaka River
divided the city into two: the administrative enclave
and the residential/commercial enclave. Melaka isa melting pot of multi-cultural heritage, including
Malay, Chinese, Peranakans (Baba-Nyonya), Chetti(Indian Peranakans), and Portuguese Eurasian(Kristang) cultures.

successfully developed and became a maritime
base used to protect the British against their rivals,
the French and Dutch. As a port city, George
Town brought a large number of traders from theNorthern region of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula,
India, China, and the Arab region, which resulted
in cultural integration through intermarriage (SAP
2011). The intermarriage between immigrants
and local people is reflected in the lifestyles of thelocal people and co-existence of various ethnic
communities living in George Town.
As important trading ports, various cultures
have been present in Melaka and George Town,
leaving significant footprints of unique architecture.
Melaka’s urban pattern features streets which
are laid out in a tangle of irregular narrow streets;
whereas George Town displays blocks and streets
patterned in a picturesque grid pattern (Shuhana2011). There is a mixture of building types in thesecities, combining clan houses, mosques, temples,
administrative buildings, government, residential
quarters, schools, warehouses, railway stations,etc. Yet, shophouses are the most predominantbuilding type in these historic cities [Fig. 3]. George
Town has the highest number of these pre-war
buildings1 compared to any other urban centre in
Southeast Asia. There is also the presence of terrace
townhouses which creates an atmosphere ofdomesticity [Fig. 4].

George Town [Fig. 2] is the capital city ofPenang State and it represents the British footprintof the 18th century’s development: it is boththe first British port town and the oldest Britishcolonial town in South East Asia (UNESCO 2009).
George Town is recognized as having a significant
architectural and cultural townscape, without
parallel to any places in the East and Southeast
Asia (UNESCO 2008). The city became an entrepot,
where the products from Britain and India weresold to local merchants and distributed throughout
the country (Purcell 1928; Baker 1991). The city

A

B

Figure 1: A. Map of the Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca, George Town and Melaka; B. Map of Melaka UNESCOWorld Heritage Site (Source: SAP 2011, 2013)

1

In Malaysia, historic pre-war buildings are defined as historic pre-World War II built ranging from 1800 to 1948

(Kamarul et al in Kartina et al, 2016).

10

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Map of George Town, Penang UNESCO World Heritage Site (Source: SAP 2011, 2013)

Figure 3: George Town, Penang shophouses (Author
2018)

Figure 4: George Town, Penang the presence of theterrace townhouse (Author 2018)

In exploring nature and culture linkages,
we find that these two cities represent culturallandscapes where the historic built environment,
present cultural activities, and surrounding
natural features of the straits, forest, and hills areinterdependent layers. Historically, water had
been the main transportation system and starting
point for the development of both cities before
reclamation and development took place anddisrupted their relationship with the sea. Currently,

Melaka city centre is no longer facing the seafront
and the access to the sea is limited, while someparts of the historic George Town waterfront are
visually blocked from the public because of thepresence of marinas and residential developments.

11

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■3. Management, State of Conservation andChallenges for Continuity

This resulted in the abandonment of some of thehistoric shophouses.

The monitoring of heritage properties in George
Town WHS is carried out by George Town World
Heritage Incorporated and in Melaka by the Melaka
Historic City Council. These two organizations are
responsible for managing the statutory and nonstatutory issues pertaining to the World Heritage‘Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca.’ Thereare existing by-laws that govern both cities, suchas: Town and Country Planning Act 1976, National
Heritage Act 1976, Local Government Act 1976,
Enactment of Conservation and Restoration ofCultural Heritage in Melaka 1988, Uniform Building
by-laws, Guidelines for the Conservation Area andHeritage Buildings for George Town 2010, and otherrelated laws.

C o ns e qu en c e s of the ev i c ti o n an ddisplacement of urban communities in George
Town is greater than in Melaka (Lee et al. 2017;
Khazanah Research Institute 2017). Some of thecommunities have been forced to evacuate theirpremises to make way for contemporary businesses,
moving from multi-cultural trading into monofunctional commercial development. Gentrification
has displaced the living community and, hence, thecharacter of these cities has changed. The scenario
affects the traditional artisans and tradespeople
who sustain the OUV by depleting the underlying
value of multi-culturalism, criteria (ii) and (iii) of
UNESCO inscription for both cities. The culturalactivities and practices of different ethnic groups
exhibit the importance of interchange, whichcharacterizes Malaysian tradition and culture. The
diversity of multi-cultural activities are continuously
evolving with the coexistence between different
faiths, cultural traditions, trades, cuisine, language,and inter-ethnic assimilations that make both cities
culturally vibrant.

Before its inscription on UNESCO’s World
Heritage List, the historic enclave of George Town
captured public attention after being included as
one of the World’s 100 Most Endangered Sites by
the World Monuments Fund’s Watch List (WMF
2002; 2004). After the World Heritage inscription in
2008, George Town faced the risk of losing its placeon the World Heritage List because development
projects contravened height restrictions thatare described in the Nomination File (UNESCO
2009a). Due to the impact of these proposals, thePenang State government had to implement therecommendations made by the World Heritage
Committee during its 33rd session in June 2009
(UNESCO 2009a). Special Area Plans (SAPs) for
both cities were gazetted in the year 2013 andimplemented as statutory resources for the cities.
In reviewing the effectiveness of the plans, there
are several shortcomings in the implementationof the conservation guidelines for both cities. The
guidelines in the SAPs acknowledged the needto manage the development of both cities, but
inadequately addressed the intangible elementsthat currently affect the genius loci .

As main tourist destinations, physical andsocio-economic transformations occurred within
the area and led to substantial environmental
degradation, including land reclamation, traffic
congestion, and air and water pollution. There isa contentious issue related to land reclamation, acurrent challenge for both historic cities [Fig. 5].
Most of the development on these lands will be used
for high-rise condominiums, hotels, and terminals.
The issues have brought into conflict two parties
with different interests - the pro-developmentgroups and the heritage conservationists. The prodevelopment groups are concerned with socioeconomic improvements, while on the other hand,
the heritage conservationists prefer to adopt a
more holistic viewpoint, where the development
should proceed within the boundaries of what keeps
the integrity and balance of the existing urban
heritage aspects intact. Any reclamation of theseaside in front of these World Heritage sites (WHS)
will have an adverse effect on their authenticity andwould change the profile of the WHS [Fig. 6].

The World Heritage nomination dossier(UNESCO 2008) highlighted the threats ofdevelopment and the impact of tourism facilities
which causes pressure on these historic cities.
Tourists prefer living experiences that display local
cultures and festivals on the streets. Conversely,
this attraction potentially poses a threat becauseof excessive mass tourism which flows into thehistoric centres. For instance, many residents of theinner city of George Town have moved out due torent increases caused by the abolition of the Rent
Control Act in January 2000 (MPPP & MBMB 2011).

There is an approved development ofmega-structures scheduled to be built within thereclamation projects on the Melaka River [Figs. 5& 6]. Once completed, the view of St. Paul’s hill,
the landmark of the Melaka WHS, will be screened
from the Straits of Malacca. Significantly, thegeographical feature has changed, the mouth of the
12JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

WHS. A few recent landslides occurred that caused
the hilly areas to collapse and, at the same time,
Penang (George Town) also launched large-scale
reclamation projects, strategically placed near
the buffer zone of the city. In 2017, a catastrophic
flood in George Town forced the government to
conduct a review on the disaster risk managementof Malaysia, especially in these historic cities.
In promoting both cities as cultural heritage
destinations, the government seems to forget thevalue of maintaining its natural resources, which
are essential for the integrity and resilience of bothcities.

Figure 5: View of the Mouth of Melaka River from St.
Paul’s Hill, showing the reclamation of the sea-edge. The
reclamation of the coastline resulted in the distruptionof the setting of this historical port city (Source: Author
2018).

Figure 7: New architectural designs that fail to respond to
the unique historical townscape of George Town UNESCO
WHS. (Source: Author 2018)

Figure 6: Distruption of the relationship between thenatural and cultural heritage. Reclamation of the sea
in Melaka for higher density commercial development
is changing the historical setting. The core zone of the
WHS is located in the inland and now with no direct
relationship with the sea (Source: Author 2018).

In spite of these common challenges, there
are significant dissimilarities in the two cities. For
instance, unlike Melaka, Penang has a vibrant andthriving community that is actively concerned aboutsafeguarding George Town’s natural and cultural
heritage. Local authorities are working together
with NGOs, stakeholders, and dynamic civil society
to ensure that the sense of belonging remains.
Furthermore, both cities experience differencesin the development approach they employ for
their heritage sites. The development of Melaka is
focused on economic benefits, based on tourism,
while the development in George Town has beenoriented towards the conservation of its living
heritage and the provision of better infrastructure.
These variations may affect the conservation ofboth historic cities differently, negatively impacting
their management of the area as one World Heritage
property.

Melaka River has been relocated further out to thesea. Melaka has lost its natural setting of a historic
centre, no longer facing the seafront, and visual
access to the sea is limited. This setting is important
to Melaka’s historical footprint as an international
port city and commercial hub. It will affect its
original, nestled, setting in between the hills of
St. Paul and Bukit China, by the river mouth of the
Melaka. These reclamation projects will also affectthe Portuguese Settlement, the last bastion of
Portuguese descendants in Melaka, the livelihoodsof its fishermen, and interrupting the setting of
the community’s seafront settlements. Besides
the visual integrity and setting, the functions andtraditions of these historic cities that were acquired
over time need to be safeguarded by adapting
to new functions without losing the inhabitants,
the community [Figs. 7 & 8]. The reclamation may
also change the regional groundwater regime,
modifying the coastal environment, flooding
pattern, and stability of slopes and foundations.

■■4. Recommendations
The conservation of urban heritage is a newphenomenon in Malaysia. To date, there are
increasing efforts to reinforce and integrate past
heritage with the present development of historiccities. There is a growing interest in preserving
the past, both for continued economic growthand for strengthening the national identity.

Besides reclamation projects, the forested
hilly area of Penang has been cleared fordevelopment since the inscription as a UNESCO
13

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

A

B

Figure 8: A. New development in George Town UNESCO WHS is changing the physical character and setting of humanactivities by removing the ‘kaki lima’(five foot walkway) B. Example of ‘kaki lima’ (Source Photo: Author 2018)

However, the declaration of the Straits of Malacca
as a UNESCO World Heritage Site was a primaryfactor in increasing the interest of developers into
pursuing commercial projects in these cities. These
investment opportunities are highly profitable,
especially for the tourism industry. Notwithstanding,the author suggests that the current trend in thedevelopment and growth of both historic cities
are encroaching on their historic fabrics in efforts
to boost their tourism potential. Therefore, it isrecommended that the character and integrityof the individual cities must be protected, andmeasures should be introduced that ensure theconservation of these historic cities within theirconurbations as well as measures to guide andcontrol the outward expansion of agglomerations.

integrity of the historical setting is important forsafeguarding the cultural heritage of the historicurban landscape. Hitherto and generally, it willaffect the sensory experience, wholeness, andintactness of these historic cities’ urban fabrics
and landscape. The protection of these WHS cities
needs to follow a territorial approach, by looking at
the whole landscape setting, following the UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape(UNESCO 2011). A landscape approach would help
to maintain nature-culture linkages, relating theconservation of the historic cities with their larger
ecosystem, clarifying the effects of land reclamation
beyond landscape views, and highlighting theincreasing vulnerability of the whole area of theStraits of Malacca. For instance, silting of thecoastal areas narrowed the channels of the Straits,
threatening the marine resources and ecosystems.
The strong interconnection between natural andcultural heritage elements require integrated
management to mitigate the vulnerability of thehistoric cities and their large landscape.

The existing policies and guidelines are
general and need to be translated to address theconcrete situations of both cities. A comprehensive
review for the SAPs is recommended for future
development and guidance, to safeguard theirheritage, observing the larger ecosystem andthe local culture. As the custodians of these WHS
cities, the authorities need to enforce and apply anadequate method in assessing the heritage impactof the new development proposal. There should
be a limitation of acceptable changes between theconservation area (core and buffer zone) and new
development districts. Both cities are witnessing
development that is not respecting the historicalcontext of these heritage sites and a Heritage
Impact Assessments are highly recommended(ICOMOS 2011).

The inadequate enforcement of conservation
guidelines in the WHS, and their buffer zones, andthe lack of a comprehensive monitoring system
for new developments could not only cause theloss of cultural heritage but also, the increase invulnerability to hazards and, hence, the increasein disasters risks. Thus, an integrated conservation
management plan is urgent, where the natureculture linkages would be identified, and disasterrisk management integrated to the conservation ofthese World Heritage cities.

The natural environment of these cities is
an inextricable part of their cultural significance.
Disrupting their setting would erase the traces of
how they functioned in the past while conserving it
would support retaining its urban fabric. The visual
14

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Baker, J. 1991. Crossroads: A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore. Marshall Cavendish, Singapore.
Hitchcock, M., King, V. & Parnwell, M. 2010. Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia. NIAS Press, Copenhagen
ICOMOS. 2011. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. ICOMOS
WHC, Paris
Khazanah Research Institute. 2017. Building Social Capital: The George Town Experiment, Think City, Kuala
Lumpur Malaysia
Lee, B.Y., Barker, T. and Lam, Y.K. 2017. Social and Culture Implications on Gentrification in George Town
Penang. International Journal of Culture and Creative Industries, Vol.5, Issue 1, pp. 46-57
Prince, P.A. 1843. Parallel History: Being An Outline Of The History & Biography Of The World. Vol. 2.
Whittaker & Co., London Whittaker & Co.
Purcell, V.W.W.S. 1928. Early Penang. The Penang Gazetted Press Ltd., Penang.
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP) & Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bandaraya Bersejarah (MBMB). 2011.
Special Area Plan, George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca and Special Area Plan, Melaka,
Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (gazetted in 2013).
Shuhana, S. 2011. Townscape Revisited: Unravelling The Character of The Historic Townscape in Malaysia.
Penerbit UTM Press, Johor Bahru.
UNESCO. 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World
Heritage Centre, Paris.
UNESCO. 2009. Ammended. Decisions Report on Convention Concerning The Protection of The World
Cultural and Natural Heritage. 32nd Session Quebec City, 2-10 July 2008. WHC-08/32.COM
UNESCO. 2009a. Decisions Report on Convention Concerning The Protection of The World Cultural andNatural Heritage. 33rd Session Seville Spain, 22-30 June 2009. WHC-09/33.COM
UNESCO. 2011. Recommendation on The Historic Urban Landscape. UNESCO WHC, Paris.
Winstedt, R.O. 1948. The Malay Founder of Medieval Malacca. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London. Vol. 12, No. 3/4: pp.726-729
World Monuments Fund. 2002. World Monuments Watch 2000: 100 Most Endangered Sites. World
Monuments Fund, New York.
World Monuments Fund. 2004. World Monuments Watch 2004: 100 Most Endangered Sites. World
Monuments Fund, New York.
Wuff, A.S., Hollingsworth, P.M., Ahrends, A., Jaffré, T., Veillon, J-M., L’Huillier, L., et al. 2013. Conservation
Priorities in a Biodiversity Hotspot: Analysis of Narrow Endemic Plant Species in New Caledonia. PLoS ONE
8(9): e73371.

15

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Lamu Old Town: Balancing
Economic Development with
Heritage Conservation
Hoseah Wanderi

Directorate of Antiquities, Sites and Monuments, National Museums of Kenya, Museum Hill Road; P.O Box
40658-00100 Nairobi, Kenya; +254 724 371 232, hwanderi@gmail.com■■Abstract

Lamu Old Town, a typical example of a predominant Swahili settlement that thrived on marine resources,
faces an uncertain future. Development projects have added to the effects of climate change and mightcause important changes in Lamu’s biodiversity and culture. This paper describes the interrelations between
cultural and natural values within this World Heritage Site and the potential impacts of development projects
and climate change in the larger ecosystem. The paper postulates that the impacts on biodiversity will haveadverse consequences on the resilience and livelihoods of the communities occupying this historical coastal
town, which has existed for over 700 hundred years, increasing their vulnerability to disasters.

KEY WORDS: Conservation, Heritage, Livelihoods, Mangroves, Local community, Biodiversity, Resilience,
Swahili culture■■1. Introduction■■2. Natural and cultural significance of Lamu

Lamu Island is part of a chain of islands known as theLamu Archipelago which also includes Manda, Pate,and Kiwayu. Located on this island, Lamu Old Town
is a living town that thrives on the East African Coastand has a history dating back over 700 hundredyears [Fig. 1]. The settlement is a conglomeration ofhistorical buildings of Swahili architectural character,separated by very narrow alleys [Fig. 2]. Being theoldest and best-preserved Swahili settlement inEast Africa that has retained its traditional functions(National Museums of Kenya 2001), Lamu Old Town
was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2001
under criteria (ii) (iv) and (vi) (https://whc.unesco.
org/en/list/1055).

The warm waters of the Indian Ocean created within
the Lamu Archipelago a natural habitat for marine
flora and fauna, where local populations adapted bymaking use of the available sea resources, such as
fish and construction materials, for their livelihood.
This reliance on the marine resources characterizes
the conspicuous Swahili culture of Lamu, including
their food, architecture, and transport systems.
The Lamu Archipelago is intersected bynarrow and shallow channels, creating a fragile
marine ecology which is protected from strong
ocean currents by coral reefs and mangrove forests(Bakker et al. 2015:37). These shield the coastlines
from storms and waves, thereby minimizing
damage to the settlements in Lamu. The ninespecies of mangroves found in Lamu also serve as
spawning grounds for fish, crustaceans (e.g. prawns
and crayfish), and for endangered fauna, such assea turtles (Government of Kenya 2017: 7). Due tothe proliferation of microscopic organisms in theforests, they are also a natural habitat for numerous
migratory bird species [Fig. 3] which get their food

The island is located about 350 km North of
Mombasa and has a population of approximately
11,700 (Ngugi et al. 2013). The Old Town, occupying
16 hectares, is located on the eastern side of theisland and rests on a gentle slope which rises
from the sea before gradually dropping to sandy
farmlands on the western side.
16

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Map of Lamu. Source: National Museums of Kenya

cultural landscape, part of which is the Lamu Old
Town World Heritage Site.

Figure 3: Migrant waders, mangrove forest in the
background. Source: Shema Sidney

Interactions between the Swahili, Arabs,
Persians, Indians, and Europeans in the East African
region finds its most outstanding expression in
Lamu Old Town architecture and planning. Foreigncultural influences were adapted into traditional
Swahili techniques, producing a unique heritage.
The town is characterized by narrow winding streetsand magnificent stone buildings with impressive
carved doors, the result of the fusion of different
building styles [Fig. 4]. The housing clusters are
divided into a number of small wards (mitaa), eachbeing a group of buildings where a number ofclosely related lineages live. The buildings are wellpreserved and carry a long history that represents
the development of Swahili building technology,
based on coral, lime, and mangrove poles. The
mangroves are a characteristic material for the
Swahili architecture and the Lamu mangroves
constitute 61% of mangrove cover in the Kenyan
coast (Government of Kenya 2017: 8). The coral

Figure 2: Aerial View of Lamu Old Town. Source: Google Maps

therein (Kairo 2001). Bird species include unique sea
birds, such as roseate terns, which sometimes makeup a breeding colony of more than 10,000 birds.
The habitat also supports over 350 species of fishes
and 40 classes of corals, five species of sea turtles,
and 35 species of marine mammals, including
whales, dolphins, and the endangered dugong. The
diverse coral communities support a wide diversityof fish and shellfish communities that are generally
more abundant and larger than in other parts of the
Kenyan coast (Malleret-King et al. 2003: 15). Thisecosystem is the bedrock of the Swahili livelihood.
The marine ecology has been utilized by the Swahili
culture for millennia to produce the outstanding
17

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

stone, coral lime, and mangrove timber construction
characterizes the simplicity of the structural forms
and enriches such features as inner courtyards,
verandas, and elaborately carved wooden doors(NMK 2001).

NMK to conserve and manage heritage for the
benefit of Kenya. Other acts supplementing thismandate include the National Environmental andManagement and Coordination Act of 1999 and
the Physical Planning Act of 2012. In addition, a
new Lamu World Heritage Site management planis proposed to explore new factors and emerging
issues in Old Town.
Lamu archipelago’s mangrove forests
are managed by the Kenya Forest Ser vice,in collaboration with the Community Forest
Associations, under the Forest Conservation andManagement Act of 2016 [Fig. 5]. The Kenya Wildlife
Service, on the other hand, manages conservationof terrestrial and marine wildlife in line with its
mandate instituted by the Wildlife Conservation andManagement Act of 2013. Both acts recognize thecommunity’s role in the conservation of nature.

Figure 4: Narrow Street in Lamu. Source: Author
Figure 5: Mangrove Forest at Kiwayu Channel, Lamu.
Source: National Museums of Kenya

In spite of these significant interrelated
cultural and natural values, Lamu faces an uncertain
future. The construction of the Lamu Port anddevelopment of the Southern Sudan-Ethiopia
Transport Corridor (LAPSSET project), in addition
to the effects of climate change, might cause
important changes in Lamu’s biodiversity andculture, reducing the local communities’ resilience,and increasing their vulnerability to disasters.

The Ministry of Interior and Coordinationof National Government of Kenya established anational disaster management unit in 2013. The unit
borrows heavily from the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. There is also adraft for a National Policy for Disaster Managementin Kenya that aspires to develop an effective disastermanagement system to create a safe, resilient, andsustainable society (Government of Kenya 2009: 15).
However, previous disasters have been responded
to in an unstructured manner, resulting in lapses in
response time, coordination in the response, and in
the application of early warning systems.

■■3. Current management arrangements
Heritage management in Lamu Old Town is divided
into the conservation of cultural heritage, focusedon the town fabric and buildings, and the nature
conservation, focused on the larger ecosystem of
the island.

■■4. Challenges to Conservation

The Old Town is co-managed by the
National Museums of Kenya (NMK), under the
National Museums and Heritage Act of 2006, andthe County Government of Lamu. NMK manages
the conservation of the cultural fabric of the town
while the County Government manages business
controls, such as building and maintaining thetown’s infrastructure. The Heritage Act mandates

4.1 Development projects
The major threat to the conservation of Lamu
Old Town is the development of the Lamu Portand Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor(LAPSSET project). The project has six major
components which have implications on increasing
the vulnerability of Lamu, namely: the Lamu Port,
18

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

a resort city, oil refinery, airport, crude oil pipeline,
and a dam (http://www.lapsset.go.ke).
In 2014, a Heritage Impact Assessment(HIA) was carried out to understand the project’s
potential impacts on the Outstanding Universal
Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site. The
study focused on how this project may affect thecultural and natural values of the Swahili heritage.
It concluded that, while the Lamu Old Town World
Heritage property is physically removed from thedirect LAPSSET project footprint, there are many
direct and indirect potential impacts on the settingof the World Heritage property and on its culturaland natural heritage (Bakker et al. 2015: iv). For
instance, the proposed oil refinery was found tobear a potential risk in the event of oil leaks thatwould kill marine life, among other environmental
degradation.

Figure 6: Lamu Old Jetty. Source: National Museums of
Kenya

settings such as small islands which it refers to as‘hotpots’ (IPCC 2007: 40). In that sense, climatechange currently threatens the long-establishedecological equilibrium in the Lamu Archipelago.
Coupled with intense economic activities, climatechange could also adversely affect Swahili heritage.
According to the Kenya Institute for Public
Policy Research and Analysis KIPPRA, noted changes
in the Indian Ocean include acidification, sea surface
temperature changes and increased intensity ofstorms (KIPPRA 2018 para 11). Another report by
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Institute KMFRI notedthat Kusi (South-East Monsoon) currents havebecome increasingly cold which forces the poorly
equipped fishermen to stay in the sea for less hours
and thus catching less fish (KMFRI 2011: 24). The
report also indicated that sea level in Lamu has been
rising over the past decade. Many respondents
in this study recalled the Tsunami of 2004 whichcaused destruction of homes and fishing boats (ibid).

Moreover, the initial impacts on the fragile
ecosystem have already started to be observed.
The first three berths of the Lamu Port entailed
the clearing of large swathes of mangrove forests,
including reclamation of land with fish landingsites or fish spawning grounds [Fig. 6]. Mangroves
are fragile species whose germination androoting success can be threatened by prolonged
disturbance. Fur thermore, the Lamu Por tdevelopment entailed deepening the channels
through dredging. Deeper channels pose grave
danger by increasing threats of violent sea waves
that might disturb marine life and their breeding
patterns, thereby denying the local community
a crucial food source. Dredging of the channels,
reclaiming land for berths, and clearing of mangrove
forests that absorb the force of tidal waves all posethreats to the age-old established balance between
culture and nature.

4.3 Potential impacts of infrastructure development
and climate change on Swahili people’s livelihoods
Although no culture is static, the Swahili culture,
as is known today, will drastically change withthe possible disruption of the economic activities
around the seascapes [Fig. 6].
The most serious threats resulting fromdevelopment is the loss of traditional routes andfishing grounds, the potential loss of heritage
places, and exposure to unfamiliar tide conditions
that could be life threatening. Abungu andAbungu state that, through centuries of seafaring
experience, Swahili culture has a deep respect andunderstanding of cosmology and how it affects thesea, to the extent that the sailors can predict tides
for months in advance (Abungu, G. and Abungu,
L. 2009: 23). Destruction of the mangrove habitatthat shelters the Lamu Archipelago from tidal waves
could cause a rise in accidents in the sea due to thedisruption of the over 1000 years of accumulated
indigenous knowledge of the sea. Loss of fishinggrounds would result in depleted fish catches,
exposing the local population to perennial hunger.

Another problematic project in Lamu is acoal power plant that is planned to supply electric
power for industrial activities in Lamu. Possible
adverse impacts on the local terrestrial and marine
ecosystem could be experienced, increasing thevulnerability of the people.

4.2 Climate change
A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2007) states that the impact of climatechange on coasts is worsen by increasing humaninduced pressures and that developing countries
already experience the most severe impacts frompresent coastal hazards with the most vulnerable
areas being concentrated in exposed or sensitive
19

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Another likely impact on the livelihood is
the possibility of oil leakage and oily wastes, which
if disposed of in the bay/ocean, may cause direct
damage to fishery resources, aquatic biota, and thecoastal habitat, seriously damaging the marine andcoastal ecology (Bakker et al. 2015: 136).

collaboration with the local Beach Management
Units, which are fisher folk cooperative groups, they
are rolling out training for artisanal fishermen andequipping them with modern fishing gear as a wayof adopting new technologies.
In the case of the Lamu Coal Plant project, a
local pressure group has staged a spirited campaign
against the plant with a slogan “coal is poison.” Theirpressure saw the relocation of the plant site fromthe Pate Island to the mainland and more opposition
is being raised for dropping the project altogether.
The HIA called for a territorial perspective
for heritage protection by recommending theestablishment of a special conservation area in theframework of the UNESCO 2011 Recommendationon the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL). Besides, inthe effort to build the Swahili people’s resilience,comprehensive documentation of their intangible
cultural heritage (ICH) has been initiated with theassistance of UNESCO. The ICH exercise focuses on
the recording of the indigenous knowledge thatis currently threatened by modernity. Integrating
traditional and contemporary knowledge is criticalin developing resilience strategies. Traditional
knowledge includes the collective memory of apeople living in a specific cultural and geographicalsetting. That memory is handy in post-disasterperiod, owing to past experiences. Documenting
the ICH will facilitate the blending of contemporary
ideas with the traditional in order to formulate
sustainable strategies for building resilience. Thispeople-centered approach offers prospects forbetter and more comprehensive understanding ofrisks, for community support on corrective actions,and for developing coping mechanisms in postdisasters periods.

Figure 7: Land reclamation for Lamu Port. Source:
LAPSSET Authority■■5. Ongoing mitigation initiatives
The HIA in Lamu and the Environmental andSocial Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the Lamu
Coal Plant, made evident the possible impacts ofthese development projects on the area. Activism
by community-based organizations has furtherpressurized for sensibility in the implementation ofsome of these projects.
For instance, a local community pressuregroup lodged a legal suit in the Kenyan High
Court, challenging the failure of full disclosure of
the LAPSSET project by the proponent, the noninvolvement of the local community in the project
design phase, and the possible negative impacts on
the local culture and on the Outstanding Universal
Value of Lamu World Heritage site. In May 2018, theHigh Court upheld the petition, acknowledging thepotential dangers of the project to both the culturaland natural heritages, which are inextricably linked.
Moreover, the High Court acknowledged theinsufficiency of the local community’s involvementin the project and thus ruled that the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Study (SEA), that had
been commissioned by the LAPSSET Authority on
the proposed LAPSSET project, be redone with anemphasis on community’s views. Both the High
Court’s ruling and the HIA study emphasize theneed to reduce the possible disaster risks and bothcall for building the resilience of the people, theirheritage, and their livelihoods. The initial SEA report
had failed to incorporate the HIA recommendationsin its findings.

Abungu and Abungu (2009) stated that thewalls of the traditional Swahili stone houses wereconstructed of coral rag and coral stone, joined
together with lime mortar, and then plastered. They
explained that for many centuries, lime was made byburning coral stones on a pile of mangrove wood;
the lime would then be left to mature for years
in the rain, which would wash away the salts andother impurities (Abungu and Abungu 2009: 53).
The resultant lime afforded constructions that werestructurally sound for centuries, unlike the modern
cement and reinforced steel that becomes powdery
and corrodes, respectively, over a short time in thehumid tropical coast, thereby increasing the risk ofhouses collapsing. Contemporary technology has
sometimes aggravated the vulnerability of historicalbuildings. Such indigenous building techniques

As a result, the LAPSSET Authority initiatedactions to mainstream communities into its plansin order to address current and future concerns. In
20

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

are being documented in detail for the purposeof revitalization before the bearers die with theknowledge.

between the natural and cultural values of theheritage site need to be understood and integrated
under territorial approaches, such as the HULapproach, and take into consideration that the
local communities are the stakeholders who havea more comprehensive and collective memoryof their environment. In disaster risk prevention
and post-disaster recovery, local communities’
knowledge, intangible cultural heritage, andvalues ought to be considered in any heritageand disaster risk management plan as well as in
the post-disaster recovery plan. In post-disasterrecovery, conservation and restoration projects
should bear the memory of the past to rebuild
the future. Environmental restoration should
sensitively address the social-cultural needs of thelocal community. Therefore, local solutions areparamount for real resilience.

Furthermore, as a response to the destructionof the fragile mangrove forests on the Kenyan
Coast, the Kenya Forest Service initiated what
has been referred to as the National Mangrove
Ecosystem Management Plan for a period runningfrom 2017 to 2027. Large areas deprived of themangroves have been identified for replanting.
■■6. Recommendations
To address the imminent risks on the sustainabilityof the Swahili livelihoods and the conservation of
Lamu Old Town, there is need for more innovativeand proactive methods of dealing with theuncertainties and the anticipated technologicaland environmental related risks. Adoption of newtechnologies is needed for monitoring climatechange and to constantly evaluate other impacts inorder to recognize early warnings about threats that
could be irreversible once they occur. Planners anddevelopers need to create safeguards to not disrupt
the resilience mechanisms and the cultural andnatural heritage of Swahili people, especially wheredevelopments are coupled with threats of climatechange.
Mangrove forests and the larger marine
ecosystem of the Lamu Archipelago are facing
imminent risk from the LAPSSET project. This
project is increasing the vulnerability of the island toclimate change and natural hazards. The potential
impacts on the ecosystem will strongly affect thecultural heritage and livelihoods of Lamu’s local
communities.
With the increasing vulnerability of Lamu
and its communities, adopting legislation specificallyaddressing disaster countermeasures is critical inensuring that the communities’ resilience can beenhanced, especially for post-disaster recovery in
the aftermath of eventual disasters. For instance, theculture’s traditional methods of conservation of themangrove forests includes the selective harvestingof only straight trees and shifting harvest areas toallow for regrowth (Maina et al. 2011: 4). This is anature-based solution for disaster risk reductionthat could be integrated into a comprehensive
heritage and disaster risk management plan.
As clarified in this paper, natural and cultural
heritage need to be viewed as interlinked andinseparable entities. Moreover, the interrelations
21

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Abungu, G. and Abungu, L. 2009. Lamu: Kenya’s Enchanted Island. Rizzoli, New York.
Bakker, K.A., Odiaua, I. and Abungu, G. 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Lamu Port-South
Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) and the new Lamu Port and Metropolis Development Project as well as
related development projects in the Lamu Archipelago, Kenya.
Fitzpatrick, T. 2014. Climate change and poverty: A new agenda for developed Nations. Policy press, Bristol.
Government of Kenya. 2017. National Mangrove Management Plan 2017-2027. Kenya Forest Service,
Nairobi. http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/documents/National-Mangrove Ecosystem Management-PlanFinal-170628.pdf. [Accessed 20 July 2018]
Government of Kenya. 2009. Draft National Policy For Disaster Management in Kenya. http://www.
disastermanagement.go.ke [Accessed 9 May 2019]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, UK, 976 pp.
Kairo, J. G. 2001. Ecology and Restoration of Mangrove Systems in Kenya. Brussels: Virje Universitet. PhD
Dissertation.
Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. 2018. Kenya’s Agenda in Developing the Blue
Economy. http://www.kippra.or.ke/kenyas-agenda-in-developing-the-blue-economy [Accessed 20 July 2018]
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute. 2011. 2010/11 Scientific Annual Report. http://www.kmfri.
co.ke/images/pdf/Annualreport201to2011.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2018]
Maina, G.W., Osuka, K., Samoilys, M. 2011. Review and assessment of biodiversity values and conservation
priorities along the Tana Delta-Pate Island coast of northern Kenya. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/ 273002834 [Accessed 20 July 2018]
Malleret-King, D, King, A., Mangubhai, S. Tunje, J., Muturi, J., Mueni E. and On’ganda H. 2003. Annex 1.2.
Understanding Fisheries Livelihoods and Constraints to their Development, Kenya & Tanzania. Review ofMarine Fisheries Resources for Kenya.
National Museums of Kenya. 2001. Lamu Old Town. http://www.museums.or.ke/lamu-old-town [Accessed
20 July 2018]
Ngugi, E., Kipruto, S. and Samoei, P. 2013. Exploring Kenya’s Inequality: Pulling Apart or Pooling Together?
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi
Oliver-Smith, A. 2009. Climate Change and Population Displacement: Disasters and Diasporas in the Twenty
First Century. In Crate, S. and Nutall, M. (eds.): Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encounters to
Actions. Left Coast Press, California.
UNESCO Lamu Old Town World Heritage Site. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1055. [Accessed 1 May 2019]
UNESCO, 2011. UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul[Accessed 20 July 2018]22

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Exploring a Nature-Culture
Approach to Improve the
Resilience of a Heritage Site: A
Case Study of Dujiangyan Old
Town, China
Huaiyun Kou

College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China Room 304 Wenyuan
Building, Siping Road, Shanghai, 200092, P.R. China; +86-13601964326, khy@tongji.edu.cn■■Abstract

Dujiangyan Old Town is the starting point of the Songmao ancient trade route, adjacent to the World
Heritage site, Dujiangyan Irrigation System. The Old Town is surrounded by mountains and rivers andretains cultural heritages including the city walls, the mosques, temples, towers, and traditional wooden
houses. It suffered during the Wenchuan earthquake (magnitude 8.0) in 2008 when over 80% of thebuildings were damaged. The local government launched a three-year reconstruction plan with multiple
objectives of heritage conservation, housing improvement, and tourism development. The post-earthquake
reconstruction enforced the seismic performance of the buildings, improved the infrastructures, enhanced
the traditional spatial features, and stimulated tourism. During the process, the number of residents reduced
sharply, from 15,000 to 3,000, following a functional transition from residential to commercial. In addition,
earthquakes and mudslides still threaten Old Town. Exploring a nature-culture approach is an urgent issue inorder to improve the resilience of the Town.

KEY WORDS: Post-earthquake Reconstruction, Resilience, Nature-Culture Approach, Dujiangyan Old Town■■1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of the heritage site
Dujiangyan City is a small county-level city in the
Sichuan province with approximately 680,000
inhabitants. It is famous for its rich cultural heritage,
especially the World Heritage site, Dujiangyan
Irrigation System, which was built around 250 BC
and is still working today [Fig. 1]. Dujiangyan Old
Town covers 0.73 square kilometers and embraced
by mountains on the North and West sides. It is the
beginning of the City which extends along the Min
River in a fan-shaped layout [Fig. 2].

Figure 1: Location of Dujiangyan City in China (Source:
Base map from Google Map)

23

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

years. During the Ming Dynasty, between 14881505, walls surrounding the town were built andthe urban form was gradually shaped. In 1949,
new highways reached Dujiangyan and, as a result,the ancient trade road was abandoned. With theconsequent development and expansion of thetown, the walls and most of the traditional buildings
were demolished; however, the historic fabric of thetown was basically preserved. There are also two
historic districts, Xijie and Wenmiao, which are wellconserved in Old Town.

Figure 2: Location of Dujiangyan Old Town in Dujiangyan
City (Source: Base map from Master Plan of the Postearthquake Reconstruction of Dujiangyan City, Shanghai
Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute 2008)

1.2 Brief description of the landscapeDujiangyan Old Town is adjacent to the World
Heritage site, Dujiangyan Irrigation System [Figs. 3& 4]. It was the Eastern terminus of the Songmao
ancient trade route which spanned from theChengdu Plains to the Tibetan Plateau. The town
retained its commercial prosperity beginning in
the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) through the Qing
Dynasty (1616-1912 AD), lasting over one thousand

Figure 4: Perspective of Dujiangyan Old Town (Source:
Copyright the author)■■2. Significance of Dujiangyan Old Town
Dujiangyan City was designated a National Famous

Figure 3: Dujiangyan Historical map of the Qing Dynasty (Source: Local official promulgation materials)
24

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Historic and Cultural City in 19941. The Old Town isthe core conservation area in Dujiangyan City.

mountains and rivers. It reflects the traditional
Chinese architecture philosophy of submitting tonature and taking advantage of local circumstances.

Dujiangyan Old Town was named after theDujiangyan Dam. It used to be called the “Irrigation
Outlet.” There were four rivers in the Old Town
as well. Worshiping water is a distinct feature ofthis region. The locals hold solemn rituals every
year, both officially-led and privately-sponsored, toworship Li Bing and his son who constructed theDam, as well as other water gods.

The remaining vernacular dwellings in
Dujiangyan Old Town belong to the West-Sichuanarchitecture style, found in Southwest China. This
style features the cone-shaped wooden structure,
called ‘Chuan-Dou’ (or column and tie beam),framing system. The wooden houses have better
seismic performance because of the ductility of thetimber and the Chuan-Dou framing system (Huang,
Chen, and Fu 2014). This type of building is mainly
concentrated in the Xijie Historic District.

The location of Dujiangyan Old Town, along
the ancient trade route, allowed for ethnic groups,
such as Tibetan, Qiang, and Hui from the Tibetanarea, settle alongside the dominant Han nationality.
Consequently, various ethnic groups establishedtheir social and religious institutions, including the
Maogong Temple, the Nanjie Mosque, the Erwang
Temple, and the Confucian Temple, making Old
Town a diverse center for cultural and religious
exchanges.

■■3. Post-Earthquake Reconstruction

3.1 Earthquake and Reconstruction
Located closest to the epicenter of the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake, Dujiangyan Old Town
suffered severe damages during the disaster.
Over 80% of the housing was damaged to various
degrees. The Cultural Relic Protection Units, likethe Maogong Temple, the Erwang Temple, theConfucian Temple, and the Kuixing Tower, suffered

The built structures in Dujiangyan Old
Town adhered to the topography and sought a
harmonious integration with the surrounding

Figure 5: Street Scene before Earthquake (2005) (Source: Local official promulgation materials)

1

The heritage conservation system for tangible heritage in China includes two categories: the Cultural Relic Protection Units and the Famous Historicand Cultural Cities. The former contains historic sites, monuments, ancient buildings, and such; the latter contains historic cities, districts, towns andvillages.

25

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 6: Street Scene after Earthquake (2008) (Source: Copyright the author)

severely.

increasing the fortification of civil structures/publicbuildings with concrete frame structure from 7/8
degrees to 8/9 degrees (excluding monuments
and wooden structures); fifth, preserving as many
wooden frame houses as possible; and sixth,
conducting regular disaster prevention drills
throughout the communities in the Town.

Besides the earthquake, Dujiangyan Old
Town had already endured a gradual decrease in
its appearance because of urban development.
Two of the original four streams were landfilled
and 55% of the houses were newly built brickconcrete structures, which were incongruouswith the traditional West-Sichuan style. There
were even several high-rise buildings in Old Town.
The reconstruction project of Old Town was
designated as a part of Dujiangyan’s integral postearthquake reconstruction efforts and had multiple
goals, including housing reconstruction, heritage
conservation, and infrastructure upgrading.
According to the reconstruction plan and policy, theorientation of the Town’s function was transformed
from residence and commerce to tourism service.
The reconstruction began its implementation in2009 and was basically completed in 2012. The
Cultural Relic Protection Units received careful
repairs or renovations and the historic fabricwith four streams was recovered and reinforced.
Additionally, the Xijie Historic District was wellpreserved, green spaces and cultural facilities
were added, and infrastructures, like the sewage,
drainages, road surface, and traffic systems, were
improved.

■■4. Management and Challenges for Continuity
The Dujiangyan Old Town Sub-district Office is theadministrative agency. It has a section dedicatedto managing the tourism of Old Town. The
management of the World Heritage site, Dujiangyan
Irrigation System, falls under the responsibility ofa specialized agency, the Qing-Du Bureau, which isan administrative department of Dujiangyan Cityand is independent of the Sub-district Office. Thereis no special disaster prevention management
department.
Located in the ear thquake zone andsurrounded by the mountains, Dujiangyan Old Town
is facing long-lasting threats from earthquakes andmudslides.
Old Town is also facing challenges fromthe society in the post-earthquake redevelopment
process. The population dropped from 21,500 to
6,500 after the reconstruction. This reduction is dueto three reasons: first, the seriously damaged houses
were demolished and the residential function of
those plots were converted to commercial functions
according to the reconstruction plan and policy,
therefore the residents moved to the governmentprovided housing outside of the Old Town; second,
tourism development increased the housing prices

3.2 Anti-seismic Measures
Six measures were applied to mitigate the disasterdamage from the earthquake, both during and after
the reconstruction in Dujiangyan Old Town. First,
reducing the resident’s density; second, increasing
the green spaces and plazas; third, restricting thebuilding height to less than five floors; fourth,26

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

in Old Town, especially in the Xijie Historic District, so
the residents decided to rent or sell their houses for
economic benefits; third, the non-living functional
positioning made it inconvenient for residents
to live in Old Town and they move out gradually.
Although reducing the population density is oneof the important earthquake-resistant measuresthat facilitates safe evacuation during disasters,
the reduction of residents poses a threat to thevitality, diversity, and sustainable tourist attractionsof the Town in the long run. Moreover, changes in
population also make it harder to foster community
cohesion to resist disaster.

should be composed of officials from different
departments and experts with different professions,
including urban planners, architects, sociologists,
economists, geologists, and botanists, etc. They will
be in charge of the risk assessment and build thecapacity of the communities and the environment.
The fourth and final step is to build anature-culture linked international cooperation
network to conduct cross-regional collaborations
and interdisciplinary research. The network at
the international level will contribute to raising
special funds for the resilience of cultural heritage,
standardizing evaluation criteria, sharing technicalachievements, and promoting the capacity building
projects of the local communities, decision-makers,
and experts.

■■5. Recommendations
Although Dujiangyan Old Town is a type of cultural
heritage, the composition and formation of its
values should not be separated from the naturalenvironment. Old Town also faces dual threats fromboth nature and society. However, the six antiseismic measures mentioned above are mostly
architectural and social, except for the increase ingreen spaces. This also reflects the existing gaps in
the approaches to post-disaster recovery activities,of not looking at the overall picture and explore
nature-based solutions. Therefore, exploring
an approach combining natural and cultural
perspectives is necessary to improve the resilienceof Old Town. Four steps are recommended in theapplication of this approach.
The first step is to design a nature-culture
linked risk assessment system. The potential
risks of the cultural values, as well as the naturalenvironment, should be predicted; meanwhile, thethreats from both society and nature should beconsidered. In addition, both the capacity of thecommunities and the surrounding environment towithstand disasters should be inspected. Qualitativeand quantitative combined methods should be
introduced to the assessment system (Kou et al.
2018).
The second step requires the explorationof nature-culture linked solutions. In addition
to the physical anti-seismic measures and thecommunity capacity training in Dujiangyan Old
Town, the surrounding mountains and rivers
should be taken into account, including measures
to prevent mudslides and landslides. By enhancing
the resilience of the environment, the intensity ofdisasters can be minimized directly.
The third step is to establish a nature-culture
linked local management system. This system
27

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Huang, S., Chen, S. H., and Fu, Y. 2014. Study of Seismic Characteristic of a Chuan-Dou Style (or Column and
Tie Joint) Wood Frame House. Structural Engineers 30(1): pp.107-112
Kou, H., Zhou, J., Chen, J., and Zhang, S. 2018. Conservation for Sustainable Development: The Sustainability
Evaluation of Xijie Historic District in Dujiangyan City, China. Sustainability 10(12), 4645. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10124645
UNESCO. 2013. Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks
Zh, X. 2016. Social Resilience of Heritage Communities: The Conservation of Urban Heritage in the
Perspective of Risk Management. Urban Development Studies 23(2): pp. 23-29

28

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The Galle Fort World Heritage
Site: A Nature-Culture Approachto the Conservation of Cultural
Heritage along the Southern
Coast of Sri Lanka
Wijerathne Bohingamuwa

Department of History and Archaeology, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka; 81000; +94 (0)714176869,
wbohingamuwa@yahoo.com■■Abstract

This paper focuses on the Galle Fort World Heritage site, assessing current practices and issues related toheritage conservation concerning disasters. The purpose is to highlight the importance of understanding
nature-culture links for the conservation of coastal heritage sites, exposed to natural conditions, suchas sea breeze, sea erosion, and hazards like tsunamis. The Galle Fort is strongly connected to its larger
cultural landscape, for which the conservation of the entire ecosystem is required. This paper suggests thedevelopment and implementation of integrated and people-centered policies involving all stakeholders inconservation plans, giving due consideration to nature-culture linkages.

KEY WORDS: Sri Lanka, Galle fort, Coastal cultural heritage, Nature-culture links, People-centeredconservation■■1. Introduction

210; Lilley 2013).

1.1 Overview of the heritage site

These discussions are highly relevant to the Galle
Fort World Heritage site, as well as the heritage in
the Southern Coastal Belt of Sri Lanka (hereafterreferred to as the Southern Coastal Belt). The uniquecultural landscape of this region is partly a resultof the area having been under the control of thePortuguese, the Dutch, and the English, from 1505
to 1948. The Old Town of Galle and its fortifications(Galle Fort) have been a UNESCO World Heritage
Site since 1988. It was built and maintained by all
three colonial powers, and is multicultural in its
character, termed as ‘heritage of dual parentage,’like many other heritage sites along the Southern
Coastal Belt (Da Silva 1992).

The distinction between nature and culture as
separate entities, and rigid categorizations basedon arbitrary divisions, as seen in various charters
and conventions on heritage (see Askew 2010: 1944; UNESCO 1972), are now being challenged andthe traditional definitions and scope of heritage arealso being reconsidered (see e.g., Harrison 2015:24-42; 2013). The symbiotic relationship that exists
between nature, culture, and people is increasingly
emphasized and reinforced. Similarly, heritage
sites, cultural or natural, are no longer considered
as isolated entities, but they are identified as being
interconnected to and interdependent on people,
landscapes, and the accompanying ecosystems(Larsen and Wjesuriya 2017: 42; Leitão 2017: 195-

In this context, the present study focuses on
the Galle Fort World Heritage site to assess
29

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

historic city by the same name [Fig. 1]. The Southern
Coastal Belt has a rich biodiversity, including lagoons
with numerous maritime species, mangroves, andforest covers with specific maritime vegetation(Jayatissa 2009; Dahdouh-Guebas 2005) which
are used daily by people. The cultural evolution
in the region is a result of human interaction
with this environment. The Galle Fort is a great
manifestation of this interaction over the centuries.
The unique coastal environment provided distinct
living conditions for its dwellers which brought
together diverse belief systems, along with thehistorical conditions cited above, that led to thedevelopment of this distinct cultural landscape.
Therefore, the author considers that the natureculture linkages existing in the Galle Fort, as wellas the traditional livelihood of the communities
who have demonstrated resilience to threats
and used opportunities provided over the years,
need to be safeguarded. This paper highlights thepotential of the Galle Fort to be a model of natureculture linkages and resilience to disasters in theSouthern Coastal Belt, provided that an integrated
management approach is developed.

current practices and issues related to heritage
conservation in relation to disasters. The Galle
Fort is constantly exposed to the sea breeze, sea
erosion, and natural hazards, such as tsunamis,
in addition to human-induced hazards. However,its architectural and planning characteristics, aswell as coral and boulder/granite reefs, protect
the site from disasters, as is shown by the reduced
impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. The
Galle Fort is, therefore, an example to be further
analysed of how cultural heritage relates to thenatural environment in the context of disaster risk
management. This study is based on the author’s
long-term observations made at the Galle Fort, asa member of the Management Board of the Galle
Fort Heritage Foundation, a survey undertaken
after the 2004 Tsunami (cf. Poisson et al. 2009), andinterviews conducted between July and August
2018 with various stakeholders of the Galle Fort1.

1.2 Brief description of the landscape
The Galle Fort is part and parcel of a larger
ecological setting and its values and meanings arederived from the greater cultural landscape of theSouthern Coastal Belt. Consequently, neither nature
nor people can be separated from the fort, which
is located in the District of Galle, adjacent to the■■2. Significance of Galle Fort
Located in a distinct natural setting, the Galle

Figure 1: Map showing Galle and Matara Fortresses and other main heritage sites in the region. (Source: Author)

1

The author consulted and interviewed a number of stakeholders involved in the cultural heritage conservation in Sri Lanka as well as an expert

involved in heritage conservation and training at international level.

30

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Burghers, and Malays. All of these communities
have lived in harmony and practiced their faiths
for centuries, leading to the development of multiculturalism within the region. The Galle Fort hasremained a living monument throughout its history.

Fort has important values and meanings to its
users (Ministry of Culture and Arts Governmentof Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2015:13-14). The
Galle Fort represents the European expansion in
Asia and thus it can be used to read the history of
the colonial occupation of Sri Lanka. It was declareda UNESCO World Heritage Site due to its unique
historic and architectural value (Da Silva 1992). It
was first built by the Portuguese in 1588 and was
modified and used by the Dutch starting in 1649
until it was captured by the English in 1796 (Kuruppu
and Wijesuriya 1992). This fort encloses an area of
52 hectares and houses a large number of buildings,
such as courts, churches, temples, mosques,
and warehouses. The fortification contains 14
bastions, a gateway, and a clock tower. Some ofthese architectural works are great examples of theblend of European and Asian designs and concepts(Bandaranayake 1992) [Fig. 2]. This fort is also aliving heritage site, which is inhabited by over 1,686
people2, and for those living there, heritage is a dailyexperience.

This fort has many attributes that need to bepreserved. For instance, fortifications, grid streets,
street houses with frontal veranda and backyards,
public and private buildings, and an undergroundsewer system all still display originality in theirform and design (Ministry of Culture and Arts
Government of Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2015:
14, 16). The sewer system functions as a drainage
system even today and some of the tsunami
floods reached the Fort through it in 2004. The
architectural design of the Galle Fort owes muchto its local geomorphology. The ramparts of thefort, for example, follow local topography, while thebastions are located at the most strategic points
in sea and land fronts (Ministry of Culture and Arts
Government of Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2015:73), protecting it from natural hazards.

The social formation in this area is a resultof the cross-fertilization of various ethnic andreligious traditions over centuries: the fortresshas places of worship for Buddhists, Christians,
and Muhammadans, and is home for various
ethnic groups, such as Sinhalese, Muslims, Tamils,

In addition, the Galle Fort is locatedadjacent to the Rumassala hillock which gives anastounding scenic beauty to the setting of theFort. The biodiversity observed in Rumassala, thecoastal vegetation, and the sea around the fort,

Figure 2: Galle Fort UNESCO World Heritage Site; Front view (Photo credit: Amila Bandaranayake)2

Number as at 31.12.2018, Performance report Galle Heritage Foundation 2015.

31

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

as well as the uninterrupted oceanic view fromthe fort, make this heritage site inseparable fromnature [Figs. 3 & 4]. Moreover, Rumassala is also
associated with Ramayana myths (Ravi Prakash1998). The Buona-vista Coral Reef, which was once
identified as having the greatest marine biodiversity
among all coral reefs in Sri Lanka, was located at thebase of the Rumassla hill. This reef, along with the
Closenburg Reef, is destroyed now, largely due tohuman intervention, including port expansion. The
Galle Fort Reef, located close to the Galle Fort wall,is the only living coral reef around the fort today(see Karunarathne and Weerakkody 1996). These
reefs are part of the Galle Fort heritage and need
to be included in its conservation planning. Coral
reefs along the Southern Coastal Belt are a major
attraction for marine eco-tourism. The Coral reefs in
Sri Lanka as a whole are, however, endangered due
to mining and the deterioration of water quality,
and therefore, need a proper conservation andmanagement plan.

Figure 5: Stilt fishing/Ritipanna (Photo credit: M.A.U.
Rukshan)However, due to population pressures and theincreasing demand for luxury living, the heritage
sites are being modified. Many traditional houses
and public buildings have been modified into guest
houses and even as luxury hotels, and in some cases,
this is causing considerable damage to the heritage.
Moreover, the site is permanently exposed to thesea breeze and sea erosion, in addition to having
been hit by the 2004 Tsunami. Coastal heritage,thus, is vulnerable to decay and destruction fromnatural and human activities and needs the constantattention of heritage managers [Fig. 6].

Figure 6: Effect of sea erosion at Galle Fort (Photo credit:
Amila Bandaranayake)■■3. Current management arrangements
There are a number of institutions and policy
frameworks in place in Sri Lanka to deal with theconservation of natural and cultural heritage.
Legislature concerning both cultural and natural
heritage has been in place in Sri Lanka since the1940s. The National Archaeology Policy (2006)
and the Antiquities Act No. 09 of 1940, and its
subsequent amendments (Act No 24 of 1998) are
the main legal and policy framework made available
for the protection of cultural heritage. Until the
1980s, the main state institution that dealt with
cultural heritage, except the Department of National
Museums, was the Department of Archaeology. The
1980s were a turning point in heritage research andconservation, with the expansion of institutionalarrangements and the establishment of the Central

Figures 3 & 4: Galle Fort, View from the sea andRumassala (Photo credit: Rasika Mutukumarana)

The fort is also intimately connected with theeveryday life of the fishing community, who stillpractice sustainable traditional fishing techniques,
which are currently great tourist attractions.
Ritipanna, or stilt fishing (fishing while sitting on a
narrow pole tied to a stick installed in the seabed),is one such technique uniquely found along theSouthern Coastal Belt [Fig. 5]. This tradition,
however, is endangered due to the overexploitationof marine resources and becoming less economical.
32

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Cultural Fund and the Postgraduate Institute ofArchaeology. At that moment, the conceptualizationof heritage took a broader perspective, new policy
frameworks were introduced, and international
agreements, such as the 1972 UNESCO World
Heritage Convention, were ratified.

deals with these aspects are a major issue. At theGalle Fort, where nature, culture, and people are
inseparably linked, this rigid institutional division
creates conflicts of interest, both in the planningand implementation of policies. Even among theCoastal Conservation Department, the Departmentof Wildlife Conservation, and the Ministry ofFisheries, which deals with natural heritage - marine
life, coral reefs, mangroves, and landforms, conflictsof interests arising from overlapping territorialand subject areas are noted. This leads to issues
in managing the ecosystem around the Galle
Fort. Similar situations occur in managing of thecultural heritage at the Galle Fort, where several
agencies, such as the Department of Archaeology,
Central Cultural Fund, and the Galle Fort Heritage
Foundation, are involved. The main focus of theGalle Fort management has been on its tangible
heritage. This leads to the negligence of intangible
heritage, such as the traditional livelihoods andbelief systems of the communities, as well as thenatural environment, of which the fort and thebuilt heritage is only a part. This leads to inefficientdisaster responses and recovery, such as to threats
like tsunamis.

Currently, the Department of Archaeology
and the Central Cultural Fund are the main bodies
that undertake cultural heritage conservation.
Legislature, such as the Heritage Foundation Acts,
established to deal with specific sites, are also inplace. The Galle Heritage Foundation, establishedunder the Galle Heritage Foundation Act No. 7 of1994, manages the Galle Fort. This Foundation isrepresented by 14 different institutions, including
the Department of Archaeology and the Central
Cultural Fund3. In addition, there is also a Civilians’
Collective (forum of residents) at the Galle Fort.
Although these institutions consult each other incarrying out their respective duties, there is a lackof coherent and integrated policies at nationallevel planning and understanding between various
stakeholders and residents in the heritage site.
The Ministry of Tourism Development,
Wildlife and Christian Religious Affairs, through its
departments, such as Wildlife Conservation, deals
with natural heritage, including the Rumassla Forest
Reserve. The Coastal Conservation Department
is responsible for marine life around the Galle Bay
and the coast. However, concerns have been raised
about the proposed Galle Harbour Expansion
Project (2007), and the management of the
Rumassala Forest Reserve (Goreau 1998).

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
The author examined the entire area affected by the2004 Tsunami, between the Nilwala river in Matara
to the Walawe river in Ambalantota in Southern Sri
Lanka (Bohingamuwa 2004, see also Bohingamuwa
2009). This study was undertaken as part of theconditional survey initiated by ICOMOS Sri Lanka, incollaboration with the Ministry of Higher Education.
The author also examined the Galle Fort as partof a social, economic, and cultural survey project
initiated by the Galle Heritage Foundation. The
objective of this survey was to assess the stateof the conservation of the property, including
the impact of the tsunami, and to recommend
necessary conservation methods. The entire
Galle Fort was surveyed and the residents wereinterviewed using a questionnaire prepared by theauthor (Bohingamuwa 2006). In 2018, the author
conducted a new survey and interviews to reassess
the heritage management of the Galle Fort.

In relation to the integration of disaster risk
management in cultural heritage conservation, Sri
Lanka is yet to integrate international instruments,
such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction (2015) and the Strategy for Risk
Reduction at World Heritage Properties (2007).
At the local level, there are a number of statelevel arrangements to deal with disasters. While
the Ministry of Mahaweli Development andEnvironment is the main ministry that deals withenvironmental conservation, climate change, andbiodiversity, the Ministry of Disaster Management
deals with disasters specifically.

It was found that during the 2004 Tsunami,
much of the damage to human life and heritage wasdue to the weaknesses of disaster preparedness
and risk reduction mechanisms. The coastal

However, there are gaps and issues inthese arrangements. Lack of understanding about
the nature-culture link among the agencies that

3

Other key institutions involved are, Galle Municipal Council, Urban Development Authority, Coast Conservation Department and Ports Authority.

33

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

communities neither had any prior knowledge orexperience of such disasters nor had they beenpart of any Disaster Risk Reduction programmes.
This resulted in causing complete shock and panic
among them during the disaster. However, they
overcame material and emotional losses within ashort period and either resumed their traditional
livelihoods or adopted new strategies. The coastal
ecosystem that was devastated by the tsunami
recovered even faster, illustrating greater resilienceand adaptability.
The 2004 Tsunami tested the state’s
preparedness and capacity, including the strengthand efficiency of heritage agencies that deal withsuch disasters. In their sincere efforts to recover,reconstruct, and restore affected properties
and human life, both the government and nongovernment actors and agencies, as well as
individuals, acted to their fullest capacity. However,
the author’s active involvement in the posttsunami Archaeological Impact Assessments andheritage conservation activities allowed him toperceive the lack of coordination between these
actors, which caused considerable damage tocultural properties. For instance, the Municipal
Council, the Urban Development Authority, andthe other state agencies that deal with everyday
needs of the people, acted fast to restore theaffected infrastructures before heritage agencies
could put in place conservation plans. Even thefindings of the ICOMOS Sri Lanka post-tsunami
study on the affected sites did not lead to making
any comprehensive and concrete conservation
programmes.

Figures 7 & 8: Galle Fort, Granite boulders that protect
Fort from sea waves (Photo credit: Rasika Mutukumarana)considerable damage in Galle. In the city of Galle,
497 people perished while another 412 people
went missing due to the tsunami (cf. Department ofCensus and Statistics 2005). The Southern Coastal
Belt was the worst affected area. The case of theGalle Fort, therefore, is an exception in the Southern
Coast area, illustrating that much can be learned
from the past- wise use of local conditions- and fromheritage for increasing resilience and developing
Disaster Risk Reduction programmes for the restof the region. Conservation of the natural coastal
environment - mangroves, coastal sand dunes, andcoral reefs - are vital for the conservation of theGalle Fort and coastal heritage as a whole. Jayatissa(2009) and Dahdouh-Guebas (2005) discussed how
mangroves acted as natural barriers against the2004 Tsunami, protecting both cultural heritage andhumans living in vulnerable areas. Understanding
traditional knowledge and passing that on to future
generations would help protect nature, culture, andhuman lives along the coast.

The Galle Fort itself only received limited
impact from this tsunami, primarily due to its strong
high wall and the coral and boulder reefs aroundit [Figs.7 & 8]. The selection of the location andarchitectural planning of the fort, with minimal
intervention to the natural coastal environment,
saved both properties and lives within the fort.
Tsunami water entered the fort mainly throughthe entrances situated on the land side. No lossof life was reported from the fort and only some
cultural properties were affected. In contrast, theadjacent historic city and the surrounding area were
devastated by the tsunami waves that came fromeither side of the Fort.

Nevertheless, the Galle Fort and the coastal
heritage, in general, is vulnerable to decay anddestruction due to exposure to sea breeze anderosion. The growth of algae and fungi on Buddhist
temple paintings, peeling of wall plasters, corrosionof metal objects, and the decaying of roofs, which
results in leaking rainwater and cracked walls, arethe main state of conservation issues noted in theGalle Fort and other sites in the Southern Coastal
Belt. Moreover, movable cultural properties, such

The natural landscape on these sides of thefort have been modified for augmenting the Galle
Sea Port and a waterway. Approximately 70 % of thebuildings located on the coastline were destroyed
and at least 30 % of those up to 1km inland suffered
34

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

as the Ola Leaf Manuscripts 4, require constantmonitoring.

management of heritage at the Galle Fort and along
the Southern Coast Belt. An active role of heritage
managers is vital in such efforts.

Illegal construction and modifications
made to heritage buildings are reported fromthe Galle Fort World Heritage Site, threatening its
integrity. The encroachment of the buffer zoneof the Galle Fort prompted the UNESCO World
Heritage Committee to request that Sri Lanka
prepare a comprehensive Integrated Management
Plan for the Galle Fort in 2010 (The WHC decision
34COM7B.72). This plan was approved by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2016
(Ministry of Culture and Arts Government ofSocialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2015). In keeping withthese requirements, the Antiquity Ordinance, as
well as the Galle Heritage Foundation Act, are being
amended (Mandawala 2015: 6 and Pers. comm.
2018).

A number of positive initiatives have been
undertaken in the recent past and some more
efforts are being made to safeguard the heritage,
like the preparation of an Integrated Management
Plan for the Galle Fort. However, a number of issues,
such as deeper understanding about the natureculture linkages and a people-centered approach to
heritage conservation, remain largely unaddressed.
This highlights the need for fresh thinking andintegrated planning at a national level to bring all
stakeholders together for the effective functioningof heritage management. Key to achieving any
success in these efforts depends on training anadequate number of heritage managers andinvolving local communities in heritage protection.

■■5. Lessons learned and Recommendations■■Acknowledgements

The challenge to all heritage stakeholders is toprotect both properties and human lives fromboth natural and human-provoked hazards. The
exploitation of natural resources and developmental
activities have caused considerable damage tothe ecosystem and landscape along the Southern
Coastal Belt and around the Galle Fort, exposing
communities, as well as cultural and natural
heritage, to natural hazards, endangering people’s
livelihoods. The impact of the 2004 Tsunami
exemplifies the power of nature, as well as theresilience of both coastal communities and thenatural environment in their ability to overcome
such disasters. However, the impacts on cultural
heritage need to be dealt with by heritage
managers, whose role was largely overlooked in thisdisaster. The 2004 Tsunami showed the limitationsof the disaster risk preparedness and disasterrecovery system of Sri Lanka.

The author would like to express his gratitude to
the residents and specialists who agreed to beinterviewed for this work. He thanks Mr. Amila
Bandaranayake, Rasika, Muthukumarana, and Dr.
Wasntha Senadeera for their assistance in thefield, photography, and preparation of maps; Dr.
Kaushalya Gunasena for reading and commenting
on early drafts.

Yet, the Galle For t showed to be an
exception, resistant even to threats from thetsunami. The resilience of properties and coastal
communities in other areas could be increased byprotecting the coastal landscape and mangroves
which act as buffers against the threats of nature.
Understanding and respecting the nature-culture
and people linkages and educating and involving
communities in heritage management and disaster
response programmes are the way forward for the4

Ola leaf is a palm leaf prepared for writing in ancient Sri Lanka. Ola leaf manuscripts written on various subjects such as Buddhism, traditional

medicine and horoscopes, are found in the island.

35

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Askew, M. 2010. The magic list of global status: UNESCO, World Heritage and the agendas of states. In Long, C.
and Labadi, S. (eds.): Heritage and globalisation, pp. 19–44. Routledge, Abingdon,
Bandaranayake, S. 1992. The Galle Fort: A walled town of Sri Lanka’s third urbanization. Ancient Ceylon 15:
pp. 11–13
Bohingamuwa. W. 2004. Preliminary Survey of Tsunami-affected Monuments and Sites in the Maritime
Region of Sri Lanka. The Southern Maritime Region: from the Walawe Ganga to the Nilvala Ganga (PART SIX).
Colombo: ICOMOS Sri Lanka. https://www.icomos.org/risk/2005/6-part1.pdf———. 2006. Preliminary report on the social, economic and cultural conditional survey of the Galle Fort
World Heritage Site, Report submitted to the Galle Heritage Foundation.
———. 2009. Management of Coastal cultural heritage in Sri Lanka. In Jayatissa, L. P. (ed.): Trainers Manual
for Community-based Coastal Resource Management, pp. 131–42. Seva Lanka Foundation, Boralasgamuwa,
Sri Lanka.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Jayatissa, L. P., Nitto, D. D., Bosire, J. O., Seen, D. L. and Koedam, N. 2005. How effective
were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? Current Biology 15 (12): R443–47
Department of Census and Statistics. 2005. Preliminary Report on Census of Buildings and Persons Affectedby the Tsunami –2004, Galle, Sri Lanka.
Decision 34 COM 7B.72, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010) [online] http://whc.unesco.org/en/
decisions/4486/ [Accessed 15th July 2019]
Galle Heritage Foundation. 2015. Annual Performance Report. http://www.parliament.lk/uploads/
documents/paperspresented/performance-report-galle-heritage-foundation-2015.pdf [Accessed 12 July
2019]
Goreau, Thomas J. 1998. Assessment of Buonavista Reef and Recommendations, Herrzoox | Mar 27, 1998,
pp 1-5. http://www.globalcoral.org/assessment-of-buonavista-reef- and-recommendations/ [Accessed 9 July
2019]
Harrison, R. 2015. Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in
the Age of Anthropocene. Heritage and Society 8 (1): pp. 24-42
Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York.
Ministry of Culture and Arts Government of Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 2015. Integrated Management
System; World Heritage site of Old town of Galle and its Fortifications, (IMSWHSOT) 2015.
Jayatissa L. P. (ed.). 2009. Trainers Manual for community based coastal resource management. SevaLanka
Foundation, Boralasgamuwa, Sri Lanka
Karunarathne, L. and Weerakkody, P. 1996. Status and the biodiversity of the Buona-Vista coral reef,
Rumassala, Galle, Nature Conservation Group. http://www.orcasl.com/index_htm_files/Buona-vista%20
report.pdf [Accessed 9 July 2019]
Kuruppu, I. and Wijesuriya, G. 2015. The Conservation of Galle as living town: Challenges and prospects.
Ancient Ceylon 15: pp. 21-25
36

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Larsen, P. B. and Wijesuriya, G. 2017. Nature–Culture Interlinkages in World Heritage-Bridging the Gap. The
George Wright Forum 34 (2): pp. 142–53Leitão, L. 2017. Bridging the Divide between Nature and Culture in the World Heritage Convention: An Idea
Long Overdue? The George Wright Forum 34 (2): pp. 195–210
Perera, N. 2011. Rumassala: The Mythical Mountain of Galle. https://www.serendib.btoptions.lk/article.
php?issue=18&id=440 [Accessed 2 July 2019]
Poisson, B., Garcin, M., Pedreros, R. 2009. The 2004 December 26 Indian Ocean tsunami impact on Sri Lanka:
Cascade modelling from ocean to city scales. Geophysical Journal International 177 (3): pp. 1080–1090
Ravi Prakash, A. (ed.). 1998. Ramayana of Valmiki: Sanskrit Text and English Translation. (English translationaccording to M. N. Dutt, introduction by Ramashraya Sharma, 4-volume set). Parimal Publications: Delhi
Silva, R. 1992. Preservation efforts of recent years at the World Heritage City of Galle. Ancient Ceylon 15: pp.
3-5
UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO

37

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Integrated Approach for
Nature-Culture Linkage at
Mahasthan Heritage Site
Mohammad Sazzad Hossain

Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Military Institute of Science & Technology (MIST), Mirpur
Cantonment, Dhaka-1216, Dhaka, Bangladesh; +88 01715010683, arsazzad78@gmail.com■■Abstract

Mahasthangarh and its Environs is on the Tentative List of Bangladesh for nomination as World Heritage dueto the significant interchange of human values that it exhibits, with interactions between nature and culture
since the 3 rd century BC. Due to changes in the landscape and the constant threat from natural hazards
related to the monsoon climate, the linkage between nature and culture is being affected. For instance,
the ancient water system that protects the settlements from stagnation of rainwater is not operational.
Moreover, the local communities’ traditional building techniques are currently threatened by the flow ofmodern materials. The objective of this paper is to explore these underlying issues which are eroding thenature-culture linkages of this site and outline recommendations for a comprehensive approach for theconservation of its nature and culture.

KEY WORDS: Cultural heritage, Natural settings, Building resilience, Community.
■■1. Introduction

villages as a whole, the site faces great challenges
for the use of its natural and cultural resources forsustainable development. This study explores theunderlying issues that need to be addressed in orderto build resilience, using nature-culture linkages
through a community-based approach.

Mahasthan and its surroundings exhibit animportant relationship between nature andculture. The remains of the walled citadel show
an outstanding example of an ancient metropolis,
where people made use of the physical setting,
topography, and natural features. For instance,changes in the course of the river and landforms
created a protective separation between the ancient
structures and potential natural hazards. Moreover,the villages surrounding the archaeological site havea long tradition of adobe architecture which reflectsconstruction techniques adapted in response to
the natural threats. Since the 3rd century BC, theMahasthan area has undergone urbanization, thensuburbanization, and later de-urbanization (Hossain
2013). In the present context, Mahasthan is locatedin a rural area, flourishing as the suburb of the newurban center of Bogra in Bangladesh. Since thebeginning of the 19th century, different measures
have been taken to protect the heritage site. But,
due to the lack of a comprehensive approach thatlooks at the archaeological site and its surrounding■■2. Significance of Mahasthan and its surroundings
Mahasthan and its surrounding environments
in Bengal exhibit a significant interchange ofhuman values, like cultural practices and religious
belief, ranging from the 3rd century BC to the 18th
century AD. The remains of the ancient metropolis
show developments in a township that evolved
as overlapping layers of intervention on the
fabric. The site is exceptional as it represents theancient Pundranagar, which was the Provincial
administrative headquarters, successively of theancient Mauryan, Gupta, and Pala civilizations,which have already disappeared (Ahmed 1975). The
ancient citadel and its surroundings are outstanding
examples of making the best use of its physicalsetting, topography, and natural features. For
38

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: The core zone of Mahasthan’s heritage site. (Source: Hossain 2013)

citadel occupies an area of almost 208 hectares.
The existing rampart wall and its inner remains
reveal the fortified capital of the ancient city. The
Northern, Western, and Southern sides of thefortified city were encircled by a deep moat. The
river Karatoya flows on the Eastern side. Many
isolated mounds are scattered around the citadel,testifying the existence of the vast suburbs of
the ancient metropolis. The ruins form an oblong
plateau, measuring 1.5 km N-S and 1.3km E-W,
and is enclosed by the rampart walls that rise to an
average height of 6m from the river level.

instance, in order to avoid flooding, the ancientmetropolis was established on high lands, letting thewater flow into the river through the surrounding
moats. Moreover, the site is surrounded bytraditional villages built of adobe which represents
indigenous techniques that are resistant to theimpact of strong winds, cyclones, and heavy rainfall.

The Archaeological Remains
T he ex tensive archaeolo gic al remains of
Mahansthangarh are spread along the Westernbank of the River Karatoya. The site has two special
features: the fortified citadel and its suburbs. The

The excavation at the North Eastern area
39

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

of the traditional architecture in the region. To
resist strong winds, they use gabbled or hip roofs,
tied with the main structure. The traditional
craftsmanship of the local artisans and theirsettlements blended the components of intangible
and tangible heritage.

within the citadel, conducted by the Departmentof Archaeology in 1960-61 and 1965-66, revealed
dwellings of successive periods. Among the several
building and rebuilding periods, the latest was
found to represent the latter part of the Pala period(11th century AD) which is uniformly characterized
by wall and floors that are composed mostly of thebrickbats of earlier buildings. A remarkably wellpreserved brick paved floor from the 2nd century BC,
with a hearth and some timber holes at the center,
was found in a deep trench. Moreover, there was apartial archaeological excavation in 1961 within thecitadel that exposed an interesting temple complex
from the 8th century AD (Ahmed 1975). According to
the First Interim Report of The French Bangladesh
joint excavation in 1993-99, the Eastern rampartarea was a small domestic neighborhood. The
excavation yielded remains of earthen architecture,
like mud walls, clay floor, brick wall, and roofing
tiles that dated from the 3rd centuries BC to the
2nd century AD. The excavation also revealed 7th– 12th centuries human settlements, like houses,
courtyards, and wells, lined along a South to Northwell-paved street with brickbats (Bernard Boussac
and Breuil 2001). Excavations in 2000 at the SouthEastern part of the Mazar area revealed both a preMuslim and Muslim building period. The remains of
the pre-Muslim occupation are a fortification wall, awell-paved street with brickbats, and many movable
objects. The remains of the Muslim phase arestreets, a well, and other urban elements. Regular
excavation up to 2005, conducted in the Mazararea, revealed a road and some remains of humansettlements with a drainage system. Besides thecitadel, 134 medieval and early medieval sites wereidentified in the Bogra district.

Figure 2: Traditional adobe settlement. (Source: Author
2009)

Palaeo-environment and Natural Heritage
Bangladesh has a tropical monsoon climatethat is determined by the monsoon wind. The
climate is characterized by heavy rainfall, often
excessive humidity, and fairly marked seasonalvariations. Thus, Mahasthan and its surroundings
are embedded in a rich natural environment that
includes a diversity of trees, seasonal birds, and fish
(Rahman 2000).
The cultural heritage of this site is deeply
connected to the landscape. The early settlers ofMahasthan may have selected the Barindh highterraces to build their metropolis on the flood freearea. The high terraces are located to the East of
the Brahmaputra and were developed by river
sediments, dating back to the Pleistocene periodthat was deposited by the ancient river system of
the Tista (Rahman 2000).

Architectural Heritage
Muslims ruled Mahasthan from Lakhnawati since
the Muslim conquest at Bengal in 1204 AD. The
kingdom of Lakhnawati came under the rule ofthe Mughals in 16th Century AD. In 1757, the British
occupied Bengal (Ali and Bhattaacharjee 1986).
Some Mosques from the Mughal period still exists inthe area. Also, many residential and administrativebuildings from the British colonial period still exists,though in decay.

The moat and the river might have served asa major transportation-route and drainage-line forthe fortified city. The Karatoya River flows below thesite of Mahasthan. It was formerly fed by the Tista
and therefore used to have a heavy flow (Christine,
Cyril and Kevin 2001). Nowadays, the Tista no longer
feeds the Karatoya, and the Karatoya has become avery small river which dries up at the end of the dry
season. A water channel was built along the northface of the ramparts to divert water into Barindh as
the city’s ramparts were destroyed by flooding on
several occasions (Christine, Cyril and Kevin 2001).
The fortified citadel is surrounded on its threesides by the artificial moats. Yet, the vast suburbs

Traditional Adobe Villages
There are traditional adobe settlements of thepotter and blacksmith communities. The traditional
houses commonly have walls and floors made of
local clay, thatched roofs, and terracotta tiles. The
traditional settlements reveal significant features
40

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■3. Current management

are comprised of numerous marshes, lakes, andchannels, like Hatibandha, Baranoshi, Kalidaho, andSagor.

The Bangladesh Government’s Department ofArchaeology is the main authority concerning themanagement and protection of the archaeologicalsite. The Department of Tourism is also responsible
for the promotion of tourism in the area. Withinthe “Antiquities Act, 1968 (Amendment at 1976),”
there is a mandate for heritage resources protection
and conservation. Areas located on the bankof the river Karotoya and within an 8 km radiusaround the South East corner of the citadel werealready declared protected by the Department ofArchaeology, Bangladesh in 1920.

Figure 3: Part of the artificial moat around the citadel.
(Source: Author 2019)

The ownership pattern is different fordifferent portions of the site. Most of the areas ofthe large sites are under different private ownershipand are mostly used for agriculture. But some of theplots were acquired by the Government under the‘Land Acquisition Act 1894.’■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
Since the British colonial period, different measures
have been taken to conserve different sites andmonuments. During the rainy season, the water
becomes stagnant due to drainage problems, which
may affect the archaeological remains located at alower level. Therefore, most of the archaeologicalsites are buried again soon after excavation. Large
portions of the Northern and Eastern rampartwalls, including the gateways, are already being
restored by the Department of Archaeology. Inside
the fortified citadel, the Jahaj ghata, Munirghon,and Jiat Kunda, the base remains of the pre-Mughal
mosque, were also restored. Moreover, outside
the citadel, part of the Bhasu bihara, Bihar dhap,
Godabari dhap, Govinda vita, and Gokul medh
were also restored. In 1920, under the ‘Ancientmonuments preservation Act-1904,’ areas locatedon the bank of the river Karotoya and within the 8
km radius surrounding the south-east corner of thecitadel were declared as a protected area. However,challenges to conservation still exist.

Figure 4: Part of the River Karatoya at Mahasthan.
(Source: Author 2019)

Intangible Heritage
The cultural festivals and activities, like Baishaki
mela, Chand mela at Shiladevir ghat, Poradahomela, and Sesh Baishaki mela, are deeply rooted
in the cultural landscape of the historic zone. The
historic legends and folklores, associated with thecultural landscape of Mahasthan, have significant
cultural values. Laksindarer Medh , or BehulaLaksindarer Basar-ghar, is popularly known as
the nuptial room of the traditional heroine andhero of a popular ballad, Behula and Laksindar. It
is also associated with the angry snake goddess-Manasa . The popular tales about the deathof princess Sila, the beautiful daughter of King
Parasurama, relates to Sila devir Ghat. During the
Chand mela, a huge number of people of the Hindu
religion, from Bangladesh and India, assemble at
Shiladevirghat, near the western bank of the river
Karatoya, for a bath.

Gap between ancient settlements & changing
landscapeSince the 2 nd century BC, the landscape haschanged notably, and many features of the ancient
settlements have lost their original function. The
river course has changed and the water flow
has decreased. At present, the water channels
and moats mostly remain dry and have alreadylost their original functions. However, most of41

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

However, the remaining archaeologicallayers may be further explored to identify theoriginal drainage system inside the citadel.
Reversible intervention may also be allowed toadopt an integrated drainage system which willallow stagnant water to pass through during rainyseasons.

the archaeological remains inside the citadel are
currently buried and the original drainage system,
which was originally connected to the surrounding
moats, is no longer in function. Thus, the linkage
between nature and ancient remains is seriously
affected and heavy rainfall has become a serious
threat. In 2004-2005 a large portion of the Eastern
rampart wall collapsed due to heavy rainfall.

Promote indigenous knowledge and techniques forbuilding resilienceGap between current practices and indigenous
technique

Traditional knowledge about natural phenomena
and construction techniques to build resilience
to disaster are being passed on to subsequent
generations. Therefore, it is important to introduce
heritage support programs to promote thetraditional living pattern in the artisan villages,
characterised by local materials. Moreover, capacity
building programs on disaster preparedness andrisk management with a focus on local know-how
would be beneficial in order to adopt new strategies
to address threats without affecting the heritage
values.

To resist natural threats, like cyclones, heavy
rainfall, and strong winds, the communities of the
traditional villages used local building techniques
based on local materials. However, due to the lack of
a comprehensive approach to conservation, with afocus on the resilience of cultural heritage, modernmaterials and techniques are gradually replacing the
traditional ones. Industrial bricks are now replacing
the earthen ones and traditional thatched roofs are
now widely replaced by corrugated iron. Therefore,
traditional values are being eroded. Moreover, fordisaster preparedness and risk management, a topdown approach that does not consider local culture,experience, and skills are enforced, neglecting thepotential of traditional and local knowledge for
reducing vulnerabilities.

Introduction of special planning zone
The entire heritage site may be included under aspecial planning zone for disaster preparedness
and risk management, with a focus on protecting
the cultural values. An effective buffer zone should
be introduced, with guidelines for land use toprotect the heritage from potential threats. It is also
important to engage the local community in theplanning process and integrate their feedback into
the decision-making process.

■■5. Recommendations
Shifting the focus from an individual structure to
the larger context, in the process of conservation,
may reinforce the nature-culture linkages between
the archaeological sites, its surrounding villages,
and the natural setting. Conservation, therefore,
may work as a planning tool to incorporate natureculture linkages in building resilience. It is necessary
to establish guidelines for sustaining heritage values
and adapting them to the economic, social, andenvironmental contexts.

Ensure community participation in the heritage
management
In t h e n ei g hb o ur h o o ds sur r o un di n g t h earchaeological site of Mahasthan, communities
have been living for generations and possess asense of belonging to the place. The benefit ofthis attachment is evident in cases of the Mughal
mosques that are well managed and maintained ona regular basis by the local Muslim communities who
keep the structures in continuous use. Communities
are most knowledgeable about their heritage. The
traditional adobe settlements are safeguarded andused by the local communities and embody the local
identity and cultural essence in both tangible andintangible forms. Active community engagement
in heritage management and conservation, with afocus on disaster and risk management, will help toensure continuity and sustainability of the linkage
between nature and culture.

There are a number of recommendations
that can be used to address the underlying issues
found in this site.

Revitalize the water-ways
Rivers, water channels, and surrounding moats may
be well dredged and interconnected to revive theirfunction. These may be activated as important
conduits for water-transport and drainage torevitalize the area. Moreover, different inland water
bodies, marshes, lakes, channels, and householdwater reservoirs need to be revitalized in this regard.

42

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Ahmed, N. 1975. Mahasthan, 3rd Edition, Department of Archaeology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ali, M., and Bhattacharjee, B. S. 1986. Archaeological Survey Report, Bogra District, Published by Directorateof Archaeology & Museum Dhaka, Bangladesh
Bernard, V., Boussac, M. F. and Breuil, J. Y. 2001. Excavation at the Eastern Rampart Area
(1993-1998)-Preliminary Report of the French Team, pp.74-160. Department of Archaeology, Dhaka,Bangladesh
Christine, J., Cyril, A., and Kevin, P. 2001. Paleoenvironment and Present environment of Mahasthan,Bangladesh. In First Interim Report 1993-1999 on France-Bangladesh Joint Excavations at Mahasthangar,
pp.19-60. Department of Archaeology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Glaser, B. G. 1998. Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California
Hossain, M. S. 2013. Integrating conservation with development through contextual heritage management-A
case for Mahasthan. Nakhara Journal of Environmental Design and Planning 9: pp. 115-122
Rahman, S. S. M. 2000. Archaeological Investigation in Bogra District, 1st Edition, ICSBA, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Salles, J. F. and Alam, M. S. 2001. The Archaeology of Mahasthangarh: Historical and Environmental
Perspectives. In First Interim Report 1993-1999 on France-Bangladesh Joint Excavations at Mahasthangar,
pp.1-8. Department of Archaeology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

43

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The Mixed Heritage Values ofMount Mayon Natural Park:A Case Study on Harnessing
a People-Centered Approachto Nature-Culture Linkages
Conservation in a MultiHazard Context
Jefferson M. Chua

Philippine National Commission for UNESCO, G/F Department of Foreign Affairs Building, 2330 Roxas
Boulevard, Pasay City 1300 Philippines; +63 (917) 550 7525, jeffersonmchua@gmail.com■■Abstract

This essay will explore how the mixed heritage values of Mount Mayon Natural Park (MMNP) can be utilized
to craft people-centered disaster mitigation mechanisms in a multi-hazard context. Apart from frequentvolcanic activity, the greater area of Mayon is also frequented by other disasters. This was exemplified in theNovember 2006 disaster involving Typhoon Reming/Durian, where it inundated the slopes of the recently
erupted Mayon, causing destructive mudflows that reached towns outside the designated danger zones.
While there were disaster risk mitigation plans in place, the sheer scale of the disaster shows that there arestill gaps in the overall management regime around the site, which can be improved. These gaps can be
possibly addressed through the ongoing efforts of nominating Mayon Volcano as a World Mixed Cultural
and Natural Heritage Site; specifically, in adopting a people-centered approach that looks at nature-culture
linkages for heritage conservation as a tool in crafting innovative disaster risk reduction mechanisms.

KEY WORDS: Mayon, Volcano, Multi-hazard, World Heritage, Mixed Site■■1. Introduction

approximately 20,000 years ago and is part of acluster of volcanoes lining the subduction zone
between the two plates. Because of its placement
on a highly restive portion of the Earth’s crust,Mayon follows a cyclical and relatively regular
Vulcanian-Strombolian eruption sequence,
making it the most active volcano in the Philippine
archipelago, with 50 eruptions since recordings
began in 1616. This ensures that new layers of
volcanic material constantly replace any naturaldeformation, common in volcanic landscapes,
forming an unusually concave profile indicative of
the interplay between creation and destruction

1.1 Overview of the heritage site
Rising up to 2,462 meters above sea level,
Mayon Volcano, the centerpiece of the Mount
Mayon Natural Park, is a classic, conical, BasalticAndesitic Stratovolcano, whose natural heritage
values have been essential to the cultural fabricof the communities around it. A product of
the convergent boundary where the Philippine
Mobile Belt subsumes the thinner, but heavier,Philippine Sea Plate, the volcano was formed
44

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

throughout its geologic history. This creates aunique, natural regulatory, system that maintains
the volcano’s near-perfect symmetrical shape. This
cycle of creation and destruction is reflected, aswell, in the cultural values that have been enrichedthrough the lived experiences of the communities,
with the aesthetic and physical qualities of thelandscape. This is demonstrated in the mannercommunities have utilized the surrounding lands
for agricultural use and mining, providing them withmuch-needed raw materials for sustenance anddevelopment. Conversely, communities have also
had to deal with the destructive effects of living inan abundant landscape, with infamous historicaleruptions, leaving traces, not only on the physicallandscape but also in the intangible heritage ofthe community. This has resulted in a rich cultural
tapestry of visual art, traditions, and performances,and most importantly, the formation of resiliencevalues through community stories and local myths
that also act as indigenous disaster risk reduction
schemes. These values have also led to the ease ofadapting modern disaster risk mitigation plans andregimes, representing continuity in the community’s
relationship of resiliency with the landscape.

on a 10-kilometer radius set by the Philippine
Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS)[Fig. 1 (a)]. Set in a landscape predominated by plains
and low-lying hills west of Albay Gulf, its imposing
profile is visible from the base to the summit, hasbeen noted for its symmetry, and has often been
described as a “near-perfect cone” (Fernandez2001).
The politico-administrative boundaries of thecities and municipalities of Albay are symmetricallynotched from the crater rim of Mayon Volcano, with
the City of Tabaco and the Municipality of Malilipot
in the northeast; the Municipalities of Sto. Domingo
in the east quadrant; the City of Legazpi and theMunicipalities of Daraga in the southeast quadrant;
the Municipality of Camalig in the south; and theCity of Ligao and the municipality of Guinobatan in
the southwest [Fig. 1 (b)].

1.2 Brief description of the landscape
Mayon Volcano is the highest mountain in Southern
Luzon. On its summit is a small crater that serves
as an outlet of its single vent. The volcano’s circularbase has a circumference of 62.8 kilometers, based

Figure 1 (b) : Political Map of Albay (Source : Wikipedia
2016)

Figure 1 (a) : Mayon’s proposed visual easement map (Source: Albay PLGU 2017)45

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■2. Mount Mayon Natural Park’s (MMNP) Mixed
Cultural and Natural Heritage Values

and has also become an important symbol andsource of heritage values. Local origin mythsof the volcano, such as the legend of Daragang
Magayon – Magayon meaning beautiful in Bikolano–, are directly associated with the aesthetic
appreciation of the volcano’s geomorphology. The
local pantheon of gods also identifies Mayon as
their sacred earthly abode, with the supreme god,
Gugurang, said to have left the heavens to reside in
the volcano. Mayon’s eruptions, in this case, wereseen as a manifestation of Gugurang’s sacred fire
and the resulting fertility of the land was a blessing
from the gods. This resulting fertility has also beena source not only of economic development but
also further enriching the cultural heritage of thearea. Examples include agricultural festivals, suchas the Pagsuwak Festival in Guinobatan, festivals
syncretized with Christian beliefs, such as the
Himoloan Festival in Oas in honor of St. Michael the
Archangel, and festivals specific to the celebrationof Mayon as a cultural symbol, such as the Cagsawa
Festival in Daraga and the Sarung Banggi Festival of
Sto. Domingo. Moreover, its symbolic significance,
because of its aesthetic qualities, have made it areference point for the region in numerous historicalaccounts and travel logs from the Spanish colonialera, easily recognizable and admired for both its
beauty and destructive activity. Mayon has likewisecontributed to the evolving science of volcanoes
worldwide, especially during the 18th century, during
which the direct scientific observations by Spanish
scientists have contributed to the modernizationof the understanding of volcanic phenomena(Jimenez 2007). Numerous visual artworks andliterary pieces bear testament to the enduring anduniversal appreciation of the volcano’s aesthetic
qualities, especially during its most destructive
phases. Its geometry and notorious history havemade it a global icon for volcanoes, known for its
shape, identifiability, and the dangers it poses tothose living around it, thus becoming an essential
pedagogical aid in science education on volcanismand geology (Wood 2009).

Mayon Volcano’s intertwined cultural and natural
heritage values are manifested in the associative
relationship communities have with the active
volcanic landscape. In this regard, the cultural
fabric of the communities living around the site
is inextricably linked to their interaction with thelandscape, which can be characterized in two
major ways: (1) the community’s rich tangible andintangible heritage resources borne out of their lived
experience of the volcanic landscape’s aesthetic
qualities and (2) the landscape symbiosis andcommunity resilience in response to the geologic
activity of the volcanic landscape. Thus, it can besaid that communities around the landscape live ina cycle of creation and destruction, of flourishing
and adaptation, in response to the regular but
unpredictable changes brought about by thelandscape’s geological activity.
First, the cultural resources of thecommunities around Mayon have flourishedextensively, owing to their interaction with thevarious natural aesthetic phenomena associatedwith the landscape, specifically the volcano’s
symmetrical shape and the concurrent geologicalactivity associated with its geomorphology. The
volcano’s symmetrical shape is attributed to its
ongoing geological activity, where its relatively
mild Vulcanian-Strombolian eruptions act as
natural maintenance mechanisms, as well as thecorresponding Basaltic-Andesitic qualities of its
ejecta. During Mayon’s eruptions, lava piles up
at the summit crater from the volcano’s singularvent, covering older deposits and maintaining the
upward movement of the volcano. These cappings
eventually give way due to the collapse of thecrater rim during major eruptions, distributing
the buildup to its lower slopes (Punongbayan and
Ruelo 1985). The lava’s moderately high viscosity,
the high degree of crystallinity, and high yieldstrength are compensated by the effect of thegravitational pull. Due to its steep slopes, volcanic
material is evenly distributed around it, resulting in
its uniquely symmetrical shape without any unusual
cone elongation relative to anywhere around it. The
combination of these geologic processes produces
its iconic shape whose aesthetic quality is further
enhanced by its notoriety and its proximity tohuman communities.

In addition to the cultural heritage
associated with the landscape’s aesthetic qualities,
its interaction with the people has also provided
the ground for the communit y ’s adaptive
practices, especially in the context of the drastic
and irreversible changes brought about by the
dynamic geological and meteorological processes
in and around the site. This symbiosis between thelandscape and the communities around it is thus arepresentative example of the dynamic interplay
between volcanoes and the human communities
living around them.

Mayon’s eruptive history and its aesthetic
quality has directly contributed to the enrichmentof the cultural heritage around the landscape46

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The fer tile slopes of Mayon and theimmediate plains of the landscape have becomea primary source of livelihood in the area sincepre-colonial times, with agriculture becoming thedominant industry due to the soil’s fertility [Fig. 2 (a)].
Crops, such as taro, abaca, coconut, rice, and sugar,
comprise the majority of agricultural produce, someof which, such as taro and abaca, are prized for their

quality. Likewise, the volcanic deposits have also
been identified and extracted for mining operations,with the volcano’s frequent activity regularly
supplying these sites with minable material. This
has resulted in the use of these raw materials forthe construction of structures imbued with cultural
significance, for instance, the Churrigueresque
Baroque-style church of Daraga and the Rococo-Figure 2 (a) : Mayon and the agricultural landscape around it. (Source: Trina Halili, “MOUNT MAYON,” retrieved fromhttps://app.emaze.com/@AWLWQOIF#1)

Figure 2 (b) : The ruins of Cagsawa Church, which was destroyed in 1814 by Mayon’s most destructive eruption to date.
(Source : Photo by the author)
47

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

style Tabaco Church, both of which are considered
National Cultural Treasures. Conversely, Mayon has
likewise brought destruction and the loss of life,
most famously in 1814 when the town of Cagsawa
was buried by pyroclastic surges and lahar, killing
1,200 people [Fig. 2 (b)]. Traces of the volcano’s
destructive past can also be seen in the gullies andpyroclastic deposits near some municipalities, suchas Sto. Domingo and Malilipot, with some deposits
being in remarkable condition, showing very distinct
layering (Newhall 2018).

since 2016. Finally, as the most active volcano in thePhilippines, Mayon is monitored by a vast networkof sensors and field offices managed by PHIVOLCS;
the agency works hand-in-hand with the Albay
Public Safety and Emergency Management Office(APSEMO) whenever the volcano erupts.
Part of the ongoing efforts to protect thesite is the current World Heritage nomination
process, which began when the Province of Albayand the Park Management of MMNP initiallyvoiced their interest, leading to the site being
placed on the Tentative List last 2015, underprovisional criteria (vii), (viii), and (x). When theprovince formally signified their desire to work on
a World Heritage nomination last 2017, after thedesignation of the province as a Biosphere Reserve,
the National Government, through the Philippine
National Commission for UNESCO, has committed
to supporting the site through technical and expertlevel support and assistance.

Despite these constant risks, communities
have in fact thrived for centuries and have learned
to adapt to the drastic changes brought about by
the volcano and its effects. These resiliency values
are represented in the informal and institutional
efforts through which these communities respondto the volcano’s activity. Indigenous methods ofdisaster response have been documented, as well as
early warning measures, in the form of folktales andkwentong bayan (community stories) which havehelped save lives during Mayon’s previous eruptions(Cerdena 2008). One such kwentong bayan is theominous appearance of an old lady asking for water
before an eruption, which can be explained as thecommunity’s experience of nearby water sources
drying up prior to an eruption sequence. This, alongwith other narratives, has provided communities
with the requisite cultural resources to have beenable to adopt a culture of resilience, but also toadapt easily to modern and comprehensive disasterrisk mitigation plans as well as extensive and stateof the art volcanic monitoring systems.

Since then, the nomination process has
evolved, expanding into the cultural values thatanimate the landscape. Currently, the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) is in theprocess of conducting a comprehensive heritage
mapping activity surrounding the circumferential
base of the volcano, in order to identify andvalidate the different natural and cultural elements
related to the volcanic landscape. The resultsof this mapping activity will be used not only inthe nomination dossier but also to identify theappropriate actions needed to protect these linked
values between culture and nature, such as morecomprehensive geotourism facilities and training for
guides and operators on narrativizing the volcano’s
geological heritage and its resulting cultural values.
Further, in order to protect the visual integrity ofthe volcano across its 360-degree visual easement,
there are ongoing negotiations to establish clear
infrastructure guidelines and building height
regulations. As these are being completed under
the general framework of the World Heritage, it isthen essential to adopt an overall people-centeredapproach in the values protection scheme forthe site. This will hopefully include institutionalarrangements to empower local communities, inthe form of local heritage councils, and coordination
with the DENR regarding the expanded citizen
deputation of Bantay Gubat (Forest Rangers) inorder to enforce current Protected Area rules andregulations as well as monitor the local biodiversity
around the volcano.

■■3. Current management arrangements
The site is protected by National Legislation as a
Natural Park by virtue of the National Integrated
Protected Areas Systems (NIPAS) Act of 1992.
A Natural Park, according to the NIPAS Law, is a
protected area having no material alteration fromhuman activity and where extensive extractive
practices are not allowed so as to maintain the
scenic, scientific, and educational significance of thesite. In this regard, “Natural Park” corresponds toCategory III under IUCN’s classification for Protected
Areas. Selected tangible cultural heritage sitesaround the volcano are also protected throughthe National Heritage Act of 2009 as National
Cultural Treasures, which includes Tabaco Church,
the ruins of Cagsawa Church, and Daraga Church,which was built with volcanic material from Mayon.
Additionally, the Natural Park is itself a componentof the Albay Biosphere Reserve, which has beenpart of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Network

In terms of disaster preparedness, the whole48

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

province successfully completed its Albay Disaster
Risk Reduction Management Plan in 2009 andhas implemented it quite a number of times sincethen, not only because of Mayon’s volcanic activity
but more frequently because of the passage oftyphoons. For this reason, the province has been
cited as having one of the most comprehensive andforward-looking disaster management plans in the
country.

1,266 fatalities caused by the typhoon (Paguican etal. 2009) [Fig. 3 (a) (b)]. While multi-hazard events
have historically occurred with relative frequency,
the sheer scale and volume of the 2006 event wasenough to overwhelm the existing systems of dikes
and sabo dams, which were designed to mitigate
mud and lahar flows on a smaller scale, resulting
in a complete failure of the conventional means ofdisaster mitigation (Pierson et al. 2014).

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity

Since then, Albay has learned from theirlessons and was able to incorporate a multi-hazard
approach to their disaster preparedness schemes,
culminating in the 2009 Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Plan. The plan has proved invaluable
in enabling local authorities to act in an orderly
fashion in times of calamity, as well as strengthening
inter-agency communication and cooperation.
This was seen, for example, during Mayon’s 2009
and 2018 eruptions, where evacuations and relief
operations were instrumental in ensuring a zerocasualty outcome for the province, which has
become the gold standard not only for Albay but for
the whole country (Salceda 2013).

The hazards that communities face within the site
are multi-dimensional in nature. The combinationof the volcano’s constant activity, the resulting
topography from its geologic history, its locationin the Pacific typhoon belt, and the proximity ofhuman communities and settlements around thevolcano increase their risk factors (Albay DRRM
2009). These converged back in November 2006,
when Typhoon Reming/Durian inundated theregion with almost 466mm worth of rain, fallingin a 9-hour window (Orense and Ikeda 2007). The
slopes of Mayon had just been resupplied by freshvolcanic material following its most recent activity,
4 months prior. This resulted in unusually large
lahar flows which descended down Mayon’s lower
gullies, into river channels, basins, and finally into
communities, resulting in 8 barangays being buried
and causing 665 deaths, more than half of the total

There were still gaps in the overallmanagement regime of the site in terms of overall
disaster preparation and risk mitigation in theyears following the disaster (Scott 2010), thoughthese have been addressed over time, specificallyregarding the construction of hard infrastructure

Figure 3 (a) : Flood and lahar damage from the 2006 disaster showing the hardest-hit areas of Lidong, Padang,
Guinobatan, Daraga, and Pawa. (Source : UNOSAT 2006)
49

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 3 (b) : Houses covered in lahar in Budiao, Daraga, Albay. (Source: www.geoview.info)

to re-channel future lahar flows. Despite this, theprevious disaster also exposed the need to mobilize
communities further in utilizing the linked heritage
values between nature and culture to mitigate theeffects of disasters. The 2006 event can thus point
us to a number of key issues that affect the site, notonly from a disaster mitigation perspective but also
from a heritage conservation standpoint.

also provides the requisite value system for people
to appreciate their connection to the naturalenvironment. That these values, at present, exist
only as oral traditions and implicit in community life
but are not fully documented and mapped poses a
serious challenge to the protection of these values,
as well as the lack of institutions that can transmit
these values to the greater public.

First, it has been noted that one of thedecisive factors which magnified the effects ofthe 2006 disaster was the complete failure ofcommunication between the communities andlocal authorities (Orense and Ikeda 2007). Once thetyphoon cut communication lines, communities
were left isolated and were not able to copewith the speed of the lahars. Since the disaster,
local authorities have held community-based risk
mapping workshops to capacitate locals with theability to act on their own whenever large-scaledisasters occur again. Apart from this, however,
little has been done to capacitate community
resilience values from a multi-hazard perspective
incorporating heritage values.

■■5. Recommendations
The site is currently in the process of completingits nomination dossier to be submitted forconsideration by the World Heritage Committee.
Concurrently, efforts are being made to expedite
the comprehensive identification of natural andcultural heritage values so that protective measures
are put up once the mapping activities around thevolcano are accomplished. Through the ongoing
nomination efforts, continued engagement in theWorld Heritage nomination process will capacitate
local authorities with the ability to adopt a peoplecentered framework that incorporates bothnatural and cultural values protection and theirinterlinkages. This can be achieved by identifying
spaces and institutions where these values arebeing nurtured and transmitted, including morecommunity-based approaches on disaster risk
management or affording protection and promotionof local intangible heritage elements associated withthe experience of the community with the volcano.

Second is the basic lack of identification
and appreciation of the linkages between naturaland cultural heritage values, which results from thelack of any holistic institutional arrangement forthe community to connect with these values. Thisis a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed
because community values around volcanoes, ingeneral, form the bedrock, not only for community
cohesiveness and resilience (Kitagawa 2018) but

On a smaller scale, ways of connecting withthe site’s heritage values through conventional
50

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

and non-conventional means should be studied
for eventual implementation. For instance,interpretation facilities for Mayon’s geological
heritage can be set up akin to those in Mt. St.
Helens, which was able to take advantage of the1980 eruption and build a comprehensive museum
showcasing the important values related to thevolcano (Newhall 2018). Other measures include
the identification of significant deposits which canbe utilized for geological tourism activities, withcomprehensive training for guides and operators
to narrate Mayon’s heritage from the point of viewof geological science, and from the community’s
perspective through stories about those historicaleruptions.

especially with regard to sites of memory aroundthe volcano.
These recommendations, while provisional,
are fundamental in terms of providing avenues andmedia for community values to be fostered andintegrated into a DRM approach as well as in theWorld Heritage nomination process. By adopting
a people-centered approach and focusing on
the heritage links between nature and culture,
the site could embody the values of adaptation
and resilience, which would become an example
in the World Heritage context and contribute to
the development of comprehensive and inclusive
measures for disaster preparedness and risk
reduction in multi-hazard sites similar to Mayon.

Finally, sites of memory such as the Cagsawa
ruins from the 1814 eruption [Fig. 2 above] andthe Padang memorial cross from the 2006 disaster[Fig. 4], could be rehabilitated and improved withinterpretation facilities, promoting the protection
and maintenance of practices and intangible
elements centered on commemorating thecommunity’s experiences of the volcano’s eruptions.
Memorialization practices and sites serve as identity
markers and help foster a sense of community
belongingness and provides opportunities toshowcase the communities’ experiences of living
in a multi-hazard context (Preston et al. 2015). It is
hoped that the findings of the ongoing mapping
exercise, done by the NCCA, will also lead to theimprovement of heritage protection schemes,

Figure 4: Padang memorial cross. (Source: Brahmin Reyes, “Beauty and madness” 2012, retrieved from https://brahmineyes.wordpress.com/?s=padang)
51

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Cerdena, G. 2008. Indigenous Know-How on Mayon’s Lava-Spittle Mysticism. In Shaw, Uy, and Baumwoll(eds.): Indigenous Knowledge for Disaster Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned from Experiencesin the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 55-58. ISDR, Kyoto University, EU
Fernandez, J. et al. 2001. Inflation or deflation? New results for Mayon volcano applying elastic-gravitationalmodelling. Geophysical Research Letters 28, 12: pp. 2349-2352
Jimenez, I. 2007. Vulcanismo y cultura Filipina en el siglo xviii. Cuadernos dieciochistas 7: pp. 141-167
Kitagawa, K. 2018. Living with an Active Volcano: Informal and Community Learning for Preparedness inSouth of Japan. Advances in Volcanology: pp. 677-689
Newhall, C. 2018. Thoughts on how to boost Mayon Volcano’s chances for World Heritage inscription.
Powerpoint Presentation in the 2nd Expert-Level Workshop on the World Heritage Nomination Bid for
MMNP
Orense, R. P. and Ikeda, M. 2007. Damage Caused by Typhoon-Induced Lahar Flows from Mayon Volcano,Philippines. Soils and Foundations 47, 6: pp. 1123-1132
Paguican, E. M. R. et al. 2009. Extreme rainfall-induced lahars and dike breaching, 30 November 2006,
Mayon Volcano, Philippines. Bulletin of Volcanology 71, 8: published online
Pierson, T. C. et al. 2014. Reducing risk from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and roles for scientists.
Journal of Applied Volcanology 3, 16: published online
Preston, J. et al. 2015. Community response in disasters: an ecological learning framework. International
Journal for Lifelong Education 34, 6: pp. 727-753
Punongbayan, R. and Ruelo, H. 1985. Profile morphology and internal structure of Mayon Volcano. Philippine
Journal of Volcanology 2: pp. 156-171
Salceda, J. S. 2013. Zero Casualty: DRRM in Albay. Powerpoint Presentation in the Global Public Innovations
Conference
Scott, G. A. J. 2010. An overview of destruction and recovery in the Mt. Mayon volcano region, Bicol,
Philippines, resulting from lahars initiated by Supertyphoon Reming. Prairie Perspectives: Geographical
Essays 13: pp. 67-77
Wood, C. 2009. World Heritage Volcanoes. IUCN: Switzerland

52

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Promoting Traditional Cultural
Practices for Disaster Risk
Reduction: A Preliminary Studyon the Use of Gotong-Royong
in Siosar Protected Forest in
North Sumatra, Indonesia
Petrayuna Dian Omega

Universitas Kristen Krida Wacana, Department of Psychology, Tanjung Duren Raya No.4 Jakarta Barat;
11470; +62 (0)21 566 6952, petra.omega@ukrida.ac.id■■Abstract

In 2016, the Indonesian government used around 450 hectares of the Siosar Protected Forest (SPF), ownedby the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, for the relocation of three villages affected by the eruptionof Mount Sinabung. The use of this protected area for relocation has caused deforestation, increasing
its vulnerability to disasters. This paper explores the incorporation of traditional cultural practices fordisaster risk reduction in the SPF. In the study, based on observation and interviews, it was found that the
local community inhabiting the vicinities of the SPF has continuously performed the traditional practiceof gotong-royong (communal work) for maintaining the forest. In this paper, the author proposes the useof gotong-royong as a tool for the implementation of disaster risk reduction plans, while reinforcing thelinkages between nature conservation and the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage of the local
and relocated communities. Moreover, the author suggests reconsidering the use of the SPF for relocation
purposes while implementing comprehensive disaster risk reduction plans for its sustainability.

KEY WORDS: Siosar Protected Forest, Disaster Risk Reduction, Relocation, Gotong-royong■■1. Introduction

as poor hygienic conditions and air circulation,
causing discomfort and an unhealthy environment.
The residents of three villages (Simacem, Suka
Meriah, and Bekerah), located at Mount Sinabung,initially stayed at refugee camps but have since
been relocated, in 2016, to reside within the Siosar
Protected Forest (SPF), a protected area locatedabout 43.2 km from Mount Sinabung [Fig. 2]. The
residents of the Bekerah and Simacem villages weremoved to a place called Namantaran, while theresidents of the Suka Meriah village were relocatedto another place, called Payung (Kompas 2018).
Since the relocation, the residents of these threevillages are neighbors within the SPF.

Mount Sinabung, in North Sumatra-Indonesia,
erupted in September 2010 and has been erupting
continuously since September 2013 [Fig. 1](Gunawan et al. 2017). The eruptions have affected
homes and farming areas, causing the evacuation of
the surrounding communities. The evacuees stayed
in refugee camps for several years and experienced
difficulties in their living conditions, sleeping in smalltents or in the villages’ meeting halls (known as
Jambur ). Even though the government still provides
the minimum logistic supplies, the refugee camps
have limited food, space, and water supply, as well53

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Mount Sinabung eruption (author’s personal collection, 6 May 2016)

Figure 2: Map indicating the distance between Mount Sinabung and Relocation Centre Siosar (Google Maps, 16
November 2018)

The Siosar Protected Forest is located on the
Mount Sibuatan, in the Karo county, in North
Sumatra province of Indonesia [Fig. 3]. The SPF is
owned and managed by the government, under
the Department of Forestry (Analisadaily 2016),
as a conservation area. In 2015, part of the SPF
was allocated for refugees’ residences and farms,
increasing the forest’s vulnerability to disasters, suchas forest fires and landslides, through deforestation[Fig. 4]. The relocated residents live in stressful
conditions at Siosar because some of them could
not work in the farms nearby. Vegetable seeds, suchas potatoes, were not sufficiently provided by thegovernment at the time of relocation, forcing someof the relocated residents to go back to agricultural
work in their village of origin at Mount Sinabung.
54

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

of gotong-royong as a tool for the implementationof disaster risk reduction plans, while reinforcing
the linkages between nature conservation and thesafeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage ofthe local and relocated communities. Moreover,
the author suggests reconsidering the use of the
SPF for relocation purposes while implementing
comprehensive disaster risk reduction plans for its
sustainability.

Furthermore, their farming land is limited and,as a result, their income has been reduced. The
Indonesian government has provided this residence
area temporarily within the SPF which could cause
new problems when relocating these communities
again.
This paper explores the incorporation of traditional
cultural practices for disaster risk reduction in
the SPF. In the study, based on observation andinterviews, it was found that the local community
inhabiting the vicinities of the SPF has continuously
performed the traditional practice of gotongroyong (communal work) for maintaining theforest. In this paper, the author proposes the use■■2. Significance of the Siosar Protected Forest
The Siosar Protected Forest, at Mount Sibuatan, ispart of the Sumatra Tropical Rainforest and extends

Figure 3: Map indicating Mount Sinabung and Siosar Protected Forest (Google Maps, 30 August 2018)

Figure 4: Deforestation in Siosar Protected Forest Relocation (author’s personal collection, 5 May 2016)
55

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

1,650 km, from the Aceh to Lampung province(Kompas 2012). Sumatra Tropical Rainforest is oneof the 200 ecoregions in the world that is in criticalcondition (Olson & Dinerstein 2002). The SPF is
located about 200 km from Mount Leuser National
Park, part of “The Tropical Rainforest Heritage of
Sumatra” (TRHS) that was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 2004 (UNESCO 2018) and has beenon the List in Danger since 2011, due to a severe
deterioration of the natural forest caused byagricultural development (UNESCO 2018). The SPF
on Mount Sibuatan contributes to strengthening
the TRHS by supporting the migration of animals
from Mount Leuser National Park, especially its 580
species of birds (UNESCO 2018).

3.2 Community-based Management

The SPF has been claimed by the Sukamaju
village as their customar y land since 1975
(Analisadaily 2016) and it represents their cultural
identity. They practice communal work, or as it iscalled gotong-royong in the Indonesian language.
Gotong-royong is a traditional cultural practicethat exists in almost every area in Indonesia andis a form of collaboration by members of thecommunity working on the same project for noneconomical reward (Effendi 2013). Sukamaju
village has continuously practiced gotong-royong
for environmental management, especially for
maintaining the SPF, showing the linkages between
the conservation of nature and the safeguarding ofintangible cultural heritage.

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity

The Sukamaju village community follows the
traditions of jambur, a traditional meeting hallused to discuss general problems that occur in thevillage, and gotong-royong . Gotong-royong is used
to maintain the nature and the forest around thevillage. For instance, they have done gotong-royong
for planting trees in 1975, with the cooperation of
the local government. The forest and landscapevulnerability which increased due to the relocation
centre could be mitigated at present by using
gotong-royong to restore the forest. However, theresidents of the relocation centre do not perform
gotong-royong because they are new in this area.

As Mount Sinabung continues to erupt, new villages
may need to be evacuated. Deforestation causedby the Siosar relocation centre and its farms could
increase due to the possibilities for new villages
to be relocated to the same area. Deforestation
increases the vulnerability of the SPF, exposing thearea to hazards and risks that may cause waterrelated disasters, for example, landslides and floods(UNISDR 2015).
Since the three villages were relocated to
the SPF, conflict emerged with the Sukamaju village
because the community did not want to lose theirforest. However, the Head of Karo County Forestry
stated that the SPF belongs to the government
under the Department of Forestry (Analisadaily2016). The relocation of residences and farms
threatens the SPF and the culture of gotongroyong , which has been continued by the Sukamaju
village community for maintaining their forest.
Without gotong-royong , deforestation will advance,increasing the vulnerability of the protected area,
the relocated communities, and the surrounding
villages, such as Sukamaju.

■■3. Current management arrangements

3.1 Official Institutional Management
The current management in the SPF involves
different stakeholders, such as the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry, Karo county government,Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), and the Ministryof Public Works. They work together coordinating
their different roles. The use of the land at SPF forthe relocation centre was permitted by the Ministryof Environment and Forestry through the initiativeof Karo Forestry Department and Karo county
government (Analisadaily 2016). Indonesian Armed
Forces built a small military base at the beginningof the relocation process at the Siosar relocation
centre in order to secure the conditions and to
avoid conflicts between the refugees and the local
villagers. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Public Works
built homes for 370 families from the three villages,
Simacem, Suka Meriah, and Bekerah, in 2015
(Waspada 2015).

Furthermore, the eruption of Mount
Sinabung caused socio-economic and psychologicalvulnerabilities for the evacuees. The relocatedresidents are exposed to health problems, foodscarcity, and lack of education infrastructures
aggravated by their location in a remote area, suchas the SPF [Fig. 5]. Besides, the relocation could be
adding to the disaster and displacement trauma of
the affected communities.

56

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 5: Relocation centre residences in the Siosar Protected Forest (author’s personal collection, 5 May 2016)■■5. Recommendations
The author described the current state and thechallenges for the conservation and maintenance ofthe forest landscape in the Siosar Protected Forest.
The main issues encountered are deforestationand conflicts among relocated communities andthe local community. The author suggests that
promoting gotong-royong , a traditional practice ofcommunal work, could help all communities (Suka
Meriah, Simacem, Bekerah, and Sukamaju villages)
to become involved in both restoring the damaged
forests and solving conflicts among them. Gotongroyong has been continuously practiced and canbe a social capital to solve problems in Indonesia(Irfan 2016), such as for the three villages relocatedin the SPF and the local Sukamaju community.
Restoring the forest using gotong royong would not
only decrease the risks to disasters but would also
support rainfall absorption to regulate the watersupply in the SPF. Furthermore, the government
could promote the use of gotong-royong to
implement disaster risk reduction plans in the
SPF, linking the safeguarding of intangible cultural
heritage to the conservation of nature.
F i n a l l y, t h e a u t h o r r e c o m m e n d sincorporating cultural practices, such as gotongroyong , into formal policy frameworks forsustainable forest management, to maximisecommunity involvement. It could promotestakeholders engagement in the management ofother problems and challenges, such as sustainable
food supply. Moreover, relocation trauma could be
avoided by embracing cultural practices that could
support better integration between the relocatedcommunities and the local community.
57

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Analisadaily. 2016. People Claimed Siosar Area Belongs To Their Village. (In Indonesian)
http://harian.analisadaily.com/sumut/news/warga-klaim-lahan-siosar-milik desanya/228451/2016/04/09[accessed 28 July 2018]
Effendi, T.N. 2013. “Gotong-royong ” Culture of the Community in the Current Social Change. Journal of
Sociology Thinking 2: pp. 1-18
Gunawan, H., et al. 2017. Overview of the eruptions of Sinabung eruptions, 2010 and 2013-present
and details of the 2013 phreatomagmatic phase. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research,
VOLGEO-06175
Irfan, M. 2016. “Gotong-royong ” Metamorphosis in the Social Construction Frame. Proceeding KS: Research& PKM 4: pp. 1-10
Kompas. 2012. Bukit Barisan, The Backbone of Sumatra. (In Indonesian)https://regional.kompas.com/read/2012/05/08/23270259/Bukit.Barisan..Tulang.Belakang.Sumatera[accessed 28 July 2018]
Kompas. 2014. Community in the three village nearby Sinabung were relocated. (In Indonesian)https://regional.kompas.com/read/2014/02/08/1112489/Warga.Tiga.Desa.Dekat.Gunung.Sinabung.
Direlokasi [accessed 31 August 2018]
Olson, D.M and Dinerstein, E. 2002. The global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservation. Journal of
Annals Missouri Botanical Garden 89: pp. 199-224
UNESCO. 2018. Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1167 [accessed 29 July 2018]
UNESCO. 2018. World Heritage List in Danger.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/ [accessed 29 July 2018]
UNISDR. 2015. Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

58

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Post-Earthquake Recovery of
Traditional Tibetan Villages in
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic andHistoric Interest Area, Natural
World Heritage
Hongtao Liu

Southwest Jiaotong University, World Heritage Research Centre, Xipu Campus of Southwest Communication
University, 999 Xi-An Road; +8618181783505, bridge115@126.com■■Abstract

This paper is based on the survey of the damage and post-earthquake recovery status of the Tibetan
traditional villages located in the Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area, a Natural World Heritage
property. Firstly, the situation of the Tibetan villages after the earthquake is clarified, as well as the problems
entailed due to the process of recovery. Secondly, recommendations are given for the conservation anddevelopment of these traditional villages with cultural heritage value, located inside the natural heritage
site, following the features of Tibetan architecture. Finally, the paper identifies the problems of community
development and the requirements for disaster prevention and mitigation.

KEY WORDS: Natural Heritage, Earthquake, Jiuzhaigou Valley, Tibetan Villages■■1. Introduction

recovery.

The Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest
Area is located in the Aba Autonomous Prefecture,
Sichuan Province, in the South Western area ofChina [Fig. 1]. It was listed as a UNESCO Natural
World Heritage property in 1992 (UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre 1992). On July 7, 2017,
a 7.0-magnitude earthquake occurred in the
Jiuzhaigou Valley, with the epicenter located in avillage 5 Km away from the scenic spot. It caused
25 deaths, 525 injuries, and damage to more than
73,000 houses(Southwest Jiaotong University World
Heritage International Research Center 2018.) Dueto the fact that many scenic spots were damaged
to varying degrees, the Scenic and Historic Interest
Area was temporarily closed. After the earthquake,the author did an investigation on the damage
caused by the earthquake to the scenic spots andtraditional Tibetan villages inside the World Heritage
property and made recommendations for their■■2. Natural and Cultural Values of Jiuzhaigou Valley
The Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest
Area meets criteria (vii) for its inscription on to theWorld Heritage List, which is “to contain superlative
natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic impor tance”(UNESCO 2017). The natural landscape featuresof the Jiuzhaigou Valley are considered formed byseveral large earthquakes around the year 1060
(Sichuan newspaper observation 2019). The superb
landscapes of Jiuzhaigou Valley are particularlyinteresting due to their narrow conic karst
landforms, spectacular lakes, and waterfalls [Figs. 2& 3].
Jiuzhaigou Valley is located in the easternpart of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, which is asettlement of the Amdo Tibetan Area, one of59

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Location of Jiuzhaigou Valley (Source: author)

the three major Tibetan areas. Here, the original
Tibetan culture of Amdo has been preserved [Fig.
4] because of the district’s remote location. Jiuzhai
means “Nine Villages Valley,” which is named after
the nine Tibetan villages scattered throughout theWorld Heritage site.
There are three communities in Jiuzhaigou
now: the Shuzheng communit y (including
Shuzhengzhai, Chazhai Village, and Heijiazhai), the60

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Lakes in Jiuzhaigou Valley before the earthquake (Source: author)of wooden structures, made of local fir boards,
and are constructed with rooftops made with grey
tiles, bark, or flaky stones, partition walls made withthe fir boards, and load-bearing walls made withrammed earth, presenting a simple appearance andunique Tibetan characteristics [Fig 4].
■■3. Management Arrangements
As a national park and a national nature reserve,
Jiuzhaigou Valley is protected by national andprovincial laws and regulations. In 2004, the Sichuan
Provincial Regulation on World Heritage Protection
and the Regulation on Implementing Sichuan
Provincial Regulation on World Heritage Protectionin the Aba Autonomous Prefecture became laws,
which provided a stricter basis for the protection of
the property.

Figure 3: Waterfalls in Jiuzhaigou Valley before theearthquake (Source: author)

Heye community (including Heye Village, Pan Yazhai,
and the Yala Village), and the Zharu community(including Jianpanzhai, Hot Xizhai, and Guoduzhai).
At present, there are 357 households, with 1,387
people, in the three communities in the Jiuzhaigou
Scenic Area. There are 49 households in Zharu, witha total population of 168; there are 160 households
in the Heye community, with a total populationof 645; and the total number of households in the
Shuzheng community is 148, with a total populationof 574 (Southwest Jiaotong University World
Heritage International Research Center 2018).

In terms of ecological protection, thetraditional farming and animal husbandry by the
local residents have largely affected the naturalenvironment and landscape of the site. Since
1984, the Jiuzhaigou Administration has prohibited
local residents from farming and grazing within
the boundaries of the site and 7% of the income
generated from the scenic spot tickets is distributed
among the residents as a living allowance. At thesame time, the Jiuzhaigou Administration has closed
all the hotels and restaurants in the scenic area torelieve the environmental problems brought about

These settlements can be traced back to
2,000 years ago, according to ancient records(Sichuan newspaper observation 2019). The
architecture of these villages is mostly composed
61

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 4: The traditional architecture of Tibetan culture of Amdo (Source: author)

structures, brick and wood structures, and brickconcrete structures, of which, the most utilized isthe brick-concrete structure. These have been built
within the last 35 years and they were not damaged
during the earthquake.

by the dramatic development of tourism. Tourists
are prohibited from finding accommodations within
the scenic area; however, a tourist terminal service
centre was established in the Zhangza town, which
is 4km away from the scenic spot, to promote
the development of the town while reducing thepollution within the heritage site. The Nuorilang
Tourist centre, established in 2003, is the only dining
spot within the site.

After the earthquake in Chazhaizhai, many
traditional buildings were damaged and latercollapsed. During the survey, it was observed thatmany buildings were being reconstructed on their
original sites.

■■4. Post-earthquake recovery and challenges forthe conservation of the Tibetan villages

The Zharuzhai village is basically occupied
by farmers. The houses have been reconstructed or
newly built by its residents on the original historicalbuildings’ sites, according to their needs. The
earthquake destroyed and damaged some of thehistorical buildings and the houses that the farmers
independently rebuilt. The new constructions were
not greatly affected.

4.1 State of the Tibetan villages after the earthquake
After the Jiuzhaigou earthquake, the Sichuan
government department deployed and launchedpost-disaster recovery and reconstruction work
(Sichuan newspaper observation 2019). The postdisaster reconstruction work within the Jiuzhaigou
scenic spot began in early 2018. In March, due tothe reopening of the scenic spot, the reconstruction
project slowed down. After the park was closed
again in July 2018, the management of the scenic
spot has paid close attention to all aspects of
its reconstruction. As of September 2018, theJiuzhaigou Scenic Area Reconstruction Project
started with a total of 20 projects, of which, 3 havebeen completed and 17 are still under development.
In the investigation of the four villages of
Shuzhengzhai, Heyezhai, Chazhaizhai, andZharuizhai, it was found that a new Heye village,
under the Heyezhai Mountain, was built after 1984,
due to the relocation of the Jianpan, Panya, andHeye Laozhai during the opening of the scenic spot.
The layout of the settlement is different from thatof other traditional villages. Buildings are larger
with structures combining three systems: wood

Wood structures were affected by theearthquake. Many buildings were seriously
damaged and a larger number of buildings wereslightly damaged. At the time of the survey, a totalof seven buildings were being rebuilt, two seriously
damaged buildings were being repaired, andother buildings were under renovation (Southwest
Jiaotong University World Heritage International
Research Center 2018).

4.2 Vulnerability and disaster risks in the Tibetanvillages
Jiuzhaigou Valley is located in the southwestern
Sichuan fault block and the eastern part of the
Bayan Har block, which is in the middle section of
the seismic tectonic belt. There have been fifteen
62

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

4.3 Impact of Tourism Development on the Heritage
Sitestrong earthquakes within the scope of the scenic
spot since 1876, including five earthquakes withmagnitude 7.0 or above.

Modern building materials and technology have
replaced the traditional wooden structure system,
based on the natural environment and resources,in Jiuzhaigou Valley. The new buildings [Fig. 5] havea large volume and their overall layout presents amonotonous form, replacing the traditional dynamic
and interesting landscape of traditional Tibetanarchitecture [Fig. 6].

In addition to earthquakes, the villages
in Jiuzhaigou are prone to other hazards, suchas collapse, mudslides, and landslides, caused byearthquakes. There have been 134 records ofhazards in Jiuzhaigou, including 79 collapses, 15
landslides, 25 mudslides, and 15 unstable slopes.
The villages in Zha Ruzhai are located along
the mountain and along the road, on the slopeof the mountain foot valley. There have been 4geological disasters: 2 landslides, 1 unstable slope,and 1 debris flow.
In the Heye Village, the mountain villages
are mainly exposed to the risk of collapse andmudslides. There have been 5 geological disasters:
1 unstable slope, 3 collapses, and 1 debris flow
(Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage
International Research Center 2018).

Figure 5: The new buildings (Source: author)

According to our survey and analysis, inaddition to the objective factors that the earthquake
has high magnitude and shallow source, and theepicenter is closer to the scenic spot, there are twomain reasons for the earthquake damage in the
Jiuzhaigou Valley:
I. Prevention and mitigation systems,
especially for landslides, have not been
implemented in the Jiuzhaigou Valley,
resulting in serious damage to the scenic
spot.
II. The traffic system is unsafe and chaotic.
Almost all of the roadways and pedestrian
walkways are constructed at the mountainfoot since the terrain in the Jiuzhaigou
Valley is complex with very few open flats,causing certain areas to coincide withgeological hazard areas. As a result, whengeological disasters occur in certain areas,
it will directly lead to the chain destructionof the traffic system.

■■5. Recommendations

5.1 Disasters Risk Reduction
In order to ensure that residents and tourists canrely on appropriate emergency response measuresduring disasters and to facilitate the post-disasterrecovery in an orderly manner, an integrated
disaster prevention management system for thevillages needs to be established. This would include
early warning monitoring, risk assessment, disasterprevention and relief, post-disaster recovery, andsafeguarding measures. In addition, the Jiuzhaigou
municipality can also implement post-disastercoordination management efficiently through thissystem, such as disaster relief, loss compensation,
earthquake hazards prevention, and the disaster
forecasting.

5.2 Protection of Tibetan Traditional Villages
The evolution of the villages in Jiuzhaigou Valley
is closely related to the local culture and thesurrounding natural environment. Due to the
influence of tourism and foreign cultures, it is hardto adapt the traditional architecture to the newfunctions and space requirements. Thus, the villagesof Jiuzhaigou Valley are undergoing a process of landuse diversification. As a result, before undertaking
the post-earthquake recovery of the traditional
villages, it must be determined which historical

Jiuzhaigou Valley is also threatened byearthquake hazards such as landslides, mudslides,
and fires. The installation of early-warning systems,
as well as management and coordination systems,
are still lagging behind, while the emergency
response system is also not performing perfectly.

63

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 6: The landscape of traditional Tibetan architecture (Source: author)

period the villages should be restored to. Based on
the research (Sichuan Urban and Rural Planningand Design Institute 2018), the author strongly
recommends the government maintains the
traditional architecture of Jiuzhaigou Valley to keep
its historical originality. Furthermore, it is necessary
to develop regulations for the construction ofbuildings, roads, and landscapes to ensure thepreservation and continuation of these traditional
villages. Handicrafts and green ecological products
should be promoted to create a distinctive industry
chain based on the local culture, in order to find abalance between development and conservation.
■■Acknowledgements
This paper has been supported by the following
research funding programs: Sichuan Science andTechnology Program, Number: 2019YFS0077; China
Foundation for Cultural Heritage ConservationResearch on Risk Management system of Tibetanvillage architectural heritage in Jiuzhaigou; Modern
Design and Cultural Research Center, Key ResearchBase of Sichuan Academy of Social Science, Number:
MD16Z002; Open Research Subject of the ResearchCenter of Local Culture Resources of Protection
and Development of Xihua University, Key ResearchBase of Sichuan Academy of Social Science andthe Education Office in Sichuan Province, Number:
16DFWH007.

64

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Wang Wei, Chen Hong, Xu Aihui, and Qu Minhao. 2018. Analysis of the disaster characteristics andemergency response of the Jiuzhaigou earthquake. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18: pp. 1771-1783. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1771-2018 [Accessed 3 May 2019]
Sichuan newspaper observation. 2019. Many earthquakes in history have shaped Jiuzhaigou [OL]. https://www.chinayet.com [Accessed 3 May 2019]
Sichuan Urban and Rural Planning and Design Institute. 2018. Research Report on Traditional Village
Landscape Style and Cultural Features
Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage International Research Center. 2018. Jiuzhaigou Shuzhengzhai
architectural survey report, pp. 12-16
Southwest Jiaotong University World Heritage International Research Center. 2018. Jiuzhaigou World
Heritage Site Village Disaster Investigation Report, pp. 4-5
UNESCO. 2017. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
UNESCO Word Heritage Centre. 1992. Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area. https://whc.
unesco.org/en/list/637 /1992 [Accessed 3 May 2019]

65

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Nature – Culture Linkages in
the Cu Lao Cham – Hoi an
World Biosphere Reserve
Thao Le Ngoc

Management Board of The Cu Lao Chàm – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve, No 03 Nguyen Hue street; Hoi
An city; Quang Nam province; Postal Code City: 560000; +84 2353911063, thaolengoc@gmail.com■■Abstract

The Cu Lao Cham- Hoi An in Vietnam was designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (CBR) in 2009 basedon its natural and cultural values. Currently, these values are facing challenges from the threat of disasters
and socio-economic development. Heavy typhoons and floods are impacting the ancient town of Hoi An
and have given rise to collapsing river banks and beach erosion. Sedimentation and pollution are attacking
coral-reefs and sea-grass beds. Moreover, there are several development projects on the river sand-dunes
and beaches. These result in changes to the natural morphology, fragmentation of aquatic habitats, andalternations in the wildlife-cycle. In this paper, the author describes the values of the CBR and how the
CBR zoning helps to conserve and promote them, as well as to mitigate the threats upon them. This paper
explains that the conservation strategies and management are defined based on the relationship between
the Marine Protected Area (MPA) and Hoi An Ancient Town (World Cultural Heritage)(Hoi An People’s
Committee, 2015) and it clarifies that the implementation of these measures aims to support sustainable
development in Hoi An city and building resilience to climate change throughout the entire CBR.

KEY WORDS: Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An, Biosphere Reserve, Nature-Culture Linkage■■1. Introduction

Being aware of, and consenting to, the principles andtargets set by the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere
Programme (MAB), the People’s Committee (PC)of Quang Nam province proposed, in 2008, theestablishment of the CBR1 as an integration between
the natural and the cultural environment, as well
as between the conservation of nature, cultural
heritage, and the protection of the community
environment (Quang Nam People’s Committee2008). UNESCO recognized the proposal from thePC of Quang Nam and delivered the certificate ofWorld Biosphere Reserve to Cu Lao Cham – HoiAnin 2009 (UNESCO 2015).

Located at the mouth of the Thu Bon river, the Cu
Lao Cham-Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve(CBR)is marked by a diversity of coastal and estuary
ecological systems. Canebrakes, sand-dunes,
mangrove forests, sea-grass beds, coral reefs,
seaweed masses, and natural forests on the islands,
as well as the landscape and seascape, provides
the city of Hoi An and its surrounding coastal
and marine areas and adjacent islands with many
ecological services, creating favorable conditions
for socio-economic development, especially ecotourism (Hoi An People’s Committee 2015).

1

World Biosphere Reserve (WBR) is a system that includes natural and cultural values. Both categories of values are interrelated and create thebasis for the implementation of the three functions of a WBR: (1) to preserve natural and cultural resources and their linkages; (2) to develop an
environmentally-friendly economy; and (3) to support monitoring activities, scientific research, education programs, communication plans for local
communities, and to raise stakeholders’ awareness on environmental matters. A strategic objective of a WBR is to maintain life-quality in both aspiritual and material sense. This is also the objective of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (Vietnam Government 2012;
Vietnam Government 2018)

66

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: The CBR zoning map

The river mouth with its mangrove forests can beconsidered a “bridge” that connects the biodiversityof the Marine Protected Area (MPA) to the culturalvalues of Hoi An Ancient Town. This is a basic
principle of the CBR conservation strategy (Hoi An
People’s Committee 2015; Quang Nam People’s
Committee 2008), which is also reflected in thezoning of the CBR [Fig. 1]:

In this paper, the author describes how the BR
zoning system in the CBR integrates human-ecology
and natural-ecology. The paper shows how the
CBR has become a great place for stakeholders
in different cultural and natural sectors to work
together and to work out integrated solutions forthe conservation and development of the heritage
city and its larger ecosystem in a sustainable way.
Furthermore, the paper explains how all activities
are coordinated towards the enhancement andharmonization of the relationship between humans
and the biosphere.

- The core zone comprises almost the entire
area of the MPA and includes strictly
protected areas and ecological rehabilitation
zones. It has a total area of 11,560 hectares
to carry out the biodiversity conservation
function of the CBR.

■■2. Significance of the CBR
Hoi An Ancient Town (recognized as a World Cultural
Heritage property in 1999) is an exceptionally wellpreserved example of a South-East-Asian trading
port dating from the 15th to the 19 th century.
Natural and cultural resources are important assetsof the Hoi An World Heritage city. They do not exist
in an independent way, but they influence eachother, generating interactions. The commercial
port, international shipping, and traditional villages
were created on account of the river basin, beaches,islands, and ocean. The appearance of Hoi An
Ancient Town on the sea silk-road in the past is
an important evidence for culture and natureinterrelations. Merchants and researchers camefrom Japan, China, the Middle-East, India, Europe,and other countries for commercial exchanges andset-up an international community. Their families- The buffer zone has a total area of 20,660
hectares and includes the area around thecore zone, the buffer of the river, natural
wetlands, and the beaches of Hoi An city. It
consists of the marine ecosystem and its closeinteractions with the core zone: mangrove
forests, which play an important role incontrolling water quality, as well as the aquatic
ecosystems, habitats, and species linked withthe river mouth and the islands.
- The transition zone is made up of Hoi An city,with a total area of 1,517 hectares, which
includes the ancient town of Hoi An, a World
Cultural Heritage property.

67

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

have been living in Hoi An ever since. Therefore, theoutstanding universal value of the World Heritage
property is also supported by the continuous
cultural life of the local communities, beyond justthe historical houses (Hoi An People’s Committee
2014)

successfully applied in the CBR is the 2013 BaiHuong village sub-MPA co-management model[Fig. 3]. In this model, the Quang Nam province
has been assigned 19 of the 235 hectares of Cu
Lao Cham MPA area for the local fishermen in Bai
Huong village to manage the marine resources anddevelop eco-tourism based on the conservation
results (Quang Nam Province People’s Committee2013). This is a shared decision-making process that
includes the government, the local communities,
and other stakeholders. The local fishermen createdresource management plans by themselves. Using
this system, the local partners will be the real
owners of the natural and cultural resources. They
are decision-makers in the maintenance of theoutstanding universal value of the Hoi An World
Heritage city.

In addition, the MPA (created in 2006)
consists of a marine biodiversity conservation area
which, in this case, also includes the tropical forestson the islands. More than 357 hectares of coralreef, 80 hectares of sea-grass beds and seaweed, 10
beaches, and 1,500 hectares of primary forests areprotected by the MPA and the local people (Long,
Thao and Trinh 2017). The natural and cultural
resources are tourist attractions and life-sustaining
for more than 3,000 people on the islands.
Recently, in 2017, a traditional practice ofthe communities living in the CBR received anotherdesignation from UNESCO, the Bai-Choi singing
is representative of Vietnam’s intangible cultural
heritage (Vietnam 2017). This is a folk-singing genre
of a coastal Vietnamese community. People use
picture cards and traditional musical instruments
to play in village huts such as public place, temple
yards and village stadium. It is often performed at
the spring festival and resembles a game. The BaiChoi songs are moral lessons related to the living
experience of the people in these communities. The
game and songs were created by Madarine Dao Duy
Tu (1572-1634) to help the locals protect their crops(Vietnam Plus 2019).
■■3. Current management systems of the CBR
In holding three UNESCO designations (World
Heritage, Biosphere Reserve, and Intangible Cultural
Heritage), Hoi An city is promoting the conservationof natural and cultural values in their development
strategy. There is a proposal for nominating Hoi An
as an ecological-cultural-tourism city in 2030. With
this idea in mind, all departments and divisions of
the city have begun integrating this mission into
their plans and activities, establishing goals for thewhole city. The CBR management board coordinates
all activities that are related to the cultural andnatural values of the city [Fig. 4]. Through thedevelopment procedure, the CBR tries to create asafe place for stakeholders to work together andfigure out integrated solutions. There are several
approaches that must be integrated into the actionplans, such as the ecosystem approach, watershed
approach, integrated coastal management, andthe ridge to reef (2R) approach, in order to develop
management models. One model which has been

Figure 2: Coral bleaching (top and center) and sand dune
concretion in river (bottom) (Source: Author 2017)

68

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The master plan and implementation
program of the CBR is continuously in the making,
being updated, and coordinating with stakeholders,
including the four main entities: the government,scientists, the private sector, and the local people(Hoi An People’s Committee 2015) [Fig. 3]. The
majority of the leaders in the city were invited tobe members of the CBR management board. Thisis an important characteristic of the system which
serves to facilitate the collection of informationand data, to discuss and to reflect on at workshops
and meetings, to analyze problems, and to findout solutions. All of the CBR coordinators are
responding to the balance between conservation

Figure 3: The co-management model in CBR (Source: Author)

Figure 4: CBR organization structure (Source: Hoi An People’s Committee 2015)
69

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

and development, focusing on sustainable
development and resilience to climate change.

typhoons, which cause flooding, per year in thecentral coast of Vietnam (UNDP 2015). They are
directly impacting the housing structures of theancient town, making river banks collapse, anderoding the beaches. Sediments and pollution fromthe mainland, following the Thu Bon river basin, areattacking the coral reefs and sea-grass beds in thevicinity of the islands. Fishing boats, tourist speedboats, and ship movement, in general, jeopardize
marine habitats and aquatic ecosystems in the MPA.

The CBR not only applies effective methods
for the coordination of its activities through theparticipation of stakeholders but also executes the
SLIQ model (System thinking – Landscape planning– Inter-sectoral coordination – Quality economy)[Fig. 5] (Nguyen 2018) in development projects andfor the sustainable development of Hoi An World
Heritage city.
The CBR has not only created a good
relationship with lo c al communities andstakeholders working together on conservation,
livelihood development, eco-tourism, and education
but it is also a space for system thinking, reflections
on linkages with nature, and harmonization
between humans and the biosphere. It is awonderful foundation for sustainable development.
Furthermore, the CBR integrates and adapts otherinternational, national, provincial, and even local
instruments. The IUCN’s Red List and Vietnam’s Red
Data Book provides the basic criteria used to makeplans for the protected areas, to propose projects
or research, and especially related to harvest
and the use of natural resources in a sustainable
manner related to species, habitats, or ecosystems.
Since the CBR was established in 2009, thecommunication, education, and research programs
have been embedded into the compliance with theConvention on International Trade in Endangered
Species in the Wild (CITES)(Management Board of
Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An BR 2015). These programs
have raised awareness and had an impact on theactions of the local people. They have not only
stopped hunting and eating sea-turtles but also
have been volunteering to protect and help them
face challenges from disaster, climate change, andsocio-economic development.

Figure 5: The SLIQ model (Created by Vietnam Man andBiosphere Programme National Committee) (Nguyen
2018)

Construction along the rivers, on the sanddunes and on the beaches, modifies the naturalmorphology, impacts the direction of the riverflow, and puts the ecosystem’s health in danger
thus generating the loss of the nursery of species,
habitat loss, and species lifecycles alternation.
Because of these negative impacts, the CBR lost
more than 40 hectares of sea-grass beds within
ten years (2008-2017) (Long, Thao and Trinh 2017).
This is an important lesson for the city to keepin consideration when preparing a new building
strategy and master plan. The sustainability of theheritage city can only be based on the balance
between development and conservation, according
to the principle of harmony between people andnature (Nguyen 2018).

The Government agencies are using the
CBR and its protected areas to increase sustainablefishery use. This is an important action so that theEuropean Committee will remove the 2017 IUU(Illegal – Unreported – Unregulated) yellow cardthat Vietnam was flagged with.
■■4. Challenges to the conservation of the CBR

In addition, the quality of the tropical forests
upstream is reducing. A hundred hydropower
reservoir dams store water during dry periods
but release water during the rainy season. This
operation is creating salt-intrusion during the dry
season and has increased flooding in the rainyseason.

Natural resources, especially in marine ecosystems
such as in the CBR, are very sensitive to climatechange and are facing hazards as well as impacts
from socio-economic activities along river basins,
on beaches, in the ocean of Hoi An city, and along
the coast of Vietnam. There are usually around 10

Some of the mitigation activities are being
undertaken as part of the general strategy of the
CBR and Hoi An city. These activities reflect thatsocio-economic development should be based on
the linkages between natural and cultural resources.
This linkage is helping the city to raise its resilience70

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

to climate change. For instance, the city has built
concrete embankments to protect the structure of
the old houses in the ancient town. Ecological dykes
are used to maintain the sand dunes, river-banks,
and beaches [Fig. 6], and the mangrove forests at
the river mouth are being restored.
However, the value of the Hoi An cultural
heritage is not only in the architecture of its historic
houses but also in the traditional lifestyle of local
people. Currently, this ancient town is a very goodplace for commerce service. Almost all tenants
want to change the structure of the buildings andwant to rebuild the historical houses, adapting
them to commercial functions. The Governmentand heritage conservation agencies are trying tomanage these activities by applying regulations
on construction work, but they cannot control
this negative development entirely. There aremany people from other cities moving into thetown in order to start commercial and service
business activities. Such activities and modern life
are changing and impacting the local traditional
lifestyle, which is the soul of the World Heritage
property.
■■5. Conclusion
Hoi An holds three international designations from
UNESCO, which gives this heritage city advantages
when compared to other cities in coastal Vietnam.
The three designations include intangible andtangible cultural heritage and natural heritage (withthe BR) and providing opportunities to work on
nature-culture linkages at the management level.
The CBR, which covers the larger area of these
designations, has created its strategy involving
a diversity of stakeholders, applying effective
approaches to management models, raising thecommunity’s awareness on natural-cultural linkages,
emphasizing biodiversity conservation, protecting
the historical structure of Hoi An Ancient Town, andimproving the capacity of the local communities
on disaster prevention, post-disaster recovery, andtheir resilience to climate change.

Figure 6: Ecological dyke (top and center - Source: Vu
My Hanh) and mangrove forest rehabilitation (bottom Source: Author)

71

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Hoi An People’s Committee. 2014. Những giá trị truyền thống. http://hoian.gov.vn/default.aspx [Accessed 22
May 2019]
Hoi An People’s Committee. 2015. The Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve management
regulation
Long, N. V., Thao, L. N. and Trinh, C. M. 2017. Monitoring and suggestion the sustainable using of biodiversity
in the Cu Lao Cham- Hoi An world biosphere reserve
MAB Vietnam. http://mabvietnam.net/khu-du-tru-sinh-quyen-the-gioi-cu-lao-cham-hoi-an.
Management Board of Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An BR. 2015. The Integrated Management Plan of the Cu Lao
Cham – Hoi An world Biosphere Reserve phase 2015-2019, vision 2030
Quang Nam People’s Committee. 2008. The nomination application profile for The Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An
world biosphere reserve
Quang Nam Province People’s Committee. 2013. Decision No 20/2013/QD-UBND of 3 July 2013 of Quang
Nam Province People’s Committee for promulgation the Sub-MPA co-management model regulation
Nguyen, Tri Hoang. 2018. Applying the SLIQ model (System thinking – Landscape planning – Intersectoral
Coordinator – Quality Economy) for creating BR in Vietnam
UNDP. 2015. Special report of Vietnam on natural risk management for resilience to climate change
Vietnam. 2017. Nomination File No. 01222/Vietnam. UNESCO, Paris
UNESCO. 2017. Man and Biosphere Reserve Program. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/
UNESCO. 2015. Ecological Sciences for Sustainable Development: Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An. http://www.
unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/asia-and-thepacific/vietnam/cu-lao-cham-hoi-an/. [Accessed 14 May 2019]
Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology. 2004. Red Data Book 2004 of Vietnam
Vietnam Government. 2012. Implementation of Sustainable Development. Vietnam National Report at theUnited Nations conference on Sustainable Development (RIO +20) 2012
Vietnam Government. 2018. Vietnam’s voluntary national review on the implementation of sustainable
development goals. Vietnam National Report at the United Nations High-level Political Forum 2018 on
Sustainable Development (HLPF 2018)
Vietnam Plus. 2019. Quang Binh welcomes UNESCO status for Bai Choi singing. https://en.vietnamplus.vn/
quang-binh-welcomes-unesco-status-for-bai-choi-singing/151616.vnp [Accessed 14 May 2019]

72

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Disaster risk reduction at
UNESCO Global Geoparks andBiosphere Reserves
Irina Pavlova

UNESCO, 7 Place de Fontenoy 75007 Paris, France, +33 (0)1 45 68 23 39, i.pavlova@unesco.org■■Abstract

UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves are natural UNESCO designated sites that promotesustainable development and focus on the protection of natural and cultural heritage or the conservationand sustainable use of geological resources and biodiversity. More than 800 of these natural UNESCOdesignated sites may be partly or entirely exposed to natural hazards and extreme weather events which
can potentially impact the communities living in or near the sites and their livelihoods. Because of theirhigh cultural and symbolic value, the impact of the loss or damage of a natural UNESCO-designated site canresonate across the world. At the same time, these iconic sites have tremendous potential as platforms toshare knowledge on Disaster Risk Reduction. Many UNESCO-designated sites have community and tourismoriented programmes to raise awareness about the source of natural hazards, associated risks, and ways toreduce their impact.

KEY WORDS: Natural UNESCO designated sites, UNESCO Global Geoparks, Biosphere Reserves, Disaster risk
reduction■■1. Introduction

1.1 Brief description of UNESCO Global Geoparks
and Biosphere Reserves

UNESCO’s Natural Science Sector hosts Secretariatsof two programmes dealing with designations ofsites of international value. These two programmes
are the International Geoscience and Geoparks
Programme (IGGP) (UNESCO 2018a) and the Man
and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (UNESCO
2018b).

UNESCO Global Geoparks are single, unified,geographical areas where sites and landscapes ofinternational geological significance are managed
through the holistic concept of protection,
education, and sustainable development (UNESCO
2018 d). Their bottom-up approach consistsof combining conservation with sustainable
development while involving local communities.
As of July 2018, there are 140 UNESCO Global
Geoparks in 38 countries.

UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere
Reserves [Fig. 1] promote sustainable development
and focus on the protection of natural and cultural
heritage or the conservation and sustainable use ofgeological resources, in the case of UNESCO Global
Geoparks, and biodiversity, in the case of Biosphere
Reserves.

Biosphere Reserves are areas comprising
terrestrial, marine, and coastal ecosystems. Each
Biosphere Reserve promotes solutions reconcilingthe conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable
use (UNESCO 2018e). Biosphere Reserves are‘Science for Sustainability support sites’ – special
places for testing interdisciplinary approaches
to understanding and managing changes andinteractions between social and ecological systems,

These two designations are complementarywith another UNESCO designation – World Heritage
properties.

73

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves

or damage of a UNESCO Global Geopark and a
Biosphere Reserve can resonate across the world.

including conflict prevention and managementof biodiversity. As of July 2018, there are 686
biosphere reserves in 122 countries, including 20transboundary sites.

In recent years, natural hazards, both
geological (such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,landslides, and tsunamis) and hydro-meteorological(such as floods, droughts, and avalanches), havealready caused extensive damage to UNESCO
Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves. Major
earthquakes disrupted the functioning of theWolong Biosphere Reserve in Sichuan, China, in2008. Japanese Global Geoparks (Aso, Itoigawa, andUnzen) have been damaged by multiple hazards,
including earthquakes followed by tsunamis,
as well as volcanic eruptions. Many sites, suchas the Katla UNESCO Global Geopark in Icelandand the Tacaná Volcano Biosphere Reserve in
Mexico, have experienced significant volcanic
eruptions, damaging infrastructures and thenatural environment. Different types of landslides
frequently occur on the slopes of mountainoussites, such as the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve,
damaging access roads and tourist paths. Manysites face a high flooding risk, as was revealed byheavy floods in the past decade in Canada (Waterton
Biosphere Reserve), France (Camargue Biosphere
Reserve), Slovenia (Idrija UNESCO Global Geopark),
and many other regions.

Together with the other UNESCO site
designations – World Heritage natural andcultural sites (UNESCO 2018 f) – these sites givea complete picture of celebrating our heritage
while at the same time conserving the world’s
cultural, biological, and geological diversity as wellas promoting sustainable economic development.
Biosphere Reserves focus on the conservation andharmonised management of biological and cultural
diversity while the UNESCO Global Geoparks giveinternational recognition to sites that promote
the importance and significance of protecting
the Earth’s geodiversity and World Heritage sites
promote the conservation of natural and culturalsites of outstanding universal value. Some of thesesites are called Multi-Internationally Designated
Areas (MIDAs) (Schaaf, Th. and Clamote Rodrigues,
D., 2016) when they have two or even three of theseinternational designations overlapping, sometimes
this is in addition to other international designations
as well (e.g. Ramsar sites).

1.2 Overview of natural hazards at UNESCO Global
Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves■■2. UNESCO’s work on disaster risk reduction at
UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves

UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves
are located in geographical settings which may bepartly or entirely exposed to natural hazards andextreme weather events which can potentially
impact the communities living in or near thesites and their livelihoods. Because of their highcultural and symbolic value, the impact of the loss

UNESCO assists the Member States and its
designated sites in strengthening livelihood
capacities in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (UNESCO
2018f). Secretariats of the above-mentioned
UNESCO Programmes, together with experts from74

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

the UNESCO Section on Earth Sciences and GeoHazards Risk Reduction, encourage the identificationof risks and protection from different hazards aswell as fostering climate change resilience and thepreservation of UNESCO Global Geoparks andBiosphere Reserves and their communities. UNESCO
continuously contributes to building capacity in DRR,
developing innovative policy, tailoring management
strategies, and recognizing the value of resilient
protected area systems.

naturlhazardsunescosites/), aiming to create an
overview of disaster risk reduction at UNESCO
Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves, inparticular, to provide qualitative information
concerning the global exposure of these natural
UNESCO-designated sites to natural hazards and theincrease the awareness of their site managers.
Further work was then undertaken to
add to the database all available information on
disaster risk reduction issues, including exposureand vulnerability to risks, current experience on
prevention and mitigation measures, awarenessraising activities, and site managers’ needs. The
evaluation of DRR issues started through theanalysis of site managers awareness. For each site,
records from various sources, including thematicsurveys, published literature, and reports, werestored in one georeferenced database, provided by
UNESCO Secretariat, and analysed using descriptive
statistics.

In line with Shimabara (2012) and the English
Riviera Declarations (2016), the Global Geopark
Network established, in 2017, an official Working
Group entitled «Geohazards Working Group»,aiming to find ways on how to mitigate risks at
UNESCO Global Geoparks in the face of geologicaland hydrometeorological hazards, with a view tostrengthening the potential of UNESCO Global
Geoparks in awareness raising.
This aim will be achieved through thefollowing three objectives: (i) identify and assess
disaster risks at UNESCO Global Geoparks; (ii)enhance and support collaboration and sharing
knowledge among the UNESCO Global Geoparks,
as well as with other international organizations,
to mitigate risks in their territories, ensure thesafety of visitors and staff, and improve resilienceof their Geoparks; (iii) foster better communication
through educational and awareness activities,
among people, administrators, decision makers,
and scientists on disaster risk reduction at UNESCO
Global Geoparks.

Results reveal that more than 90% of
UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves
could be potentially exposed to at least one outof the main natural hazards (94% of Biosphere
Reserves and 96% of UNESCO Global Geoparks).
Overall, earthquakes and landslides are the mostfrequent geohazards, while floods and wildfires are
the most frequent among hydrometeorologicalhazards. As for the current regional distribution ofsites, most hazardous regions appear to be Asia andEurope.
Despite a large number of sites potentially
exposed to natural hazards, only 8% of Biosphere
Reserves and 30% of UNESCO Global Geoparks
have performed a detailed risk assessment. The list
counts 14 Multi-Internationally Designated Areas(MIDAs). Twenty-one percent of the Biosphere
Reserves, including 8 MIDAs, perform various
monitoring activities. Twenty-four Biosphere
Reserves are interested in assistance in risk
assessment.

According to the MAB Strategy 20152025 (2015) and the Lima Action Plan (2016),
in the coming 10 years, the MAB Programme
will concentrate its support to the UNESCO
Member States and stakeholders in (i) conserving
biodiversity, restoring and enhancing ecosystemservices and fostering the sustainable use of natural
resources; (ii) contributing to sustainable, healthy
and equitable societies, economies and thriving
human settlements in harmony with the biosphere;(iii) facilitating biodiversity and sustainability
science, education for sustainable development andcapacity building; and (iv) supporting mitigation andadaptation to climate change and other aspects ofglobal environmental change.

A number of Biosphere Reserves and
UNESCO Global Geoparks are engaged in awarenessraising, including educational activities, as well as
mitigation strategy development on natural hazards
and the need for the sustainable use of natural
resources. Half of UNESCO Global Geoparks andat least 19 % of Biosphere Reserves participate indifferent kinds of educational and prevention andmitigation awareness activities.

■■3. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
for Continuity
In 2017, UNESCO DRR experts undertook a
global assessment (https://www.soscisurvey.de/Overall, more than 53% of UNESCO Global
75

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Geoparks, in both the Europe and Asia regions, and
23% of Biosphere Reserve responded that they havegood practices and are interested in sharing themwith other UNESCO designated sites. At the sametime, those who do not have practices to share arevery motivated to receive training on prevention
and mitigation. Twenty-six percent of UNESCO
Global Geoparks and 6 % of Biosphere Reservesconfirmed existing cooperation with other UNESCO
designated sites.

Member States in the form of training and capacity
building on the topic of Disaster Risk Reduction& Climate Change Adaptation. Closer links andknowledge exchanging should be establishedwith World Heritage sites and their activities,
such as already leveraging on existing training forsite managers. In this sense, training organizedat the regional level by UNESCO Chairs presents
a good example of knowledge exchange, whenpractitioners and site managers from all three
UNESCO designations could learn from each otherand adapt gained experience in their countries.

As for MIDAs, from all natural MultiInternationally Designated Areas, 7 MIDAS, thatare designated as UNESCO Global Geoparks, and
68 Biosphere Reserves are exposed to at least one
natural hazard.
■■4. Recommendations
As is evident from the present study, Biosphere
Reserves (which are located the world over),
UNESCO Global Geoparks (which are mostly
located in Europe and in Asia – see map), andtheir territories may be partly or entirely exposed
to various natural hazards and extreme weather
events. Potential harm to these natural sites may,or may have already, also put the livelihoods of local
communities at risk.
However, even though there is a clear
understanding that many UNESCO sites and theircommunities may be potentially threatened bydisasters, no united methodologies on managing
disaster risks at these natural UNESCO sites exist.
Moreover, analysis of reported thematic surveys
reveals that most Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO
Global Geoparks currently do not have risk
assessment and efficient risk management plans,nor do they have sufficient expertise and guidanceon how to perform them.
Nature-culture linkages at many UNESCO
designated sites created after major disasters have
proven that lessons learned from past disasters canbe embodied in local heritage and traditions andcontribute to raising awareness on disaster risk. For
these intangible forms of heritage to be effective,
their story must be constantly told, transmitted,
and shared within communities and with visitors.
It is within this framework, that UNESCO Global
Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves can play anessential role, providing guidance on good practices
and sharing messages among communities.
UNESCO encourages activities which focus
on providing assistance to site managers and the76

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
English Riviera Declaration 2016. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/The_
English_Riviera_Declaration.pdf [accessed 19 July 2018]
Lima Action Plan for UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and its World Network of
Biosphere Reserves (2016-2025). http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/Lima_
Action_Plan_en_final.pdf [accessed 19 July 2018]
MAB Strategy 2015-2025. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/Lima_Action_
Plan_en_final.pdf [accessed 19 July 2018]
Schaaf, Th. and Clamote Rodrigues, D. (2016): Managing MIDAs: Harmonising the management of MultiInternationally Designated Areas: Ramsar Sites, World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO
Global Geoparks. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN.
Shimabara Declaration 2012. http://jgc.geopark.jp/files/Shimabara%20Declaration.pdf [accessed 19 July
2018]
UNESCO 2018a. International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme (IGGP). http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/international-geoscience-and-geoparks-programme/[accessed 19 July 2018]
UNESCO 2018b. Man and the Biosphere Programme. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/ [accessed 19 July 2018]
UNESCO 2018c. UNESCO Global Geoparks. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/
earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ [accessed 19 July 2018]
UNESCO 2018d. Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/
ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ [accessed 19 July 2018]
UNESCO 2018e. Disaster Risk Reduction, UNESCO’s contribution to a global challenge. http://www.unesco.
org/new/en/natural-sciences/special-themes/disaster-risk-reduction/ [accessed 19 July 2018]
UNESCO 2018f. World Heritage properties. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ [accessed 19 July 2018]

77

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Nature–Culture Linkages of
Pulicat Lagoon: A CulturalLandscape Protecting theCoromandel Coast
Xavier Benedict

MIDAS Architecture College, Swarnabhoomi, Tamil Nadu, India-603305;+91(0)9884013409, xbenedict@aarde.in■■Abstract

The Pulicat Lagoon is the second largest water body in India, covering an area of 759 km2., in the middle of
the Coromandel Coast. Its cultural landscape is a testimony to nature-culture linkages that, by integrating themonsoon climate with cultural traditions, favours the development of a resilient society. Strongly present in
the maritime history recounts, it has bridged transnational shared heritage. This paper focuses on describing
the natural and cultural values of this wetland, which characterizes its cultural landscape: the traditional
fishing practice, known as the padu-system, and the lagoon’s capacity to absorb shock from disasters withthe support of the Buckingham Canal, thus serving as a lifeline to this coast. However, sustainable livelihoods
and development, maintained over several thousand years, are under threat due to the erosion of thenature-culture linkages, shown by siltation, blocking of river water inlets due to encroachments, industrial
pollution, and the absence of law enforcement. This paper highlights the role of nature-culture linkages insupporting sustainable development and building resilience.

KEY WORDS: lagoon, monsoon, textile, resilience, wetlands, Dutch, Coromandel■■1. Introduction

derived by different authorities from karu-manal ,meaning black sand, or from Cholamandalam , themost popular alteration of Chola-mandalam, whichrefers to the rulers of the coast during the 10 th
century CE, when Thanjavur was its capital (Thurston
1918). However, the name that has the geologicalreference to ‘black-sand’ would rightly be suitablefor our understanding of this landscape (Anameka
2010; Stephen 1997). Moreover, the unique climaticcondition of this coast makes it the only regionin India with the ability to attract the Northeast
monsoon. The most furious monsoons, that bringrain clouds to the Coromandel Coast from October
to December, are called “trade winds” or “wintermonsoons”.

The evolution of nature relates to the environmental
conditions of any place and the culture of society
evolves in relation to that nature (Bezerra de Melo2012). The resulting nature-culture linkages are themost valuable assets of a resilient society. In India,
the region that shaped its social and economic
status with its precious assets is none other thanthe unique Pulicat Lagoon in the Coromandel Coast(Benedict 2018).
The Coromandel Coast is located along theSouth-east coast of the Indian subcontinent, runningparallel to the coast of the Bay of Bengal, from the
Krishna river basin to Point Calimere, and extending
southwards up to the coast of Rameshwaram. The
origin of the name, Coromandel, has given rise toconsiderable speculation. For instance, it has been

The wetland system of the Pulicat Lagoon[Fig. 1] is one of the three most important wetland
systems in India, shared by the states of Tamil
78

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Map of the Pulicat Lagoon; Source: Author

Nadu (TN) and Andhra Pradesh (AP) (APFD 2010).
Situated to the north of Chennai, it covers an areaof 759 sq.km. The Pulicat Lagoon is known for its
2000-year-old maritime history, which includes
exchanges as far as Japan and present-day Europe(Stephen 2014). This paper elaborates on the
inextricability of the natural and cultural values inthis significant cultural landscape and clarifies how
these nature-culture linkages have supported theresilience of this coast.

in India. Hundreds of thousands of migratorywaterfowl throng the lake from October to April,including large numbers of Greater and Lesser
Flamingos (Jacobsen and Raj 2009). The reduction in
the sea level over the last three centuries has caused
the formation of a beach ridge dune, creating
Sriharikota Island. The road connecting the island tothe mainland bisects the lagoon in the middle, into
two regions, the southern region, Pulicat Lake, andthe northern region, the marshy land area [Fig. 3].

■■2. Significance of Pulicat Lagoon as a culturallandscapeThe Buckingham Canal stretches for 796
km along the South-east coast of India and its
water levels are stabilized by the Pulicat Lagoon.
The canal and the three rivers -Arani, Kalangi, andSwarnamukhi – flowing into the lagoon are partof the maritime history due to the popularity ofCoromandel cotton and its textile products, which
are made in the hinterlands connected by this water
system. Arabs, East Asians, and Europeans have

Pulicat is an anglicized word of the Tamil word forlagoon, Pazhaverkadu , which is a combination of
three Tamil words: Pazhaya (old), vergal (root), andkadu (forest) (Azariah 2007; Benedict 2018). The
wetland is a bird sanctuary of national importanceand is the second largest brackish water ecosystem
79

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

been exchanging the finest textiles produced here
for gold since the 6th century CE (Stephen 2014).
However, due to a focus on the modernization ofrailways, authorities have neglected the canal andits water system for the last hundred years (Benedict2018).

(Benedict 2018).
The ecology of the lagoon has influenced
the economics of the coastal communities for morethan one millennium, which can be seen expressedin the language, food, trade, commerce, andconstruction technology (Jeyaseela 1997). Marco
Polo (1254-1324 AD) expanded on Herodotus’s(484-425 BC) observation of Tamil-cotton as thefinest and most beautiful cotton that is to be foundin any part of the world (Jacobsen and Raj 2009).
The arrival of Arab traders, in the 11th century
CE, expanded the popularity of the cotton and its
market, making this part of the country central tothe movement of cotton in the world (Benedict2018). Archival records show that more than 4,500
ships passed through the Pulicat Lagoon between
the 16th and 18th centuries, not only influencing thedevelopment of the coastal region but also of its
hinterlands (Stephen 2014). Gold was the standard
medium of exchange in this region for textile
purchases. Gold was imported from Hirado, Japan,
by the Dutch starting in 1609 AD, to be minted at
the Pulicat Dutch Fort located in the Pazhaverkadu
village at the southmost end of the Pulicat Lagoon.
Later, due to the heavy demand of gold for theexchange of textiles, they were compelled to importgold from Amsterdam in very large quantities after
the Japanese imposed sanctions on the Dutch.

Documentation reveals that the lake used
to cover an area of 700 sq.km. during high-tide and400 sq.km. during low-tide, until about 80 years
ago; however, the deterioration of the lagoon andits environment have reduced the numbers atpresent to 460 sq.km. and 250 sq.km. during hightide and low-tide, respectively (Jacobsen and Raj
2009; Azariah 2007). The changes in water coverage
not only cause adverse impacts on the local floraand fauna but also on the rainfall patterns (Sahoo
and Bhaskaran 2015). The lagoon was once threemeters deep and shell dredging was done regularly,
which was used for making lime and poultry
fodder. The lagoon has now become shallow andnon-navigable following the ban on dredging forseashells, which came after the enactment of the
Wildlife Act of India in 1972. The deposited layersof shells have hardened a few parts of the lagoon,
which directly impacts its marine life.
The lagoon plays an important role inattracting rain clouds during the annual monsoon
season. Historical records prove that a large
percentage of cyclones crossed the five large
wetlands along the SE coast of India (Sahoo andBhaskaran 2015). They convey that the healthof this wetland directly influences the attractionof rain clouds and the protection of the coastal
towns. According to the vernacular knowledgeof the inhabitants, the quantity of rainfall could
be judged by the movement of winged migrants.
The pattern is easily identifiable from early visitors
during July-September months, called pilot-birds,
who return to communicate with a large numberof migrants for the winter monsoon visit. Morebirds mean a more bountiful fish and prawn harvest
during peak monsoon seasons. The bird droppings
form algae, which serve as fodder for fishes andprawns. The birds, rainfall, lagoon, and livelihoodof the inhabitants are directly and proportionallyinterrelated, thus positioning these migratory
birds at the top of the Pulicat wetlands food chain.
However, the movement of migratory birds isbeing affected due to changes in the availability
and distribution of food. Therefore, the lives andsustainability of the livelihoods of fishermen,
established in the forty-one lagoon villages anddepending solely on this water body, have becomea serious concern for grass-roots movements

The Pulicat lagoon has sustained evenafter many modern interventions and maritime
exploitations, due to a particular estuarine
resource management system practised by the
local communities for more than three centuries.
The lagoon’s unique fishing system is called Padu ,meaning ‘to share,’ and is based on rotational fishingrights (Jacobsen and Raj 2009). Only male members
from one of the four traditional fishing communities
in the area are allocated fishing grounds under thissystem [Fig. 2]. With this management practiceof the coastal commons, the members havenurtured a sense of collective social responsibility.
Moreover, non-members of Padu cannot fish
due to a strict vigil kept by the members on theirresource territories (Azariah 2007). These natureculture linkages have protected the lagoon fromall destructive intrusion by state-administration orindustrialization, showing the direct link between
biodiversity, economic activity, and vernacularsustainable management.
The Hindu temples in the Pazhaverkadu
village, built during the 10 th and 13th centuries,
showcase trade links with other regions fromaround the subcontinent. Unfortunately, the 13th80

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 2: Padu local fisherman fixing his net; Source: Author

Before the landing of Europeans in Pulicat, theArabs had the largest trade links with the Eastand West Asian countries from the 6th century.
They brought with them the skills of boat building
and craft that led to the flourishing of cotton andshipbuilding industries along the coast (Stephen2014). The socio-economic wealth in the region
emerged with international trade and innovation in
the financial market, like the creation of the world’s
first joint-stock Dutch East India Company. Unlike
the Portuguese, the Dutch established a company
to trade with India and Indonesia which was thefirst public company to issue negotiable shares anddevelop into one of the biggest and most powerfultrading and shipping organizations. The influenceof the Dutch East India company on the economic
activity of this coast is definitive.

century temple was damaged in 2013 and was left
in ruin due to unprofessional conservation practices
by the local government (Parthasarathy 2013). The
protected cemeteries in the Pazhaverkadu village,
dating from 1639 to 1850 AD, are considered to be
the largest in Asia, bearing testimony to the historyof the cotton trade, while Chinese jars and porcelain
wares highlight the villages’ magnificent trade andcultural links with East Asian countries, including
Japan. The first European fort was established in
the Pazhaverkadu village by the Portuguese whoarrived in 1502, but it was destroyed and rebuilt as
Fort Geldria by the Dutch starting in 1602. However,the Dutch fort was completely demolished by the
British in 1825 AD and left in ruins. Now it is covered
with thorny bushes and is inaccessible.
Another name for Pulicat is Pallaecatta , as it
was once called by the Europeans, which was later
used to describe the fabric quality. Pallaecatta , as afabric, is known as sarong or lungi in Asia, is wornby both women and men, and lungee, in Persian,is used as turbans along the silk-route region. The
bandanna in Mexico is still referred to as Paliacate ,as the material was introduced by the Spanish andPortuguese. This famous fabric, with a particularpattern of weaving and dying, was later popularized
by the British as ‘Madras Checks.’■■3. Management, State of Conservation andChallenges for Continuity
India has one of the most elaborate and stringent
federal and local legislation for environmental
management and protection. Public litigations andNGOs use the Wildlife Protection Act-1972 andCoastal Regulations Act-1991, amongst several
environmental legislation, for the protection of thelagoon, as the other legislation does not refer to any
kind of wetland systems at all. The enactment of theamended Wetland (Conservation and Management)
Rules in Sept-2017 from the 2010-Act empowers

The built environment of the Pulicat villages
reflects historical layers beginning in the 7th century.
81

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

from 10 km to 2 km by the federal government.
Additionally, no clear demarcations, such as a “noconstruction zone,” catchments, or its channels,
were specified. This has put tremendous pressure
on the ecosystem. Apart from government
regulations, better monitoring mechanisms areneeded to increase the knowledge of the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of thewetland resources and their values for a better
understanding of wetland dynamics.
Climate change is another main source ofdisruption to the coastal lagoons. The factors, like
temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise, have a
direct impact on coastal lagoons. In Pulicat, climatechange is impacting the breeding ground of prawns
and fishes, which is impacting the livelihood of thefishermen (Kripa et al. 2012).
Furthermore, the Tamil Nadu State is known
for its multi-hazard vulnerability, the major natural
hazards being cyclonic storms, urban and rural
floods, and periodic droughts (TN State DRR). Of
these, coastal flooding and storms provide themaximum threats. Moreover, the Coromandel Coastis prone to experiencing the heaviest wind speeds
during the winter-monsoon season. It is recognizedthat “twenty-six of the thirty-five deadliest tropical
cyclones in world history have been Bay of Bengal
storms” (Basu 2015).

Figure 3: Satellite picture of Pulicat Lagoon; © ESRI-India

individual states to form local wetlands authorities.
The decision-making power has been delegatedto the state governments so that protection andconservation can be done at the local level. Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh states have independent
departments to manage their respective parts of
the Pulicat Lagoon.
The Indian Space Research Organisation(ISRO) is the main occupant of the Pulicat Lagoon
because Sriharikota Island is the only rocket
launching station they control. During every
winter-monsoon, rockets are launched fortelecommunications, astronomical research, andweather satellite purposes. However, the ISRO is
not involved in any protection or administrative
processes. The protection of the Pulicat Lagoon ishandled by the State Forest Department.

Tracing the historical data of cyclones provesthat Chennai and its surroundings were less affectedby floods until the large-scale encroachment took
place, in the last two decades, on the water bodies
and canal. Even during the tsunami in 2004, which
was a rare event on the coast, there was less impact
along the Pulicat and Buckingham Canal regions.
According to Dr. B. Ramalingeswara Rao, of the
National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI),
the lagoon and the canal acted as a buffer zone
and reduced the intensity of the tsunami, thiswas evident in the sizeable quantities of seawaterthat entered all through the length of the canal,
which runs parallel to the sea coast. The historicalinterconnections between lakes, lagoons, andirrigation tanks along the Coromandel Coast prove
to be a significant resilience buffer, which is in direneed of protection.

Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh aredesignated as Sanctuaries which the state’scontrol, respectively. The decentralisation offederal wetlands authority and empowering stateauthorities have been criticised by environmentalists
as the new enactment indirectly widens the ambitof permitted activities by inserting the ‘wise-use’principle, giving powers to the state administration
to decide what can be allowed considering higher
interests. Absence of prohibited activities in thelegislation has led to arbitrary decisions. The Pulicat
Lagoon can be easily encroached upon or polluted
because there is no clarity on the governing agency.
In 2014, the buffer zone of the lagoon was reduced

The State Disaster Management Perspective
Plan 2018-2030 has accorded primacy to thepriorities enunciated in the Sendai Framework for
Risk Reduction, the Sustainable Development Goalsof the Agenda 2030, and the Paris agreement on
Climate Change.
82

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■4. Conclusion
For centuries, the trade and commerce along
the Coromandel Coast were at the forefront andinfluenced the post-independence growth of India.
The Coromandel Coast was the first in bringing
new technology, modern science and education
systems, and an urban governance system, becauseof its direct links with Asian and European countries.
This development has been supported by natureculture linkages in the Pulicat Lagoon culturallandscape. Furthermore, these nature-culture
linkages have been the base for the resilience of thelagoon communities. However, these strong natureculture linkages are progressively dissolving due tothe modern industrial occupation of the wetlands
coupled with climate change. The wetlands of
the Coromandel Coast prove to be regulators tothis subcontinent, protecting, recharging, limitingflooding, stopping seawater intrusion to hinterlands,
sustaining fishermen economy, and supporting thefood chain of the ecosystem through its wingedvisitors.
The lagoon is staring at a bleak future andis on the verge of vanishing from the map due
to industrial pollution, siltation, reduction of thebuffer-zone, vegetation removal, excessive fishing,open defecation, reduction in freshwater flowfrom the three rivers, land encroachments, thegovernment interference into padu, and pollution
due to tourism. It needs immediate attention andthe establishment of a governing body, such as a
Pulicat Lagoon Development Authority, that would
develop sustainable development strategies forthe whole area in order to enhance the coastal
environment. Furthermore, the Pulicat Lagoon
could be designated under the Ramsar Convention
on Wetlands in order to raise international attention
to its challenges.

83

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Anameka Architects and Designers. 2010. Pulicat and Sadras. SAP Anna University, Chennai
Andhra Pradesh Forest Department (APFD). 2010. Andhra Pradesh State Forest Report. Government ofAndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
Azariah, J. 2007. My Biography Palliacatta The Pulicat 1400-2007, CreNIEO. Chennai
Basu, S. 2015. Historically prone to cyclones. Down To Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/
historically-prone-to-cyclones-42421 [Accessed 17 August 2015]
Benedict, X. 2018. Cultural landscape of Pulicat Lagoon. Cultural Landscape of India, Understanding andManaging Heritage Values, pp. 131-134. Aryan Books International, New Delhi
Bezerra de Melo, G. D. 2012. Nature and culture intertwined or redefined? On the challenges of cultural
primatology and socio cultural anthropology. Revue de primatologie (Primatology Journal) 4. https://journals.
openedition.org/primatologie/1020
Farooqui, A. and Vaz, G. G. 2000. Holocene Sea-Level Changes and Climate Fluctuations; Pulicat Lagoon: A
Case Study. Current Science 79 (10): pp. 1484-1488
Jacobsen, O. W. and Raj, P. J. S. 2009. Birds of Pulicat Lake, A Checklist. PLBLS, Chennai
Kripa, V., Rani, M., Mohan, A., Bose, J., Prema, D., and Kuriakose, S. 2012. Climate change impacts on coastallakes: An evaluation of the impact on Vembanad, Chilka and Pulicat lakes and their resources. Marine
Fisheries Information Service Technical and Extension Series 213: pp. 1-6
Parthasarathy, A. 2013. A laterite structure that’s languishing. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/
features/friday-review/history-and-culture/a-laterite-structure-thats-languishing/article4920733.ece[Accessed 16 July 2013]
Sahoo, B. and Bhaskaran, P. K. 2015. Assessment on historical cyclone tracks in the Bay of Bengal, east coastof India. International Journal of Climatology 36: pp. 95-109
Stephen, J. 1997. The Coromandel Coast and its Hinterlands: Economy, Society and Political System. 15001600. New Delhi
Stephen, J. 2014. Oceanscapes-Tamil Textiles in the Early Modern World. Primus Books, New Delhi
Thurston, E. 1918 (reprint 2011). The Madras Presidency with Mysore, Coorg and the Associated States.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2014. India. http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/india [Accessed 20 May 2019]84

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The Cultural and Natural
Heritage of Kaho’olawe Island
Ryan Yamane

Hawaii House of Representatives, Water and Land Committee, Hawaii State Capitol, 415 South Beretania
Street, room 420, Honolulu; Hawaii 96813; +1(808) 586-6150, repyamane@capitol.hawaii.gov■■Abstract“Kaho’olawe represents both the end result of human-influenced environmental degradation and the
beginning of collaborative healing as a force to mend our planet’s damaged environments while restoring its
people,” states the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission Financial Self-Sufficiency and Sustainability Planof December 2016. Kaho’olawe faces a paradoxical situation between being an island rich in cultural andnatural values while facing significant natural and human-made destruction. Currently, bomb ordinances
both still remain on land and sea and, due to significant wind and rain erosion, there is very little topsoil
for vegetation growth. Kaho’olawe is directly impacted by climate change and has no fresh water access,
impeding vegetation reforestation. This paper aims at investigating options to support its long-term
restoration and resource management.

KEY WORDS: Kaho’olawe, Island Reserve, Climate Change, Cultural Heritage■■1. Introduction

the islands of Maui, Lanai, and Molokai [Fig. 1]. The
island formed approximately 1.2 million years ago
when it was a collection of seven volcanoes thatcollectively covered a total land area of 14503.93
km². When sea levels rose due to melting glaciersand the volcanoes slowly eroded, Maui Nui wasseparated into the four distinct islands.

Kaho’olawe is an island 7 miles off of the southwest
coast of Maui and the smallest Hawaiian Islandin the State. Kaho’olawe is historically known as
Kohemalamalama O Kanaloa in the Hawaiian
culture. It is located at latitude 20.57°N andlongitude 156.57°W with the island’s highest
elevation at 452.02 meters above sea level. The
terrain is described as being low and flat, with very
dry and arid conditions, only receiving just around0.635 meters of rain annually.

Around 1830, Christian missionaries arrived
in Hawaii and persuaded King Kamehameha III toreplace the death penalty with exile. Kaho’olawe
then became a prison island. From 1830 to 1940,
the island was used as a prison and then for
ranching until the U.S. Army expressed interestin using the island for training purposes [Table
1]. In 1941, the U.S. Army and Navy began using
the island for target practice and began routinely
bombarding and torpedoing various areas. In 1953
President Eisenhower transferred the island to the
Territory of Hawaii however, maintaining control
of access and use of the island. Kaho’olawe wasplaced on the National Register of Historic Placesin 1981 but access was still limited by the military.
The bombing of Kaho’olawe was eventually stopped

Kaho’olawe was very culturally significant
for native Hawaiians, specifically for sea navigation.
It was known for its strategic importance despite
its relatively small size of only 193.12128 hm, 1 mi2= 2.58998811 km2 and being completely void ofaccess to on-island fresh water.
For the native Hawaiians, Kaho’olawe isa very sacred place, deeply rooted in its history,
culture, and religion [Fig. 2]. Kaho’olawe is part of
the Maui Nui original “mega-island” that comprises
85

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Reserve Map and satellite Image of the Hawaiian Islands in true-color Terra MODIS image acquired on May
27, 2003.

Figure 2: Kaho’olawe Island Highest Sacred Site. (Source: Author)or drawings, in the flat surfaces of rocks locatedat various sites on the island. Other pieces ofarchaeological evidence are the stone platforms
for religious ceremonies and rocks set upright asshrines for successful fishing trips. Some of theoldest and largest “Heiaus” (Hawaiian shrines) arelocated on Kaho’olawe. This island was also theplace where the navigators and “Kahuna” (Elders),
who guided the ocean voyages of early Hawaiians,
were trained. Kaho’olawe Island was a traditional
launching point for voyaging canoes sailing back to
Tahiti. The island cove name, “Kealaikahiki,” literallytranslates as “the road to Tahiti.”through an Executive Order by President George
Bush Senior in 1990, and in 1991 the Kaho’olawe
Island Conveyance Commission recommended
that the island be returned to the State of Hawaii in
2003.
■■2. Heritage Significance of Kaho’olawe Island
Kaho’olawe Island Archeological District is an
important National and Hawaii State heritage site.
The Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC)
has restored 100 acres in the Hakioawa Watershedby planting 10,000 native Hawaiian plants. The KIRC
is also currently involved in Coastal Restoration andis in their 5th year of coastal restoration planting
in order to prevent further soil erosion. The
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve has inventoried 3,000
historic sites, are featured in the National Registerof Historic Places and are in constant need ofprotection from the weather, erosion, and climatechange conditions.

This precious island was used for centuries
by native Hawaiians to help sustain their people,
educate their captains, and worship their gods.
Later it was used for bombing by the United States
military which decimated many culturally significant
archives. Nevertheless, with the right restoration
plan, this island can be healed from its past abuse.
Kaho’olawe has over 500 archaeological sites
and over 2,000 archaeological features identified
on Kaho`olawe Island, as shown in Figures 3 andItems like ancient stone tools were also
located on the island. Indications of these earlytimes can be found in the carved petroglyphs,
86

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Table 1: History of Kaho’olawe Island (Source: Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission Ecological Report Presentation,
June 2018)

4. A significant number of these sites are locatedeither along the shoreline, threatened by increased
coastal erosion, or located in the upland slopes of
the island in the exposed hardpan regions, making itvery prone to increasing weather severity and winderosion (Barrera 1984).

Figure 4: Satellite image of the island’s importantnatural and cultural significance features, provided by
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission, 11/3/2019.

■■3. Current Management Arrangements
The Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC)
was created in 1994 to manage and restore theselands on behalf of the people of Hawaii and toeventually transfer the management of Kaho’olawe
and its surrounding waters to a recognized
Sovereign Native Hawaiian Entity (KIRC 2006,
2016, 2018). Emphasis was placed on traditional
Native Hawaiian cultural, spiritual and subsistence
purposes, rights, and practices, including thepreservation of Kaho’olawe’s archaeological,
historical, and environmental resources, as wellFigure 3: Map of the island’s important natural andcultural significance features, provided by Kaho’olawe
Island Reserve Commission, 11/3/2019.

87

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

as the rehabilitation, reforesting, and habitat
restoration of the island, fishing, and education
are top priorities for KIRC (Hawaii Revised Statutes,
Chapter 6K, Kaho’olawe Island Reserve).

the Hawaiian heritage will be preserved and taught
to future generations. However, the KIRC needs theassistance and expertise of partners to carry out
their current preservation activities as well as learn
how to protect the site from potential hazards.

Commercial uses are strictly prohibitedwithin the Reserve. The prohibition of commercial
use of the island stems back to the State of Hawaii
and United States Navy’s agreements for the termsof the turnover and cleanup of the former militarytraining range. The Navy’s concern for introducing
third-party interests to the island, throughcommercial uses, is that it would increase the
Navy’s potential liability with respect to additional
parties that have standing in the long-term use of
Kaho’olawe. The prohibition restricts the long-term
uses of the island and therefore restricts the ability
to generate sustainable funding for the island’slong-term restoration.

Currently, the KIRC partners with Island
Conservation (IC), a not-for-profit conservation
organization whose mission is to prevent extinction
by removing invasive species from islands. They
work where the concentration of both biodiversity
and species extinction is greatest. The focus is on
removing a primary threat, like invasive species,that threatens native Hawaiian plants and animals
and restoring the island’s unique ecosystems. Onceinvasive species are removed, native island species
and ecosystems recover with little additional
intervention. Over the past 20 years, Island
Conservation and partners have deployed teams
to protect 994 populations, of 389 species, on 52
islands worldwide1. The KIRC also partners with The
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), which
protects and restores wildlife and habitats in UnitedStates territories. Chartered by Congress in 1984,
NFWF directs public conservation funds to the mostpressing environmental needs and matches thoseinvestments with private contributions2.

The KIRC has implemented a series of coastal
planting projects in order to expand the native
dune plantings so that a coastal dune system canbe developed and designed to catch windblown
sands and create a natural buffer during the periodof higher tides. In the 19 th century, decades of
uncontrolled ungulate and cattle caused damage,resulting in the exposure of the island’s basalt rocklayer (hardpan). With over a hundred years of windand rain erosion damage, over 10 feet of topsoil has
been lost and the Island’s hardpan exposure makes
the surface semi-impervious to water, resulting insignificant surface water runoff and erosion, thateventually floods the nearshore waters with finesilt deposits and damaging nearshore wildlife. In
response, the KIRC has systematically built erosion
control devices, such as check dams and swales,
to slow down surface water runoff velocities andtrapping water to increase water percolation. The
KIRC has been building large scale terra nativeplanting projects and rainwater collection irrigation
to also increase surface water percolation, reducesurface erosion, and restoration of the native
watershed on the island.

■■4. Current State of Conservation and Challenges
to Ensure the Continuity of the LandscapeKaho’olawe’s cultural and spiritual significanceprevents any development of structures andlimits the type of activities that can be conductedto support financial viability. Currently, theBoard of the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve, whomanages the island, has prohibited any type ofcommercial activity for safety and for preventing
potential damage to unexcavated sites. The KIRC
implemented rules that restrict all activities tobeing only for cultural or educational purposes,with economic gains being limited to only cover theactivity’s cost and not for profit.
Moreover, Kaho’olawe is very vulnerable
to disasters, and any form of threats, because it isisolated and uninhabitable due to the lack of fresh
water and arable soil. Since the topology is flat withminimal elevation, Kaho’olawe is very vulnerable
to wind and water erosion, especially during
hurricanes and extreme rainstorms. The Board

The KIRC is committed to becoming an
educational entity for the Native Hawaiian culture,
where people can learn about Hawaiian heritageand practices. Eventually, Kaho’olawe Island Reserve
will be a place to experience the connection to theland, the sea, and their ancestors. The hope is that1

IC is headquartered in Santa Cruz, California with field offices in Australia, British Columbia, Chile, Ecuador, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Puerto Rico.

2

NFWF works with government, nonprofit and corporate partners to find solutions for the most complex conservation challenges. Over the last three

decades, NFWF has funded more than 4,500 organizations and committed more than $3.5 billion to conservation projects.

88JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

of the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve has prohibitedthe construction of infrastructure, resulting in nobarriers for preventing coastal erosion. With addedconcerns of sea level rise due to climate change,
Kaho’olawe is very prone to high surf inundation,
extreme water erosion, and damage caused bysoil runoff into the reefs. With the United States
withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Hawaii
has made a legislative pledge by passing a State
Resolution to continue the Paris Agreement’s
principles at a local level. Risk reduction and disasterrecovery are not part of the KIRC’s current financial
long-term plan because they lack the financial
resources to maintain current activities. Therefore,
the KIRC needs resources and technical assistance toidentify strategies to protect this precious heritagesite from natural hazards and ongoing impacts
caused by climate change.

island and all resources need to be transported
by boat there are very limited options for natural
resource restoration. All food, water, fuel, andmaterials must be brought in monthly in order for
the island to sustain life. Furthermore, Kaho’olawe
has no reinforced harbor facilities or pier system,
so all the resources must be ocean-borne cargo
and carried by landing craft from the Island of
Maui to Kaho’olawe’s Honokanai`a beach, locatedat the southwest end of the island. In the past few
years, the KIRC reported an increase in summer
storms. This increase in hurricanes and severe
thunderstorms have been hindering their efforts
to transport people, materials, and supplies to
Kaho’olawe, impacting on their logistic operations
supporting on-going restoration efforts.

Currently, the island has been experiencing
climate change in two main phenomena: 1) rapid
increase in coastal erosion and 2) increase in theseverity and frequency of hurricane type storms in
the channels between Kaho’olawe Island and theIsland of Maui.

Kaho’olawe Island is a sacred island, extremely
prone to disasters and vulnerable to climate change.
The State of Hawaii needs to identify and protect
the cultural and natural heritage that this island has,beyond just the ecological and historical values,
considering also its cultural and spiritual significance(Yamane 2018). Its restoration could symbolizea re-birth by reestablishing its use for Hawaiian
cultural practices and changing this uninhabitablebarren place, with no access to groundwater and no
economic viability, into a symbol of recovery fromneglect and war devastation.

■■5. Recommendations

Increases in coastal erosion have been
confirmed by the decrease in the distance between
the shoreline and coastal roads. In recent years,
the KIRC has been observing sand and tidal wash
covering some of the coastal trails and roads that
previously were not impacted by coastal wave
flow. The change of the shoreline is affecting the
traditional native Hawaiian burial sites and customs,
requiring their relocation away from natural
occurring coastal sand dune formation. Coastal
sand dunes are prevalent in the southwest coastlineof Kaho’olawe and several burial sites had to be
relocated and re-interned in other safer locations
over recent years. The increase in coastal erosion
and an increase in storm surges are potentiallythreatening other undiscovered burial sites.

The long-term goal of the KIRC continues
to be developing the island as a living heritage site
for the perpetuation and continuation of Native
Hawaiian traditional practices and cultural heritage.
The restoration efforts being undertaken are trying
to reverse the ecological damage created from past
war ordinance destruction and mismanagement.
As the restoration of native vegetation continues, itwill restore the surface water retention, reduce theamount of soil silt that enters the nearshore reefs,
and limit the damage to the reef ecosystems. The
process of restoring the island’s natural vegetation
will reduce wind and rain erosion, preserving its
cultural heritage.

Kaho’olawe is presently undergoing cleanup and restoration projects. The conservation
plan focuses on planting native foliage, including
edible and herbal plants used in traditional native
medicine. For this purpose, various soil conservation
programs, such as social run off collections andnetting to capture soil blown by strong gusts, arebeing implemented, and a catchment system isbeing created to capture rainwater. Even though
the island has a rich ocean ecosystem, there areconcerns about unexploded ordinances in theseaside and beaches; thus, minimal research has
been undertaken. Since no one resides on the

However, Kaho’olawe Island Reserve stillneeds to complete a thorough SWOT analysis
to look at opportunities to build economic
resources and partnerships that would support theconservation of its unique cultural values and allow
its ecological restoration. This requires the State of
Hawaii to fund the development of a viable financial
plan, which would allow the island to be used as anenvironmental education centre of excellence and89

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

help defer the costs for its decontamination.
The Capacity Building Workshop on Nature
Culture Linkages in Asia and the Pacific (CBWNCL)
emphasizes the link between heritage conservationand disaster resilience. My participation in the
CBWNCL program enlightened me on how focusing
only on disaster response and increasing public
safety can place heritage at risk and forever change
the very essence of cultural and natural beauty.
CBWNCL’s focus on the integrated natural andcultural approaches to heritage conservation helped
me to understand how to incorporate heritage
protection and the preservation of natural beauty
into statewide policy-making. Any future disasterprevention and climate change mitigation andadaptation planning must incorporate the cultural,
natural, and spiritual significance of each area andshould include the input from a wide breadth of
stakeholders. As a Hawaii State Legislative Leader,
I conclude that it is important to invest in restoring
this once desolated and forgotten island, by making
it a symbol of peace and healing, in the fight against
climate change. With the knowledge exchanged
during the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture
Linkages in Heritage Conservation’s program, I
recognize that this devastated island, used as atool for war, could be re-defined as a beacon ofresilience and restoration of culture and heritage.

90

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Barrera, W. Jr. 1984. Kahoolawe Archaeology: An Overview Hawaiian Archaeology, Vol. 1(1).The Societyfor Hawaiian Archaeology. http://hawaiianarchaeology.org/publication/view/hawaiian-archaeologyvolume-1-1984/ [Accessed 1 August 2018]
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission. 2006. A Report to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of
HawaiʻiKaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission. 2016. Kukulu ke ea a Kanaloa - The life and spirit of Kanaloa, State of
Hawaii. Kaho’olawe Island Reserve FY16 Year-In-Review (July 2015 - June 2016)
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission. Official Commissioned Pictures http://mauinow.c http://livinglibrary.
kahoolawe.hawaii.gov/index.htmom/2018/04/27/kahoolawe-bill-passes-reestablishes-cultural-resourcescoordinator/ [Accessed August 2018]
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission. 2018. KIRC Ecological Finance Conference
Nahoopii, M. 2018. Kihei Site Case Statement Draft. Honolulu, Hawaii
National Register of Historic Places, Kaho’olawe Island Archeological District. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/
AssetDetail?assetID=20e64da8-16c2-44ad-a3ee-d1cb6206097a [Accessed August 2018]
State of Hawaii, State office of State Historic Preservation. Hawaii list of National and State Registered
Historical Sites. http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/shpd/home/attachment/historicregisters_2018aug10/ [Accessed
August 2018]
Yamane, Ryan. 2018. Relating To The Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission. https://www.capitol.hawaii.
gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2594&year=2018 [Accessed August 2018]

91

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Rapa Nui World Heritage Site
– Initiatives and Challenges for
the Risk Management
María Andrea Margotta Ruiz

World Heritage Sites National Center (National Service for Cultural Heritage), Ministry of Cultures, Arts andHeritage, Chile, Avenida Holanda N° 3806, Ñuñoa, Santiago, Chile; 7790826; +56 229978783, maria.
margotta@patrimoniocultural.gob.cl■■Abstract

Rapa Nui National Park, as a Cultural World Heritage Site, is strongly linked to the natural environment that
influences the richness of its attributes. However, some risk factors inherent to these nature-culture linkages
have been identified in recent years. Among other threats, natural hazards, such as earthquakes andtsunamis, are the object of greater preventive efforts, in which the local community is playing an increasingly
important role: Since 2017, the Rapa Nui National Park administration is carried out by the PolynesianIndigenous Community Ma’u Henua, constituted by members of the Rapa Nui indigenous community. In
this article, the author aims to show the linkage between the Rapa Nui and Minami-Sanriku Town, an area
affected by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and visited during the Capacity Building
Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages. Although located far away from each other, the Pacific Ocean andthe Ring of Fire have created connections between these two communities in withstanding interrelated
disasters. At the same time, this experience has created a bond that relates both communities throughshared heritage, which supports their recovery and the community’s resilience.

KEY WORDS: Rapa Nui, World Heritage, Risk factors, Community, Moai, Resilience, Protection, MinamiSanriku Town■■1. Introduction

central role in its significance. However, the culturalvalues of Rapa Nui Island and its communities arestrongly linked with the natural environment.

The Rapa Nui Island, whose official name as part of
the Chilean territory is Easter Island (Isla de Pascua),
is located 3,700 km from Chile’s mainland, in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean, with a surface of 163.6
km2. The island, at a national level, is fully protectedby Law No. 17.288 of National Monuments, under
the category of Historical Monument. An important
portion of its territory, corresponding to the
National Park, has been listed on the UNESCO World
Heritage List [Fig. 1] since 1995. It was inscribed as a
Cultural World Heritage property under criteria (i),(iii) and (v)1 in which the Moai colossal statues take aSome risk factors, inherent to these natureculture linkages, have been identified in recent
years. Studies have been conducted to monitor
coastline erosion caused by climate change, suchas sea level rise. Fires are also a threat that is rather
well controlled, although recently, and in particular,
in 2017, there have been concerning episodes thathave alerted and generated studies in order todevelop risk control measures2.

1

UNESCO Website, Rapa Nui National Park World Heritage Site (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/715)

2

Project document “Strengthening Disaster Risk Management at 3 World Heritage Properties in Chile” -Support for the implementation of Pilot

Projects inscribed on the sub-regional “Action Plan for World Heritage in South America”.

92

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Rapa Nui National Park – Inscribed WHS Property. Source: UNESCO Website. Author: Baldrich, Horacio.

Figure 2: Ahu Tongariki. Source: National Service for Cultural Heritage, Chile. Author: Jorge López.

Natural hazards, such as earthquakes andtsunamis, are still the object of greater preventive
efforts. In this article, the author reviews the rolethat the local community can play in these efforts,
especially since the National Park administration isfrom 2017 carried out by the Polynesian Indigenous
Community Ma’u Henua . This institution, created in2016, was constituted by members of the Rapa Nuiindigenous community.

Interestingly, the Capacit y Building
Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages (theWorkshop) brought the author closer to an
outstanding example of a recovery process thatlinked Easter Island and the Minami-Sanriku Town,
which was affected by the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami. In the last section, theauthor will share her observations and reflections
on this experience.
93

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■2. Management Context(1888)4 for the right to territory and wealth, aswell as to the legislation and international Law of
the Indigenous Peoples, the National Indigenous
Law, the 169 Convention of the International Labor
Organization on Indigenous Peoples (ILO), and to
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. The institutional organization
chart has a board of directors and a transverse
ethics committee, under which the activities andinitiatives are carried out by different departments(communications, archaeology, planning,
administration, finance, and operational), forminga total number of 167 workforces. On the basis of
the diagnoses related to the previous management
model, one of the main objectives of the new Ma’u
Henua administration is to work on promoting the
integration and the sense of community belonging
with the richness of its territory (RAPU 2018)5.

In terms of its management, the area protected asa National Park -coincident with the World Heritage
Site- until 2017 was under the responsibility of
the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), an
entity that works under the Ministry of Agriculture.
However, as a result of a historical process
promoted by the local community, since 2017, theNational Park management has been transferredto the local entity Ma’u Henua , constituted bymembers of the Rapa Nui indigenous community[Fig. 3]. The main objective of Ma’u Henua is toestablish a new administration system, which allows
guaranteeing the protection and enhancement of
the archaeological and scenic richness of the Rapa
Nui culture, through the direct management of thelocal community3. Currently, the group has controlof 25 official visitation sites and as an operational
mechanism, all decision-making in terms ofmanagement is validated through its exposure to
the entire Rapa Nui indigenous community.

■■3. Risk Factors

3.1 Main risk factors
The legal framework that sustains thecreation of the new administration carried out
by Ma’u Henua is linked to the Wills Agreement

Rapa Nui, due to its particular scenery, is strongly
related to the natural environment [Fig. 4]. It is

Figure 3: Community Meeting, Ahu Tahai. Source: National Service for Cultural Heritage, Chile. Author: Jorge López.

3

Ma’u Henua Website (https://www.mauhenua.com/comunidad-ma-u-henua).

4

Easter Island was incorporated in 1888 to the sovereignty of Chile under a “ Wills Agreement” between the State and the heads of the Rapa Nuicommunity. This agreement established the session of sovereignty of the island in favor of the Chilean State, the latter committing itself to provide
education and development to the islanders, who maintained their property rights on the land, and the heads of the Rapa Nui community
5

RAPU, Rafael. 2018. Documents of the World Heritage Sites National Center, Site Managers Meeting.

94

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

3.2 Initiatives and challenges

a volcanic island with its last eruption dating toaround 2000 years ago. Even though it does nothave the same seismic activity as the continent,
it does suffer the effects of the earthquakes,
especially events related to tsunamis. The strongest
tsunami registered in the last century was a result of
the 1960 earthquake in southern Chile (the Valdivia
earthquake), which devastated the southeast coastof the island, affecting several archaeological sites,
an example of this is the damage that caused the fallof several of the colossal Moai statues located on
Tongariki’s Ahu . Another threat is fire episodes fromanthropic factors, the last of major concern wasrecent, on September 2017, which resulted in the
Rapa Nui National Park being subject to numerous
fire foci, with an affected surface of 1160 hectares.

As a result of the different risks identified, somestudies, initiatives, and reforms at the national andlocal levels are being implemented to improve themanagement of the territory in order to ensure
the integral protection of the island, considering its
nature-culture linkages and its values as an inherent
scenario to the territorial condition of the island.
These include the “Study of the Mata Ngarahu Rapa
Nui massif,”6 National Monuments Council (2014),
whose general objective considered an accurate
assessment of the geological situation in which
the Mata Ngarahu area of the Orongo ceremonial
village is located, as well as taking into consideration
the recurrent loss of large portions of land from thevolcano’s south slope and the need to implement
measures to stabilize the rocky massif to achieve
the conservation of its petroglyphs. This situationis related to other initiatives and studies for the
management and control of visitation of sites
carried out by the Ma’u Henua community7.

Fur thermore, the lo c al communit yrecognizes that the proximity to the sea is one of themain risk factors that is eroding the land surface,
due to the island’s shore in an area in which a large
number of archaeological sites are located, as wellas the increase in the annual rate of tourism thattoday reaches 8% (approximately 100,000 tourists
annually). In this respect, the local administration is
implementing improvements, especially in mattersrelated to controlling the visits to the sites, withparticular focus on those that present a higher levelof vulnerability.

Another case is the “Strengthening Disaster
Risk Management at 3 World Heritage Properties
in Chile” project, which is in full development8.
The project has as main objective to provide initialsupport for the future development of Disaster Risk
Management Plans for the Rapa Nui National Park,
through field reconnaissance missions and a review
of available background information, in relation topresent risk factors, to facilitate the assessment ofproperty vulnerabilities9.
The preliminary findings of these studies
were presented at the Workshop. It is expected thatthe new management carried out by the community
will propitiate an analysis of the participatory
methodologies undertaken, with the aim toincorporate improvements on all the processes
related to risk management, linking them to thecommunity and building resilience. The objective is

Figure 4: View from Tahai area. Source: National Service
for Cultural Heritage, Chile. Author: Jorge López.

6

National Monuments Council, Chile. 2013. “Study of the Mata Ngarahu Rapanui massif.”

7

RAPU, Rafael. 2018. Documents of the World Heritage Sites National Center, Site Managers Meeting.

8

WORLD HERITAGE NATIONAL CENTER Website:

http://www.mercadopublico.cl/Procurement/Modules/RFB/DetailsAcquisition.aspx?qs=PFRB0pcH6QV30UxcFbV1qQ==

https://www.sngp.gob.cl/sitio/Contenido/Noticias/90525:Seminario-Taller-Fortalecimiento-de-la-gestion-del-riesgo-de-desastres-en-Sitios-delPatrimonio-Mundial-en-Chile.
https://www.sngp.gob.cl/sitio/Contenido/Noticias/90956:Especialistas-nacionales-se-capacitan-en-gestion-del-riesgo-de-desastres-en-sitios-depatrimonio-mundial-Unesco
https://www.sngp.gob.cl/sitio/Contenido/Noticias/91628:Encuentro-y-Workshop-taller-en-Sitios-Patrimonio-Mundial-Oficinas-SalitrerasHumberstone-y-Santa-Laura
9

Project document “Strengthening Disaster Risk Management at 3 World Heritage Properties in Chile” -Support for the implementation of Pilot

Projects inscribed on the sub-regional “Action Plan for World Heritage in South America”.

95

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

to place local stakeholders as the main protagonists
since they are the carriers of the traditional
knowledge of their territory and the link between
their natural and cultural heritage. Therefore,
towards effective conservation, it is positive thatconservation measures consider agreements taken
on participatory processes based on the experienceof the inhabitants.

remains of the ancestors that they represent canbe found. However, there is significance in the way
they were placed and meaning in their orientation.
The aboriginal people from Rapa Nui follow
a distinctive cult of death, linked to their worldview
and beliefs on Mana . Mana is a fundamental
component which can be defined as a supernatural
power or a protective force that comes fromthe cosmos inhabited by humans and spirits. It istransversal to all areas of life and its absence or loss
is the explanation of the internal catastrophes thathave hit the island throughout its history (CNCA2013)10.

■■4. Protection as a linkage between the Rapa Nui
and Minami-Sanriku Town.
The Rapa Nui community practices an oral tradition,
characterized by the transmission of particular
cultural expressions from generation to generation.
In doing so, their living experiences are transmitted
to future generations with the aim of protecting
their culture. Due to this, it is possible to conclude
that written perspectives of how the community
values the colossal statues, called Moai , are scarceor almost non-existent.

From the field trip visit to Minami-Sanriku
Town, as part of the Workshop, an interlinkage
between the two case studies was observed, inwhich both places are connected by the postdisaster and resilience processes. Minami-Sanriku
Town, in Japan, was devastated by the 2011 tsunami
and one of the famous Moai statues is located in its
new commercial area, replicating the characteristicsof those found in Rapa Nui [Fig. 5].

The statues correspond to the present
representation of the ancestors of the Rapa Nuipeople, and in that sense, they are worshipped
and respected as sacred images (Rapu, personal
interview 2018). Some of them are grouped andlocated on platforms called Ahu , under which the

It is important to clarify the origin of thestatue that is located in Minami-Sanriku Town.
This specific statue is not linked to any Rapa Nuiancestor in particular. It was specially sculpted

Figure 5: Moai figure located in Minamisanriku Sun Sun Shopping Village. Margotta M. A. 2018.

10

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CULTURE AND ARTS, CHILE. 2013. Knowing the Rapa Nui Culture.
https://www.cultura.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Guia-Rapanui.pdf

96JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

for her transfer to Japan, to replace a first figure,which was previously sculpted and transported
from Rapa Nui. That initial figure was a gift from thegovernment of Chile, sent as gratitude to Japan, inthe context of the UNESCO Japan project11. Someof the activities carried out by this programme
addressed the restoration of Moai statues that weredamaged as a result of the 1960 tsunami in Chile,the force of which subsequently reached the coasts
of Japan’s Tohoku region, where Minami-Sanriku
Town is located.

disaster reconstruction. This link with intangible
values and the reinterpretation of the protection
feelings, beyond the tangible dimension of the Moaifigure located in Minami-Sanriku, is what marks thisexample as a particularly interesting case study.
It is this feeling of protection that makes this useof the Moai positively evaluated by the membersof the Rapa Nui community to whom the authortransmitted this story.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the newmeaning effects visualized in Minami-Sanriku
Town are noteworthy. It is possible to appreciatethat there have been few, or perhaps insufficient,activities or dissemination links with the aim totransmit to the local community of Minami-Sanriku
the original context described above. Nevertheless,
it is possible to appreciate a special reappropriationof the figure by the community which collects thatoriginal feeling of protection in this very different
context. This new meaning had a positive effect andcontributed in the reinforcement of the community
and the town’s hopes in a resilience process after
the 2011 tsunami, as one of the few elements still
existing and that recalls the image of the town
before the disaster.
The statue evolved into an interesting
example of how a community’s heritage linked toa very specific environmental context, expressedin its materiality (the Moai stone figures), and toa specific culture and its practices (rites of death)can be reconverted and transformed into aninvaluable resource for a different and very distantcommunity (Minami-Sanriku) in their process ofrecovery. Particularly in Minami-Sanriku, the author
and other Workshop participants could testify of
the remarkable role that the local community is
taking in the reconstruction of their town, throughdifferent participatory projects currently underdevelopment.
In conclusion, it can be highlighted that
although the Moai located in Minami-Sanriku is
not placed on the remains of a specific Rapa Nuiancestor, nor does it accurately represent it, thefigure commemorates the disaster and the victims
who are part of the collective memory of thecommunity and that has been a tool for resiliencein the recovery processes, linked to the post-

11

Bahamondez M, Sawada M, Inoue S., Araki Y. and Valenzuela P. 2007. Ahu Tongariki: Conservation work of its 15 moai. CONSERVA Journal N°11:

pp. 55 – 64. http://www.patrimoniocultural.gob.cl/dinamicas/DocAdjunto_1203.pdf

97

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Bahamondez M., Sawada M., Inoue S., Araki Y. and Valenzuela P. 2007. Ahu Tongariki: Conservation work of
its 15 moai. CONSERVA Journal N° 11: pp. 55 – 64.
Comunidad Ma’u Henua. n.d. Comunidad Indígena Polinésica Ma’u Henua. https://www.mauhenua.com/
comunidad-ma-u-henua [Accessed November 2018]
National Council for Culture and Arts, Chile. 2013. Knowing the Rapa Nui Culture. https://www.cultura.gob.
cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Guia-Rapanui.pdf
National Monuments Council, Chile. 2013. Study of the Mata Ngarahu Rapanui massif. http://www.
mercadopublico.cl/Procurement/Modules/RFB/DetailsAcquisition.aspx?qs=PFRB0pcH6QV30UxcFbV1qQ==
Rapu, R. 2018. Documents of the World Heritage Sites National Center, Site Managers Meeting.
UNESCO. 2018. Project document “Strengthening Disaster Risk Management at 3 World Heritage Properties
in Chile” -Support for the implementation of Pilot Projects inscribed on the sub-regional “Action Plan forWorld Heritage in South America”.
UNESCO. n.d. Rapa Nui National Park World Heritage Site. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/715 [Accessed
November 2018]■■Cartographic documentation
Baldrich H.; project Cabeza A., Weber C., Rauch M.; design Campodónico M.I. [Chile]: Corporacion Nacional
Forestal: World Monuments Fund, [1992?] (Chile: Impr. Creces) 1 map: il. col.; 48 x 69 cm., pleg. 22 x 14 cm.
Available at the National Digital Library of Chile: http://www.bibliotecanacionaldigital.gob.cl/bnd/631/w3article-352845.html [Accesed June 2019]

98

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Nature-Culture Mapping in theTrans-Himalayas
Radhika KothariJungwa Foundation, Flat No. 1001, Tower 16, The Close North, Nirvana, Sector 50, Gurgaon. HaryanaIndia; +91 9820260399, radhikarvk@gmail.com■■Abstract

Tso Moriri-Korzok (Ladakh-India), located in the Ladakh Trans-Himalayas, is a unique bio-diverse wetland
4650m above sea-level (asl). It is locally protected and an international Ramsar site. The Changpa, nomadic
pastoralists, who have inhabited this landscape for several centuries display a complex yet eloquent interface
with nature that is evident in their way of life. However, the region is highly vulnerable due to climate change,
geopolitical conflicts, and irregular policies affecting both ecosystems and breaking the socio-cultural fabricof the Changpa nomads. The project proposed aims to spatially map the Changpa land-use, their movement,
and the wetland ecosystem. Documenting cultural, historical, environmental, and other practical data thatshowcase interdependencies, interactions, and overlaps between nature and cultural systems. The mapping
project could support future landscape management and conservation plans.

KEY WORDS: Trans-Himalayas, Nature-culture linkages, Nomadic communities, Community mapping,
Traditional knowledge, Climate change, Cold-desert■■1. Introduction

wild-ass as well as endangered migratory birds, likethe black-necked crane and bar-headed goose, andseveral species of plants, all together creating aunique assemblage of flora and fauna (Namgail et al.
2010).

Tso Moriri is located in the southernmost part of
the Changthang plains and the western edge of the
Tibetan Plateau in Ladakh-India. This high-altitude
brackish lake, at 4650masl, is an extensive, complex
wetland ecosystem that spreads over an area of
120 km² (Chandan et al. 2007). Characterized by anarid, cold, desert climate, the summer temperature
ranges from 0° to 30°C and falls to -10° and -40°C
in winter, freezing the lake in the winter months(Mishra et al. 1998).
■■2. Significance of the heritage place

Figure 2: Black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis) (© Kirti
Chavan)2.1 Natural and cultural values
Despite the harshest conditions, the landscape
represents one of the important bio-geographic andeco-regions province within the trans-Himalayas,with several rare species of mammals, including
the Snow leopard, Tibetan gazelle, and the Tibetan
99

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Figure 1: Map of the Tso Moriri-Korzok Wetlands. (Adapted from Management Planning Tso Moriri-Tsokar, aframework 2007; Department of Wildlife Protection, Government of Jammu and Kashmir)than 1% of the geographical area in Changthang iscultivated, most of the vegetated zone is used by
the Changpa nomads as grazing grounds (Rawat
and Adhikari 2002). A small number of the Changpa,
known as ‘yulpas ’ (literally translated as village
settlers), live in the village of Korzok, located at thenorthern end of the lake.

2.2 Sacred landscapeTso Moriri holds immense cultural and ecologicalsignificance in Changthang. In 2000, the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-India), along with
the Buddhist Monastery at Korzok and the local
community, pledged Tso Moriri as a Sacred Gift tothe Earth (WWF 2001). Following which, the local
monastery regularly conducts religious ceremonies
at the banks of the lake for the well-being of all living
creatures and for the sanctity of its waters. It is also
considered a gesture of gratitude for the lake and its
life-supporting qualities.

Figure 3: Village of Korzok on the shores of Tso Moriri (©
Radhika Kothari)

Known for its rich biodiversity and geologicalformations, the area is protected under the
Changthang Cold Desert Sanctuary. It is also locallyprotected as the Tso Moriri Wetland Conservation
Reserve and is an international Ramsar Site (Gujja et
al. 2003).
Like much of Changthang, the Changpa,
known to have arrived from Tibet in the eighth
century CE, populate the site (Jina 1995). The
Changpa are mainly nomadic pastoralists, whorear the pashmina goats, sheep, and yaks, moveat altitudes ranging between 4000m to 5500m
asl across the Changthang plains with yak wool
tents called ‘rebos’ (Chaudhari 2000). While less

The Changpa also revere wildlife as a matterof religious belief and custom; for example, thearrival of the endangered black-necked crane isconsidered highly auspicious and is seen as a very
good omen for the year. These evident, eloquentinterfaces between the cold desert ecology and the100

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

as a Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage site under
the following criteria:

Changpa have always defined this scared landscape(Bhasin 2012).

Criteria (iii), (v) and (vi): The Changpa, whohave inhabited the harsh landscape for several
centuries, display a complex interface with naturethat resonates in their customs, land use, local
knowledge, and spiritual beliefs, and are currently
threatened by changing socio-economic andanthropogenic climate threats.
Criteria(vii), (viii), and (x): The TransHimalayan region represents an importantbiogeographic zone that, despite its sparsevegetation, supports a number of endangered andthreatened species. Apart from climate threats, thelack of calculated strategies and burgoening tourism
could further degrade this fragile ecosystem.
■■3. Management, State of Conservation, Threats,
and Vulnerabilities

3.1 Management
Tso Moriri is administratively governed under
the Nyoma Block in the Leh district of Ladakh.
Moreover, being a wetland reserve within the
Changthang Cold Desert Sanctuary, the site comes
directly under the jurisdiction of the Departmentof Wildlife Protection, Government of Jammu andKashmir, India. The Department is responsible forthe overall management of the lake and a dedicatedranger officer is present in the village of Korzok. In
addition, the local community, along with WWFIndia, formed the Tso Moriri Conservation Trust thatwas envisioned to supervise, conserve, regulatecamping, and vehicle movement around the lake.
However, there is much left to do in terms ofground-work in the lake catchment areas and in thevillage of Korzok, which is constantly under threat
due to tourism, unplanned development, and theconstant onslaught of climate variability with eachpassing year given the lack of local action.

Figure 4: Changpa in traditional attire (© Radhika
Kothari)Figure 5: Stone balance and prayer flags at a mountainpass (© Radhika Kothari)

2.3 Outstanding universal value for World Heritage
nomination and present limitations
In early 2000, there were plans to nominate Tso
Moriri as a World Heritage site (Gujja et al. 2003).
While the local community wasn’t involved in theprocess, given the paucity of data and administrative
processes, the idea was dropped. Later, in 2015,
the entire region of Ladakh was included on India’s
Tentative List for World Heritage. Named as the ‘Cold
Desert Cultural Landscape of India,’ the proposal
highlights the Buddhist roots and Tibetan affiliationsof Ladakh.

3.2 State of Conservation, threats, and vulnerabilities
Ecological and climate change
Despite representing a unique ecosystem in termsof biotic resources (Rawat et al. 2002), there has
been little effort to understand the rich biodiversity(Namgail et al. 2005), the impact of climate change,
and the associated vulnerabilities in Changthang.
The studies from the Tibetan side of the
Changthang Plateau indicates the thinning ofNonetheless, given the exceptional naturaland cultural values of Tso Moriri, it could well qualify
101

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

For example, the rotational traditional pasturemanagement system, wherein certain pastures
are left untouched for natural regeneration, could
also be under threat due to degradation. More so,the exact impact of climatic change in the regionis yet to be fully understood; therefore, it is noteasy to evaluate the impact of the rapidly changing
conditions on the Changpa pastoralist lifestyle.

glaciers, erratic precipitation patterns, and theincrease in the minimum temperature during winterhas been affecting the vegetation and grasslands(Yang et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2000; Wilkes 2008). For
Ladakh as a whole, which shares a similar geography
and altitude, the impacts of global climate change
have been prominent in the form of extreme
heat, cold waves, flash floods, and pest invasions.
Meteorological data, recorded by the Indian Air
Force, shows that the temperature in the regionrose by 1o C over the last 35 years (Kumar 2009).

Additionally, the local people, who havealways revered the natural elements, such as
the lakes, mountains, and birds, along with their
Buddhist worldviews, are facing cultural incursions
with unregulated tourism. Unplanned development
activities, the lack of dialogue among development
agencies, and inconsistent policies are reducing
their adaptive capacity and thereby increasing theoverall vulnerability of the Changpa nomads andtheir natural setting (Chandan et al. 2007; Namgailet al. 2007).

Observations and community perspectives
from Changthang also corroborate a substantial
decrease in snowfall over the last 20 years, which
is directly affecting changes in species composition
and the decreasing productivity of grasslands. In
the recent past, there have been unprecedented
extreme events in Changthang, like the 2013snowstorm that submerged the region in heavy
snow for months, resulting in a loss of uncountablewildlife, particularly the Tibetan wild-asses, Blue
sheep, Tibetan wolves, and more than 60,000
pashmina goats – rendering a huge economic loss
for the Changpa nomads. Likewise, the shrinkageof smaller islands within the lake area is evidenceof the changing climatic conditions and habitat
degradation which is directly affecting andimpacting the breeding grounds for the Bar-headed
geese and other waders (Chandan et al. 2007).
Other factors, like increasing tourism and a large
number of vehicles moving outside the designatedroad or tracks, are also causing massive disturbanceto the wildlife. Additionally, most tourist campsitesaround Tso Moriri do not have solid waste disposal
and sanitation facilities, further damaging thefragile ecosystem (Chandan et al. 2007).

In the face of the increasing accounts ofthreats to nature, people, and the vast expanse andremoteness of the Changthang, there is a pressing
need for appropriate disaster preparedness,aligning strategies, and the convergence of experts,
local government authorities, state, and central
administrative services.
■■4. Mapping Nature-Culture Linkages
There is a growing concurrence for the obvious
evidence of a co-relationship between biodiversity
and human diversity, with some of Earth’s lastareas of highest biological diversity inhabited byvarious indigenous people (Posey 1999) additionally,
the Declaration of Belem (1988) that calls an‘inextricable link’ between biological and cultural
diversity. However, there is little in way of policy,
practice, action, or evidence that showcases
nature and culture linkages within conservation
organization, stakeholders, and other dialogues(Maffi et al. 2010).

Socio-economic changes
Even for the Changpa nomads, who have co-existed
for centuries in relative harmony with nature andwildlife, have experienced massive changes due togeopolitical conflicts. The shifting borders have led
to a loss of winter pastures, salt trades, changes inlivestock holdings, and local governance patterns.
Additionally, despite the rich resources, the potential
for improving the quality of life for the Changpa
has remained largely untapped, forcing younger
generations to forsake the traditional way of life
to find newer economic opportunities in the city
(Bhasin 1999 & 2012; Goodall 2004). The Changpa,
who have been known to develop a diverse rangeof strategies, institutions, and networks to minimize
unpredictability and risks, are now amidst times
when it may or may not be sufficient (Bhasin 2012).

In the case of India, there is an urgent
need to integrate systems, which are inherently
interrelated and interdependent, into policies andwell within the purview of natural and cultural
heritage conservation. Using this premise, theJungwa Foundation’s one-year pilot project reexamines the Ladakh’s Tso Moriri-Korzok landscapein Changthang to showcase the interaction ofnatural-cultural elements. We will be mapping anddocumenting specific nature-culture elements,
such as nomadic migratory routes, summer/wintersettlements, tangible cultural sites, sacred sites in102

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

nomads, who have interacted with this harshlandscape for over centuries and are indispensable
to the socio-ecological crisis in Changthang. Thus,by combining their traditional knowledge practices
and worldly wisdom with modern science, as ameans to enhance the adaptive capacity, this will
eventually promote resilience of both the people,
cultural systems, and their natural surroundings.
Ultimately, the project’s goal is to develop a modelof nature-culture heritage commonality that ismore sustainable, resilient, and replicable in othermountain regions, especially in the light of climatechange.

tandem with significant habitats of endangered
wildlife and migratory birds, and landscapefeatures, such as lakes, glaciers, mountains, wetland
boundaries, rivers, and streams. Thereby, creatinga detailed map to create ‘hotspots’ that showcase
interdependencies, interactions, or overlaps
between cultural and natural systems.
The mapping exercise is meant to act as
a visual element that supports this co-relation
between local communities, socio-cultural, andnatural ecosystems. Herein, it is a mechanism todemonstrate the movement or interactions of the
Changpa nomads in tandem with the natural or
biophysical elements in the landscape. It will alsoestablish the mutual co-dependence or influence
the landscape has had on the Changpa nomads andtheir way of life. Given the complexity of overlaps
due to the altitudinal gradients, a cartographic
map can enable a true representation and forge abetter understanding of the nature-culture linkages.
As pointed out by Stepp et al. (2004) such maps
can serve as an invaluable tool for stakeholders,educators, policy analysts, and decision-makers sothat they can adopt appropriate land management
policies that can protect and conserve the naturecultural diversity in different landscapes.

■■5. Conclusion
Tso Moriri is one of the most important wetland
ecosystems in the Trans-Himalayas. Scientificstudies have repetitively highlighted the importanceof the breeding grounds near the lake for several
species of birds. However, there is much to learn
from the Changpa worldviews and their interactions
with the landscape. The engagement of the
Changpa and their traditional systems, especiallyin regard to the use of landscape, knowledge of
species, and perspectives of belongingness, could
greatly add to the present scientific understanding
and conservation efforts, thereby giving it a more
holistic approach. This mapping project is one suchtool to showcase the overlaps and the interactions
as well as the movement of the Changpa nomads
across the landscape. The map offers planners
the opportunity to inculcate the Changpa use of
the landscape, their historical considerations, andcultural reverence while developing key zoning or
management plans. Furthermore, the management
plan for the Tso Moriri wetlands, which calls out for
the greater community’s participation and multistakeholder engagement, could be initiated throughsuch a mapping exercise.

The creation of this cartographic map, whichclearly depicts cultural, historical, environmental,
and practical data from the Changpa, can be used
for planning, management, and other zonationplans around the wetland ecosystem. While thisis only a pilot project, the map is not an end in
itself (Stewart 2007), but rather an instrument tostrengthen management and conservation efforts
within the traditional communities that have beenpreviously understated or overlooked for practicalapplication and management. To further support
their relationship with the land, the project is also
documenting folklores that represent or are inappreciation of the natural beauty of the landscape.
For example, the local mythological stories thatpraise the migratory birds, the lake formation, or
the Changpa worldview of harmony of the three
realms of life, wherein Gods (lha-yul ) are at the top,
the underworld spirits/deities (yog-lhu) below, andEarth, inhabited by humans and animals (bar-tsan),is in between.

■■Acknowledgement
A special thanks to my team at the Jungwa
Foundation: Tara Sharma, Tsering Gyurmet, Kunzang
Dolma, Jigmet Tenyur, and the people of Korzok.
Also, I’d like to thank CAPRE (Prakriti Fellowship) &Grind Master Machines Pvt. Ltd. for their funding
support.

Additionally, the project includes thedevelopment of a comprehensive program designed
around the well-being factors, with a specific focus
on a livelihood project aimed at bolstering the
traditional woolen weaves of the Changpa nomads.
This reemphasizes the sheer wisdom of the Changpa
103

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728■■Literature cited
Bagchi, S., Namgail, T., and Ritchie, M. E. 2006. Small mammalian herbivores as mediators of plantcommunity dynamics in the high-altitude arid rangelands of Trans-Himalaya. Biological Conservation 127(4):pp. 438-442
Bhasin, V. 1999. Tribals of Ladakh: Ecology, Human Settlements, and Health. Kamla-Raj Enterprises
Bhasin, V. 2012. Life on an Edge among the Changpas of Changthang, Ladakh. Journal of Biodiversity 3(2): pp.
85-129Chandan, P., Chatterjee, A., and Gautam, P. 2007. Management planning of Himalayan high altitude wetlands.
A case study of Tso Moriri and Tsokar Wetlands in Ladakh, India. In Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World
Lake Conference, pp. 1446-1452
Chaudhuri, A. 2000. Change in Changthang: To stay or to leave? Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 52-58
Gujja, B., Chatterjee, A., Gautam, P., and Chandan, P. 2003. Wetlands and lakes at the top of theworld. Mountain Research and Development 23(3): pp. 219-221
Goodall, S. K. 2004. Rural-to-urban migration and urbanization in Leh, Ladakh: A case study of three nomadic
pastoral communities. Mountain research and development 24(3): pp. 220-227
International Society of Ethnobiology. 1988. Declaration of Belem. http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/global_coalition/
declaration.php [Accessed 21 June 2018]
Jina, P. S. 1995. High Pasturelands of Ladakh Himalaya, Indus. Publishing Company, New Delhi
Kumar, A. 2009. Climate Change Impact Analysis of Ladakh, Western Himalayan. Climate Change at the Third
Pole: The Impact of Climate Instability on Himalayan Ecosystems and Himalayan Communities. V. Shiva and V.
K. Bhat. New Delhi, Navdanya
Liu, X. and Chen, B. 2000. Climatic warming in the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades. International
Journal of Climatology 20(14): pp. 1729-1742
Maffi, L. and Woodley, E. 2010. Biocultural diversity conservation: a global sourcebook. Earthscan, London,UK
Mishra, C. and Humbert-Droz, B. L. A. I. S. E. 1998. Avifaunal survey of Tso Moriri Lake and adjoining Nuro
Sumdo Wetland in Ladakh, Indian trans-Himalaya. Young, 56, 14
Namgail, T., Bagchi, S., Bhatnagar, Y. V., and Wangchuk, R. 2005. Occurrence of the Tibetan sand fox Vulpes
ferrilata Hodgson in Ladakh: a new record for the Indian subcontinent. Journal Bombay Natural History
Society 102(2), 217.
Namgail, T., Van Wieren, S. E., and Prins, H. H. 2010. Pashmina production and socio‐economic changes in
the Indian Changthang: Implications for natural resource management. In Natural Resources Forum 34 (3):pp. 222-230. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Posey, D. A. 1999. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. A complementary contribution to the global
biodiversity assessment. In Posey, D. A. (ed.): Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, pp. 1–19. UNEP andIntermediate Technology Publications, London, U.K.

104

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Rawat, G. S. and Adhikari, B. S. 2002. Vegetation Characteristics and Pattern of Livestock Grazing in
Changthang Plateau, Eastern Ladakh. Unpublished Report Submitted to International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development Kathmandu, Nepal & Wildlife Institute of India. Dehradun, Uttaranchal India.
Rodgers, W. A. and Panwar, H. S. 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India 1 Report. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India
Stepp, J. R., Castaneda, H., and Cervone, S. 2005. Mountains and biocultural diversity. Mountain Researchand Development 25(3): pp. 223-228
Stewart, S. 2007. Cultural mapping toolkit. Creative City Network of Canada
Wilkes, A. 2008. Towards mainstreaming climate change in grassland management: policies and practices on
the Tibetan Plateau. Working paper no. 67. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.
WWF-India. 2001. Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet. WWF-India Newsletter, January 2001
Yang, T., Hao, X., Shao, Q., Xu, C. Y., Zhao, C., Chen, X., and Wang, W. 2012.Multi-model ensemble projectionsin temperature and precipitation extremes of the Tibetan Plateau in the 21st century. Global and Planetary
Change 80: pp. 1-13

105

106

Part Two:
Report on the Third
Capacity Building
Workshop on NatureCulture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation,
Asia and the Pacific
DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

107

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Third Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia and thePacific (CBWNCL 2018) took place in Tsukuba, Japan, from September 21 to October 1, 2018. The workshop
was organized by the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation at the Universityof Tsukuba, in collaboration with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International Centre for the
Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the International Council on Monuments andSites (ICOMOS).
This workshop, themed Disasters and Resilience, was the third in a series programmed for the period of
2016-2019. The aim is to contribute to the World Heritage Capacity Building Programme in promoting anddeveloping skills of young and mid-career heritage practitioners of the Asia and the Pacific region, enablingthem to deal with the interlinkages between nature and culture in heritage sites.
The workshop was divided into four modules:-----

Module 1: International Symposium
Module 2: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Disasters and Resilience
Module 3: Management, Implementation and Governance in Disasters and Resilience
Module 4: Reflection on Theory and Practice

CBWNCL 2018 was inaugurated with Module 1, which consisted of the 3rd International Symposium on
Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation held on September 21, at the Tsukuba International
Congress Centre and in the framework of the Tsukuba Global Science Week 2018, which was organizedby the University of Tsukuba with the overall theme of ‘Driving Sustainable Development.’ In this thematic
context, the CBWNCL 2018 symposium contributed with presentations and discussions focused on how
to deal with natural and human-led hazards, in order to prevent and recover from disasters by integrating
natural and cultural heritage into disaster risk prevention and recovery processes. The symposium gatheredinternational experts, three of whom represented partner organizations: Ms. Radhika Murti from IUCN, Mr.
Joseph King from ICCROM, and Dr. Rohit Jigyasu from ICOMOS. A video message was sent from the Directorof the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Division of Heritage, Dr. Mechtild Rössler. Key promoters of thenature-culture approach in the World Heritage system, and close collaborators of the CBWNCL, joined theroundtable as discussants: Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, former staff at ICCROM, and Ms. Kristal Buckley, a World
Heritage Advisor for ICOMOS and lecturer at Deakin University. Representatives of the Japanese Government
presented the situation in Japan. First, Mr. Naohisa Okuda, from the Ministry of the Environment, explained
the current initiatives and efforts in the recovery process in the Tohoku region, which was affected by theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Following, Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma, from the Agency for Cultural
Affairs, talked about the integration of disaster risk management in the protection and conservation ofJapan’s cultural heritage. Fifteen participants of the CBWNCL 2018, who attended the meeting and took partin the discussion, were heritage practitioners from the culture and nature sectors, coming from Australia,
Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Hawaii (USA), Kenya, Chile,
and Russia. Four students of the University of Tsukuba, from four different countries (DR Congo, Ethiopia,
Jamaica, and Sudan), took part in the process as observers.
During the panel discussion and roundtable, speakers agreed that nature and culture sectors tend to work
separately. Some of them highlighted the need to change the mindset in order to develop comprehensive
approaches to heritage conservation and more intersectoral collaboration. It was pointed out that chances
108

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

to share ideas, like in the current symposium, have increased and that awareness raising on nature-culture
linkages has been effective throughout the last years, with the UNESCO Chair and the CBWNCL as oneof its vectors. However, the current challenge lies in finding a way to implement this approach, which
methodologies, strategies, and concrete proposals which can make the concept more operational.
The participants also reaffirmed the need to develop synergies and cooperation between sectors, in theheritage conservation context in general, and particularly in the case of disasters prevention, mitigation,
response, and post-disasters recovery. It was pointed out that any disaster-related project needs theinvolvement of different sectors, yet, intersectoral collaboration is complex and the need of immediate
response to disasters does not allow further efforts. Moreover, it was explained how during a disaster
response, the priority is placed on survivors, and therefore, heritage, both natural and cultural, come insecond place. Nevertheless, the discussions clarified the relevance of integrating a nature-culture approachfor disaster risk management and for building resilience.
Japan was acknowledged as a champion in this endeavor and as a good example for Asia, the Pacific region,and beyond. The representatives of the Japanese governmental institutions showed how disaster risk
management has been integrated into the cultural heritage conservation system as well as how nature is
being used as a solution for disaster risk prevention, post-disaster recovery, and building resilience to futuredisasters. They asserted that working at the local level with municipalities and communities, in contextspecific situations, enables collaboration.
It was emphasized that interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinarity partnerships need to be used when looking at
disasters and resilience. Additionally, it was pointed out that the importance of natural ecosystems for the
resilience of inhabited landscapes, and therefore nature conservation efforts, needs to be integrated as partof urban planning. Landscape conservation and urban planning are essential instruments in the building ofresilience and preventing disasters.
Moreover, it was clarified that intangible cultural heritage is also impacted by disasters and that it plays afundamental role in the post-disaster recovery as an instrument of resilience for communities, since identity
and cultural heritage sustain the cohesion of communities when facing disasters. The importance of capacity
building and education was highlighted, especially when confronting challenges such as climate change andunpredictable natural hazards. It was mentioned that educational systems may be divorced from reality;
therefore, changes need to start in early education systems, as well, to build up awareness and openness to
the relationships between nature, culture, and people.
The top-down nature of the implementation processes of the World Heritage Convention was pointed
out as a constraint to the implementation of people-centered approaches and sustainable development
perspectives. In response to this concern, the need to explore resilience from the bottom-up was
highlighted. Speakers agreed that efforts to involve all stakeholders, especially local communities, should becontinued. Community-based conservation and management need to be promoted. Traditional knowledge
and indigenous peoples need to be respected and integrated into the disaster-prevention strategies.
Main challenges that were noted are climate change and rapid and unplanned urbanization; hence, theimportance of adaptation and mitigation were stressed. It was highlighted that World Heritage sites serve
as models and should continue their role as test grounds for sustainable development. It was suggested
that disaster risk management should be included in management plans, as part of daily maintenanceand monitoring. It was noted that more work needs to be done in the collaboration and sharing ofexperiences between different Conventions and Programs that work with the conservation of natural andcultural heritage, such as the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme, the UNESCO Convention on
the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UNESCO
Geoparks network, among others.
Yet, some questions remained open, in particular those regarding the implementation of a cultural
perspective cross-cutting the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN Agenda 2030. The need to explore
on qualitative data and qualitative indicators for culture was stressed.

109

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Module 2 consisted of three days of intensive lectures, group discussions, and participants’ case study
presentations. The first day’s lecture dealt with the evolution of the conservation practice, from thenature-culture divide towards a more integrated perspective, considering nature-culture linkages, andpeople-centered approaches to conservation, as well as a landscape approach to heritage. The second
lecture focused on the World Heritage Convention and its processes of implementation. The second day
focused on disaster prevention and post-disaster recovery, with lectures from the natural and cultural
sectors perspectives, covering the Ecosystems-Based Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster
Risk Management for Cultural Heritage. During the third day, the focus was on the Japanese experienceon disaster risk management and post-disaster recovery, as well as an introduction to the field visit. During
the three afternoon sessions, fifteen case studies were presented: Eight World Heritage sites, two sites
on the tentative list in their respective countries, one Biosphere Reserve, one UNESCO Geopark, and fourlandscapes protected at the national level were examined and discussed. The case studies reflected thediversity of overlapping legal systems and designations, landscapes’ vulnerabilities to a variety of hazards,
mostly natural, and clarified that nature-culture linkages are present and need to be acknowledged forbetter conservation and disaster risk management.
Module 3 lasted for four days and the participants visited three sites in the Tohoku Region which wereaffected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in March 2011: Hiraizumi – Temples, Gardens, andArchaeological sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land, a World Heritage since 2011, the Sanriku Fukko
Reconstruction National Park, the area of Minami-Sanriku Town, and Matsushima, Place of Scenic Beauty. In
Hiraizumi participants learned about the conservation of important Japanese cultural heritage properties,
such as temples and gardens, as well as how they are prepared for hazards and how reconstruction isundertaken – with an example of a garden rock. In Minami-Sanriku Town, participants learned about theconcept and implementation of the Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park and how the municipality
is working with the Ministry of Environment to develop strategies for the recovery of natural ecosystems– with the inscription of the Shizugawa Bay as a Ramsar site, as an example – and the development of
eco-tourism. The participants also had the chance to listen to testimonies from the local inhabitants
who experienced the tsunami and lead initiatives for the recovery of the town using natural and cultural
heritage. Finally, in Matsushima, participants learned how the area was affected by the tsunami and how it
is recovering. From an archaeological perspective, participants learned about the prehistoric occupation ofthis area and how prehistoric people living in Japan settled in safer places. Moreover, they learned about the
problems of relocating fishermen villages and the conservation of the landscape views, as well as the issues
entailed by the construction of concrete walls along the sea side, as an immediate reaction to tsunami.
From all these visits, participants were able to have a better understanding of the importance of the local
community’s involvement in preparation for, and the recovery processes after, disasters. Through thetestimonies, workshop participants recognized the role of natural and cultural heritage in the resilience ofcommunities affected by these experiences.
Module 4 comprised of two days of reflection on the theory and practice gained during the workshop.
Workshop participants worked in groups, tasked with mapping the values and interrelations between
nature and culture in the sites visited as well as assess the management of the sites, by identifying thelessons learned and elaborating on recommendations. Additionally, participants were asked to reflect on
their own case studies and present one lesson learned that they would like to apply in their home country.
Participants prepared group presentations from which many interesting discussions arose regarding theirdifferent understandings of the same sites. Participants highlighted the role of locals in the recovery process
and agreed that the Japanese experience was exemplary for their own countries.
As concluding remarks, participants acknowledged the importance of sharing and working withpractitioners from different disciplines and sectors of the heritage practice, which led them to thinkbeyond their knowledge and in a more holistic manner. They recognized that the work in interdisciplinarygroups enriched their perspective of heritage and allowed them to learn from other sectors involved in
the conservation practice. Most importantly, they understood the need of involving all stakeholders in thedecision-making processes, having learned from the Japanese local communities that nature and culture are
not divided when facing disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunami. The experiences in Japan clarified thatconserving heritage successfully requires coordination beyond sectors and at different levels of governance.
It became evident that heritage conservation needs to be integrated with other areas involved in disaster
110

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

prevention, post-disaster recovery, and reconstruction efforts, as well as the need for it to be enforced by
local management agendas. Moreover, participants came to understand that nature-culture linkages arenecessary for a comprehensive conservation of heritage sites.

111

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE ONE:INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

On September 21, 2018, the Third International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation, Asia and the Pacific, Disasters and Resilience took place within the framework of the Tsukuba
Global Science Week 2018, which general theme was “Driving Sustainable Development.”
The Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, University ofTsukuba, Professor Masahito Yoshida and the President of the University of Tsukuba, Professor Kyosuke
Nagata, respectively, gave opening addresses and especially welcomed the honored guest speakers Ms.
Radhika Murti, Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, Mr. Naohisa Okuda, Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma and Mr. Joseph King, and theroundtable guests: Ms. Kristal Buckley and Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya. The achievements of the CBWNCL (Capacity
Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Asia and the Pacific) organized by the UNESCO Chair on
Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation of the University of Tsukuba were acknowledged. It waspointed out that the University of Tsukuba, through the Certificate Programme on Nature Conservationand the World Heritage Studies Program, is working closely with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN,ICOMOS, and ICCROM in the development of this novel curriculum.

Professor Kyosuke Nagata, President of the University of Tsukuba, inaugurating the International Symposium.

112

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation,
University of Tsukuba, giving his opening address.

Video message from Dr. Mechtild Rössler, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Division of Heritage,
during the International Symposium.

Subsequently, Dr. Mechtild Rössler, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Division of
Heritage, gave a speech on the role of UNESCO in disaster risk management and post-disasters recovery
through a video message. She welcomed participants and the audience in general to the workshop in
Tsukuba, stressing that the theme of this year, disasters and resilience is a critical one. She said that in theface of ongoing conflicts and increasing disasters, UNESCO has recognized that focused actions are required
and a Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotionof Cultural Pluralism in the event of Armed Conflict has been developed by its governing bodies. Dr. Rössler
explained that the Strategy has two key objectives: to strengthen the Member States ability to prevent,mitigate, and recover the loss of cultural heritage and diversity as a result of conflicts and disasters, as wellas to incorporate the protection of culture into humanitarian action, security strategies, and into peace113

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

building processes. She explained that in order to address disasters as a result of natural hazards, the
UNESCO General Conference adopted an addendum to the Strategy in 2017, which strengthens the overall
policy framework underlying UNESCO’s role for the protection of culture in emergencies associated withdisasters caused by natural and human-induced hazards. She said that this would allow Member States tosuccessfully implement culture and heritage related provisions of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction , which was adopted by the United Nations Members States in March 2015. Dr. Rössler continued
explaining that an Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy was also elaborated and endorsedby the Executive Board at its 201st session, including in its scope disasters caused by natural hazards. She
said that UNESCO’s approach for the protection of culture is part of its global vision and it is based on astrong normative framework of the six Culture Conventions, and UNESCO’s Declaration on the Intentional
Destruction of Cultural Heritage , which was adopted in 2003 following the destruction of the Bamiyan
Buddhas in Afghanistan. She stated that the protection of cultural and natural heritage has become asecurity and humanitarian issue in the 21st century. She explained that UNESCO mobilizes to respond to
this challenge by linking interventions with humanitarian and security operations. Dr. Rössler detailed thatthe activities of UNESCO range from the implementation of the United Nations’ resolutions, such as United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2199, prohibiting the trade in cultural objects originating in Syria,
or UNSC Council 2347 on the security impact of cultural heritage destruction, including beyond the financing
of terrorism, to the Global Coalition for “Unite4Heritage.”
Dr. Rössler continued on to explain that UNESCO also aims to include culture into international Post-Disaster
Needs Assessments (PDNA) and the Recovery and Peace-Building Assessment processes, through theparticipation of interagency coordination processes and working groups. She said that in 2013 a specificchapter on Culture was integrated into a PDNA, which implies that a single assessment methodology wasdefined to cover the social, economic, and government related impacts of a disaster specific to the cultural
sector. She mentioned that UNESCO has also developed a training module on coordinating Post-Disaster
Needs Assessment for culture in order to foster a more comprehensive understanding and to enable more
effective planning and coordination by its key stakeholders and actors. Dr. Rössler continued that in 2019,the new training module will be rolled-out in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in Asia andthe Pacific; it will target UNESCO cultural program specialists based in the field as well as key regional players.
She added that UNESCO, in collaboration with ICCROM, are jointly organizing the 2018 edition of the First Aid
to Cultural Heritage in times of crisis, FAC International Course in Bamako, Mali, from 12 to 30th November
2018. Dr. Rössler said that this three-week training will contribute to establishing national teams for cultural
heritage first aid which will be able to work in parallel with emergency responders and humanitarians
regardless of the type and scale of emergency. She specified that this training will subsequently be rolled-out
in cooperation with ICCROM in other regions of the world.
Dr. Rössler continued explaining that UNESCO has developed, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies,resource materials in 2010 and 2013, as well as produced an issue of the 2015 World Heritage Review.
She also affirmed that UNESCO has enhanced partnerships in disaster management and resilience. She
said that first in protecting natural heritage in times of crisis, the Rapid Response Facility (RRF) provides
immediate financial assistance to natural World Heritage sites that are facing imminent and acute threats.
She added that since 2006, the partnership between the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Fauna and FloraInternational, the United Nations Foundation, as well as Foundation Franz Weber, has provided over one
million US Dollars of emergency support to 34 Natural World Heritage properties and 8 sites on Tentative
Lists. She explained that most of these acute threats are time-sensitive and require immediate response.
She gave the example of disasters, including earthquakes and wildfires, which can cause sudden andunpredictable damage to ecosystems, wildlife, and rural livelihoods. She said that human-made crisis canalso affect wildlife, such as armed-conflicts and oil-spills and examples related to post-earthquake tsunami
recovery, included assistance to Sichuan Giant Pandas Sanctuary in China following the 2008 Earthquake orGalapagos Islands, Ecuador in 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami, which also struck the coast of Japan’s Tohoku
Region. She stressed that when these types of emergencies occur, it is essential to respond quickly to avoid
or minimize devastating consequences. She explained that the Facility makes funding decisions within an of
8-day target, getting resources to the field fast, and making it the world’s fastest conservation funding body.
She added that to-date, with over 45 grants allocated, the RRF has contributed to the protection of 143
species, supported 27 natural properties, almost ten million hectares of marine-habitat-protected and 15
million hectares terrestrial-habitat-protected, and supported 33 organizations.
114

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Rössler stated that UNESCO is currently working towards the creation of a rapid response mechanism
for the protection of cultural heritage in emergency situations, including civil and military personnel that
could be used during UN peace-keeping missions. Dr. Rössler emphasized that since 2016, UNESCO has
a partnership agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross which aims towards thecollaboration of information on the ground in conflict zones and helping to support and build capacities in
the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two protocols among humanitarian actors. She
added that in cooperation with UNITAR, UNOSAD, and other partners, UNESCO monitors damage to cultural
heritage through satellite imagery, allowing remote access to otherwise inaccessible areas. This helps toclarify the situation on the ground, to deploy first cultural aid, wherever it is needed, and to plan for future
recovery, all of which are based on a comprehensive record of historic features and the involvement of local
communities. Mentioning that the Heritage Emergency Fund, she explained how it is a multi-donor funding
mechanism which was established by UNESCO in 2015, to enable the organization to respond quickly andeffectively to crises resulting from armed conflicts and disasters caused by natural and human-made hazards
all over the world. This Fund finances activities in the area of emergency preparedness and response fallingwithin the domain of UNESCO’s cultural conventions.
She added that UNESCO regularly informs the Committee which has led it to make various decisions related
to natural disasters, such as a Strategy for Reducing Risk from Disasters at World Heritage properties .
Dr. Rössler added that UNESCO is also working on a Policy Compendium and a specific update on the
Climate Change Policy for World Heritage . She stressed that the World Heritage Policy on Sustainable
Development in 2015 specifically calls for strengthening resilience to natural hazards and climate change. It
was emphasized that, in the face of increasing disaster risks and the impact of climate change, State Parties
should recognize that World Heritage represents both as an asset to the protection as well as a resource tostrengthen the ability of communities and the properties to resist, absorb, and recover from the effects ofhazards.
In line with disaster risk and climate change multilateral agreements, Dr. Rössler explained that State
Parties (SPs) should first recognize and promote within conservation and management strategies theinherent potential of World Heritage properties for reducing disaster risks and adapting to climate changewith associated ecosystem services, traditional knowledge and practices and strengthen social cohesion.
Secondly, the SPs should reduce the vulnerability of World Heritage properties and their settings, as wellas promote the social and economic resistance and resilience of the local and associated communities todisaster and climate change, through structural and non-structural measures including public awarenessraising, training, and education. She added that structural measures, in particular should not adversely affect
the OUV of World Heritage properties. Thirdly, she said that SPs should enhance preparedness for effective
response and Building-Back-Better in post-disaster recovery strategies within management systems andconservation practice for World Heritage properties.
At its 42nd session in Bahrain in July 2018, the World Heritage Committee urged the State Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention to prioritize emergency measures within international assistance in order tomitigate significant damages resulting from disasters that are likely to affect the OUV for which the World
Heritage properties have been inscribed. Dr. Rössler added that the Committee also encouraged State
Parties and other stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation, aiming at mitigating impacts ofmajor natural disasters affecting World Heritage properties and reducing vulnerabilities on lives, properties,
and livelihoods. In closing, Dr. Rössler said that this was just a glimpse into UNESCO’s work in disaster risk
management and response to disasters and in enhancing the resilience of sites and communities. Although
expressing her deep regret at not being able to be physically present, due to the workload at the UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, she wished the best for the deliberations during the symposium and workshop andlooked forward to receiving the results.
Next, Ms. Radhika Murti, Director of the Global Ecosystem Management Programme, IUCN, presented“Natural Heritage – A Nature based Solution for Resilience to Disasters”. She started her presentation
by introducing the IUCN and their work around the globe on nature conservation issues. Just one monthprior to the symposium, the IUCN and the government of Japan signed an MoU to start a new programme
for Junior Professional Officers, where Japanese students could be based in their offices in Asia, Africa,
Oceania or the headquarters in Switzerland. She explained that the IUCN, integrated with governmental
115

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

and non-governmental agents and organized in Regional and National Committees, Commissions andSecretariat, aims to create a big conservation movement that can accelerate action, policy implementation,and capacitation. Throughout the conservation agenda and the design of significant global instruments,
the concept of Sustainability has gained a paramount position in the mission of the IUCN, as it contains
potentials for fostering the preservation of the integrity and diversity of nature, as well as its sustainable
and equitable use, if engrained in the society. More recently, the IUCN has been pushing the concept of
Nature-based Solutions , establishing a group of seven global programmes, where they are trying to bringnature and people together, looking at how people interact with nature, where do the relationships and codependencies exist, and how to reflect these in their conservation work.
Ms. Murti mentioned that the program she leads, the Ecosystem Management Programme, is part of thatgroup and has five key areas of work: Ecosystem-based adaptation, Drylands based in Kenya, EcosystemsBased Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) and the Island Biodiversity Conservation, both basedin Switzerland, and the Red List of Ecosystems, a mirror or a sister of the Red List of Threatened Species. In
this programme they look at how a single ecosystem started, keeping the scientific basis and the knowledge
robust, and at how to adapt ecosystem management from neglected ecosystems such as islands anddrylands, mangroves, and peatlands. Moreover, they look at how to use ecosystem management to benefit
people, especially in dealing with climate impacts and disaster risk reduction.
Subsequently, Ms. Murti enumerated the most difficult challenges that nature conservation is facing:decreasing interest of countries for international cooperation, decline in funding, social media critiqueand climate change. Ms. Murti said that the conservation model is criticized as being based on Western
ideals and their ethics of preserving pristine areas without necessarily thinking about their link with people.
The intentions of the conservation sector, and especially the IUCN, is changing these ideas by recognizing,celebrating, and optimizing those nature-culture linkages that she considers might have been underminedin the past. Furthermore, she emphasized that the economic perspective represents a major challenge:
National governments are not willing to go zero growth or de-growth in the name of sustainability and eventhough awareness has been raised, there is a lack of change in the business models of the corporate sector.
According to Ms. Murti, these are the two challenges of the nature conservation sector: how to bring people
back into the picture, and human beings as part of the economic and environmental society.
Ms. Murti also recalled how conservation evolved in its thinking and science from a focus on conserving
nature for itself, to a focus on conserving ecosystems and the relationship between nature and people.
More recently, nature conservation is developing transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, linkingsocial and environmental sciences with the concept of socio-ecological systems. The ecosystem approachis the junction where conservation brings people back into the picture, with a strategy for the integrated
management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conservation.
The problems they look at solving, according to Ms. Murti, are making conservation relevant to people’s
needs, to use conservation norms and sciences that have safeguarded species, flora, and fauna all theseyears, to make it more responsive to safeguarding people. She stressed that, as reported by the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, in the quest for meeting people’s provisioning needs of food, water, fiber, and fuel,the supporting and regulating services have been the most degraded in the last 50 to 60 years. The impacts
of disasters and climate change that we are facing are consequences of this degradation. She asserted
that if these two services in particular are not preserved and restored, it will be difficult to cope with themagnitude, frequencies, and types of disasters we are seeing, as well as the impacts of climate change.
In 2016 the IUCN launched the concept of Nature-based Solutions to Societal Challenges (NbS) , which wasa concept grounded in practice. Ms. Murti defined it as actions to three key aspects: protect, sustainably
manage, or restore ecosystems -natural or modified- while addressing a societal challenge and provide
biodiversity benefits at the same time. She clarified that this is an evolving definition, and the IUCN’sconception is not limited but rather focused on climate, food security, water, human health, disasters, andsocio-economic development.
Ms. Murti explained some examples of NbS. Some countries, such as Switzerland, United Kingdom,
Colombia, and the United States, have been using nature as a solution when dealing with natural hazards.
116

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Investing in nature not only contributes to the conservation of ecosystems, but also gives benefits tothe population and savings to the governments, which do not need to invest in expensive infrastructure.
She mentioned the importance of Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction for the discussion at the
symposium, emphasizing that this approach goes back to the very essence of the NbS definition: sustainable
management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems that can provide services to reduce risks to
disasters and increase livelihood resilience. She explained that degrading ecosystems contribute to ecologicaland social vulnerability, which is exacerbated by economic, political, or social factors. Thus, by investing in
healthy ecosystems through sustainable use, conservation, and restoration, ecological and social resiliencecan be increased substantially. Ms. Murti remarked that, increasingly, the private sector is showing moreinterest in this idea, which has been demonstrated to have cost-effective results in the longer term.
Ms. Murti then talked about a project that they worked on with the Keindanren Nature Conservation Fundin Japan, where they looked at eighteen protected areas from sixteen countries which was intended todemonstrate, with scientific evidence, any policy gaps and opportunities as well as any emerging practices
on how protected areas can be used to reduce risks to disasters. Three of these cases were World Heritage
sites: The Great Barrier Reef area in Australia, the Po Delta in Italy, and Royal Manas National Park in India.
The former two protected areas showed the capacity to buffer natural hazards while the third demonstrated
how reviving abandoned cultural practices, which use natural materials, can help reduce the impacts offloods and droughts.
Ms. Murti continued on to explain that they are also involved in capacity development. Challenges are
becoming so complex that social sciences, governance, environment, and heritage, needs to come together
because diversity is needed to solve them. Giving the example of another project funded by the Japan
Biodiversity Fund, she explained how people from different ministries and countries were brought together
to reflect on how nature can be used as an infrastructure to reduce risks. She mentioned that they havealready trained 160 senior policy-makers, in 80 countries, and many of them have initiated new partnerships
and actions on how to use the nature-culture links and ecosystem-based adaptation to reduce risks to
disasters. The objective is to look at how to use nature for the present climate impacts and for the longerterm climate adaptation. These are some examples that are making the IUCN and conservation leaders
re-think and re-do the image of conservation, showing its value to society, how it can benefit people, andhow conservation can work to benefit human well-being centered development through ecosystem-based
approaches. Ms. Murti concluded that bringing together the nature-culture linkages is absolutely essential inthis endeavor and without them conservation and development will not work.

Ms. Radhika Murti, Director of the Global Ecosystem Management Programme, IUCN, presenting about Natural
Heritage – A Nature-based Solution for Resilience to Disasters.
117

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chairholder on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Management, Ritsumeikan University,
ICOMOS Vice-President and ICORP President, presenting about Disaster Risks Reduction and Resilience for Cultural
Heritage.

Subsequently, Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chairholder on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Management,
Ritsumeikan University, ICOMOS Vice-President and ICORP President, was invited to present “Reducing
Disaster Risks and Building Resilience of Cultural Heritage: Challenges and Opportunities.” Dr. Jigyasu
started his presentation by thanking the organizers and pointing out that his presentation would approach
the issues addressed by Ms. Murti from the opposite angle. He first explained the reasons for the increasing
concerns about the ways disasters are threatening cultural heritage by giving examples of recent events: thehuge fire that engulfed the National Museum of Brazil, which destroyed almost 80% of the collections; andthe unprecedented floods resulting from climate change and unsustainable development. Dr. Jigyasu talked
about the floods in the Indian state of Kerala, which damaged nature and livelihoods as well as tangible
and intangible cultural heritage; the floods in Paris, where the river waters engulfed the Louvre Museum,causing the largest evacuation of collections, since the World War, as a safety measure; and the floods in the
Balkan region in 2014, where many historical settlements were damaged. Finally, he showed the damages
to important heritage structures caused by earthquakes, such as the recent ones in Central Mexico andKathmandu Valley in Nepal.
Dr. Jigyasu stressed that both movable and immovable, tangible and intangible cultural heritage sufferfrom disasters; therefore, the most important task is to look at the underlying reasons which create theirvulnerability in order to take preventive measures. One of the major reasons is increased urbanization. Dr.
Jigyasu showed how the urban growth is exponentially increasing and starting to have a strong impact on
heritage. This was illustrated with the cases of the historical cities of Kyoto in Japan, Bangalore in India, andAyutthaya in Thailand. In the case of Kyoto, many important cultural heritage properties have been engulfed
by urbanization in the past decades. In Bangalore, an important historical city that evolved around lakes
and canals, urban development disconnected the traditional water systems, increasing the risk of fires in
the lakes because of toxic water stagnation. In the case of Ayutthaya floods in 2011, the archaeological site
was heavily impacted not only by the rain but also because water stagnated and was unable to be drained
due to the extensive urbanization surrounding the site which has affected the functioning of the watershed.
Therefore, Dr. Jigyasu emphasized the importance of looking at the cultural and the natural heritage
elements, at their interactions, and how when one is not respected, the other is impacted. He added that
another problem is the transformation of traditional houses, which were originally designed to withstandfloods but, due to modifications in the layout, they have increased their vulnerability, when floods frequency
is also increasing.
118

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Another example presented was from India, where flash floods occurred in 2013 in the northern state of
Uttarakhand, where a World Heritage site that is important for Hindu pilgrimages, is located. The tourism
infrastructure that developed along the river and flood plains to serve the pilgrims has increased thevulnerability of the temples and shrines. Dr. Jigyasu stressed that this example shows how development
aimed at serving heritage can create its vulnerability to disasters. Moreover, he mentioned that traditionallysettlements were located in the mountains and the act of moving them next to the river has also created thevulnerability that caused the disaster. He stressed that what we need to recognize is the interface between
disaster risks, climate change, and ill-conceived development, looking at their interconnections in order toadvance on resilience. However, Dr. Jigyasu affirmed that while looking at the increase in the vulnerability ofheritage, it is also important to look at cultural heritage, not only as the victim of disasters but also as assets
for building resilience. We need to recognize the positive knowledge and lessons from heritage itself thatcan contribute towards building resilience and reducing disaster risks.
Then, Dr. Jigyasu showed some examples of the contributions of heritage systems towards disaster risk
reduction and emergency responses. For instance, in the case of the Nepal earthquake, people relied on
the traditional water systems’ supply in the aftermath of the disaster when the municipality’s pipe watersupply collapsed. Many important structures reacted very well because they were designed as anti-seismic
structures. He also presented the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that struck Japan in
2011, showing how the tsunami affected the Shizugawa bay. In the post-disaster recovery, the topography
was altered by constructing seawalls and raising the line in order to keep the people safe. However, thisalternative ignored the relationship between the people, the canal, and the sea, as well as the many cultural
practices and festivals connected to this relationship. When research was conducted in this area, theyrealized that people have a very strong link to the landscape, to islands, to natural features, to where the sun
rises, and that all of these elements are very important to keep in consideration during the recovery process;if they are not, these important heritage values might be at risk of being lost.
Another example illustrated the importance of linking culture and nature for disaster risk reduction: theisland of Majuli in the Eastern part of India, which is shrinking at a very high rate due to erosion. Dr. Jigyasu
explained that vernacular architecture was prepared in order to handle earthquakes and flooding, utilizing
a good design, materials, and structure. However, the way that these traditional constructions are being
altered and replaced by concrete structures are actually increasing their vulnerability to earthquakes.
Traditionally, people would move their houses according to the floods and the slopes change. However,
now that constructions are permanent, they face increasing risk from floods. In a similar way, bridges were
temporary in nature and monasteries used to be relocated, but because they have become permanent
structures, they have become more vulnerable to floods as well.
Dr. Jigyasu stressed that it is important to understand these traditional coping practices, which areadapted to risks, in order to incorporate them into contemporary disaster risk management practices. He
emphasized that through these examples the considerable gap existing between conservation and disasterrisk management, climate change adaptation, and development can be bridged. Since each of these issues isaddressed by a different ministry in many countries, he called for the integration of sustainable development,
climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and heritage conservation and management. He addedthat this implies a critical challenge: To mainstream heritage into climate change adaptation and disasterrisk reduction, and to work transversally rather than sectorial, at different levels. He asserted the need toreinforce nature-culture interlinkages to reduce risks, by integrating an ecological perspective in cultural
heritage management.
Dr. Jigyasu added that a territorial approach for heritage protection is needed and recalled the UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape Approach (2011). He stressed that efficient disaster risk
reduction measures will depend on reflecting on these new approaches, using different methodologies,
learning from traditional management systems, and linking civic defense agencies and the development
sector with the heritage sector. One important headway has been made with the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction , which recognizes cultural heritage for the first time along with other sectors andconsiders culture and heritage as a priority area of action. Dr. Jigyasu concluded by saying that the title ofthis course and symposium is critical because we need to look beyond culture or nature in order to bringall aspects together in heritage conservation: disaster risk reduction, climate change, and sustainable
119

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

development. His examples have illustrated this urgent endeavor.
After the coffee break, Mr. Naohisa Okuda, representative of the Ministry of the Environment of Japan,
gave a keynote speech on “Development of the Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park.” He started
by saying that he was very pleased to discuss the topic of resilience in heritage. As an engineer for thepreservation of natural resources, Mr. Okuda has thirty years of experience in the Ministry of Environment,
previously on Eco-DRR and World Heritage, and is currently the Councilor for the Cybersecurity andInformation Technology Management. He said that his current work is to state the position and responseof the Ministry in the face of natural disasters. Commenting on disasters he had to deal with in the past
two months, Mr. Okuda described a major earthquake that occurred in Hokkaido and torrential rains inWestern Japan. He also presented the situation of the Sanriku area after the major earthquake and tsunami
in 2011. He explained that in order to reconstruct the area, they were debating proposals at the Ministry of
the Environment and the idea of establishing a new National Park was raised with the intention of helping
recover the linkage between nature and local people. The Ministry has been engaged in this project for the
past seven years.
The 2011 disaster was an enormous shock in the minds of the Japanese people and resulted in the needto reconstruct the relationship between nature and human beings. The Green Reconstruction Project was
created based on a recommendation by the Central Environmental Council in 2013, with the idea of utilizing
the blessings of nature while fostering its value and preservation, but also understanding the threats. Mr.
Okuda explained that they placed the idea of accepting the threat of nature at the core of the reconstruction
project, while strengthening the connection between the forest, the countryside, the river, and the seas,
as well as enhancing the relationship between nature and people and increasing their resilience. He
explained that this project consists of seven projects, the first being the establishment of the Sanriku Fukko
Reconstruction National Park. This proposal caused surprise in gatherings and international conferences
because of the idea that a national park would impose restrictions on the lives of people. However, he
explained that National Parks in Japan are not based on only the restrictive protection of wild nature, butthat they also include private property and even settlements in order to allow the coexistence of nature andpeople. Moreover, he affirmed that the protection of the landscape is one of the objectives of the Japanese
National Parks, and therefore, they thought that a national park could be helpful in the reconstruction of thearea.
He continued, explaining the core projects, such as the establishment of a field museum, the promotionof ecotourism by creating long-distance coastal trails, and ESD -Education for Sustainable Development- todevelop human resources. The priority was placed in reviewing the relationship between people and theirenvironment, for which they developed some measures. He clarified that the main objective of the National
Park system is to protect the most important areas in Japan, through a community-based approach,stressing that the reconstruction needed a long-term perspective. Illustrating with maps, he showed thearea where the new Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park was created, connecting several naturalprotected areas along the Sanriku Coast of Japan, from Aomori Prefecture to Iwate Prefecture, with the
Rikuchu Kaigan National Park. The idea was that it will become a symbol for this area. He described some of
the areas and showed the diversity of landscapes, for example, a shrine inside the National Park, the place
where the black gull reproduces, the Tanezashi beach, some grazing ground, and another windy forested
area used by people. He also showed images of the Rikuchu Kaigan National Park, with the ria coastline, andpointed out the presence of some scenic places and landscapes that have been protected with less strict
regulations. He emphasized that their idea was to let people enjoy the landscapes while walking along the
National Park and learn about the disaster as well as the nature-culture linkages.
Mr. Okuda explained that the coastal trail of Michinoku could also be used as an evacuation route in theevent of a disaster. He mentioned that they have also established a biomass boiler, an environmentalfriendly system. Then, the audience was shown a camping ground that was devastated as a result of thedisaster however it was left without renovations in order to retain the remains and demonstrate to visitors
the threat of nature. He continued by showing the visitors centre where local products and goods are soldby the community as an initiative for the promotion of local tourism and the reconstruction of the industry
in the region. Mr. Okuda showed how they created a field museum to promote tourism in relationshipwith the ocean, including activities such as canoeing, kayak, nature craft, surveys, supporting training, and120

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

capacity building courses. The coastal trail connects the Aomori prefecture to the Fukushima prefecture,
giving tourists the possibility to eat local food and purchase local products while enjoying the richness of theculture in these areas.
Furthermore, he explained how this plan involved the participation of local communities and was facilitatedby park rangers in order to get a bottom-up proposal for the location of the trail. This proposal would
eventually be authorized by the central government, while the management of the trail is carried out by the
local people who conduct the ecotourism. The Ministry is providing support to the community for a term of
4 years so that business could become viable. They are promoting people from within the community to act
as guides in order for them to make a living. He affirmed that Ministry of the Environment is also providing
support to the local government, exchanging views with leaders of communities, learning mutually,reflecting upon their experiences, and highlighted that local people are the key agents in carrying out theactivities. They also want to secure the link with the ecosystem and he showed how they are collaboratingwith local people in restoring and protecting the wetlands and their biodiversity.
Lastly, Mr. Okuda said that since they need to monitor the natural environment, several locations became
candidates for the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. One of those areas, the Shizugawa Bay, was strongly
impacted by the disaster but is still keeping values that can satisfy the criteria for its inscription. He
summarized that the objective of the project is to protect nature as a tool for contributing to reconstruction
by revitalizing the community, starting with ecotourism as a tool for economic development, while
reinforcing the linkages between people and nature and creating spaces where they can learn about thethreat of nature as well as convey this message to the next generation. Mr. Okuda closed by saying that thethreat of nature should not be dealt with through a total restructuring, but rather using the existing andremaining resources to reconstruct, and in that way the local community could be more sustainable.

Mr. Naohisa Okuda, representative of the Ministry of the Environment of Japan, presenting about the development of
the Sanriku Fukko (Reconstruction) National Park.

121

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma, representative of the Agency of Cultural Affairs of Japan, presenting about Disaster Risk
Management for Cultural Heritage in Japan.

Next, Ms. Kumiko Shimotsuma, representative of the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, presented“Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in Japan.” First thanking the organizers for the invitation, she
introduced her talk that focused on some recent disaster risk management efforts in heritage conservationby the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA). Her presentation consisted of three parts: the overview ofJapan’s overall national disaster risk management (DRM) policies; the introduction of the DRMs as a part ofheritage management; and the challenges and opportunities for the strengthening of the DRMs in heritage
management. There is a Disaster Countermeasures Act that functions as a core legal instrument for disasterrisk management in Japan. Ms. Shimotsuma mentioned that, after the damages of the super typhoon in
1959, the Basic Act was enacted in 1961, leading to the establishment of the Central Disaster Management
Council by the Cabinet Office in 1962. Thereafter, the Disaster Management System has been continuously
reviewed and revised in order to integrate lessons learned in disasters. The organization of the Central
Disaster Management Council consists of the Prime Minister as a Chairperson, all members of the Cabinet,heads of major public corporations, and experts. Ms. Shimotsuma explained that the Council officers’
meetings gather the relevant Director General level persons of each ministry and agency, including the ACA
as part of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports, and Technology (MEXT).
The outline of the Disaster Management System in Japan was shown and framed according to the Basic
Disaster Management Plan developed by the Central Disaster Management Council. Ms. Shimotsuma said
that each Ministry and Agency has developed its own Disaster Management Operation Plan, and that each
local government has developed its prefecture and municipal Disaster Management Plan. She explained that
residents and enterprises are also invited to develop a Community Disaster Management Plan on a voluntarybasis. The ACA also has its own Disaster Management Operation Plan, which has not been amended since2008. The structure of the Basic Disaster Management Plan establishes the responsibilities of each of theentities involved and the countermeasures for each type of disasters according to the disaster management
phases: preparedness, emergency response, and recovery. Ms. Shimotsuma noted that before 2016 there
were only two provisions that mentioned cultural heritage: the earthquake disaster plan and the large-scalefire disaster plan. After the Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction that year, the Basic Disaster
Management Plan was reviewed, and the ACA included the statement about cultural heritage disasterrisk management following the inclusion of culture in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction .
However, in the section of building resilient communities, it was difficult to include cultural heritage because
community design is conventionally considered outside of the mandate of the ACA.
Regarding the DRM activities of the ACA, Ms. Shimotsuma developed the case of Important Property
122

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Buildings. In heritage conservation in Japan, buildings are part of one of the categories with the longest
history and the DRMs have been highlighted since the very beginning. In Japan, heritage protection actions
are divided into conservation and utilization. Conservation is defined as a measure to retain the culturalvalues of the heritage by means of alteration control and restoration. Utilization includes enrichment,or public access to, or interpretation of heritage and promotion of use for social development. Between
conservation and utilization, management is divided, by an official document issued in 1984, into three
categories: daily or regular maintenance, minor repair and restoration, and the maintenance of facilities
and equipment for protection. Ms. Shimotsuma clarified then that the DRM are identified as a part ofmanagement in Japan, a concept that has been developed over time, with additions such as diagnosis ordevelopment of management plans. According to this classification between conservation, management,
and utilization, financial assistance programs are systematized and developed. The measures for the DRM
are divided into three areas: fire prevention and crime prevention, environment conservation, and seismic
countermeasures, based on which, they developed the necessary records and achievement rates. Ms.
Shimotsuma mentioned that the normal framework to promote disaster risk reduction is based on thesubsidy rate of 50 to 85% depending on the property owners living scale.
Then, Ms. Shimotsuma talked about the challenges and opportunities. Integration is an important topic andshe affirmed that a good DRM treatment comes from a holistic constellation of conservation, management,
and utilization, in order to be an efficient tool for heritage management. The ACA developed a guideline
for management plans for important property buildings in 2006, and since then, the ACA has encouraged
property owners to develop their own plan.
In Japan, the Law for the Protection of Cultural Property defines six classifications for cultural properties
and financial assistance programs are prepared, and conducted, according to this classification system.
However, some heritage buildings have heritage objects within them, and some heritage buildings arelocated within historic sites or historic gardens as well as places of scenic beauty. Therefore, the planningand implementation of the financial assistance programmes requires dealing with the different cultural
heritage property types from an integrated perspective. She noted that the large earthquake in 2011
called attention to the need for a major dialogue among colleagues and a better coordination among thesix categories for the rescue activities of the damaged heritage. Ms. Shimotsuma said that compared toconstructed heritage, archaeological sites or places of scenic beauty have a tendency to take more time
to develop disaster recovery plans. In Japan, there is a system called buried cultural properties, which areunexcavated subterranean archaeological remains. After the earthquake in 2011, excavation surveys wererequired before or during the recovery work. Ms. Shimotsuma said that the ACA made efforts in ensuring
compatibility between swift recovery work and the excavation survey by improving technologies andincreasing excavation staff, in close cooperation with local governments and using the national budget.
In the case of movable heritage, Ms. Shimotsuma said that swift first aid actions to collect them, treatments
to prevent deterioration, and appropriate conditions for storage are required. She stated that for thenational government, the usual partners in emergencies are local governments, but in 2011, many local
governments did not function anymore because of the losses of staff members during the disaster andthe focus on activities of rescue. The heritage divisions in the ACA had to use their own existing networks
to take the necessary first aid actions, such as the support of architectural institutions and associations
for the survey of built heritage; of museum and university networks for the survey of movable heritage;
and of local governments in the affected areas for the survey of archaeological sites and buried culturalproperties affected during the disaster. Ms. Shimotsuma mentioned that after those experiences, they are
currently working on the improvement of the transfer communication for rescuing heritage as much as, andas various as possible, including not only heritage under official protection but also heritage without official
protection, as those play an important role in sustaining the local identity. Furthermore, she explained how
science museums and libraries -not under control of the ACA- had objects and important books, evidenceof human intelligence, in need of rescue together to officially designated heritage. She explained that in the2011 earthquake, around 15,000 people died, more than 6,000 were injured and still many are missing,and this condition created concern about the damage to intangible cultural heritage, particularly intangible
folk cultural heritage. Ms. Shimotsuma added that the damage of important places for culture, such as
seashores, drew their attention and made clear that the damage to nature has a strong relation to thedamage of culture.
123

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Ms. Shimotsuma explained that since 2007, the ACA has encouraged and supported local governments
to develop their Basic Strategy based on history and culture, emphasizing that it should include acomprehensive list of all types of cultural heritage in their territories, both designated and undesignated. It
is expected that a wider use of these kinds of strategies will be seen soon to help each local government pay
and get adequate attention to history and culture of the place in all sorts of social development activities.
In 2018, the Basic Strategy included a Local Master Plan for the Conservation and Utilization of Cultural
Properties and the Law was amended to ensure the authority of the local government in the developmentof their local master plan. The amendment will become effective on the 1st of April 2019. It relates to theacceleration of the demographic ageing resulting from the decline in the birth rate as well as the need tostrengthen a system to encourage local participation in heritage conservation. Ms. Shimotsuma said thatthey expect the lists and easy-to-follow strategies developed in the local master plan to be effective inencouraging local residents to build local ownership so that the local initiatives pay sufficient attention to thehistory and culture of the place in all sorts of activities. She noted that the list is also expected to be used for
heritage rescue and recovery in times of emergency.
Since the large-scale earthquake in 1995, a rescue system for movable heritage and a damage investigation
system for immovable heritage have both been gradually developed by larger private initiatives by a networkof experts and the ACA has also cooperated with these activities. However, the ACA always faces a questionof authority into how deep it can be involved in the work with undesignated cultural properties, whichmakes it difficult to include an official support system for rescue and damage investigation activities in the
ACA disaster management operation plan. Ms. Shimotsuma expressed that following the law amendment
in 2018 would be also crucial to develop the Disaster Management Operation Plan. She recalled that she
gained her experience, initially in heritage buildings fields, then in urban conservation and currently incultural landscapes, and she notices that a framework of cooperation can be created when heritage covers
wider areas, more complex elements, and stakeholders. To ensure good relationships among different
heritage categories, stakeholders, between heritage and nature, and between heritage and present
infrastructures, it would be useful to give more profound thought into intangible heritage, particularly folk
culture. Ms. Shimotsuma closed by saying that it is also crucial to develop heritage utilization in times ofpeace and heritage disaster risk management in the same framework.
PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. Maya Ishizawa invited Professor Yoshida to chair the Panel Discussion. Professor Yoshida thanked thepresenters for their interventions and noticed that both Ms. Murti and Dr. Jigyasu mentioned the existinglack of coordination between sectors in the development of a common disaster management plan andemergency response that would consider both natural and cultural heritage as important aspects. He
directed the first question to both Ms. Murti and Dr. Jigyasu about what can be done to integrate theseparation existing between disaster risk management, conservation and development sectors.

124

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Maya Ishizawa, programme coordinator of the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation,
University of Tsukuba, opening the Panel Discussion.

Ms. Murti felt that there are three aspects where professionals could improve on for the better integrationof intersectoral actions. The first aspect she mentioned was that currently professionals undermine the needfor solution-based language. She suggested that the conservation sector should move away from a “threatbased approach” and turn it into the language of nature-based solutions, pointing out that the right action
for nature leads to a solution for everyone. The second aspect she suggested is that we should move frompromoting our own agendas, rather we should show how something is mutually beneficial: how one action
can actually help different ministries achieve their work plans and objectives. The third aspect she referred
to is to move away from the domination of one entity over the others and to the co-creation of knowledge.
She affirmed that the co-creation of knowledge leads to a common way of acting and a common change of
behavior, which she considers helps in assuring that later all sectors will work and implement together.
Dr. Jigyasu added that one of the major problems in the heritage sector is the separation in terms ofeducation, between movable and immovable, cultural, and natural heritage. He said that even though,professionals are always interacting at a decision-making level, it would be beneficial if the interactions
would instead start at the educational capacity building level. An example of this model is the course they
undertake yearly at Ritsumeikan University where they bring participants with DRM expertise together with
cultural heritage professionals, both having dealt with movable and immovable heritage, into a process ofmutual capacity building learning exercises, where they can learn from each other’s vocabulary as well as thedifferent tools and the methodologies. He affirmed that this is not an easy-process but if the intersectoral
work is promoted at that level there would be more of a comfort zone between sectors at the level ofcoordination and communication.
Subsequently, Professor Yoshida turned to the Japanese authorities, thanking them for their explanation
about the government actions in the recovery from the 2011 disaster, remarking that they are valuing natureand culture to solve problems. He was interested to know if, in the case of reconstruction, the Ministry ofEnvironment (MoE) and the ACA were cooperating not only among themselves, but also with the Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) as well as what issues they have faced in this process.
Mr. Okuda replied that the ACA and the MoE have different management systems, but when discussing a
specific site, there can be space for cooperation when the objective is common. He gave the example of how
the objective of the MoE in Tohoku was to connect the country side, the sea, and the river in order to bringback the richness for the recovery, while the MLIT, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (MAFF),
and other entities also had areas in need of protection, therefore there was momentum to cooperate and125

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

work together. He stressed that within a specific site there will be room for collaboration, but his impressionis that when talking about concepts or generalities, each entity has different objectives, therefore, there may
be some conflicts.
Ms. Shimotsuma said that over the past twenty or thirty years, within the government, there has been acollaboration, and, within this collaboration, there is further improvement. She explained that in the caseof Japan, they are trying to reconstruct local regions while at the same time they need to reconstruct thevacant houses. For the past one or two years, Ministries have been disclosing their projects on the web, sothat local communities can obtain information. She agreed that in order to collaborate, there is the need totarget the same large framework, but she added that when one actually goes to the local community, there
will be things that will be different. Therefore, one would have to make adjustments and a system is needing
to be able to do that. The recent policies aim at making a system at the local level, with local communities,
so that projects can be introduced in the local areas, rather than making a formal structure. She stressedthat they are trying to create linkages with the local people, so that the projects would be accepted, andthe support would be less expensive. She is dedicated to exploring how processes can be improved forintersectoral work and work with the community and would like to continue to the next step.
Ms. Murti added that when they started the work on Eco-DRR, they chose Japan as a partner because
they always look for champion governments that can work as examples for other governments to follow
and help to up-scale strategies. She affirmed that the uniqueness of Japan lies in the continuous presenceof nature-culture linkages and that development has happened around the heritage. She thinks that thisexperience with tangible examples can be taken to other parts of the world and communicated more. She
said that they have been working with their IUCN colleagues based in Tokyo on inviting Japanese researchers
to communicate Japanese case studies around the world in order to show that it is possible to develop andbe a prospering nation, while conserving natural and cultural heritage. She affirmed that there are very
useful models that can be picked up from Japan which communicate the messages that the IUCN wants tocommunicate to countries who have not followed the wrong path yet or are half way down it.
Mr. King asserted that the difficulty lies in how people find it hard to get out of the “bubble” they studied in.
He referred to his own experience as an architect and urban planner, placing his point of reference in these
disciplines. He recalled that when he started working with the IUCN about making the linkage between
culture and nature, it forced him to go onto ground that was uncomfortable for him. He said that whenthe Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) Convention was drafted, people working on the other conventions of
UNESCO, such as the World Heritage Convention were also uncomfortable. He considers that overcomingthat discomfort is really difficult, time consuming, and it takes the willingness to be uncomfortable in waysthat one has never been before as well as use language that one has never used before. He feels that they
are moving in that direction and he sees a lot of steps have already been taken, although there is a need tokeep moving.
Professor Yoshida mentioned that the ICH and tangible heritage are under the same Law in Japan and thatin Minami-Sanriku Town, a place that the workshop participants will visit, a local fisherman that is involved in
the recovery of oyster farming is also involved in the recovery of the ICH, the deer dance, in order to makethe community stronger. So, the ICH is very important for the connection between nature and culture.
Ms. Buckley thanked everyone for their presentations, which she thinks provided a good basis for theworkshop. She mentioned that what challenges her is that in these kinds of forums they find themselves in“furious agreement” about many things, especially the need to work together and agreed with Mr. King’scomments. She recalled the graphs that Dr. Jigyasu showed which illustrated the increase of natural disasters
and acknowledged that a lot of work has been done in understanding and facing disasters as well as many
lessons have been learned. However, she affirmed that what is done during the immediate aftermath of adisaster tends to be very chaotic. She said that different countries have different systems, some better thanothers, and she affirmed that this is where the capacities of cooperation become critical among heritage
conservation professionals and agencies, inside a national system as well as among the agencies undertaking
rescue and emergency services. She mentioned programs that have been instituted by ICCROM, by theJapanese Government in particular, by the IUCN, reaching out and making those connections and reflecting
on how to react better. She concluded that the work on resilience and vulnerability factors are meant to126

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

avoid making hasty decisions in the immediate and later aftermath of disasters and have really effective
ideas that can be put into play as response to disasters.
Dr. Jigyasu said that he often finds that developers have misconceptions, thinking that heritage professionals
do not address the basics of survival but rather talk about monuments, something they think it is very
elitist, while the developers are more focused on talking about human safety and the lives of people. So,
he thinks that there is a lot of effort that needs to be made to communicate to other sectors exactly what
the intentions are of heritage professionals. He said that sometimes we should not use the word “heritage”
because it may have unwanted connotations. So, he called on heritage professionals to communicate in thelanguage of the other sector because, many times, they are talking about the same things but in their own
language. He gave the example of the concept of “sustainable livelihoods” which would correspond to theconcept of intangible cultural heritage.
Professor Yoshida agreed with Dr. Jigyasu that sometimes there are misunderstandings when talking about
the conservation of heritage.
Dr. Wijesuriya explained why the project on Nature-Culture Linkages is taking place in Japan. He recalled how
Ms. Murti mentioned the existence of nature-culture linkages and high-level disaster response systems, andthat Tim Badman, director of the IUCN World Heritage Programme, said that Japan was the place to start
this nature-culture conversation when the discussion on starting this course took place in Bonn in 2015. He
said that we start in the highest level -this level of sophistication at once cannot be seen in many countriesand this could benefit the others. He stated that what is most important is to change our mindsets, which hefinds difficult for his own generation, but he considers it can be achievable for the next generations throughthese courses. He re-affirmed what Dr. Jigyasu said, that other sectors also want to work together, and weshould adapt our language, not be isolated anymore, not working in our own silos, but rather thinking about
integration and working together towards solutions, looking at the benefits, it is the right direction to help us
working together.
Ms. Murti said that conservation people also get the same reaction from other sectors working in disaster
response, who state that they are trying to save lives while conservationists are worried about nature.
She gave the example of what happened in Haiti, where they spent time, effort, and money on rescuing
people from rubbles during the 2010 earthquake; however, a few months later a significant number ofpeople died of cholera because they polluted the waterways during the rescue actions. She stressed how
response workers do not see the impacts of what the immediate rescue relief does on the short, medium,and long-term recovery. She continued, saying that this same challenge also exists with people who do notunderstand the linkages, so she explained that their strategy is to work with champions, like Japan or privatecompanies, that understand that it is about owning your risk, managing your risk, and reducing your risk.
She explained that often they have to talk to governments first about risk reduction before they can talkabout using Eco-DRR because many countries do not do risk reduction but rather they only focus on relief
and recovery. She said that usually relief and recovery are composed of ad hoc teams, so there is nobody totalk to when the disaster is not yet there. She concluded that there is a long way to go before governments
understand and do risk management before even bringing nature as a solution to that.
Mr. King agreed with Dr. Wijesuriya in that there is a need to change the mindset. He added that we need toget away from the idea of talking about the “other side,” that we need to convince them of doing something.
He said that what we need is to find a middle ground, which is what we also need to do with the culture
and nature sides. He explained that even in ICCROM, they used to have a clear demarcation between the
movable and immovable heritage units, however, they are currently merging those two units into one sothat they can work together. They are also working with the IUCN, ICOMOS, and the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre and he re-affirms that it is a question of changing the mindset and recognizing that we are all in this
together in one way or another.
Ms. Shimotsuma commented on the ideas of “filling the gap” and “changing the mindset,” which shesays she has heard frequently in the last few years, but that she does not know how to interpret, as theinterpretation differs slightly from individual to individual. She explained that in the last 10 to 20 years,
they have been trying to figure out how to promote and utilize heritage, but they found that, whether it is127

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

culture or nature, the heritage values vary from the local communities to the government. The government
has to select certain assets using certain criteria, and in this process the number of assets originally listedby the communities are reduced, and their values as well. She believes that this causes a gap with the local
community because people would not be willing to utilize their time and money if their assets and values are
not considered. She affirms that the first step they need to take when thinking about reality and utilization,is to figure out how to include and engage local communities. She says that instead of thinking of “filling thegap” or “changing the mindset,” we should provide the explanation based on our standards and at the sametime try to listen to what others have to say.
Mr. Toshikazu Ishino, Vice President and Executive Director for Finance and Facilities at the University ofTsukuba and a session attendee, mentioned that after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, he was the
ACA person responsible for the excavation of the land assets. He explained that the locations where they
worked on the survey were also the places where people who lost their houses due to the tsunami were
trying to build a new house. However, he explained that this survey needed to be conducted before building
the houses. He said that at that time, he had a conversation with the locals and the town mayor and they
were quite fierce, not understanding why the excavations were needed. He explained to the locals that the
ACA was giving priority to ensuring the security of the land to be used for building houses, however, thelocals thought that the archaeologists were doing surveys for their own satisfaction. He expressed how they
tried to explain to the owners that these assets actually show us how our ancestors had lived and are partof the history of the place, asserting that these things should help young people to build pride in their local
community, but they were still told not to take too long time for the surveys. Therefore, he said that they
had to put extra effort into mobilizing resources throughout Japan so that they would be able to finish as
early as possible. He referred to what Ms. Shimotsuma previously mentioned, that they have introduced
forensic technology and partnerships with the private sectors, while intending to include local values. He
considers that rather than just changing the mindset, people should try to avoid giving their own opinion andinstead have a coordination discussion.
Finally, Professor Yoshida closed the session by thanking the guest speakers and announcing the lunch break.
After the lunch break, Dr. Ishizawa introduced Professor Nobuko Inaba, from the World Heritage Studies
Programme. Professor Inaba was in charge of chairing the “Roundtable Discussion on Key Issues on
Resilience of Nature-Culture Linkages in the face of Disasters.” Professor Inaba introduced Mr. Joseph
King, Director of the Sites Unit of ICCROM, who presented “Key Issues for Disasters and Resilience in linewith World Heritage Policy Guidance.” Mr. King thanked the University of Tsukuba and the UNESCO Chair
for holding this forum and for allowing ICCROM to be a partner in the workshop. He thanked, on behalf of
ICCROM, the Japanese government and institutions for their partnership and described the relationshipof ICCROM with them as very strong. He told the audience that in the month of September, ICCROM has
three different courses going on in different cities in Japan: one on disaster risk reduction with Ritsumeikan
University in Kyoto, one on nature-culture linkages with the University of Tsukuba, and one on archaeologicalsites management in the Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara). He continued saying that
his talk would deal with World Heritage Policy and the issues of Disasters and Resilience as it relates to theWorld Heritage Policy Guidance. However, he explained that the World Heritage Policy, if existing, is doneon an ad hoc basis, based on the accumulation of decisions that are made on particular topics. He addedthat sometimes it would be called a policy, or a strategy, or even a recommendation. He stated that there
are a series of documents and decisions which guide the decision-making of the World Heritage Committee
and provides guidance for State Parties to the World Heritage Convention, the Advisory Bodies to theWorld Heritage Convention, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and other relevant actors. He said thathe chose to focus this particular presentation on four documents: The Strategy for reducing risk at World
Heritage Properties, the Policy on Impacts of Climate Change at World Heritage Properties, the Policy for the
Integration of a Sustainable Development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention
from 2015, and the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy.

128

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Joseph King, Director of the Sites Unit of ICCROM, presenting about Key issues for Disasters and Resilience in linewith World Heritage Policy Guidance.

Mr. King said that we should focus on disaster risk because the increase of disaster is correlational to thedamages in cultural and natural heritage. It is common to talk about climate change and the consequent
vulnerabilities but there are also potential disasters created by humans. Due to the fact that there are moredisasters, we need to think on how to create planning frameworks and the necessary disaster risk policies
for confronting these problems. Mr. King explained that they recognized this issue for World Heritage morethan ten years ago and that together with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the IUCN, and ICOMOS
they have worked on the development of a policy or strategy for disaster risk reduction. This strategy has
five main objectives, which includes strengthening institutional support and governance, increasing ourknowledge, increasing our innovation, and increasing our education, to build a culture of disaster prevention.
Mr. King added that it included identifying, assessing and monitoring risks, reducing the underlying risk, andstrengthening our disaster preparedness at World Heritage properties. He said that eleven years later, there
have been some positive outcomes, like the integration of heritage and disaster risk reduction as part ofthe sustainable development framework. Moreover, at the international level, national levels, and in various
global forums, heritage professionals have started working with a number of international partners, suchas the UNISDR or the World Bank, to strengthen the links between heritage and disaster risk management.
This is an outcome of the Sendai Framework of 2015, which recognizes heritage, both cultural and natural,as part of a necessary disaster risk reduction framework. Mr. King continued, saying that this outcome isrelated to an earlier discussion in 2005, at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Kobe, where
many colleagues in the Disaster Risk Reduction community were unable to understand the importance ofintegrating culture.
There is also a need to work with civil defense authorities and ICCROM has already started with training
and capacity building in different countries. There has been progress in the area of increasing knowledge,in particular with the incorporation of traditional knowledge systems, a very important element thatheritage professionals can bring to the disaster risk community. Mr. King added that for long-time heritage
professionals would request the help of the disaster risk community in order to preserve important sites;
however, now they can support the disaster risk community by sharing knowledge, such as traditional
knowledge and systems, which could sustain and build more resilient places, cities, and landscapes.
Unfortunately, they did not have success in all aspects of the strategy. Mr. King explained that one part ofthe strategy was that every World Heritage site would have a Disaster Risk Management Plan as either a partof their Management Plan or separately. A survey on 60 World Heritage sites conducted by UNESCO foundthat 37% had no identification of risks and no plan in place and that only 10% of those 60 properties had
presented an effective risk management plan. Mr. King added that since mapping out disasters at the global
129

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

scale is lacking, they are still missing a global risk map, which they have not been able to work out yet at aninternational level, even though there are a number of countries that are doing it at a national level.
Mr. King then went on to talk about the Climate Change Policy from 2008, which identified three areas
requiring work: creating synergies with other international conventions and organizations; promoting
research needs related to increasing risk factors, socio-economic research, and sources of stress factors; andthe third is the issue of legal questions, which he finds interesting because it looks at responsibility. If State
Parties are responsible for protecting their World Heritage properties, then the question would be whether
it is their responsibility to put in place mechanisms to combat climate change and, if they do not, would thatmean that they are not meeting their obligations under the Convention. Unfortunately, there has not beenmuch work and reflection on this issue and Mr. King concluded that the Climate Change Policy has not beensuccessful in regard to World Heritage. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,
the Advisory Bodies, and a number of State Parties are about to embark on a process to build a stronger
policy document specifically in relation to climate change in the next few years.
Mr. King continued with the third policy, which follows the 2015 UN Framework for Sustainable Development
and looks at 4 key areas: Environmental Sustainability, Inclusive Economic Development, Inclusive Social
Development, and Peace and Security. Since the policy is a very new document, he cannot present whether
it has been successful or not. The goal of the policy is to harness the potential of the World Heritage tocontribute to Sustainable Development; thus, to ensure that the conservation and management of World
Heritage sites are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and ensure that OUV, the basis of
the World Heritage Convention, is not compromised while looking at the sustainable development andsustainable use of sites. Therefore, Mr. King explained that the idea was to take those four aspects of
Sustainable Development and put them through a funnel of conservation and management of the World
Heritage properties, with the idea that they would enable more sustainable sites respecting both theircultural and natural values.
One of the general provisions of the policy on Sustainable Development is human rights, an overarching
principle that has opened up a whole new discussion within the World Heritage world about interacting with
communities, indigenous peoples, and ensuring that sites can promote equality for all of their communities.
Moreover, Mr. King said that the Policy also looks at sustainability through a longer-term perspective. He
remarked that for the area of Environmental Sustainability, the policy talks about protecting biological andcultural diversity, ecosystems services and benefits, and strengthening the resilience to natural hazards andclimate change. In order to achieve this, an entire systematic or ecosystem science perspective is necessary.
In relation to social development, the policy talks about inclusion and equality, and enhancing the qualityof life and wellbeing of the people, which he finds important when talking about disaster risk reduction
and sustainable development. Mr. King noted that cultural or natural heritage professionals may havedifferent concepts of heritage than the communities, so he asserted that we have to make sure that they are
consulted and integrated in the common efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
On the economic development side, the policy on Sustainable Development talks about the need to ensure
growth, employment, incomes, livelihoods, particularly from tourism, and also through capacity building
and local entrepreneurship. Tourism is a difficult issue because its massification generally brings economic
benefit but also has a tendency to cause problems and may ultimately reduce the resiliency of a communityor place. Therefore, we need to be careful in terms of economic development and ensure that it will provide
sustainable development, which in addition to the economic benefits promotes environmental, social, andcultural sustainability. Mr. King recalled how during World Heritage Committee Sessions, some State Parties
claim the need to put a coal or uranium mine in or next to the World Heritage site as a mean for sustainable
development. He affirmed that economic development does not equate sustainable development. This is
an argument that should be made by heritage professionals, since the provision of money does not meansustainability. Moreover, Mr. King remarked that the income that tourism or mining may bring do notnecessarily go to local communities but rather to international corporations.
The fourth leg regarding the peace and security of the sustainable development strategy comes back to theissue of disasters. Although, in this case human-made disasters, it looks at conflict prevention and protectionof heritage during conflict and at using the heritage as a means for diffusing conflict. Mr. King called attention
130

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

to post-conflict recovery, an area requiring major discussion, as he stated, it is a long-term process.
The Sustainable Development Policy from the World Heritage keeps in mind the discussions on the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, which Goal 11 talks about “sustainable cities and communities,” withthe target of 11.4 “to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.”
Mr. King stressed the important achievement of the inclusion of cultural and natural heritage into the larger
UN document for Sustainable Development and that heritage professionals should not only look at Goal 11,
but all of the goals in the Agenda 2030 because of the potentials of heritage in the alleviation of poverty,
promoting better health and wellbeing of people, and providing quality education. Continuing with hisreflection, he said that the World Heritage Sustainable Development Policy also leaves the question of theWorld Heritage system as being top-down, with decisions based at the World Heritage Committee Sessions.
The World Heritage Committee is a decision-making body made-up of 21 State Parties, at any one particularpoint in time, that ultimately make decisions for the system and the nominations of World Heritage sites.
Additionally, at the level of individual countries, it is the State Party that puts nominations forward and there
is nothing forcing it to consider Sustainable Development Goals for the nomination; namely, there is nothingthat forces a State Party to obtain the consent of its local population before putting a nomination forward.
The Advisory Bodies are trying to address this issue; however, the power tends to originate higher up. Mr.
King continued that for him, the question then becomes how to ensure the integration of Sustainable
Development into the World Heritage system when Sustainable Development ought to be a bottom-up
approach, a people-centered approach, and the World Heritage system is designed to be a top-down, State
Party approach, an international community approach.
To conclude, Mr. King stated that the way that ICCROM tries to deal with this issue is through training andcapacity building. The World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy was developed in 2011, with the idea ofbalancing the top-down approach of the World Heritage system with bottom-up processes, which means
working with communities and networks, institutions within State Parties -and not just with the State Parties
themselves-, and practitioners. He declared that they have been joined by the IUCN in the World Heritage
Leadership Programme (WHLP), which is meant to link together culture and nature. Within the WHLP,
the culture side is looking at learning management practices from the nature side while the nature side islearning from the management practices on the culture side. Mr. King asserted that they are also dealing
with the issues of resilience and disaster risk management, as well as impact assessment, and they are trying
to build more networks related to culture and nature. He concluded that this is the way that they are trying
to invert the top-down so that it is more bottom-up.
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
Professor Inaba thanked Mr. King for his speech and invited the roundtable guests to join the general
discussion. She clarified that the forum is public and that all participants of the two-week workshop are alsopart of this symposium. She said that this symposium is a space for listening to talks from eminent experts
and stressed that Mr. King, Mr. Okuda, and Ms. Shimotsuma are only present for this event, emphasizing thatthese were precious lectures. She explained that Ms. Murti and Dr. Jigyasu would be joining the three daysof workshop. She invited two additional resource persons, who would attend the whole workshop and field
trip, to join the final discussion, Dr. Wijesuriya and Ms. Buckley. She introduced them as experts who know
the purpose and expected outcomes of the course well.
Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya thanked the organizers and introduced himself. He worked for ICCROM for the last
14 years -until December 2017-, under the leadership of Mr. King. He explained that the work on linking
nature and culture started in 2014 and that he was able to work on it from the beginning, organizing
several activities that he will introduce during his lectures in the workshop. He also recalled that, thanks
to the University of Tsukuba, he could participate in the implementation of this workshop series from the
beginning. He thanked all of the presenters for their wonderful talks and asserted that there will be manyreflections to bring home and discuss during the next two-week workshop. He recalled the definition ofresilience, saying that it is the capacity of an entity, individual community, organization, or a natural system
to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from destructive
experiences. He said that through the presentations we could learn from the nature sector and the culture
sector how we can respond to that and that he wanted to insist on the topic of integration. He said that131

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

as a legacy from the British colonial rule in Asia, “we are good at divide and rule,” and now we must try
to integrate. However, he stated that nature, culture, and people were never separated, and he quoted a
Veddhic text, from 2,500 years ago, that he found when he started his work on nature-culture:“Oh mother Earth! Sacred are the hills, snowy mountains and deep forests. Be kind to us and bestow
upon us happiness. May you be fertile, arable, and nourisher of all. May you continue supporting peopleof all races and nations. May you protect us from your anger. And may no one exploit and subjugate yourchildren.” (Atharva Veda, book XII, hymn 1, verse 11)
In this text, they are begging nature, recognizing the sacredness of all-natural elements, and praying forprotection from disasters. He stressed that the divide was created by people and that now we must try
to integrate. He re-affirmed the importance of integration, as we heard the different experiences during
the presentations about the benefits of integrating, and that he is trying to promote it as a philosophy. Dr.
Wijesuriya said that integration is about shifting organizational and participants’ cultures, that it facilitates
coordination between agencies and community groups, and that it can come up with new regulatory andinstitutional frameworks. He reassured that he has a strong belief in that integration is a good thing. We cancelebrate this change of mindset, as we saw in Japan with the best example provided by Ms. Shimotsuma,
how the heritage activities of the ACA level are now integrated at national level, as well as how the DRM has
been integrated into the entire heritage management system. Dr. Wijesuriya wondered how many countries
have a DRM as an integral part of heritage management and said that he was interested in hearing someanswers from the workshop participants. He also noted how many Japanese agencies are giving place topeople, putting communities at the top of their agendas. Dr. Wijesuriya also discussed how we are working
on the integration of nature and culture, which is divided into culture sector and nature sector, throughthis course as an example, and in that way, the new generation is receiving the message. He added that
hopefully, the Sustainable Development paradigm that Mr. King talked about will bring all of us together for
better integration, for a better future for people, that is not limited to resilience, but is for everything else.

Professor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba, moderating the Roundtable Discussion.

Ms. Kristal Buckley, from Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia and ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor
said that she totally agreed with Dr. Wijesuriya in that we separate heritage conservation concepts andpractices between nature and culture, but it is not happening in many cultures. Living in Australia, she haslearned this from her own engagement with the indigenous peoples that see landscape as sentient and notseparated from themselves or from the past. Most countries have set up their bureaucracies, their laws,
and their systems of institutional arrangements to divide nature and culture, even countries where thelocal beliefs do not follow this divide; she noted that this is an institutional and structural issue as well as
132

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

conceptual. We have been grabbling with this year after year in this course, but Ms. Buckley thinks we areat a point where we need to start talking about how to do this. She asserted that good progress has been
made in raising awareness and challenging the conceptual and institutional arrangements that we haveand are working with. However, the question is how we overcome the challenges that we keep finding.
Resilience is a very good concept, but we still struggle on exactly how to find it, how to create it, and how
to sustain it. This is due to the fact that resilience has to exist across many different aspects of human andnon-human existence, in places which are context-specific. Ms. Buckley continued on to explain three ideas
about the issue of resilience, that she hoped could be addressed during the field trip and workshop. The
first idea related to the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Initiative, which she said is quite holistic in involving
natural and cultural processes and looks at the issue of resilience. She said that what is interesting in the
HUL Recommendation and the resulting programme, is that it requires cities to look at vulnerability, whichis the mirror image of resilience. She continued, explaining her experience working with one city involvedin a HUL pilot in Australia, Ballarat in Central Victoria, which used tools provided by the UN Global Compact
Cities Programme and helped them to map and assess vulnerability. This is a new tool that we can bring
into discussions because, in the case of this particular city, they used it to identify where they were mostvulnerable and where they need to prioritize resources for resilience. This exercise has actually changed theway in which they allocate money and people inside the Council structures. The second idea is related tothe project that is jointly steered by the IUCN and ICOMOS, called Connecting Practice , which is launching
Stage III this year and is specifically oriented on resilience in agricultural landscapes. Ms. Buckley added thatthey are working with the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Programme of the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a programme well established in Japan. With this programme, they
are combining the knowledge that lives strongly in agricultural and food production institutions with ideasof heritage and ecosystem services, an aspect strongly represented through the IUCN’s involvement. The
third and last idea is related to Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) which can be called other names, as somepresenters mentioned. Ms. Buckley explained that the transmission of culture is the most important thing
in relation to what happens with disruption when disasters occur, it is determinant for the resilience of theplace and its communities. The 2003 Convention on Safeguarding of ICH has been working on this and has
also developed a Sustainable Development Policy. One issue Ms. Buckley believes will be discussed in thedays that come is what Mr. King said about nominations to the World Heritage List requiring a disaster risk
management strategy and plan in place. She mentioned that what is generally submitted as management
plans within the nominations, is very poorly conceived because the effort of stating the OUV of properties is
so enormous for most countries, that all other things they submit are less reflected on. Finally, Ms. Buckleymentioned that big changes are possibly ahead, in regard to World Heritage nominations and how they will
be evaluated, because there is a working group thinking on a beneficial change. She closed her intervention
saying that we should think about ways of operationalizing some of the ideas that will be talked about during
the workshop in order to include them into the nomination process so that better prepared places can be
added to the World Heritage List.
Professor Inaba thanked the respondents and then talked about her own experience as an ACA officer
before becoming a faculty member at the University of Tsukuba. In 1995, before the 2011 earthquake, there
was another big earthquake in Kobe and she was in the ACA working in the section of risk prevention andrisk preparedness. At that time, risk preparedness referred to fire risk because Japanese cultural heritage ismostly made of wood. Her task consisted of traveling all over Japan to install water tanks, water guns, andfire alarms. Later, her task was to install safety alarms and other needed devices. Dr. Inaba continued, sayingthat in the morning of January 17th, she saw the news of what happened, and it was the first opportunity to
see how the ACA would react in a major disaster. All telephone lines from Kobe to Tokyo were cut and noinformation was arriving at the central government offices; therefore, officers in the ACA were waiting andthinking about what to do when it was possible that all of the National Designated Buildings were collapsing.
She explained that a person from the Kobe prefecture, Mr. Murakami, after making sure that his house andfamily were safe, went on a bicycle -cars could not circulate- to all the cultural heritage sites he rememberedand collect information that was later sent to the ACA. A week or two later, the ACA sent a team to thesite and the residents, who were more concerned about people dying under the buildings, shouted at theteam because they were measuring the collapsed buildings. Two years later, they organized an international
conference on how to prepare for major disasters, which was attended by Herb Stovel. Dr. Inaba explainedthat they identified three important issues: the first was how to integrate cultural heritage risk management
into the management system; the second point was the need for integration between movable and133

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

immovable cultural heritage; and the third issue was how to prepare the resources mapping. These were
the three main lessons learned from the Kobe earthquake and some of these aspects have been integrated
into the system, as Ms. Shimotsuma presented. However, Dr. Inaba recalled what Mr. King said regarding
the memory of disasters and how we tend to forget the lessons. It is a very important issue, to continue thememory.
Dr. Inaba then commented on the points that caught her attention from the lectures presented. People
working in other sectors have a very narrow image of heritage, either natural or cultural heritage. Whenevershe goes to an international conference, outside of the heritage community, people seem to not understandwhat heritage is about. The person in charge of the GIAHS Programme at UN FAO is a Japanese professionalfrom the Ministry of Agriculture, who told her that he is still struggling to understand what heritage people
are doing. Dr. Inaba asserted that narrow understanding is a basic problem that prevents us from breaking
that barrier, and we need to integrate our system into wider frameworks. The second point she raised is thattraditional knowledge is being forgotten. In the past, before modern bureaucracy was installed, traditional
villages and their communities had to survive by themselves without protection and, therefore, they createdtheir own water management, landslide management, and mountain resources management systems.
However, with the modern government, we have forgotten how to work at community levels. In Japan,
everyone relies on the modern bureaucratic system and if the bureaucratic system fails then the community
accuses the government. Urbanization is another problem in Japan, there were floods and landslides,
especially in new development areas, riverbed, flood bed and others just last summer. The final point she
raised was the limitation of modern bureaucracy, recalling what Mr. King said about the World Heritage
system being top-down. Maybe at an international organization the idea of the integration is very important,however, once we look at the national level, they are embedded in the existing bureaucratic system andthe system cannot be bottom-up anymore. The question would be how to solve the bureaucratic systems,
at national levels, where each ministry has a separate legal mandate. She then repeated what Mr. Okuda
said about possible cooperation at site levels, where bottom-up and collaboration can happen. Finally,
Dr. Inaba mentioned that during the first year of the workshop, participants visited one mountain village,
where the differences between nature and culture were not seen by the villagers because they do notknow what is considered culture or nature since the two are combined within their daily lives. She wonders
how to manage and work the bottom-up and the top-down in this context. Dr. Inaba asked speakers
and participants for additional comments on the issues she presented, interested in hearing from theparticipants on how they might solve the top-down and bottom-up discrepancies in different countries.
Ms. Murti said that some of these issues are currently being reflected up within their office. It is important
to be able to challenge ourselves trying to re-examine the issue and acknowledge that people within thefield create divides, as Dr. Inaba mentioned, it is not the villagers who separate. We grow up with the natureculture-people-environment links in our daily lives, however, we then go through an education system
where the focus is to become the best of the best in a specialized field, while there are only a few champions
trying to work with transdisciplinary approaches. When one becomes a professional, organizations like the
IUCN try to fix that divide, because the formal education system does not support the outside world. Ms.
Murti wondered how to change this. It is too late when one is already a policy-maker, or a practitioner inthe field. Something should be done before one gets to the professional level. The question is how to notundermine specialties while at the same time do not let them become a problem that professionals haveovercome to work with others.
Dr. Jigyasu added that even if it is not possible to work things in a holistic way, at the research level there is
specialization and not integration and there is a need to look for areas of interface. He clarified that he is notreferring to multidisciplinarity, but to cross-disciplinarity and identifying those areas of interface.
Professor Inaba asked if cross-disciplinary research should be done at the university or education level, and
Dr. Jigyasu replied that he meant at the education level. Professor Inaba asked the roundtable discussants if
there were more suggestions on how to integrate, in particular at the international level.
Professor Yoshida agreed with Dr. Wijesuriya’s comment on resilience, that it is based on nature-culturepeople integration and cannot be separated, referring to the experience after the tsunami at Minami-Sanriku
Town. He said that people not only recovered from the tsunami by building a big sea wall, but that they also
134

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

cooperated with each other to recover their culture and their community through the recovery of fishery,
forestry, agriculture, as well as the recovery of culture, ICH of the deer dance or paper craft, which wasinherited from the ancestors. He stressed that this kind of educational activity for the younger generation
strengthens the community. He added that these are very important elements of resilience; the linkage ofnature-culture-people or nature-culture-community is very important for resilience to the next disaster.
Professor Inaba asked how they could develop that ability within the community.
Mr. Okuda replied that he really supported Professor Yoshida’s statement. He recalled what Mr. King said
about the World Heritage system being top-down with very strong criteria based on a scientific basis,
evidence-based, that may not be relevant for local people. However, he thinks that the most importantways to improve resilience is through the bottom-up approach, community-based management, andcommunity-based decision-making systems. He explained that after the tsunami and earthquake in 2011,
they found that some communities are very successful at escaping from disasters, communities that are still
very strong, revitalizing, and with community-based communication, and strong relationships among thepeople. However, some communities have lost this kind of relationships and, he feels, without a scientificbasis, that those communities struggle more in the face of a major disaster. He suggested researching more
and revisiting what has been happening during the actual disaster in these places. The collected information
would be helpful in keeping the conversation going on how the conservation of both natural and cultural
heritage support resilience. Mr. Okuda added that those communities can then incorporate certain heritage,
not only from the cultural perspective, but also the natural perspective, namely, the linkage between culture
and nature.
Professor Inaba remarked that even in one country like Japan and in the Tohoku region, each community isdifferent. She added that some could survive but some just died.
Mr. King agreed that even within communities there are differences. When we talk about a community,
there is not a single community within one community. He clarified that he agreed in the fact that World
Heritage is top-down, and that resilience has to be bottom-up. His question is how to reconcile thedifferences at a World Heritage site between a top-down process with values being decided first by thecountry, then by the World Heritage Committee, and what people from the bottom-up would want to dowith their heritage. He added that just as the World Heritage system is top-down, the Japanese national
bureaucratic system is also a top-down system, even at a municipal level. He agreed that real resilienceneeds to be bottom-up and that it has to come from different communities that live in the specific area, but
the difficult question is how to accomplish this.
Professor Inaba agreed that the modern system is bureaucratic, even at the municipal level, in Japan andmaybe in other Asian countries. We cannot escape from this system, which leads to communities forgetting
their own survival instincts.
Dr. Jigyasu added that as professionals we also need to see what role we play and if we would approachcommunities as the persons who will tell them what to do or as facilitators to engage the discussion. He
said that he considers that there are some skills that many professionals lack, such as the ability to engage
and communicate, and that these softer skills are very critical if we want to get communities on board. He
continued, saying that resilience has become jargon and that we should be careful about how we use thisterm. For example, many politicians have started to use the word ‘resilience’ very frequently. An example ofthis are the floods striking Mumbai every second year, where the community has no other way but to deal
with them. While some may consider the communities to be resilient, Dr. Jigyasu does not think that this isan adequate example of resilience. He stressed that it is important to get out of the habit of using the term
as jargon.
Dr. Wijesuriya shared his experience where there has been both bureaucracy and the voice of the people.
He said that he was working for the heritage institution in Sri Lanka, where he was Director of Conservation,
when the Temple of the Relic, which is a World Heritage site, was bombed. He mentioned that Herb
Stovel had also visited Sri Lanka two years prior and that they discussed the need of having a disaster risk
management plan for the site. However, they ultimately did not do anything and two years later the site was135

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

bombed and destroyed completely. He highlighted that the people and the communities were so strong and
the President of the country, who chaired the working group, gave the instruction that in order to restore
and recover the temple the final decision would be made by the Buddhist monks, the religious communities.
They were indeed able to recover it quickly by collecting all the money needed. He concluded that there are
moments when the community voices are strong, this can happen, but he does not know whether it canactually become a practice.
Professor Inaba agreed that the sense of commitment is a very strong point.
Ms. Shimotsuma commented that, as the World Heritage tends to be top-down, there is a gap between
World Heritage and the local community. However, in the case of Japan, she clarified that the system
to protect cities is different from the system to protect individual buildings. She said that in the case ofindividual buildings there is a basic role to be played by the owners or stewards. Alternatively, in the case ofprotecting cities, this approach is not sustainable. Rather than one party evaluating, the local community
would have to recognize the value and, based on that, the plan would have to be created. In that way,
the process follows a bottom-up approach. This model is serving as a basis for the conservation of thelandscapes. Ms. Shimotsuma talked about the law for the protection of cultural landscapes that was started
in 2004, where the ministry in charge struggled to figure out who was supposed to evaluate the landscape.
When the regulation was stipulated, they decided that the local community should be in charge of evaluating
the landscapes so that an appropriate way to protect them could be developed and made this regulation
viable. In the case of Japan, when certain places, like a landscape or a town, have been designated with thisbottom-up logic and intend to become a World Heritage location, they have to work on the understandingof the OUV, and a totally different logic comes into play, namely, that a different plan which is dedicated to
the World Heritage would be necessary. This creates a double standard, the local logic crumbles when acomparative analysis against the world is completed, which is a requirement of the nomination. Therefore,
she stressed that, in the context of World Heritage, these problems would have to be addressed when trying
to involve the local community because the different logics create a conflict.
Professor Yoshida mentioned that the founders of the World Heritage Convention understand that
the World Heritage lists sites with OUV, but that they also understand the cultural and natural heritageat the national or local level. He recalled that UNESCO General Assembly in its 17th session adopted arecommendation for the protection of the natural heritage and cultural heritage at national level, butpeople tend to forget about that. He said that in the criteria of the cultural and natural properties at thenational level, it is stated that these should have a special value, not OUV, and that the combined worksof man and nature appeared both in natural and cultural criteria. He suggested that the drafters of thisrecommendation, probably the founders of the World Heritage Convention, understand that at the nationalor local level we cannot separate nature from culture.
Professor Inaba said that even in 1962, the UNESCO system did not divide nature and culture. The
recommendation in 1962 (Recommendation concerning the safeguarding of Beauty and Character ofLandscapes and Sites) covers both, which, means that the division does not come from UNESCO but fromeach national system that already had these divisions established. She stressed that this is a major issue
because, when looking at earlier drafts of the World Heritage Convention, there was no OUV mentioned andnature and culture were equally combined. She suggested that Professor Yoshida might think that the law for
the protection of cultural properties and the National Parks law should be combined.
Mr. Okuda added that the existence of OUV is important. He recalled Article 12 of the Convention, which
he considers to be one of the most important provisions, where it is stated that just because a property is
not on the list does not mean that the property does not have OUV. He stressed that this is a very important
point to be remembered at the local level. When we have discussions in the context of the World Heritage,
we are talking about properties with OUV, even when these are not yet on the list. Furthermore, even in
the absence of OUV, there could be cultural heritage and natural heritage that is valued locally, so we needto make these distinctions. He continued, saying that when we talk about natural properties, the World
Heritage has a set of criteria and we have our set of criteria for designating a national park, although thesecriteria might differ. He said that it would be ideal if these criteria could be combined. In terms of regulations,
national parks in Japan are quite strict in some areas and weak in others. However, in terms of the cultural
136

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

properties, the ACA is more advanced in the nature-culture and bottom-up approach and he hopes that
there will be a conversion into a single system in the future.
Ms. Shimotsuma commented that there are top-down systems, like the World Heritage, but there are alsobottom-up systems that focus more on the protection of towns and landscapes, like in Japan. She thinksthat both of these elements can work together quite well. In the case of Japan, they work on the survey incollaboration with communities, identifying the features of the town or landscape, and develop a plan basedon those features. By applying this system, there would automatically be agreement, engagement, andparticipation. When changes are made, they would have to listen to the voices of the various parties in order
to find a solution. Through that problem-solving process, they can grow with the community and establish
a system, because, when it comes to the protection of towns or landscapes, not everything is always goingto go smoothly. She gave the example of how in Japan, at the time of the bubble economy, there weremajor development projects and now the population is shrinking because of the lower birth rate, causing
the community to weaken. In the case of the evaluation, it can be conducted by everybody and this would
encourage and support the local communities. She believes that the World Heritage system has a role toplay in these processes. In the case of settlements and villages, we should try to think about development
and preservation that fits the uniqueness of each site. Ms. Shimotsuma recalled the time when she was astudent and her proposal for research on the preservation of landscapes was not accepted, as she was in thearchitecture department and only architectural history would be accepted, emphasizing that things evolved
and are changing.
Mr. King went back to the issue of criteria and the definition of OUV. He agreed in that the Convention
clearly says that the fact that a site is not on the list does not mean that it does not have OUV. He recalled
how there was a missed opportunity in 2005, when the Operational Guidelines were revised, taking cultural
criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and integrate them into one set, from (i)through (x). He said that instead of having cultural and natural, it became just (i) to (x) and that was a great
opportunity to examine the criteria themselves and look at how these could have been better integrated. It
would have been a lot of work to do it, but that it would have been interesting work that could have createda more integrated approach to culture and nature. Instead what happened was that they took the cultural
criteria and made them (i) to (vi) and the nature criteria were labeled (vii) to (x), simply changing the order of
one of the natural criteria to make it number (vii). Mr. King stressed that it was basically the exact same text
and even though he advocated at the time to examine the criteria, the response was that it would be too
hard, confusing, and complicate the situation of the sites already inscribed under those criteria. He thoughtthat this was not a problem and that if a site was inscribed with the old criteria they could keep them, butthat in future sites this would be a way to create a more integrated process. Mr. King recalled that three tofour weeks before this symposium, he was attending the IUCN 40th anniversary in Fontainebleau, and Adrian
Phillips, from the IUCN, asked the question of why, when there is one set of criteria, we still refer to culturalsites and natural sites rather than just World Heritage properties. Mr. King concluded that what Mr. Phillips
pointed out refers to the need of change in the mindset that Dr. Wijesuriya was talking about. He reiterated
that we cannot change our mindsets and that this is the first mindset that needs to change in the World
Heritage system.
He raised one last point on management and management plans. He argued that that the fact that theWorld Heritage Management Plans only focus on the OUV and the criteria for which they were inscribed in
the World Heritage List is another mistake. No site exists that does not have natural aspects, in one way or
another, and conversely, he thinks that it is possible that there are not many natural sites that do not havesome cultural aspects. He gave the example of the city of Rome, which is a cultural site but also has a river
running through it which, although not in its natural state, is still natural heritage, with forests, gardens,
and landscapes around. In this way, there are always natural elements to cultural heritage sites. He statedthat we need to incorporate all those values into management plans, which would also solve the problemof the top-down vs. bottom-up approaches. Namely, even if OUV is decided at the level of the State Party
and then at the level of the Committee, that is top-down, if the management plan deals with all the valuesof the site, whether is the OUV, or whether is the value of a particular community or a particular person or aparticular family, then it could be a tool for managing both natural and cultural heritage, with OUV, or valued
at national level, or at the local level. Mr. King asserted that this is the key and also holds true for disaster riskplanning.
137

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Inaba mentioned that the World Heritage is a best model for local heritage systems and therefore,
it should not separate so strictly. Currently the evaluation system is too complicated and, therefore, whenthe municipalities in Japan try to navigate the system it becomes a burden for the local communities.
However, she said that the World Heritage is very important. Each country or each local municipality isdeveloping their systems, influenced by international inputs, which represent a catalyst power. She stated
that, in order to utilize this catalyst power more effectively, the system needs to be less complicated and thequestion is how.
Professor Yoshida agreed with Mr. King, saying that in 1993, when the first Japanese natural heritage
was inscribed on the World Heritage List: Shirakami Sanchi Mountains and Yakushima Island, expertsof the national parks systems, the national monuments, and the local people did not understand theWorld Heritage system. He said that after the evaluation and the recommendation of the World Heritage
Committee, in the case of Yakushima, local people located the OUV on the big cider trees, which are visited
each year by more than 90,000 people. However, recently, people and the community have recognizedthat there are other values which are not part of the OUV but that have special values for the people ofthe island. For example, the local community recognized the traditional custom of climbing up to the topof the mountain to bring the sea water to a very small shrine and pray for the safety of fishery. This custom
is being revived again and recently, in 2016, the Biosphere Reserve (BR) was expanded to the whole island,considering the World Heritage as the core area. The BR was used as a transition area in order to recognize
both the OUV and the special values for the local community. He stressed that this re-evaluation of theuniversal value and the local value is very important for the local community.
Professor Inaba remarked that the issue of local values is a very important point of the World Heritage
nomination process, at least in the case of cultural heritage. The designation of World Heritage sites isdivided by typologies, such as historical buildings, archaeological sites, gardens, and others, which reflects
in the unit divisions between officers and researchers who focus on each one of these typologies. She
noted that in order to nominate a site for the World Heritage, all these existing values need to be combinedin order to become one story or one narrative, affirming that this process was very useful in breaking thedivisions between archaeologists, architects, and others. She noted this as a positive point because she isinvolved in facilitating the discussions among experts, local governments and communities. She wonderedif such divisions exist within the natural heritage sector, which depends on a typology or similar kind of
categorization.
Professor Inaba recalled that two officers of the Ministries are present in the roundtable, so she proposed
to develop the discussion about the system in Japan. In Japan, the management of the land is divided into
two large ministries and she noted that neither of the guest speakers worked for the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) or for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT).
Those are the two Ministries that have the power to control the land and budget and that this may be thereason behind why the Disaster Risk Plan was controlled by their officers at the national level. She asked the
speakers how much those ministries perceive the importance of natural and cultural resources.
Mr. Okuda has noticed that since he now works on disaster related matters, when he participates at the
National Government related conferences and they talk about disaster prevention, the focus is placedon the protection of assets and people’s safety. He said that there has been a gap and that he hopes thatthey will be able to have a discussion on the matter of cultural and natural heritage inside the government.
One important development is that the MLIT, which is in charge of the infrastructure, has started to focus
interest on green infrastructure for the purpose of disaster prevention. He mentioned the importance ofrealizing that the budget for the maintenance of green infrastructure does not exceed the budget for thedevelopment of concrete infrastructure. About three years ago, he recalled that they were working on the
National Land Management Plan, which incorporated the concept of Eco-DRR; however, there is still a needto think about how to put it into practice. He noted that this is a big challenge, since people tend to focus on
having their assets and lives protected, but there is a need to avoid sticking to the concept that everything
must be protected. He stressed that if a new way of thinking can be spread, then perhaps the concept ofheritage could be integrated as well.
Professor Inaba made the remark that no matter how high the concrete rampant is, there will always be atsunami that is higher.
138

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Ms. Shimotsuma mentioned a system called the Historical City Building Law, which is in charge of the MLIT,
the MAFF, and the ACA. The logic behind it is that when the government designates a cultural treasure,particularly regarding architecture and its surroundings, there are relevant historical buildings that may
remain. At the same time, within that area, there are some historical activities; therefore, they would try todevelop by protecting the cultural heritage and the historical buildings and activities connected to it. She
said that the area would be zoned and that the government would also provide support to the efforts of themunicipalities. Before this law was enforced, there was a major change in the land policy by the government.
The policy became quite significant as it was the work of the national government more than that of thelocal community. She noted that this is a very good example of inter-ministerial collaboration. At the time itwas established, the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred, and the MILT had a larger budget than the ACA
and were therefore able to conduct the post-disaster needs assessment. Ms. Shimotsuma said that, whenworking on the policy, they consulted the ACA, which suggested that they do research on the historicalsuburbs. The MLIT carried out the survey within that framework and because of this, there were areas thatwere considerably helped. Therefore, she stressed that with this new relationship with the MILT, the ACA
is able to do many things that were not possible before. Previously, there was a UNDRR conference where
the ACA was not able to position cultural heritage conservation into disaster prevention frameworks within
the national disaster prevention policy and that this was due to the fact that ACA officers were reluctant towork with the MLIT. However, she noted, that if a new UNDRR conference would be held at present, moreprogress and collaboration could be accomplished between the ACA and the MLIT.
Professor Inaba mentioned that, in Japan, land management was divided by old classmates from agriculture
departments and architecture departments. She said that Mr. Okuda is a graduate from the agriculture
department, and that she and Ms. Shimotsuma came from the architecture departments. She explainedthat their classmates and friends are scattered among different ministries, the MILT, the MAFF, and the ACA,
so they can work together and make changes.
Mr. King asked if this would make it easier to integrate in Japan.
Professor Inaba replied that, indeed, it is good because they already know each other and that they havefriends in the different ministries, in the MLIT, the MAFF, or in the MoE. She stressed that they are trained
to work together on planning, but that politicians come from a different field, therefore, there is a need toconnect them. She wondered if it is the same case for other countries and opened the discussion to theparticipants of the workshop and the audience, asking if they could share any community problems.
Mr. Xavier Benedict from Chennai, India, introduced himself as a grass-root level worker and an architect,advocating for the conservation of a large lagoon in the south of India. He expressed that he had seen two
major disasters in India which appeared on the international news, the tsunami in 2004 and the Chennai
floods in 2015, noting that in between there had been many other floods. He raised four points. First, hestated that 99% of the heritage belongs to the local people and that there is no financial model for heritage
or financial products that could assist people in conserving their heritage. He gave the example of damaged
heritage structures that still need to be reconstructed. He stressed that there is no loan which grants
the owners the amount needed to reconstruct it. As a consequence, he has seen how heritage has been
demolished and reconstructed with concrete. The second point he referred to was language in a highly
diverse country like India. He mentioned that the government works using a top-down system and that, in
Chennai, they do not speak the same language as the government, which is the Tamil language. An example
he gave was how a policy might say to “plant a mangrove forest.” However, he explained that fishermen
do not know what the term “mangrove” is, rather, if it was explained in the local language then they would
quickly understand the importance of environmental management. He stressed how language is importantin communicating heritage issues and that laws and regulations need to be written in the local languages.
The third point he mentioned was the problem of the globalized education system, stating the need fora vernacular education system. He emphasized the need of including regionalism within the education
system as well as vernacular thinking in order to understand nature. The fourth point referred to climate.
He explained that in India there are 29 states and, out of these, 28 are considered to be the Southwest
monsoon region and the one remaining region, where he comes from, is the Northeast monsoon region.
All of the national policies relating to disasters prevention, as well as other policies and laws, are written for
the Southwest monsoon region; he added that the Northeast monsoon region is the least debated in their
139

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

parliament. In the example of the 2015 floods in Chennai, the response from the government took four days.
This was due to the fact that the government was unable to understand that the rainfall started in Chennai
when the rainfall stopped in other parts of India. Therefore, because the rest of the country was dry, they
were not able to understand the flood-levels in Chennai. Thus, he remarked, there is the need to have policy
created for different climates.
Professor Inaba emphasized that financial support is one of the major problems facing heritage conservationin the majority of countries. She agreed that it is another major problem if the national system does notsupport the local thinking. In Japan there is support from the government to assist in the conservationof natural and cultural heritage; however, she said that this support is declining. She added that theredistribution of the tax money is an issue and invited other participants to share their countries’ situations.
Ms. Irina Pavlova, from Russia working in the Natural Science Sector in Disaster Risk Reduction at UNESCO,
mostly focused on the UNESCO Global Geoparks and Biosphere Reserves, said that in this course she islearning about World Heritage. She recalled some of the keywords mentioned during the day, like local
community engagement, and problems with top-down approaches. She said that the Geoparks network
was already established in 2015 under the concept of Sustainable Development. An example she gave wasof the definition of Geopark, where the concept of Sustainable Development is included, under the idea ofthe protection of ecosystem services and use of these ecosystem services for the protection of the site. She
asked how the World Heritage works with these two labels (Biosphere Reserves and Global Geoparks) andhow much more cooperation could be foreseen.
Mr. Okuda said that the Biosphere Reserve was the first designation from the UNESCO system that was usedin Japan, while the World Heritage was adopted later. He explained that the MoE has been acting as the
responsible agency for these two labels. The geopark concept has since been established and in the last ten
years, within the MoE, they have started to understand the importance of the concept of the geopark. He
added that it has been the Ministry of Education (MEXT) which has overseen the Ecoparks because of theirscientific interest and there has not been sufficient coordination with the MoE. He said that inside one site,
it is important to utilize the different systems for the preservation of the different values and it would be
important to deepen on the understanding of the locals. He mentioned that these three UNESCO systems
are being used in order to improve and incorporate them into the management of the national parks inJapan. He added that the SDGs issues have not yet been reflected enough at the Japanese level. He said that
the SDGs, rather than being integrated in the policy by the government, are being promoted in many of theactivities conducted by the private sector.
Professor Inaba added that in the World Heritage and ICH fields, these designations are useful because
Japanese people like a lot the international brands. Therefore, with those brands, it is possible to encouragecommunities to get together and gather the power, taking the chance to advance the heritage concept.
Mr. King added that from the ICCROM’s point of view, the collaboration with other UNESCO Programs does
not exist. Just like in the case of ICCROM and how the immovable and movable units were not collaborating,from his UNESCO experience, he also sees that it is not easy to bridge the gaps between the various
programs. If there were more possibilities to collaborate in a more substantial way, the work would be muchstronger. He recalled the Nara+20 meeting in Japan, in 2004, that was held at the moment when the ICH
Convention was signed, and how they were trying to link World Heritage and ICH. However, the outcome
was that the UNESCO people dealing with the ICH were not very interested in creating links and stronger
collaboration with the World Heritage people, possibly because the ICH people wanted to stand in their own
two feet and establish their own frameworks. He added that currently ICCROM is in discussions with the ICH
unit at UNESCO in order to develop work on capacity building. He affirmed that there will be possibilities forcollaborating in that way. He also mentioned that in 2005, in the ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster
Risk Reduction) meeting in Kobe, there were also people from UNESCO’s culture and science sectors, butthere was little collaboration. Nevertheless, it is much better now, and the next step is to sit down and lookat the various normative instruments, the various UNESCO instruments, and see how these can work more
together. He added that the IUCN may actually be better at this working with the CBD.
Ms. Murti replied that for IUCN is still a work in progress.
140

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Yoshida added that when the first BR was designated in the 1980s in Japan, it overlapped with the
National Park, so the impact was not clear, and no special plan was prepared. However, after 2011 a newnomination in Aya town, in the Miyazaki prefecture in Kyushu, came up from the local government and the
local community. He clarified that the World Heritage nomination is controlled by the MoE and the Forestry
Agency, but the nomination of the BR can come from the local government and communities. In Tsukuba
city, the local government is involved in the nomination of Mount Tsukuba to the international Geoparks
network since it is already recognized as a national geopark. He stressed that, recently, local municipalities
are very interested in the nomination of geoparks and BRs.
Dr. Ishizawa recalled that during the previous year’s symposium, Dr. Thomas Schaaf explained the MultiInternational Designated Areas (MIDAS), a study conducted by the IUCN and funded by the Korean
government. They looked at different case studies of places that have several international designations:
BR, Ramsar sites, World Heritage, and Geopark. She said that one of the sites that has these characteristics
is Jeju island. This is a document that can be looked at, regarding the management of places that havethese different designations, which could also bring together people working with these different brands orsystems.
Mr. King added that one of the issues of the MIDAS is reporting. This is because there are a lot of complaints
from the State Parties about having to write State of Conservation reports for World Heritage and forothers as well. One of the things that is heard from State Parties is that it would be very useful to have one
standardized reporting system, where additional information could be added, referring to particular issues.
Professor Inaba agreed that these are the same complains that the Central Government of Japan is receivingfrom municipalities, that they have to submit reports to the different ministries.
Mr. Wijerathne, from Sri Lanka, commented that he is reading a document, prepared by the presidential task
force in Sri Lanka in line with the SDGs of the Agenda 2030, that is the policy framework related to BalancedInclusive-Green Growth. He said that, interestingly, the document does not mention anything about culture
and cultural property conservation. There are countries, like Sri Lanka, that are struggling with economic
development; therefore, their priority is focused on development rather than sustainable development andculture, or cultural heritage management. He asked if there were any plans in place to deal specifically with
developing countries where they are still forced to concentrate on development. He affirmed that there
are plans and heritage management systems in Sri Lanka, but these are not given equal importance and he
wondered if ICCROM or UNESCO had a special approach for developing countries.
Professor Inaba mentioned that even the United States is changing its policy and asked Mr. Wijerathne tohold the question, as she invited the audience to take a coffee break.
After the break, Dr. Wijesuriya clarified that the last question could be separated into two further questions.
The first question was about understanding how different countries are integrating the Agenda 2030 into
their national contexts. He recalled that after Agenda 2030 was adopted and the SDGs were developed with one in particular dealing with cultural and natural heritage (SDG 11)- these were then translated into
national policies. He explained that Mr. Wijerathne has not seen culture integrated into the national policy of
his country and wonders if other countries have integrated the target 11.4. The second question was about
UNESCO adopting the policy and if any country is pushing this, in the World Heritage context, in their World
Heritage management plans and so on. He mentioned that this is something that has been discussed at allof the ICCROM courses since 2015. In terms of World Heritage, some of these things are integrated into
the periodic reporting questionnaires that the State Parties respond to. Dr. Wijesuriya emphasized that thequestion was if there are any countries or examples where the SDGs have been converted into policy andculture has been integrated and then whether the UNESCO policy has been integrated.
Ms. Buckley said that it is important to acknowledge that these are the early days of this important shift.
She recalled that the old Millennium Development Goals, which ended in 2015, did not mention culture or
heritage at all, and certainly there was no linkage even hinted between nature and culture. She added thatwhen the UN was moving towards the renewal of those goals, there was a great campaign between manydifferent organizations involved in natural and cultural heritage and led by UNESCO, called “the future we
141

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

want includes culture.” However, this campaign was not very effective, and they made many suggestions
throughout all the SDGs, a few changes were incorporated but many were not. She insisted that this is a very
slowly evolving recognition of knitting the goals and it is not surprising that at a national or institutional level,and subnational levels, this is not yet reflected. Nevertheless, she acknowledged the power of multilateralagreements, asserting that the top-down method can work very well at the level of policy rhetoric and thatit takes time, especially since these are new ideas in the global system. She added that a lot of work is taking
place within every organization to try to grasp the SDGs and make concrete and measurable progress. She
said that everyone has to push and that we all push in the institutions where we work.
Professor Inaba mentioned that while preparing a World Heritage nomination dossier in Japan, they have toprepare the management plan. The local authorities are not unwilling to include the SDGs, but rather, theirquestion is always how and what kinds of things need to be included; therefore, some break down is very
useful.
Dr. Wijesuriya added that ICOMOS has a group working on developing indicators for the integration of theSDGs into all processes. Already in the nomination dossier, one is required to think about including the SDGs
in the management plan.
Professor Inaba consented that this requirement is already in the nomination dossier and local authorities
are trying to understand what that means and how to develop it.
Mr. Hoseah Wanderi, from Kenya, referred to Mr. Wijerathne’s (Sri Lanka) question. He stated that the
Kenyan experience is that once the World Heritage policy was developed in 2015, they took it up very fastand domesticated it in order to fit the Kenyan situation. He added that what remains is the official adoption
by the relevant ministry, the Ministry of Heritage. They submitted the document in April last year but are
still waiting for it to be adopted as a legal document for use in Kenya. He also asked about the case of thereconstruction of the Tohoku region, if they were planning to leave the landscape as it is now after thedisaster or if they are planning to do any kind of reconstruction. Also, he wondered whether, when we aretalking about resilience, we are talking about resilience from the point of view of the living communities or
the heritage itself.
Professor Inaba said that many people that were relocated after the disaster are now going back to theplaces where they used to live, and therefore, some reconstruction is needed. However, others have notdecided to go back, and hence, not every area needs to be rebuilt. She asked Mr. Okuda about the generaltendency.
Mr. Okuda responded that he did not present the actual implementation of the rehabilitation project, butrather gave an example of places where local residents used to be settled very close to the sea and have now
decided to move to higher places outside of the National Park. He said that there were communities settled
within the National Park, who wished to restore the areas more naturally as wetlands, therefore, the focus
is placed on restoring nature and special landscapes. However, he mentioned, there are other places where
the local people have decided to stay, living very close to the coast, and in those places the local government
has requested creating big walls on the seashore. He added that, according to the national law, the MoE
must allow those safety constructions for local residents. He concluded that there is still conflict about how
to rebuild or reconstruct these areas and the MoE is focusing on incorporating the idea of living in harmony
with nature as a vision, by creating the National Park.
Ms. Irina Pavlova commented on Mr. King’s presentation and how, on the survey on World Heritage andDisaster Risk Management (DRM), only 10% of site managers responded that they have elements of DRM
at their sites. She asked what tools would be used for the other 90%. She also recalled how, in the periodic
reporting exercise, some site managers responded that their sites are vulnerable to all types of hazards, andtherefore, they are unable to understand the specific risks and vulnerabilities of their sites.
Mr. King said that there are different requirements for site managers and for countries, in relation to theWorld Heritage sites, one of which is a management plan. However, a lot of sites do not have a management
plan, much less a disaster risk management plan, and many sites do not even have a visitor or tourism
142

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

management plan. He stressed that there are a lot of things that a site should have, some of the sites havethem and some do not. He clarified that part of it is related to their immediate and evident needs. He thengave the example of a site in Uganda, called Kasubi tumbs, which had a management plan. ICCROM worked
on it with the Ugandans when the site was inscribed and then they updated the plan 8 years later. In bothplans it was clear that a DRM plan was needed, however, it was never developed. He said that two years
later, the tombs, a large structure made of thatch, went up in flames because they had not enforced the planand they had not put the fire pressure system into place. He insisted that there are many requirements, but it
is hard to follow-up and go to every one of the 1092 sites. Therefore, he affirmed, that it is the responsibilityof the State Party to ultimately ensure that it complies with those requirements. He reiterated that the bestthat they can do is capacity building with site managers, with focal points in the countries, and with experts
within the countries and try to do that as much as possible. He added they now do an international course
every year in Kyoto, the first aid course (FAC) and other activities; however, he insisted that to reach all 1092
sites, they would need more resources and financial support.
Dr. Jigyasu added that although the DRM plan seems to be an additional document to be prepared, an
additional task for site managers, there is a misperception among people. It is more important to not thinkof it as one DRM plan, but to slowly try to do small things, little things which are part of the day-to-day
management practice. He added that risks are reduced if the daily maintenance and monitoring are well
performed. The DRM and the management plan have many aspects in common, and he recommended
making site managers more comfortable by doing small things that they will know are helping to reduce risks
in the long term.
Professor Inaba commented that when a World Heritage site manager in a mountain village of wooden
structures requested that they install an automatic fire alarm and water extinguisher, they asked him to bealert himself about a fire and extinguish it. She mentioned that it is not so much about the machines but
people’s daily care. She invited the audience to comment before closing the session.
Mr. Kevin Macarius Florentin, a student from the University of Tokyo’s Sustainability Science Department,
said that in his department they try to approach Sustainable Development problems and that he advocatesfor heritage in the disaster field. He commented that one of his research preliminary findings was that there
are difficulties in the SDG Agenda regarding the integration of culture because of the difficulty of quantifying
heritage and the unavailability of indicators to measure the progress in heritage preservation. He asked
about how to better explain the values of heritage to people who do not have the heritage educational
background.
Mr. King responded that there are some things that can be quantified and many that cannot. He remarked
that the indicators set up for the SDG 11.4 are not useful. He added that there is a need to go beyond, tofigure out ways of telling the stories and to give quality, not quantity, indicators, that will actually be able
to convey what needs to be expressed. He mentioned that there needs to be more work with statisticiansand economists to try to figure out how to do that. He added that he refuses to turn everything into money
because one cannot quantify in that sense and we need to figure out ways to do that qualitatively.
Ms. Buckley answered that besides the quantitative issue, there is another problem with data. It is thatindicators need to be found which could be applied across the whole world and across natural and cultural
heritage, which is vast. She clarified that what happened to the 11. 4 indicators are that the UN Statistical
Commission oversaw what went in these indicators and it was based on where the data could be collected
from. She added that the problem with quantitative data in these big exercises is that we end up measuring
the things that we can measure rather than measuring the things we want to know about. She urged
everyone to give more attention to qualitative data collection methods, which she thinks would work
better for heritage matters. She mentioned that there are countries that have tried using both qualitativeand quantitative measures, particularly in state of the environment reporting. For example, she said that
Australia includes cultural heritage in their state of environment reporting, as well as some other countries,and she said that they are looking for evidence of a trend, which she thinks it is not impossible to get.
She added that evidence of trends is what we often need to prioritize policy and resourcing of important
programs. She concluded that there is more work to be done on this issue.

143

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Professor Inaba noted that in order to persuade top politicians, one has only one minute to speak. She
emphasized that the question is how to explain what to do, in one minute, to Shinzo Abe (Prime Ministerof Japan). She explained that this is how they can get a budget from the ministry, so Mr. Okuda and Ms.
Shimotsuma are trained to do that one-minute-speech in front of ministers. She finally thanked everyone
and closed the roundtable discussion, inviting Professor Yoshida to give his final remarks.
Professor Yoshida concluded from the symposium that in order to strengthen resilience to disasters, wehave to overcome the nature-culture divide, the tangible-intangible divide, as well as the institutional divides,
and he asserted that the discussion was very fruitful in reflecting on these problems. She thanked the guest
speakers, Ms. Murti, Dr. Jigyasu, Mr. Okuda, Ms. Shimotsuma, and Mr. King, as well as Dr. Wijesuriya and Ms.
Buckley for joining the discussion.

Group photo of the Third International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation during the
Tsukuba Global Science Week 2018.

144

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE TWO:UNDERSTANDING NATURE-CULTURE LINKAGES IN THE
CONTEXT OF DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

Module Two consisted of three days of intensive lectures, group discussions, and participants’ case study
presentations, from September 22 to 24 at the University of Tsukuba. The lecturers shared theoreticaland technical knowledge regarding heritage conservation, disasters, and resilience, from both the natural
heritage practice and the cultural heritage practice. They also talked about practical examples where they
have worked. The participants presented a total of fifteen case studies in the three sessions: seven UNESCOWorld Heritage sites, three on the tentative lists of their respective countries, one UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve, three sites protected at the national level, and one UNESCO Geopark.
The first day Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, former Project Manager at ICCROM – Sites Unit, presented a lectureon the evolution of heritage conservation into people-centered and nature-culture linkages approaches.
Dr. Wijesuriya first described his work at ICCROM and the role of the organization in the training of
heritage practitioners and specialists in conservation techniques and management. He emphasized thatheritage is an evolving practice where exchange is instrumental. He then explained how the conservationof nature moved from the concept of isolation of natural areas to ecosystems-based approaches, where
the interrelations of humans and nature are now valued as positive for biodiversity conservation. The
conservation of cultural heritage has also shifted from a monument-based approach, that was criticized forthe idea of “freezing monuments,” to people-centered approaches, where heritage becomes an instrument
for the sustainable development of communities by recovering functions at the core of communities’
everyday lives. Dr. Wijesuriya described how the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
accompanied this evolution. It was a pioneering instrument in advancing the conservation of heritage which
involves and contributes to a community’s’ well-being. Moreover, including both the conservation of natureand culture, Dr. Wijesuriya explained how the World Heritage Convention has allowed a nature-culture
approach to heritage conservation to emerge. Initially, with the inclusion of cultural landscapes as a category
within the Operation Guidelines, and increasingly, with the common work being developed by the Advisory
Bodies to the Convention, the practice is moving towards a new paradigm, where nature, culture, andpeople would be integrated into a single concept of conservation, with no boundaries. He emphasized theimportance of traditional knowledge and, other than Western traditions where the nature-culture divide is
not present, and how these traditions are now being reexamined. He also recalled the different international
instruments that have been developed and how heritage conservation is now embedded in the UN Agenda
2030. He mentioned the UNESCO Policy for Integrating a Sustainable Development Perspective into theprocesses of the World Heritage Convention , adopted in 2015, and emphasized that it is an important
instrument that needs to be adapted by practitioners at their sites. Dr. Wijesuriya insisted on the importanceof the paradigm shift “from care of heritage to that of pursuing the wellbeing of both heritage and society as
a whole” and recalled the 2017 Delhi Declaration on Heritage and Democracy by the 19th ICOMOS General
Assembly, where the organization commits to a “people-centric culture specific approach” for heritage
conservation and sustainable development.
Subsequently, Ms. Kristal Buckley, a lecturer at Deakin University and an ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor,
introduced the concepts, processes, and critical issues of the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. She talked about the work of ICOMOS in this context, explaining the basic concepts of theConvention, the process of nomination, and the concept of outstanding universal value (OUV), putting
special emphasis on the clarification of the latter’s core concepts: criteria, integrity, authenticity, andmanagement plans. She also talked about the listing system as well as the monitoring and reporting systems.
She continued, explaining what is new in the World Heritage system and mentioned some recent initiatives,
such as the World Heritage Leadership Programme, a joint endeavor of the IUCN and ICCROM which isfunded by the Ministry of Climate and Environment of Norway as well as the Connecting Practice Project,
145

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

another shared venture of ICOMOS and the IUCN, funded by the Christensen Fund, both of which have led tothe development of the Nature/Culture and Culture/Nature Journeys. Moreover, she mentioned the recent
rise in conflicts and how these affect heritage conservation and procedures, recalling some emblematiccases where political differences impacted the World Heritage system, such as the Mostar Bridge in Bosnia,
the Preah Vihear Temple on the border of Cambodia and Thailand, and the damages to the cultural heritage
in the Middle East. She talked about the development of right-based approaches to heritage, the evolving
notions of authenticity, the direct engagement of civil society during the World Heritage Committee
Sessions, the initiatives to tackle climate change, and the importance of the sustainable tourism programme.
She commented on the 2011 UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation, that was also a resultof the work of World Heritage professionals, describing how this recommendation has been used in theplanning of Ballarat city in Australia, an emblematic case study of the HUL approach.

Ms. Kristal Buckley (Deakin University/ICOMOS) and Dr. Gamini WIjesuriya (former ICCROM) wrapping up after theirlectures.

After the lectures, the participants were able to ask questions and continue the conversation with bothlecturers. There were questions regarding OUV, authenticity, buffer zones, and other terminologies of theConvention. Moreover, participants requested clarification regarding the relationships between Ramsar sites
and World Heritage. Other controversial topics included funding and political issues, the imbalance of the list
and the issue of gentrification within World Heritage sites due to mass tourism.
During the afternoon session, five participants presented their case studies and received feedback from theresource persons:
1) Rohayah Che Amat, a Senior Lecturer at Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics from the Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, presented “Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca UNESCO World
Heritage Site: Threats and Challenges.” She described the OUV of the historic cities in Malaysia,
Georgetown and Melaka, which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List since 2008 under criteria(ii), (iii) and (iv). She talked about the problems arising due to development projects, especially in theseaside of these port-towns. She further made clear how these projects would increase the vulnerabilityof these cities, mainly to flooding. She suggested that disaster risk management plans need to take into
consideration a landscape approach for the conservation of this World Heritage property.
146

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

2) Hoseah Wanderi, a researcher at the Directorate of Antiquities Sites and Monuments of the National
Museums of Kenya, presented “Lamu Old Town: Balancing economic development with conservationof heritage,” a World Heritage site since 2001 under criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). He described the values ofthis site, both cultural and natural, as well as related the intangible cultural heritage of the Swahili local
communities. These communities maintain certain traditional practices for fishing as well as for holding
festivals, which shows the strong interactions between nature and culture in the area. On the island of
Lamu, mangrove forests and sand dunes provide a habitat for a diversity of flora and fauna. He stated thatdevelopment projects are menacing the cultural and biological diversity of the Lamu historical coastal
town and the island. Furthermore, he said that climate change is threatening the island, where the town islocated, because of the expected rise in sea-level. He detailed the threats to the World Heritage site andsuggested that a disaster risk management plan and the preparation of local communities are necessary
to confront the challenges that Lamu Old Town will face in the future.
3) Huaiyun Kou, an Associate Researcher at the Tongji University, China, presented “Post-earthquake
Redevelopment of Dujiangyan Ancient Town in Sichuan Province, China.” She explained that theDujiangyan Ancient Town is a “National Famous Historic and Cultural City” in China, it was designated in
1994 and is located in the buffer zone of the World Heritage site, Dujiangyan Irrigation System, which
was inscribed in 2000. She described how the area has been affected by the rapid urban development
since the 1980s as well as the 2008 Earthquake. The challenge of the reconstruction project was thatit confronted heritage conservation with the upgrading of the infrastructure. She added that theredevelopment project resulted in the transformation of the function of the area from residence andcommerce to tourism services, decreasing the population of the town from 15,000 to 2,000. The town
is vulnerable to several natural hazards, such as earthquakes, mudslides, humidity, and insect pests. She
suggested that to include a nature-culture approach to the management of the World Heritage sites andtheir buffer zones, academic research should be interdisciplinary and contribute with both qualitative andquantitative data that can support the local management and comply with international organizations
standards.
4) Bohingamuwa Wijerathne, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History and Archaeology at the
University of Ruhuna, presented “Matara and Galle Forts: Coastal Cultural Heritage Conservation from
Matara Fort to Galle Fort in Southern Sri Lanka.” He described coastal heritage sites in Southern Sri Lanka:
the Old Town of Galle and its Fortifications that has been a World Heritage site since 1988 under criteria (iv),
and the Matara Fort which is protected under national legislation. He explained that both sites were built
by the Portuguese and are characterized by the juxtaposition of historical layers due to the occupation ofdifferent European colonial powers. He showed that the Southern Coastal belt, the area where these sites
are located, is rich in natural and cultural values but is also vulnerable to natural hazards. Moreover, hesaid that vulnerability is increased by the tourism infrastructure development. These heritage sites wereaffected by the tsunami in 2004 and his research was focused on the impacts on the cultural heritage.
He emphasized the importance of living traditions and the interrelations between nature and culture
which need to be considered for disaster risk prevention and post-disaster recovery. He stated that even if
cultural heritage conservation has been well established in Sri Lanka, there is the need for the integrationof disaster risk management approaches and culture perspectives into urban planning. He concluded that
more capacity building is needed.
5) Mohammad Sazzad, an Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture, at MIST, Bangladesh,presented “Integrated approach for disaster resilience & management at Mahasthan heritage site.”He explained this archaeological site which has been on the Tentative List of Bangladesh since 1999,
as Mahansthangarh and its Environs. He showed how the archaeological site is exposed to natural
phenomena that may damage the structures. He explained that the site could be protected by recovering
the ancient waterways and involving local communities in its protection.
During the first day of the workshop, the case studies dealt with urban areas and archaeological sites thatare connected to the sea, rivers, and irrigation systems, showing the interrelations of the cultural heritage
with the natural environment. Challenges discussed were the rising sea levels and regular floods as well as
earthquakes and the lack of disaster risk management plans at the sites.

147

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

After the presentations, participants discussed the following questions in groups:●● Why are nature-culture linkages important to heritage conservation?
●● How do the existing international and national frameworks either enable or constrain holistic approaches

that link nature, culture, and people?
Answering the first question, all of the participants’ groups presented that they agreed that heritage itself
represents linkages between nature and culture. Some stated that cultural heritage is found in natural
settings, that nature is the context for cultural evolution, and that nature is constantly influencing culture
and, therefore, these are closely linked. Moreover, they recalled the importance of ecosystem services
and nature-based solutions in order to protect cultural heritage from disasters. Participants understoodthat culture evolves along with nature and that heritage is also evolving and, therefore, consider theselinkages as necessary for heritage conservation. Furthermore, they mentioned that traditional knowledge
is the representation of the relationship between culture and nature, which also implies that spiritual andreligious aspects connect nature and culture. Therefore, all participants coincided in their agreement thatcombination and integration in conservation is important, especially because at local levels distinctions
between nature and culture are not present. They considered that while the separation becomes necessary
when analyzing and conducting academic research, heritage itself is the representation of a place withhumans and non-humans, and thus, the division does not make sense.
Regarding the second question, participants also agreed that it is important that the international discourse
is changing. This is especially true in the development of the SDGs, and the progress of linking the work ofdifferent sectors as well as in the inclusion of traditional knowledge, though further exploration is needed
regarding traditional and local knowledge. Nevertheless, they found that in the international level legal
frameworks there are discrepancies, and in the conventions, there are clear distinctions.
Furthermore, some participants stated that there are constraints at the conceptual level, due to the different
disciplines and languages used to address the same conservation problems. They added that politicalissues, such as confrontations between environmental conservation and economic growth, are limiting thepromotion of nature-culture linkages. In academic research there is a clear division or even disconnection
and there is a need to look for a base of common understanding.
However, they also recalled the example of the Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park and how theJapanese authorities collaborated in the recovery of the Tohoku region after the Great East Japan Tsunami
and Earthquake in 2011. Yet, not all countries demonstrate such collaborative approaches at the national
government level.
They mentioned the need for a simplification of frameworks, but at the same time that these can becontextualized and site specific. They added that nature-culture guidelines at international levels could be
useful.
All groups noticed the big challenge in communicating conservation ideas with the local people and the
difficulties of using a top-down approach. There was a general agreement that there is a need to empower
people and local communities. This is so that the seeds of understanding nature-culture linkages grow fromthe bottom up because the concepts of nature and culture are so integrated at the local level.
Resource persons summarized the findings, noting that at local levels there is not a divide and that thelimitation lies in the legal systems and the institutions in charge of heritage conservation. However, theyalso remarked that it is necessary to identify specific components that can help address the gap, taking little
steps, because we cannot wait for all systems to be perfect. Proactiveness in looking for ways to implement
this approach is key.
On the second day of the workshop, Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, the UNESCO Chairholder on Cultural Heritage andDisaster Risk Management, Ritsumeikan University, ICOMOS Vice-President and ICORP President, presented“Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage.” He focused his presentation on key concepts andprinciples in the context of disaster risk management. He illustrated these concepts and principles withseveral examples of disasters, explaining the underlying reasons for the damage to the cultural heritage.
148

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

He recalled the definition of disaster, which occurs when the coping capacity is exceeded and, therefore,
there is a need for help because the event gets out of control. In disasters losses are very large and theirconsequences are as well. He clarified that the time frames of disasters may range from hours to months
and that it is difficult to establish its starting and ending points. He focused on the different types ofvulnerabilities and how these are increased. Physical vulnerability can be increased through exposuredue to location, the sensitivity of materials, and constructions, as well as the ineffectiveness and lack ofmanagement (maintenance and monitoring). He noted that physical vulnerability may actually be increased
by restoration and conservation works and other interventions. He added that in some cases, physicalvulnerability is not caused by infrastructural problems but rather that the design and nature of a site. He
explained that at some sites, there is a combination of hazards and the impacts are larger. He noted that
restoration work is the major cause of fire in historic buildings and that vulnerability can be created bytechnology. He clarified that there are other inherent vulnerabilities in cultural heritage related to the natureof their location and materials sensitivity. As well, there are vulnerabilities that go beyond the physical,
such as socio-economic conditions, institutional, and policy frameworks, and he added that the problemof people’s attitudes, such as perceptions and religious beliefs, can prevent them from following policies
and guidelines. He gave some definitions of resilience (Holling, 1973: environment bouncing back; Folke etal. 2002: related to society; Mileti, 1999: moving to disasters; Pelling 2003: ability to cope and adapt; andthe UNISDR 2003: ability to recover). He concluded that the different phases in disaster risk management
need to be interconnected: before a disaster there is need for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, andadaptation; however, during a disaster, emergency response and first aid are key; after the disaster the focus
shifts to recovery and rehabilitation.

Left: Ms. Radhika Murti presenting about Ecosystem based DRR. Right: Dr. Rohit Jigyasu presents about Disaster Risk
Management for Cultural Heritage.

The second presenter of the day, Ms. Radhika Murti, Director of the IUCN Global Ecosystem Management
Programme, gave a lecture on “Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction: definitions, implementationand gaps.” She started her presentation by explaining the potential of using the Eco-DRR approach inthe conservation and management of World Heritage sites. She mentioned the restoration of slopes,
the revitalization of historical water systems, and the conservation of wetlands as examples of Naturebased Solutions for protecting landscapes and preventing disasters. Furthermore, she demonstrated how
the investment in ecosystem services is more efficient, effective, and economical than investing in grey
infrastructure. She remarked that heritage has been created in relation to the natural conditions of theirlocations and using the natural events as part of the design. Therefore, she pointed out that in order toconserve heritage, it is essential to go back and analyze how it was used, designed, and re-use. After this,she gave examples where the damage in the ecosystem, ecosystem services, and green infrastructure,
have increased the damages by disasters. As well, she gave examples where forests, wetlands, and islands
worked as protective natural structures against hurricanes and tsunamis. She explained how disasters
have been used to leverage attention from governments, encouraging them to invest in the conservationof nature, in order to prevent and reduce the impact of disasters. She mentioned the case of the Sanriku
Fukko Reconstruction National Park as an example of how to use Nature as a solution to both promoteeconomic development through eco-tourism and conserve nature and the natural protection of the coastof Tohoku. She defined Eco-DRR as: “Sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems
to provide services that reduce disaster risk by mitigating hazards and by increasing livelihood resilience”(PEDRR, 2013). She explained that Eco-DRR can support disaster risk management in all its phases, by taking
149

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

ecosystems into consideration in risk and vulnerability assessments, by conserving, revitalizing, and restoring
ecosystems in the disaster risk reduction and preparedness period, and focusing on the restoration andrecovery of ecosystems, like wetlands or forests, in the relief, early recovery, and reconstruction processes.
She highlighted the need for hazards and vulnerability assessments, both for social and ecological aspects,
especially in a context of climate change, and recommended some existing tools, such as the Climate
Resilience Evaluation for Adaptation Through Empowerment (CREATE) and the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems(RLE) . She gave some examples of the use of CREATE in African countries, like Senegal and Burkina Faso.
She also explained how they use the RLE to evaluate the role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction, suchas forests as stabilizers for slopes, the wetlands and floodplains as controlling floods, or the mangroves,
saltmarshes, and sand uses as buffers for wind, sandstorms, or storm surges. She referred to two existing
guides, published by the IUCN: “Protected Areas as Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction” and the “Safe Havens:
Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation.” After giving several examples of how
Eco-DRR is being used for recovery and reconstruction, she emphasized the need of including traditionaland scientific knowledge to create policy frameworks for disaster risk reduction. She finalized by saying that
there is the need to make exchanges with the culture sector, explore more on how nature-based solutions
can contribute to cultural heritage, and look at how cultural practices can help nature.
After the lectures, five participants presented their case studies:
1) Jefferson Chua, the Project Coordinator for the World Heritage nomination for Mayon Volcano Natural
Park, Philippines, presented “The Mixed Heritage Values of Mayon Volcano Natural Park and the Placeof Narrative in Disaster Response.” His study focused on the 2006 disaster brought about by the effectsof Typhoon Reming/Durian on the communities surrounding the Mayon Volcano, the government’s
response, and the possibilities of making cultural and natural heritage protection an essential resourcein disaster mitigation. He explained that the typhoon, the ensuing lahars, and landslides claimed 1,266
lives when the dikes designed to mitigate the effects of flooding were not able to withstand the volumeof the displaced volcanic material which had built up because of the recent volcanic activity. He said thatthe measures taken, and the subsequent government response, showed that, while there were adequate
mechanisms in place to address individual disaster scenarios, the 2006 disaster demonstrated the needfor a more holistic understanding of vulnerability, disaster response, and mitigation. He suggested that
this can be achieved by incorporating heritage values into disaster mitigation policies, especially for a site
like Mayon where cultural and natural values are inextricably linked to each other.
2) Petrayuna Omega, a lecturer and researcher at Krida Wacana Christian University, Indonesia, presented“Disaster Risk at Permanent Residence in Siosar Protected Forest: A Preliminary Study.” He explainedthat the Indonesian government used around 416 hectares of the Siosar Protected Forest, owned by the
Forestry Ministry, for residential and farming area in order to relocate three villages affected by the 2016
eruption of Mount Sinabung. He said that problems have emerged as this protected area is being usedas the relocation centre for the Mount Sinabung refugees. He said that even though the government has
already developed some disaster risk reduction plans, it needs to take a new step in order to involve all the
stakeholders, including the community. He suggested that “gotong royong,” a traditional practice used forcommunal work, could be used to implement the disaster risk reduction plans. Moreover, he considers
that awareness needs to be raised and that more inclusion of the diverse stakeholders in elaborating andimplementing disaster risk reduction plans is instrumental to conserve both nature and culture in thisarea.
3) Hongtao Liu, the Director of World Heritage Research Center in Southwest Jiaotong University, China,presented “Recovery of Traditional Tibetan Villages Post Earthquake in World Natural Heritage Site
Jiuzhaigou Valley.” He based his presentation on his survey of the damage and recovery status of Tibetan
traditional villages in Jiuzhaigou World Natural Heritage after the earthquake in 2017. He explained thesituation of the Tibetan villages following the earthquake as well as the problems caused in the processof recovery. Moreover, he stressed the importance of the conservation and development of the villages
which show the features of traditional Tibetan architecture, observing that some of these are located in
the vicinities of natural protected areas. He emphasized the relationship between the cultural and thenatural heritage as well as the development problems heritage communities face. Finally, he stressed therequirements for disaster prevention and mitigation in these traditional villages and in the Natural World
Heritage site, as well.
150

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

4) Thao Le, head of the secretariat of the Cu Lao Cham-Hoi An Biosphere Reserve in Vietnam, presented“Nature-Culture Linkages in the Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve.” He said that the Cu
Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve (CBR) was recognized by UNESCO in 2009 based on naturaland cultural values. He added that, at present, these values are facing challenges from disaster threats
and social-economic development. For instance, he explained that this area is prone to heavy typhoons
and floods, which are impacting the ancient town- a World Heritage site since 1999 and part of the bufferzone of the CBR. These disasters have provoked the collapse of river banks and also eroded beaches.
He said that the sediment and pollution from the mainland are attacking and killing coral-reefs and seagrass beds. Furthermore, he mentioned that there are many development and investment plans in the
coastal areas, which are provoking changes to the natural morphology and fragmenting the aquatic
habitat, altering the wildlife cycle. However, he explained that the CBR management has been innovativein harmonizing the natural and the human ecology, as was seen with the Marine Protected Area whichconnected the Hoi An ancient town through effective zoning and management.
5) Irina Pavlova, a consultant at the Geohazard Risk Reduction Programme at UNESCO, presented “Natural
UNESCO designated sites as platforms for disaster risk reduction.” She explained how UNESCOdesignated sites (World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves, and UNESCO Global Geoparks) promotesustainable development and focus on the protection of natural and cultural heritage or the conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity and geological resources. She said that more than 2000 UNESCOdesignated sites may be partly or entirely exposed to natural hazards and extreme weather events, withpotential impacts on the communities living in or near the sites, and on their livelihoods. She emphasized
that, because of their high cultural and symbolic value, the impact of the loss or damage of a UNESCOdesignated site can resonate across the world and she added that these iconic sites have tremendous
potential as platforms to share knowledge on Disaster Risk Reduction. She said that many UNESCOdesignated sites have community and tourism-oriented programmes that can help to raise awarenessabout the source of natural hazards, associated risks, and ways to reduce their impact.

Left: Mr. Jefferson Chua, Philippine National Commission for UNESCO, presenting a case study of Mayon volcano, a site
preparing its nomination for the World Heritage List. Right: Mr. Omega, Petrayuna, Krida Wacana Christian University,presenting the case of Siosar Protected Forest in Indonesia.

The case studies presented on the second day clarified how the interrelations between cultural and natural
heritage can be useful for disaster risk reduction. It was emphasized that having a territorial and ecosystemview of the landscape is needed in order to understand the natural phenomena and their connections to
the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. It was also explored how the nature-culture linkages could be
useful in the context of a potential Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage site, prone to hazards. Furthermore,
the importance of intangible cultural heritage for disaster risk management was pointed out as well as how
this could be important for nature conservation. Furthermore, other systems for the conservation of culture
and nature were presented, such as Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks.
Participants discussed the following questions in groups:●● How does nature-culture linkages relate to resilience to disasters?
●● What makes a landscape vulnerable?
●● How can heritage contribute to resilience?

151

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

The groups expressed that cultural heritage is a product of adaptation to the environment and that both
cultural and natural heritage are products of an evolution together. In that sense, they said that natureculture linkages relate to resilience because people’s resilience consists in their adaptation to their natural
setting, which allowed them to accumulate knowledge of nature and to develop coping mechanisms.
It was found that the stronger the connection between nature and culture, the stronger the level ofresilience. However, they remarked that some events can be so catastrophic that they can compromise thecommunity’s and landscapes ability to rebuild. It was also noticed that resilience is context-dependent, as
in some places where nature-culture linkages are strong, there may be less capacity or less connectivity,
affecting the level of resilience. Furthermore, participants said that nature and culture are supposed to be
combined, in that way they can help decrease the vulnerability of particular places. They insisted in thattraditional knowledge needs to be considered because people know what to do and have adapted to therecurrent events and hazards in the particular areas they inhabit.
In discussing the vulnerability of landscapes, some participants mentioned that the lack of understanding
nature and its connection to the people can increase the vulnerability of a landscape. Moreover,infrastructure development can affect nature, making a landscape vulnerable. They asserted that if natureis respected, the culture can adapt, and people can have sustainable livelihoods. However, some insisted
that humans are responsible for making a landscape vulnerable, in that they give differentiated value tolandscapes and, therefore, only care if a valuable landscape is vulnerable. Another group added that there
are three aspects that can affect a landscape’s vulnerability: the lack of management and governance;
tourism, because some historic places or natural protected areas are open to tourism and their carrying
capacity is not properly controlled; and finally, the lack of maintenance.
Regarding how heritage can contribute to resilience, participants agreed that cultural heritage is a productof adapting to the natural environment, a product of long-term evolution, so heritage can assist people
in disasters, through collective memory. Moreover, heritage helps people understand the history of alocation’s adaptation, for instance, in understanding the ways things were built, so that resources can bebetter managed and used, and at the same time, survive disasters. Some participants said that heritage isknowledge. What we have learned from the past and how it can be used in a similar event, makes us more
resilient. Experience makes people more resilient as well as gives them an identity which can help people
rebuild and bounce back better.
Dr. Jigyasu commented on the day of lectures, noting that it was very informative and highlighted some
important findings to keep in mind during the workshop. First, he underlined the importance of a territorial
approach and said that sometimes, in the cultural heritage sector practitioners tend to look at cultural
boundaries, forgetting the larger natural setting. He added that in preparing for disasters, natural boundaries
and jurisdictions need to be considered by both sectors, whose ministries have to cooperate. Secondly, hesaid that even though we need nature-based solutions to protect cultural heritage, and vice versa, we should
not look at these as binary but together at their interlinkages. Nevertheless, he added, we need to merge
but also keep in mind that each type of heritage needs their own protection and conservation systems
because cultural heritage and natural heritage have their specific needs. Thirdly, he insisted that throughout
the process, we should not forget the importance of improving the quality of life of the people. Fourthly,
he pointed out the need to connect both levels, bottom-up and top-down, and not to forget that these arealso important at their own level. Fifth, he said that the discussion on traditional knowledge systems is very
relevant, in the context of disasters and resilience, and that it needs to be recognized but also adapted tothe current situations. Especially, he noted, we can see how nature and culture have interacted throughtime by looking at traditional knowledge. Sixth, he said that resilience can be looked at from different
perspectives and understandings, like from the people’s or nature’s point of view, and he insisted that allthese perspectives need to be considered. Finally, he said that during the recovery processes there is a needto look at the interlinkages between recovery and the people’s livelihoods. He added that beauty cannot
be the only criteria for reconstruction, but that the larger set of issues, where nature and culture interact
with each other, needs to be considered. Moreover, he insisted that recovery takes its own time and that weneed to look at the “in between” periods to help and support the recovery process while it takes place.

152

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Dr. Maya Ishizawa, CBWNCL Programme Coordinator, explaining the questions for the group discussions.

Mr. Hoseah Wanderi, National Museums of Kenya, presenting the results of the group discussion of the second day.

During the third day of lectures, Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chair of the World Heritage Studies Programat the University of Tsukuba, presented the “Japanese experience on Disaster and Resilience - case studies
of Minami-Sanriku and the Historic Town of Sawara.” He explained that the Japanese archipelago is locatedat the intersection of multiple tectonic plates and that the people who live on the Japanese archipelago
are exposed to natural hazards, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, and floods.
He said that there are frequent disasters in Japan, some examples being the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and153

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Tsunami, as well as other recent events, such as torrential rains in Western Japan and the Great Earthquake
in Hokkaido. He focused on the Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami since this was the main theme of the field
work, explaining that the 9.0 magnitude earthquake provoked a tsunami that took the life of more than
20,000 people. Additionally, this event was followed by the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Nuclear
Power Plant. He presented how there have been different strategies in different prefectures to build
resilience in the affected coastal regions; for instance, some prefectures chose to build big walls to protect
settlements and others use the Eco-DRR, leaving the natural sand beach to recover. He presented some ofthe strategies undertaken in the Minami-Sanriku Town in the Miyagi Prefecture, where cultural and natural
heritage have been used as a fundamental resource for the reconstruction and recovery processes. He
focused on the establishment of the Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park and explained which of theprotected areas have been incorporated into this coastal national park. He pointed out the use of natureand natural heritage conservation for building resilience by promoting eco-tourism. He mentioned theconcept of Reconstruction Tourism, which focuses on learning from the disaster and recovery process in
Tohoku by sharing the experience of the local community’s disaster response and reconstruction. After this,he explained the recovery process of his hometown, the historic town of Sawara in the Chiba Prefecture,
which was designated as an Important Preservation District in 1996 for a group of traditional buildings. He
explained how the town was affected by the earthquake in 2011, showing images of historic houses andimportant buildings, and how the community, through the NPO for Ono River and the Sawara Historic Town,
had worked since 1991 towards the recognition of Sawara as a historical place. He highlighted that this sameorganization was in charge of the recovery process of the cultural heritage in Sawara after the disaster,
making a survey of the areas affected, and raising funds for their restoration as well as publishing the reportof the recovery process. He added that, in 2016, Sawara Town became part of the Japan Heritage Programof the ACA and the Sawara Traditional Festival became part of the Representative List of Intangible Cultural
Heritage of UNESCO. Professor Yoshida concluded that resilience is fostered by continuous cooperation
among community members through agricultural activities and cultural traditions and that communities are
the custodians and stewards of cultural and natural heritage.
Next, Professor Nobuko Inaba, from the World Heritage Studies Program, explained the “JapaneseExperience on Disaster and Resilience – Local Governance and Neighborhood Resident Groups.” She
started her presentation by recalling the myths in Japan where people think that earthquakes are caused bya catfish moving under the earth. She added that her presentation would focus on her experience as a staff
member of the ACA, in charge of hazard mitigation for architectural heritage, and the role of communities inboth heritage conservation and risk preparedness. She showed images of different disasters that occurredin Japan and how these affected historical buildings. She said that when the ACA staff would survey the stateof the historical buildings damaged, local people would always ask “What are you doing here while people
are struggling to live or die?” She pointed out that this represents their lack of understanding of heritage andits value. She then explained the lessons learned for cultural heritage practitioners through her experience
with the disaster response in Japan. She said that the first lesson learned is that no distinctions should bemade among the heritage types for an effective rescue during the disaster response. The second lesson
is to prepare databases for a quick response to disasters. The third lesson learned is that it is necessary toconsider historic landscapes and cultural resources carefully since large-scale recovery and redevelopment
works must start at once on a scale that is unusual. A fourth lesson is the need to integrate heritage withwider disaster preparedness and emergency management systems. The fifth lesson is that disaster relief
agreements need to be established between local governments and municipalities. She cited an excerpt
from a statement issued by ICOMOS Sri Lanka, after the tsunami in 2005, where it was recognized thatconservation and restoration are very important for preserving the memory of the past and building thefuture. She emphasized how important the conservation of cultural heritage is for the socio-psychologicaland socio-cultural needs of local communities in the event of disasters. She then explained the concepts ofmachinami hozon and machi-zukuri , as community-based systems for the conservation of cultural heritage.
She explained the history of each of these systems, how they work, and their evolution. She highlighted
the importance of the role of neighborhood associations that are the result of a matured local governance,
the support of comprehensive and autonomous local governance by the national legal framework, andthe recognition of neighborhood associations by the national system. She also explained the Disaster
Countermeasures Basic Act of 1961, revised in 2018, where heritage was integrated. She pointed out that amore integrated approach to heritage is needed where tangible and intangible manifestations of our culture
are linked to the surrounding nature. She added that heritage has an important role in local sustainable
154

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

development. In Japan, new laws and national programs for territorial/landscape conservation and local
community revitalization, jointly implemented both by heritage and spatial/land-use control authorities,
are being undertaken. She finalized her presentation, explaining that the last revision to the Law for theProtection of Cultural Properties, integrates a provision for municipal-level master plans for the recognition(heritage resource mapping), conservation, and utilization of heritage aiming at their incorporation into thewider local plans.
Finally, Dr. Maya Ishizawa, the CBWNCL Programme Coordinator, explained the itinerary and content for
the field trip to the Tohoku region. She presented information about the general area and the different sitesthat were going to be visited as well as the layers of protection that converge in each one. The first site to bevisited was Hiraizumi, World Heritage 2004, inscribed onto the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi).
The second site to be visited was Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park, basically the area of MinamiSanriku Town, and the Shizugawa Bay, a tentative Ramsar site, also part of the National Park. The last site tovisit was Matsushima, Place of Scenic Beauty. Besides explaining the program for the site visit, she explained
the content of Module 4, which was focused on the working groups reflections on theory and practice.

Left: Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chair of World Heritage Studies at the University of Tsukuba, explains the JapaneseExperience in Disasters and Resilience with two case studies. Right: Professor Nobuko Inaba, from World Heritage
Studies at the University of Tsukuba, explains the Japanese Experience on Disasters and Resilience from the perspectiveof Local Governance and Neighborhood Resident Groups.

Participants’ questions were focused on better understanding the Japanese system for the conservationof natural and cultural heritage. It was remarked that the heritage conservation and governance systems
in Japan involved local communities in protection, conservation, and post-disasters recovery, which was
highlighted as an important lesson for other Asia and Pacific countries.
Following the lectures, five participants presented their case studies:
1) Xavier Benedict, a professor at MIDAS Architecture College in India, presented “The Confluence ofEnvironment, History and Cultural Landscape of Pulicat Lagoon.” He explained that Pulicat Lagoon is thesecond largest body of water in India, located in Northern Chennai. He affirmed that it is a testimony ofliving heritage, integrating monsoon heritage and the cultural values of South India. He emphasized that
this old lagoon is one of the five wetlands which attracts monsoon clouds, bringing rain to the SouthEast Coast. It has an important place in the world maritime history, as it linked transnational shared
heritage. He brought attention to the values of this wetland, such as the traditional fishing practice calledpadu-system. Moreover, he said that Pulicat absorbs shock during natural disasters with the support ofthe Buckingham Canal, that works as a lifeline for this Coast. However, he stressed that the sustainableliving and the lagoon biodiversity are endangered due to development and climate change, suggestingthat holistic strategies should be used for the lagoon’s cultural landscape restoration, including theestablishment of an independent authority in charge of the management and conservation of this area.
2) Ryan Yamane, a representative of Hawaii State Legislature in the US, presented “Kaho’olawe Island
Reserve.” His presentation described the history of Kaho’olawe and options to support this island’s longterm restoration and resource management. He explained that Kaho’olawe faces significant naturaland man-made threats, for instance, bomb ordinances still remain on land and in the sea and, due
155

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

to significant wind and rain erosion, there is very little top soil for vegetation growth. He added that
Kaho’olawe is directly impacted by climate change and has no fresh water access. With temperaturesrising, he explained that it is becoming much more difficult to plant native Hawaiian vegetation forreforestation. He proposed the use of cultural heritage conservation as a means to increase the resiliencein Kaho’olawe Island.
3) Andrea Margotta, a technical specialist at the Cultural Heritage National Service of the Ministry of Cultureof Chile, presented “Rapa Nui World Heritage Site – Initiatives and Challenges for the Risk Management.”
She explained that the Rapa Nui National Park, on Easter Island, is a World Cultural Heritage site strongly
related to the natural environment and with important risk factors. For instance, she mentioned thatsome studies have been conducted in recent years to monitor coastline erosion and the effects of climatechange on the island. Moreover, she added that fires are also a threat and disaster prevention related toearthquakes and tsunamis is being worked one. She said that since 2017, the National Park administration
is carried out by the Polynesian Indigenous Community Ma’u Henua, created in 2016 and constituted bymembers of the Rapa Nui indigenous community, and suggested that the role that the local community
can play in disaster risk management, based on their local knowledge, is an interesting aspect to explore.
4) Radhika Kotari, the director of the Jungwa Foundation in India, presented “Nature-Culture Mapping in
the Trans-Himalayas.” She introduced Tso Moriri-Korzok (Ladakh-India), located in the Trans-Himalayas
at the edge of the Tibetan plateau, as a unique biodiverse wetland above 4500 masl. She explained that it
is a locally protected area, an international Ramsar site, and on the Tentative list for World Heritage. She
added that the Changpa, nomadic pastoralists, have inhabited this landscape for several centuries anddisplay a complex and strong relationship with nature that is evident in their way of life. She emphasizedthat the region is highly vulnerable to climate change with a decrease in snowfall, extreme climatic
events, warming trends, and changes in the productivity of grasslands which affects both wildlife andherding practices. Moreover, she said that mass tourism, geopolitical conflicts, and the lack of copingor adaptation strategies are further increasing the vulnerability of ecosystems and breaking the socialcultural fabric of the Changpa nomads. She presented her project that aims at reexamining TsomoririKorzok in order to map spatial overlaps between Changpa and the wetland ecosystem to showcase
interdependencies and interactions between nature and cultural systems. She proposed to use thismapping as a guide for landscape management and conservation with the onset of these socio-ecologicalchanges.
5) Lance Syme, the principal of Kayandel Archaeological Services, presented “The Greater Blue Mountain
World Heritage Area.” He said that the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA) is
managed as a wilderness area and is subject to frequent incidents of bush fire or wild fires. He added thatwild fires have the potential to impact large tracts of land within the GBMWHA and once started there
are very hard, if not impossible, to stop. He emphasized that these fires have a catastrophic effect on
the natural environment and also on the Aboriginal rock art. He added that recently the GBMWHA has
also been subject to proposals for an increase to the dam wall height of the major water supply dam for
Sydney. He warned that this increase will result in thousands of kilometers of additional land being subject
to inundation by the dam waters.
The presentations of the day focused on sites that showed clear interrelations between natural and culturalvalues. Moreover, most of the sites presented showed the critical role of local communities. The importanceof identifying and respecting traditional and local knowledge systems was emphasized by several presenters.
Nature-culture linkages were considered an important approach for all of the sites and was alreadyembedded in the community-based management of the environment and their resources.
At the end of the day, participants reflected on the following question:●● How does this relate to the specific context of the Asia Pacific region?

Participants concluded that the Asia Pacific region can work together on sharing the knowledge on how
to relieve disasters. They said that the region is a confluence of hazards and vulnerabilities. As part of the“Ring of fire” there are seismic hazards, but also a high frequency of meteorological hazards. In terms
156

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

of vulnerabilities, they noted that most of Asia and the Pacific countries are developing states, with highpopulation density, and difficult socio-economic conditions. Furthermore, they mentioned that settlements
are established along the coastlines, as seen in several case studies, and that island states must deal withinaccessibility. Thus, they considered that the Asia Pacific, as a region, shares a hazard-prone context andvulnerability at physical, social, and economic levels.
Nevertheless, as a very diverse region, they agreed that each country has to explore how the nature-culture
linkages are expressed in their heritage in order to use this as a basis for developing policy at different
levels, in particular, for disaster risk management. Asia Pacific is rich in natural and cultural heritage andholds a large multicultural diversity, which has potentials for building resilience. They emphasized thateach participant has to bring these concepts to the field and look for the support of their governments toimplement plans where they can apply lessons from the region in their policy-making processes. Moreover,they highlighted the need of capacity building, raising awareness of disasters, and the need to strengthen
nature-culture linkages for risk management.
Furthermore, they considered that heritage has an important place in the life of the people in Asia and thePacific and that there are no clear distinctions between nature and culture. They agreed that governments
should explore more on the use of natural and cultural resources, considering their interrelations fordevelopment and resilience.
However, they also pointed out that there are differences in political systems and sometimes there is a
disconnect between national and local levels. Nevertheless, they suggested that traditional knowledge
systems should be incorporated into institutional level strategies. They considered that the concept ofresilience exists in local communities and in diverse community practices in the region. They recalled
the people-centered approach and insisted that disaster risk management could benefit from important
traditional and local knowledge, adding that people move as a collective and that this is what makes them
resilient.
Finally, Ms. Buckley summarized the three intensive days of lectures, highlighting the progressive learningand friendly environment built among the workshop participants and resource persons. She added thatparticipants’ case studies gave a very diverse and comprehensive vision of the situation in Asia and thePacific and beyond and that this exchange has made everyone richer. She insisted that we need to lookat applying this learning on the ground. She said that we need to build our own models, stretching how
nature-culture co-create the landscapes we work on. Moreover, she mentioned that we need to answer,
through our work, what it means to think holistically across the conventional nature-culture divide. She
acknowledged Dr. Jigyasu’s and Ms. Murti’s expertise on disaster risk management from both perspectives,the cultural and the natural heritage, and how this knowledge can be combined to provide us with a goodframework. She also said that we need to focus on local co-management and governance and that we needresilience all the time, whether or not there is a disaster. She added that we need to explore the componentsof resilience more. After thanking the resource persons for their participation and the organizing team,she stated that practice leads to change and practitioners can change what governments do throughtheir practice, thus, she encouraged participants to be agents of change, as they work with communities,
landscapes, and sites. They can make a change by bringing nature and culture into a single frame and bringresilience into every part of effective management.

157

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Working groups during the third day.

Mr. Xavier Benedict, MIDAS Architecture College, presenting the results of the group discussion of the third day.

158

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE THREE:MANAGEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION,
AND GOVERNANCE IN DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

Module 3 lasted for four days, during which the participants visited the Tohoku region, located in the NorthEast of Japan. This region was strongly affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, in March
2011, and the group visited several sites that had been damaged as well as the projects related to the postdisaster recovery that were under way.
The first stop of the field visit was Hiraizumi – Temple, Gardens and Archaeological sites representing theBuddhist Pure Land, cultural property inscribed on to the World Heritage List in 2011, in the aftermath ofthe disaster, under criteria (ii) and (vi). Participants visited the Buddhist Temple of Chūson-ji and Motsu-ji,
temple and gardens. They had the opportunity to see a very important National Treasure of Japan, Konjikido,
the Golden Hall, that used to be located outdoors and, currently, is protected under a concrete structure.
They also visited the Hiraizumi World Cultural Heritage Center, where they attended a lecture by its Director,
Mr. Tsukasa Oikawa.
During the lecture, Mr. Oikawa explained the values of Hiraizumi and its different components. He detailed
the recovery of one of the stones in the garden of Motsuji. He explained how this stone’s position wasaffected by the 2011 earthquake and that they had to study and follow, with precision, its original inclinationin order to re-establish it.

Group photo at Hiraizumi World Heritage Site.

159

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Lecture by Mr. Tsukasa Oikawa, Director of Hiraizumi World Cultural Heritage Center. Interpretation was in charge ofProfessor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba.

After the visit, the group arrived at the accommodations in the Iriyado Learning Center in Minami-Sanriku
town. Here, Mr. Kenji Endo, Director of the Iriyado Learning Center, explained to the participants the impactsof the disaster in Minami-Sanriku Town and the process of post-disaster recovery, from which Taisho
University created Iriyado Learning Center as a space for researchers, visitors, and people interested inlearning about disaster risk management and the specific experience of post-disaster recovery in Tohoku.

Mr. Kenji Endo explaining the impacts of the disaster and the process of post-disaster recovery of Minami-Sanriku town.

Participants learned that Minami-Sanriku was a very lively town, where many cultural events were
performed throughout the year, and where the relationship between people and the sea was very positive.
The sea coast was frequented by fishermen and its beaches were popular in the summer. After theearthquake and tsunami in March 2011, life in Minami-Sanriku changed drastically. A large percentage ofthe population perished or disappeared because of the tsunami. The relationship with the sea was greatly
affected. Nevertheless, Mr. Endo explained how the post-disaster recovery process has involved local
160

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

communities and their needs, both material and spiritual. Several projects for recovering areas devastatedby the tsunami are underway. There are initiatives to restore natural areas, creating more green public
spaces in between the coastline and the settlements, as well as reconstructing the local market, whichused to be a core of community life in Minami-Sanriku. The new design and vision serve to revitalize thecommunity, recovering their traditional space of exchange, and boosting local businesses.
On the second day of the field trip, participants started the day with a discussion led by Dr. Gamini
Wijesuriya and Professor Masahito Yoshida in order to clarify the situation in Minami-Sanriku Town and tounderstand how to look at this experience through the lens of integrating nature and culture in heritage
conservation, applied in a post-disaster recovery strategy. Furthermore, they gave elements to theparticipants to reflect on during the working groups discussions.

Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, former Project Manager of ICCROM – Sites Unit, and Professor Masahito Yoshida, Chairholder of
the UNESCO Chair in Nature-Culture Linkages at the University of Tsukuba, leading the discussions on learning from theexperience in Minami-Sanriku town.

The group visited the Minami-Sanriku Town Hall, where they attended lectures by municipality officers. First,
Dr. Takuzo Abe, a Researcher of the Division of Agriculture and Fishery of Minami-Sanriku town, talked about
the natural values in the area and the initiative to inscribe the Shizugawa Bay under the Ramsar Convention
for Wetlands. Second, Mr. Akihiro Dazai, the Director of Sustainability Centre of Minami-Sanriku town,
presented the town’s reconstruction vision after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

161

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Left: Mr. Takuzo Abe, Researcher of the Division of Agriculture and Fishery of Minami-Sanriku town. Right: Mr. Akihiro
Dazai, Director of Sustainability Centre of Minami-Sanriku town, answering questions from the participants at the endof their lectures at the Town Hall.

During lunch time, participants visited Keimei Maru, a farmer and fisherman restaurant owned by Ms.
Sakiko Miura. There, participants listened to her testimony detailing her experience of the tsunami and how
she lost her house and restaurant. Ms. Miura shared her particular anecdote: her restaurant had a couple offisherman floats hanging in the entrance. These were used by his husband, a fisherman in Minami-Sanriku,
and the ideograms of his name were written on them. These floats were washed away by the tsunami,
however, a few months later some friends told her that her floats had appeared on the news. They had beenfound in Alaska, were brought back to Japan by airplane and delivered to her in a special ceremony. She said
that after being affected by the loss, this event gave her strength to recover her restaurant and continue
with her life, in the same place. Ms. Miura is one of the examples of resilience that participants had thechance to listen to.
After lunch, participants visited the Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine, where they received a lecture from
Ms. Mayumi Kudo, a priestess of the shrine. Ms. Kudo explained to the participants how the tsunami
affected her community and how she used her role as a priestess to organize the community and involvecommunity members in the participative processes of the reconstruction of their town. She explained
how they worked with Japanese universities’ professors, researchers, and students, as well as with foreign
universities, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Harvard University from the United States, inre-designing the coastline and the main public areas affected by the tsunami. She also explained how she
regenerated the traditions of the Kiriko, which are paper handicrafts that are used for communicating with
the Gods. Furthermore, she talked about the illustrations and books she is writing in order to communicate
disaster risk preparedness to children.

162

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Group photo at the Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine, where participants received a lecture from Ms. Mayumi Kudo,
priestess of the shrine.

On the third day, participants went to the Marine Visitors Centre. Mr. Yasushi Niimura, a Park Ranger at
Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park, gave a lecture about the reconstruction project after thetsunami. Then, Mr. Takuya Hirai, Director of the Marine Learning Institute, presented the role of ecotourism
in the recovery after the tsunami.
After the lunch break, Mr. Ken’ichi Muraoka, a fisherman, member of the Council of Minami-Sanriku town,
and chairman of the Association for the preservation of Gyozanryu Mitobe Shishiodori (Deer dance), shared
his testimony on how the life of fishermen was affected by the tsunami in 2011. He explained his experienceand his work on promoting different activities to recover the livelihoods within Minami-Sanriku, such as theregeneration of oyster farming and the recovery of the local intangible heritage of the deer dance.
Finally, the delegation visited the Togura Shrine, located on a hill that the tsunami did not reach and wheresome people’s lives were saved. On this hill, participants could see the memorial stones that serve as
reminders of previous tsunamis. On one of the stones it is possible to read: “Beware that when there is a big
earthquake, tsunami may follow.” The role of these stones was discussed, and their utility questioned, as
tsunamis keep affecting this coastal region and people have still been doubtful to look for shelter.

Left: Mr. Yasushi Niimura, Park Ranger of Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park. Right: Takuya Hirai, Director of
the Marine Learning Institute.
163

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Ken’ichi Muraoka explaining about the role of intangible cultural heritage in the process of post-disaster recovery.

Discussion sessions assisted by resource persons at Iriyado Learning Center.

On the fourth day, participants left the Minami-Sanriku town and visited the Historical Museum of Jomon
Village, in Oku-Matsushima. They received a lecture from Mr. Hiroki Sugawara, curator of the Museum, whotook an archaeological approach in explaining the lessons gained since the prehistoric past, in the process of
disasters response and recovery. Participants learned that areas that were affected by the tsunami in 2011were not occupied in the past by the Jomon people, who used to live on the top of the hills and the islands.
Settlements were not developed next to the sea, as there was local knowledge on the sea level changes,
tidal movements, and possible tsunamis. It was concluded that we need to look more at history to learn
about landscapes and about where to settle to prevent disasters. Moreover, Mr. Sugawara explained how
the scenic landscape of Matsushima had to be protected when new settlements were being constructedin the area, after many coastal settlements were completely washed out by the tsunami. The group visited
some of the new settlements and some of the walls that were constructed in certain villages along the coast,
to protect them from a potential tsunami. Discussions arose on how useful those walls may be and how theyaffect the relationship between the people and the sea.

164

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Mr. Hiroki Sugawara, Director of the Historical Museum of Jomon Village, Oku-Matsushima presenting the legaciesof the Jomon people in regards to the process of response and recovery after tsunamis. Professor Nobuko Inaba,
University of Tsukuba was in charge of interpretation.

Group photo at Matsushima, Place of Scenic Beauty. (Photo: Namiko Yamauchi)

165

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE FOUR:
REFLECTION ON THEORY AND PRACTICE

Module 4 comprised of two days of reflection on the theory and practice gained during the workshop.
Participants were divided into interdisciplinary working groups to identify the key issues for disasters andresilience, reflecting on both natural and cultural values of the places visited during the field trip (See Box).
Finally, each of the groups gave a presentation. Additionally, it was requested that each participant complete
an individual reflection on what lessons were learned from the workshop and from the Japanese experience,that they can bring back to their home countries and, especially, to their sites.
WORKING GROUPS ASSIGNMENTGroup reflection
1. Mapping values and the interrelations of nature-culture within the sites
2. Assessment of the sites: proposals/lessons learned and recommendations
Individual reflection
3. Lesson that can be applied to your country or site
Presentation
20 minutes group reflection+ 3 minutes for individual reflections
Below, the outcomes of the exercise are reported by the students of the University of Tsukuba that joined
the workshop and formed part of the working groups. Excerpts of their written reports, where they
explained their working groups process of analysis and results, are reproduced. In the case of Group 2, tworeports are included as two students formed part of this group. In addition, individual reflections of each of
the group members are summarized as general lessons learned for each group.

Group 11
Members: Xavier Benedict (India), Sazzad Hossain (Bangladesh), Hongtao Liu (China), Yllah Okin (DR Congo),
Irina Pavlova (Russia), Ryan Yamane (Hawaii-US)
Points of discussion/Questions
After discussing theoretical notions and sharing experience about nature-culture linkages in disasters andresilience, we had an experience in the field which consisted of meeting quite a large number of people
that were affected by the 2011 Tsunami in Shizugawa region, in the North-East part of Japan. The resultsof both lectures and field practice were summarized into group work. My group work discussion points areconcerned with mapping values and the interrelations of nature-culture in the visited sites of the Shizugawa
region, assess the sites by bringing out some proposals, lessons learned, and recommendations. We had
to see how the people we consulted with in the affected communities could be resilient after the Tsunami
by relying on nature-culture linkages, how effective this was, what we can learn from their experience, andwhat we think should be the correct choice or attitude in facing the same issues.

1

Report by Yllah Okin, Master Student of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba
166

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Focus of analysis
My group and I focused on analyzing and mapping the values of some sites and people we met, seeing therole of those sites and people in terms of nature-culture linkages and resilience to disasters.
For sites analysis, we pointed out the Chusonji temple, the Kaminoya Hachimagu shrine, the Togura shrineand Matsushima, place of scenic beauty. For people met (that we categorized as intangible heritages) wehighlighted the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges they faced through building up disaster resilienceand strengthening their communities. The three people we focused on were: Ms. Mayumi Kudo, a priestessof the Kaminoya Hachimagu shrine, Mr. Kenichi Muraoka, a fisherman who played an important role inpsychological, financial, and social recovery of his community after the 2011 Tsunami, and Ms. Sakiko Miura,a lady who owned a restaurant that was strongly destroyed by the same Tsunami.
Analysis
From the shock of ideas comes out the light. Our group was such a diverse one, according to people’s
backgrounds and experiences, but we could figure out how to combine our points of views and learn fromone another. Analyzing step by step, we learned that:-- The Chusonji temple was in a high landscape that kept it unaffected by the Tsunami;-- The Kaminoyama Hachimangu shrine was not affected by the 2011 Tsunami;-- The Togura shrine survived 3 consecutive Tsunamis and only the lower part was affected by the 2011
one. It was a secure place for people in previous events and they left instructions and messages onstones;-- Matsushima, place of scenic beauty, is exposed to many natural hazards though it is among themost beautiful landscapes in Japan and known for tourism, agriculture, and fishing. It has a naturalprotection to natural hazards due to the topography and orographic effect and it contains a cohesive
community with a considerable level of preparedness to natural hazards;-- The priestess, Ms. Mayumi Kudo, as a spiritual leader could use old and new relationships within her
community to communicate and make up strategies to build back her community after the 2011
Tsunami. She could use nature and culture to share her ideas and help her people to psychologically
recover, though she had time and resource limitations sometimes;-- The brave fisherman, Mr. Kenichi Muraoka, was a councilman and respected by his community. Using
that, he believed and shared his vision with his community. Moreover, he used traditional dance andsongs to help his people recover from and remember the 2011 Tsunami. He also able to incorporate
the younger generation into the recovery process.
-- Ms. Sakiko Miura, the owner of the restaurant that was destroyed by the 2011 Tsunami, had thecourage to build it back in the same place. She wanted a sad moment to go away by building a new life.
Luckily, a piece of her restaurant on what its name was written, was brought back to her from Alaska
and she used it as a symbol of resilience to 2011 Tsunami.
Outcomes
There are so many lessons to learn from those experiences. We summarized the most of them as followed:-- Resilience is not taken for granted, it is learned, enhanced, strengthened, and refreshed in everyday life;-- Traditional knowledge is a key part of disaster resilience, people should not neglect their culture andidentity because they play a golden role. The example of the Jomon ancient people, in Matsushimabay, is proof that, in general, ancient people knew better about the issues we are currently facing andknew how to mitigate and prevent them;-- The use of nature-based solutions regarding natural hazards and cultural sites protection is effective,
but much more effective when it is combined with cultural aspects. This to say that nature-culture
linkages are effective to increase disaster resilience (as in the example of the priestess and thefisherman mentioned above);-- Community cohesiveness is a key element in disaster resilience. It is difficult to act individually but
easier when all voices and all stakeholders are considered;-- Overconfidence to push back nature boundaries may be dangerous and decrease disaster resilience;-- Sometimes policymakers consider safety before social aspects. For instance, in the case of wallconstruction along the beach in Matsushima bay, it did not please the community and affected theirrelationship with the ocean. We did think the wall construction was not a good decision.
167

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

We recommended to ourselves that we should encourage the transmission of traditional knowledge in ourcommunities by storytelling and organizing cultural activities. This would increase disaster resilience andcontribute to protecting cultural sites. We should reinforce Eco-DRR approaches in ecosystem restorations.
And most importantly, we should stay open-minded when it comes to decision making, community
participation, disaster resilience, nature-culture linkages, and not see things only by our background, butmore widely.
At the beginning of the workshop, it was personally heterogenous to link nature-culture with disaster
resilience. Theoretical lectures, field practice, and group work made everything clear to me. I see a bright
future in connections between cultural heritage and nature conservation institutions, especially in increasing
people’s disaster resilience around the world and I am glad to notice that I can think more holistically whenaddressing natural hazards and disasters’ issues.

Irina Pavlova (Russia), Yllah Okin (DR Congo), Sazzad Hossain (Bangladesh), Hongtao Liu (China), Ryan Yamane (Hawaii)
and Xavier Benedict (India) preparing their presentation during the working groups session

Summary of lessons learned:●● There is no real divide between nature and culture when observing the field experience.
●● Education and schools need to bring nature-culture-people together to reinforce community values and tosupport the maintenance of linkages.
●● There is a need of linking policies with different ecologies and developing local frameworks that arecontext-specific.
●● There is a need of integrating cultural values into the natural sciences work.
●● Nature-culture linkages can help in decreasing vulnerability to hazards by connecting communities to theirmemory, their identity, their relationship to nature, and their traditional knowledge.
●● People can use their cultural and natural heritage for rebuilding processes by promoting cultural practices
that support community cohesiveness and by using nature-based solutions to protect communities fromhazards while restoring nature.
●● Community leaders can be vehicles for using nature-culture linkages in post-disaster recovery andconserving natural and cultural heritage as they are important voices of the community and can convey
the messages to larger audiences and provoke change at the local level.
●● There is a need to listening to local communities’, their experience, and local knowledge in order to learn
from resilience.
●● Traditional knowledge is very important for the regeneration processes as it collects memories fromprevious experiences and historical understandings of the local environment, as well as it conveys thecyclical nature of hazards.
●● Quick responses to disasters are not necessarily a sustainable solution when they do not incorporate
168

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

reflections on nature-culture linkages and the relationship between people, communities, and theirenvironment (e.g. the large concrete walls constructed to protect people from tsunamis along the Tohoku
coast).

Group 22
Members: Rohayah Che Amat (Malaysia), Jefferson Chua (Philippines), Thao Le Ngoc (Vietnam), Ola Mamoun(Sudan), Andrea Margotta (Chile), Lance Syme (Australia), Alula Tesfay (Ethiopia)
REPORT 1.
To come up with the analysis and reflection on the sites we visited in Tohoku area, we first listed out thequestion we needed to answer as a group. The questions were as follows:
1. Which sites should we focus on?
2. What are the attributes of each site?
3. To whom are the values important?
4. Who the decision-makers are/ who manages those values?
5. How does this relate to resilience?
6. What are the recommendations from our observation?
Later, we listed out the main sites and projects on our visit and the main clusters were Hiraizumi, MinamiSanriku Resilience Landscape (name assigned by the group), and Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National
Park. These sites were split into three subgroups and the ideas were brainstormed. The outcomes were later
added together again in the following table:
CultureNatureResilience

Hiraizumi

Religious and spiritual
1. Sacred places on the top of 1. Surrounded by a natural
mountain Mount Kinkeisan
Japanese setting andvalues of Shintoism andwhich represent Buddhism
landscape;Pure Land Buddhism
2. Harmony with nature
theology;
2. Emphasis on purification
derived from Shinto beliefs;
3. Scenic beauty represented
and aesthetics;
3. Physical and spiritualin the garden
elements in the garden

Minami-Sanriku
Resilience
Landscape(Ramsar site,
Town, Shrine)

1. Social capital as a Shinto
priestess;
2. Traditional fishing culture
and practices;
3. Maintenance andtransmission of thecommunity’s collective
memories throughgenerations

Sanriku Fukko
Reconstruction
National Park

1. Traditional settlement in
1. Scenic beauty of theline with rich cultural folks,
greater landscape;cuisine, and architecture;
2. Nature as inspiration;
2. Intangible heritage of the 3. Wildlife diversity
community

1. Shinto beliefs andtraditions;
2. Environmental diversity;
3. Natural hazards

2

Memorialization andtrauma recovery throughoral traditions increases
the capacity for resilience

Integration of traditionaland contemporarycommunity participation
modelsReport 1 by Alula Tesfay, Doctoral student of World Heritage Studies, University of Tsukuba; and Report 2
by Ola Mamoun, Master Student of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba
169

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Our recommendations for each site were as follows:
1. Hiraizumi: More comprehensive interpretative facilities demonstrating the links between naturaland cultural heritage;
2. Minami-Sanriku Resilience Landscape:(1) to integrate nature-based solutions to hard infrastructure, similar to the priestess’ efforts;(2) further dialogue on issues of intercultural exchange;(3) for the Ramsar site: bird-watching and other ecotourism facilities, protection of the spawningand nursery area for fish and other animal species by integrating these into the management plan;
3. Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park:(1) Carrying capacity evaluation;(2) Create a platform for different sectors to meet, discuss, and share different kinds of knowledge(traditional fishery knowledge, scientific knowledge, community responses, and government plan);(3) Create avenues of co-management of the natural resources (water, biodiversity and the culture
for building the linkage of natural and culture).
REPORT 2.
The main outcomes were focused on how the natural-culture linkages are reflected in the resilience as acontributor to strengthen the different listed sites.
For Hiraizumi, the group saw the cultural values represented in the sacred places on the top of Mount
Kinkeisan (Buddhism theology), surrounded by the natural Japanese setting and landscape in harmonic
existence of all the elements derived from Shinto beliefs. In addition, the scenic beauty represented in
the garden and the emphasis on purification and aesthetics and the physical and spiritual elements in thegarden. Therefore, the group agreed that the religious and spiritual values of Shintoism and Pure Land
Buddhism are the core of the Hiraizumi site.
The group used the same way to analyze what we called the Minami-Sanriku Resilience Landscape (which
included the Shizugawa bay, proposed as Ramsar site, the Minami-Sanriku Town, and the Kaminoyama
Hachimangu Shrine) finding out that the memorialization and recovery from trauma through oral traditions
increases the capacity for resilience.
Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park represented a clear integration of traditional and contemporarycommunity participation models as a successful story and an adaptive model for resilience.
The group recommendations focused on building and strengthen the existing resilience based on natureculture linkages that each site has by addressing questions, issues, or concerns about the different properties
and practices.
For Hiraizumi, the group saw that the development of more comprehensive interpretation facilities todemonstrate the links between natural and cultural heritage will enhance the existing recovery capacity.
While Minami-Sanriku needed more focus on integrating nature-based solutions instead of hard
infrastructure, similar to the priestess’ efforts; moreover, further dialogue on issues of intercultural exchange
were needed; and bird-watching and other ecotourism facilities for the Ramsar site could be developed,
as well as protection of the spawning and nursery area for fish and other animal species by integratingthese into the management plan. Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park analysis showed the need forcarrying capacity evaluation, creating a platform for different sectors to meet, discuss, and share different
kinds of knowledge (traditional fishery knowledge, scientific knowledge, community responses, andgovernment plan) and creating avenues of natural resources co-management (water, biodiversity and theculture for building on linkages between nature and culture).
Summary of lessons learned:●● There is a need for a holistic approach to landscape and resilience analysis.

170

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728●● Under time pressure, such as in the case of disasters, it is important to work together and collaborate

among different sectors, stakeholders and disciplines.
●● Nature-based solutions can be used in other countries of Asia and the Pacific, and beyond.
●● Cultural sites are linked to the landscape they are embedded in and its natural elements.
●● The nature-culture and people-centered approaches are more difficult to apply in urban spaces.
●● There is a need to invest in resilience, in knowledge, and in raising-awareness.
●● Importance to work in interdisciplinary teams with members of different age and different types and levelof experience.
●● Nature-culture linkages are needed in the thinking and approaches of the government and its institutions.
●● Ecosystem approach is fundamental for reducing disasters because it is necessary to think beyond

elements but about relationships, especially, relationships to nature and natural hazards.
●● Traditional knowledge has a fundamental role during recovery processes (e.g. Japanese communities useof their traditions)●● Experts, planners, managers have to involve people from communities in preparedness and recovery

processes.
●● There is a need to learning to communicate from the side of heritage professionals for developing a mutual
understanding with communities and with the government.
●● There is a need of using comprehensive approaches in risk preparedness plans.
●● Holistic and people-centered approaches go together and need to be applied when thinking about
landscapes, heritage and resilience to disasters.
●● There is a need of integrating nature-culture linkages at policy level.
●● There is a need to reinforce local-based management.

Group 33
Members: Kou Huaiyun (China), Radhika Kothari (India), Petrayuna Omega (Indonesia), Delmaria Richards(Jamaica), Hoseah Mwangi Wanderi (Kenya), Bohingamuwa Wijerathne (Sri Lanka)
Points of discussion and focus of analysis
The objective of Group 3 sessions was to discuss and try to gain a complete understanding of natureculture linkages from the sites visited. The examination of the sites and sessions with relevant stakeholders
enhanced our practical experiences for better heritage management conservation. The group was able tofully understand vulnerabilities in Japan and, in particular, the sites within the region studied. We understoodthat post-tsunami disaster rebuilding and resilience response is a difficult but necessary undertaking. Whennatural hazards occur, it is important to act quickly and carefully considering people, property, plus naturaland cultural heritage. Community members as well as practitioners within nature-culture arenas should
utilize the nature-culture linkage in both pre and post disaster times as a response mechanism to strengthencommunities.
Analysis
The sites visited included: Hiraizumi World Heritage Site (Chusonji – Buddhist temple and Motsuji-Buddhist
temple and garden), Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park (Kamiyama Hachimangu Shrine, Marine
Visitors Center and Togura Shrine) and Mastushima, place of scenic beauty (Historical Museum of Jomon
Village in Oku-Matsushima). All sites were examined separately on the basis of their natural and culturalvalues then specific issues as well as treats to each site were examined. Lessons learned were discussed thenrecorded, finally some recommendations were made for group inference.
In consideration of the natural aspects close attention was placed on aesthetic values, biodiversity,
ecosystems services, and geological processes. For cultural evaluation historical, cultural, spiritual, religious,and social values were underscored. The group noted all sites involved are susceptible to natural hazards
because of their location. Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates. Additionally, developmental, social,
cultural, and climatic changes added to their vulnerability.

3

Report by Delmaria Richards, Master Student of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba
171

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Hiraizumi World Heritage Site has strong cultural values and meanings reflective in its history, spiritual
setting and natural landscape. The Buddhist cosmology of pure land incorporated with Shintoism is seen in
the design of garden and temple. It was evident that the archeological and historical information provided
understanding to create a beautiful cultural landscape aimed at reinforcing traditional values and meanings
in nature. It provides a venue for sustainable conservation of heritage.
Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park was established in 2013. The inclusion of the Sun Shopping
Street and Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine provide bases for people to find meanings in nature throughthe use of mythologies. It acts as an interface between the local community and the government during
the recovery and reconstruction processes. The structures provide spaces for the community members toconnect. These spaces are also seen as memorial sites. Also, the Moai statue (a present from Easter Island,
Chile) provides spiritual inspiration during the town’s recuperation. The use of intangible cultural heritage inpost-disaster healing is reinforced by the use of Kiriko art, local belief systems were strengthened, increasing
the town’s resilience.
Mastushima is widely known as a place of scenic beauty and historical value. The unique woody islands
represent continuation of Jomon culture since pre-historic times. We saw how people used traditional
knowledge to co-exist with nature. The Jomon people knew locating settlements on higher grounds were
safer. It was noted that use of archeological data to understand earthquake and tsunami history wasessential for relocation of settlements. The involvement of younger generations in redesigning the town wasapplauded.
Conclusion
People find meaning in their environment and create values based on these meanings, so both natural andcultural systems must be considered for the forging of strong communities. The strength of societies isreinforced through the use of traditional knowledge, which are valuable in times of disasters. They are often
used to aid development of long-term sustainable strategies. Finally, collective memory is necessary to build
awareness among citizens and to transfer natural and cultural heritage.
Summary of lessons learned:●● The workshop widened the disciplinary perspective.
●● Importance of situating cultural heritage in its natural context.
●● There is a need of integrating nature-culture-people perspective into university studies.
●● Nature conservation needs to learn from the culture sector.
●● Importance of people-centered approaches for the conservation of heritage, for disaster risk management,

and building resilience.
●● There is a need to learning from local people and involve them in processes of post-disaster recovery.
●● Resilience is in the capacity of people and institutions.
●● Importance of community knowledge and experience in building resilience.
●● Value of historical knowledge for building resilience.
●● Japanese values and society are resilient to cope with disasters.
●● Particularity of rural values system that incorporate nature-culture linkages and understandings ofresilience.

172

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Radhika Kothari (India), Wijerathne Bohingamuwa (Sri Lanka), Petra Omega (Indonesia), Huaiyun Kou (China), Hoseah
Wanderi (Kenya) and Delmaria Richards (Jamaica) discussing ideas for the group presentation.

Group photo of participants and resource persons after they received their Certificate of Completion of the Workshop.

173

Annexes

174

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Annex 1: CBWNCL 2018
Participants Abstracts
The confluence of environment and history in the cultural landscape of Pulicat Lagoon by Xavier Benedict
Pulicat Lagoon is the second largest water body in India, covering an area of 757 sq.km. Located in the Northof Chennai, it is a testimony of living heritage, integrating monsoon heritage and cultural values of South
India. This several-million-years-old lagoon is one of the five wetlands which attract monsoon clouds tobring rain to the South-East Coast, and has scripted strong maritime history, as well as bridged transnational
shared heritage links. This paper will bring forth the attention to the values of this wetland which brings
to this region of India a very characteristic cultural landscape, and ecological biodiversity. The traditional
fishing practice called paadu -system, and its character to absorb shock during natural disasters with thesupport of Buckingham Canal stretching 796 km proves as a lifeline of this Coast. The sustainable living anddevelopment which was the way of life for several thousand years is endangered. The paper attempts tobring forth holistic strategies for a sustainably shared landscape restoration.
Historic Cities of The Straits of Malacca UNESCO World Heritage Site: Threats And Challenges by Rohayah
Che Amat
There is an increasing number of threats in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites that are threatening their
Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). This paper presents the cultural impacts of the new development
projects in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Straits of Malacca, composed of two cities: Melaka
and George Town. Apart from potentially lose their World Heritage status, the interventions would erode
the character of the heritage sites due to the inadequate urban planning, that lacks of a proper zoning for
urban development that would respect the boundaries of the protected cultural heritage properties. There
are legal instruments for the conservation of both cities, but the absence of a proper management planand effective enforcement is causing the erosion of their values. Moreover, there is no specific model ormanagement system for controlling the vulnerabilities to hazards in both cities, that would increase due tothe new development projects. An integrated disaster risk management plan needs to be developed, which
would take into consideration the threats and challenges that will aid the decision-making process in the
future.
The Mixed Heritage Values of Mayon Volcano Natural Park and the Place of Narrative in Disaster Response
by Jefferson ChuaThis study focuses on the 2006 disaster brought about by the effects of Typhoon Reming/Durian on thecommunities surrounding Mayon Volcano, the government’s response, and possibilities for making culturaland natural heritage protection an essential resource in disaster mitigation. The typhoon and the ensuinglahars and landslides claimed 1,266 lives when dikes designed to mitigate the effects of flooding were notable to withstand the volume of the displaced volcanic material which had built up because of Mayon’s
recent volcanic activity. The measures taken and the subsequent government response show that while
there were adequate mechanisms in place to address individual disaster scenarios, the 2006 disasterdemonstrated the need for a more holistic understanding of vulnerability and disaster response andmitigation. This can be achieved by incorporating heritage values into disaster mitigation policy, especially ina site like Mayon where cultural and natural values are inextricably linked to each other.
175

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Integrated approach for disaster resilience & management at Mahasthan heritage site by Mohammad
Sazzad Hossain
The archaeological remains of Mahasthan and its surroundings exhibit significant interchange of human values
through cultural practices, religious beliefs, social norms, etc., since the 4th century B.C until the 18th century
A.D, in Bengal. On developments in its township, the site evolved as overlapping layers of intervention,
sometimes superimposed and sometimes juxtaposed on the fabric in different phases of development.
Heavy rainfall is a serious threat to the ancient brick structures. In 2004-2005 a large portion of the Eastern
rampart wall collapsed due to heavy rainfall. Moreover, archaeological structures in situ were not exposeddue to lack of any comprehensive approach for disaster resilience and management. This study will explore
the archaeological layers in order to introduce an integrated drainage system for the heritage site.
Dujiangyan Ancient Town in Sichuan Province, China by Huaiyun Kou
Dujiangyan ancient town is the entrance of an ancient Tea-Horse trade route adjacents to the World
Heritage Site Dujiangyan Irrigation System. The existing built environment shaped from 1522 to 1566 AD,
includes the city wall, mosques, and traditional wooden houses, surrounded by mountains and rivers.
The area suffered the Wenchuan earthquake (magnitude 8.0) in 2008, where over 80% of buildings weredamaged. The local government launched three years reconstruction with multiple objectives of heritage
conservation, housing improvement, and tourism development. The reconstruction enhanced the seismic
performance of the buildings, improved the infrastructures, enforced the traditional spatial features, andstimulated the tourism. While the residents have reduced sharply from 15,000 to 2,000 with the functionaltransition from residential to commercial, earthquakes and mudslides still threaten the ancient town. How
to assess the reconstruction impact on the resilience and how to improve it are urgent issues that need tobe addressed.
Nature-Culture Mapping in the Trans-Himalayas by Radhika Kothari
Tso Moriri-Korzok (Ladakh-India), located in the Trans-Himalayas and at the edge of the Tibetan plateau isa unique bio-diverse wetland above 4500m (asl). It is locally protected, an international Ramsar site and on
the Tentative list for World Heritage. The Changpa, nomadic pastoralists, who have inhabited this landscapefor several centuries display a complex yet an eloquent interface with nature evident in their way of life. The
region is highly vulnerable to climate change with a decrease in snowfall, extreme climatic events, warming
trends, changes in productivity of grasslands affecting both wildlife and herding practices. Additionally, mass
tourism, geopolitical conflicts, irregular policies void of coping or adaptation strategies are further increasing
the vulnerability of ecosystems and breaking the social-cultural fabric of the Changpa nomads. The project
purpose aims to relook Tsomoriri-Korzok to map spatial overlaps between Changpa and the wetland
ecosystem to showcase interdependencies, interactions or overlaps between nature and cultural systems
that can guide future landscape management and conservation with the onset of these socio-ecologicalchanges.
Nature-Culture Linkages in the Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve by Thao Le Ngoc
The Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve (CBR) was recognized by UNESCO in 2009 based onnatural and cultural values. Currently, these values are facing challenges from disaster threats and socialeconomic development. Heavy typhoons and floods are impacting the ancient town- a World Heritage site
since 1999 and part of the buffer zone of the CBR, collapsing riverbanks and eroding beaches. Sedimentand pollution from the mainland are attacking and killing coral-reefs and sea-grass beds. On the other hand,
there are many development and investment plans on the river sand-dunes and beaches. These are making
changes to the natural morphology, fragmenting the aquatic habitat and altering the wildlife cycle. The
most important characteristic of the CBR compared to other protected areas in Vietnam is the need of aharmonization between the natural and the human ecology. The Marine Protected Area connected to Hoi
An ancient town has a zoning with effective implementation and management. This innovation has createda large space for stakeholders to work together through system-thinking, developing landscape planning,inter-sectoral coordination and economic development.
176

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Recovery Of Traditional Tibetan Villages Post Earthquake In World Natural Heritage Site Jiuzhaigou Valley
by Hongtao LiuThis presentation is based on the survey of the damage and recovery status of Tibetan traditional villages in
Jiuzhaigou World Natural Heritage post-earthquake, to understand the basic situation of Tibetan village after
the earthquake, as well as the problems caused in the process of recovery. Moreover, in this presentation
the author reflects on the conservation and development of traditional villages with cultural heritage value
in natural heritage sites from the features of Tibetan architecture, the problems of community development,
and the requirements for disaster prevention and mitigation.
Rapa Nui World Heritage Site - Initiatives and Challenges for the Risk Management by María Andrea
Margotta Ruiz
Rapa Nui National Park, as a World Cultural Heritage Site is strongly related to the natural environment andthe risk factors related to this condition. Some studies have been conducted in recent years to monitor
the involvement of coastline erosion caused of changes to oceanic waters related to the effects of climatechange as well as others risk factors. Since 2017, the National Park administration is carried out by the
Polynesian Indigenous Community Ma’u Henua, created on 2016 and constituted by members of the Rapa
Nui indigenous community. In terms of risk factors, fires are also a threat that is rather well controlled,
although recently and in particular last year there have been worrying episodes that have alerted andgenerated studies to develop risk control measures in that sense. Natural disasters related to earthquakes
and tsunamis are to this day the object of a greater preventive efforts, in this sense, it is interesting to review
the role that the local community can play.
Disaster Risk at Permanent Residence in Siosar Protected Forest: A Preliminary Study by Petrayuna Omega
The Indonesian government used around 416 hectares of Siosar Protected Forest owned by the Forestry
Ministry for residential and farming area in 2016 for the relocation of three villages in 2016 affected by theeruption of Mount Sinabung. The aim of this case study is to explore the existing problems in the Siosar
Protected Tropical Rainforest which is being used as a permanent residence for Mount Sinabung refugees
through observation and interviews to the head of local board for disaster and several people in Siosar area.
This article reports the findings related to the efforts for disaster risk reduction of the permanent residence
in the conservation area based on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The government has
already developed some disaster risk reduction plans but it needs to take a new step in order to involve all
the stakeholders including the community with its cultural value of “gotong royong” and work together toimplement the disaster risk reduction plans. This report aims at increasing awareness of the need to include
all stakeholders in elaborating and implementing disaster risk reduction plans.
Natural UNESCO designated sites as platforms for disaster risk reduction by Irina Pavlova
UNESCO-designated sites (World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks) promotesustainable development and focus on the protection of natural and cultural heritage or the conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity and geological resources. More than 2000 UNESCO-designated sites may
be partly or entirely exposed to natural hazards and extreme weather events, with potential impacts on thecommunities living in or near the sites, and on their livelihoods. Because of their high cultural and symbolic
value, the impact of the loss or damage of a UNESCO-designated site can resonate across the world. At thesame time, these iconic sites have tremendous potential as platforms to share knowledge on Disaster Risk
Reduction. Many UNESCO-designated sites have community and tourism-oriented programmes to raiseawareness about the source of natural hazards, associated risks and ways to reduce their impact.
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by Lance Syme
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA) is managed as a wilderness and is subject
to frequent incidents of bush fire or wildfires. These fires have a catastrophic effect on the naturalenvironment and also on the Aboriginal rock art. Wild fires have the potential to impact large tracts of land
177

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

within the GBMWHA and once started there are very hard if not impossible to stop. Fire reach such an
intense level of heat that they burn through the canopy of the gum trees not just the understory of shrubs
and bushes. Many Australian natives need to be exposed to bush fire for their overall health but wildfires
burn too strongly and seeds affected by wild fires do not germinate. Aboriginal rock art sites suffer greatly
during periods of fire. The sandstone upon which the rock art is drawn heats up and causes the surface todry out and separate away, this is called spalling. As this occurs pieces of the rock art fall off and get tramples
into the earth. Recently the GBMWHA has also been subject to proposals for an increase to dam wall heightof the major water supply dam for Sydney. This increase will result in thousands of kilometers of additional
land being subject to inundation by the dam waters.
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve by Ryan Yamane
This presentation will describe the history of Kahoolawe and investigate options to support their long-term
restoration and resource management. “Kahoʻolawe represents both the end result of human influenced
environmental degradation and the beginning of collaborative healing as a force to mend our planet’s
damaged environments while restoring its people” (Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission Financial SelfSufficiency and Sustainability Plan, December 2016.) Kahoolawe faces significant natural and man-madethreats. Currently, bomb ordinances both still remain on land and sea and due to significant wind andrain erosion, there is very little top soil for vegetation growth. Kahoolawe is directly impacted by climatechange and has no fresh water access. As temperatures rise, it becomes much more difficult to plant native
Hawaiian vegetation for reforestation. I will describe the unique history of Kahoolawe in Hawaii, then I will
discuss the challenges it faces. Finally, I will propose some options to assist with stability and the promotionof Cultural Heritage conservation resiliency.
Lamu Old Town: balancing economic development with conservation of heritage by Hoseah Wanderi
Kenya is rich in heritage enhanced by its many cultures interacting with a wide diversity of ecological zones.
Although biodiversity in those ecological zones remains highly protected through the various Kenyan
legislative frameworks, there are still conservation challenges that negatively affect it. These challenges
mainly emanate from economic development and climatic change. Even though the development chiefly
impact on nature, research indicates that there is a direct correlation of threats on biodiversity to thelivelihoods of communities. Lamu Old Town is a classic example of a predominant Swahili culture that thrived
on marine resources which now face an unfavorable future as a result of LAPSSET development project
whose final result is expected to change Lamu’s biodiversity and culture. This paper evaluates the twovariables; conservation of biodiversity and livelihoods in the Lamu World Heritage Site, a historical coastal
town with over 700 hundred years of continuous occupation.
Matara and Galle Forts: Coastal Cultural Heritage Conservation from Matara Fort to Galle Fort in Southern
Sri Lanka by Bohingamuwa Wijerathne
The southern coastal belt of Sri Lanka is unique for its natural and cultural setting. It has a rich biodiversitythat comprises diverse maritime species, mangroves and forest covers that provided the lifeline of coastal
communities for centuries. The cultural evolution in this region, therefore, is a result of human interaction
with its environment. The cultural heritage in this region is also unique for its multicultural character, as it
was occupied by the Portuguese, Dutch and English colonials from 1505 to 1948. This paper, based on Galle
and Matara Forts, examines issues related to coastal cultural heritage conservation in Southern Sri Lanka.
Coastal heritage sites are constantly open to sea breeze, sea erosion and also to Tsunami. The heritage inthe region was severely affected by tsunami in 2004. Many heritage sites were completely destroyed by sea
waves or during post-tsunami reconstruction. Others have been left unattended or renovated with minimal
consideration of heritage conservation. Meanwhile, development activities are damaging the coastal
ecosystem that reduced the effect of tsunami in some places. This paper highlights the need for immediate
recording and preparing risk assessments of heritage sites and making and implementing integrated policies
involving all stakeholders. It concludes that the link between natural, human and cultural landscapes should
be given due consideration in all heritage interventions.

178

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728*

Annex 2: List of participants
International Participants• Benedict, Xavier (Culture), Professor, MIDAS Architecture College, India• Che Amat, Rohayah (Culture), Senior Lecturer, Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia• Chua, Jefferson (Culture), Project Coordinator, Philippine National Commission for UNESCO, Philippines• Hossain, Mohammad Sazzad (Culture), Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Military Instituteof Science & Technology, MIST, Bangladesh• Kothari, Radhika Vijay (Nature), Director, Jungwa Foundation, India• Kou, Huaiyun (Culture), Associate Researcher, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji
University, China• Le Ngoc, Thao (Nature), Head of Secretariat, Cham Islands Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam• Liu, Hongtao (Culture), Associate Professor, Southwest Jiaotong University, China• Margotta Ruiz, María Andrea (Culture), Technical Specialist, Cultural Heritage National Service, Ministry of
Culture, Chile• Omega, Petrayuna Dian (Culture), Lecturer and Researcher, Krida Wacana Christian University, Indonesia• Pavlova, Irina Olegovna (Nature), Consultant, UNESCO, Natural Sciences Sector, Section on Earth Sciences
and Geo-Hazards Risk Reduction, Russia• Syme, Lance (Culture), Principal, Kayandel Archaeological Services, Australia• Yamane, Ryan (Nature), Representative, Hawaii State Legislature, US• Wanderi, Hoseah (Culture), Focal Point of the World Heritage Convention, National Museums of Kenya,
Kenya• Wijerathne, Bohingamuwa (Culture), Senior Lecturer, Department of History and Archaeology at the
University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka
Nature Sector: 4 (26,7%) – Culture Sector: 11 (73,3%) - Total: 15 (100%)Students from the University of Tsukuba• Tesfay Asfha, Alula (Culture), Doctoral student, World Heritage Studies• Mamoun, Ola (Nature), Master student, Life and Environmental Sciences• Okin, Yllah (Nature), Master student, Life and Environmental Sciences• Richards, Delmaria (Nature), Master student, Life and Environmental Sciences
Nature Sector: 3 (75%) – Culture Sector: 1 (25%) - Total: 4 (100%)* By alphabetical order
179

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Guest speakers and resource persons• Abe, Takuzo, Researcher, Division of Agriculture and Fishery of Minami-Sanriku town
• Buckley, Kristal, Lecturer, Deakin University and World Heritage Advisor, ICOMOS• Dazai, Akihiro, Director, Sustainability Centre of Minami-Sanriku town
• Endo, Kenji, Representative, NPO Minami-Sanriku Learning Center• Hirai, Takuya, Director, Marine Learning Institute• Jigyasu, Rohit, UNESCO Chairholder, Ritsumeikan University and Vice-President, ICOMOS• King, Joseph, Unit Director, ICCROM – Sites Unit
• Kudo, Mayumi, Priestess, Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine• Murti, Radhika, Director, IUCN Global Ecosystem Management Programme• Muraoka, Kenichi, Representative, Council of Minami-Sanriku town
• Niimura, Yasushi, Park Ranger, Sanriku Fukko (Reconstruction) National Park
• Oikawa, Tsukasa, Director, Hiraizumi World Cultural Heritage Center• Okuda, Naohisa, Representative, Ministry of the Environment of Japan• Shimotsuma, Kumiko, Representative, Agency of Cultural of Affairs, Japan• Sugawara, Hiroki, Director, Historical Museum of Jomon Village, Oku-Matsushima• Wijesuriya, Gamini, Former Project Manager, ICCROM – Sites Unit
• Yamauchi, Namiko, Lecturer, Keisen Jogakuen University

Organizing Team• Inaba, Nobuko, Professor World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation,
CBWNCL Programme co-Director• Ishizawa, Maya, Researcher World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation,
CBWNCL Programme Coordinator• Yoshida, Masahito, Chair World Heritage Studies and Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation,
CBWNCL Programme co-Director

Staff of the World Heritage Studies/Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation• Nakasendo, Miyuki, Administrative Assistant, World Heritage Studies• Suda, Maiko, Research Coordinator, Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation• Uribe Chinen, Claudia, Research Assistant, World Heritage Studies• Yasojima, Chitose, Administrative Assistant, Certificate Programme on Nature Conservation

180

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

Annex 3:
Program of the CBWNCL 2018
MODULE 1: International Symposium
Venue: Tsukuba International Congress Center
Friday, 21 September
THEME: III INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON NATURE-CULTURE LINKAGES IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE
09:30 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:10

10:10 - 10:25

10:25 - 10:50
10:50 – 11:15

11:15 - 11:30
11:30 - 11:55
11:55 - 12:20
12:20 - 12:50
12:50 - 13:50
13:50 - 14:15
14:15 – 16:00

16:00 - 16:20
16:20 - 17:00

Open doors
Opening Addressby Professor Masahito Yoshida, UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage
Conservation, University of Tsukuba
Opening Addressby Professor Kyosuke Nagata, President of the University of Tsukuba
The role of UNESCO in post-disasters recovery
By Mechtild Rössler, Director UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Division of Heritage(Video message from Paris)
Natural Heritage – A Nature-based Solution for Resilience to Disasters
by Radhika Murti, Director Global Ecosystem Management Programme, IUCN
Reducing Disaster Risks and Building Resilience of Cultural Heritage: Challenges andOpportunities
by Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chairholder on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Management,
Ritsumeikan University/ICOMOS Vice-President, ICORP President
Coffee BreakDevelopment of the Sanriku Fukko (Reconstruction) National Parkby Naohisa Okuda, Ministry of the Environment of Japan
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in Japan
by Kumiko Shimotsuma, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Panel Discussion
Chaired by Professor Masahito Yoshida, University of Tsukuba
Lunch BreakKey Issues for Disasters and Resilience in line with World Heritage Policy Guidance
by Joseph King, Director, Sites Unit, ICCOM
Roundtable Discussion with
Kristal Buckley, Deakin University/ICOMOS
Rohit Jigyasu, Risumeikan University/ICOMOS/ICORP
Joseph King, ICCROM
Radhika Murti, IUCN
Naohisa Okuda, Ministry of the Environment of Japan
Kumiko Shimotsuma, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Gamini Wijesuriya, former ICCROM
Chaired by Professor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba
Coffee Break
Q&A/Conclusions and Closing Remarks
Chairs: Masahito Yoshida, University of Tsukuba
Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba
Maya Ishizawa, University of Tsukuba

181

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

MODULE 2: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the Context of Disasters and Resilience
Venue: Humanities and Social Sciences Building Seminar Room B218
Saturday, 22 September
THEME: GENERAL CONCEPTS
10:00 - 10:30
10:30 - 11:30
11:30 - 12:30
12:30 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 16:45
14:00 - 14:30
14:30 - 15:00
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 15:45
15:45 - 16:15
16:15 - 16:45
16:45 - 17:30

Introduction
LECTURE 1: The World Heritage System Part 1
Lecturer: Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, former ICCROM
LECTURE 2: The World Heritage System Part 2
Lecturer: Ms. Kristal Buckley, Deakin University/ICOMOS
Q&A + Discussion
Lunch Break
Presentations by participantsHistoric Cities of the Straits of Malacca UNESCO World Heritage Site: Threats andChallenges by Rohayah Che Amat, Malaysia
Lamu Old Town: balancing economic development with conservation of heritage by
Hoseah Wanderi, Kenya
Dujiangyan Ancient Town in Sichuan Province, China by Huaiyun Kou, China
Break
Matara and Galle Forts: Coastal Cultural Heritage Conservation from Matara Fort toGalle Fort in Southern Sri Lanka by Bohingamuwa Wijerathne, Sri Lanka
Integrated approach for disaster resilience & management at Mahasthan heritage site
by Mohammad Sazzad, Bangladesh
Participant’s report and Wrap-up
Sunday, 23 September
THEME: DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FOR CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 11:30
11:30 - 12:30
12:30 - 13:00
13:00 – 14:00
14:00 - 16:45
14:00 - 14:30
14:30 - 15:00
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 15:45
15:45 - 16:15
16:15 - 16:45
16:45 - 17:30

LECTURE 3: Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecturer: Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, Ritsumeikan University/ICOMOS
Q&A + Discussion
LECTURE 4: Ecosystems-based Disaster Risk Reduction
Lecturer: Ms. Radhika Murti, IUCN
Q&A + Discussion
Lunch Break
Presentations by participants
The Mixed Heritage Values of Mayon Volcano Natural Park and the Place of Narrative inDisaster Response by Jefferson Chua, Philippines
Disaster Risk at Permanent Residence in Siosar Protected Forest: A Preliminary Study by
Petrayuna Omega, Indonesia
Recovery of Traditional Tibetan Villages Post Earthquake in World Natural Heritage Site
Jiuzhaigou Valley by Hongtao Liu, China
Break
Nature-Culture Linkages in the Cu Lao Cham – Hoi An World Biosphere Reserve by Thao
Le, Vietnam
Natural UNESCO designated sites as platforms for disaster risk reduction by Irina Pavlova,
RussiaParticipant’s report and Wrap-up
Monday, 24 September
THEME: JAPANESE EXPERIENCE

10:00 - 11:00

LECTURE 5: Japanese experience on Disaster and Resilience – A case study of Sawara
Historic Town
Lecturer: Professor Masahito Yoshida and Professor Nobuko Inaba, University of Tsukuba
182

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

11:00 - 11:30
12:30 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 16:45
14:00 - 14:30
14:30 - 15:00
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 15:45
15:45 - 16:15
16:15 - 16:45
16:45 - 17:30

Q&A + Discussion
LECTURE 6: Introduction to the Field Trip
Lecturer: Dr. Maya Ishizawa, University of Tsukuba
Lunch Break
Presentations by participants
The Confluence of Environment, History, and Cultural Landscape of Pulicat Lagoon by
Xavier Benedict, India
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve by Ryan Yamane, Hawaii, US
Rapa Nui World Heritage Site – Initiatives and Challenges for the Risk Management byAndrea Margotta, Chile
Break
Nature-Culture Mapping in the Trans-Himalayas by Radhika Kothari, India
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by Lance Syme, Australia
Participant’s report and Wrap-up

MODULE 3: Management, Implementation and Governance - Disasters and Resilience
Venue: Tohoku region
Tuesday, 25 September
THEME: HIRAIZUMI WORLD HERITAGE SITE
06:50 - 08:30
09:06 - 10:15
10:30 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:15
14:30 - 15:30
15:30 - 16:10
16:20

Departure from Tsukuba to Omiya by bus
Omiya to Sendai by Shinkansen (Bullet train)
Sendai to Hiraizumi by bus
Lunch Break
Visit to Chusonji (Buddhist Temple)
Visit to Hiraizumi World Cultural Heritage Centre
Lecture by Mr. Tsukasa Oikawa, Director, Hiraizumi World Cultural Heritage Centre
Visit to Motsuji (Buddhist Temple and gardens)
Leave Hiraizumi to Minami-Sanriku Town
Wednesday, 26 September
THEME: SANRIKU RECONSTRUCTION NATIONAL PARK

09:00 - 09:30

09:30 - 10:00
10:00 - 12:00

12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 16:45

Lecture about the impact of the Great East Earthquake and Tsunami in Minami-Sanriku
Town
Lecture by Mr. Kenji Endo, Representative, NPO Minami-Sanriku Learning Center
Departure from Iriyado to Minami-Sanriku Town Hall
Visit to Minami-Sanriku Town Hall
Lecture by Dr. Takuzo Abe, Researcher, Division of Agriculture and Fishery, Minami-Sanriku
Town
Lecture by Mr. Akihiro Dazai, Director, Sustainability Centre, Minami-Sanriku Town
Lunch
Visit to Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine
Lecture by Ms. Mayumi Kudo, Priestess, Kaminoyama Hachimangu Shrine
Stay at Iriyado
Thursday, 27 September
THEME: SANRIKU RECONSTRUCTION NATIONAL PARK

09:30 - 10:00
10:00 - 12:30

Departure from Iriyado to the Marine Visitor Centre
Visit to Marine Visitor Centre
Lecture by Mr. Takuya Hirai, Director, Marine Learning InstituteLecture by Mr. Yasushi Niimura, Park Ranger, Sanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park,
Ministry of the Environment
183

JOURNAL OF WORLD HERITAGE STUDIES・SPECIAL ISSUE 2019・DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE ISSN 2189-4728

12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 16:45

16:45 - 17:15

Lunch Break
Visit to Marine Visitor Centre
Lecture by Mr. Kenichi Muraoka, Fisherman and Member of the Council of MinamiSanriku Town, Chairman, Association for Preservation of Gyozanryu Mitobe Shishiodori(Deer Dance)
Visit to Togura Shrine
Stay at Iriyado
Friday, 28 September
THEME: MATSUSHIMA, PLACE OF SCENIC BEAUTY

08:30 - 11:00
09:30 - 11:30

11:30 - 12:30
12:30 - 14:30
14:40 - 16:00
16:34 - 18:10
18:30 - 20:00

Departure from Iriyado to the Historical Museum of Jomon Village, Oku-Matsushima
Visit to the Historical Museum of Jomon Village, Oku-Matsushima
Lecture by Mr. Hiroki Sugawara, Curator, Director of Historical Museum of Jomon Village
Okumatsuyama
Lunch Break
Visit to Zuiganji Temple
Departure from Matsushima to Sendai by bus
Sendai to Omiya by Shinkansen
Omiya to Tsukuba by bus
Saturday, 29 September
Free Day
MODULE 4: Reflection on Theory and Practice
Venue: Humanities and Social Sciences Building Seminar Room B218
Sunday, 30 September

10:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00
14:00 - 17:00

Working groups
Lunch
Working groups
Monday, 1 October

10:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00

Working groups
Lunch Break

14:00 - 17:00

Presentation of Participants
Q&A + Discussion
Feedback from Resource Persons
Delivery of Certificates and Farewell

17:00 - 18:00

184University of Tsukuba,
Graduate School of Comprensive Human Sciences
World Heritage Studies
1-1-1 Tennodai ,Tsukuba,Ibaraki
Tel:029-853-7099

http://conservation.tsukuba.ac.jp/UNESCO-Chair/