Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation,
Asia and the Pacific
2018

DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

災害とレジリエンス
THIRD WORKSHOPREPORTSEPTEMBER 21 - OCTOBER 1, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA, TSUKUBA, JAPANCopyright: © 2019 University of Tsukuba.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resaleor other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation (2019). Capacity Building Workshop on NatureCulture Linkages in Heritage Conservation, Asia and the Pacific. Disasters and Resilience. Third Workshop Report. Tsukuba,
Japan: University of Tsukuba. 76 pp.
Prepared and edited by: Maya Ishizawa
Editorial assistance: Claudia Uribe Chinen
Photo credits:
Module 1 International Symposium by Li Xuanyu
Module 2, 3 and 4 by 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/

Capacity Building Workshop
on Nature-Culture Linkages
in Heritage Conservation,
Asia and the Pacific
2018
DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE

災害とレジリエンス
THIRD WORKSHOPREPORT

Organized by
The UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation
University of Tsukuba
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 of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)SEPTEMBER 21-OCTOBER 1, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA, TSUKUBA, JAPANTABLE OF CONTENTS■ Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 1■ Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5■ CBWNCL 2018: Disasters and Resilience.......................................................................................... 6■ Module 1: International Symposium................................................................................................ 8■ Module 2: Understanding Nature-Culture Linkages in the context of Disasters and Resilience... 41■ Module 3: Management, implementation and governance in Disasters and Resilience............... 55■ Module 4: Reflection on Theory and Practice................................................................................ 62■ Annexes
Annex 1: List of Participants........................................................................................................... 71
Annex 2: Program of the CBWNCL 2018........................................................................................ 73

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

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 chances1

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
a fundamental role in the post-disaster recovery as an instrument of resilience for communities, sinceidentity and cultural heritage sustain the cohesion of communities when facing disasters. The importanceof capacity building and education was highlighted, especially when confronting challenges such as climatechange and unpredictable 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 andopenness 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.

2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 disaster3

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.

4

INTRODUCTION

The Capacity Building Workshop on Nature-Culture Linkages in Heritage Conservation in Asia and the Pacificfocused on the theme of “Disasters and Resilience” was organized by the UNESCO Chair on Nature-Culture
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 Asia andthe Pacific, Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Hawaii (US), India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Philippines,
Russia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, as well as four students from the Certificate Programme on Nature
Conservation at the University of Tsukuba, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Jamaica andSudan, who took part in the process as observers.
In the following report, the activities developed during the workshop have been compiled, structured bymodules. First, the purpose, objectives, and content of the CBWNCL, as well as the theme of the CBWNCL2018 are introduced.
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 well as
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
and participants’ reflections during the symposium debates, regarding the challenges faced in disasters
within the region 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 andparticipants were invited to the University’s campus for three days. The lectures given by the international
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 the main
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
and Tsunami.
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 of the lessons
they learned during the workshop.
In the annexes, the list of participants (Annex 1) and the program of the workshop (Annex 2) can be found.

5

CBWNCL 2018:
DISASTERS AND RESILIENCE
Heritage Conservation is an evolving practice with one of the current debates focusing on identifying
and recovering the connections between the nature and culture sectors. This exchange has become
instrumental for the interpretation, conservation, and sustainable management of both natural and cultural
heritage sites.
The purpose of the Capacity Building Workshops on Nature-Culture Linkages (CBWNCL) in Asia and thePacific is to contribute to the World Heritage Capacity Building Programme, led by ICCROM and IUCN in
conjunction with ICOMOS and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, in developing new approaches towards
the integrated conservation of cultural and natural heritage. These workshops explored nature-culture
linkages, focusing on theory and practice, in Asia and the Pacific Region. Visiting Japanese heritage sites
constitutes a core component of the programme, allowing participants to conduct on-site practical work.
Participants are able to better understand issues and explore approaches being adopted in the field.
The first workshop, themed “Agricultural landscapes,” held in September 2016, was inaugurated with aninternational symposium at the University of Tsukuba and held field visits to the Noto Peninsula and theHistorical villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama, a World Heritage site since 1995. 14 participants fromthe culture and nature sectors gathered with international and Japanese experts during the workshop; theparticipants were from 9 countries in Asia and the Pacific (Philippines, India, Australia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
Taiwan, China, Turkey, and Indonesia) and 2 countries from other regions (Colombia in Latin America andGhana in Africa). The second workshop was dedicated to “Sacred Landscapes” and was held in September
2017. The workshop closed with the Second International Symposium on Nature-Culture Linkages in
Heritage Conservation. 16 participants, from 13 countries in Asia and the Pacific (Australia, New Zealand,
Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan,
India, and Cambodia), 1 from Europe (France), and 1 from Africa (Ghana), along with international experts on
the heritage field as well as Japanese professionals and site managers, visited the Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage
Routes in the Kii Mountain Range, World Heritage property since 2004.

■■Theme of CBWNCL 2018: Disasters and Resilience
Increasing disasters, both natural and human-made, are severely impacting the well-being of humancommunities and landscapes around the globe. As a result, many international organizations andgovernments are making efforts to combat these threats by developing programs to reinforce disaster risk
preparedness, management, and mitigation, as well as building resilience in vulnerable territories, such as
small island states, coastal regions, desert areas, and under-developed human settlements.
Natural and cultural heritage are not exempted from this increased vulnerability and strategies are being
put into practice for protecting them in isolation by practitioners of the two sectors. In this workshop,
the interest lies in exploring the nature-culture linkages that could be developed in the context of disaster
preparedness, response, recovery, and the possibilities of developing comprehensive approaches that take
into consideration the cultural values that could contribute to the conservation of natural areas as well as thenatural values that can support the protection of cultural heritage. By sharing experiences and case studies,observing the Japanese experience in the field, and exchanging knowledge among practitioners from
Asia and the Pacific, the workshop expects to raise awareness and reflect on a region that is increasingly
vulnerable to disasters yet is strong in resilience and recovery experience.
6

■■Objectives
1. To strengthen theoretical knowledge on disasters and resilience and its relevance in connecting
conservation practices between natural and cultural heritage professionals.
2. To visit and exchange experiences with local managers and residents in areas/sites in Japan thathave been affected by disasters and learn how cultural and natural heritage have been protected,
conserved, or recovered with different approaches, initiatives, and governance systems.
3. To reflect on nature-culture linkages, natural values, and cultural values in vulnerable landscapes ingeneral and in the participants’ own sites/case studies.
4. To establish networks among heritage practitioners in the region.

■■Methodology
The workshop is an intensive programme combining theory and practice, through lectures, presentations,a roundtable in Tsukuba at the University of Tsukuba’s Campus, and a field trip to the Tohoku region: theSanriku Fukko Reconstruction National Park, Matsushima, a place of scenic beauty, and Hiraizumi - Temples,
Gardens, and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land -, a World Heritage property since2011, where participants will get in contact with local managers and local communities.

■■Participants
The workshop is open to a maximum number of 15 professionals from Asia and the Pacific region involved in
the management of cultural or natural heritage sites vulnerable to natural and human-made disasters. Midcareer heritage practitioners, with minimum of 5 years of experience, from both the natural and cultural
heritage sectors, currently engaged in managing/working in vulnerable cultural heritage sites, and natural
heritage sites with cultural values, and vice versa, are eligible to apply.

7

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.

8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 peace9

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.
10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
11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.
12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.
13

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.
14

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 sustainable15

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, and16

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.

17

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
18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.
19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.

20

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 and21

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 to22

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 is23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.

24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
25

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
26

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 that27

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 as28

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 and29

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 also30

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 was31

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
32

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.
33

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.
34

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 their35

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.
36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 we37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
38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.

39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.

40

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,41

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.
42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.

43

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.
44

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
45

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.
46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?

47

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.

48

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 and49

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 sustainable50

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
51

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
52

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.

53

Working groups during the third day.

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

54

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.

55

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
56

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.

57

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.

58

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.
59

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.

60

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)

61

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
62

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.
63

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 incorporate64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
65

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.

66

●● 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
67

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.

68

Radhika Kothari (India), Wijerathne Bohingamuwa (Sri Lanka), Petra Omega (Indonesia), Huaiyun Kou (China), Hoseah
Mwangi (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.

69

Annexes

4

Annex 1: 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, Thao Ngoc (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• Mwangi, Hoseah (Culture), Focal Point of the World Heritage Convention, National Museums of Kenya,
Kenya• 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• 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%)

4

By alphabetical order71

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 Conservation72

Annex 2:
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

73

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 Tsukuba74

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 Environment75

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

76

University of Tsukuba,
Graduate School of Comprensive Human Sciences
World Heritage Studies
1-1-1 Tennodai ,Tsukuba,Ibaraki
Japan 305-8571
Tel:029-83-7099
http://conservation.tsukuba.ac.jp/UNESCO-Chair/