RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERT MEETING ON
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND DISASTER RESILIENT COMMUNITIIES
14 March, Tokyo, Japan
Background
An International Expert Meeting on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities was organized inTokyo and Sendai, Japan, on 11-17 March 2015 by UNESCO, ICCROM, the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan(ACA) and the National Institutes of Cultural Heritage (NICH) with the cooperation of ICOMOS-International
Committee of Risk Preparedness (ICOMOS-ICORP) and ICOM-Disaster Relief Task Force (ICOM-DRTF).
This meeting was held within the framework of the third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (the3rd WCDRR) that was organized in Sendai, Japan, on 14‐18 March 2015 by UNISDR, and included the following
events:(1) Tokyo Strategy Meeting (11-13 March, Tokyo) to discuss how cultural heritage could be better integrated with
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030;(2) Tokyo Symposium (13 March, Tokyo) to share the experiences in rescue and recovery of heritage damaged by
the Great East Japan Earthquake;(3) The 3rd WCDRR Intergovernmental Working Session on Resilient Cultural Heritage (15 March, Sendai)
prepared by UNISDR, UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS-ICORP, ACA and NICH;(4) Sendai Symposium (16 March, Sendai) to share results of the above-mentioned with the public.
Over 50 participants attended the Tokyo Strategy Meeting, coming from all regions of the world and included
representatives of the abovementioned organizations and institutes. During this meeting in Tokyo, participants
discussed issues related to cultural heritage and disaster risk reduction (DRR) and developed a set ofrecommendations to address how to better connect heritage to the evolving DRR agenda and to ensure a culturally–
sensitive approach in strengthen DRR effectiveness. These recommendations, following the organizing structure ofthe Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, are aimed at local, national, regional andinternational partners and cover a period of 15-year.
The participants of the meeting express their thanks to: The United Nations, the Government of Japan and the Sendai City for hosting the 3rd WCDRR;
 UNESCO, ICCROM, ACA and NICH for organizing the International Expert Meeting; and all the organizations and institutes that provided its cooperation in organizing the meeting, particularly
ICOMOS-ICORP, ICOM-DRTF, Miyagi Prefecture, Iwate Prefecture, Fukushima Prefecture, Kesen-numa
City (Miyagi) and Hiraizumi-Town (Iwate).
The participants of the meeting further express their condolences to and solidarity with those persons affectedby the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 11 March 2011, as well as Cyclone Pam that hit Vanuatu
during the 3rd WCDRR.
1

Context
Taking into consideration the review of Hyogo Framework for Action and the expected outcomes and goalsof the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-20301, the meeting participants considered the role ofcultural heritage and cultural practices of communities in ensuring disaster resilient communities.
Cultural heritage is important in its own right as evidence of people and their development over time. But,
cultural contexts are constantly evolving as a result of change, modernization, displacement and migration,
sometimes leading to tensions and latent conflict which increase vulnerability to disasters, especially within larger
urban contexts and in developing regions.
Cultural heritage can therefore be seen as a source of strength and resilience for communities and is a useful
tool in helping communities deal with disasters at all phases (e.g. planning, mitigation, response, recovery).
Cultural heritage is not just something to be saved in time of emergency, but something that can be an effective toolfor disaster recovery and more importantly for sustainable development.






Cultural heritage should be defined broadly to include:
Immovable (e.g. monuments, architectural works, vernacular architecture, archaeological sites)
Movable (e.g. objects in museums, homes and elsewhere)
Urban areas and landscapesArchives and libraries
Intangible (e.g. know-how, traditions, rituals, festivals, languages, traditional techniques, social structures)

Stakeholders in disaster risk management are wide and varied. Local communities, including women,children and indigenous peoples, play a very particular and important role in the process and should be recognized
as a core constituency for disaster risk management. Other stakeholders can be found in the fields of heritage andenvironmental protection, infrastructure planning and development, first response, humanitarian aid, the military,social services and education, among others. Roles for these stakeholders include decision-making, professional
activity and academic research.
There is a need to understand what motivates people and what roles they play in order to create synergies thatwork amongst all those involved. Moreover, there is a need to create good means of communication, cooperationand coordination amongst all stakeholders from the earliest stages and throughout all phases of the iterative process.
There are many different types of hazards that we face as a society that can affect our heritage, ourcommunities and our livelihoods including earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, drought, famine, disease, landslides, fireand deliberate acts of vandalism, conflict and terrorism. Disasters are often complex and linked to socio-economic
and political considerations with vulnerability to one type of hazard increased due to the occurrence of another,creating domino effects.

1

See the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, particularly from Paragraph 3 to Paragraph 18.

2

Taking account of the above, cultural heritage and disaster risk management organizations should beintegrated at all levels of governance (e.g. sites, cities, national, regional, international) and should include anunderstanding of traditional, indigenous and local knowledge. In this way, communication, coordination andcooperation can be enhanced. Further, cultural heritage and disaster risk management organizations should
develop and implement policies to ensure that they apply a culturally-aware and informed approach to their disasterrisk programmes and activities, applying appropriate technology and knowledge transfer to achieve optimal results.

Recommendations
Using the priority areas indentified in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, themeeting participants make the following recommendations.

Priority 1:
1.1

1.2

Understanding Disaster Risk

In order to better understand disaster risk and its context, multi-disciplinary studies should be carried out on
the following topics:• the positive and negative impacts of cultural beliefs on the attitudes and practices of people in relation todisaster risk;• the positive and negative impacts of the organizational culture of cultural heritage and disaster risk
management organizations on their effectiveness in carrying out their linked mandates;• the evolution of cultures over time, in particular in relation to migration and conflict, and its effect on
people’s vulnerability to disasters;• the usefulness of traditional knowledge systems in understanding disasters;• the contribution of traditional building technologies and vernacular architecture to disaster risk reduction
and sustainability.
Case studies should be developed to make the argument that prevention and mitigation are much more
effective (including cost effective) over response and recovery for cultural heritage after disasters strike.

Priority 2:

Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance to Manage Disaster Risk

At the National and/or Local Levels
2.1 Heritage organizations should learn the terminologies of other sectors related to disaster risk management.
At the same time, heritage organizations must make other sectors aware of our own specific terminology as
it applies to disaster risk management.
2.2 National and local governments should establish focal points for cultural heritage and disaster risk
management to coordinate information and networks relevant to both, and in particular, to be involved in thePost-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA).
2.3 National governments should include cultural heritage issues in their progress reports on the implementationof the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
2.4 National governments should promote professional qualification and certification for all professionals
working in heritage and disaster risk management. Particular attention should be paid to architects andengineers who must certify structures as being safe for habitation and use.
3

2.5

National governments should support national and international networks such as Blue Shield and othernetworking platforms.

At the Global and/or Regional Levels
2.6 National governments and regional and international institutions should strengthen existing regional disasterrisk information centres (e.g. on tsunamis, earthquakes and other types of disasters), and make them part ofthe institutional processes for disaster risk management. These centres should create strong links with
cultural heritage institutions.
2.7 UNESCO and its partners, in cooperation with their Member States, should develop cross-cutting disasterrisk management policies and reporting procedures for its heritage-related conventions, including
standardized PDNA and disaster risk management methodologies.
2.8 International heritage organizations should develop and strengthen relationships with international andregional disaster risk, humanitarian, peace-building and development organizations in order to encourage amore integrated approach to cultural heritage and disaster risk management.
2.9 International heritage organizations should develop and disseminate model legal instruments to encourage astronger link between cultural heritage and the disaster risk management at the national level.

Priority 3:

Investing in Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience

At the National and/or Local Levels
3.1 National and local governments and NGOs should improve social networking as a tool to disseminate
knowledge on cultural heritage and disaster risk management at all levels, particularly for communities.
3.2 National governments should encourage investment through mechanisms such as financial assistance, tax
incentives and loans to promote the protection of cultural heritage within disaster risk management
framework.
3.3 National heritage authorities, assisted by international organizations, should raise awareness in finance andplanning ministries in regard to the positive role that heritage can play within the disaster risk management
framework (e.g. improved GDP, improved livelihoods, reduced need for financial assistance following adisaster event).
3.4 Heritage and disaster risk management organizations should develop pilot projects to test new
methodologies that promote participatory approaches that include cultural heritage within the disaster risk
management framework.
3.5 Cultural institutions, including museums and archives, heritage places and other repositories of heritage
should promote awareness of hazards and disaster risks that can affect people, cultural landscapes orbuildings and facilities to reposit, display or show heritage objects in the areas they serve.
3.6 Educational institutions, and in particular universities and research institutions, should provide capacity
building programmes for disaster risk management at the national and local levels.
At the Global and/or Regional Levels
3.7 ICCROM, UNESCO, and likeminded heritage and disaster risk management organizations at theinternational, regional, and national levels should develop and implement an integrated, international, multipartner capacity building programmes for cultural heritage and disaster risk management that uses
appropriate technologies for learning and exchange.
43.8International and regional organizations should identify funding sources to assist the mobility of relevant
specialists in the cultural heritage and disaster risk management fields in case of emergency, and to provide
seed money for innovative projects that illustrate integrated processes of management.
3.9 International heritage organizations should create stronger links to the UNISDR “Making Cities Resilient:
My City Is Getting Ready!” campaign, and create opportunities for twinning of cities with a special interestin the link between heritage and disaster risk management.
3.10 International heritage organizations should create resource materials, short courses and other outreachactivities for non-heritage stakeholders to ensure more integrated approaches.

Priority 4:

Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to “Build Back Better” inrecovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

At the National and/or Local Levels
4.1 National and local governments and NGOs should empower communities, particularly women andindigenous peoples, by developing methodologies for them to play a significant role in PDNA and recovery.
4.2 School systems should improve programmes in schools to help children become part of the overall disasterrisk management process.
4.3 National and local heritage and disaster risk management organizations should establish and strengthen
integrated networks which include representatives of local communities, cultural heritage professionals,
disaster risk management professionals, first responders, the military and civil defense.
4.4 National and local heritage and disaster risk management organizations should better coordinate withreligious and traditional community leaders.
4.5 National and local governments should ensure that cultural heritage expertise is included in post-disaster
rescue teams.
4.6 National and local cultural institutions should see it as part of their mandate to promote an awareness ofcultural heritage and disaster risk management. In this way, they can become repositories to conserve
memories of previous disasters.
4.7 National and local heritage disaster risk management organizations should establish inventories andinformation systems for cultural heritage properties and cultural institutions, by using a standards-based
system (e.g. open source such as ARCHES), and link them to larger disaster risk management information
systems.
4.8 National and local heritage and development organizations should recognize and promote the importance of
cultural heritage and cultural tourism as catalysts for post-disaster economic recovery.
4.9 National and local heritage organizations should investigate what preparation can be undertaken so thatpreventive archaeology plays a role in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.
At the Global and/or Regional Levels
4.10 International and regional heritage organizations should promote, in the first place, better communicationand integration amongst the various heritage sectors (e.g. movable and immovable, tangible and intangible).
4.11 International heritage organizations, working with disaster risk management organizations, should establish
an international standard to quickly estimate damage and cost of recovery and rehabilitation of heritage.
4.12 International heritage organizations should establish guidelines for national governments to collect data
related to damage/loss for the PDNA process.
54.13 International heritage organizations should work proactively in collaboration with national governments indanger of conflict or disaster to influence policy and doctrine towards better integration of cultural heritage
concerns within the disaster risk management framework.

List of Participants(1) Experts outside Japan (in Alphabetical order)No.
NameAffiliation
ABHAKORN,
M.R.RujayaSEAMEO SPAFA, Thailand■ 1
BARNS, Jeremy
National Museum of the Philippines, Philippines■ 2
BOCCARDI, Giovanni
UNESCO■ 3
BRANTING, Scott
American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), USA■ 4
CANNON, Terry
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK■ 5
CHIEN,Shen-Wen
Central Police University, Taiwan■ 6
CUMMINS, Alissandra
Barbados Museum & Historical Society, Barbados■ 7
CURTIS, Timothy
UNESCO Bangkok■ 8
DE-CARO,Stefano
ICCROM■ 9
DESMARAIS, FranceICOM■ 10
DORJI, Nagtsho
Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, Bhutan■ 11
DOUGLAS,Diane
Climate Change International, USA■ 12
DU, Xiaofan
Fudan University, China■ 13
HEADHAMMAR, Erika
Swedish National Heritage Board, Sweden■ 14
HOLLAND,Paula
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Australia■ 15
JIGYASU, Rohit
Ritsumeikan University, Japan■ 16
KING, Joseph
ICCROM■ 17
LANGENBACH,Randolph
Conservationtech Consulting, USA■ 18
LARI, Yasmeen
Heritage Foundation of Pakistan, Pakistan■ 19
LEE, Chung-Sheng
National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction■ 20
MARRION,Christopher
Marrion Fire & Risk Consulting, USA■ 21
NDORO, Webber
African World Heritage Fund, Zimbabwe■ 22
NG, Henry Tzu
World Monuments Fund, USA■ 23
RIDDETT, RobynICOMOS ICORP■ 24
ROMAO, Xavier
University of Porto, Portugal■ 25
ROSEN, Fredrik
The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Denmark■ 26
STONE, Peter
Newcastle University, UK■ 27
TAKAHASHI, Akatsuki
UNESCO APIA■ 28
TANDON,Aparna
ICCROM■ 29
TURNER, Michael
BEZALEL Academy of Arts and Design Jerusalem, Israel■ 30
UMEZU, Akiko
ICCROM■ 31
VARGAS-NEUMANN,Julio
Catholic University of Peru, Peru
■ 32
WEGENER, Corine
Smithsonian Institution, USA■ 33
WEICHART, Gabriele
University of Vienna, Austria■ 34

6NationalityThailand
PhilippinesItaly
USAUK
TaiwanBarbados
Australia
Italy
CanadaBhutanUSA
China
SwedenAustralia
India
USAUSA
Pakistan
TaiwanUSA
Zimbabwe
USA
Australia
Portugal
Denmark
UK
Japan
India
Israel
Japan
Peru
USA
Austria(2) Experts within Japan (in Alphabetical order)No.
Name
Affiliation
AOYAGI, Masanori
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 1
GOTO, Osamu
Kogakuin University, Japan■ 2
HASEMI, Yuji
Waseda University, Japan■ 3
KIKUCHI, Kensaku
Agency for Cultural Affair, Japan■ 4
KOBAYASHI, Naoko
National Diet Library, Japan■ 5
KODANI, Ryusuke
Tohoku History Museum, Japan■ 6KOSHIHARA, Mikio
The University of Tokyo, Japan■ 7
KOUZUMA,Yosei
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Japan■ 8
KURIHARA, Yuji
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan■ 9
MASUDA, Kanefusa
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan■ 10
MUROSAKI,Yoshiteru
Kansei University, Japan■ 11
NISHIKAWA Eisuke
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 12
OKUBO, Takeyuki
Ritsumeikan University, Japan■ 13
SAITO,Takamasa
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 14
SASAKI, Johei
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan■ 15
SEKIZAWA, Ai
Tokyo University of Science, Japan■ 16
SHIMOTSUMA,Kumiko
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 17
TANAKA, Akira
City of Takayama, Japan■ 18
TATEISHI, Toru
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 19
TOKI,Kenzo
Ritsumeikan University, Japan■ 20
UDAGAWA Shigemasa
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan■ 21(3) Secretariat
No.
Name
IKENO, Hiroyuki■ 1
HAYASHI, Yohei■ 2
OCHIAI, Hiromichi■ 3
MELISSA, Rinne■ 4
SAKAMOTO, Junichi■ 5
FUJIMOTO, Shinya■ 6
SHIMOYAMA, Yasuhiro■ 7
TSUTSUMI, Kyoko■ 8
YAMAUCHI, Namiko■ 9Intergroup CO.
■ 10

Affiliation
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan
Kyoto National Museum, Japan
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan
Tsukuba University

7Nationality
Japan
Japan
Japan
USA
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan