Intangible Cultural Heritage and Resilience
Integrating the safeguarding of ICH into disaster management.
Sanne Hogesteeger (S1040111)
February 2015
Supervisors:
Referencing style: Harvard Wordcount: 24396
3
Table of content
Preface ... 5 Abstract ... 6 List of abbreviations ... 7 Introduction ... 8 1. Theoretical framework ... 101.1 Intangible and tangible cultural heritage ... 10
1.1.1 The current risks for ICH/TCH ... 12
1.2 Disaster ... 12
1.2.1 Man-made and natural disasters ... 14
1.3 Legal framework for safeguarding ICH ... 15
1.3.1 ICH in IHL ... 19
1.3.2 Broader scope of safeguarding ICH ... 19
1.4 Identity ... 20
1.5 Resilience ... 20
1.6 Disaster Management ... 23
1.7 Methodology ... 25
2. ICH’s potential contribution to resilience and disaster management ... 27
2.1 ICH, identity and well-being ... 27
2.2 The potential of ICH ... 27
2.2.1 The role of ICH in the mitigation and preparedness phase ... 27
2.2.2 The role of ICH in the response phase ... 30
2.2.3 The role of ICH in the recovery phase ... 30
2.3 ICH contributing to resilience ... 31
2.4 Using ICH in disaster management ... 34
2.4.1 Current use of ICH in disaster management ... 34
2.4.2 How can disaster management integrate the safeguarding of ICH? ... 35
2.5 ICH’s contribution to individual and community resilience ... 39
2.5.1 Analysing the case studies ... 40
3. Case studies: Theory to Practice ... 41
3.1 Kenya - Mijikenda ... 41
3.1.1 Disaster Risk Assessment and Hazard Analysis ... 42
3.1.2. ICH in Kenya ... 43
3.1.3. The Mijikenda’s ICH ... 44
3.1.4. ICH of the Mijikenda and resilience... 45
3.1.6. The integration of safeguarding ICH ... 46
3.1.7. Conclusion ... 47
3.2 Canada - Siksika ... 49
3.2.1. Disaster Risk Assessment and Hazard Analysis ... 49
3.2.2. ICH and Canada ... 51
3.2.3. The Siksika’s ICH ... 51
3.2.4. The Siksika’s ICH and resilience ... 52
3.2.5. Disaster management in the First Nation Reserves ... 52
3.2.6. The integration of the safeguarding of ICH ... 53
3.2.7. Conclusion ... 54
4. Discussion & Conclusion ... 55
Bibliography ... 57
5
Preface
Knowledge is like a garden: if it is not cultivated, it cannot be harvested. ~ Guinean Proverb Throughout my degree in International Humanitarian Action I have been interested in knowing how we can make sure that the risk of disasters is being reduced. Although I was interested in how to respond to disasters, my main focus became disaster risk reduction practices and building resilience. And even though I might later be working for big international organisations, I like to think about the strengths within the communities and countries at risk. This interest comes from my background in Cultural Anthropology and my fascination for the differences between cultures. When someone does something differently it does not mean it is worse than how you would do it. These interests combined resulted in the topic of the thesis in front of you.
This thesis would not have been possible, without the help of some wonderful people who I would like to thank here. First and foremost my mother and my brother Stijn who without hesitation welcomed me back home after my internship, when the full time thesis writing had to start. They believed in me and supported me. I am also extremely thankful for my friend Sophie and my brother Nout, who were willing to read my whole thesis and give me feedback on both content and language. But most of all I want to thank all the different people that I could talk to about my topic and that gave me new ideas and insights; Marilla, Maya, Lou, Anne Marie, and of course my supervisor Bartjan Pennink. Even though I delayed the submission of this thesis, he has continuously supported me and the topic I wanted to research.
Abstract
Background: Intangible cultural heritage is at risk in most parts of the world, due to many different reasons, one of them being the rising number of disasters. The rising number of disasters also requires people to find ways to be more resilient. We need to cope with more disasters with the same means, so it would be good to look into new options on how to address these challenges. This thesis investigates such a new approach and at the same time adds to the body of literature on the topic of resilience and ICH. So far there is literature that links traditional knowledge and resilience, there was no literature on the bigger scope of ICH and its potential contribution to resilience.
Methods: By making use of existing literature about resilience, ICH, identity and disaster
management, links between concepts were made or clarified. The DROP model was used to see how ICH can contribute to resilience and the disaster management cycle was used to look at different ways for the incorporation of the safeguarding of ICH in disaster management. To put the found links and theories in a practical light, two case studies were found (the Mijikenda in Kenya and the Siksika in Canada) and for one of them an interview was conducted to gather extra information.
Results: Different forms of ICH, like knowledge, skills, oral traditions, communication systems etc. can contribute towards individual as well as community resilience. First of all, because ICH is part of peoples identities and this in turn feeds into people’s well-being and psychological resilience.
Furthermore we have seen that forms of ICH have an effect on the inherent resilience of a community, the starting point of the DROP model, as well as it possibility to feed into preparedness and mitigation efforts. The cases have shown us that there are a lot of different ways to integrate the safeguarding of ICH in disaster management, but that there are also challenges that need to be overcome.
7
List of abbreviations
ACAPS – The Assessment Capacities Project CH – Cultural Heritage
DROP – Disaster Resilience of Place DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction EOP – Emergency Operations Plan EU – European Union
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN) ICH – Intangible Cultural Heritage
ICOMOS – International Council on Monuments and Sites
IFRC – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies IHL – International Humanitarian Law
KRCS – Kenya Red Cross Society LDI – Local Disaster Index
PVI – Prevalent Vulnerability Index TCH – Tangible Cultural Heritage UN – United Nations
UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme
UNISDR – United Nations international Strategy for Disaster Reduction UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation VCA – Vulnerability Capacity Assessment
Introduction
Nowadays we see a slow shift from disaster response towards disaster risk reduction. Together with the increased attention for disaster risk reduction (DRR), the word resilience has come to the forefront and has become one of the main focuses of disaster management interventions. DRR activities should improve the resilience of communities, but a consensus on what is resilience and how to measure it has not yet been found. Some people see resilience as a buzzword and others see it as the component of communities on which to focus our attention (Hussain, 2013; IRINnews, 2012; Mitchel & Harris, 2012). But however you see it, it will not change the fact that people need to find ways to be more resilient in the face of the rising number of hazards, most of them resulting in disasters (man-made and natural). We need to cope with more disasters with the same means, so it would be good to look into new options on how to address these challenges. This thesis investigates such a new approach.
Coppola also identified the fact that we have to deal with more disasters every year as one of the trends that the disaster management sector has to deal with (2007:19). His list of identified trends is (2007:15-19):
1. The overall number of people affected by disasters is rising 2. Overall, disasters are becoming less deadly
3. Overall, disasters are becoming more costly
4. Poor countries are disproportionately affected by disaster consequences 5. The number of disasters is increasing each year
Scientists have discovered that because of the rise in disasters, more and more cultural heritage (CH) is at risk (Chabbi et al., 2014:9; Jigyasu et al., 2013). Not only the tangible objects, but also the intangible elements of CH are getting lost, this is a problem because these elements can be of high value in terms of resilience, as this thesis will show. CH is beneficial for a lot of communities since it gives a feeling of belonging and can save them in times of disaster. The focus will be on these two topics, resilience and ICH. Literature on the topic of ICH is very diverse and much has also been written on the topic of resilience, but the literature that combines both is very limited. To add to the theory on the topic, I have chosen to analyse the existing literature, making links where possible and to add in this way to the body of knowledge. It will be shown how ICH can contribute to resilience. This will be used as an argument to convince the disaster management community to integrate the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in their work and examples on how to do this will be examined and discussed.
9
Following, this explanation, attention will be directed in chapter 2 towards the question: Could the protection of intangible cultural heritage contribute to the resilience of communities in times of disasters? And if so, how? To be able to answer this question, answers to guiding sub questions have been found and the concepts from chapter 1 are linked to one another.
As can be learned from the analysis done in this thesis, the protection of ICH can contribute to the resilience of communities, but for the humanitarian organisations the following questions become relevant: How can we make the protection of intangible cultural heritage part of disaster management? Since in present day disaster management there is little attention for cultural heritage and more specifically for intangible cultural heritage, this thesis will give practical examples on how those involved in disaster management can integrate it within their work. This will be done by making use of two case studies: the Siksika in Canada and the Mijikenda in Kenya.
1. Theoretical framework
In this chapter, the different concepts that will be used in this thesis will be discussed, most importantly: intangible cultural heritage, resilience and disaster management. To be able to later on (Chapter 2) show the role that ICH can play in terms of resilience and within disaster management, the concepts: disasters (man-made and natural) and (cultural) identity will be explained here as well. All of the concepts are then linked to one another and contribute to answering the questions: how ICH can contribute to resilience and how the safeguarding of ICH can be integrated into disaster management. The sub-questions: “what is resilience in relation to disaster studies?”, “how are ICH and TCH linked?”, “what is the legal framework for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage?” and “Who has obligations to do what?” are central to this chapter.
1.1 Intangible and tangible cultural heritage
There are multiple definitions for heritage, and more specifically cultural heritage, and they have been constantly redefined over the years. UNESCO, the UN agency that is responsible for the protection of cultural heritage around the world, defined cultural heritage in 1972 as: “monuments, groups of buildings, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; and sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view” (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972). Later on, the definition started to focus on the intangible parts of cultural heritage as well, and it underlined that cultural heritage is necessary for the maintenance of a certain cultural identity over time, and is important for the survival of a social group (Lixinski, 2013).
However not UNESCO, but ICOMOS designed the first and therefore innovative convention that recognised both tangible and intangible values as the object of protection, namely the Charter for the Protection of Historic Cities (Vecco, 2010: 323). The importance of ICH became clearer, which is also why UNESCO established a new convention. In 2003 UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), which became operational in 2006. The definition for ICH in this convention is as follows:
11
with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003).
More concrete descriptions of what can be seen as ICH is given by the New Delhi UNESCO office. According to them the concept of ICH covers a wide field, of “oral traditions, languages, the process of creation of skills and know-how, performing arts, festive events, rites and social practices, cosmologies, learning systems, and beliefs and practices related to nature” (Unesco.org, n.d.).
As can be seen in this paragraph of the convention, ICH can in some cases be directly linked to tangible cultural heritage, instruments, objects and artefacts. The link between ICH and TCH is clear, but since it is harder to pinpoint what intangible cultural heritage is, there was a need for a separate convention.
Other scientists and institutes have also defined intangible cultural heritage. A term that is used often to described ICH is ‘living heritage’ (GSDRC, 2008:2). Furthermore, Lenzerini (2011:101-102) focuses in his definition on the fact that ICH “includes immaterial elements that are considered by a given community as essential components of its intrinsic identity as well as of its uniqueness and distinctiveness in comparison with all other human groups”. For the purpose of this study a combination of the afore-mentioned definitions is made: ICH are the immaterial elements that communities have recognized as being part of their cultural heritage and therefore part of the intrinsic and cultural identity. These cultural elements are passed on from generation to generation and are constantly recreated; think about elements such as practices, skills, knowledge and languages.
In the case studies that will be examined, the main focus will be on knowledge, language and oral traditions; three different elements of ICH. Firstly, knowledge (in this thesis often referred to as indigenous or traditional knowledge) is considered to be a body of knowledge, which contains methods and practices developed by a group of people over a period of time through accumulation of experiences, society-nature relationships, community practices and institutions, and it has formed and passed down through numerous generations (Mercer et al., 2010:217; UNISDR, 2008:vii). It is part of the community’s way of life and in that way contributes to their survival (UNISDR, 2008:vii). Indigenous knowledge is often more qualitative and geographically specific compared to scientific knowledge, which is often more quantitative and general in nature (Mercer et al., 2010:218). However there are scientists, like Mercer et al. (2010) that promote a more blurred division between the two terms. This is an interesting discussion in itself, but unfortunately there is no space to discuss here.
Finally, according to Degh (1994:31) oral traditions can be defined as the transmissions of cultural material through vocal expressions. This is explained more easily by the Random House Dictionary online (2014): “community's cultural and historical traditions passed down by word of mouth or example from one generation to another without written instruction”. And according to the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary online (2015) there is a focus on the preservation of beliefs, customs and history. This happens through the system of parents telling their children about them and these children telling their children.
1.1.1 The current risks for ICH/TCH
As mentioned in the introduction, cultural heritage is at risk and will only become more at risk from the rising number of disasters. The concept of disaster will be explained below. TCH is at risk during man-made and natural disasters, during which it can be damaged or completely swept away. Above the close link between ICH and TCH was explained, which means that when TCH is at risk, the ICH that is connected to these items, places and buildings is also at risk and vice versa. Next to disasters there are also other reasons why cultural heritage might disappear or become damaged. Examples of this are urbanisation, industrialisation, development pressures, unsustainable tourism, migration and lack of resources (Jigyasu et al., 2013, Alivizatou, 2012). Climate change also poses a threat to both intangible and tangible heritage, since first of all changes in climate affect the materials of which TCH is made. Furthermore, climate change can result in migration, which can mean that not only those who are left behind, but also those who have left experience, a feeling of loss (Kim, 2011:263); a loss of place and belonging, because they might no longer be able to speak their language or perform ceremonies for example.
1.2 Disaster
It is clear that ICH is among others at risk of disaster and at the same time the question is being asked if ICH can contribute to the disaster resilience of a community. The concept ‘disaster’ is therefore important to examine. What makes a hazard a disaster? Different theories and definitions will be discussed and finally a definition that will be used in this thesis will be given. The concept of disaster is a very broad one. People use the word to describe anything from a failed social event to a region wide hurricane (Oliver-Smith, 1999:19). What someone experiences as a disaster can differ. All disasters are characterised by external variability and internal complexity (ibid). An often used definition for disaster comes from the UN: “a serious disruption of the functioning of society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using only its own resources” (UN-Spider.org, 2015).
13
damaging phenomenon within a given time period and area”. The various types of hazards can be divided into five different groups, as can be seen in table 1 on the next page.
Before something can be marked as a disaster it should pass a certain threshold. This threshold has been a subject of many discussions. While there are many similar definitions to be found for what a disaster is, it is interesting to look at this wider discussion about the concept. Discussion have taken place among others in the field of anthropology, different points of view from this field will be highlighted. First of all, according to the anthropologist Torry, theories about disasters are inherently theories about communities (Torry, 1979:43). This is in line with what the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, namely that hazards only become disasters when people’s lives and livelihoods are swept away (citation of Kofi Annan in Birkmann, 2006:9). However, other researchers have focuse mainly on the natural origin of disasters, by stating they are accidents of nature or arising in the order of nature (Torry, 1979:46). This shows that on the one hand people are of the opinion that disasters are accidents of nature regardless of the fact if people are affected, but on the other hand that you can focus more on the aspect of people and how things are only experienced as a disaster when people are affected.
Table 1: Different types of hazards (CBSE, 2006:4-5)
this definition is important, because it shows that social structures and societies can be the causes as well as the victims of disasters. One could say that disasters are as deeply embedded in the social structure and culture of a society as they are in the environment.
The general consensus is that disasters are best viewed as result of the complex interaction between a potentially damaging physical event, a hazard, and the vulnerability of a society, its infrastructure, economy and environment, which are determined by human behaviour. Viewed in this light, natural disasters can and should be understood as “un-natural disasters” (Birkmann, 2006:10).
In the next paragraph the concept of resilience will be explained and this concept is often linked to the concept of vulnerability. A generally accepted idea is that a combination between a hazard and the vulnerability of the community that experiences the hazard, leads to a disaster (Coppola, 2007:24). This is more clearly visualised in figure 1. This approach to the concept will be used in this thesis.
Figure 1: How a hazard becomes a disaster (Logistics Cluster, 2015).
1.2.1 Man-made and natural disasters
As is clear from the discussion above, there is a dichotomy between scholars (/people) that see disasters as either nature or human caused events, and those who see all disasters as non-natural. In the eyes of the last group a hazard only becomes a disaster if people cannot cope with the effects of the hazard, in other words when they are vulnerable to the effects of the hazard. However, in many articles a difference is made between man-made and natural disasters. Therefore, the most accepted difference between the two will be explained.
15
the table presented earlier for hazards. Although different terminology is sometimes used, we could label the accidents (fourth and fifth row of table 1) as man-made disasters.
1.3 Legal framework for safeguarding ICH
Since people have seen that ICH is at risk of different phenomena, there have been ways designed to protect and safeguard this type of CH. However, for the law to be able to protect something, the thing that needs protection needs to be defined and delimited (Lixinski, 2013:13). In the case of tangible cultural heritage this is not too difficult since lists of the cultural objects can be made. However, the protection of ICH this is therefore much more difficult. The definition is fluid, as previously mentioned it is often referred to as “living heritage” so it is much harder to document (Lixinski 2013:16). Despite the challenges, several efforts have been made to create a framework to protect this form of CH.
It has already become clear in the first part of this chapter; UNESCO plays an important role when it comes to the safeguarding of ICH. In 1993 they set up an Intangible Heritage Section, which has designed and introduced different instruments and programmes to gain attention for this type of heritage. Examples of these programmes are the Living Human Treasures (1993), the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity (1997-2005) and, most importantly, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage (2003) (Alivizatou, 2012:11). Countries that ratify the Convention (known as State Parties) take on the responsibilities to safeguard the ICH within their territories (UNESCO, 2011). When looking at the first part of the convention (see the text box below), different other legal documents are mentioned. This first paragraph shows the importance of safeguarding ICH, by naming for one the other documents relevant within international law.
The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization hereinafter referred to as UNESCO, meeting in Paris, from 29 to 17 October 2003, at its 32 session,
Referring to existing international human rights instruments, in particular to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966,
Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)
The following two articles from this declaration are relevant when looking at reasons to safeguard ICH, since they show the rights people have to their own cultures, beliefs and practices.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 27: 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966:
In this Covenant the following article is of direct relevance to the Convention for the safeguarding of ICH, because it not only contains rights, but also obligations for the state parties to this Convenant. Article 15: 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) to take part in cultural life; (b) to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; (c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 2. The steps to be taken by the States parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966
From this Covenant there is one article that has not been covered in the previous covenants or declarations, which is essential when you pay attention to safeguarding ICH.
Article 27: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
The UNESCO Recommendation of the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore of 1989 Partly based on this recommendation, UNESCO decided to adopt the Convention for the safeguarding of ICH in 2003, which is why the introduction of this recommendation will be cited here.
The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, meeting in Paris from 17 October to 16 November 1989 at its twenty-fifth session,
17
Noting its social, economic, cultural and political importance, its role in the history of the people, and its place in contemporary culture, Underlining the specific nature and importance of folklore as an integral part of cultural heritage and living culture, Recognizing the extreme fragility of the traditional forms of folklore, particularly those aspects relating to oral tradition and the risk that they might be lost, Stressing the need in all countries for recognition of the role of folklore and the danger it faces from multiple factors, Judging that the governments should play a decisive role in the safeguarding of folklore and that they should act as quickly as possible, Having decided, at its twenty-fourth session, that the safeguarding of folklore should be the subject of a recommendation to Member States within the meaning of Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution.
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2001
In this declaration, the importance of cultural diversity for humankind is made clear. The following two articles are most relevant when looking at this declaration from the perspective of ICH.
Article 1 – Cultural diversity: the common heritage of humanity .
Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.
Article 3 – Cultural diversity as a factor in development.
Cultural diversity widens the range of options open to everyone; it is one of the roots of development, understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence.
The Istanbul Declaration of 2002 adopted by the Third Round Table of Ministers of Culture
Finally, the Convention for Safeguarding of ICH also mentions this declaration, because there is an important focus on identity and the link with the intangible side of CH.
1) The multiple expressions of intangible cultural heritage constitute some of the fundamental sources of the cultural identity of the peoples and communities as well as a wealth common to the whole of humanity. Deeply rooted in local history and natural environment and embodied, among others, by a great variety of languages that translate as many world visions, they are an essential factor in the preservation of cultural diversity, in line with the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001).
4) The extreme vulnerability of the intangible cultural heritage, which is threatened by disappearance or marginalisation, as a result inter alia of conflicts, intolerance, excessive merchandising, uncontrolled urbanisation or rural decay, requires that governments take resolute action respecting the context in which the intangible cultural heritage is expressed and disseminated.
As seen from the aforementioned cited parts of declarations and conventions, individuals and communities have many different rights, all relating to culture, cultural experience and cultural identity. Therefore, the main reason to safeguard ICH based on these documents, is to ensure that these elements, necessary to actively pursue these rights, are safe and continue to exist.
There are different ways for states to become part of the Safeguarding ICH Convention: they can ratify it, accept it or approve it. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from 1969 all of these actions have the same legal effect; it expresses the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty, which means that they will take on the obligation to safeguard the ICH on their territories (UNESCO, 2011). There are two ways to safeguard ICH, firstly to document the intangible cultural heritage, and secondly to promote the use of the ICH and encourage the transmission from one generation to the next (Portal.unesco.org, 2002). The convention also sets out a framework for states to use for the documentation of ICH. It gives domains and is intended to be inclusive rather than exclusive (UNESCO, 2011).There are two lists made by UNESCO, the longer “Representative List of ICH of Humanity”, which contains cultural practices and expressions that help demonstrate the diversity of this heritage and raise awareness about its importance. The shorter one is the “List of ICH in Need of Urgent Safeguarding” and contains cultural elements of which concerned communities and countries have indicated that they are in urgent need of protection (UNESCO, 2011). I-Treasures, an EU funded project, is also trying to document ICH by using an “innovative methodology for multimodal voice and gesture analysis based on state-of-the-art sensors and data fusion techniques” (Digitalheritage2013.org, 2013). This is mostly relevant when trying to document dance, music and craftsmanship.
However, according to Brown (2005:48) documentation of ICH can only play a small role when it comes to the preservation of culture. Although cultures are living, dynamic systems, and writing them down makes them static, nonetheless he and others are of the opinion that this convention puts ICH on the world’s agenda and in that way helps the safeguarding (Brown, 2005:48; Lixinski, 2013:17).
Besides the obligation of each state to identify the elements of intangible heritage present in their territory, they also need to satisfy the requirement of communities’ involvement when safeguarding ICH, mentioned in article 15 of the convention. UNESCO made guidelines for the State Parties of the Convention, to help them fulfil this requirement. According to them it can be made possible, when the following procedures are in place (UNESCO, 2006):
Proper identification of communities or groups and their representatives;
19
Ensuring that the free, prior and informed consent of the communities or groups is obtained for inventorying;
Ensuring the consent of communities when involving non-community members;
Respecting customary practices regarding access to intangible cultural heritage;
Actively involving local or regional governments;
Adopting and following a code of ethics that should take into account the lessons learnt from good practices worldwide.
Countries can have their own national laws and frameworks that contribute to the safeguarding of ICH as well. They will be discussed when applicable in the case studies in the third chapter.
1.3.1 ICH in IHL
For the purpose of this thesis it is also important to look at IHL, since this is the law that is applicable in international armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 cover the protection of tangible cultural heritage in articles 52 (General protection of civilian objects), article 53 (Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship) and article 55 (Protection of the natural environment). As we will see more clearly in the case studies, the protection of TCH in times of disaster could also protect the ICH of communities, but these laws only apply during international armed conflicts, so disasters as a result of natural hazards are not covered by these laws. Except if the natural disaster happens during the armed conflict1. There are in general no laws to regulate the actions taken by responders of natural disasters, the humanitarian sector has already had different plans to change this, but until this day there is no IHL for natural disasters. However there is International Disaster Response Law, which builds largely on existing customary law (Venturini, 2012).
1.3.2 Broader scope of safeguarding ICH
Not only are there frameworks for the safeguarding of ICH in international law, but also at regional and national level. Institutions, like the EU, and countries themselves have implemented their own initiatives for the safeguarding/protection of ICH, examples are the Performing Arts Act (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 1986) and the Law on Legal Protection of the Azerbaijan Folk Expressions (2003) (Unesco.org, 2015). It can also be the case that the communities that own the ICH have (customary) laws for the protection of their heritage2. This should be kept in mind when trying to safeguard ICH. When applicable these forms of protection will be discussed in the case studies.
1See: http://www.atha.se/content/international-disaster-response-law
2See: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/resources/pdf/overview_customary_law.pdf &
1.4 Identity
In the paragraphs above, the word identity, often linked with “cultural”, as passed by several times. There are different definitions and theories around the concept of identity. First of all, the division of people into groups is part of the identity process. Human beings do this to be able to define who they are and who the people around them are. According to the idea of Tjafel and Turner (1986) an identity is made up out of different components. The features and dimensions one uses to define an identity can refer to interests, possessions, behaviours, age, cultural groups, gender, ethnicity and religion etcetera. All these traits together form the social identity of the individual (Verkuyten, 2005:44). Part of the social identity is the cultural identity of a person. According to Gellner (1987:12), the cultural identity of an individual is an “imagined community”, because people decide that they belong together as a group, based on their common history, norms and values.
People constantly redefine their identity, and questions that are central to this process are “To whom and what do I belong?”, “Where do I feel at home”? and “To what do other people think I belong to?”. All these questions are based on the idea of belonging. Belonging is the emotional need of human beings to fit in (Baumeister & Leary 1995:499). The feeling of belonging in turn contributes to the well-being of people, because social identities (and the groups associated with it) provide people with stability, positive meaning and a sense of worth that have often positive effects on the individuals psychological well-being (Sharma and Sharma, 2010). According to Dodge et al. well-being is: “when individuals have the psychological, social and physical resources they need to meet a particular psychological, social and/or physical challenge” (Dodge et al. 2012:230). This is clearly illustrated in figure 2.
Figure 2: Well-being is a balancing act (Dodge et al., 2012:230).
1.5 Resilience
21
However, there is no consensus on the definition of resilience (Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). Some scientists see resilience either as an outcome, a state, a property, a process, or a combination of the aforementioned (ibid). In the field of hazard studies, the concept is almost always linked to the recovery, reconstruction, renewal and return to normality phase that takes place after the occurrence of a disaster, since the concept of resilience refers to the idea of bouncing back (Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). However, determining whether resilience is an outcome, a property or a process is essential in applying the concept, therefore the different approaches are highlighted here and it is discussed which approach fits best with the purpose of this thesis.
First, there are researchers that consider resilience to be a property, in other words an intrinsic quality of a system at risk to recover from an impact; this ability is present before the moment of the impact (Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012; Walker & Salt, 2006:31-38). A definition could then be as follows: “The ability of a community or society exposed to hazards, to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions” (UNISDR, 2009:24). UNISDR also explains that according to them “the resilience of a community in respect to potential hazard events is determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and is capable of organizing itself both prior to and during times of need” (ibid).
When describing resilience in this way, the focus is on the system and not on the result, it is emphasising the abilities and capacities of a community. Taking away the direct link to communities and hazards, the definition could be: Resilience refers to the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance while still retaining its basic functions and structure (Wiegant, 2011:14; Walker & Salt 2006:33). The understanding of the concept ‘resilience’, which is the most common one used in the field of humanitarian studies, is that resilience pre-exists the impact, it is a potential, revealed through the impact (Reghezza-Zitt et al., 2012). Buch-Hansen (2013:5) even makes a difference between the pre-existing buffer capacity and the ability to recover from shocks.
In the field of psychology, resilience has been defined in different ways depending on the context, but most recent studies refer to resilience as a process; an ongoing process of “continual positive adaptive changes to adversity” (Martin-Breen and Anderies, 2011:45). This definition recognizes that previous adaptations are still of benefit in the future. This approach looks at the individual, hence we are looking at individual or psychological resilience.
Finally, resilience can be seen as an outcome, in this case it is often seen as an outcome of an individual process. The person did not only cope with the adversity, but also gained from the experience (Hill et al., 2007:3). Thus, an individual rebounds and comes out of the cycle strengthened and more resourceful.
using its own resources (Paton & Johnston, 2001:273; Berkes & Ross, 2013:6). This requires that attention be directed towards safeguarding the built environment and ensuring economic, business and administrative continuity (which includes emergency management and social structures) (Paton & Johnston, 2001:274). It also involves ensuring that community members have the resources, capacities and capabilities necessary to utilise these physical and economic resources in a manner that minimises disruption and facilitates growth (Paton
& Johnston, 2001:273). Community resilience can then be seen as a function of strengths or characteristics that lead to agency and self-organisation (Berkes & Ross, 2013:14; figure 3). In this figure, we can see examples of ICH, namely: knowledge, skills and learning, people-place relationships, values and beliefs and social networks.
Figure 3: Community Resilience; a function of strengths or characteristics (Berkes & Ross, 2013:14).
1.5.1 Vulnerability
Resilience is seen by some as the antonym to vulnerability (Buch-Hansen, 2013:5; Coppola, 2007:25). But even though both concepts are concerned with the way individuals and communities can cope in adverse circumstances, they are not mutually exclusive (Scharffscher, 2011:65). Both vulnerability and resilience are strongly influenced by inequalities in terms of socioeconomic, demographic and health-related differences. Limited access to health care, livelihoods, education and other factors are examples of causes of vulnerability (Lewis, 2013:308). In the context of disasters, vulnerability is often understood as “exposure to risk and an inability to avoid or absorb potential harm” (Pelling, 2003:5). The exposure is in this respect the “external” side of vulnerability and the way a person or system can cope the “internal” side of the concept (ibid.). A system could be highly vulnerable, but at the same time have great resilience, when it is able to recover from the shock quickly (Sudmeier-Rieux, 2014:71; Reghazza-Zitt et al., 2012).
23
1.6 Disaster Management
The international community deals with disasters, vulnerabilities and (increasing) resilience in many different ways, this mainly happens within the disaster management sector. According to the IFRC, disaster management can be defined as “the organization and management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and recovery in order to lessen the impact of disasters” (ifrc.orgc,2014). Other definitions have the same scope, but they focus on the different timeframes in which actions can be taken before, during and after disasters (Othman & Beydoun, 2013:225). They emphasise that the first people normally to respond to disasters are the communities themselves, who start the rescue and relief operations. This IFRC definition is visualised in the figure 4 (ifrc.orgc,2014).
Figure 4: Disaster management according to the IFRC (ifrc.orgc 2014).
The goals of disaster management are 1) to reduce or avoid the potential losses from hazards, 2) to assure prompt and appropriate assistance to victims of disaster, and 3) to achieve rapid and effective recovery (Warfield, 2004). Making communities and individuals more resilient can be seen as a part of goal one and three. Disaster management must be effective to reach these goals and contribute to resilience. When communities are more
resilient, this will also contribute to the general development of the community. The link between disaster management and development is clarified in figure 5.
There are different models and mechanisms developed to approach the concept of disaster management. One of them is the disaster management cycle, which identifies the different phases of a disaster and what action disaster management takes in these different phases. The cycle (figure 6) is a combination between the IFRC definition and the different timeframes, with the mitigation phase added.
Disaster management can be divided into four components according to this cycle: mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that all of the phases and factors mentioned are intermixed and are performed to some extent before, during and after disasters. For example, the response to a disaster can already start before a disaster happens or the recovery phase of one disaster can lead into another disaster. In the next chapter we will answer the question how ICH can be relevant and how it can contribute to resilience in the different phases
of this cycle. This will be done by making use of a wide variety of examples.
Moreover, disaster management is characterised by the many decision-making activities that are carried out by the numerous amount of actors (Othman & Bedyoun, 2013:219). During disasters there are many different people and institutions involved, all should be taken into account when trying to change people’s way of thinking and acting within the disaster management sector. Coppola (2007:9) identified the following groups and institutions:
- Victims
- Local first responders
- The governments of the affected countries
- Governments of other countries - International organizations - International financial institutions
- Regional organisations and associations
- Non-profit organisations
- Private organizations – business and industry
- Local and regional donors
1.6.1 Disaster Risk Reduction – Management
The aim of this thesis is to study different approaches to integrating the safeguarding of ICH into disaster management in order to contribute to (community) resilience. As we will see, many examples used in this thesis come from the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR). DRR is a concept that is gaining ground and can be seen as part of disaster management, which is why the concept is highlighted here. It is part of both disaster management and development practices, since it contains preparedness, mitigation and
25
framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development” (UNISDR, 2004:17).
To guide disaster risk reduction efforts worldwide, the Hyogo Framework of Action was adopted in 2005 by 168 governments; the document covers 2005 till 2015. It was created at the World Conference for Disaster Reduction. Central to the Conference was the promotion of a strategic and systematic approach to reduce vulnerabilities to and risks of hazards, by building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters (UNISDR, 2005:1). They have also indicated that attention should be given toencouraging the use of traditional knowledge.
1.7 Methodology
As mentioned in the introduction much is written about ICH and about resilience, but literature that combines the two is limited. Therefore I chose to analyse the existing literature, make links where possible and add in this way to the body of knowledge on this topic. The literature that was found on the topic of resilience was divided in different groups, some of them on theories, some of them on case studies and then a division into psychological resilience and community/local resilience was made. It became clear that different disciplines have different perspectives on the topic. This is what has been shown in the first part of this thesis and it answered the first sub-question: “what is resilience in relation to disaster studies?”. The other questions that have already been answered are: “how are ICH and TCH linked?”, What is the legal framework for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage?” and “Who has obligations to do what?”.
Answers to the other sub-questions will be found by investigating the literature and research reports from IO’s and NGO’s. Different theories and findings from existing literature will be connected to one another to be able to answer the main research questions. The following questions will be answered in part 2 of this thesis:
Can ICH contribute to community and individual resilience?
Can ICH contribute to the effectiveness of disaster management?
Has ICH already been used in disaster management initiatives?
How can the safeguarding on ICH be integrated into the disaster management process?
became clear in the first part of this thesis it is difficult to write down ICH, since everything that can be seen as ICH is constantly changing.
27
2. ICH’s potential contribution to resilience and disaster management
The links between the concepts of the previous chapter will show how intangible cultural heritage can be of importance when thinking about improving and maintaining the resilience of communities. Since we also want to see how the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage could be integrated into disaster management, it will be investigated how ICH can be relevant for communities in relation to the risk of disasters. The answers that were found, will back the argument for safeguarding ICH as part of disaster management and will give ideas on how to put it into practice.2.1 ICH, identity and well-being
In the paragraph about the protection of ICH in law, it became clear that the most often given reason to protect heritage is the preservation of cultural identity. This is not only the case when we talk about intangible cultural heritage, but according to Grenville (2007:456) it is also evident that the built environment, the TCH, plays a significant role in the formation of personal identities. Cultural identity is a part of peoples social identity and is often linked to the idea of belonging to cultural groups. The feeling of belonging contributes to the psychological well-being of individuals as well as groups (Sharma & Sharma, 2010). This is stressed as followed by Jigyasu et al.: “Cherished cultural heritage sites and of the ensemble of intangible cultural expressions, knowledge and skills that, collectively, define a community, can be considered in itself a contribution to human wellbeing” (2013:14). However, while identities can contribute to someone’s well-being, it can at the same time affects a person’s vulnerability. The fact that we live in a certain area, our age, gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and possible disabilities all affect our potential exposure to harm (Scharffscher, 2011:65).
2.2 The potential of ICH
By making use of a great variety of examples we will look at different ways that ICH can be valuable in the different phases of the disaster management cycle, while at the same time determining if it contributes to resilience and the goals of disaster management.
2.2.1 The role of ICH in the mitigation and preparedness phase
The goals of disaster management in this phase of the disaster management cycle are: to reduce future impacts of hazards, to prepare for potential disasters and warn people about disasters and their possible impacts (Coppola, 2007:176,209). This paragraph will look at how ICH can contribute to these goals.
methods (O'Sullivan et al., 2012:2281). An example of this comes from the Solomon Islands, where the local communication system, running men, took over when a warning for a coming cyclone was given on Radio Australia (Mercer et al., 2009:6). These systems of communication are therefore important to preserve if other means of communication are not able to reach those that need to be reached.
Not only local ways of communication can be relevant for spreading early warnings, but communities might be able to give their own early warning, because of their historical knowledge. They know their own environment best and will notice differences most likely earlier than others. The following examples illustrate this clearly, first, the people living close to the Mayon volcano in the Philippines look at their totems to see if the wind is carrying ashes from the volcano (UNISDR, 2008:56). Another example comes from Swaziland, where communities look at the height of the nests of the emahlokohloko bird in the trees growing alongside the river to be able to predict floods (UNEP, 2007). This knowledge cannot only be valuable for giving out warnings, but it can also be used to make mitigation and preparedness plans more accurate. Making plans is most of all key to the preparedness phase (Coppola, 2007:210). Local knowledge about the environment and its history can help to map the potential risks for the area. This could be of help for responders outside of the community. By making use of this knowledge a quick overview of the impact is possible and better (disaster response/risk reduction) plans can be made (Peters-Guarin, McCall & van Westen, 2012:3).
When thinking about the preparedness and mitigation phases we can also think about more long term planning than what has been discussed so far. Climate Change poses a real risk to communities worldwide. ICH can also be of value for communities in this case, since scientific knowledge is often not sufficient to successfully adapt. Knowledge about the local ecosystems and social conditions of the place is essential (Lebel, 2012:1058). Also the way climate change is perceived is based on historical knowledge, information which is important for generations to come (Lebel, 2012:1059-61; Bone et al., 2011:740). They will know what the climate was like in the past and how it has changed over time, they might even make use of agricultural practices that are relevant when looking at the specific risks climate change poses on this community (Munro, 2014). However, since new technologies are introduced more and more, the distance between communities and their environment increases. For example municipal water systems, while often improving the health of communities, it can decrease the communities direct connection with their environment (Bone et al., 2011:734). This process is called: ‘technology-induced environmental distancing’ (ibid). If communities go through this process, it will make them less able to cope with the effects of climate change.
So far local knowledge and communication mechanisms have been discussed, subsequently we will look at examples of how stories and songs can help communities to be prepared for disasters. Great cases come from the tsunami in 2004, first the story of the Moken community:
29
of weather and it was considered a very unusual phenomenon. For several Moken elderly, it signalled the coming of “seven rollers”, a legend that has passed down for generations. The whole community ran up to the hill behind the village very quickly, and all survived the tsunami disaster, though the entire village was swept away along with a few boats” (UNISDR, 2008:73).
The people of Simeulue have similar stories when it comes to surviving the tsunami. They have a word for the phenomenon, namely: Smong, and this means tidal wave or tsunami (Syafwina, 2014:574). The meaning of the word and the stories are transferred from generation to generation through a lullaby called buai-buai (a traditional song), poem of Nandong, and daily conversations in the family or community, also known as oral traditions (ibid). These examples clearly show
Next, we will look at how ICH can contribute to securing primary human needs, like shelter, food and livelihoods. These are examples of structural and non-structural types of mitigation that can reduce the negative effects of a hazard if it were to occur (Coppola, 2007:176, 178).
For the communities it is key to focus in this phase on having good shelter, that can withstand natural forces that are a potential threat to the community. Making buildings disaster proof therefore is very important. Depending on the type of hazards the community might encounter, there are different building techniques to make the building better able to withstand a shock, such as a flood or a hurricane. In these terms traditional knowledge about building techniques and materials can be of great importance for the communities at risk. For example in the Kashmir region in India, people build houses according to the Taq system, a building technique that results in earthquake safe houses and buildings (UNISDR, 2008:6).
Another primary need of human kind is food and there are many indigenous ways for the preservation of food, which could help to prepare for disasters as well as keeping the population healthy and strong to be better prepared for any misfortune (UNEP, 2013). When they have their own ways of preserving food, these communities will be able to foresee in their own needs and will most likely have access to food for a longer period of time. This last thing might become relevant, when they have been cut off from other resources for their food requests.
2.2.2 The role of ICH in the response phase
This sub-paragraph will look at how ICH can help the communities to know what to do in times of a disaster and how it can help them cope, both psychically and psychologically, with the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
To know what one needs to do when a disaster strikes, knowledge is necessary, not just for the people that might get hit, but also for the responders. Knowledge about how to identify a hazard, but also knowledge on how to act to stay as safe as possible. As mentioned above, the knowledge present within communities is very valuable in the preparedness phase, but this is also the case for the response phase. For example, the communities that survived the tsunami, not only had the knowledge beforehand to know that a tsunami was coming, so that they were aware of the danger ahead, but also knew what to do, namely to run and get to higher ground. The same applies for the food preservation example, those communities that have traditional ways of preserving food and preparing food, can really benefit from this knowledge in the direct aftermath of a disaster.
Not only the physical coping with disaster is of high importance, but psychologically coping is as well, since good health covers both psychical and mental health. This part relates directly back to the link that has been made earlier between, ICH, identity and well-being. Well-being is related to the idea of psychologically coping. Once a disaster has occurred, communities have to try to find culturally acceptable explanations to regain emotional stability within the community (Cashman & Cronin, 2008). These explanations can be supernatural, scientific or religious and they will help people to make sense of what has happened (Cashman & Cronin, 2008:407). An example of this is the 1943–1952 eruption of Parícutin volcano in Mexico, which has been explained as follows: before the eruption of the volcano a land dispute had taken place which resulted in a destroyed cross. This in turn angered the Christian or pagan god and it was believed that one of them had caused the volcano to erupt (Cashman & Cronin, 2008:409). When explanations are not available it hinders the community to recover from the event (Cashman & Cronin, 2008). In other words they are not able to psychologically cope with the event.
2.2.3 The role of ICH in the recovery phase
31
external actors, this is positive, since the dependence on external actors by beneficiaries is often seen as a problem.
Moreover, disasters directly affect the social structure of communities. People loose social relations, neighbourhoods and jobs. Hirshleifer (1956) explains that people have a need to be part of an organized society, so when old structures are broken, people will instantly make new ones. ICH could promote this process of making new structures or repairing the old ones as far as possible. Communities thus serve as support structures. Within some communities official traditional mechanisms for social support/security exist. For example, the Ivatans (Phillipines), have successfully survived through many disasters (typhoons), because they have created labour cooperatives and a community self-help cooperative called yaru (UNISDR, 2008:62). Within this cooperation, it is agreed that every household will sent at least one able-bodied representative to do community service in the yaru, often proven important in times of disasters (ibid).
Furthermore, in paragraph 2.1 it is shown how the sharing of ICH and cultural sites can give a feeling of connectedness with the community. By using the ICH that possibly not has been used in the survival stage, the community can get together and the social structure can be restored to its original state. ICH can in this case be seen as a tool to give psychological support to those that have experienced the disaster, by Jigyasu et al. (2013:21-22) explained as followed: “The symbolism inherent in heritage is also a powerful means to help victims recover from the psychological impact of disasters”. After the occurrence of a disaster people often search for identity, to be able to hold on to the feeling of belonging. They can find that within their community, by the shared (oral) traditions, stories, beliefs, languages and common understandings. An example given by GSDRC (2008:2) comes from South East Asia where people turned to traditional song, dance and puppet performances, which provided them with a link to the past, each other and the community. This has helped them in the healing process after the tsunami of 2004. This links to the idea of ICH that contributes to identity, which in turns results in the (psychological) well-being of people.
2.3 ICH contributing to resilience
In the previous paragraph it was investigated how ICH can be beneficial to communities with respect to disasters. However, the question remains whether this also means that this ICH is improving their resilience. Or if it contributes to the goals of disaster management: to reduce or avoid losses, assure prompt assistance to those hit and achieve rapid and effective recovery. When it does, it could give disaster managers a reason to make it part of their disaster management plans.
ICH contributes to individual or psychological resilience. We have seen that ICH can contribute to psychological resilience, since ICH gives a feeling of belonging, provides for identities and therefor improves the psychological well-being of people. This makes them better able to cope with challenges, therefore resilient. However, most discussions about measuring resilience are concerned with community resilience. The model presented by Berkes and Ross3 shows that a function of elements can contribute to community resilience. However, this model does not provide a measurement which is desirable when answering the question: if ICH contributes to community resilience.
An example of a tool that is designed to measure resilience is the prevalent vulnerability index (PVI), which represents prevailing conditions of national level human vulnerability and one of its indicators is “lack of resilience” (Birkmann, 2006:32; Cardona & Carreño, 2011:10). This indicator (Cardona & Carreño 2011:11) is composed of the following components:
Human Development Index, HDI [Inv]
Gender-related Development Index, GDI [Inv]
Social expenditures on pensions, health and education as a percent of GDP [Inv]
Governance Index (Kaufmann) [Inv]
Infrastructure and housing insurance as a percent of GDP [Inv]
Television sets per 1000 people [Inv]
Hospital beds per 1000 people [Inv]
Environmental Sustainability Index, ESI [Inv]
A problem with measuring resilience this way is that it would only inform us about the resilience of a country and not more specifically about household or community resilience which is the more relevant scale when talking about ICH. Tools have been developed to look at resilience at a lower level, for example the tool made by the FAO for measuring resilience to food insecurity at the household level (FAO, 2010). However, this tool is only relevant when looking at food security. Therefore a more general model or tool would be useful, when trying to assess community resilience. Cutter et al. (2008) attempted to develop a model that would meet these criteria. This approach including the whole disaster cycle, called the complex system approach to resilience (Gall, 2013:22). Cutter et al. (2008:602) developed the disaster resilience of place (DROP) model (figure 7), which is designed to improve assessments of disaster resilience at the local level.
33
intensity, magnitude, and rate of onset, which vary depending on the type of hazard and the location. The immediate effects are then influenced by the presence or absence of the communities mitigating actions and coping responses. This is represented in the model with a plus (enlarged effects) or minus (weakened effects). After these coping responses are implemented, the real impact of the hazard or disaster can be observed.
Figure 7: DROP model (Cutter et al., 2008:602)
The total disaster impact is the sum of the antecedent conditions, event characteristics, and coping responses of the community. The absorptive capacity of the community then determines the overall local impact. If the capacity is not exceeded, this will lead to a high degree of recovery. When it does exceed the capacity the event is either of such a magnitude that the community cannot cope, or the existing coping responses are insufficient for the type of disaster they have to endure. When either one occurs, the community most likely will exercise its adaptive resilience, which means that they will improvise and learn from what happened. When improvisation and learning takes place, all actions will feed back into the inherent resilience of the community in the end, as illustrated by the feedback loops.
This model does not give a comparable measurement, but is does help to provide an insight into questions such as: will the planned intervention contribute to the resilience of the community. Since the question: “Can the safeguarding of ICH contribute to resilience” is key for answering the research question, it is important to look at the presented ICH and answer the following questions:
- Does it affect the inherent vulnerability of the community? - Does it affect the inherent resilience of the community? - Does it contribute to individual resilience?
- Does it affect the coping responses? (relevant in the recovery and response phase) - Does it contribute to preparedness or mitigation efforts of the community?
contribute to community resilience, as well as individual resilience. This model will be used to analyse the cases in chapter 3.
2.4 Using ICH in disaster management
The possible contribution of ICH to resilience (when the answers of one or more of the above mentioned questions is yes) is a good reason for integrating the safeguarind of ICH into disaster management.. Another argument is made by the Australian Red Cross, which claims that organisations (governments, NGO’s and IO’s) will gain more trust and respect from the community when they make use and respect the ICH of the community (Australian Red Cross, 2008:5). Trust is needed to have effective disaster management. The final reason is of course that by paying attention to it in disaster management, the changes of it getting lost in times of disasters are decreasing. These arguments can be used to convince disaster managers to put the safeguarding of ICH into practice, but how it should work practically will be discussed here. First attention will be paid to what has been done so far, followed by recommendations on how to integrate the safeguarding of ICH into disaster management practices.
It is good to remember that not only governments, (international) organisations and the private sector might not see the importance of safeguarding ICH, but that local communities might also not see the importance yet. They might consider their ICH as backward and an obstacle on their way to modernisation and wealth (UNESCO, n.d.:4). It is obvious that you cannot force them to do something they do not want to do, but showing them the potential benefits of their ICH could be a good means to convince them to change their beliefs with respect to their ICH.
2.4.1 Current use of ICH in disaster management
As mentioned in the introduction, attention for (community) resilience in disaster management field is increasing and often discussed in the context of disaster risk reduction. It has been investigated if there are already examples of initiatives that used ICH and what kind of interventions that were.
To enhance disaster resilience, cooperation is needed between all actors involved in disaster management, individuals, families, communities, the private sector, the government, the NGO’s and international organisations (Cutter, 2014:76). According to her these institutions all share the responsibility to improve resilience: it has become an economic necessity as well as a moral imperative to do so (Cutter, 2014:77). More and more organisations try to focus on disaster risk reduction instead of the short term disaster response, but a real shift has not taken place yet, since funding is more difficult to find for these initiatives4. Since it is harder to show proof that investments in DRR have led to visible results.
