Armed conflict and natural disasters: protecting cultural and natural heritage in times of crisis

How are cultural and natural heritage, including UNESCO Properties, affected in times of crisis? What is the international regulatory framework for the protection of cultural and natural properties threatened by conflict or natural disasters? What are the tools and institutions established to ensure their protection?

What does it mean to protect cultural/natural heritage and UNESCO sites in times of crisis?

In peacetime, cultural and natural properties, whether listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List or not, are exposed to a number of factors that threaten their preservation in the long term. In fact, as part of the 2008 revision of the questionnaire of the Second Periodic Reporting exercise (Section II), the World Heritage Committee identified fourteen factors affecting the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Properties. However, in so-called times of crisis, cultural and natural properties are exposed to particular factors that accelerate their normal pace of degradation and sometimes cause their destruction. These factors can be divided into two categories: threats of natural origins and threats of anthropogenic origins. Threats of natural origins include disasters caused by natural phenomena such as earthquakes, floods, wildfires, high winds, volcanic eruptions, etc. Threats of anthropogenic origins include disasters caused by human action such as terrorist acts, civil unrest, armed conflicts and associated practices like looting, theft, embezzlement, vandalism, collateral or intentional damage, etc.

Evolution and impact of natural and anthropogenic threats on the conservation of World Heritage Properties

With climate change and global warming, the frequency of natural disasters is increasing. In fact, the World Meteorological Organization estimated a five-fold increase in the number of natural disasters over the past fifty years; an increase it has largely explained as being a consequence of climate change (World Meteorological Organization 2021). Thus, the risks of destruction or damage to World Heritage sites caused by natural disasters are likely to increase proportionally as climate change intensifies.
Properties on the UNESCO World Heritage List that have been destroyed or damaged by natural disasters include the palace of the King Houégbadja in the Royal Palaces of Abomey World Heritage property in Benin, the Durbar Squares of Patan, Hanuman Dhoka and Bhaktapur in the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage property in Nepal, the Kamčatka Volcanoes in Russia (1996), the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu in Peru (1983),and many other (Pavlova et al. 2019, p. 5).
In terms of man-made threats, the destruction and damage of culturally significant properties in times of conflict is a recurring practice in history, suggesting that conflicts will continue to pose a threat to the preservation of cultural property. The destruction and damage of cultural properties constitute strategic ways for the aggressor to not only deplete the physical resources of its target but also their moral resources, increasing the likelihood of victory. In fact, the loss of both cultural and natural heritage demeans group spirit and annihilates historical memory, both essential elements in the formation and maintenance of a people’s identity which is critical in times of peace but also, and maybe even more so, in times of war. (Patrizi, Sellitto 2017, pp. 29-34).
Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List that have been destroyed or damaged by human action: the Mosul museum and the tomb of Prophet Younis in the Old City of Mosul site in Iraq (provisional list); the mausoleums and the library of Timbuktu and its manuscripts in the World Heritage property of Timbuktu in Mali (1988); each of the six Syrian UNESCO sites (the Ancient City of Aleppo (1986), the Ancient City of Bosra (1980), the Ancient City of Damascus (1979), the Site of Palmyra (1980), the Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (2011), and Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (2006)); the Buddha of Bamiyan in the Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan (2003); etc.
It is important to point out that the cultural and natural properties listed above represent only a small proportion of the properties destroyed or damaged in times of crisis. The number of properties affected by these disasters is much larger and includes predominantly properties that are not inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. This is the case in Ukraine, where UNESCO has recorded (through June 24, 2022) 152 cases of damage or complete destruction of cultural sites since the beginning of the war, but where none of the seven Ukrainian sites inscribed on the List have been so far damaged. This observation suggests, among other things, that inscription on the World Heritage List may offer, in some circumstances, a greater guarantee of salvation to cultural properties threatened by war.

The Ukrainian War and its threat to Ukraine’s rich cultural heritage

It is difficult to accurately estimate the extent of Ukraine’s cultural loss and damage since Russia’s invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. Indeed, in an article for the French newspaper “Le Monde,” Audrey Azoulay, the Director-General of UNESCO, spoke of the difficulty of accurately gauging war’s impact on a territory’s cultural heritage when conflict is still ongoing there. The wide variations in the estimates formulated by organizations tracking the cultural causalities of the conflict reflect this difficulty.
While UNESCO has identified, through June 24, 152 cases of damaged or destroyed cultural property, the Cultural Heritage Monitoring Laboratory has estimated 191 total cases . Among the cultural properties identified by UNESCO 70 were religious sites, 12 were museums, 30 were historical buildings, 18 were buildings dedicated to cultural activities, 15 were monuments, and 7 were libraries, each playing a role in the cultural, intellectual, social, and spiritual life of Ukraine’s population.
In response to this tragic toll, Azoulay reminded the Russian government of its obligation, under the Hague Convention, to protect Ukraine’s cultural and natural heritage. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister to whom Azoulay’s March letter was addressed, responded by saying that the Russian government was “well aware of its obligations.” It is impossible to predict yet how many more cultural sites and artifacts will be damaged or destroyed during the war, but one thing is already certain: Ukraine’s cultural heritage is one of the many victims of the war (Gedeon 2022).

Creating a culture of protection 

World War II’s aftermath and the rise of a global cultural consciousness: The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Although damage and destruction of cultural properties during armed conflicts are recurring in human history, a global consensus on the need to prevent such only emerges after World War II. Indeed the horror of the conflict, with its extraordinary human and cultural losses, triggered the rise of a global desire to protect the beauty of humanity that had survived the conflict. In the cultural realm, this impulse and newfound consciousness of a global cultural heritage translated into the Hague Convention: an international treaty on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict concluded in the city of The Hague in 1954.

The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict recognizes that cultural properties are victims of armed conflicts, and that the development of new war technologies increases their risks of destruction in times of war. It considers as cultural property: movable and immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of mankind, buildings whose main purpose is to preserve or display movable cultural property, and centers comprising a considerable number of cultural property (so-called “centers containing monuments”). Thus, the Hague Convention does not only protect UNESCO Properties (a typology of cultural heritage formalized only in 1972) but also all cultural properties recognized as such by the Convention, regardless of their World Heritage status.

The Convention recognizes that “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”. This declaration, although it predates the 1972 World Heritage Convention, is based on the same idea that any cultural property is a property of common importance to humanity by virtue of being part of the world cultural heritage. From this recognition of a common heritage comes the recognition of a common responsibility to protect such heritage.
The Convention is particularly innovative in terms of making the signatory parties responsible for the protection of their cultural heritage and the cultural heritage of their war opponent should they invade their territory. Each signatory party of the convention agrees:

• Not to use its cultural property, as well as the property’s protective equipment and immediate surroundings in a manner that could expose it to destruction or deterioration in the event of armed conflict.
• To prohibit, prevent, and put an end to any act of theft, looting, or misappropriation of cultural property in any form and to punish individuals who would be responsible for these.
• To assume responsibility for ensuring the continued safeguarding and preservation of cultural property in the event of occupation where it is the occupying power.
• To ensure the presence in their armed forces of specialized personnel in the protection of cultural property with the task of ensuring respect for cultural property and cooperation with civilian authorities charged with its preservation (Art. 7).
• To achieve a minimum standard of safeguarding and respect for cultural property (Art. 24).

Thus, the convention can be interpreted as a code of conduct applicable in times of war as well as in times of peace, on the territory of the signatory as well as on the territories it occupies, with a view to anticipate and prevent damage or destruction of cultural property in case of armed conflict.

The second crucial aspect of the Convention is the creation of a “special protection” regime. Under this special protection, cultural properties and their means of transportation and shelter (in cases of movable properties) enjoy “immunity” from seizure, capture, and prize (Art. 9 and 14). A cultural property must meet certain standards before being placed on the “International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection” (Art. 8) and benefit from special protection. Once under special protection, the property must bear the Convention’s emblem and be accessible to international inspection (Art. 10 and 19). The convention also provides for the suspension of the immunity in case of violation of the Convention’s commitments by the concerned signatory party and regulates the process’ modalities.

Properties on the International Register of Cultural Properties under Special Protection

The last International Register of Cultural Heritage under Special Protection accessible on the UNESCO website dates from February, 23 2015 and indicates twenty-one registered properties between 1960 and 2015, distributed on five States Parties. This includes the Alt-Aussee refuge in Austria, which was deleted from the register in 2000.
The properties still included in the International Register of Protected Cultural Heritage are listed in Table 1.

Recognition of an international responsibility to protect the World Heritage: the 1972 Paris Convention

Eighteen years after the Hague Convention, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted in Paris, France. The Convention begins with the observation that: “…the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction…”. We note that, in contrast to the Hague Convention, the 1972 Paris Convention recognizes as World Heritage both cultural and natural heritage properties.

Responding to its foundational observation, the Convention establishes national and international standards of protection for World Heritage Properties. It considers as World Heritage those monuments and agglomerations recognized as being of outstanding universal value from a historical, artistic, or scientific point of view and those sites recognized as being of Outstanding Universal Value from a historical and aesthetic, ethnological, or anthropological point of view. Natural monuments, geological and physiographical formations, areas constituting the habitat of endangered animal and plant species, and natural sites or strictly demarcated natural areas of outstanding universal value are also included in the notion of World Heritage. The Paris Convention, unlike the Hague Convention, only protects cultural and natural sites considered to be World Heritage, that is sites that are inscribed on the World Heritage List, a concept the Convention inaugurates in Article 11.

The Convention requires from signatory states:

• The integration of the protection of their cultural and natural heritage into their general planning programs.
• The establishment on their territory of at least one service for the protection, conservation, and enhancement of cultural and natural heritage.
• The development of scientific and technical studies to refine methods of intervention that enable states to manage the threats to their cultural or natural heritage.
• The provision of legal, scientific, technical, administrative, and financial measures appropriate to the identification, protection, conservation, presentation, and rehabilitation of heritage.
• To encourage the establishment or development of national or regional training centers in the field of protection, conservation, and enhancement of cultural and natural heritage and the promotion of scientific research in this field.
  
  Although the convention gives the State Party primary responsibility for the identification, protection, conservation, enhancement, and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage present on its territory, it also recognizes an international responsibility shared by the signatory parties. The recognition of an international responsibility to manage the world’s cultural and natural heritage in a way that ensures its transmission to the next generations stems in part from a potential lack of resources at the national level for the fulfillment of these duties. The convention formally gives such responsibilities to the international community by enunciating States Parties’ duty to “assist in the identification, protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural and natural heritage […] whenever the State on whose territory this heritage is situated so requests,” meaning that if a state asks for outside support to protect its natural or cultural heritage, signatory parties have a responsibility to help provide such support within their means. The recognition of international responsibility is a second particularity of the 1972 Paris Convention that differentiates it from the Hague Convention.
  
  To support the international community’s commitment to protecting the world’s natural and cultural heritage, the Convention created the World Heritage Committee. The Committee is responsible for handling states’ requests for international assistance to help protect their cultural and natural heritage and the provision of such assistance. This assistance is financed by the World Heritage Fund and can only be used for specific purposes defined in Article 22 of the Convention and for properties “threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict; calamities and cataclysms; serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods and tidal waves” (Art. 11).

Adapting to a Changing World: The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention (1999)

The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention was drafted in 1999 in the birthplace of the 1954 Convention to respond to evolving international law and new warfare strategies and technologies. The protocol brings up to date the principles and modalities laid out in the Hague Convention and makes them more operational. It further develops the operational modalities for the management of cultural property in peace and wartime (paying special attention to the management of cultural properties located in occupied territory), clarifies the application procedures of the Convention, and introduces new measures such as the possibility to obtain an exemption from the obligations of the Convention on the basis of “imperative military necessity”. It upholds the Hague Convention’s definition of cultural property (as defined in Article 1) and thus its measures and principles apply to both cultural properties on and off the World Heritage List.

The Second Protocol’s real novelty, however, is its replacement of the special protection regime with the “enhanced protection regime”.

The enhanced protection regime differs from the special protection regime in the characteristics cultural properties must exhibit to be eligible. To be eligible, they must meet the following three conditions:

• To be cultural heritage of the greatest importance to humanity.
• To be protected by adequate domestic, legal, and administrative measures recognizing their exceptional cultural and historical value and ensuring the highest level of protection.
• Not to be used for military purposes or to shield military sites, and a declaration must have been made by the Party which has control over the cultural property, confirming that it will not be used like that.

Cultural property under enhanced protection is placed on the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection and enjoys the same “immunity” put forward in the 1954 Convention. However, the Second Protocol introduces the possibility of losing said immunity in case the cultural property has been made a military target.

Finally, the Second Protocol also creates the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, primarily to handle requests and offers of enhanced protection, requests and offers of international assistance, the use of the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict financing said assistance, and the implementation of the Protocol. 

Cultural Properties under Enhanced Protection

As of today, the International List of Cultural Properties under Enhanced Protection contains sixteen properties under enhanced protection and one property under provisional enhanced protection. The properties are located in ten different countries, Belgium, Cyprus, and Italy having the highest number of properties on the list.
The list of cultural assets is set out in Table 2.

If one follows the evolution of international regulations on the protection of world heritage, one can see that the global approach to the protection of cultural property is continually being refined and updated in response to new threats, technologies, laws, needs, and constraints. From the recognition of the threat posed by armed conflict to the recognition of the threat posed by natural disasters and the broadening of the definition of World Heritage to include natural heritage, international conventions and protocols (most often drafted and adopted within the UNESCO framework) are dedicated to protecting a world heritage defined in increasingly inclusive terms in the face of an ever-growing number of threats, whether or not it is inscribed on the World’s Heritage List.

Realization and implementation of operational structures and tools

To implement the heritage protection standards established in international and UNESCO conventions and protocols, both governmental and nongovernmental structures have been created.

• The World Heritage Committee

At the governmental level and as conceived in the Paris Convention of 1972, the World Heritage Committee is responsible for handling the requests and provision of the international assistance laid out in the Convention. To this end, it is responsible for the preparation and revision of the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. Thus, the Committee is the organizational body that ultimately decides whether a site meets the requirements of Outstanding Universal Value necessary to be inscribed on the World Heritage Tentative List and whether a site can and will be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The List of World Heritage in Danger is a list of Properties, inscribed on the World Heritage List, for which an “ascertained” or “potential” danger has been defined, whose preservation requires important action, and for which assistance from the Committee has been requested, in accordance with the Convention.

• The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Still at a government level, but in this case as provided in the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention (1999), the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict assumes multiple functions. Among them, it is responsible for setting up and revising the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection, overseeing the requests and offers of such protection. It is also responsible for developing guidelines for the implementation of the Protocol and monitoring the implementation.

• The International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS)

Established in 1996 by UNESCO and the four most important NGOs in the field of culture (ICOMOS, ICOM, ICA, and IFLA), the International Committee of the Blue Shield is an international, non-governmental, nonprofit organization equivalent to the International Committee of the Red Cross in the field of cultural heritage protection. As its Charter announces, the organization is more specifically committed to “the protection of the world’s cultural property and is concerned with the protection of cultural and natural heritage, tangible and intangible, in the event of armed conflict, natural- or human-made disaster” (Art.2, 2.1).

Four main objectives arise from this commitment:
– Facilitate international response to threats or emergencies through cooperation between ICBS and national organizations.
– Propose its services in terms of expertise.
– Encourage safeguarding and respect for cultural property and particularly to promote standards for risk preparedness.
– Train experts at a national or regional level to prevent, control, and recover from disasters.

To achieve these goals the Committee focuses on three action areas: raising awareness about damage to cultural heritage; implementing programs for preventing and managing disasters and for rebuilding afterward; and identifying resources for prevention and rapid intervention in emergency situations. Each action conducted by the ICBS must comply with the fundamental principles of the organization that were established in their Founding act drafted in Strasbourg in 2000. These six fundamental principles are joint action, independence, neutrality, professionalism, respect of cultural identity, and work on a non-profit basis.

The International Committee of the Blue Shield is directly mentioned in the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention as an organization with the appropriate expertise to recommend to the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict properties to be placed on the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection. The ICBS is also one of the “eminent professional organizations” that can be invited to the Committee’s meetings along with representatives of ICCROM and ICRC, demonstrating the considerable credibility the ICBS has acquired in the sector of cultural property protection.

In 2016, the ICBS formally merged with the Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS) to become one organization: the Blue Shield. Today, the Blue Shield continues to uphold the core principles and missions of the ICBS.

The protection of cultural property: zoom on Italy

• The Italian Blue Shield (IBS)

The organization Blue Shield International, formerly the International Committee of the Blue Shield, is also active at the national level through the action of its National Committees. To date, there are thirty national committees worldwide and six committees under construction, including the Italian National Committee of the Blue Shield. The history of the Italian Blue Shield (IBS) begins in 2002 when the International Committee approves its establishment. At that time, it was decided that the Italian Blue Shield would be a coordinating structure of nongovernmental organizations, associations, institutions, and cultural bodies of national importance with the general objective of promoting actions to ensure the safeguarding of and respect for the cultural heritage present in the national territory. To do so, it would promote a culture of security and protection of cultural property in case of armed conflict or natural disaster (Carcione 2006).

To this aim, the committee focused on two main areas of activity. The first was information, awareness, and the training of civil society (including the military) regarding the security and protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and natural disasters. The second was the technical training of experts in prevention and security.

Moreover, in 2014, ICOM Italy and ICOMOS Italy, with the support of the Italian National Commission for UNESCO, sign a Memorandum of understanding formally articulating the constituent principles, purpose, activities, and modalities of the Italian National Committee of the Blue Shield.

The Memorandum stipulates that the Italian Blue Shield shall operate according to the principles expressed in the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1972 Paris Convention, and the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention. It specifies the general objective of the Italian Blue Shield, namely that of promoting within “the State and the Italian Government, Public and Private Bodies and Institutions, the ‘culture of security and protection’ of the national cultural and landscape heritage in case of armed conflict, natural disasters or human action, ensuring its transmission to future generations.” The protocol also lists areas of action on which the SBI can focus to reach its general objectives:

– Contribute to the dissemination and effective application of the spirit of the Hague and Paris Conventions, and of national and regional legislation on the protection, conservation, and security of cultural and natural heritage.
– Promote the maintenance of risk management standards among those responsible for cultural and natural heritage at all levels, initiatives aimed at risk prevention, and the dissemination of a prevention-based cultural approach to emergencies.
– Collaborate with and facilitate cooperation among the various agencies and institutions involved both at each territorial level and at the international level. 

However, in 2020, the committee was declared inactive by the International Blue Shield. It is for that reason that today, the Italian National Committee of the Blue Shield does not appear on the list of registered national committees. Yet, two groups recently submitted their application to reestablish the committee, hinting at the idea that Italy may have its own national committee before long.

• Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela del Patrimonio Culturale (Carabinieri TPC)

The Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela del Patrimonio Culturale (Comando Carabinieri for the Protection and Anti-counterfeiting of Cultural Heritage) was founded in 1969. This is the first police force in the world specialized in fightig the illegal trafficking of artworks. This initiative precedes by one year the 1970 Paris Convention, the first convention to combact the illicit trafficking of cultural property, and thus demonstrates Italy’s leadership and innovative approach to the protection of cultural properties.
Today, the Comando, as part of the Ministry of Culture, ensures the security and safeguarding of the national cultural heritage through the prevention and repression of violations of the Italian legislation on the protection of cultural and natural heritage. The Comando is also a leading information and analysis hub, especially through its “Database of illegally removed cultural artifacts.” The database contains information on missing cultural property of both Italian and foreign origin and is the largest of its kind in the world. During its 50 years of activity, the Comando has recovered 803,199 cultural properties and more than 1,136,876 archaeological artifacts, seized 1,363,232 fake works, arrested 1,384 art-related offenders, and referred more than 23,000 subjects to the Judicial Authority (Pierini 2019).

More information about the Carabinieri for the Protection and Anti-counterfeiting of Cultural Heritage can be found in this video on the Comando’s various missions and operations:

• The Blue Helmets of Culture

As part of the “Unite4Heritage” initiative, launched by Irina Bokova (former General Director of UNESCO from 2009 to 2017) in response to the growing demand for concrete actions to safeguard cultural heritage, the Italian government established the Blue Helmets of Culture: a task force made available to UNESCO to ensure the safety of cultural heritage in areas affected by natural and/or anthropogenic emergencies. The team brings together experts from the Ministry of Culture and highly qualified military personnel from the Carabinieri for the Protection and Anti-counterfeiting of Cultural Heritage to

– Safeguard archaeological sites, cultural sites, and cultural property.
– Counteract international trafficking of illegally stolen cultural artifacts.
– Support the Authorities of the requesting foreign countries in putting measures in place to limit the risks that crises or emergency situations could pose to that nation’s cultural heritage.

The task force has alwready acted in multiple emergencies both in Italy and abroad with outstanding results. The Blue Helmets of Culture have contributed, in collaboration with the Comando TPC, to the recovery and safeguarding of more than 29,500 cultural properties at risk of destruction, dispersal, and theft in Central Italy and on the Island of Ischia, both affected by the recent seismic events. They also enabled the training of Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Culture and Antiquities personnel in Iraq and the establishment of a sister task force in Mexico (from the website of Ministero della Cultura 2022).
The creation of this organization, the first of its kind in the world, and its concrete and immediate results show once again the leadership position Italy occupies in the field of cultural heritage protection.

Manon Le Bourgeois