Webinar on Mainstreaming Culture and Heritage into Climate Planning

Speakers: Andrew, Hannah, Dr Cathy Daly, Jacqui Donnelly, Dr Jenny Hay, Olufemi Samson Adetunji, Dr Paloma Guzman

Andrew: Hello and thank you so much, Rachel. Let me pass the baton back to Hannah, though, for some introductory remarks.

Hannah: Thanks, Andrew. So I think a few of you have logged on to this series before. But for those of you that haven't, this is part of a webinar series that Historic England are hosting in collaboration with the Climate Heritage Network as part of the Climate Heritage Network's broader Culture By Climate platform, which is running a whole series of really exciting events and speakers from 12th October to 27th November. That programme event is designed to bring together all those interested in enhancing the capacity of the arts, culture and heritage sectors to help build a climate neutral and resilient world in the time of Covid. You can find more information at a link that I will put up, in a moment, in the chat.

The Climate Heritage Network was founded in 2019 by organisations from around the world committed to enhancing the role of arts, culture and heritage in tackling climate emergency. It is open to all to join and, again, I will add a link for those of you that want to find out a little bit more. I would certainly encourage you to look at it and to join if you if you feel able. In December 2019, the Climate Heritage Network launched its Madrid to Glasgow Arts, Culture and Heritage Climate Action Plan at the U.N. Summit, at the COP in Madrid. And this plan includes eight activities which reflect the different pathways to creating tools and frameworks to help mobilise art, culture and heritage fields for climate action.

It's very much about developing things that we can actually do. The plan is meant to culminate at the next U.N. Climate Summit, which was due to be happening around now, but it's sadly been bumped to Autumn 2021 in Glasgow. So today is the fourth in that series. And as Rachel said, we will be looking at mainstreaming culture and heritage into climate planning. It's also the fifth of a series of Climate Friday webinars that Historic England are kicking off. So do go back and have a look there. All the previous webinars are available on our web page to view, so do go back and have a look if you've missed some of the earlier ones. There have been some really great presentations there. So I will hand back to Andrew now to introduce us to this presentation today on culture, heritage and climate planning. Thanks, Andrew.

Andrew: Great, thank you so much, Hannah, and thank you to Historic England for partnering with the Climate Heritage Network to bring this Climate Heritage Mobilisation webinar to all of you. So, as Hannah said, my name is Andrew Potts and I'm talking to you today from my home in New York in the USA. I'm a bit distracted by the travelling circus, which is my country's current effort to select a leader, so I apologise for that. When I'm not fretting about national politics, my day job is to coordinate climate change and cultural heritage programmes for ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites. ICOMOS, in turn, has the pleasure of being the coordinator of Working Group IV of the Climate Heritage Network, which is responsible for today's programme.

So today's programme looks at mainstreaming culture and heritage into climate planning. So first things first, maybe just a little bit about what we mean by climate planning. As we all know, climate change poses an existential threat to communities and their cultural heritage around the world. So you can well imagine that addressing the causes and impacts of climate change presents an enormous planning challenge. That challenge is manifested in a variety of different types of climate plans: everything from adaptation frameworks and adaptation plans to greenhouse gas reduction plans and other climate mitigation plans; education and training and capacity building plans; territorial planning and climate laws. That diverse array of climate planning can be found depending on the country at any level of government, from local and county to regional and national, and so the Climate Heritage Network has set for itself a goal, in that Madrid-to-Glasgow Action Plan that Hannah mentioned, of better mainstreaming culture and heritage into that array of climate planning.

Now, you may ask: "Why focus on climate planning? If you're a new, scrappy, fledgling network, a bunch of culture do-gooders who want to do more about climate change, but who can only undertake a couple of projects initially - in the case of the network, eight activities - why have a focus on climate planning be one of them?" It's a founding premise of the Climate Heritage Network that arts, culture and heritage can drive transformative climate action and help communities make a just transition to a carbon neutral, climate resilient future. When we see jurisdictions, cities, regions whose climate planning is silent on culture, it raises the inference that those places are not leveraging the full potential of the culture sector to contribute to their climate planning. So they're missing out. Cultural resources, culture and heritage are also at risk from the impacts of climate change.

Again, when we see cities, localities, nations whose climate planning is silent on culture, it suggests that not everything is being done to safeguard cultural resources from the hazards of climate change. And so we want to flip that paradigm. That's the remit of Working Group IV. To tackle that, we developed a project that we call HiCLIP - Heritage in Climate Action Planning. So for the balance of the hour, what we're going to do is introduce you to HiCLIP, talk a little bit about the need for the project, the methods of the project and what we hope to accomplish. Along the way, we also want to interact with you and learn from you about your perceptions, your experience in terms of the role of culture and heritage in climate planning in the places that you care about. So we have a full programme and I'd like to get right to it now by introducing you to our first speaker, Dr Cathy Daly. When we launched the Working Group IV and started to plan HiCLIP, we realised that we needed some baseline information about the topic: how is culture and heritage being treated in climate planning today? Cathy's going to talk to you about an effort ongoing to collect and analyse that information. Cathy is a lecturer in Conservation in the School of History and Heritage at the University of Lincoln, which is a founding member of the Climate Heritage Network. Cathy, the podium is yours.

Cathy: Great, thank you very much, Andrew, and thank you very much to the organisers for inviting me to speak today. So, as Andrew said, I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the HiCLIP questionnaire, which was worked on by ICOMOS and the Climate Heritage Network Working Group and looking at the inclusion of cultural heritage in climate change planning and policy, both adaptation and mitigation, but for today, I'm just going to focus on adaptation. So, as Andrew said, the aim of the HiCLIP project was to understand at a global scale how cultural heritage is being treated in both adaptation and mitigation plans and at different levels, so from the national down to the local level plans. The ultimate aim of this was, firstly, to identify any good examples which we could share in order to develop more of these kinds of plans and also to identify key gaps where we could then focus our energies.

So, step 1 of the HiCLIP project was the questionnaire, and that was aimed at finding plans and policies around the world. That ran over the summer of 2020 and some of you here may have filled it out. In parallel with that, a group of us are also working on an article for the journal 'Antiquity', which will be part of a series of articles that came out of the ICOMOS 'Future of Our Pasts' document. For the journal article we did a literature review - looking at adaptation plans that consider cultural heritage - and most of what's out there published at the moment focuses on Western Europe and North America. So, in the article we're intending on focussing on the results from the questionnaire, but particularly on results for low- and middle-income countries, and we're hoping that those articles will be published early next year.

So the next step will be to take some of the documents that were identified by the questionnaire and do an in-depth coding and analysis and Paloma will talk to you about that at the end of this session and introduce that methodology to you.

We were very lucky to be helped in this work by the ICOMOS secretariat. ICOMOS has national committees across the globe and a number of international scientific committees as well. You can see on this map here the global spread of those. In total, we were able to reach out to 133 respondents. It's worth noting that a lot of those committees have also nominated climate change contact points. These were individuals who are not only heritage experts or professionals, but also have an interest in climate change. Unfortunately, the return wasn't great, so we got 25 returns, but that's only 18 percent, so it's statistically not very significant.

However, it's still a good global spread, and we did get a good amount of information from those 25 returns. We also sent the questionnaire to the members of the Climate Heritage Network and we got some very interesting information back. But here, the global spread wasn't so great - mostly North America and Western Europe. In combining the responses from both ICOMOS and the CHN, you can see here that, for adaptation plans, there were a number of plans at different levels that considered cultural heritage.

However, when we asked the respondents if these plans contained specific targets and goals for cultural heritage, the number dropped significantly. We asked the respondents to name these plans and provide links if they could, and we got a total of 29 different plans in relation to climate change adaptation. These included specific adaptation plans for cultural heritage and more general, national or regional level plans that mentioned cultural heritage down to site level plans, such [indistinct] indigenous adaptation plan.

So we went back to the ICOMOS respondents with one question survey just asked them if they hadn't taken part, why that was, and you can see the results here. About a quarter of them cited that they either had nothing to report or they didn't have enough knowledge or understanding to fill out the survey. About another quarter said they missed or forgot it, which may be partly to do with the fact that we had to run it over summer in the northern hemisphere. And then a large proportion - the big blue section - said that the survey was too time consuming. But, anecdotally, we think that some of that also relates to the lack of knowledge, because what the respondents were kind of saying was they would have had to do research in order to fill out the survey. They didn't have the knowledge they needed at their fingertips.

So, in conclusion then, there are some adaptation plans specific to cultural heritage out there and we got some examples, but it's still rare. Cultural heritage is already being considered in climate plans, but this does not necessarily equate to measurable, achievable targets and goals for cultural heritage - sometimes it's just mentioned in passing. There does seem to be a gap between the level of interest. Through ICOMOS, we contacted these heritage experts who were interested in climate change but still didn't have the information they needed at their fingertips, which suggests perhaps a lack of communication and a missed opportunity here between cultural heritage and climate policy makers.

Cathy: Okay, finally, I'd just like to give special thanks to the ICOMOS secretariat for helping us run the questionnaire; to those who translated it into Spanish and French; and particularly, to all those who responded, so thank you very much and I'll hand back.

Andrew: Great, thank you very much, Cathy. Well, sometimes silence does speak volumes, and as Cathy indicated, the results of this questionnaire went part of the way to confirming a suspicion that we have that in many places culture and heritage are missing from climate planning. That experience is not universal, however. There are places that are bucking the trend or leading a new way. Those places can serve as exemplars, as guides, as better practices, as other cities and regions and nations seek to address the cultural dimensions of climate change in their planning as well.

Andrew: Next, we want to present you two examples of places where culture and heritage are reflected in planning efforts. For our first presenter, we're going to go to Ireland, and it's my pleasure to introduce to you Jacqui Donnelly. Jacqui's a senior architect in Built Heritage Policy for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in Ireland and Jacqui is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Climate Heritage Network.

Andrew: And so, Jacqui, the floor is yours.

Jacqui: Thank you very much, Andrew, and thanks very much to Historic England and the Climate Heritage Network for the opportunity to participate today. So, I wanted to introduce you to our climate plan. It is part -- I'm just going to put it in context of our national climate change adaptation process, because it's somewhat different from the UK situation and others. We have a National Adaptation Framework, which is a statutory framework prepared under our climate action legislation and published in January 2018. It specifies a national strategy for the application of adaptation measures across government and through the local authorities as well. While it outlined the whole government approach to climate adaptation, it also identified 12 key sectors where climate adaptation plans were to be prepared and to a deadline of September 2019. These are the sectors that were identified, and they were identified by themes: natural and cultural capital, which included our plan and also our colleagues in the National Parks and Wildlife Services biodiversity plan. There were plans for critical infrastructure; for water resource and flood risk management; public health; and then each of the lead departments were assigned by sector as to who was to produce the plan for their area.

Jacqui: There were guidelines produced by our Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that there was consistency in the approach and in the layout of the different plans. As well as this, we established a Climate Change Advisory group - and as you can see there, I won't read them all out - but you can see that we included other government departments that were relevant: our Office of Public Works; both our National Monuments sections; our Coastal Erosion section and our Flood Risk Management sections. We had representatives from local authorities, from the Climate Action Regional Offices, which are groups of local authorities. There are four in the country that are charged with rolling it out at a local level. This group and then -- Sorry, obviously NGOs, academic institutions and the like, including ICOMOS Ireland. It's chaired by the chief archaeologist and we meet regularly.

Jacqui: So, this is the front cover of our Climate Change Sectoral Adaptation Plan for Built and Archaeological Heritage. We did it in conjunction with our colleagues in the National Monument Service and ourselves at Built Heritage. We didn't have the resources in-house to produce the Plan, and it was a very tight statutory timescale to reach. So we tendered out the preparation of the Plan and we were very fortunate that the tender was won by a group led by Carrig Conservation International with Cathy Daly as the lead author and working with Peter Cox and Caroline Engell Purcell in Carrig Conservation. So, the plan was carried out in line with the Sectoral Planning guidelines. It contains five goals, 16 objectives and then 48 actions in all. It identifies cross-sectoral implications with the other sectoral plans under the National Adaptation Framework and the co-benefits with those other plans. All of these sectoral adaptation plans are intended to be living documents - they're going to be renewed and reviewed on a regular basis with full-scale updates every three to five years. And then, just very quickly, to have a look so you get an idea of what the contents are, Goal 1 is to improve the understanding of each heritage resource and its vulnerability to climate change impacts. You're looking at a picture of Dunbeg, Co. Kerry, which is a national monument in state ownership, and as you can see on the left-hand side, has been suffering from a lot of attrition due to coastal erosion. You can see the objectives then, listed with the bullet points and then there are about three to four actions associated with each objective. The second objective was to develop and mainstream sustainable policies and plans for climate change adaptation of built & archaeological heritage. So making sure the climate change is incorporated now into our forthcoming National Heritage Plan, our forthcoming National Policy on Architecture and vernacular strategy.

We make sure that our grant schemes all refer to the need for building climate resilience and climate change adaptation into the work that we grant aid. Goal 3 is to do with conserving Ireland's heritage for future generations, increasing the resilience of heritage resources, developing management and conservation approaches, and then finding ways to capture value when loss is inevitable. And surprisingly, this is the one that attracts the most attention, we find. The concept of the inevitable loss of heritage assets really has a strong effect on people's imagination, captures their attention. We discover that when the plans were all published for public consultation, this was the thing that people latched onto: the fact that there may be some monuments that we will lose forever.

The next goal then, is about communication and transfer of knowledge; about creating a vision for the sector and demonstrating leadership; creating guidance and disseminating information; collecting, archiving and sharing data and then extremely importantly, developing training. It really is a significant issue. We must have the necessary skills if we're going to maintain and repair our historic assets. This feeds into just about all the other actions, too. And then finally, Goal 5 is looking at exploiting opportunities for Built & Archaeological Heritage to demonstrate value and to secure resources; to have a better understanding of the historic building stock; how it can be reused and adapted to contribute to sustainable development of sustainable communities and maximising the potential of heritage; to engage with cross-sectoral research and initiatives; public engagement and education in relation to climate change and adaptation. So that's an overview. I'll post some links so that you can actually have a look at the Plan itself and some of the background documents to it as well. So thank you very much. I'll hand back to you, Andrew.

Andrew: Great, great, thank you so much, Jacqui. That was brilliant. As Jacqui said, many National Adaptation Frameworks are organised sectorally. So there are chapters on Transport, Agriculture, Energy and Buildings. It's quite noticeable how few of them have sectoral plans that address culture and heritage. So bravo to Ireland for leading on this innovation. There are other examples in the U.K. I believe Wales also has a sectoral plan. I see in the chat that Therese Sonnhag from the Swedish National Heritage Board is with us and Sweden has done this as well, but far too few examples. So that's something we are looking closely at the Climate Heritage Network. For our second example, we're going to give you a completely different type of Climate Planning exposure. We're going to cross the Atlantic to the United States and I'm going to introduce you to Dr Jenny Hay. Jenny is going to talk about a plan that is not at the national level, but rather at the city level and a plan that's not strictly looking at adaptation, but at climate action more broadly.

Andrew: It's my pleasure to introduce to you Dr Jenny Hay, Special Project Manager for the City of San Antonio: Office of Historic Preservation and another founding member of the Climate Heritage Network.

Andrew: Jenny, how are things in Texas?

Jenny: Oh, we're doing just fine here. It's a foggy morning in San Antonio. It's just 09:00am here, just about 09:30am. So I'm really pleased to join you today. Thank you, Andrew, for including us in this really, I think, very important conversation. As you mentioned, I work with the team here at the Office of Historic Preservation in San Antonio, which is the municipal agency that's charged with protecting our city's cultural heritage. San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the United States, but we have one of the largest local preservation offices in the country with 20 employees and five different divisions. You might notice we are home to five Spanish colonial missions, which were inscribed as a World Heritage Site just five years ago. We're also part of UNESCO's Creative Cities programme, which recognised our intangible culinary heritage as both significant and delicious. So I'm glad to join you today for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because I finally have a reason to stop refreshing my browser to check on new election results.

Jenny: So I want to just share very briefly the work that our office is doing in collaboration with the Office of Sustainability, which is the agency that managed the creation and adoption of San Antonio's first Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. In 2017, our City Council here passed a resolution in support of the Paris Climate Agreement, and that decision really set us on a path forward towards the eventual adoption of that first Climate Action and Adaptation Plan just two years later. I will say, as our mayor, Ron Nirenberg recently told us: "If you can do climate action in San Antonio, you really can do it anywhere." Our understanding at the Preservation Office of how cultural heritage methodologies are really key in promoting a participatory community-based prioritisation and action, as well as culturally appropriate and more inclusive adaptation governance. These ideas really drove our collaboration with our colleagues in the Sustainability Office as we approached drafting this plan.

Jenny: So early on, we made a decision that, rather than attempt to contain cultural heritage into sort of a single section or a single chapter, we would work to incorporate heritage values throughout the plan, in every section, at every opportunity. This resulted in our office being listed as a lead or a partner agency on a dozen different adaptation and mitigation strategies that are defined within the plan. But, broadly, they include priorities to increase infrastructure resilience; to increase resiliency awareness and outreach; to ensure equity and adaptation, and I'll talk a little bit more about that equity piece in just a minute; to reduce building energy consumption; to advance the circular economy; to promote biodiversity and healthy ecosystems and to educate and empower our residents.

But the element of the plan that I'd really like to highlight today is its foregrounding of climate equity. This Climate Equity Framework prioritises the communities that are burdened the most by climate change, those that contribute the least to climate change and those that are most socially vulnerable. In San Antonio's plan, all of our policies and projects, including all of the strategies that were listed on that previous slide, must actively seek, include and prioritise direction from these communities. They must prioritise benefits to these communities, reduce existing burdens and bar additional burdens.

The plan, broadly - it's part of a bigger shift locally towards normalising and institutionalising equity within our city government. As you can see on this slide, we've identified five different themes of climate equity as a sort of framework for this evaluation: access and accessibility, affordability, cultural preservation, health and safety & security. The specific questions that are going to be asked related to cultural preservation are still very much under development and in fact, the community group or Advisory Council has just been put into place by our City Council. So we're really just starting to have these in-depth conversations about what these specific questions are going to look like. You can see that even within these examples, both tangible heritage - those elements of the built environment that are traditionally protected through historic designation - and intangible heritage, which are the non-physical elements like knowledge, traditions, spirituality and events, are both recognised as important to consider as we look at the question of equity related to each of these climate action strategies. Okay, and with that, I will conclude. Thank you to everybody for participating today, I'm really excited to continue this conversation.

Andrew: Great. Thank you so much, Jenny, and I really appreciate you highlighting the Equity dimensions of the San Antonio plan. We often say that one of the benefits of culture-based approaches to climate change is that there are people-centred. But of course, as soon as you get to the people dimension, you necessarily implicate questions of equity and justice, not the least of which being in climate planning: "Whose heritage will be prioritised and whose heritage will be marginalised?" So, it's great to start to see concrete examples of how those issues can be actively addressed in climate planning. So to move on now, one of the objectives of the Climate Heritage Network is to promote solidarity with Climate Heritage colleagues across the planet and also with communities on the front lines of climate change. But even so, we recognise that there has been a gap in our connectivity to colleagues in the global south, for example, in Africa, and we don't want to perpetuate that in Working Group IV. It's my pleasure now to be able to hand the microphone over to our colleague Olufemi Samson Adetunji. Olufemi is talking to us from the University of Newcastle in Australia, where it's quite early so, Olufemi, thank you for joining us. Olufemi is also working with the Nigerian National --

Andrew: So, Olufemi, the floor is yours.

Olufemi: Thank you very much, everyone, and thank you for-- thank you to the organisers for inviting me to this wonderful event. I'll be talking and sharing some ideas about how integration of cultural heritage and climate change has been done across Africa. The outline of my talk today will be like a journey. I will start from the continent of Africa and I will -- I like a few countries that have done some work on integrating culture and heritage into the National Adaptation Plans and I reflect on some of the gaps I've observed.

These are gaps I observe because my doctorate which I'm currently doing in Australia focuses on Nigeria. As it is in Africa, Africa has an Agenda 2063, which is a document that serves as a guide for the Intergovernmental Development of African Countries. It's a document that was approved in 2015 in Addis Ababa. The document emphasises the aspirations of African countries. That includes inclusive growth, sustainable development, and emphasises our strong cultural identity and shared values of Africa at its core.

Across this document is well-integrated heritage and climate change in two of the aspiration, that is Aspiration 1 and 5. Aspiration 1 focuses on how to have a prosperous Africa based on principles of sustainable development and have the courage, strong cultural identity, common heritage and values and heritage. In these two aspirations, we emphasise climate change adaptation because we believe the impact of climate will continue to change and the need for communities across Africa to really develop adaptation strategies, for them to cope with the impacts of the climate, will continue to change. Moving now to the plans of each country. Not up to 50 percent of African countries, they already have National Adaptation Plans. I've only highlighted a few here, just like Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso already has. Nigeria has. But I would like to emphasise two more that I think has really done much work in integrating heritage and cultural ideas. Those are Nigeria and South Africa.

For the focus of this presentation, I'm focusing on that of Nigeria because that is what my research is really focusing on. I have a lot of information about it as well. In the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan for Nigeria that was adopted in 2015, it was developed as a collaboration between government and non-governmental organisations. It highlights seven sectors of the country and reviews how these sectors, will adapt to climate change and its impacts. I would like to point out that this plan, as it is, there's no direct mention of anything cultural in this plan.

To put it simply, the heritage and culture were highlighted in these sectors that I've highlighted here: agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, human settlements and housing. These sectors are piecemeal. They to develop adaptation to different impacts of climate change as it affects communities from southern Nigeria to northern Nigeria. For instance, in southern Nigeria, flooding is predominant, increase in temperature is predominant, while in the northern part of Nigeria throughout increase in temperature is predominant as well. Coming down to Lagos, this is one of the prime states in Nigeria that is really leading the path in developing adaptation strategies, focusing on their state and the adaptations strategy prioritises climate change as it is threatening the heritage and development of communities across the state. And this is undoubted because Lagos is a historical state and the invalued history of the state is a lot, as there are a lot of historical communities across the state. But the Plan also did not mention anything directly, but also qualitatively integrate heritage into different sectors across the state, which is wetland, freshwater, coastal zone, marine, land use, [indistinct] and disaster management. This is a challenge that I've observed - I will stop more on this while I get to the gap - because there's a lack of capacity to really understand the impacts of climate change on heritage sites, on heritage places at site level because of these many, many government employees that are working with the National Commission [indistinct] or that are working on the National Heritage Site, so they don't know how to assess the impact of climate change as it affects the heritage. Also, it's this inadequate political and professional -- the politicians still don't really impart the tenets of addressing climate change. Also, the professional will is very low, because many of the professionals focus more on heritage value [indistinct] the impact of climate change. Also, there are a lot of piecemeal conservation interventions that don't really address this impact of climate change and also silo practices and difficult [indistinct] intergovernmental and interorganisational cooperation. This is a very vital challenge that is facing various organisations and, of course, the national and state government. Organisations at the national level, they find it difficult to collaborate, to cooperate with those at state level and it's really affecting making progress in addressing the impacts of climate change as it affects the Heritage Site of Nigeria. This is where I would like to wrap up. Thank you very much.

Andrew: Thank you so much, Olufemi. I think the Nigerian examples that you gave highlight a point which I noticed Mairi Davies from Historic Environment Scotland was also making in the chat, which is that in addition to sectoral plans about heritage, it's also possible to treat heritage as a crosscutting topic in all the other sections. So Heritage is transversal, and you would expect to hear about heritage and agricultural adaptation plans and then building plans and the like. So, I appreciate you sharing that example and also letting us learn from what's going on in Nigeria.

Andrew: So against that backdrop, you've heard about some of the better practises that are emerging around the world and also some of the challenges, I want to conclude our formal presentation by introducing you more directly to the methodology of our HiCLIP project - Heritage and Climate Planning - that Working Group IV of the Climate Heritage Network is pursuing. To do that, it's my pleasure to introduce you to Dr Paloma Guzman. Paloma is a researcher in the Department for Heritage and Society at NIKU, the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research. Paloma, the floor is yours.

Paloma: Thank you, Andrew. I'm very happy to be with you all today, and just to sum up all the presentations I'm going to be presenting what is a methodology that we are using to assess what is the treatment of the cultural heritage sector in climate planning? We keep in mind that we're trying to analyse different scales at the government sector, which means probably we're going to be looking at national, regional and local plans.

Paloma: Now, what NIKU has been working on is to -- It doesn't have... Ah here it is, sorry.

Paloma: Well, we want to do is to understand the quality of such integration and to provide a systemic perspective. So we want to know which aspects of heritage are integrated. As Andrew said, it can be transversal so which sectors are likely to build synergies with Heritage Management and Conservation and of course, under which social context. Just to remind you that by focusing on governance and planning tools, we are focusing on the context and the political context in which interactions between heritage climate and the reference are being staged. So these tools are where strategies are being defined, where sectors are being prioritised. And then we can see if heritage can be seen as an independent sector, or maybe it's under the wing or under hierarchical-- Or more important for that planning. Not that it's more important, but that maybe it's under another sectorial thing.

So how do we build up an empirical evidence on this inclusion? What we work first is on the design of our research methodologies that combine methodologies for policy analysis so we can build a systemic characterisation and evaluation of the inclusion of culture and heritage. When we have tested this methodology in Norway at a national scale and in the further steps we want users from our working group to test this methodology in other contexts and we're hoping that we can refine this methodology to go into a global application so we can facilitate the examination of conditions and differences of inclusion across government scales and facilitate the monitoring of change in the inclusion of culture and heritage over time. Just quickly, I will mention that this methodology is based on finding references of culture within text documents. So, through our consultation process, we have selected words that are institutionally accepted to define cultural heritage. And we recognise that these will require some sort of... customisation -- no, just a refinement to better fit the local context where we're going to be analysing plans. So we can see, for example, some concepts will be defined in another way within a national context like in Norway.

Paloma: And then we developed a cutting tool for the references that we find across different documents. The first group is how heritage is being framed in two categories and maybe implementation level, and how it is seen as contributing or aligned into other interactions for mitigation and adaptation, which is the political context. Or what is the government treatment, which means where is it included in strategies, actions, monitoring and assessment?

So within these four themes, we can see different ways of analysing that I also have a mix of quantitative results and analyse what the context is. So, for example, our preliminary results in Norway, we can see what are the predominant heritage categories that are being mentioned at national level. What is the implementation level, for example? To what extent is this mentioned into urban context or rural context?

If it's seen as an independent sector or mainstream into another one, which we can see that, in the case of Norway, is mostly mainstreaming to other sectors. And we can see that it's often seen as a key sector. So it is also a bit of a priority area for, in this case, operational level, which means that many actions are mentioned to be targeting cultural heritage in Norway, at least in the national plans. Here, I would like to see that this methodology can let us have a closer look into what are the synergies with heritage, with another sector? For example, here in Norway, we have a list on the left of all the different sectors in which heritage has some sort of synergy. And I present on the right, just zooming in to the agricultural sector, as we have used it before or mentioned before, that we will expect it to be framed to the sector that maybe it is the estimated sector. Here, we can see that it's mainly seen contributing to climate actions, mostly for mitigation, and that the synergies with the sector, which is at the bottom, we can see that heritage is aligned or included in reforestation actions, not nature conservation, forestry policy instruments. The categories that are most likely to be included are cultural landscape, the cultural values, traditional activities - this is particularly related to indigenous people - and other aspects of cultural heritage. So from here, where do we want to go? This project aims to open new perspectives, ongoing policy learning and how to enhance the quality of the policy deliberations.

Paloma: So this is basically related to how can we include the heritage in a more meaningful way and provide recommendation and guidance on how to do this? That will be all for me. Thank you very much. I hope it was clear with all that visualisation with that.

Yeah, no, perfect, thank you, Paloma, for that introduction to the methodology of our HiCLIP project and some of its aims. We ultimately hope to produce a database of interesting and illustrative provisions from plans around the world and create other tools to help colleagues better mainstream cultural heritage into climate planning in the communities they work in. So now we're going to move, for our final minutes together, to the interactive portion of our programme. For starters, we like learning from you. We have two polling questions where we're hoping to learn from you on, all about your experiences on this topic, so if I could ask Rachel at Historic England to pull up the first polling question.

Rachel: There we go, that should be the first poll across for everybody.

Andrew: I know this might -- This might seem like even a silly question, but one thing we found is that a number of heritage professionals, their circumstances, their duties haven't brought them into contact with the climate planning functions in their areas, in their regions. And so they're really having to start from scratch in terms of interfacing with it. So we're curious how many of you have had occasion to become familiar with a climate plan? Could be adaptation, could be mitigation, could be at a city or regional or national level.

Andrew: Okay, thank you, Rachel. And so then the second question is, for those of you that do have familiarity with a climate action plan, of course, the big question: The plan you're familiar with, did it substantively address culture or heritage?

Andrew: If the answer is yes, if you wouldn't mind putting the name of that plan in the chat box, we'd like to collect as many examples as we possibly can for follow up later.

Andrew: I see Hannah's asking me, how do we define 'substantively'? Well, I'll leave that to you, except to say that we do see a number of plans that have just a glancing, superficial mention of culture, but no detail, no actual metrics, no actionable items, just very passing references. And so I guess I wouldn't call that substantive.

Andrew: Okay, interesting. Almost 50/50, so please do, particularly for those of you that said, yes, mention the plan in the chat, and we'll try to follow up on that. If there's a plan that you're familiar with that doesn't address culture and you'd like us to know about that, put that in the chat as well. I think you can continue to answer the poll, but let me bring Hannah back into the conversation. And, Hannah, ask if we have any questions from the floor that we might field in our remaining minutes.

Hannah: Yes, thank you, Andrew, and thank you to all the speakers. That was an absolutely fantastic, rapid tour around the world of climate change adaptation and heritage. And I think it's really heartening to see just how many are including and the appetite for trying to include heritage. A couple of questions that are coming up in the chat. If anyone's got any more, please do post them in there and I will try and pick them up. But someone did ask about the relationship between the work that we're trying to do with cultural heritage and the current Covid pandemic. I don't know whether anyone has any thoughts on this. I think Mairi identified a blog that one of her colleagues had written in the chat. And there was a short piece where I tried to address this, but I don't know whether there's any thoughts from people about how this might be addressed.

Hannah: I don't know. Jacqui, in Ireland - is this something that you've been thinking about? If there's any thoughts from you on that.

Jacqui: Right, well, it certainly derails the implementation of our plan so far. It's made it very difficult. We had an advisory group meeting plans for the third week in March, which had to be cancelled. And it's been very hard to get back to it, but we hope we'll get back on track in 2021. But I think there are a lot of -- I think we've all learnt a lot from the Covid pandemic about how we might address climate change issues. You know, the whole idea as well of crisis fatigue, you know that we're already all getting very sick of being locked down from Covid. And yet, it's only been a few months, whereas with, you know, climate action, things are going to have to change and change over a long period of time. It's going to show people how individual action is required. We can't just rely on the state and on experts to provide the answers and to address the questions. We really will all need to take action ourselves. So I think there are a lot of lessons to be learnt.

Hannah: Thank you. Does anyone else want to come in on that point? Perhaps if you do, if you raise your hand, presenters, and then I can see. Jenny, I see you've got your hand up there.

Jenny: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to point out this is sort of an unexpected impact that we saw here in San Antonio. One of the industries that was, I guess least affected by the pandemic has been the building industry. In fact, our rate of demolitions here locally has gone up about 15 percent - really dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic. What that has done for us actually has been to really drive focus on our work towards implementing a deconstruction policy, which is part of our effort to sort of advance the circular economy here in San Antonio. So it has provided some, I think, renewed local attention on that initiative.

Hannah: That's great, thank you. So there's another couple of points that were coming up, seems to be around how we break through – Olufemi, it came across well in your presentation and a number of the others about the problems with the silo way of thinking. Perhaps the lack of expertise across sectors or understanding of others expertise, and the piecemeal way in which sometimes some of the challenges are addressed. I think that's something that was common to all of the presentations. I don't know if anyone wanted to talk about that. Perhaps, Olufemi, if you were able to take that further.

Olufemi: Yes. Thank you very much. These are the challenges I observe. I would like to talk especially about the silo effects or silo issues. In one of the conversations I had with one of the top government employees, he got me to understand that this is systemic in the way that this system was developed. I mean, the governance system has developed - that each organisation, they have their own target. They have their own aim. By the time they are depending, they are giving their annual review. They won't ask them, "where is the collaboration with the relevant organisation?" "What are the metrics?" "What have you done based on your aim?" And by the time they have tried to collaborate, each one wants to ensure that they achieve their aim, and by that way, there's no collaboration.

Olufemi: Each organisation just goes on their own ways to do their own thing without any meaningful impact. That's just what I am concerned about.

Hannah: Yeah, thank you. I think that's something that quite a few of us can probably relate to. So we we're coming to a close now as we have to finish at four o'clock. I think it probably just remains to thank everyone hugely for attending. The chat has been really lively, as ever. I think I'm starting to look forward to these sessions to see what's going to come up in the audience as much as from the speakers. I also wanted to just draw your attention to next week's presentation as well, which will be looking at carbon and the historic environment. It will be the same time, same place, next week. So I think a lot of us are really looking at how we start to make the case for heritage and fitting our historic environment within some of the challenges around climate mitigation. So next week, that's one of the things that we will be looking to, so I look forward to joining you next week. Andrew, I don't know if you wanted to make some closing remarks just before I hand back to Rachel to do the final close.

Andrew: Well, only maybe to flag -- I appreciate the question about Covid, and I noted in the chat that green recovery is another dimension of climate planning. How do we recover from the pandemic, rebuild our economy, but advance climate action at the same time? A great example of that is the proposed European Green Deal. And the Climate Heritage Network will be sponsoring a programme on November 19th, as part of the Culture by Climate Programme that looks at the cultural heritage dimensions of green deals. And so that might be another session of interest. Hannah, back to you.

Hannah: Thank you. Thanks very much. Rachel, I am going to hand back to you to talk about how we close.

Rachel: Yes, I would just like to say a huge, huge thank you to all of our speakers today for some really fascinating presentations. And, of course, a big thanks to our audience as well for joining us and for all your contributions.