Resilience Within the Rubble

A1. The DoA’s Conservation Guidelines (CG2015) should be fully implemented at protected monuments zones and heritage sites in general. Each intervention should systematically pass through the recommended Preparation Phase (documentation, assessment, research, history of previous interventions and salvaged materials), Design Phase (structural, conservation, material and human resource management) and Implementation Phase (monitoring, intangible and outcome audit) as mapped in the DoA’s Rehabilitation Procedure and NRA’s Post-Disaster Recovery Framework (Culture Sector).

A2. Many of the structures that have collapsed or are badly damaged will require major interventions that in many cases will be intrusive. This circumstance can be seen as an opportunity to carry out appropriate research and documentation of cultural history, including rescue archaeology and the investigation of multi-hazard seismic safety, on the surrounding site, the foundations and the various components of the structure (CG2015).

A3. Foundations shall be retained as far as possible and shall only be strengthened or replaced if there is valid justification and only following rescue excavations and the investigation of multi-hazard seismic safety (CG2015). This justification should be technically and scientifically evidenced and approved by an expert panel.

A4. The parts of the critically damaged monuments that need to be demolished shall be documented in detail beforehand and subject to rescue archaeology with its architectural information and value and multi-hazard seismic safety investigations in advance of reconstruction (CG2015).

A5. Multidisciplinary teams of archaeologists, engineers, architects, environmental scientists, cultural historians and conservators, should undertake a sample of evaluations of collapsed and damaged monuments to identify the causes of their failure. The sensibilities and beliefs of the related communities shall be taken into account.

A6. Monuments shall retain their original structural system, which shall only be improved if there is valid and scientifically evidenced justification. Should any modern materials and techniques be introduced, these shall not be intrusive and shall be reversible considering their performance over time (CG2015). There is a need to evaluate the seismic safety of hybrid interventions without compromising authenticity.

A7.  Appropriate research, including rescue archaeology and investigations of seismic safety, shall be carried out to improve the knowledge on the historic structure which will contribute to the significance as well as serve as the basis for planning out conservation or restoration interventions (CG2015). There is a need to establish a clear methodology for evaluating the seismic safety of historic monuments and scientific research on materials in order to prioritise rehabilitation or strengthening and reduce risk to life and livelihoods.

A8. If machinery is necessary to be used at the sites protected as heritage areas and archaeological sites, it should be accompanied by archaeological watching briefs by the Department of Archaeology (CG2015).

A9. Heritage Impact Assessments shall be carried out before initiating any development activities that may directly or indirectly affect the heritage value of any heritage site, monument or cultural object, including suspected subsurface remains (CG2015). Archaeological Risk maps should be prepared to guide such developments.

A10. Intrusive developmental interventions will be preceded by a watching brief and, if necessary, rescue archaeology. Required activities for rescue archaeology shall be carried out when and as necessary (CG2015).

A11. A systematic GIS-based cataloguing and digital documentation of inscribed and non-inscribed movable and non-movable objects established and implemented together with pro-active monitoring process.

A12. Emergency response plans should directly include the systematic clearance of material from collapsed or damaged building and establish a clear chain of decisions and define responsibilities for parties and provide guidelines for the treatment of materials at different stages of post-disaster response. Particularly, in terms of economic and environmental costs of manufacturing new materials, when usable recyclable material is available, if processed, in a post-disaster scenario.

A13. Every archaeological assessment and excavation process should be linked in a coherent and integrated approach with community consultation and engagement. This should be implemented through the development of a long-term sustainable partnership and shared custodianship.

A14. Community engagement should be linked with realistic social and economic benefits to adjoining communities and be associated to a clear policy related to pilgrim and tourist activities. Regular monitoring and evaluation of protection and maintenance processes and the economic and social benefits that local residents receive from on-site activities.

A15. There is an urgent need for targeted exchanges and training, with the adoption of training materials, to strengthen the capacity of South Asian national agencies and NGOs tasked with the protection and rehabilitation of sites and monuments following natural and cultural disasters as well as conflict. This should be accompanied by an awareness program on the protection of monuments and heritage sites for community and security personnel. Mechanisms for the sharing, coordination and archiving of methodologies and outcomes from bilateral programmes of protection and rehabilitation should be urgently prioritised.

A16. There is an urgent need for the development of a network of South Asian experts and key disaster responders and first responders to formulate and implement rapid responses to protect and rehabilitate sites and monuments following natural and cultural disasters as well as conflict.