Towards a climate‐smart cultural heritage management

Globally, cultural heritage is on the front line of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it could be argued that climate change should now be a primary lens through which cultural heritage conservation and management are viewed. We argue that addressing the growing and compounding risks and impacts of climate change requires a fundamental rethink and transformation of cultural heritage management and policy. In this article, we propose a climate‐smart cultural heritage (CSCH) approach that captures the notion that climate adaptation can be developed and implemented within the heritage sector to simultaneously reduce the impacts of changing climate and variability on tangible and intangible cultural heritage and provide co‐benefits for climate change mitigation while also enhancing human security at different spatial scales. The CSCH is an integrated approach to implementing forward‐looking and transformative cultural heritage management and policy and is not a new set of practices to be advocated to cultural heritage stakeholders and decision‐makers. Findings also demonstrate that institutional mechanisms such as multi‐stakeholder planning, increased awareness of the economic, social, and environmental benefits of diverse cultural heritage, improved cross‐sectoral coordination and communication, strong political will for transformative approaches, and investments in CSCH are necessary for implementation of CSCH.


| INTRODUCTION
Globally, climate change is already adversely affecting tangible and intangible cultural heritage and these impacts are projected to increase over time (Daly et al., 2022;Fatori c & Seekamp, 2017;Nicu & Fatori c, 2023;Orlove et al., 2022;Pearson et al., 2021;Simpson et al., 2022).Therefore, it could be argued that climate change should now be a primary lens through which conservation and management of cultural heritage is viewed.How should the cultural heritage sector prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change on diverse tangible and intangible cultural heritage?What should be done differently in the face of these climatic changes, and what management or policy solutions are still justifiable?Which transformative aspects are necessary for the cultural heritage sector in the coming decades?
Awareness of the need for natural and socioeconomic systems/sectors to reduce the impacts of climate change through climate adaptation processes has steadily increased globally (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019;IPCC, 2022).Although the scientific community recognizes the importance of climate adaptation measures for tangible and intangible cultural heritage, there is little evidence that the cultural heritage sector has adapted to climate change (Brooks et al., 2020;Daly et al., 2022;Nicu & Fatori c, 2023;Shepherd et al., 2022;Simpson et al., 2022).A recent International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) survey on the integration of cultural heritage into climate change policy showed that the lack of coordination and recognition of cultural heritage adaptation within climate change planning and policymaking is a global problem (Daly et al., 2022).As a result, while cultural heritage is often recognized at a strategic level in climate adaptation planning, operationalization through the development and implementation of concrete measures including monitoring are notably lacking (Guzman & Daly, 2021).Some national governments developed sectoral climate adaptation strategies for cultural heritage, such as Ireland's sectoral adaptation plan for built and archeological heritage (Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, CHG, 2019) and the Sweden's climate change action plan for tangible and intangible heritage (Swedish National Heritage Board, RAA, 2019).Another approach was to include heritage as a section within more general guidance, providing high-level climate adaptation principles rather than developing an action plan, for example, the Italian national adaptation strategy (Ministry of the Environment, Land and Sea, Minambiente, 2017) and Kiribati national plan for climate change and disaster risk management (Government of Kiribati, 2019).At the international level, the World Heritage Convention struggles to develop a climate action policy that is acceptable to all of its Parties due to the different political positions on the issue (Daly, 2022).The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) created a database of best practices on climate adaptation activities undertaken by private sector (https://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/resources/psi-database) to build resilience of private sector actors and support capacity building in vulnerable communities, but none of those initiatives address concrete cultural heritage assets (UNFCCC, 2022).Furthermore, given the urgency to meet the goals of UNFCCC Paris Agreement and limit global warming to 1.5 C compared to preindustrial levels, it is crucial to recognize the contribution of diverse cultural heritage to climate change mitigation efforts (Fatori c & Egberts, 2020;ICOMOS, 2019;Orlove et al., 2022;Shepherd et al., 2022).
We argue that addressing the growing anthropogenic climate change risks and impacts requires a fundamental rethink and transformation of cultural heritage management and policy.Therefore, a transition toward fundamentally new or different systems of governance, institutions, policies, priorities, values, behaviors including plural knowledge is required (IPCC, 2022;Orlove et al., 2022;Tàbara et al., 2019).Transformative actions according to Tàbara et al. (2019), should move beyond the conventional and limited question of what the problem is (i.e., impacts, risks, vulnerabilities) to who/what the solution is.This would not only support the processes for a joint definition of the problems, but also a development of concrete opportunities and agent capacities for change.The need for transformative change is slowly recognized within the cultural heritage sector and was acknowledged in the draft policy document on climate action for world heritage sites (WHS; UNESCO, 2021).This draft policy aligns with statements by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who recognizes that the climate change impacts on socioeconomic and natural systems will continue into 2050 and beyond without transformative changes.The draft policy suggests that "additional measures" will be necessary for WHS to address its part in the drivers that are at the root of climate change, including changes in social, economic, and technological structures: …transformative change would be exemplified by decisions that contribute towards making WHS carbon neutral, as much as possible, and more resilient and better adapted to a changing climate, while safeguarding their Outstanding Universal Value…properties can embrace transformative change to become demonstration cases of the change the world needs (UNESCO, 2021, p. 2).
Drawing on work conducted in the field of climate-smart agriculture (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2013; Lipper et al., 2014), we propose a new transformative and integrated approach climate-smart cultural heritage (CSCH) to unlock the synergies between climate change adaptation, mitigation, and human security.
The term climate-smart emerged in the agricultural sector and the use of this approach and underlying concepts were led by international institutions such as United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en) and the World Bank (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-agriculture).
In this article, a CSCH approach is defined as one that captures the notion that climate adaptation can be developed and implemented within the heritage sector to simultaneously reduce the impacts of changing climate and variability on tangible and intangible cultural heritage and provide co-benefits for climate change mitigation while also enhancing human security at different spatial scales (Figure 1).While climate change is an important factor that threatens human security by undermining livelihoods, disrupting culture, identity, and sovereignty, contributing to or accelerating community displacement, and hindering the ability of countries to provide the conditions necessary for human security (IPCC, 2022), diverse cultural heritage offer social, economic, informational and environmental benefits that could reduce risks to human security (ICOMOS, 2019).This also reflects the ICOMOS' policy guidance on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 on climate change which aims to harness the potential of heritage to improve the adaptive and transformative capacity of communities and build resilience to climate change (Labadi et al., 2021).Additionally, it builds on the concept of Climate Resilient Development Pathways (CRDPs), which emerged internationally to address the many intersections between sustainable development and climate change action and to ensure that just transition and poverty eradication are part of the transformative pathway (IPCC, 2022).
The CSCH approach can work deliberately to support heritage-based livelihoods such as community-led tourism development (Su et al., 2016), trade in handcrafts and artworks (Yang et al., 2018), or promote ecosystem diversity through archeological and cultural landscape conservation (L opez S anchez et al., 2020) while offering a strategy to achieve climate change mitigation goals such as decarbonization of the cultural heritage sector at different spatial scales which is crucial to fulfilling the commitments of the Paris Agreement.Furthermore, through place-specific and locally based climate adaptation solutions, diverse heritages can cope with stress, maintain or improve its capabilities and assets, and provide more resilient economic opportunities for future generations (Carmichael et al., 2020;Pearson et al., 2021;Shepherd et al., 2022).
The CSCH can more holistically balance adaptation and mitigation priorities to enhance the resilience of diverse cultural heritage by building adaptive capacities of stakeholders and decision-makers, while decarbonizing the heritage sector.For instance, switching to low-carbon and renewable energy sources, using low-carbon building materials, improving historic building envelopes and energy efficiency, and implementing nature-based solutions can support the achievement of climate mitigation and SDGs.On the other hand, building the adaptive capacity of the heritage sector so that heritage decision-makers, stakeholders, and community groups are able to respond effectively to longer-term climate change and manage the risks associated with increased climate variability play an important role in CSCH.Adaptive capacity can be built by improving access to financial resources, knowledge, and technical skills, raising the awareness of climate change risks, vulnerability, and impacts, integrating indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge, and ensuring intergenerational knowledge transfer.To increase adaptive capacity, it is also important to build collective leadership, community empowerment and engagement, co-develop reconciliation approaches with marginalized communities, foster communication across multiple audiences, share best practices, and establish feasible and more transformative legal and policy instruments (Carmichael et al., 2020;Fatori c & Biesbroek, 2020;Morel et al., 2022;Orlove et al., 2022).Although CSCH seeks to achieve climate adaptation, mitigation, and human security, we agree with Lipper et al. (2014) that this does not imply that every action taken in every location must result in "triple wins."Synergies between adaptation and mitigation are essential as the planning and implementation of both mitigation and adaptation measures can ensure that diverse heritages continue to provide multiple benefits to current and future generations and minimize human insecurity.For instance, preserving and restoring cultural landscapes (adaptation) can simultaneously improve carbon sinks and storage (mitigation).Similarly, reuse of existing historic drainage canals, embankments, and dike structures can reduce the need for new carbon-generating structures and support flood risk reduction (adaptation).Furthermore, through synergies between adaptation and mitigation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions can be achieved faster when adaptation responses are implemented with mitigation co-benefits (e.g., increasing structural resilience of historic structure such as watermill can in turn provide renewable energy supply).As highlighted by the IPCC (2022), mitigation does not only reduces GHG emissions, but it also increases the time available for adaptation, potentially by several decades.Importantly, CSCH is not a new set of practices to be promoted to cultural heritage decision-makers and stakeholders, but rather an integrated approach to implementing more forward-looking and transformative cultural heritage management and policies aimed at improving human security and resilience of cultural heritage (through adaptation) under a changing climate, while at the same time creating possible opportunities for mitigation co-benefits.CSCH should not only focus on addressing climate change as a challenge that needs to be addressed through improved knowledge, expertise, and innovation, but should also focus on how culture, beliefs, values, and behaviors influence institutional arrangements and policies, decision-making processes and practices for cultural heritage and climate change intersection.It has been argued that an important starting point for more transformative action is to transform decision-makers, stakeholders, and communities involved in heritage management from objects in need of change to agents of change in terms of viewing themselves as capable of contributing to systemic transformations (O'Brien, 2018).

| MEANS FOR ACHIEVING CSCH MANAGEMENT
Applying the CSCH approach can promote and sustain diverse cultural heritage under dynamic economic, social, cultural, and environmental conditions.We suggest that the following institutional mechanisms might be necessary to achieve CSCH and are applicable at all scales: (i) multi-stakeholder planning, (ii) awareness of the values and benefits of diverse cultural heritage (for the economy, society and the environment), (iii) cross-sectoral coordination and communication, (iv) strong political will for transformative approaches, and (v) investments in CSCH.
A multi-stakeholder planning process should engage all relevant stakeholders from different sectors (e.g., climate change, energy, planning, economy, arts, and culture) as well as local and indigenous community groups to identify their views, values and concerns, and share knowledge.This enables the creation of inclusive and more widely supported actions as well as provide views on the impact of proposed actions from the various perspectives.This process supports the democratic legitimacy of decisions through partnership development and negotiation of priorities.It can be valuable in terms of resource consolidation, coalition building, and financial coordination.It is important to gain more knowledge about how local rules and laws, historical and cultural legacies influence multi-stakeholder planning for CSCH.Understanding past management decisions is necessary to determine what solutions are potentially viable to initiate transformative change.Furthermore, systematically integrating vulnerable groups (ensuring the voice and influence of those most at risk) into the CSCH framework, promoting gender-responsive implementation, and encouraging intergenerational sharing of knowledge, concerns, and aspirations can improve or ensure fairness, equity, and just transition.
Raising awareness and exploring heritage benefits could support various sectors in responding to high-end climate scenarios, including transformative adaptation that addresses existing path dependencies and creates opportunities for innovative solutions to address climate impacts.To advance the CSCH approach, a better understanding of how different cultural heritage practices, systems, regulations, and standards impact mitigation and adaptation benefits, as well as human security, is required.More inclusive research is also needed to demonstrate how integrating local or indigenous knowledge and practices with scientific information can inform and enrich CSCH.One way to encourage greater uptake of CSCH is to ensure that there is strong scientific evidence and sufficient technical guidance to identify the best options for changes within the heritage sector.Innovative, new tools (e.g., mapping, scenario analysis, and simulation models) are needed to assess and visualize the potential impacts of different heritage development pathways on adaptation and mitigation, to identify potential synergies and trade-offs across different temporal and spatial scales, and to evaluate related economic and social costs.It would also be particularly useful to inform decision-making processes with new global monitoring systems that contain real-time information on changing heritage benefits or values due to a changing climate.Approaches and methods also need to be developed to estimate the magnitude, timing, and noneconomic costs of the expected loss of diverse cultural heritage.Venture et al. (2021) call for investigating heritage loss where cultural heritage persists through processes of transformation rather than a process of ultimate loss.
Improved cross-sectoral coordination, cooperation, and communication are necessary for the CSCH.It is essential to consider the cross-sectoral nature of climate risks, impacts, and planned adaptation and mitigation actions, including potential synergies and conflicts with relevant policies.For instance, heritage opportunities for intersectoral collaboration and resource sharing, as well as potential areas of conflict, were highlighted in the development of the Irish sectoral adaptation plan for built and archeological heritage (Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, CHG, 2019).The transversal nature of heritage meant that intersections were found with each sectoral plan, most commonly in relation to the adaptation of historic building stock, infrastructure, and public engagement through connection with values and understanding of local cultural heritage sites and practices.While cross-sectoral coordination has benefits in terms of pooling resources and avoiding maladaptation, there are also challenges related to communication between departments, and the scale and pace of implementation of different sectoral plans.Strong political commitment and leadership at the highest level to promote CSCH is also required.
Recent studies (Fatori c & Biesbroek, 2020;Seekamp & Jo, 2020;Shepherd et al., 2022) highlighted the need for transformative approaches to cultural heritage.Transformative change can be defined as fundamental, system-wide reorganization across social, cultural, economic, and technological dimensions.In order to promote CSCH, changes in accepted paradigms, norms, regulations, and values of multi-level actors are necessary.Likewise, plural knowledge systems and new ways of learning are necessary to facilitate transformative action.Although the draft policy on climate action for WHS mentions transformative change (UNESCO, 2021), this document has not yet been adopted.The section on transformation is mostly aspirational with relatively few commitments to the principle.Transformation is politically very challenging as it requires a cultural shift to be made, yet this is also where cultural heritage plays an important role in enabling societal adaptation.ICOMOS, an advisory body to the World Heritage Convention, recognized that its approach must change in response to the climate crisis (ICOMOS, 2019); however, the reality is that systems created over decades to classify and conserve cultural heritage can be inflexible, and many heritage professionals are unsure what this means for their practice.For the WHS system, which relies heavily on concepts of defined values, integrity, and authenticity-as is the case with most heritage policies-the idea of transformation to a new state more compatible with a changing climate is extremely challenging.On the other hand, local heritage actors began to respond to the challenges and increasing democratization of heritage values through citizen science and community participation, highlighting some of the transformative opportunities that exist in heritage sector (Morel et al., 2022;Venture et al., 2021).This potential is well illustrated by the Climate Heritage Network (CHN) Action Plan for 2022-2024 which aims to amplify the power of arts, culture, and heritage and to assist people in imagining and realizing low-carbon and climate-resilient futures.As part of the plan, the CHN is developing quality principles for culturebased climate action, one of which is differentiating and sunsetting complicit heritage (Climate Heritage Network, 2022).This process addresses the fact that since human behavior is the primary driver of climate change, there are inevitably cultural practices and cultural heritage that reflect this, and which need to be recognized as disadvantageous to a climate-resilient and just future.Therefore, to transform the cultural heritage sector, we need to reassess the values of multi-level governance systems and raise challenging questions about what we are willing to transform, what we are willing to give up, and how social, cultural, environmental, and economic scenarios are weighted in the decision to transform cultural heritage.A just transition must be at the center of transformative approaches, as CSCH cannot be achieved without addressing gender and intergenerational equity, as well as equal rights in the participation and contribution of local and indigenous communities to adaptation and mitigation efforts.
It is necessary to create an effective enabling environment to attract climate investments in CSCH, as well as to implement new financing models by the public sector and international donors.Regulatory and fiscal incentives that can encourage CSCH among private sector actors to undertake investments that increase synergies between adaptation and mitigation, including strengthening human security, also need to be promoted.This is critical for developing countries as it was demonstrated that the adaptation cost is 5-10 times higher than the public funding currently allocated to it (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2021).When financing CSCH, the current practice of dividing climate finance sources for mitigation and adaptation should be reconsidered, and the value of merging adaptation and mitigation efforts should be promoted.Additionally, the effectiveness of CSCH investments requires a transparent and robust monitoring system that can assess, for instance, the extent to which investments in CSCH can reduce GHG emissions, improve adaptation processes through capacity building or implementation of adaptation measures, and lessen human insecurity or prevent losses and damages that would have resulted from a changing climate.

| CONCLUSION
Cultural heritage lies at the crossroad of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts including human security.Given the urgency of action to limit the increase of global temperature to 1.5 C compared to preindustrial levels, we present the CSCH approach to aid in reducing GHG emissions while adapting to a changing climate and strengthening human security.Pursuing adaptation and mitigation objectives jointly can maximize the potential for synergies or co-benefits and reduce trade-offs across actions designed for either adaptation or mitigation.
At the international climate policy level, countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement must submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the UNFCCC which include both their mitigation and adaptation measures with targets.Countries also communicate the synergies or co-benefits between adaptation and mitigation actions in their key priority sectors.Many countries identified synergies and co-benefits, particularly in agriculture and fisheries, as well as in the energy, forestry, and ecosystems sectors.However, none of the 193 NDCs recognized synergies or co-benefits arising from the cultural heritage sector (UNFCCC, 2022).This perceived limited current evidence of cultural heritage co-benefits for adaptation and mitigation actions should not discourage future research and policy initiatives.Rather, it should be a call to prioritize research in this area and to communicate the potential of diverse tangible and intangible cultural heritage for achieving global mitigation and adaptation goals and for strengthening human security.The CSCH proposed in this article challenges the heritage sector by placing equal importance on addressing social and climate justice, including just transition, when applying the approach.More research is needed on losses and damages to diverse cultural heritage and to challenge the heritage sector to consider ways in which these losses can be viewed as a transformative or evolving process rather than an end-process.Perhaps the key starting point for transformation is the recognition that cultural heritage management can no longer be isolated from other societal challenges, but should embrace a vision in which cultural heritage is a vector for positive transformation within society and for the benefit of future generations.