Read on Twitter
Some thoughts that I presented at this conference on 'measuring' heritage loss & damage.
1. Use IPCC risk framework to characterise risk to different aspects of heritage (tangible & intangible). Can be quantitative or qualitative, data or experience driven.
1. Use IPCC risk framework to characterise risk to different aspects of heritage (tangible & intangible). Can be quantitative or qualitative, data or experience driven.
https://twitter.com/CarbonBrief/status/1643541687413735426
2. Make sure #heritage is considered in national risk assessments & adaptation plans. Not just $ value, but inventories of tangible & intangible heritage @ risk, & registers for degrees of risk.
3. Use national assessments & adaptation plans as basis to include heritage at risk in NDCs, Adaptation Communications, National Communications etc., submitted to @UNFCCC as part of its Global Stocktake.
4. Develop metrics for #Heritage #LossAndDamage. These can include things like cost of protection & lost revenue aggregated across sites for national level, plus other estimates of economic value, including of livelihoods associated with tangible & intangible heritage @ risk.
5. But also need to consider non-economic value. Heritage is culture is identity, so there are rights issues here. How many people are impacted? How do people value heritage?
6. Heritage may be less important than lives & livelihoods, but primary emitters & those blocking climate action are ultimately responsible for its loss, and valuation can be used as another string to the climate litigation bow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
