Solutions and necessary actions from the cultural heritage sector

When we started the work on the EU directives and their impact on Cultural heritage, we had a very simple solution in mind. This solution had the working title “The Directive of general exemption for cultural heritage”. As we started unravelling the extent of the problem and the legal basis for the EU directives we found that such a directive was not feasible. The cultural sector is subject to the principle of subsidiarity. The question of subsidiarity is the question of what decisions belong at EU level and which decisions belong at the national level. In short this subsidiarity defines culture and cultural heritage laws and regulations as a national prerogative; not part of the EU competencies or legislative system. This fact is elaborated in the article in “2.1. Some elements of the EU treaty whith relevance to cultural heritage and EU Directives”. Cultural policies and therefore cultural heritage is not part of the EU Treaty and cannot, therefore, be regulated through a Directive. Therefore a Directive of general exemption for cultural heritage would have no legal basis in the EU Treaty. The conflicts ensuing from the implementation of the EU Directives, on one hand, and sound heritage conservation practice, on the other hand, takes place at national, rather than at EU or international level. The conflict stems from EU Directives from policy areas that are within the EU competencies; such as international trade competition, personal and public health, safety, and conservation of the natural environment. This is in itself an interesting constellation, but it does not make the task of finding a solution easier

Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment

We address the issue of how to develop credible indicators of vulnerability to climate change that can be used to guide the development of adaptation policies. We compare the indicators and measures that five past national-level studies have used and examine how and why their approaches have differed. Other relevant indicator studies of social facets of society as well as vulnerability studies at sub-national level are also examined for lessons regarding best practice. We find that the five studies generally emphasise descriptive measures by aggregating environmental and social conditions. However, they vary greatly both in the types of indicators and measures used and differ substantially in their identification of the most vulnerable countries. Further analysis of scientific approaches underlying indicator selection suggests that the policy relevance of national-level indicators can be enhanced by capturing the processes that shape vulnerability rather than trying to aggregate the state itself. Such a focus can guide the selection of indicators that are representative even when vulnerability varies over time or space. We find that conceptualisation regarding how specific factors and processes influencing vulnerability interact is neither given sufficient consideration nor are assumptions transparently defined in previous studies. Verification has been neglected, yet this process is important both to assess the credibility of any set of measures and to improve our understanding of vulnerability. A fundamental lesson that emerges is the need to enhance our understanding of the causes of vulnerability in order to develop indicators that can effectively aid policy development