Sommet national sur le patrimoine mesures d'urgence au Canada
Quibec, septembre 19 		First National Summit on Heritage and Risk Preparedness in Canada
Quebec, September 19

FINAL DECLARATION

Given the following:

CHALLENGES

The ever present and increasing vulnerability of Canadian and world cultural heritage in the face of disasters and other events threatening the continuing life of that heritage;

The generally poor state of preparedness for the protection of Canadian cultural heritage in times of emergency;

The administrative obstacles limiting effective coordination among authorities responsible both for cultural heritage and for emergency response at federal, provincial and municipal levels.

OPPORTUNITIES

Existing emergency response infrastructure and mechanisms in Canada capable of integrating concern for cultural heritage, and the evident interest shown by officials responsible for emergency response to respond to concerns for increasing care and attention given to cultural heritage;

The leadership of some Canadian institutions (e.g. National Archives of Canada) in developing preparedness models of value and interest for other groups and institutions:

The focus offered by exisiting international Blue Shield initiative for improving the situation in Canada, given:

  • The key role played by Canadians in the international movement (that is in the Inter-agency Task Force Round Tables on the subject initiated by ICOMOS in 1992, and held regularly in Paris since then);
  • The interest of UNESCO and ICOMOS in developing a "Canadian model" of risk preparedness;
  • The potential offered by the creation of the International Committee of the Blue Shield whose first act was to respond to the Saguenay floods.

    Therefore, we, the participants of the First National Summit on Change and Risk

    Preparedness in Canada held at the Musuee de la Civilisation in Quebec, on September 15-17, 1998, agree to pursue objectives in the following areas:

    AWARENESS

    Increase appreciation of the nature and value of cultural heritage among those responsible for heritage and emergency response, and increase knowledge and understanding of potential risks and associated impacts of disasters of natural, technological and social origin threatening the heritage.

    Increase mutual awareness of emergency response management concerns and cultural heritage management concerns.

  • Affirm importance of cultural heritage for those threatened by loss;
  • Recognize strong link between effective heritage protection and clear identification of heritage values in the cultural properties and built environment
  • Better continuing awareness of the concerns of the public, the youth and the media;
  • Improve understanding of local activities of concerns for cultural heritage protection.

    COLLABORATION

    Establish permanent structural links among all those involved with cultural heritage conservation (archives, libraries, museums, built environment) and with emergency response authorities (civil security and protections, emergency response, public security, defence):

  • Identification of potential partners (governments, institutions, corporations and individuals) and their interests;
  • Developing network(s) for exchange among those concerned with these issues at local, national and international levels;
  • Ensuring effective communication among network members (e.g. electronic mail newslists);
  • Providing occasional forums for exchange among network members, including follow-up to this Summit meeting;
  • Developing Task Force/Working Group to guide collaboration following the Summit

    BUILDING LOCAL CAPACITY

    Clarify roles and responsibilities of local authorities in heritage protection (decision-making structures in times of emergency; policies for territorial environmental and planning and management).

    Improve capacity of local authorities, services and local institutions to improve care for cultural heritage threatened by disasters.

  • Integrate concern for cultural heritage in existing structures for risk management and emergency response (for example, in methods of risk as ment intervention planning and implementation);
  • Improved knowledge of appropriate "models" in other contexts:
  • Improved training for responsible officials and managers;
  • Increased opportunities for volunteer participation.

    Strengthening enabling framework for heritage protection at local, regional, provincial, national and international levels:

  • Develop and install early warning detection and surveillance systems;
  • Improve data-bases of experiences and success models for consultation and improve accessibility to data bases;
  • Ensure commitment of authorities concerned to mobilizabon of appropriate professional experience in time of disaster;
  • Development of emergency rsponse mobilization plans.

    In Quebec, September 17, 1996.