This document discusses the management of cultural heritage crisis in Italy post-earthquakes in 2009 and 2012, highlighting the response of ICOM Italy and various stakeholders. It contrasts the effective strategies implemented after the 2009 earthquake with the shortcomings experienced in the 2012 disaster, particularly in coordination and database reliability. The author advocates for a redefined role for the commission, emphasizing the importance of grassroots action and crowdsourcing in future crisis management.

1. Beurs van Berlage, Amsterdam (NL)
12-14 May 2013
Learning from Mistakes:
A Different Strategy for
Cultural Heritage Crisis Management
in Post-Disaster Areas
(Italy 2009 – 2012)
Alessandro Califano

2. In the night of 6 April 2009 the Italian region of
Abruzzi was devastated by an earthquake
Around 300 people
died, and
destruction hit a
vast number of
private homes...

3. ...public buildings both old and new...

4. ...as well as a large amount of historical buildings and
cultural institutions

5. ICOM Italy

Immediately wrote out a call to its members

Set up the Cultural Heritage High Risks
Commission in a matter of days

Set up an emergency restoration centre at the
Museum of Celano after a few weeks

Effectively cooperated with Fire brigades, a
large national association of volunteers, and
local boards for over a year

6. Storage of damaged artefacts at the Museum of
Celano (MUSè), 2009

7. In May 2012 the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna
was also hit by an earthquake

Though victims
were few, the
regional economy
was strongly hit...

8. In 2012, destruction mostly hit productive implants
as well as historical buildings

9. A quantitative analysis
Considering only the historical buildings in the
four affected provinces of Bologna, Ferrara,
Modena, and Reggio Emilia we have these
figures:

Bologna: 203

Ferrara: 94

Modena: 126

Reggio Emilia: 106

10. In this case, however...

ICOM Italy's Cultural Heritage High Risks
Commission didn't even send out a Call for
Action to its members

Rescue attempts of historical buildings and
museum artefacts were mostly undertaken by
the fire and emergency brigades

Even trying to obtain a list of what existed, and
what had been damaged was – for weeks! –
almost impossible

11. Reasons for failure in 2012:

Though State driven actions were much more
coordinated and effective than in 2009, too
much reliance on local administrations by the
High Risks Commission proved to be a week
point, slowing down the whole rescue process

Regional geographic databases proved to be
not homogeneous enough, making combined
rescue efforts based on common knowledge
almost impossible to achieve

12. Moreover:

The trend to regionalize the model of action of
ICOM Italy – though it is the Italian Chapter of
an international professional organization –
has significantly weakened its potential
effectiveness

This same trend has made the ties the High
Risks Commission had with other international
bodies and programmes – like ICOMOS or
Blue Shield – less effective

13. Into the Future – Crowdsourcing
In the Editor's note of the 15 June 2012 edition
of “The Museum Studies Weekly” I wrote:

The Commission's failure in the present
occasion calls for a redefinition of its role...

It should … re-programme its mission as a
facilitator of grass roots action, and focus
on the documentation of damages.

A crowd sourcing based approach would
allow both laymen and new stakeholders to
step in...

14. Into the Future – Broadcast & FOSS
From this point of view, an excellent work has
been done in post-disaster areas by – even
very small – local audio broadcasting stations.
A crucial stakeholder, in the aftermath of the
2012 earthquake, has been an open group of
ICT people, Hackathon Terremoto, who shortly
after the earthquake started delivering detailed
information about FOSS based tools to keep
track of events and give feedback from post-
disaster areas.

15. Mobile Apps and G-FOSS
 “Bring the Food” (L) is a crowd-sourcing web
mobile App for surplus food redistribution
 “OpenStreet Map” (R) is a G-FOSS with free
geographic data and versatile tagging features

16. Crowdsourcing – Mobile Field Alerts 1/2

“GeoSDIgeoPoints” allows visual and textual
info delivered from smartphones

17. Crowdsourcing – Mobile Field Alerts 2/2

Georeferenced pictures of an event can be
sent from any smartphone to a geographic
database through a downloadable App.

A short description of the event can be chosen
from a list, with further data added by the user,
or by the system (date, time, etc.).

The geographic database is then updated on
the run, and the info – visible to all users as a
geographic repository – becomes immediately
usable by rescue teams and any other public
stakeholder.

18. Conclusions
Neither FOSS nor risk awareness can of course
altogether avoid disasters of all kinds, and their
tragic consequences.
Nevertheless, learning from our mistakes, and
developing better tools and more effective
strategies, will let us look with confidence
towards the challenges that tomorrow might
bring us.
Thank you!