The rehabilitation of cultural heritage: Much more than an economic issue

Technicians from the Ministry of Culture of Spain, present in Manila this week to the delivery of the course “Preventive Conservation and Architecture in Museums exposed to Tropical and Subtropical Climates,” in San Agustin Museum, consider necessary to clarify the words that appeared in The Philippine STAR on Tuesday, October 22, on the consideration that is “too expensive” to restore old churches affected by the earthquake in Bohol and Cebu.

First, they wish to clarify that during the conversation with the journalist who signs the news, they repeatedly emphasized the impossibility of generalizing mechanisms of action in respect of any historic building damaged by an earthquake. This means that any consideration about its restoration, necessarily involves the assessment of the damage to the buildings, its decorations (wall paintings, altarpieces, paneling, etc.) and the heritage significance of the same.

After this analysis, and not before, we can discuss the chances of recovery of properties affected. Generally, if they are not considered as cultural heritage buildings, it can be concluded, logically, that it is more expensive to restore buildings damaged by an earthquake than their new reconstruction.

However, the question varies completely in the case of buildings and other elements that are part of the cultural heritage. Recovering cultural heritage, often related to the essence of the identity of the people, allows the maintenance and even the enhancement of physical and intangible values and the preservation of the testimonies of the history.

To these cultural assets in which is identified an important heritage relevance, international recommendations, commonly accepted by most countries, require that authorities and experts try indispensable decision-measures, at least, to address the interventions that are necessary for recovering these after processes of degradation, by very costly and complex that these actions could be. That is, for cultural heritage, the monetary cost can not be the only element of assessment; it is necessary, first, to contemplate the heritage significance that justifies its consideration as a cultural asset that society wants to keep.

Obviously, there are other important aspects that should be taken into account when intervening in capital assets affected by severe damage, caused, for example, by the effect of a major earthquake, and that can also destroy homes and basic infrastructure for the affected areas. In such cases, the authorities must first meet the basic needs of the population and investment of money can be very high, so that the use of funds, whatever, many or few, aimed at mitigating the effects of an earthquake, must necessarily be provided, including obviously the recovery of cultural heritage.

Likewise, before deciding a possible recovery action in cultural heritage damaged by disasters, we must consider other factors than the mere economy and that can affect the daily life of society. So, it is necessary to note that many elements of this heritage are important parts of communities, and in the case of religious heritage, the inability to followrituals and traditions such as weddings, funerals, religious or festive celebrations linked to cultural heritage of a community, bankruptcy not only buildings and infrastructure, but very significantly alter the daily lives of people.

On the other hand we should not forget the power that cultural assets have for generating economic resources; in fact, the existence of well-preserved elements with cultural relevance can be a major factor in the influx of visitors and the social and economic development of certain localities and regions. In this sense, investing in the recovery of heritage items not only allows the preservation of historical and identity values, but also the maintenance of funding sources for the territory.

In addition, and in anycase with the unfortunate situations of catastrophic events of this kind, where usually the funds required for the complete recovery of cultural heritage are limited, it is necessary to implement strategies for stabilization and protection of affected structures and ornamentations. After this, when it would be feasible, it would be desirable to apply required treatments and interventions for the recovery of buildings, monuments and associated non movable cultural property, awarded with heritage significance.

Therefore, if we have considered in the most realistic possible way the heritage significance of the building or the culture property, and its significance and representativeness in a community, and we have analyzed the necessary work for carrying out its recovery, hypothesizing not only in the level of ideas or theory, but defining and confronting interventions, techniques and execution times, technologies, materials and investments needed, we should always provide their recovery and rehabilitation, regardless of other issues, as those with economic character.

So, in no case we can endorse headlines as published in The Philippine STAR which indicates that “the restoration of churches is too expensive”, since it is taken out of context and it is not applicable to cultural heritage and much less generalizable in any case. —JUAN ANTONIO HERRÁEZ FERREIRO, VÍCTOR CAGEAO SANTACRUZ, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, Spain