Halting the erasure of cultural heritage: the role of international institutions and NGOs

Press release 

Online, 27/03/2025   

On 27 March, we organised a webinar, Halting the erasure of cultural heritage: the role of international institutions and NGOs where we spoke about the devastating effects of destroying cultural heritage, the state and non-state actors that carry out this destruction, and how the law and NGOs may be able to intervene in the destruction of cultural heritage.

During the two-hour event, we were joined by an expert panel of six, including Oleksandr Butsenko (DemCult: “Democracy through Culture”), Lilian Grootswager (Erfgoed.nu), Sara Ather (Cornell University),  Dr. Andrzej Jakubowski (the University of Opole and the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw), Dr. Maitri Dore (Chalmers University of Technology), and Jorijn Neyrinck (Werkplaats immaterieel erfgoed and the Flemish UNESCO Commission). The event was opened by a video from Croatian MEP Željana Zovko (EPP) who was once an ambassador for UNESCO.

Ms. Zovko spoke on her experiences bringing attention to and reporting on the destruction of cultural heritage over the years. She saw a clear link between hatred, violence, and the destruction of cultural heritage, expressing her appreciation for those doing advocacy around the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. She expressed her desire to promote the reconstruction of cultural and religious heritage around the world, citing the role of heritage reconstruction in peace-building and preventing further conflict.

Protecting cultural heritage: What threats exist?

We spoke first on the kinds of threats that exist for cultural heritage, not just in conflict but also in peacetime. Ms. Grootswagers addressed threats related to the abandonment of heritage sites, waning financial support for (religious) heritage sites, and threats imposed by urban planning. She expressed concern about the loss of knowledge of the relevance, importance, and existence of heritage sites and the practices and people who created them. Dr. Dore followed up, as her research has focused on the role of urban development as a potential threat to cultural heritage. She gave the example of the rapid urbanisation in India and how mega projects and the search for suitable housing for a booming population often mean that both listed and unlisted heritage sites are compromised. Some physical monuments are missing entirely, whether submerged by reservoirs or dams or lost to urban development projects. Development can even affect local practices beyond cultural heritage alone, for instance, by disrupting waterways that local groups use to fish, a practice tied closely to their culture.

Of course, beyond these kinds of threats, there are threats to cultural heritage related to conflict. Mr. Butsenko, who himself called in from Ukraine, spoke about the thousands of objects of cultural heritage destroyed already in Ukraine. For him, the protection of cultural heritage was not only a question about protecting one’s culture and identity but also about protecting one’s present and preserving it for the future. In occupied territories, not only does Russia destroy cultural monuments, but it also reshapes culture and rewrites Ukrainian culture in its own image by taking over museums and rewriting the official history of Ukraine to be that of Russia. 

Dr. Jakubowski followed up by speaking about the ways that cultural heritage sites are damaged during conflict, whether they become collateral damage, are intentionally targeted for destruction, or are neglected during conflict. He also spoke about occupied territories, which may be looted of cultural objects, pillaged, or see their tangible cultural heritage trafficked. In times of conflict, intangible cultural heritage is also under threat as people are detached or alienated from their culture by being displaced, abducted, or otherwise removed from where they live.  Lastly, Dr. Jakubowski raised the example of Sudan to express the dangers of combined threats such as floods (environmental threats) and armed conflict. This example brought together the complex threats that cultural heritage often faces in today’s world.

The nuance of destruction in India

As Dr. Dore raised, there are situations in which cultural heritage is intentionally destroyed outside of wartime. As an example, she spoke about the intentional destruction of Muslim cultural heritage in India as part of a wider effort of religious nationalism. In this case, a resource used by many to protect cultural heritage, the law, can be used by groups seeking to destroy or erase minority groups’ heritage. Hindu nationalists, for instance, request land surveys of mosques in efforts to prove that they are really ancient Hindu temples and have them torn down or re-appropriated. In this way, one culture is weaponised as a way to erase minority cultures and their religious heritage sites. Ms.Grootswagers followed up on how religious sites are often taken over by a dominant culture as a way of showing disrespect for other, minority groups.

Ms. Ather followed up by also discussing the difficulty in assessing the legality of the process of mosque demolition in India. She raised examples of how informal actors may provoke attacks around mosques to be able to call on authorities to bulldoze temples as a way of managing the conflict. She expressed her concerns that while India maintains the image of a vibrant democracy, marginalised groups, like religious minorities, are always in danger of having their heritage lost. In India, the heritage sites of religious minorities are also destroyed as a way of rejecting a multi-religious past and reifying a homogenous culture for the majority community.

Intangible heritage, though often overlooked, is also relevant

Rituals, practices, and traditions that communities carry forward are not only bodily practices (e.g. performances), but they are also embedded in space, especially public space. Ms. Ather urged us to think about the spatial dimension of cultural heritage destruction, for instance, forbidding Indian Muslims from praying in public, making it harder for them to practice their religion and invisibilising their culture. Others offered examples like the destruction of natural spaces where groups interacted, lived, and practised their culture before conflict destroyed these spaces or displaced these groups. Even the targeting of physical locations, like mosques, affects intangible culture. It serves the purpose of eliminating opportunities for various groups to come together and practice their culture.

My Neyrinck presented another way in which intangible cultural heritage can be targeted, namely, the integration of some cultural practices by a dominant culture, without the permission of those in the original culture. This act is a way to change, suppress, and even erase intangible cultural heritage. Those whose culture is appropriated slowly lose contact with their own heritage.

Where to go from here

The end of the conversation revolved around how the destruction of cultural heritage could be prevented and how cultural sites could be protected or even restored. Several speakers mentioned that sites named as official heritage sites enjoyed more protection, although this was not absolute. Many of the ways in which heritage could be protected focused on law and policy. Cultural heritage is protected under several treaties, which our speakers referenced throughout the discussion. They expressed their concerns, however, that in an environment of lawlessness and ignoring international law and treaties, even these systems are under pressure from powerful states that disregard international law. Other complicating factors named included blocked access to action in courts for those seeking to protect cultural heritage, social attitudes about the importance of some heritage, and the cost of preserving heritage.

Mr. Butsenko suggested that the solution may lie in financing the protection of cultural heritage and translating skills and knowledge about intangible and tangible cultural heritage. Here, education plays a key role, as does sharing information through different platforms about the destruction of cultural heritage. When it comes to education, Dr. Dore suggested that education and awareness-raising amongst majority communities is also an important step. Her comments refer specifically to India, where the cultural heritage of religious minorities is destroyed as a means of erasing India’s multi-religious history, in support of building a Hindu-nationalist future. Making these majority populations aware that claims on religious heritage sites are a veil for religious nationalism may prevent indifference in actors who can stop or challenge the destruction of these sites.

In addition to these methods, Ms. Grootswagers expressed the importance of changing the discourse around cultural heritage sites by not framing their protection or preservation as prohibitively expensive, but rather something that is necessary and important. Related to finance, Dr. Dore expressed the importance of making heritage meaningful to everyday people, especially when heritage sites are located in prime real estate areas. She asked, for instance, how one could convince working people living in Mumbai that a heritage site should take precedence over affordable housing, which could be built in its place and which would benefit them. She suggested here that the key is democratising heritage, making it valuable to the average person.

Ms. Neyrinck also mentioned the importance of making sure that people feel connected to their heritage, which will mean that they are more likely to stay dedicated to the protection of this heritage and its transmission to future generations. She suggested going back to the trusted multilateral systems developed for the protection of cultural heritage coming out of the Second World War. She also drew attention to dialogues between states, (cultural) diplomacy, and a multi-stakeholder approach in general as solutions to some of the aforementioned challenges. Dr. Jakubowski shared her opinion that different stakeholders should be brought together, especially those directly affected by the loss of cultural heritage. Ms. Ather and Dr. Dore agreed and urged that the international community should also speak out on these issues, putting pressure on actors that threaten or destroy cultural heritage.

NGOs have a unique voice in these conversations, according to Ms. Grootswagers. Given their legal structure and ability to amplify certain concerns and voices, NGOs can also interfere, bring attention to these issues, and speak on behalf of groups that otherwise may find their voices unheard. Ms. Neyrinck also underscored the importance of different groups (governmental, non-governmental, citizens etc.) coming together, bringing others together, and creating spaces for affected groups to come together and co-shape their realities. Participants agreed that dialogues, like the one they all participated in during this event, were important to the future of cultural heritage, as is engagement with the legal and treaty systems designed to protect cultural heritage.

The full event can be watched back here.

For more information or comments, contact:    

Foundation The London Story Advocacy Team  

advocacy@thelondonstory.org