35 DISCUSSION ON THE “LOSS AND DAMAGE” APPROACH Stefano Della Torre From my perspective, it is difficult to accept loss. I am militant in the preservation sector and firmly convinced that I cannot replace cultural heritage in the event of its damage, loss or destruction. Referring to the Italian context, if I lose or destroy a historical bridge, I cannot accept that the new bridge could be better than the previous one. I think that the lesson learned from natural disasters of the past was that even when all is lost, something survives that is still capable of giving a direction for reconstruction, preserving the memory, providing a basis for reconstruction, and feeding a resilient policy. Even the memories of abandoned sites could be substantial, allowing us to keep imaging assets for the future. Traditional practices should change, taking into account this kind of transformation, but change is a condition of our existence and I do not think it is limited to cases of adaptation or loss. I suggest we think in terms of dynamic identity from a coevolutionary perspective: we should not consider only adaptation but the potential of new technologies, new techniques, devised by learning from the past for the future, in a kind of continuity, without losing the connection with traditional knowledge systems; thus, it becomes possible to build something new that is strongly related to our heritage and to what we can learn from it. Alison Tickell Since irrevocable loss and ongoing damage are already happening, it is critical that we anticipate likely impacts and understand that we have choices to make about what and who is protected, and how. This means that culture and the arts need to pay much greater attention to adaptation, and to loss and damage. This is a huge question for the industry, particularly in developed economies, like the European Union, where there are the resources and the responsibility to fund Loss and Damage projects. It should be possible to recognise Loss and Damage as an instrument to facilitate reparations and live up to our responsibilities as historical and ongoing contributors to the uneven outcomes of climate change. This is important both for tangible art and intangible heritage, such as storytelling and poetry. It is important to note that Loss and Damage as a theme was blocked at COP26 by the European Union and the US because of the associated economic implications. It is worth reflecting on what instruments of justice are at our disposal. In the art world, for example, we should ask ourselves who benefits from saving a theatre or an artwork, who gets the research grants to look at cultural heritage in danger, whose culture and whose dominant values they are representing. So, Loss and Damage can be a critical lens through which we understand justice and the real opportunities for transformation. There are also, of course, opportunities to prevent further loss and bring art that is under threat to a wider audience that may not otherwise be exposed to it. The stories of climate injustice that this art can communicate can be extremely powerful. Julie’s Bicycle hosted talks on Loss and Damage looking very specifically at the arts and creative sector, at performative and creative practices. Alessandra Bonazza Loss and damage is a delicate issue, and my immediate reply to this question would be: “No, I don’t want to accept losing anything.” However, on the other side, when we talk about loss and damage caused by climate change, I feel that we do not have enough knowledge. In fact, there is still not a clear understanding from a quantitative point of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExODM2NQ==