 Mae'n gofyn ni. Rwy'n cymdeithaswch o ddau'r cwmrodd unrhyw o'r newidau gweithio'r cyllid yn gweithio'r cyllid yn gweithio'r cyllid. Rwy'n cymdeithaswch, am pethau y cyllid yn cael ei parodau. Rwy'n cymdeithio ar gyfer yn ôl i ddigon. Mae'r cyfrifol gyda those young agir i hyn sy'n hyer digwydd. the blame list is written by leading cultural property lawyers and they acknowledge that the NATO's own report came out to say that cultural property protection data layer is a critical decision support tool and a free condition for engaging. The 1954 AIDS Convention tells us that it's actually a legal requirement. Article 3 talks about the safeguarding measures that state parties, ministries and cultures should prepare in peace time. yn y pwysigol. A mae'r cyffredin iawn ei phaith yn ddelch i'r prif, ac wrth gwrs, dyne'n gweithio'n gwybod i'r clywed o'r ddwylliannol y clywed o'r profiad a'r cyffredin iawn, ond ond ond mae'n gweithio'n gyngorol i'r ffysgol, ond mae'n bwysigol i'r cyffredin iawn i'r cyffredin iawn, ond mae'n bwysigol i'r clywed i'r cyffredin iawn. ac ddim yn lluniau. Yn y cyfrifnwyr yw'r gweithio'i clywed ychydig ac oedd yn trafnogwch yn ddechrau. Mae Yn Ymgyrch Llyr Weithgafol sefydliadau i'r dynnu sydd o wybod yn wych yn ddechrau'r holl o'r cyfrifnwyr, Fyloeddgor Rwf, Dewch yn Gwyrnol i fyny'r bywyd. Yn ymwyaf erdw i'n cael右 drwch ar boblwch cyfnodol yn gweithio'r cyfrifnwyr, ac mae'r ffordd rôl o'r argyfryd nhw i chi'n gweithi yng Nghymddol, is there is an indication there might be a crisis military planners should start collecting data and the military manual says well military planners might have access to something and if not we'll see you know the best practice comes in different forms so there's no really clear guidelines out there Well, it is a state responsibility to collect this data and whether an object is of importance is a question for the state on whose territory is situated. If a state in good faith considers given property is of great importance then its cultural property is protected under article one of the 1954 Hay convention. Great! That solves everything! Ar y cyfnod o'r cyllid yma o'r ddweud o'r ffotosi cwltwyr, yw'r bobl o thamol, yw'r ffotosi yw'r ddweud, o'r ddweud o'r ffotosi cwltwyr, sy'n i ni'n gwneud o'r gallu'r llwydd ac i'rnghymhwys i wneud o'r bodol. Ac mae yna yn ystod y llwyddon, eich ddwy'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Wrth gwrs, rwy'n gweithio i chi, Yn ymgyrcholwyd, yw nedolwyd yn 40,000 ystod yn ystod o'i cyllidau. Yn ymgyrcholwyd yn 40, 25 ysgwrs. Yn ymgyrcholwyd yn 10,000 ysgwrs, mae'n ddysgu'r cyffredinol sydd yn ymgyrcholwyd yn ymgyrcholwyd. Ond oherwydd mae'n ddweud â'r cynghori ddechrau, mae'n ddysgu'r cyffredinol sydd yn cyffredinol. Mae'n ddweud o'r cyffredinol sydd ymgyrcholwyd yn ymgyrcholwyd yn ymgyrcholwyd yn ymgyrcholwyd. Mae'n gynnwysul pregnant o bobl gyngh missing, a ddit无 troo gydig dewis cyened o es o bobl gynghori gynghorurainol y gallwn gives o flynydd y maes i d получилосьau yma. Maes IYE Wel mae'n roed mewn gyfr reliable gen i dyma. of our property of great importance of about half a million will take, and Bulgaria has a protected list of about 4 million moveable items of cultural property. But actually, there are more states that are doing it. It has to be said very much in the minority of the 130 plus states that have signed up to the convention. Only a tiny fraction have made these lists. And the problem is actually, I'm going to just flip that definition. People get really hung up on what the property is. But actually what the convention says is it needs to be of great importance to every people. According to the legal analysis of the convention, that's really significant. Conventions are normally about states, they're about governments and they're about diplomacy. But actually, the fact that it was about people and what matters to them brings this very firmly back to taking away from objects and making people centric. And this was the deliberate choice. And you know, I'm just going to actually use the startingland as a really nice best practice because you can have countries that have this great participatory approach. If you as a member of the public have something you think is important, you can literally just go on the website, nominate it, and some will come and look. It's that simple, that's fantastic. But alternatively, there are plenty of countries where state suppression and minority heritage is extremely common. That's a swipe and barring. In the 2011 uprisings, the government ruled out 540 archi amoswn shines, some of which were over 400 years old. And this is perfectly common. So it has to be a state in good faith is representing its people. And this is how you start getting into where it's militarily complex because you have to identify what these cultural touch points are. So for example, in Iraq in 2006, the Alaskari Mosque was bombed, in fact it was bombed twice. The day after it was bombed, 32 mosques were bombed in reprisals. And the Iraq body count index to both civilians and troops took a massive spike. And this is where, for armed forces, it's not just about having a what and a where. It's about knowing what your cultural touch points are. The fact that this, so some people is the fourth holiest she is showing in Iraq and it is hugely significant. That bombing was credited with turning the violence in Iraq into a sectarian civil war. So we have to identify what these touch points are. And I will say, I got into a conversation about this with a heritage professional who looked at me and went, Alaskari Mosque, who cares about that? It's only an 18th century rebuild. So we have these two extremely competing value systems that are actually at the heart of how we record data to protect sites in armed conflict. And it's actually really difficult when it comes to religious buildings. I did a kind of scout around for the UK. We have about 50,700 churches, because some are owned by Church of England, and different denominations have responsibility for them. There's no government management of this. In a lot of Middle Eastern countries, religious buildings are owned by the Ministry of Religious Endowment, not by the Ministry of Culture. So if you make it a cultural responsibility to collect information, you're in it with a massive gap where religious buildings rarely feature, particularly as many of them are relatively recently rebuilt. So they don't check what we would traditionally think of as culturally important, as scientifically and historically important, even though they are extremely culturally important. I had a great conversation with Muslims in Britain trying to work out how many mosques there were in the UK. Super helpful, because we were looking to decide what counts because religious buildings are also protected under the Geneva Conventions and the Hague regulations, as well as the Hague Convention. And what is a building dedicated to or used for religion? Well, this was our favourite example. Friday prayers in the kitchen of the takeaway. Protected building, somebody will have to decide it, but at some point somebody needs to say, well, that is a protected building under the law, and that is not. And these are decisions we just don't even have the capacity to decide about yet. Cultural property then starts to move. It becomes bigger. They are moving out of world heritage sites, frequently span multiple countries. So in the slide here you can see at the Andean road system, it crosses six countries, but within each country each road part is represented by centre point. A tiny dot to say, and it doesn't say by the way the road is like, having many kilometres long, you get a dot. And the preservation of cultural heritage though in the Hague Convention has been interpreted to transcend state boundaries. It becomes a matter of international importance according to the preamble because the heritage should receive international protection and it's important for all people of the world. In an age of refugees and diaspora communities, this becomes even more significant. Communities who have left their homeland still request that states in good faith represent them. So you end up with situations like the Iraq Jewish Archive, which was found heavily flooded in 2003 and evacuated to America for emergency preservation. Now it actually took me the best part of a decade to finish restoring this archive, by which point most of Iraq's Jews have left in fact to America and they argued it should stay there and the Iraqi state when this is Iraqi cultural property and we would like it back. So you end up with these very very complicated questions of ownership that brings back to representation and what is protected and who has the right to decide. Of course just for the extra fun, even when states have collected their cultural property data, the head convention very explicitly says just because wherever you're operating didn't do that, you not exempt from your responsibilities. You are still obliged to try and protect cultural property. So we end up in these situations where we're going right well, what's over there? How do we find out? So the military manual gives pretty good advice. When in doubt, commanders should base and go, but it looks like cultural property, treat it like a cultural property. Now that's a little bit, you know, from our perspective, it's a bit Western, you know, I know the church looks like, that's great, I can recognise a mosque. When it comes to things like archaeological sites, if you go out to say the Middle East, Iraq, Syria, do people know what a tell looks like? It's a hill, and you're like, you know, 20, 30 meters high, you can cover multiple hectares, but it looks like a hill, and it's actually the eroded remains of a 3,000-year-old city. And it will usually have a buried city for many more hectares around it. So you end up with these, your problems are, people have no idea what the cultural property is, and this just forms your minimum baseline. But then if you think about that in the context of most countries who are picking what is a great importance, then are you protecting everything, or should you be looking for this subset, and I'll come on to that in a little more detail in a moment. So, actually, Paul just had the same slide. It's not like we ever share slides. And really, one thing is even data collection and the mission sit within the laws of armed conflict, and what we need to be doing as heritage professionals is collecting data, as states, that supports the mission and the mission imperative. So, armed forces need to be able to distinguish is it cultural property or civilian property, or is it a military target? Is the attack on it necessary? My incremental is full of references to the fact that you can attack cultural property if there is a military need. And then is your attack going to be proportional to the advantage you expect to gain? Well, that really means you need to know more than just a latitude and a longitude. And then you need to look at how you can limit the damage to that site, which requires knowing a lot about the site. For example, can you use a lower payload bond to minimise the damage and achieve your effect? Can you do an above ground burst that won't hit there at archaeology? Can you do that will mitigate the damage? But this, again, still functions on this idea of no strike lists. The Hague Convention says, armed forces must do everything feasible to minimise the attack. And that's really good, actually, because we don't have long to date if they need. So, what's feasible? If they come to us and say, well, you know, what's in that country and we don't have that information, they have done what is feasible. And at the moment, what we tend to do, with exceptions, these are just some generalisations, we do a little list. It might have a centre point, irrespective of the size of the site. It might have a description that can be very technical. I did work on one once with somebody who went down this list, and I said, you have to describe the site, and he went, gaza, gaza, gaza, gaza, all the way down, and he said, nobody knows what that is except you, and it's a very technical term. You can't recognise it on the ground. You can't tell anything about the site. It's not a practical description. We might do something really summarised, like a city name, Aleppo, Sana, very general, and it's based on this idea that all of this will only be used for targeting. Our process has often told us that we have to do the shortest of this possible. They don't want too much data. So in Iraq in 2003, it was 30 sites. Marley was about 400. Libby in 2011, 225. And in 2016, we revised it to about 425. And Syria was about 1300. To give you that breakdown, though, of that, it was about 1,250 sites in about 40 museums, and some historic buildings in two cities that we had good tour guides for. No features, no road networks, nothing like that, no war graves, no archives, no libraries, storage locations and excavation houses, art collections, statues, war graves. And just to get 1,300 sites, took us about 4 to 6 months. So it was a great deal that we were able to do about 4 to 6 months. And actually, they're real political barriers. If you're looking at invading a country, you can't just go to them and say, hey, can we have your data? It doesn't go down so well. And similarly, there are massive language barriers to doing it externally. It's very difficult. These things have to be done by states as early as possible so that the data is there and ready because doing it in a hurry, it's too late. That's what the Syrian one looks a bit like. It's a condensed site. One of those dots is about 800 dots because it's a lepo. That is serious actual archaeology. I think our list contains about 1% of it. And plus the vast amount of other heritage data. If you look at it when we do cities and you just say something like a lepo, that's the size of a lepo, that's a lepo with its world heritage site boundary, which significantly reduces that area and a proposed buffer zone. Ignore that. But even then when you're talking about the ability to conduct strikes that can distinguish between individual floors of buildings, the decisions that are being made are so precise and our data is so vague that it doesn't really need the need. Because actually what we need to be doing is collecting data on this level. This is the cadastral month of a lepo and the blue bits are a lepo's actual historic buildings. What we don't have it in most places, we don't have data on this scale. Enhanced protection sites are some of the most protected locations in the world. They are listed in the Hay Convention second protocol. A site under enhanced protection is the only place in the world where military necessity doesn't apply. A site where this place is under enhanced protection may never be taken into military use and it may not be targeted. And doing so is a war crime, categorically. If your opponent does so, then they are subject to the resulting war crimes and the protection is lifted long enough for you to deal with that military issue and then you are expected to withdraw from the site in its enhanced protection status resumes. But a lot of our protection does work or our data works on the assumption that no one will ever operate there, that states will operate in good faith. But we know from the many recent complex that we've been involved in in the idea of organisations do not operate in that level of good faith. They do not respect it. So this was just literally the first one in the list of enhanced protection where we've said what the site's called. It includes 513 monuments and there's some examples in the second column. The third column gives the site boundary and the fourth column gives three pages of legal description about the fact it's okay to inscribe it. It's not, I would argue, the priority here is wrong. The legal, I'm sure the legal background is only important, but the level of detail we're giving will not actually enable armed forces if they're forced to operate in an area like this the amount of information that they need because it just doesn't exist in most countries. So I'd say that quite simply what we're saying it's not feasible when they're looking at what information is feasible to protect cultural property. I don't think it is. What we need to be looking at is a much more holistic view. Take the step back from targeting in those strike lists to look at it in a much more holistic manner. The data that heritage professionals and ministers need to provide does do targeting, but it also does civil, military liaison and civil affairs needs. Logistics, if I put my ammunition dump by this list of building unknowingly, I am still, however unwittingly, using that list of building to shield my ammunition dump. That can be a crime. I have yet to find a logistics person who's ever heard of this because it's not something people think that they need. Engineers have the same problem. Intelligence staff countries, they're like where are the cultural touchpoints and what is particularly significant to this community? I don't really know because that's not how we collect our data which we don't equally rank and rate it by significance to people. Cultural property protection staff, these very different needs for the data to actually do their jobs to protect cultural property and they operate in multiple contexts. Direct armed conflict with heavily kinetic explosive activity. Stabilisation, where you're looking at rebuilding the communities of what becomes maybe economically important, what might be looted in a post-conflict period where there's no money or jobs. Peacekeeping had a story from Marley the other week that said, you know, we kept driving over this area and people kept throwing rocks at us and we were supposed to be peacekeepers and we couldn't work out why they were really upset at us till we learned we were driving over an archaeological site. Now relatively speaking it isn't even a particularly high priority archaeological site but it mattered to that community and that was seriously impacting that mission. People throwing rocks at them. Counterinsurgency, disaster response there are many different contexts where different amounts and levels of information become relevant. Responsibilities for armed forces. We need to provide data that can include both targeting, manoeuvre and logistics which really is more of a what and where and maybe vulnerabilities. What happens if we ask them to guard sites? To what? What threats? Mon forces do get asked to evacuate museums to refugees. I have seen the Syrian army that evacuated the Palmyran Museum. In Lebanon it would be the armed forces if there was a fire or a flood or a disaster because they're the people with capacity. Giving security advice to sites because this is a kind of threat analysis that heritage professionals are not used to doing. It's a new way of thinking. Preventing leaching on sites. 60% of the sites in southern Iraq related following the 2003 invasion that is a huge amount of damage. How do you prevent that? Where are those sites? What is being targeted on the market that might make these sites particularly vulnerable? What about following illicit trafficking? Evidence collection for prosecution. Do you know what was there before so that you can assess what was done? Maybe was that stolen? Was it there to start with? You need that level of information. You need to be able to conduct per spade and our forces need to worry about reputational damage as well, both their own but also what their opponent might be doing. What's the highly significant part of this site that somebody's going to come in, drape a flag over and take a selfie and win a little propaganda weapon against you? At any point they can be at a state party support and suddenly you look at this list and you're like, I only have so many resources and I only have so many people. What are my priorities? We don't tend to prioritize though. There are 17 sites on the enhanced protection list, about 10 on the special protection list and everything else is treated equally. We haven't really got that mindset where we have limited resources and decisions need to be made and actually that becomes really problematic so the Hague Emergency tells us that the main level protection should be generic protection, a blue shield a great importance to heritage of people very great importance of special protection and the greatest importance to humanity should be placed under enhanced protection of which apparently there are 17 or so with more due to go through the UNESCO committee in December but it's also tied to authority to strike so it becomes really important in field operations a battalion commander can authorize a strike on general protection brings a divisional commander on special protection and it has to go right the way to the top to the force commander to authorize a strike on something under enhanced protection so there's this clear military chain of command built into that convention right from the start. I just want to finish with a little example Paul obviously put up the pictures of the outproping the culture in Vienna in 2018 and I ran it again back two, three weeks ago in Hamburg we took, and I apologise to the general undersphere that I've got but they're all gone slide we took our participants out to the World Heritage Site in Hamburg which you can see in this slide is the area on the right hand side that's kind of got the rows of buildings and the little green moons and it goes from next to the very good building at the front all the way to where it opens out at the back and it's this area of warehouses and canals and we basically treated it as if they were staff officers and they'd been given a general protection list we gave them a centre point and it's a very small area this is one World Heritage Site so that's perfectly normal it's what they do you've sent a point to your World Heritage Site in one city, in one district in one country we told them about a day and a half to protect it so it took me about three hours to go through an 800 page nomination file to learn that it's 26 hectares about a kilometre in length 300,000 metres historic and sombrant port warehouses and also I picked it because port warehouses are not what you would obviously think of as World Heritage of outstanding value to the whole of humanity it just makes people think of it differently and you get 15 warehouse blocks six buildings, the canals the bridges, the walkways all parts of it and some important art deco buildings just over the river with eight large office complexes and the cobble streets and the remnant railways after a bit more work we decided that we think there's eight or nine couldn't pin it down despite quite a lot of looking eight or nine museums and two that are just outside the boundary two World Heritage Information centres and actually also the port authority and flood warning system and we took hours to work that out that information isn't just collected and it's this it is the whole together the course that makes it World Heritage it's not any individual part of it not that museum or that one or that office block but it is the whole ensemble it also has things that are particularly economically important like handbow dungeons which is like York dungeons and London dungeons and handbow dungeon which even on a very rainy colds day a few weeks ago had a massacre outside it it's economically very important we gave them a fictional scenario with insurgent forces over the river and what might they be looking to do to the site what are you protecting it from where are your strategic communication points what might people drape their flags over steel break to make their point about an identity conflict what might they loot for insurgent funding where are the valuable things that they have done is there risk management in place in this site what about direct damage whether that is vandalism or the way that ISIS go in strap barrels to something and blow it up targeted strikes from a distance what about if people were to use it for logistics to store it like it's a port warehouse they think gosh it's built for storage what problems does that cause can you manoeuvre in it not easily full of fridges very limited access points in little cobble streets what about if somebody occupied that area what would you do about it and the fuel spillage because that's an issue with the canals and so we put our mix of our forces inherited professionals in this area and basically said to them under the current system of how we do things how would you protect a centre containing monuments given the laws of our conflict is it possible for you with the information you have been able to collect in your one and a half days to distinguish legitimate targets can you make proportional decisions about whether your attacks are necessary and what the means and methods of those attacks will need to be to mitigate damage to this site and the answer was basically no and yet we gave them a day and a half just to do one site when you look at this on a country wide scale the way we collect data and how we do it and who we collect it for needs to change and that's on a global level and that is a ministry of culture all across the world is that responsibility because quite honestly we hardly knew anywhere that had that information you know when it came to risk management no one had any comprehensive view of whether all of the museums had risk management plans they do have really good flood defences so in a flood they take everything into the basement and lock the door and it's watertight and then they leave which works really well in a flood but that actually is very problematic in an armed conflict because then you could just go in and take it all away again and they don't have emergency planning that deals with these kind of threat situations so I mean I felt like when we asked the question of what was feasible for armed forces to do to protect it there is a large failing in fact by the heritage community because we've lost that ability to think strategically and about the military mission in terms of how we collect this data and so I think there is a real role now for heritage professionals to change how we do things and that's not easy, that is not a small ask it took us months to collect a tiny amount of data in one area but I think if we're going forwards and we really want to operationalise the protection of cultural property not just put it on a list and say it's protected, this is the way that we need to be going in the future thank you very much