 Good afternoon. My name is Amiga Vargas, and I will do the presentation about the parallel risk preparedness for the conservation of archaeological and natural heritage in the case of Palenque, a war heritage site in Southeast Mexico. I am a PhD candidate here in the University of Barcelona and member of the group of public archaeology and heritage and funded by the National Commission of Science and Technology of Mexico, my foreign country. Well, the content of my presentation is divided in three. The first, I will discuss about the management and risk preparedness in war heritage sites, what is in the UNESCO policies. And the second is the case study of the pre-spandic city and National Park of Palenque. And finally, I will show you some suggested guidelines to improve the risk preparedness that is being carried on in Mexico, in this site, incredibly. Well, in the War Heritage Convention in the article number five, it was established that the state bodies should give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the lives of the community and also to have comprehensive planning programs where risk preparedness is included. In the management systems following the original guidelines of 2017, the state bodies also, when they nominate sites, they should have an appropriate management plan. And this management plan should be preferably developed through participatory means. And I would highlight participation because it's the project that we are developing. And in the guideline A118, it is established that the committee, the War Heritage Committee, recommends that the state bodies include the risk preparedness as an element in their War Heritage site management plans and training strategies. Well, however, last but not least, well, in denomination, it's mandatory now to include natural disasters and risk preparedness, mainly of natural phenomenon. And also in 2007, UNESCO launched a UNESCO strategy for reducing risk from disasters at War Heritage properties. So in this strategy, they established five objectives. The first is to strengthen the support within the relevant global, regional, national, and local institutions. And I highlight local because it's at the level that I am working now. We use the knowledge, innovation, and education to build the culture of disaster prevention, identify, assess, and monitor disaster risk at War Heritage properties, reduce underlying the risk factors at these sites. Lastly, to strengthen the disaster preparedness at War Heritage sites for effective response at all levels. It includes the local level. Well, in this strategy, I will highlight two actions. One of them is that they should take into account the community members for strengthening capacity in for risk preparedness in War Heritage sites. And in the action 4.2, also to develop social training program for communities living within the world around the War Heritage. Even if they don't live in the border of the War Heritage site, but if they live around, they should be included in the social training in social training programs. So what we do in Mexico is to compare what says the UNESCO policies with what is doing Mexico in their archeological sites. So we compare the UNESCO policy with Mexican implementation. And for this presentation, I will highlight what they do in the case of Palenque for the risk preparedness. We have three research questions in what areas and not to what extent do local people participate. The second is what's the social impact of the distribution of the sites in the War Heritage list. And the third question is how is the relationship between the sites managers and also the local communities? Well, our case studies are four. These are the 35 War Heritage sites in Mexico and we choose their archeological sites of Tiotihuacan, El Tahin, Calangmul, and Palenque. About Palenque, for the research, we follow some ethnographic tools in focus groups, participant observation, interviews in depth, in depth interviews. And in the case of Palenque, we developed this methodology in this site with what is described in 1987. It has a very small site, about 1,700 hectares. It's a national park. And over 90% of the local people are indigenous. The site is located six kilometers from the current city of Palenque, the modern city of Palenque. I have to say Palenque is a Mayan site which was inhabited between the centuries. Seven and nine, it was abandoned and it was rediscovered in 1970. So it's six kilometers from the current city of Palenque, but there are two indigenous communities, villages living just next to the national park. In this site that we can see from the plane, and they go every day and they have their work here as I was showing you some slides. Well, and this is the War Heritage property. It doesn't have a buffer zone, so it's all the War Heritage sites. And what we see here is the archaeological elements of the national park. But it is also inscribed based on Mexican legislation as a national park and as an archaeological zone. There's 1,700 hectares. But if we overlap this map with the Google Maps, we see that half of this national park is used for cattle and for agriculture and not for specifically natural heritage conservation. And well, the attraction of Palenque is not a national park, it's the archaeological site, the Pyramid of Pacal, the Temple of the Palace, and also one of the elements of the attraction is the beautyness and the combination of this idyllic and romantic idea of the ecological site in the middle of the jungle that attracted a lot of travelers in the 19th century. But now it's managed by two different institutions, the National Institute of History Anthropology, which was established in 1939, and the National Commission of Protected Areas, established in 2000. So each of these has a completely different approach to the site. They should protect the same territory, but Palenque has the policies followed by the Inna is to protect the archaeological elements, and the Konamp is to protect the natural resources. So you don't see Inna personnel inside the Pyramids, the archaeological site, and we don't see personnel of the archaeological site in the rest of the national park. So at the entrance, they are completely different signs, so they give different information to the visitors, they have different fees, and you have to pay them in different parts of the national park. So what we have found is that the risk preparedness of Inna is just for cultural heritage, and for Konamp is just for natural heritage. The main trade identified in both are anthropogenic. However, for the Inna is the housing and tourism infrastructure, the trade for heritage, and for the Konamp is the massive tourism and the cattle in half of the national park. There is no management plan implemented in Palenque, and the management plan in Konamp has been delayed because there is an error in the inscription of the national park in the Mexican installation. It's a technical problem, but that's why they have not developed the management plan yet. So there are no social participation in risk preparedness activities, and actually there is no participation in any decision making process in the site, and the social participation in Konamp is only in very specific moments, and there are public consultations. So the law established that they have to be public consultation with local communities, and they do that, but it's not compulsory to follow the conclusion of the social agreement. So the Inna has a program for risk preparedness, it's called Pre-Inna, prevention of Inna, and the Konamp has a wide frame of risk preparedness because since the threat, even if the threat is anthropogenic, they have to protect all the whole national heritage, so they are more trained by geologists and biologists, they are more aware of risk preparedness. And there is no official publication of management plans, but in Konamp, it's mandatory to have an official publication, but as I explained before, the management plan has not been developed. So yes, the guidelines, and these are my last slide for this presentation, well, some of them are very obvious, but even if they're obvious, they have not been following since 1987, and one of them is to start a dialogue process with local communities to deal with risk preparedness and management issues, to develop a long-term capacity building program to raise awareness about not only with Inna and Konamp per person, but also with the representatives of the local communities, to open up the participation of local authorities representatives. And we consider that risk preparedness can be the first step for their contribution and collaboration with local communities. And also, it's very important to translate the risk preparedness information into indigenous languages. So over 98% of the people living next to the side are indigenous, male and indigenous people, and it will be very useful to translate it into their languages. They are bilingual, but they speak Spanish too, but to have it translated into indigenous languages can increase the engagement with the local communities. And last but not least, it would be necessary to highlight the international relevance of risk preparedness in war heritage, as a war heritage, because people in Konamp, people in Inna, they don't are very aware of what war heritage description means, what are their obligations, and what are their opportunities, not for funding, because UNESCO is lack of funds, but also for other opportunities to develop exchanges with other war heritage sites or based on UNESCO guidelines to access to international resources for, in this case, risk preparedness. And, well, last acknowledgement of my supervisor of this PhD research, Professor Michael Ithides and Rihuan Shaby-Rihien, the local partners at the war heritage site and community members, sites managers, and members of the public ecology and heritage group, and some of the institutions that has been collaborating with this research. So with that said, thank you very much.