On the  International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction each year  archives, galleries, libraries, museums, historical societies and cultural heritage sites across Australia are urged to take a step forward in disaster risk assessment and preparation for cultural heritage protection.  #DRRday  https://iddrr.undrr.org/

It is a time to prepare for the 2026/2027 Australian disaster season which brings the potential for floods, bushfires, storms and cyclones.

This year Blue Shield Australia is supporting the launch of the AICCM’s Disaster Preparedness Calendar with a panel discussion on the theme Resilience Starts at Home on 13 October 2026 at 12:30pm Eastern Daylight Savings time.

Details to be provided soon.

Hosted by the Inclusive Museum Network and Chau Chak Wing Museum, the 2026 theme explores the Future of Museum Narratives

The Inclusive Museum Research Network is brought together by a shared concern for the future role of the museum and how it can become more inclusive. We seek to build an epistemic community where we can make linkages across disciplinary, geographic, and cultural boundaries. As a Research Network, we are defined by our scope and concerns and motivated to build strategies for action framed by our shared themes and tensions. This Nineteenth International Conference calls for research addressing the themes of Visitors; Collections; Representations.

The 2026 AMaGA National Conference will be held in Canberra from Tuesday 3 to Thursday 5 November 2026. The Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House will serve as our conference hub, with elements of the program taking place across cultural sites and institutions across the National Triangle and Kamberri/Canberra – making the most of the extraordinary cultural precinct on Ngunnawal and Ngambri Country.

The conference theme is Together: people, power and politics.

11 July 2022

We’ve seen dangerous and damaging rain and floods again in New South Wales in the past two weeks.  We know that many communities have now had compounding and multiple disasters these last few years and will be again beginning the process of recovery. Resilience NSW and many other agencies are again working hard on community recovery.

We again provide links to our Blue Shield Australia resources and links to help with personal collection salvage and organisational recovery.  While we have received reports of a number of libraries and heritage buildings being affected by water leaks etc, we have not received any further reports at this stage.

This year the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction released the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – the GAR2022 Report .  “If current trends continue, the number of significant disasters per year globally may increase from around 400 in 2015 to 560 per year by 2030 – a projected increase of 40% during the lifetime of the Sendai Framework.”

We can all play our part to #StopTheSpiral and contribute to being more prepared for natural disasters, within our organisations and in our personal lives.  This short UNDRR video highlights this need.

We encourage you to look through the Blue Shield Australia resources and planning documents, and make time to undertake preparatory tasks within your cultural heritage sites and organisations and join with others in your local region to ‘get prepared’.

If you’d like to get in contact with Blue Shield Australia you can email us at info @ blueshieldaustralia.org.au

                     Kathryn Dan,  BSA Chair, 2021-2023

News reports bring us pictures of the physical impacts of disasters like floods and fires as well as stories of the immediate social and emotional effects. The emotional impact and effects to mental health are not always as obvious as the water, mud or ash, and they can be long-lasting. Resources are available to understand and work with recovery in mental health and well-being either through government disaster response resources or specialised mental health organisations:

Queensland Government
https://www.qld.gov.au/community/disasters-emergencies/disasters/mental-health

Black Dog Institute
https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/bush-fire-support-service/resource/strategies-for-long-term-health-and-wellbeing/

Beyond Blue
https://www.beyondblue.org.au/the-facts/natural-disasters-and-your-mental-health

One of the strengths of the initiative of the Blue Shield is that although it is principally oriented toward the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict it does have an important role in mitigating and managing disasters …. I think that’s one of the aspects that makes it a truly international initiative and of universal appeal…. In moments of natural disaster the same need for cooperation exists and such cooperation results in the same benefits. – George McKenzie, Founder –  

OUR ANNIVERSARY  — What is the Blue Shield?
25 years ago, four international heritage organisations recognised the need for greater cooperation to protect cultural heritage at risk from conflict and disaster: the International Council on Archives (ICA), the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). Together, on 6 June in 1996, they founded the
International Committee of the Blue Shield, with a vision for national committees across the world. Today simply called the Blue Shield, it is:
“committed to the protection of the world’s cultural property, and is concerned with the protection of cultural and natural heritage, tangible and intangible, in the event of armed conflict, natural- or human-made disaster.” (Articles of Association 2.1 2016)
Often referred to as the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross, the Blue Shield is a non-governmental, non-profit, international organisation, working to protect museums, galleries, monuments, archaeological sites, archives, libraries and audio-visual material, and significant natural areas, as well as intangible heritage. It is composed of national committees operating across the world, coordinated by an International Board. Members include the founding organisations, governments, emergency services, armed forces, academics, and all those with responsibility for heritage protection in crisis.
We found our work in key international frameworks and law, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and in particular the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which designates our namesake – the distinctive blue shield emblem signifying cultural property protected in conflict. This landmark legislation was followed in 1999 by a Second Protocol, which recognises the Blue Shield as an official advisory body to the international Committee
for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (article 27.3).
This year we are celebrating our 25th anniversary. Blue Shield has 28 national committees and more beginning to be established. However, we are an almost entirely voluntary, including the National Committee members.  Blue Shield International is a largely unfunded organisation, supported primarily by Newcastle University in the UK. Despite that, we continue to grow. We have signed key agreements with the ICRC, NATO, and others, and are advocating for heritage protection at national and international levels.  As heritage continues to be threatened by crises around the world, the Blue Shield stands ready to assist.

Blue Shield Australia, established in 2005, is proud to be a long-standing ongoing National Committee of Blue Shield.  Thank you to all the volunteers who have contributed these past 25 years.

Authors:
T.L. Park
^{Southern Cross University and Blue Shield Australia, tanya_park@hotmail.com}
S. Hutley
^{Chair, Blue Shield Australia, info@blueshieldaustralia.org.au}

Recently 46,000 year old sites of high cultural significance have been destroyed by mining detonations.  Rio Tinto was legally permitted to destroy the culturally significant sites under a Section 18 Notice of the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, with a permit issued in 2013. Seven years later the mining company has destroyed significant artefacts including early evidence of grinding and bone technology and plaited hair approximately 4000 years old that has been linked by DNA to the contemporary Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura Traditional Owners.

Some 350 km north of this site is the Burrup Peninsula, with rock art which is amongst the most ancient rock art in the world. The  peninsula and surrounding Dampier Archipelago also hold the highest concentration of rock art in the world. “…petroglyphs, include depictions of human life figures, human faces and animals that no longer inhabited the region, including the Tasmanian tiger”¹

In January 2020, a submission was made to UNESCO to secure World Heritage Status for this region as Australia’s largest collection of rock art. If the submission is accepted it will reside on the tentative list for at least 12 months before the listing is formalised, due to a number of considerations that will be taken into account, such as outstanding universal value [OUV] of site, heritage management and including consultation with traditional owners [Murujuga]. The Burrup Peninsula is known to be a site of major industrial development and there are very real concerns that industrial emissions could adversely affect the stability and longevity of the rock art.

A number of academic studies have taken place around the protection of the significance of the rock art, one such study took place in 2013 pertaining to the natural processes and rates of weathering, erosion, including the effects of fire, that affect the stability of rock surfaces and subsequently the longevity of the rock art. Cosmogenic nuclides (or cosmogenic isotopes) were studied, and it was concluded that these rare nuclides demonstrate amongst the lowest erosion rates (at least measured by cosmogenic nuclides) anywhere in the world.  Thus low erosion rates, together with low rainfall, have favoured long-term preservation of petroglyphs, long enough to encompass the known period of human settlement in Australia.³

In 2013, after the mining company was granted mining rights in the region, archaeologists subsequently provided ‘evidence’ of the sites cultural significance via artifacts belonging to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura traditional owners, including a 28,000 year old tool fashioned from bone and a piece of 4000 year old plaited hair belt.  Traditional owners visited sites, in line with best practice in cultural management procedure, alongside international exemplar for heritage management, highlighting the importance of ethical partnerships with Traditional Owners and communities. The importance and significance of the site was indisputable, both from a local and international perspective.   Once the significance of the place had been established there was no process under the Act, or within the administration of the Act, that could alter the terms of the section 18 permit.  Under the AHA, no parties other than the Land Owner can appeal a section 18 decision. So, the Traditional Owners had no right of appeal after the section 18 was granted, despite having found new and compelling evidence about the significance of the site.

Legal Framework for management and protection lies within the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), where, within the act it is an offence to negatively impact an area that has national heritage listing. A great number of ancient Aboriginal sites are not listed as national heritage, and if federal legislation is not applicable, State laws apply.   The Juukan Rockshelters were not listed on the National Heritage List, so EPBC doesn’t apply. The rock shelters in the Pilbara were protected under Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act of 1972. The Traditional Owners are the Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura people and the legal tenement owners are Rio Tinto Iron Ore.⁴ So, under the S18 process, only Rio Tinto would be allowed to appeal against a decision.  The fifty year old act is currently being reviewed by the State Government, hopefully addressing the blatant omission of the opportunity of the reform of a decision once new information has emerged. Without legal protection cultural property is at risk as economic interests are at the forefront.

Instead of the circular debates in which the outcry of protection of cultural property comes at the cost of economic progress, Australia’s place within a global context will need to at least be acknowledged. “Global mining giant Rio Tinto is set to contribute 10m to support Covid-19 community initiatives in the US and Canada. The funding will be used to support deprived families and supply critical equipment to frontline works…”⁴  Australia no longer exists in economic isolation, we are on the international stage both economically and culturally, the destruction of irreplaceable cultural property is highly emotional, and deeply saddening. We all have to do better and find a way forward.  It is of no use to throw up our arms in despair, blanket blame, there must be open and honest conversations, difficult conversations.

1. Dineley, J., Australian Geographic, November 7, 2013
2. Brad Pillans and Keith Fifield, Science Direct Journal.
   Volume 69, 1 June 2013, Pages 98-106.
3. Jo Thomson, University of Western Australia, personal communication, 2020
4. Mining Technology, News, 5 May 2020, https://www.mining-technology.com/news

ATTACHMENTS: BSA_Press-Release_June-2020.pdf

Blue Shield Australia members join with Blue Shield International sharing their grave concern regarding the statements by the President of the USA that he is contemplating targeting cultural sites in Iran. Intentional targeting of cultural sites is prohibited under international humanitarian law, particularly the UNESCO 1954 Hague Convention. Read the full statement here https://theblueshield.org/bsi-statement-on-potential-specific-targeting-of-cultural-sites-in-iran/