INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY
(INCD)
Cultural Impact Assessment Project
Framework for cultural impact assessment
Prepared by : June
2004
Burama K. SAGNIA
Project consultant
Tel: (221) 520 96 40
Email: burasagnia@hotmail.com
CONTENTS
I – Background and Context 3
II – Principles for Cultural Impact
Assessment 9
III – Legal Mandates and Administrative
Procedures 13
IV – A Conceptual Model for Collecting
an Examining Data
and Information on Cultural Impacts 15
IV.1 – Determine
Project Type 15
IV.2 – Identify
Cultural Impact Assessment Variables 16
IV.3 – Determine
the Stage in Policy Development / Project Cycle 17
IV.4 – Construct
a Matrix for relating CIA Variables
to Policy/Project Type and Stage 18
V – Procedure for conducting cultural impact
assessment 20
VI – ConclusionS and Recommendations 26
VI.a – Constraints
of Cultural Impact Assessment 26
VI.b – Application
of Cultural Impact Assessment Results 27
REFERENCES 30
I-
BACKGROUND
AND CONTEXT
The
idea to initiate the formulation of a framework for assessing the cultural
impact of development policies and projects came out of the INCD third annual
meeting held in
The
primary objective is to outline a framework that will assist development
agencies and private interests in fulfilling their obligations towards the affected
communities of their policies and projects, and in so doing respect, preserve
and promote cultural diversity and identity.
According
to the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), impact
assessment simply defined, “is the process of identifying the future
consequences of a current or proposed action”.
Impact
assessment as a standard development practice, gained international attention
and recognition as a result of the activities of two international bodies. In
1980, during the special session on integrated impact assessment at a meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the
formulation of a new organization was discussed. It would combine the interests
of environmental impact assessment, social impact assessment, technology
assessment, risk assessment and related fields. A working party was convened to
advance the proposal and the International Association for Impact Assessment
was inaugurated as an international non-governmental organization.
At
the 1992 United Nations Summit on Environment and Development, otherwise known
as the Earth Summit held in Rio (
Preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement requires the integrated use of the natural
and social sciences and the humanities. For example addressing the social
components of the Environment Impact Assessment has gradually led to the
development of sound principles and guidelines on social impact assessment
(SIA). An internationally-applied SIA guidelines was prepared by an
Inter-organizational committee established by the United States Department of
Commerce in May 1994.
The
EIS guidelines has adopted both social and cultural variables among others to
guide its investigations. While some EIS’s distinguish social variables from
cultural variables, some subsume cultural variables under the broader social
variables and treat culture as part of the social dimensions of environmental
impact assessment, on the assumption that social impact assessment will
adequately cover cultural issues and concerns.
The
fact of the matter is that neither the cultural or social aspects of the EIS,
nor the independent will of the cultural community has led to the development
of similar international principles and guidelines for cultural impact
assessment. A separate set of principles and guidelines that could provide
common standards for addressing the cultural concerns of communities in a
broad-based, holistic and participatory manner is what is required.
What
is cultural impact assessment? What is its purpose or aim? Why has its
development lagged behind other forms of impact assessment? What sort of principles
and guidelines can be proposed to assess the cultural impact of development
policies and actions? What efforts have or are being made to address cultural
impact assessment issues at the national and international levels?
The term “cultural impact” refers to the consequences to human
populations of any public or private policies and actions that significantly
change their norms, values, beliefs, practices, institutions as well as the way
they live, work, socialize and organize themselves as part of their cultural
life.
Assessing the cultural impact of policies and actions on the human environment
is not an entirely new phenomenon, as several agencies have already developed
cultural impact assessment guidelines as part of their project evaluation frameworks.
However, as these agency-driven guidelines are tailor-made and
custom-designed to suit the needs of the agencies concerned, there are
remarkable variations in approaches and experiences on how the cultural impact
of projects is to be assessed. There is therefore, up to now, no systematic
interdisciplinary statement from the cultural community as to what the content
of cultural impact assessment should be like.
In view of the multiplicity of approaches and experiences in carrying
out cultural impact assessment, there is the need to develop common standards
and guidelines. That way systematic and consistent regimes of the cultural
impact assessment process could be developed to reduce biases and abuses of the
system. For instance, it is undesirable to have culturally-damaging activities
being encouraged to concentrate in those countries with the weakest standards
of preserving and promoting cultural heritage, and at least a basic minimum
agreed common standard and a view about good practise, would help reduce this
problem.
There is so far no internationally negotiated and acceptable definition
of cultural impact assessment. However, as there are a variety of approaches
and experiences in cultural impact assessment, it is worth beginning with a
basic definition of what it is meant, so that the terms used in this text are
clear. For the purpose of this study, cultural impact assessment is defined as
:
A process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and
communicating the probable effects of a current or proposed development policy
or action on the cultural life, institutions and resources of communities, then
integrating the findings and conclusions into the planning and decision making
process, with a view to mitigating adverse impacts and enhancing positive
outcomes.
It could be deduced from the above definition that cultural impact
assessment is predicated on the notion that decision makers should understand
the consequences of their decisions before they act, and that the affected
people will not only be appraised of the effects, but have the opportunity to
participate in designing their future.
The goal therefore for undertaking this task is to enhance the
preservation and promotion of the cultural diversity of affected communities
with a view to ensuring the sustainability of development actions and policies.
In this way it provides planners and decision makers with better information
about the consequences which development actions and policies could have on the
cultural environment, although it cannot of itself achieve that protection.
The approach is characterised by its multidisciplinary, systematic and
predictive nature and in its better form involves :
Ž
Reviewing the existing
state of the cultural environment and the characteristics of the proposed
action and possible alternative actions ;
Ž
Predicting the state
of the future cultural environment with and without the action (the difference
between the two is the action’s impact) ;
Ž
Considering methods
for avoiding, eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts, and possible
compensation for them ;
Ž
Preparing a cultural
impact statement or cultural assessment report which discusses the issues, and
is used to inform and influence decision-making ; and
Ž
After a decision is
made about whether/how the action should proceed, monitoring the impacts which
do occur, and acting on the results of such monitoring.
Apart from informing the authority responsible for approving projects
about foreseeable cultural consequences of policies or projects, cultural
impact assessment has or should have an important function in ascertaining
whether policies or projects will conform to other international
standard-setting instruments on culture such as the 2001 UNESCO Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the Action Plan of the 1998 Stockholm
Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, the 2002
Istanbul Declaration on the Intangible Cultural Heritage, etc…..
As a result of the publication of well-researched technical analyses of
the significance of cultural factors in development efforts, coupled with
active lobbying by a variety of research communities, a new recognition of the
cultural basis and impact of development emerged. However, considered as a
whole, there is still on the one hand, an almost total lack of established
routines and on the other, a noticeable sceptism in development cooperation
institutions as to the value of adopting more professional and standard
approach to the cultural basis of development. At the sametime one can observe that
the formulation of development cooperation goals and principles now underscore
the fundamental role of cultural factors in recipient countries in the way
development assistance is designed.
The above considerations notwithstanding, local communities face
critical problems when it comes to the implementation of projects. More often
than not, their participation in project that directly affect them is seriously
curtailed. They are rarely actively involved in the project from the design
stage through to evaluation. Rather, they are merely informed and their
concerns, even if genuine, are hardly taken on board.
In the case of large infrastructural projects such as road construction,
large scale multinational logging and dam constructions, because of the controversies
involved, especially as it affects the local communities, the attitude of
governments, the donor agency and the multinational contracting companies is
one of benign neglect. It is out of such cultural concerns of the communities
among others, that the need for cultural impact assessment arose. The following
examples with illustrate the point.
Box I : Cultural challenges to road planning,
design and construction in Bali (
The challenge to construct new roads in developing
countries with the intensity of land development and dense settlement patterns,
coupled with the significance of cultural sites, is extremely difficult. Added
to the engineering challenges is the requirement to document the proposed
development under environmental impact assessment legislation, the regulations
of the country and the environmental guidelines and directives of the donor
agency.
This was the case for a recently completed study in
The main challenge for road design and construction in
Whereas new roads and improvement to the existing road
infrastructure are desperately required to meet the growing number of vehicles
and the movement of tourists that contribute substantially to the foreign
exchange of Indonesia, but accommodating the cultural needs of the Balinese
makes road design and construction a unique challenge.
Source:
ND Lea International Ltd,
Box II: Cultural Challenges to Multinational logging:
The Case of the Saramacca Maroons
The rainforests in the world’s tropical regions are
the sources of the cultural and biological diversity of local communities
living nearby. They tap the rainforest as a means of subsistence, to meet their
spiritual and emotional needs and as sources of the diverse medicinal and
nutritional plant species they require.
However, these forests are frequently threatened by
development projects or concessions offered to other international companies by
their governments for logging purposes. Sometimes, big pharmaceutical companies
from developed countries tap these forests as the source of medicinal plants
which are later developed in distant laboratories into drugs that they later
sell back to the very countries the plants were obtained from.
The world forest movement documented the plight of the
Saramacca Maroons in
Presently, all land in the interior of the country
(approximately 80%) is classified as state land and indigenous peoples and
Maroons are considered to be permissive occupiers of state land without rights
or title there to. If their subsistence activities conflict with logging or
mining operations, the latter takes precedence as a matter of law. Furthermore,
Suriname Law does not provide any mechanism for consulting with the communities
about the granting of concessions on or near their territories.
International human rights standards provide that
indigenous peoples and Maroons have the right to participate fully in decisions
before they are taken, and about whether concessions are granted on their
lands. Their rights include the right to information concerning the proposed
activities, companies involved and the nature of risks posed by the activity.
Source: Forest Peoples
Program of the
http://www.wrm.org
Box III : Cultural
challenges to Dam Construction in
The construction of a dam is always part of broader
socio-economic development projects designed to provide hydro-electric power or
to provide more cultivable land through irrigation. However, dam construction
is without controversies as it disrupts the pattern of living of the local
communities living around the site of the proposed dam or destroys underground
archaeological remains and even relics and monuments.
The plan to construct a dam at Ilisu on the River
Tigris is part of a large scale project for the socio-economic development of
SE Anatolia. However, much of the archaeological heritage in the uppervalley of
the Tigris and
The dam projects have however led to far greater
attention over recent years and this attention in turn generated welcome
possibilities for research.
Equally not much is known or documented of the
traditional culture of the local population to be displaced by the construction
of the dam. Kurdish settlements can be traced after a migration from western
Source: Ilisu
Engineering Group,
II – Principles for cultural impact
assessment
The framework presented here is inspired by the basic structures of the
environmental and social impact Assessment model as approved by the
International Association for Impact Assessment. The model has however been
adapted and further developed and improved upon with cultural elements and
experiences, to enhance its suitability for assessing the cultural impact of
development policies and projects.
Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) is a method of analyzing what impact a
development policy or action may have on the cultural aspects of the
environment. These aspects include (but not limited to):
-
the ways people cope
with life through their economy, rural systems and values;
-
the ways people use
the natural environment for shelter, making livelihood, industry, worship,
recreation, gathering together, etc;
-
the ways communities
are organized, and held together by their social and cultural institutions and
beliefs;
-
ways of life that
communities value as expressions of their identity;
-
art, music, dance,
language, crafts, drama festivals and other expressive aspects of culture;
-
a groups’ values and
beliefs about appropriate ways to live, family and extra-family relationships,
status relationships, means of expression and other expressions of the
community; and
-
the aesthetic and
cultural character of a community or neighbourhood-its ambience.
Cultural impact assessment involves characterizing the existing state of
such aspects of the environment, forecasting how they may change if a given
action or alternative is implemented, and developing means of mitigating
changes that are likely to be adverse from the point of view of an affected
population.
The following principles are benchmarks for conducting a cultural impact
assessment : They include the :
1 – Public Involvement, Consultation and Participation
Since CIA is primarily concerned with determining and addressing the
concerns of the public, public involvement is essential. In this respect, it is
essential to determine who the affected segments of the public are, how they
are organized and how their active participation could be assured.
2 – Analyze Impact Equity
A basic aspect of cultural impact assessment is to identify all groups
likely to be affected by a development policy or action. There will always be
winners and losers as the result of a decision to construct a dam, build a
highway or undertake large scale timber logging (as in the examples shown in
boxes: I-III). However, no category of persons, particularly those that might
be considered more sensitive or vulnerable as a result of age, gender,
ethnicity, race, impairment or disability, occupation or other factors, should
have to bear the brunt of adverse cultural impacts. While there may be varying
benefits for almost all to be affected by a proposed policy or action, the CIA
has a special duty to identify those whose adverse impacts might get lost in
the aggregate benefits. The impact equity analysis must be considered in close
and sympathetic consultation with affected communities, neighbourhoods and
groups, especially the poor, low-income and minority groups and indigenous
communities.
3 – Focus the Assessment
Cultural impact assessment practitioners must contend with stringent
time and resource constraints that affect the scope of the assessment and how
much can be done in the time available. Given such constraints, a central
question emerges: “If you cannot cover the cultural universe, what should you focus
on?” The answer is to focus on the most significant impact in order of
priority, and all significant impacts for all impacted groups must be identified
early using a variety of rapid appraisal or other participatory enquiry
techniques. Impacts identified by the public, through the use of participatory
enquiry and involvement methods (focus groups discussions,
participant-observation method, surveys, etc.) must be given high priority.
However CIA assessors must use their expertise and experience to
prioritise issues. This may assist in identifying issues for further research,
which might have been unrecognized by the public or the agencies.
4 – Identify Methods and Assumptions
The methods and assumptions used in cultural impact assessment should be
made available and published prior to a decision in order to allow decision
makers as well as the public to evaluate the assessment of impacts.
5 – Define significance
A cultural impact assessment should discuss how the significance of a
cultural variable or an impact is represented. There are definitely reasons for
regarding one variable as more significant than another in a given case; and
these reasons should of necessity be made explicit.
6 – Provide Feedback to Project Planners
A CIA should not take the form of a basic research consultancy report,
which could be drafted and delivered directly to the Contracting Agency without
prior client involvement. There should be an active feedback process between
the CIA Assessor and the Planning Agency throughout the assessment and planning
process. That way, CIA results should feedback into project design to mitigate
adverse impacts and enhance positive ones.
The CIA therefore should be designed as a dynamic process involving
cycles of project design, assessment, redesign and reassessment. This process
should be carefully carried out and coordinated informally with planners
(project designers) so that they are adequately appraised of the potential
problems and opportunities before it is too late to do anything about them.
Equally important is the opportunity to be accorded the public for comments to
the draft assessment report before its publication. This aspect can contribute
immensely to the process of feedback and modification.
7 – Use Professionally Trained and Qualified CIA
Practitioners
Trained Cultural Specialists using appropriate professional methods,
will provide the best results. Generally speaking, such practitioners include
anthropologists, archaeologists, ethnologists/ethnographers, cultural
geographers, and members of related professions (e.g. sociology, social
history, linguistics, musicology, etc.) may be effective cultural impact
analysts if they have the right interest and training. Selecting a CIA
practitioner requires a close look at both training and experience, and seeking
a good “fit” between the analyst and the issues to be analysed.
8 – Establish Monitoring and Mitigation Programs
A CIA should not only provide the Agency with an analysis of impacts,
but also the basis for setting up programs to mitigate cultural impact and
monitor how these programs work.
Identifying a monitoring infrastructure is a key element of the local
planning process. This should make monitoring and mitigation a joint agency and
community responsibility. As few agencies seem to have the resources to
continue these activities for an extended period, local communities when
provided with the resources, could assume a part of the responsibility for
monitoring and mitigation.
9 – Identify Data Sources
As a matter of good practice, a CIA should identify the sources of data
and information upon which the analysis is based.
Three sources which should be consulted for any exercise are: Published
Scientific literature, secondary data and primary data, although the balance
among the three may vary according to the type of proposed action.
Published scientific literature including books, reports, journal
articles from similar projects, would have normally summarised existing
knowledge of impacts based on acceptable scientific standards.
Secondary Data including vital statistics, agency reports and routine
data collected by government agencies.
Primary data sources would normally include survey research, oral
histories, interview of key informants, etc.
10 – Plan for Gaps in data
No CIA collects all the required data. In such a situation, the CIA
should honestly identify gaps in its data base information that probably exists
but cannot be gathered, or questions and uncertainties about the data. In
consultation with project planners, the CIA analyst should assess how critical
the data are, and either develop strategies for obtaining them or establish
ways to proceed towards a good decision without them.
III –
Legal Mandates and Administrative Procedures
Legal Mandates
A cultural impact assessment does not take place in a vacuum. Apart from
the fact that it is undertaken as a response to a particular situation, a proposed
development action or policy change, it also has to be mandated by statutes or
regulations already in place to provide authorisation for the exercise.
An examination of CIA exercises in most countries show that the National
Environmental Act is the primary legal requirement for a cultural impact
assessment. The CIA is therefore an investigation of the effects of development
policy or action on the cultural aspects of the human environment.
This means that if there are no environmental effects of any kind, other
than a social or cultural, an environmental impact statement will not be
prepared, but an environmental assessment will be undertaken, which is expected
to take note of other effects; social, cultural, economic, etc. A look at the
enabling legislations of a few countries, providing the framework for CIA will
illustrate the point.
Figure I: Statutes and legislations that mandate
cultural impact assessment
|
Country |
Legislation
|
Provision |
|
|
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 |
Calls for the integrated use of the social sciences
in assessing impacts on the human environment. |
|
|
- Environmental Impact Assessment ordinance - Antiquities and Monuments ordinance - Marine Archaeological Guidelines |
Prescribes the approaches and standards required in
investigating and assessing the impacts on the cultural heritage sites |
|
|
- 1840 Treaty of Waitangi - Resource Management Act, 1991 |
- Granted settlement rights to the British but
guaranteed the Maori, protection of their possessions for as long as they
wished. - This is the mechanism under which the natural and
physical resources of the |
|
|
- Code de
l’Environnement (Environment Law); loi n° 83-05 of 28/01/98 - Titre II du
Code de l’Environnement (Prévention et lutte contre les pollutions et
nuisances) - Plan d’Action
de l’Environnement Nationale |
- Requires the assessment of the environmental,
social and cultural impacts of all projects executed in - Requires the assessment of the impacts of all
projects to ensure their environmental soundness. - Stipulates the guidelines and procedures for
carrying out environmental, social and cultural impact assessment of projects. |
|
|
Section 38 (1) of the National Environmental Management Act |
Requires that any party who intends to undertake a
development activity, must notify the responsible heritage resource authority
and to furnish it will all necessary details. If the heritage resource
authority believes that heritage resources will be affected by such
development, it will require the developer to submit a heritage assessment report. |
Administrative Process
As CIA is intended to provide a form of full-disclosure procedure for
decision makers to enable them consider the full implications of potential
courses of action and the unintended as well as the intended, before the
proposed development proceeds, certain administrative processes are expected to
be observed. The following is an example of an administrative process that a
CIA can go through. This is a guideline, describing a standard process but its
observance depends upon national circumstances, hence varying in the degree and
level of sophistication. It is based on a summary of common standards observed
by selected countries for this study, obtained through an internet review.
1 – The National Cultural Agency prepares a
ministerial memorandum/cabinet paper, identifying and defining those projects
which will be subject (by law or cabinet order) to the CIA procedures;
2 – The National Cultural Agency sets out the basic CIA guidelines;
3 – The responsible Ministry sets out the CIA principles;
4 – The project proponent prepares the draft CIA;
5 – Notification, public inspection of project plans and draft CIA by
the concerned local government authorities;
6 – The project proponent organizes briefing meetings with the
concerned/affected groups or communities;
7 – Presentation of written comments from concerned members of the
community;
8 – Views and comments of the concerned local government authority;
9 – Preparation of the final CIA by the project proponent;
10 – Notification and public inspection of the final CIA by the
concerned local government authorities and representatives of the affected
groups;
11 – Comments and observations of the National Cultural Agency
Submitted directly to those who issue the license;