Cultural heritage is increasingly recognised not only as a bearer of identity, but as a key resource for sustainability and resilience. International frameworks and methodologies (UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, PROCULTHER) emphasise its role in disaster risk reduction, yet national-level implementation remains inconsistent.
In Belgium, the 2021 floods exposed major vulnerabilities – over 250 heritage sites were affected, many lacking even basic emergency plans. No structure was in place for coordinated heritage rescue, leaving the sector without clear leadership. In this vacuum, the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA) assumed a de facto coordination role, despite having no formal mandate, as no specific regulation for the protection of heritage in times of crisis existed.
Since 2020, KIK-IRPA has strengthened its expertise and leadership in disaster risk management through initiatives such as the Federal Rescue Strategy for Science and Cultural Heritage (FEDERESCUE) (2020-ongoing) and the Cultural Heritage in Crisis (CHrisis) project (2022–2025). This paper is based on the CHrisis “Return of Experience” (RetEx) report, analysing how the heritage sector responded to the 2021 floods. It also draws on KIK-IRPA’s Sustainability Unit projects (FEDERESCUE, Rampenstrategie, Internal Emergency Plans) and their findings on preparedness across federal institutions, Flanders, Brussels, and KIK-IRPA itself, while seeking alignment with European standards and methodologies.
In PROCULTHER-NET 2 Project. Technical Bulletin N. 6, November 2025, pp 71 – 82. KEYWORDS: floods, cultural heritage, preparedness strategies, response.
Hazard types
DRM Phases
Geographic focus
Sectors
Risk drivers