An analysis of the 41 responses from 16 countries collected from a survey focusing on cultural heritage at risk and launched in July 2026 by the PROCULTHER-4ALL Consortium looks at how and where whole-of-society approaches are applied, what capacities they mobilise, and the boundaries for involving non-public actors.
Since 2019, the PROCULTHER initiatives have helped build a European thematic community connecting cultural heritage (CH) and disaster risk management (DRM) actors. This work has strengthened cooperation between the two sectors and contributed to a whole-of-government approach in which competent public authorities fully recognise cultural heritage as an area of disaster risk management and civil protection.
Running until April 2028, PROCULTHER-4ALL aims to build on this institutional foundation and advance towards a whole-of-society approach. This involves developing a common approach to ensure the participation of local and regional authorities, local communities, volunteers, civil-society organisations, professional bodies, foundations, private-sector actors, academia and other stakeholders, within an effective and accountable framework.
To gather valuable insights to support this effort, the first one at European level, PROCULTHER-4ALL launched a survey in July 2026. The survey aimed to identify existing practices, understand where and how they are implemented, assess the capacities they mobilise and identify needs and potential tools for the application of a whole-of-society approach to the protection of cultural heritage at risk. It was disseminated through project partners, and national civil protection authorities via the Knowledge Network Board Members of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism - UCPM. Respondents were encouraged to consult relevant actors within their institutional and national networks to reflect a broader range of perspectives.
The questionnaire comprised 23 main questions organised into four thematic sections: respondent profiles and stakeholder involvement; existing practices, including those addressing intangible cultural heritage (ICH); needs and tools; and opportunities, conditions and limits for involving non-public stakeholders. A final question addressed relevant EU-funded and UCPM initiatives related to this topic.
In total, the survey received 41 responses from 16 countries (1). The respondents represented a range of institutional and professional backgrounds, with 51% of responses coming from the CH sector, 37% from civil protection and DRM authorities, and 12% from research institutions and cross-sectoral entities.
The findings indicate that whole-of-society principles are already visible in cultural heritage risk management across Europe, but their application remains uneven, often sector-specific and rarely embedded in a shared national system.
Widespread cooperation but uneven formalisation
Thirty-five respondents (approximately 85%) reported awareness of practices involving cross-sectoral or multi-stakeholder cooperation in cultural heritage protection. However, these arrangements vary considerably: some are pilot initiatives or project-based activities, others are recurring practices or networks, while a smaller number are embedded in national frameworks, emergency plans or legislation.
Main drivers & Stakeholders across the DRM cycle
Existing cooperation is still predominantly authority led. Civil protection services are most visible during response, while cultural heritage authorities and institutions show broader involvement across the cycle. Universities and professional networks contribute particularly to prevention and preparedness, whereas volunteers are most frequently associated with response. Companies, insurers, foundations and communities are more visible during recovery. These patterns suggest that non-public and non-institutional stakeholders are often mobilised after an event rather than systematically involved in preparedness and planning.
Contributions from non-public stakeholders: observed and potential added value
The comparison between the added value already observed in existing practices and the potential contribution of non-public stakeholders highlights several areas in which participation could be further developed. The largest gap concerns community-based protection and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, selected by 51% of respondents as a potential area of added value but identified in only 11% of reported practices. By contrast, risk awareness, preparedness planning and specialised expertise are more prominent in existing practices, suggesting that these forms of contribution are already comparatively well established.
Private-sector involvement
Private companies are involved in at least one phase of cultural heritage risk management, according to twenty respondents from nine countries. Private sector appears to be engaged mainly as service or resource providers in response to specific operational needs, rather than systematically included in preparedness structures and joint planning. Their involvement was reported most frequently in recovery, followed by - in descending order - prevention, response and preparedness. Examples include construction and equipment providers, specialist services, training and consultancy, occupational safety support, sponsorship and private owners of heritage assets.
Intangible cultural heritage and communities
Fifteen respondents from seven countries identified practices to protect intangible cultural heritage at risk. Although several examples address general safeguarding rather than disaster-specific measures, the feedback highlight that local communities are not mere beneficiaries, but key players in preparedness, continuity, recovery and resilience, drawing on the knowledge and capacities of bearers, practitioners, associations, parishes and local networks. Reported practices include inventories, documentation, knowledge transmission, community participation, professional training and implementation of the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Needs and tools for effective participation
Coordination mechanisms and training emerged as the two main areas for strengthening a whole-of-society approach. While the ranking of other needs varies slightly across respondent groups, the overall trend places funding, emergency planning, governance, legal frameworks and public awareness next in descending order of importance. In line with these findings, trainings, joint exercises and operational guidelines were the most frequently selected tools, followed by funding opportunities and awareness initiatives.
Appropriate limits and safeguards
Overall, respondents support the involvement of non-public stakeholders but identify clear boundaries for functions involving public authority, security, professional competence and accountability. The strongest agreement concerns decision-making and command structures during emergencies (88%), access to sensitive or restricted information concerning cultural heritage assets (83%) and activities requiring certified professional qualifications (71%). Legal responsibility for heritage assets (61%) and emergency-response coordination roles (59%) are also widely regarded as areas requiring limitations.
Regulatory arrangements
The findings regarding regulatory arrangements point to a shared preference for a clear framework that combines defined responsibilities, formal recognition and effective public oversight. The most popular option is to predefine roles in emergency plans (71%), followed by formal accreditation or certification (59%) and participation under public authority supervision (56%).
Funding and resource mobilisation
Although the range of funding sources is encouraging, reliance on projects, sponsorship and donations may undermine continuity. Public national funding remains predominant, followed by municipal or regional funding, EU-funded projects, private sponsorship, foundations, and donations or crowdfunding. Insurance mechanisms were identified only twice.
Conclusions: From cooperation to a whole-of-society approach
The survey confirms the existing potential to advance towards a whole-of-society approach to cultural heritage protection across Europe. Cooperation between public authorities, cultural heritage professionals, civil protection services and other stakeholders is taking place, but remains uneven and is not consistently embedded in preparedness and emergency planning.
The key challenge is to turn existing interest and commitment into structured, sustained participation capacity to work together. Local communities, volunteers, civil-society organisations, professional networks and private-sector actors can bring valuable knowledge, expertise and resources and even manpower when required to all phases of disaster risk management. Yet their involvement is often shaped by local initiatives or mobilised mainly during response and recovery, rather than systematically integrated into prevention and preparedness.
Progress requires stronger coordination mechanisms, training and exercises targeted to experts from both the DRM and CH sectors, clearer operational roles and practical guidance on stakeholder contributions. Formal arrangements, such as predefined roles in emergency plans, accreditation where appropriate and public authority supervision, can help ensure effective, accountable participation while respecting existing responsibilities. Sustainable funding is also essential to maintain cooperation beyond individual projects.
ICH protection deserves particular attention. One of the most salient findings of this consultation is the recognition that local communities and heritage practitioners are essential in maintaining knowledge, practices and traditions alive, and should be involved in doing so also before, during and after disasters. Their involvement can strengthen continuity and resilience, ensuring that safeguarding measures reflect the needs and capacities of the communities concerned.
A whole-of-society approach does not, however, mean transferring public responsibilities to non-public actors. Clear boundaries must remain in place for emergency command, access to sensitive information, professional qualifications and legal accountability. The objective is to broaden participation while preserving public oversight, operational safety and clearly defined responsibilities.
In the coming months, PROCULTHER-4ALL will build on this first outlook by seeking further contributions to develop tools useful to support the engagement of a broader range of stakeholders in the protection of cultural heritage at risk.
A further step will involve relevant institutions, stakeholders, and practitioners in aparticipatory consultation process leading to the development of Guidelines for Applying a Whole-of-Society Approach to the Protection of Cultural Heritage at Risk. Moving from guidance to implementation, the project will then identify transferable and scalable practices to inform actionable recommendations and shape the Whole-of-Society Action Plan for the Protection of Cultural Heritage at Risk. Stakeholder contributions will be integrated throughout these successive phases, ensuring continuity between the development of the European standards, the formulation of the Guidelines, and the design of an Action Plan grounded in practical experience.
(1) Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye and Ukraine
Sectors