bangladesh: the international campaign for the...

Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section

IOS/EVS/PI/16

Original: English

Evaluation Report Bangladesh: The International Campaign for the

Protection, Preservation, Restoration and Presentation of the Ancient Monuments of Paharpur Vihara

and Those of the Mosque City of Bagerhat

William Logan June 2001

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

William Logan. Paharpur Vihara and the Mosque City of Bagerhat, Bangladesh. Evaluation Report. May 2001._________________________________________________________________________________

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

1. Terms of Reference

2. Consultant’s Itinerary

3. Methodology

4. Main Issues

4.1 Achievement of the Campaign Objectives

4.1.1 Management of national capacity building in Bangladesh4.1.2 Contribution of Campaign to national capacity building in DOA4.1.3 Contribution of Campaign to capacity building in Bangladesh generally4.1.4 Contribution of Campaign to related international collaboration and exchange4.1.5 Technical Issues4.1.6 Site Presentation and Cultural Tourism4.1.7 Administrative Arrangements

4.2 Efficiency of Procedure and Coordination

4.2.1 Efficiency of Inter-Ministerial Co-ordination4.2.2 Efficiency of Departmental Co-ordination

4.3 Cost Effectiveness

4.3.1 International and National Contributions4.3.2 Cost-effectiveness of Technical Aspects of the Campaign

4.4 Campaign Promotion

4.4.1 National Promotion of the Campaign4.4.2 International Promotion of the Campaign

4.5 Maintaining Campaign Impact through a Post-Campaign Strategy

4.5.1 Infrastructure for Cultural Tourism4.5.2 Infrastructure for Urban Development

4.6 UNESCO’s Role

4.6.1 UNESCO Mechanisms and Expertise4.6.2 UNESCO’s Partnership Role, especially at the International Level

5. Conclusions and Recommendations for the Post-Campaign Strategy


3

APPENDICES

A. Consultants’ Itineraries

B Documents Received and Consulted

C. Questionnaire

D. Schedule of Individual Interviews and Group Discussions

E. Directorate of Archaeology and Project Unit Staffing

F. Summary of Campaign Works and Funding, by Phases

G. Proposal by Project Unit for Post-Campaign Strategy

H. Draft letters re: Engagement of Consultant, Directorate of Archaeology, dated26/6/2000.

I. Register of 330 Protected Cultural Heritage Properties in Bangladesh, with ‘Top 100’Highlighted (April 2001).


4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACCU Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO, Tokyo, Japan

ASE Archaeological Superintendent Engineer

BGD Bangladesh

BPE Program Evaluation Unit, Bangladesh

CLT/CH Division of Cultural Heritage, Culture Sector, UNESCO

CRC Campaign Review Committee

DOA Directorate of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh(also referred to as Department of Archaeology)

DOAM Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Ministry of Cultural Affairs,Bangladesh (now the DOA)

MCAT Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism, Bangladesh

ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration ofCultural Property, Rome

ICOM International Council on Museums

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO-DHA UNESCO Office in Dhaka


5

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The UNESCO General Conference at its 30th Session in 1999 resolved in decision (30C/5,Programme III.1, paragraph 03112) that ‘the impact and the method of InternationalSafeguarding Campaigns conducted over the last 10 years will be evaluated’. In accordance withthat decision UNESCO’s Division of Cultural Heritage established the current evaluation of theeffectiveness of the International Safeguarding Campaign for the Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhatin Bangladesh, which was launched on 13 June 1985 and followed up by the monuments beinginscribed on the World Heritage List in the same year.

The document Evaluation of International Safeguarding Campaign for Paharpur Vihara andBagerhat (Doc. CLT/CH/02/1/EV-BGD) (dated Paris, 17 May 2000) was provided as the basis ofthe present consultancy. The document sets out the ‘Draft Terms of Reference’.

One of the ‘Main Issues’ referred to in the Draft Terms of Reference is the recommendation ofthe 1998 Campaign Review Committee (CRC) that a Post-Campaign Strategy be drawn up forthe effective preservation and promotion of the Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhat heritage. Thepresent Evaluation is required to ‘analyse the Campaign and to examine the programmesimplemented according to its Plan of Action and Campaign Strategy in order that an appropriatepolicy to address the Post-Campaign development programme be established’.

The evaluation is divided into two parts, the first being an evaluation of the Campaign at theinstitutional level by William Logan, and the second an evaluation at the technical level byWerner Schmid. The two Consultants have reported separately.

2. ITINERARY

The Consultants visited Bangladesh in April 2001 and presented their Preliminary Reports inMay 2001. William Logan’s in-country itinerary is included as Appendix A.

Note that it had been planned that both consultants would visit the Paharpur and Bagerhat sites.However, because Bangladesh was caught up in a three-day General Strike, with accompanyingstreet violence, from 9 – 11 April, the Directorate of Archaeology (DOA) required theconsultants to remain in their hotel for that period. As a result, William Logan was only able tovisit Paharpur. Werner Schmid was able to visit both sites before the General Strike began.

3. METHODOLOGY

The Evaluation has proceeded through the three stages defined in the Terms of Reference; viz.

(i) Documentary Studies

The Campaign Strategy Document (UNESCO 24C/104, 10 September 1987), which wasapproved by the General Conference at its 24th Session in 1987, is the basis for the presentEvaluation. The 1998 Stockholm Action Plan, ‘Cultural Policies for Development’, is animportant recent strategy document and is also a basic reference point for the Evaluation.


6

Key documents relating to the Bangladesh Campaign were provided by CLT/CH and the DOA.The list of documents received and consulted is included in Appendix B.

Drawn up under UNDP Project BGD/81/007, the 1983 Master Plan is the basic documentoutlining the proposed organizational arrangements, training, provision of equipment andtechnical works of conservation for the Campaign. Logan had previously reviewed thisdocument, and the subsequent 1984 Action Plan, for CLT/CH in 1987. The DOA providedextracts of the main Master Plan recommendations to Logan and Schmid.

Reports from the three meetings of the Campaign Working Group/Review Committee, as well asa number of international consultants’ reports were also provided by DOA.

No documents were received by the Consultants from the Program Evaluation Unit (BPE) or theUNESCO Office in Dhaka (UNESCO-DHA). Nor were documents received from partnerorganizations, such as UNDP, ICOMOS, ICOM, ICCROM and ACCU, or from donor countries.

Dr Mohammad Shafiqul Alam, Deputy Director (Publication), Directorate of Archaeology,provided the consultants with a copy of the paper he presented at the ACCU meeting, held inNara, Japan, from 29 February to 3 March 2000.1 Since Logan had represented the ICOMOSGeneral-Secretary, Jean-Louis Luxen, at the Nara meetings he was already broadly familiar withthe administrative and other issues relating to Campaign sites before this mission to Bangladesh.

(ii) Individual Interviews and Group Discussions

The Consultants prepared a series of questions which they used to elicit the information requiredto facilitate the Evaluation. The ‘questionnaire’ devised for the investigation of administrativearrangements is included in Appendix C. The list of Bangladeshi officers interviewed, alongwith the dates and location of those interviews, is included in Appendix D.

It was not considered appropriate (given the timing of the consultancies) or necessary (from thepoint of view of obtaining the required information) to organize a broader survey.

The site visits provided further data, including the views of the site manager.

(iii) Preliminary Report.

Following discussion between the Consultants and CLT/CH it was decided that the Consultantswould produce separate but complementary Preliminary Reports.

1 Md Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Bangladesh, Paper presented to to the Consultative Meeting on Regional Cooperation in Cultural Heritage Protection, ACCU, Nara, 29 February – 3 March 2000.


7

4. MAIN ISSUES

4.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhat Campaign Strategy is to ‘strengthennational capacity in the field of cultural heritage resource management, protection andpromotion, with a wider aim to promote cultural and educational activities and internationalexchanges’ (Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000).

4.1.1 Management of National Capacity Building in Bangladesh

National capacity building is of concern to all levels of government in Bangladesh, from thePrime Minister’s Office down, but it is complicated by the administrative structure ofgovernment, financial rules and the character of the education system in Bangladesh. The DOAstaff are not part of the Bangladesh Civil Service and their tenure, grades and remuneration ratesare determined within the Ministry of Culture. (This also applies to the National Museum, whichwas formerly part of a Directorate of Archaeology and Museums.) The arrangements forcontrolling Campaign funds, both from international and national sources, are complex and slow.The educational system at the tertiary level comprises universities and technical institutes. Thediscipline of Engineering is well developed, but there is only one, new archaeology course andno museum studies/museology.

The DOA bears the main responsibility for preservation of the cultural heritage of Bangladesh.Its primary function is to take care of those cultural sites that have been declared as ‘protectedmonuments’ under the Antiquities Act 1968 (first established 1904; amended in 1976) and the‘objects acquired by the regular excavation of cultural mounds or as surface finds’.2 Among themany difficulties the DOA faces in conserving and protecting the increasing number ofdesignated monuments in the country, the shortage of skilled manpower continues to be critical.

The DOA is responsible for training its own staff, including those in the Project Unit, but thereappears to be no programme of on-going professional development. Recruitment appears to beinfluenced by grade as much as by matching applicants with job requirements. The training ofprofessional staff may run against the hierarchical grade system in that staff who complete atraining program may be unable to apply their new-learned skills fully at their current gradelevel. It also seems that temporary staff cannot be given leave for periods of overseas study.

2 Md Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Cultural Heritagein Bangladesh, loc. cit.; p. 1.


8

4.1.2 Contribution of Campaign to Capacity Building in the DOA

The Project Unit has 47 staff (see Appendix E for details) under an ArchaeologicalSuperintendent Engineer (ASE). The ASE and 15 others are based in the Dhaka CampaignProject Office, 15 are located at the Paharpur site and 16 at Bagerhat. The professional staffcomprises civil engineers, archaeologists and conservators. Some of these have overseasqualifications. The conservators are referred to as ‘chemists’ and are responsible for analyzingand treating the physical materials found at the sites.

The ASE expressed the view that this number and breakdown was achieving good work resultsbut that progress would be improved with further appointments in the physical conservation area.However he recognized that further on-site training in ‘project management in the Bangladeshcontext’ would be useful; that is, a program led by someone who understands well theparticularities of the Bangladesh political, administrative and educational systems. Theinterviews and discussions with other staff indicated a strong need and a uniform desire forfurther training of the professional and some other skilled staff.

Table 1. Distribution of Project Unit Staff by Location and Role, 2001.

Location Professional Administrative Other Skilled Non-skilled TotalDhaka 2 6 1 7 16Paharpur 3 2 4 6 15Bagerhat 3* 4 6** 3 16Source: Directorate of Archaeology and Project Unit Staffing (Appendix E).* includes one imam.** includes one muezzin.

(a) On-Site Training:

A major general aim of the Master Plan was to outline proposals for technical assistance and abasic 'on site' training program for both administrative and technical staff, and for craftsmen.This objective is re-stated in the reports of the Campaign Working Group/Review Committeemeetings and in many of the international experts’ reports. The Noguchi Report (1994) and theMichelmore Report (1996), for instance, repeat the call for training workshops in conservationtheory and practice, using both national and international experts. There has been a considerableamount of low level on-site training of contract workers in techniques such as brick dressing,bricklaying and rendering. However there appears to have been no major workshop for DOA orProject Unit professional or technical staff since the 10-day conservation workshop held atLalbagh Fort, Dhaka, for DOA staff in 1989.

(b) Specialized Training Overseas:

According to the Terminal report of the UNDP project BGD/81/007, six DOA (then DOAM)staff members benefited under this Project from fellowships for training abroad in the periodbefore the Campaign was officially launched. Three others experienced periods of specializedtraining overseas later in the 1980s. This included participation in an ICCROM conservationcourses in Rome and Venice (1985, 1989, 1989). A conservator in the Project Unit was sent toRoyal Institute for Cultural Heritage, Belgium, for 90 days training in 1995. It was intended thathe would return and transfer his newly-acquired knowledge to others in the unit but this was notachieved.


9

The 1984 Action Plan said that the Campaign engineers and technical field officers neededtraining in architectural conservation overseas. The ASE indicated that this did not occur andthat, indeed, it was not necessary because engineers were in charge of the project and that theywere able to pick up sufficient knowledge of archaeology on the job.3

The Action Plan says curators should be trained in museology overseas. However, there has beenno overseas training in museology for any staff, including the curators/custodians at the Paharpurand Bagerhat site museums. Museology qualifications were not a requirement for theappointments. Site interpretation is not a strong point on either site (see Section 4.1.6), and theneed for further training remains evident. This includes both interpretation on the sitesthemselves (signage, discovery trail planning) and in the site museums (exhibition design,interpretation).

(c) Senior Management Training:

The Project Unit’s ASE was nominated to UNESCO for a one-month study tour (Belgium,France, UK) to learn about UNESCO processes, but this did not eventuate. However, in 1995, hewas funded to go on an Asian study tour. This included a visit to the Borobodur World Heritagesite and a meeting with the Borobudur Campaign Review Committee.

It was evident throughout the course of the Bangladesh mission that the senior management staffin the DOA and Project Unit were uncertain about certain philosophical concepts that arefundamental to conservation practice on World Heritage or other important heritage sites. Theseinclude the key concepts of authenticity, integrity, minimum intervention and reversibility ofintervention. They had not seen the Venice Charter or subsequent documents bearing on theseissues, such as the Nara Document on Authenticity or the Burra Charter. The message putstrongly in the Noguchi and Michelmore eports needs to be stressed again here: it is essentialthat full consideration be given to such philosophical issues when making decisions about theconservation and management of the World Heritage sites, including Paharpur and Bagerhat.4

The World Heritage Committee’s Periodic Monitoring process, which applies to the Asia-PacificRegion in 2002, may provide another opportunity for the Project Unit senior management to seetheir sites in a broader regional and philosophical perspective.

It may be that some consideration had been given to these matters, but the current consultants,like previous consultants no doubt, were in a difficult situation in that they found nodocumentary evidence that such considerations or the practical options based on them werearticulated as a routine part of the Campaign decision-making process. Although there was somedifference of opinion on this point among DOA staff interviewed, the consultant believes thatsenior management staff would benefit from some ‘training’ in philosophical issues and their

3 The director of the Project Unit, Mr Mohammed Atikul Islam, is called ArchaeologicalSuperintendent Engineer (ASE). The two Campaign sites are under Archaeological ExecutiveEngineers. Mr Islam argued strongly that archaeologists, like historians and other professionals comingfrom humanities training, would not be able to handle the wide range of issues nor would they commandthe same respect as do engineers.

4 Numerous key conservation decisions required consideration of these philosophical issues. The apparentabsence of this leads to many questions are raised regarding the conservation practices adopted by theProject Unit. Is the emphasis on reconstruction at Paharpur consistent with the principle of minimumintervention? How much of the reconstruction work that has been undertaken is based on documentaryevidence rather than conjecture? This general issue and specific examples where practice may bequestioned are dealt with in Werner Schmid’s report.


10

importance for conservation practice. There is also the need for all DOA and Project Unit seniormanagement to share a common understanding of these concepts, as well as a commonvocabulary, if they are to operate effectively as a team. This will be particularly important for theDOA as the Ministry of Culture is preparing to revise its Antiquities Act and to broaden it in linewith contemporary views of what constitutes cultural heritage.5

(d) International Adviser:

According to the Master Plan and other Campaign documents, such as the 1994 report of theInformal Meeting of the Campaign Review Committee, an international adviser was needed toassist in setting up and preparing the conservation programs and coordinating the on-site trainingand documentation. This did not eventuate. The DOA staff believe that they have prepared gooddocumentation (architectural drawings, photographic records, etc) by Bangladesh standards andthat an international adviser was not necessary for that aspect.

Current needs for an international consultant are addressed in the Draft Letter re: Engagement ofConsultant, dated 26 June 2000 (Attachment G).6 The letter requests the Minister of CulturalAffairs to ask UNESCO to send a technical consultant with extensive experience in theconservation and restoration of brick monuments. The consultant would work with the ProjectUnit for 3-4 months assisting it to identify the scientific studies required prior to any physicalwork being undertaken on the large number of other brick structures in Bangladesh (other thanPaharpur and Bagerhat). The letters remain unsent.

(e) Project Technical Equipment:

The Japan Trust Fund provided basic equipment for the central DOA office and Project Unit inDhaka. This equipment included drainage pumping systems and vehicles (see Appendix F).According to those interviewed the equipment has been used well but is now requiring furthermaintenance.

Further technical equipment requests appear to include further vehicles and heliport components(see Appendix G).

4.1.3 Contribution of Campaign to Capacity Building in Bangladesh Generally

Universities and Technical Institutes:

The DOA was involved in the late 1990s in creating the first archaeology program in Bangladeshat University of Jahangirnagar (established 1970) in Savar on the outskirts of Dhaka.7 At leastone DOA staff member – Dr Alam – provided lectures in the program on a voluntary basis.

5 Meeting with Mr Syed Abdur Rob, Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, 12 April 2001.6 The draft letter was prepared for Mr Mohammed Abdur Rashid Khan, Director (Joint Secretary),

Directorate of Archaeology, to sign. A covering letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, asksfor permission to activate the letter. It appears that approval was not given. Although the Secretary,Ministry of Culture, appears not to have approved the letter, it nevertheless represents the DOA’s viewson further training needs. The Archaeological Superintendent Engineer believes that the request is stillrelevant.

7 There are 16 universities in Bangladesh. The University of Jahangirnargar was established in 1970 and has three faculties and one institute.


11

There is no indication that staff from the Project Unit have been similarly involved. There issome concern that there would not be work in Bangladesh for graduates from the program – notbecause of a lack of archaeological work to be done in the country but because of a lack of fundsto employ more staff. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the DOA’s recruitment rules wouldneed to be changed so that graduates could be employed at higher salaries. A strong initiative bythe Director of DOA and the Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, would be needed to correctthis situation.

The Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology in Dhaka and Khulna University, acity near the Bagerhat site, both teach architecture. Khulna University is working in architecturalconservation and is apparently considering the possibility of appointing a UNESCO Chair in thefield.

Museum studies (museology) is not taught in Bangladesh.

Schools:

Information about Bangladesh cultural heritage sites is included in secondary school syllabusesand textbooks. Interviewees considered that most educated Bangladeshis now knew somethingabout Paharpur and Bagerhat.

4.1.4 Contribution of Campaign to Related International Collaboration and Exchange

A regular program of visits has not resulted from the Campaign, but several, mostly Buddhistspecialists from Japan and China have visited Paharpur in recent years.

4.1.5 Technical Issues

See report by Werner Schmid.

4.1.6 Site Presentation and Cultural Tourism

The Master Plan (p. 95) asserted that the presentation of historic monuments in Bangladesh wasnot given sufficient importance. This remains true today, despite the Campaign. There is nointerpretative signage on the sites themselves other than a single explanatory panel at mainentrances. This is insufficient for complex sites such as Paharpur and Bagerhat, where there ismuch of interest to explain. The signs are in both Bangla and (not entirely accurate) English andthe paint work is in poor condition which often makes reading difficult.

A site museum now exists at both sites, although the Bagerhat museum, while constructed and acurator appointed, is yet to open to the public. The Bagerhat site is at present unenclosed,although the population and constructions have been removed from the surrounding area in orderto establish the line of a future wall. Once the site is enclosed and a ticketing system introduced,visitor movement will be more easily controlled. An entry fee similar to that levied at Paharpur(2 Taka) will help the site generate some of its own revenue. This site contains living heritageand any impediment to the local population using the mosques in their customary way should beavoided when enclosing the site and introducing visitor controls.


12

The Paharpur museum contains valuable exhibits but the displays need changing from time totime to maintain the interest of local tourists who visitor more than once and to remove dust andcobwebs. The artefacts have simple labels in Bangla and English. There is little attempt tointerpret the artefacts from the site in order to show (a) the site’s evolution, (b) the life of themonastery, or (c) the archaeological process being carried out. All of these would be of interestto tourists and new displays using a mix of physical objects, maps and diagrams, and multi-media would bring the museum to life.8

The interpretation of the site to visitors is minimal. The Paharpur museum displays artefactsfound at this and other archaeological sites around Bangladesh, but could be improved as aVisitors Centre with more extensive interpretation and using new multimedia techniques. Thereappeared to be no tour guides to take visitors around the sites. No explanatory publications areavailable for tourists at the sites and there appear to be no plans to reprint the booklets previouslyavailable at Paharpur or to publish new, updated booklets. There appears to be little or no currentactivity in the publications field, despite the need for continuing promotion of the sites, and thecultural heritage of Bangladesh generally to national citizens and the international community.

It is claimed that the Government of Bangladesh will take action on this matter when theUNESCO Campaign is completed, but there did not seem to be an established schedule for theimplementation of any cultural tourism-related improvements. Similarly, there are apparently noplans to introduce a detailed and approved plan for the circulation of visitors within themonument site, despite the fragility of the brick structures and the desirability of maintaining apeaceful atmosphere around the vihara. According to the Archaeological SuperintendentEngineer, the main problems in dealing with visitors remain site management and staffing, butthese can be solved using normal processes. It is hoped that this confidence is not misplaced.

Note that the Project Unit is requesting that UNESCO fund exhibitions and/or brochures in thesecond and third years of the Post-Campaign Strategy period.

4.1.7 Administrative arrangements

The Master Plan (p. 95) recommended the expansion and proper equipment of the DOA in orderto both ‘restore and afterwards maintain its Cultural Heritage’. In order to achieve this, at thetime the Campaign was established it was considered desirable to give ‘Special Project’ status toPaharpur and Bagerhat (Master Plan, p. 99). This led to the creation of a special Project Unitwithin the DOA specifically charged with carrying out the Campaign activities. The Project Unitwas established with a central office located in Dhaka in a separate building from the DOAheadquarters, and site offices at Paharpur and Bagerhat to carry out the day-to-day conservationactivities and local administration requirements.

There are now 330 monuments protected under the Antiquity Act 1968 (amended in 1976) (seeAppendix I). This compares with only 152 in 1971 when Bangladesh became an independentcountry. The DOA clearly feels unable to handle this increased number for both technical andfinancial reasons. The DOA currently employs 473 staff, including the 47 in the Project Unit(see Appendix E). The Acting Director indicated that this number was insufficient for theincreased demands placed on the DOA.

8 The Mahastan site museum was also visited and the same observations can be made.


13

The Master Plan recommended that the Project Unit’s Dhaka office should be subdivided intofour operational sections - conservation, publication, photographic, administrative. This was toparallel to some extent the structure of the parent DOA where there are, today, five operationalsections – archaeological engineering (‘Preservation and Conservation’), conservation(‘chemistry’), inscription, antiquities (largely photography), publication – each with a DeputyDirector in charge. But since the Project Unit did not grow to the size anticipated by the MasterPlan, this ambitious scheme could not be implemented. The Project Unit has a very simplestructure (see Appendix F): the ASE is director, with a stenographer, driver and MLSS(‘Member of the Low Subordinate Staff’); and beneath him is a Deputy Director responsible forplanning, coordination and administration, with a staff of 11.

Paharpur and Bagerhat have 15 and 16 staff respectively. Mr Sharfuddin is the ArchaeologicalEngineer controlling the site at Bagerhat. Due to staff changes, he is currently also in charge ofthe Paharpur site. Because it is expected that the physical conservation work will be completedin 2002, it seems likely that he will remain responsible for both sites rather than appoint a newArchaeological Engineer for Paharpur at this late stage.

The extent to which these structural arrangements were effective in terms of managementoutcomes and costs, remain suitable today, and should continue after the Campaign is discussedin Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below.


14

4.2 EFFICIENCY OF PROCEDURE AND CO-ORDINATION

The second issue to be analysed in the Evaluation is the ‘rationality of resource allocation inrelation to the …[main] Campaign objective’ (Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000).

4.2.1 Efficiency of Inter-Ministerial Co-ordination

Clearly the way that cultural heritage is defined by the Bangladesh authorities has a majorimpact on the nature of the national conservation program, the works at the two sites, the way inwhich administrative structures have been created to undertake those works, and the kind ofinter-ministerial coordination that is required.

Under the Antiquities Act structures must be more than 100 years old. This has meant aconcentration on archaeological sites rather than urban heritage from the nineteenth or earlytwentieth centuries or living cultural landscapes. One interviewee expressed the view that morerecent urban heritage is of little interest to the national government. It also means that the DOA,within the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, having the responsibility of discharging the Act, alsofocuses almost exclusively on archaeological and ancient sites. This role will change asBangladesh, like other countries, takes on the wider definition of cultural heritage that is nowused by UNESCO and ICOMOS.

At the time the Master Plan was prepared, the DOA’s title was Directorate of Archaeology andMuseums. The National Museum has since been detached from the DOA and now has its ownDirector-General. This is despite the prevailing legislation giving power over movable andimmovable antiquities to the DOA. The performing arts area is also separately administered, butagain coming within the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. The DOA retained the site museum atPaharpur and has since constructed a site museum at Bagerhat, although, as previouslymentioned, this has yet to be opened. The Paharpur site museum is, however, responsible to theregional DOA office in Rajshahi, whereas the Bagerhat site museum comes directly under theProject Unit (see Appendix E).

The interviewees seemed to think that the Project Unit enjoys sufficient cooperation with otherdepartments and local government authorities. However, there may be a case for strengtheningthe role of the national and local town planning authorities in support of the protection ofPaharpur and Bagerhat. It is alleged that these authorities are much more concerned withdevelopment than conservation. If this is the case, further inter-ministerial cooperation and co-ordination is required to ensure that the planning authorities help Bangladesh meet itsresponsibilities to these two World Heritage listed sites. A more determined enforcement ofplanning restrictions in the buffer zones around the two sites would reduce the need for theProject Unit to follow the expensive strategy of buying up properties in the zones.

The Master Plan recommended that the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism (MCAT) shouldbring tourists to the sites and coordinate visitor facilities there, while the DOAM shouldconcentrate on conserving and presenting the monuments themselves. This division ofresponsibilities does not appear to have been very effective. There are very few visitor facilitiesat either site, apart from a few stalls selling tourist souvenirs and drinks. There are no publictoilets at Paharpur. The MCAT tried to operate a small air service to Paharpur but it wasapparently not economically viable. The Department of Tourism within MCAT looks after


15

marketing Bangladesh as a tourism destination to international tourists. The heritage sites arefrequently used as part of the national promotion.

A National Coordination Committee has been set up under the Minister of Culture in order tobring the various ministries together to discuss and coordinate policy. It does not appear to bemeeting regularly.

4.2.2 Efficiency of Departmental Co-ordination

There have been many difficult moments in the history of the DOA and Project Unit. This hasnot been helped by the fact that there have been 15 changes in the DOA Directorship since 1983.Relations between the Project Unit, the DOA and the Ministry of Culture reached such a lowpoint in 1991-2 that the Unit was closed down for a short period of time.9

Judging by the interviews, a considerable difference of opinion exists about the effectiveness ofthe current structural arrangements and especially the relationship between the Project Unit andthe DOA. There are also different views about what should happen to the Project Unit once theUNESCO Campaign is closed.

The senior officers of the Project Unit are proud of the work done at Paharpur and Bagerhat.They point in particular to the rapid progress of reconstruction at Paharpur in recent years.However they are also concerned about the Unit’s future, especially as they do not have tenuredpositions within the DOA.

This is part of a larger problem related to salary scales and recruitment rules. (This matter hasalready been mentioned in 4.1.3 with regard to the employment of university archaeologygraduates.) The Master Plan recommended (p. 92) that DOA personnel should be coverage byBangladesh Civil Service Rules, which would allow an upward adjustment of salary scales,better ensure that technical positions were filled with suitably trained people, and enable theexpansion of conservation work. This did not occur and consequently the salaries and perceivedstatus of DOA staff remain lower than for other parts of the national bureaucracy.

The spread of positions across the range of Grades and salary scale is also seen as undesirable bythose interviewed. At the present time the DOA has a Director appointed at Grade 3, and a groupof five Deputy Directors all of whom are on Grade 6. The Deputy Directors face almost noprospects of promotion in the near future. Employment situations that do not provide adequatecareer paths nearly always impact on the level of enthusiasm for work and sense of commitmentto the organization.

But the Grade system also an important bearing on future plans for the Project Unit. Should it beabsorbed back into the DOA, the Project Unit’s director – the ASE – having a Grade 4 position,would become the second most senior officer in the DOA. Being an engineer, this is likely to bedoubly resented by the current Deputy Directors, who are archaeologists and conservators.

Indeed, one of the topics frequently raised by officers in both the DOA and Project Unit was therelative merits of engineering and archaeology in the conservation process and particularly of

9 The office was re-established as the Project Liaison Office in 1992, with 39 staff. According to theBangladesh: The International Safeguarding Campaign (2000, p. 10), this appears to have coincided

with a change in personnel at the top of the DOA and Ministry of Culture.


16

engineers and archaeologists as senior managers. At other protected sites in the country it seemsthat ‘architectural preservation is conducted by the engineers under the supervision of thearchaeologists of the respective regional [DOA] offices’10, whereas at Paharpur and Bagerhat theengineers are clearly in charge.

Rather than engage in such debates, it would seem better to insist on having senior managerswho are completely conversant with the philosophical debates in the cultural heritageconservation field, are aware of international standards of work and appreciate theresponsibilities flowing from World Heritage listing. A managerial style that emphasizes teamcooperation and that permits firm decisions to be made on the basis of full consultation withdisciplinary specialists – national and international - would also seem to be required for complexsites such as Paharpur and Bagerhat. It would also seem essential that the senior managers havethe ability to communicate with the Minister, other ministries and the community about thesignificance of the country’s cultural heritage, the work philosophy and practices being followedby the DOA, and the need for community support.

10 Md Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Bangladesh, Paper presented to to the Consultative Meeting on Regional Cooperation in CulturalHeritage Protection, ACCU, Nara, 29 February – 3 March 2000; p. 2.


17

4.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS

The Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000, require that the cost-effectiveness of Campaignprojects be examined, including national contributions.

4.3.1 International and National Contributions

The Master Plan calculated that the Campaign would cost 82.2M Taka or USD 4.1M at 1982price levels and the prevailing exchange rate of 20.05 Taka:1 USD. Allowing for inflation thiswas increased to 122.3M Taka or USD 5.6M (exchange rate 21.84 Taka:1 USD). The 1984Action Plan is very open-ended in terms of the time that the Campaign was expected to last.

Essentially, the Department of Archaeology needs to be expanded and properly equippedto be able to both restore and afterward [sic] maintain its historic monuments and sites.This is not something that can be achieved in the period of five or even ten years (p. 2).

The Master Plan figures inevitably changed over time and Table 2 summarizes the planned andactual expenditure in each of the three Phases and by funding source. Table 3 breaks the foreignaid component into funding sources. Table 4 indicates which major works were funded fromeach foreign source. Details may be found in the document provided by the DOA at Appendix F.

Table 2. Summary of Planned and Actual Expenditure (million Taka), by Phase andFunding Source.

Phase Years Planned Expenditure Actual ExpenditureBGD FC Total BGD FC Total

I 1987-91 21.82 15.55 37.37 16.96 15.55 32.51II 1991-95 32.36 20.78 53.14 26.04 20.78 46.82III 1995-2002 91.35 1.13 92.48 ongoing 1.13 Ongoing

Source: Summary of Campaign Works and Funding, by Phases (Appendix F).FC = Foreign ComponentNB. The current rate of exchange (April 2001): 1 USD = 53.40 Taka

Table 3. Summary of Foreign Component of Expenditure (million Taka), by Phase andFunding Source.

Phase Years Funding Source Total (millionTaka)

NORAD(Norway)

JapaneseEquipmentGrant

Japan TrustFund

WorldFoodProgram

UNESCO/UNDP

I 1987-91 3.38 (cash) 8.64(equipmt)

- 2.83 (510M tonnes

wheat)

0.71 (cash) 15.55

II 1991-95 4.30 - 16.48 - - 20.78III 1995-2002 - - 1.13 - - 1.13

Source: Summary of Campaign Works and Funding, by Phases (Appendix F).


18

Table 4. Major Works funded by Foreign Component (million Taka), by Phase andFunding Source.

Works Funded MillionTaka

Foreign Funding Source

Phase I1 Equipment for drainage works at Paharpur 8.64

0.71Japanese Equipment GrantUNESCO/UNDP

2 Archaeological excavation of Paharpur 2.83 World Food Program (‘wheatfor work’)

3 Construction (part) of Paharpur museum/office

2.48 NORAD

4 Construction of showcases for Paharpurmuseum

0.90 NORAD

Phase II1 Construction of Bagerhat museum/office 4.30 NORAD

2 Drainage works at Paharpur 3.59 Japan Trust Fund

3 Conservation of Shait Gumbad mosque 2.94 Japan Trust Fund

4 Programme support cost 2.44 Japan Trust Fund

5 Fellowship/training 1.80 Japan Trust Fund

6 Appointment of consulting firm (survey,drawing, design, etc)

1.01 Japan Trust Fund

7 Purchase of office equipment and furniture 0.80 Japan Trust Fund

8 Other 3.00 Japan Trust Fund

Phase III1 Repair/restoration, preservation and

conservation of Paharpur1.13 Japan Trust Fund

Source: Summary of Campaign Works and Funding, by Phases (Appendix F).

4.3.2 Cost-effectiveness of Technical Aspects of the Campaign

These issues will be dealt with in the report by Werner Schmid.

Land Acquisition:

It should be noted, since reference is made elsewhere in this report to the strategy of buying upagricultural land around the two sites in order to create a security buffer zone, that landacquisition has been a major cost factor for the Government of Bangladesh. In Phase 1, 0.50MTaka were spent to acquire 4.0 hectares at Paharpur. The outlay fell in Phase II to 0.01M Taka


19

for 0.3 hectares at Paharpur, but rose again in Phase III when 6.63M Taka were spent for 9.0hectares at Paharpur and 3.84M Taka for 4.1 hectares at Bagerhat. No further funds for landacquisition are being sought from UNESCO but US$128,000 are sought for ‘site development’of the newly acquired land at Paharpur (see Appendix G).

Security at the Sites:

Theft and vandalism are a major problem at Paharpur, as at many sites across Bangladesh.11

Fifteen 15 ansar (low level police) are employed at Paharpur to give 24-hour security againstartefact theft and vandalism. This is still inadequate, especially for nigh-time security during thewet season, but the employment of additional guards will be a further charge on the ProjectUnit’s budget.

4.3.3 Cost-effectiveness of training aspects of the Campaign

There was no budgetary allowance for training in Phase I. The Japan Trust Fund provided 1.80MTaka for a training fellowship in Phase II. There was again no training allocation in the budgetfor Phase III.

The failure of the training fellowship has already been mentioned in 4.1.2 of this report (p. 8).The conclusion to be reached is that, not only was there a completely insufficient allowance fortraining in the Campaign budget, but the small amount that was allocated was regrettablymisspent. The Project Unit is seeking US$40,000 for a study tour in connection with thePaharpur sub-project and US$20,000 for group training and/or study tour for Bagerhat (seeAppendix G).

4.3.4 Cost-effectiveness of equipment aspects of the Campaign

According to the tables provided to the Consultants by the Project Unit (see Appendix F), inPhase I, equipment for the Paharpur drainage works was provided by the Japanese EquipmentGrant (8.64M Taka). To this, the Government of Bangladesh added 0.25M Taka to cover theclearing and forwarding agent costs, 6.23M Taka for the import tax, 0.90M Taka for theinstallation and commissioning of the equipment, and 0.05M Taka for other related costs. Inorder to improve the ability of Project Unit staff to move between sites, the Government alsopaid 1.00M Taka for the purchase of a jeep.

In Phase II, the Government of Bangladesh provided 0.16M Taka to commission the sub-stationand transformer donated by Japan, and 1.10M Taka for a second jeep and 2 motor cycles.

In Phase III, the Government is funding the purchase of six computers for the Dhaka central unitat an estimated cost of 1.05M Taka, and has already paid 0.30M Taka for three motor cycles, oneeach for the Dhaka unit and the Paharpur and Bagerhat sub-units.

11 Md Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Cultural Heritagein Bangladesh, Paper presented to to the Consultative Meeting on Regional Cooperation in CulturalHeritage Protection, ACCU, Nara, 29 February – 3 March 2000; p. 3.


20

Werner Schmid may comment on the cost effectiveness of the Japan-funded equipment inmeeting drainage needs at the Paharpur site. Transport needs appear to have been adequatelymet. There are no further funds requested from UNESCO for equipment (see Appendix G).

4.3.5 Cost-effectiveness of cultural tourism aspects of the Campaign

According to the ‘Summary of Campaign Works and Funding, by Phases’ (Appendix F), inPhase I, part of the construction of Paharpur museum and office was funded (in cash) by theNorwegian Government aid agency, NORAD. However of the 6.76M Taka allocated byNORAD, only 2.48M Taka was spent in Phase I and appears to have been carried forward andspent in Phase II (see Appendix F). NORAD provided a further 0.94 M Taka for the constructionof museum showcases, most of which (0.90) was actually spent. The total actual expenditure ofNORAD funds on the Paharpur museum building and show cases amounted to 10.4% of the totalexpenditure in Phase I, a not insignificant contribution to the presentation of the site and theencouragement of cultural tourism.

NORAD appears to have continued to support these activities in Phase II, with a further donationof 4.30M Taka which appears to have been spent on the construction of a ‘museum cum officebuilding’ at Bagerhat. The Bangladesh Government is listed as having spent 0.50M Taka toconvert the former museum into a rest house at Paharpur, 0.23M Taka to inaugurate the newPaharpur museum, 1.34M Taka to construct a rest house at Bagerhat, and 0.48M Taka to buildshowcases for the Bagerhat museum. In Paris UNESCO expended 0.64M Taka on an exhibitionbrochure. In total, 11.88M Taka was spent on cultural tourism-related activities out of total46.82M Taka for the whole of Phase II. This represents 25.4% of total expenditure for Phase II.

In Phase III the allocated funds for cultural tourism-related activities is much smaller (0.40MTaka or 0.4% of total anticipated expenditure). It covers only the construction of ticket countersat Paharpur and Bagerhat (0.20M Taka) and the inauguration of the Bagerhat museum (0.20MTaka). Expenditure is still under way.

The cost of the salaries and wages bill will, of course, need to be added in order to the obtain acloser approximation of the total spent on cultural tourism-related activities. It is significant,however, that the total expenditure on such activities has clearly dropped since the mid-1990s, ata time when it was important to encourage cultural tourism growth and to maximize theCampaign sites’ ability to earn their own keep.

4.3.6 Cost-effectiveness of administrative aspects of the Campaign

The Campaign has proceeded with a much smaller staff than was envisaged in the early plans.That the new site museums are now constructed and one is open to the public and that theconservation work will be largely completed in the next few years may be an indication of costeffectiveness of the administrative and staffing arrangements. On the other hand, progress hasinevitably been slower than initially expected.

As previously indicated, the Project Unit is directed by the Archaeological SuperintendentEngineer (ASE), but the Deputy Director, Mr Md. Samiul Hoque, is responsible for planning,coordination and administration. Mr Hoque’s staff are spread across the three locations – Dhaka,Paharpur and Bagerhat. This distribution provides an administrative challenge: frequent


21

electronic communication and road travel are necessary to make the arrangement workeffectively, but the costs of this are a major constraint. The construction of new highways inBangladesh is improving travel times, while the Project Unit’s installation of a computer systemthat will enable electronic communication between staff at the three locations.


22

4.4 CAMPAIGN PROMOTION

The Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000, require that the Campaign’s promotion be examined.

4.4.1 National promotion of the Campaign

The Master Plan recommended that the general public should be given more information aboutPaharpur and Bagerhat so that the sites would become a more meaningful part of Bangladeshiculture, a source of pride and the foci of local tourism. To this end the DOA and Ministry ofCultural Affairs have arranged for Bangladeshi banks and the national airlines to sponsorcalendars. Television has been used to promote the site since the initial televised launching of theCampaign appeal by the UNESCO Director-General in 1985. Posters featuring the two sites havebeen produced both by the DOA and UNESCO. The reported consequence of these activities isthat ‘most people now know something about Paharpur and Bagerhat’ (Md A. Islam, 8/4/2001).

The visitor figures demonstrate this growing awareness of the sites. Paharpur receives about2,500 visitors per month, with a peak of 10,000 per month in the dry winter period betweenNovember-March. Since Bagerhat is not an enclosed site and has no ticketing system, visitorfigures are not yet available. However, as indicated previously, the site is about to be enclosedand a custodian has been appointed for the small site museum. It seems that the vast majority ofvisitors at both sites are from the local region, but there is a small number of visitors from otherparts of the country and abroad. Exact visitor figures (broken into local, national, international)do not appear to be available.

4.4.2 International promotion of the Campaign

UNESCO’s efforts to attract funds from the international community for Paharpur and Bagerhatwere largely unsuccessful. The Director-General’s appeal attracted total contributions of around$13,000, mostly from the ACCU. Subsequent publicity by CLT/CH, in line with the requests ofthe Campaign Working Group/Review Committee, attracted bilateral funds from theGovernments of Norway and Japan. UNESCO promotional activities included the mounting ofexhibitions at the 23rd Session of the General Conference in Sofia in 1984 and at UNESCOheadquarters in Paris in 1993, the production of brochures, postage stamps, articles in UNESCOSources magazine and assistance to television producers from France, Japan and Bangladesh.

There seems to have been no focus on promoting the sites as tourist destinations to internationaltourists.


23

4.5 MAINTAINING CAMPAIGN IMPACT THROUGH THE POST-CAMPAIGNSTRATEGY

The Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000, require consideration of the question of how the Post-Campaign developments, such as the construction and management of infrastructure for culturaltourism and urban development, can and should be conceived. The Terms of Reference note that,while the Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhat Safeguarding Campaign do not directly cover thesedevelopments, they are nevertheless the ‘key to ensuring the impact and sustainability of theCampaign’.

4.5.1 Infrastructure for cultural tourism

There was clearly a cultural tourism emphasis placed on the site development strategy discussedduring the UNESCO Director-General’s visit in 1989 and the Second Working Group Meetingin August 1990. Some improvement in tourist facilities occurred in the early years after MasterPlan was drawn up (1983). These works have been carried out by the Project Unit and thereappears to have been no work done by the MCAT despite the agreement that it would takeresponsibility for bringing tourists to the sites and coordinating visitor facilities there.

At Paharpur this includes the site museum and small rest house but toilets are still non-existent.The other buildings around the site museum, other than a few stalls selling drinks and souvenirs,are for the site workers rather than tourists. They comprise the site manager’s office, workshopsand police depot and post agency. In 1983 it had been planned to expand the visitor facilities atthe western end of the site. However this required the purchase of too much land and it wassubsequently decided to relocate the visitor facilities to site workers’ area at the eastern end. Theneed to widen the access roads to the site was recognized by the Second Working Group meetingbut no action has been taken.

At Bagerhat there is a new museum that is yet to open to the public. Due to the General Strike, itwas not possible to visit the Bagerhat site and its is not known what other visitor facilities exist.

Further consideration of these needed developments must be taken during the Post-Campaignperiod and a series of achievable outcomes should be built into the Post-Campaign Strategy.

4.5.2 Infrastructure for urban development

The problem of theft and vandalism affects even the buffer zone around the monuments.Although forbidden under the Antiquities Act, private owners of the lands often destroy thecultural remains buried in the mounds by removing bricks for their own use or for sale. Theyalso sell artefacts discovered while collecting bricks. Because the Antiquities Act isunenforceable in these matters, the DOA has had to develop a strategy of buying up the landswithin the buffer zones. However this is an expensive process and a slow one given the severefinancial constraints under which the DOA operates.12

It was recommended in 1987 that, rather than purchasing a buffer zone, use be made of localplanning regulations (especially height limits) to control visual intrusion and overlooking of

12 Ibid.


24

sites. This mechanism has been effective elsewhere in the world in ensuring that medium or highrise hotels or even unsympathetic single-storied buildings are not built in the immediate vicinityof historic monuments and could be useful in Bangladesh, especially in the case of Parharpur,where the danger appears to be greater. This approach has not been taken and it is the view of theASE that its is impractical because the local people in provincial areas of Bangladesh do notunderstand the heritage value of the monuments.13 They would therefore ignore the regulationsand there is no politically feasible means of enforcing compliance. He insists that the onlyeffective way of creating a buffer zone is to purchase the adjacent land, clear out the existinghouses and prevent new buildings from being constructed. One significant result of this approachis to remove the ‘living elements’ from around the monument, which may be seen as distortingthe traditional appearance of the sites and making them less interesting to cultural tourists.

According to Mr Md Shaikul Alam there are other threats found in the general vicinity of theCampaign sites.14 The tunnels from a coal mine at Jamalganj probably extend beneath thePaharpur vihara, while limestone quarrying at Jaipurhat, some 10 kilometres away, are describedas ‘a grave threat’. Industrial smoke appears to be a problem at Bagerhat where it has causeddiscoloration in the Shait Gumbad Mosque. These developments need to be very closelymonitored for their effects on the World Heritage sites.

13 The local people’s appreciation of the heritage value of the monuments has to be distinguished from their value in providing three years of ‘Food for Work’ program and, more recently, wages for brick dressing, etc. There are currently 60 people contracted at Paharpur for wage work. The result of not having controls on development in the immediate vicinity of a heritage site can be seen at the Lalbagh Fort in Dhaka where new medium-rise now overlook the fort walls and impair views within the fort.14 Md Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Bangladesh, Paper presented to to the Consultative Meeting on Regional Cooperation in Cultural Heritage Protection, ACCU, Nara, 29 February – 3 March 2000; p. 6.


25

4.6 UNESCO’S ROLE

The final issue to be considered in the Evaluation is the role of UNESCO in conduct of theCampaign, including its periodic review and evaluation.

4.6.1 UNESCO mechanisms and expertise

There appear to be two main difficulties in the way in which the contents of Campaign planswere processed by the Project Unit, DOA and UNESCO. These problems are blamed on thecumbersome bureaucratic arrangements in both UNESCO and Bangladesh. Firstly, the flow ofinformation and documents between these various points seems to have been erratic. On the onehand, the Project Unit had apparently not seen the first Action Plan (1984) prepared forUNESCO until presented with a copy by the consultant. On the other hand, the Project Unit’sown action plan is only available in Bangla and appears not to have been provided to UNESCO.Other documents specifically requested by UNESCO – such as the priority list of 100 keyheritage properties, or the summary of Campaign funding – were also not provided.15

Secondly, both UNESCO and the Project Unit felt that there were unacceptably long delays inthe processing and expenditure of funds. On the one hand, from UNESCO’s point of view, theJapanese Funds-in-Trust projects took lengthy negotiation and then required a prolonged periodto be cleared by the Ministry of Culture.16 This led to a delay of 12 months in the start of theprojects. These delays seem to have annoyed the bilateral funding agency on one occasion,leading to the withdrawal of funds. It was fortunate that intervention by the CLT/CH OperationalOfficer, Mr Noguchi, seems to have succeeded in restoring the funding.

On the other hand, for its part, the Project Unit felt that the processing of funding requests byUNESCO CLT/CH was occasionally inefficient. This compounded the disenchantment withUNESCO that came from the perception that UNESCO had failed to deliver the promised 75 percent of campaign funding. Fortunately, CLT/CH officer Noguchi played a pivotal role, managingto sort out funding delays, providing a useful link with Japanese fund sources, and being warmlyregarded as a ‘good friend of the project’. This contrasts with the view expressed about the roleof UNESCO consultants. They were seen as coming for too short a periods of time to come togrips with the Bangladesh context. They were therefore merely ‘commentators’ on the project,rather than providing any tangible solutions that might be adopted by the Project Unit.

Noguchi’s unofficial role as the ‘foreign expert’ partly made up for the Campaign’s failure toappoint ongoing expert advisors as had been requested on several occasions. In interviews theProject Unit felt that the practice of sending in short-term consultants was a poor substitutebecause they did not stay long enough to understand the Bangladeshi situation, made impracticalrecommendations, and did not provide the continuity and consistency of advice that wasneeded.17 Despite this, the Unit is requesting another short-term consultant architect/restorer forthe first year of the Post-Campaign Strategy period at Paharpur (see Appendix G). At Bagerhatthe Unit is seeking a similar (perhaps the same) consultant over a two-year period.

15 The priority list is included with this report as Attachment I. The Campaign funding summary was provided to the consultant and is included as Appendix F.16 Bangladesh: The International Safeguarding Campaign (2000, p. 9).17 In particular it was pointed out that the Michelmore Report’s recommendations were impossible to implement due to insufficient funding.


26

It may have been better in the past, and may be preferable in the Post-Campaign Strategy period,to have one consultant appointed for the entire period. This has been the approach adoptedeffectively in the Moenjodaro Campaign, where Professor Michael Jansen has had an ongoingand extremely valuable advisory role.

The appointment of a single long-term consultant to work with the Project Unit from the start ofthe Bangladesh Campaign might have ensured that the Unit’s management became familiar withand debated alternative philosophical and practical approaches and that they then articulatedtheir choice in the form of a written ‘reasoned plan of action’. This seems to be an importantmissing step in the Bangladesh Campaign. While it is possible that these matters were discussedin a general way, the present writer found, as previously noted, that the Unit’s managers had notseen key documents such as the Venice Charter and were unaware of fundamental issues. Thisinability on the part of the Project Unit to articulate their philosophical and practical approachmay have prompted the foreign consultants to adopt a critical line, which in turn led to adefensive reaction. The ASE’s comment that ‘if the consultants tell us they are doing somethingwrong they will stop doing it’ seems to highlight the lack of commitment to a coherent approach;it also suggests some misunderstanding of UNESCO role as a source of advice rather than totalcontrol.

Periodic review and evaluation of the Campaign has been inadequate. Already, in Logan’s 1987report, it was noted that the subsequent 1984 Action Plan was paying too little attention torigorous review during the implementation stage. Since then there have been only three regularmeetings and one informal meeting of the Campaign Working Group/Review Committee thatwas to be set up under the Master Plan – December 1986, August 1990, October 1993, andDecember 1994. A fourth regular meeting was scheduled for the end of 1995 but was cancelleddue to a lack of funds in the budgets of both UNESCO and the Government of Bangladesh. Itwas rescheduled for December 1999 but was again postponed.

4.6.2 UNESCO’s partnership role, especially at the international level

The failure to meet funding expectations was perhaps the greatest criticism of UNESCO’spartnership role. The initial planning documents foresaw UNESCO providing 75 per cent of thetotal funding needed for the Campaign, but actual funding fell well short of this target. Logan’s1987 observed that the Master Plan and Action Plan were too ambitious in terms of fundingavailable to both UNESCO and Government of Bangladesh and called for a more realisticapproach. This did not occur and the Project Unit was left unable to understand how it coulddischarge its responsibilities for carrying out the various recommendations given the actuallevels of funding received. To improve the situation, the ASE believes that UNESCO shouldprovide more concrete advice on monuments, on how projects and sites should be organized andshould be more realistic about the circumstances prevailing in Bangladesh.

On the other hand, there seems to be insufficient realization on the part of the Project Unit thatUNESCO is not a funding agency. Nor is there any focus in Project Unit activities on findingalternative sources of funding for themselves. The DOA maintains that it will tackle someremaining issues (such as developing cultural tourism, publishing new brochures, etc) out of itsown resources but, at the same time, it is clear that government funds are likely to remain tight.No thought has been given to seeking financial support from the private sector. It may be thatBangladeshi companies or multinationals operating in the country may make up the shortfall infunding needed to complete the Paharpur and Bagerhat conservation programme and develop


27

cultural tourism activities at the sites that will help them to become more self-supporting in thefuture.


28

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POST-CAMPAIGNSTRATEGY

5.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES

Much has been achieved at Paharpur and Bagerhat during the Campaign period. The physicalworks of conservation are scheduled to be completed in 2002. Some training, both on-site, inDhaka and overseas, has occurred, much of it to good effect. Two site museums have beenconstructed, largely funded by the Swedish aid agency, NORAD, and one is already open to thepublic. A number of promotional publications, such as brochures, posters and postage stamps,have been produced in Bangladesh and at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Using funds largelyfrom Japan, some essential equipment was purchased to solve drainage problems at Paharpur.Some links have been made with Bangladeshi universities and school curricula now routinelyinclude content based on the Campaign sites. It is said that most educated people in Bangladeshnow have some awareness of the existence and importance of the two sites, both of which areWorld Heritage-listed. It can be concluded, then, that the Campaign has gone a considerable waytowards achieving its primary goal of building national capacity in the field of cultural heritageresource management, protection and promotion, although much still remains to be done.

Weaknesses appear to be:• Absence of a programme of on-going professional development.• Inadequate recent provision of training opportunities for senior professional and technical

staff.• Little awareness of the philosophical bases of conservation practice among senior DOA and

Project Unit staff.• Low level of liaison with and support to universities teaching in the cultural heritage field

(archaeology, architecture, engineering).• Absence of a university programme in museum studies/museology in Bangladesh• Difficulties in employing university graduates with archaeology qualifications.• Few international scholarly or practitioner exchanges based on the sites.

5.2 EFFICIENCY OF PROCEDURE AND CO-ORDINATION

Several ministries and departments are required to cooperate in the formulation of policy andallocation of resources related to the conservation, protection and promotion of the Campaignsites. At the ministerial level, these include the Ministry of Culture and ministries covering urbanand regional planning, tourism, civil aviation and education. The Ministry of Culture isresponsible for the Antiquities Act and is considering its revision to make it more effective and tobring it more into line with contemporary views of what constitutes cultural heritage. A NationalCoordination Committee has been established under the chairmanship of the Minister of Cultureto discuss and coordinate policy. A relatively small Project Unit was established within the DOAto take charge of the Campaign sites, and sub-project units at the two sites.The DOA appears tohave an appropriate degree of professional autonomy within the Ministry, and the Project Unitwithin the DOA.

Weaknesses appear to be:• The DOA and Project Unit staff remain outside the Bangladesh Civil Service and operate

under a structure that does not maximize effective effort.


29

• There appears to be few active links between the DOA and the urban and regional planningauthorities and heritage protection does not appear to be a priority for these authorities.

• There is insufficient promotion of the Campaign sites to international tourists.• The National Coordination Committee does not meet regularly.• Within the DOA there is an enervating uncertainty about the future of the Project Unit once

the Campaign has concluded.• There is an obvious tension between the engineers and archaeologists in the DOA that needs

to be addressed.

5.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS

The amount of funds coming into the Campaign through UNESCO did not meet initialexpectations, but that which did eventuate has been critical in the achievement of Campaignprogress. The works have been accomplished by a smaller staff that envisaged in the early plans.This may be taken as a measure of cost effectiveness, although it inevitably slowed the worksprogramme. Solving the drainage problems at Paharpur and the construction of the two sitemuseums have been the main uses of foreign funding, whereas land acquisition has been a majoritem for Bangladesh funds. The distance (especially in terms of travel time) between the ProjectUnit’s central office in Dhaka and the two heritage sites builds considerable inefficiency intomanagement procedures. This is, however, being improved through the construction of newhighways in Bangladesh and the Project Unit’s installation of a computer system that will enableelectronic communication between staff at the three locations.

Weaknesses appear to be:• Absence of funds for training in Phase III.• Low level of funding for cultural tourism development in Phase III.

5.4 CAMPAIGN PROMOTION

Promotion of the Campaign sites within Bangladesh seems to have been effective and there areincreasing numbers of domestic visitors. Promotion through television and publications meansthat most educated Bangladeshis are aware of the sites and the Campaign. However promotion,both nationally and internationally, has failed to attract private funding to the Campaign

Weaknesses appear to be:• Lack of a statistical profile of visitors.• Lack of energetic promotion of the sites to international visitors.• No attempt to target private sector Bangladeshi companies or multinationals operating in

Bangladesh for financial contributions to the Campaign.

5.5 MAINTAINING CAMPAIGN IMPACT THROUGH THE POST-CAMPAIGNSTRATEGY


Tourism infrastructure built by the DOA since the Campaign began in 1983 include the two sitemuseums and rest houses. Some improvement is currently being made to visitor access through


30

the upgrading of national highways linking the sites with the capital Dhaka. Nevertheless therehas been an increased numbers of mostly domestic tourists. Visitor wear and tear on Paharpursite is controlled by restricting them from climbing the central mound. Security has beenimproved in order to reduce damage to the sites and the theft of Paharpur’s terra cotta plaques.The management of the Bagerhat site has succeeded in allowing some monuments to continue tofunction as part of the living culture of the surrounding communities. With the scheduledcompletion of physical conservation works and the establishment of the site museums, the twosites seem ready to move into a phase of concerted cultural tourism development.

Weaknesses appear to be:• Visitor access, especially from the capital and for international visitors, remains difficult.• Lack of some basic facilities, such as public toilets at Paharpur.• Inadequate site interpretation for visitors.• Interpretation both on the site and in the site museums requires updating and expansion.• The site museums need to renew their exhibitions on a regular basis and interpret to visitors

the evolution of the sites, the life of the monastery at Paharpur, and the archaeologicalprocess being executed.

• The existing Paharpur brochures are out of print and no longer available to visitors.• Lack of detailed visitor management plans to control visitor circulation and linked to an

interpretation plan (discovery trail).• Site security at Paharpur remains problematic at night and in rainy seasons.


A considerable effort has been made to acquire adjacent lands in order to create a buffer zonearound the sites that will increase site security and prevent the construction of unsympatheticbuildings. To date there are no medium- or high-rise buildings visible from the sites but thiscould change as the need for tourist hotels develops.

Weaknesses appear to be:• Negotiation is required with relevant planning authorities to find ways of using planning

regulations to control new development in the vicinity of the sites.• Emerging conflict between mining, quarrying and industrial pollution in the vicinity of the

sites and the requirement made of Bangladesh, as a signatory to the World HeritageConvention 1972, to protect these two World Heritage sites.

5.6 UNESCO’S ROLE

The flow of documents and the processing of funds have been major difficulties. HoweverUNESCO’s involvement has brought international expertise and funds to the projects, whichmight otherwise have not been possible. The relationship with CLT/CH appears to have beenstrong throughout the Campaign. Three formal and one informal meetings of the CampaignWorking Group/Review Committee took place.

Weaknesses appear to be:• Slow and incomplete flow of documents.• Slow processing of UNESCO funds.


31

• Lack of awareness on the part of DOA and Project Unit senior staff of the philosophicalissues underlying conservation practice.

• Absence of a written ‘mission statement’ or ‘reasoned plan of action’ in Bangla and English.• Insufficient number of Campaign Working Group/Review Committee meetings leading to a

less than desirable level of Campaign monitoring.• Failure to hold a Campaign Review Committee meeting since 1994.• A lack of continuous, consistent and practical support from international consultants.• UNESCO and its national partner need in future to ensure that they understand better the

other’s role and limitations in order to avoid unrealistic expectations.• No focus on seeking alternative funds from the private sector, including Bangladeshi

companies and multinationals operating in Bangladesh.

5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POST-CAMPAIGN STRATEGY

On the basis of this analysis, it is recommended that the following matters be taken up in theproposed Post-Campaign Strategy.

Note that the Project Unit has provided lists of the items that it wishes to see funded throughUNESCO at Paharpur and Bagerhat in a three-year Post-Campaign Strategy period (seeAppendix G). Note that the Paharpur list refers also to conservation of the monument atSattapeer Vita.

5.7.1 Technical

For Paharpur, the Project Unit has requested a UNESCO-funded mission by a ‘Consultant/Architect/Restorer’ in the first year of the Post-Campaign Strategy period, as well as funding forthe preparation of a detailed plan for project management, survey and documentation,conservation work, and construction of a protective boundary wall.

For Bagerhat, the Project Unit has requested a UNESCO-funded mission by a ‘Consultant/Architect/Restorer’ in the first two years, as well as funds for the preparation of a detailed planfor project management, and excavation and conservation work.

Recommendations:

See report by Werner Schmid.

5.7.2 Administrative

Note that administrative matters have been funded by the Government of Bangladesh throughoutthe Campaign. The Project Unit’s lists of funding requests for the Post-Campaign Strategyperiod does not include administrative items.

Recommendations:

1. That the DOA make a decision on the future status of the Project Unit before or duringthe Post-Campaign Strategy period.


32

2. That the DOA develop a strong multidisciplinary approach to decision-making.

3. That the Ministry of Culture further consider bringing the DOA staff within theBangladesh Civil Service in order to maximize effective effort.

4. That the National Coordination Committee be urged to meet more frequently to dealwith policy issues relating to the effective conservation, protection and promotion of thecultural heritage sites in Bangladesh.

5.7.3 Training

Note that the Project Unit is requesting UNESCO Post-Campaign Strategy funds for severaltraining items. These include study tour related to Paharpur in the second and third years of thePost-Campaign Strategy period, and group training/study tours in all three years in relation toBagerhat.

Recommendations:

5. That the DOA, with the assistance of UNESCO, develops and implements a programmeof on-going professional development for all professional, technical and administrativestaff.

6. That this programme include the opportunity for senior DOA and Project Unit officers toconsider the philosophical bases of conservation practice.

7. That the DOA engage with appropriate Bangladeshi universities to develop andstrengthen cultural heritage teaching and research courses, including archaeology,conservation, museum studies/museology, and cultural resource management.

8. That the DOA reconsider its employment rules to maximize the employment ofgraduates from relevant university courses.

9. That the DOA, with the assistance of UNESCO, seek to establish a set of on-goingrelationships with appropriate international cultural heritage scholars and practitioners.

5.7.4 Equipment

Note that the Project Unit is not requesting UNESCO funding for equipment in the Post-Campaign Strategy period.

5.7.5 Campaign promotion

Recommendations:

10. That the DOA collects data to enable a detailed statistical profile of site visitors to bedeveloped as a basis for site promotion, site interpretation and facility development.


33

11. That the DOA, in cooperation with other relevant Bangladesh authorities, develop acampaign to promote Bangladesh’s World Heritage sites to international tourists, inaddition to domestic tourists.

12. That the DOA develops a fund-raising programme that targets Bangladeshi privatesector companies and multinationals operating in Bangladesh.


Note that the Project Unit is requesting UNESCO funds for several items related to thedevelopment of cultural tourism at the sites: the preparation of a Bagerhat brochure; theenhancement of picnic and parking facilities, and the construction of a heliport to improve accessfor dignitaries and in case of accidents.

Recommendations:

13. That the DOA, in cooperation with other relevant Bangladeshi authorities and with thesupport of UNESCO, develops and implements a detailed visitor management plan forthe two sites.

14. That the DOA, with the support of UNESCO, develops and implements plans toimprove site interpretation and site museum exhibitions.

15. That the DOA revises and reprints its brochures on the Paharpur site and prepares a newbrochure for the Bagerhat site.

16. That the DOA investigates ways to further improve site security.


Note that the Project Unit is requesting UNESCO funds for site development of newly acquiredlands at Paharpur.

17. That closer linkage be developed between the DOA and urban and regional planningauthorities, particularly with a view to finding ways to use planning regulations toprotect the sites from unsympathetic development in their vicinity.

18. That the Government of Bangladesh monitor mining, quarrying and industrial pollutionin the vicinity of the two World Heritage sites and seek to prevent any conflict arisingthat might jeopardize the heritage values of the sites.

5.7.8 UNESCO’s role

Recommendations:

19. That UNESCO set up a final meeting of the Campaign Review Committee at the end ofthe Post-Campaign Strategy period to report on recent progress.


34

20. That, in future campaigns, UNESCO seek to improve the flow of documents, facilitatethe processing of funds, and ensure that all parties understand the roles, responsibilitiesand limitations of the others.

21. That, in future campaigns, UNESCO require the national party to write a ‘reasoned planof action’ that demonstrates an awareness of the philosophical bases of conservationpractice and articulates the choice made by the national authority in the particularcampaign.

22. That, in future campaigns, UNESCO seeks to set up a more continuous relationshipbetween the national authority and one or more appropriate international experts in orderto allow more consistent and practical advice to be given.


35

APPENDIX A. CONSULTANT’S ITINERARY

6 April 2001 1345 Depart Melbourne International Airport CX104 for Hong Kong

2220 Depart Hong Kong International Airport KA110 for Dhaka

7 April 2001 0025 Arrive Zia International Airport, Dhaka

0100 Arrive Hotel Sonargaon

8 April 2001 1000-1200 Meeting with DOA Officers Dr Md. Shafiqul Alam DOA Office Mr Md. Islam Atikul

Mr Md. Samiul Hoque 1530-1700 Visit Lalbagh Fort.

Meeting with Custodian

9 – 11 April 2001 General Strike. Stay at HotelSonargaon.

10 April 2001 1530-1830 Meeting with Mr Atikul Islam

11 April 2001 1530-1800 Meeting with Dr Md Shafiqul Islam

12 April 2001 0900-1100 Meeting with DOA Officers and Mr Md. Atikul Islam National Evaluator Mr Md. Samiul Hoque DOA Office Dr Nazimuddin Ahmed

Mr MosharaffDr Shafiqul AlamDr M. A. Yahia

1200-1245 Call on Secretary Mr Syed Abdur Rob Ministry of Cultural Affairs

1245-1300 Call on Joint Chief Mrs Farhad BanuMinistry of Cultural Affairs Chowdhury

1300-1310 Call on Joint Secretary Mian Mohd Abdul Hamid Ministry of Cultural Affairs

1345-1445 Visit Lalbagh Fort

1500-1530 Call on Secretary Mr A. H. M. Rezaul Kabir National Commission for UNESCO

13 April 2001 0600 Depart for Paharpur, Mahasthan With Mr Md. AtikulIslam

14 April 2001 1830 Return to Hotel Sonargaon, Dhaka


36

2230 Leave for Zia International Airport

15 April 2001 0125 Depart Dhaka KA111 for Hong Kong

16 April 2001 2330 Depart Hong Kong CX105 for Melbourne

17 April 2001 1030 Arrive Melbourne InternationalAirport


37

APPENDIX B. LIST OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AND CONSULTED

Documents provided by UNESCO CH/CLT:

Plan of Action for the International Campaign to Safeguard the A[n]cient Monuments and Siteof Paharpur Vihara and Those of the Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat, Bangladesh. UNESCO[1984].

BGD/81/007 Preparation of a Master Plan for the Conservation and Presentation of CulturalHeritage Monuments and Sites. Terminal Report. UNESCO, May 1986.

Evaluation of International Safeguarding Campaign for Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhat. DraftTerms of Reference. Doc. CLT/CH/02/1/EV-BGD. Paris, 17 May 2000.

Bangladesh: The International Safeguarding Campaign for the Protection, Preservation,Restoration and Presentation of the Ancient Monuments of Paharpur Vihara and Those of theHistoric Mosque City of Bagerhat (Khalifatabad). Events, Decisions and Documents affectingCampaign Strategy. UNESCO, Paris [c.2000].

Documents provided by Bangladesh Directorate of Archaeology:

Master Plan for the Conservation and Presentation of the Ancient Monuments and Site ofPaharpur Vihara and those of the Historic Mosque-City of Bagerhat. Summary ofRecommendations.

First Meeting of the Working Group for [the] International Campaign to Safeguard the AncientMonuments and Site of Paharpur and Bagerhat, Bangladesh, Dhaka, 21-25 December, 1986.

Second Informal Meeting for the International Campaign to Safeguard the Monument[s] ofPaharpur and Bagerhat, 15-20 August 1990, Dhaka. Recommendation. Bangladesh NationalCommission for UNESCO.

Report on [the] Third meeting of the Working Group for [the] International Campaign toSafeguard the Ancient Monuments and Sites of Paharpur and Bagerhat, 12-15 October 1993,Dhaka. Directorate of Archaeology, Bangladesh & Bangladesh National Commission forUNESCO.

Bangladesh/UNESCO Mission for the International Safeguarding Campaign for Paharpur andBagerhat from 2 to 9 December 1994 (The Noguchi Report).

Paharpur, Bagerhat and the Conservation of Monuments in Bangladesh (The MichelmoreReport). Summary Recommendations. July 1996.

Draft letters dated 26/6/2000 re: Engagement of Consultant, requesting Ministry of CulturalAffairs, to seek UNESCO and World Bank assistance, prepared for Md Abdur Rashid Khan,Director (Joint Secretary), Directorate of Archaeology, and Mrs Farhad Banu Chowdhury, JointChief, to sign (See Attachment G).

[Complete List of 330 Monuments Protected under the Antiquities Act ]. DOA [no date].


38

Department of Archaeology Organogram Chart. DOA [April 2001] (see Appendix E).

[Post-Campaign Strategy] Project Budget covering UNESCO Fund Contribution (in USDollars).DOA [April 2001] (see Appendix G).

Other documents:

Dr Md. Shafikul Alam, Present Situation, Problems and Future Plan of Preservation of Culturalheritage in Bangladesh, Paper presented to the Consultative Meeting on Regional Cooperation inCultural Heritage Protection, ACCU, Nara, 29 February – 3 March 2000.

[did he have another paper? – published in Proceedings of the Experts Meeting on TrainingPrograms for Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia and Pacific, ACCU, Nara, 3 6 March2000, Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO, Nara, Japan, 2000.


39

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRE – ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

The following questionnaire was developed to form the basis of interviews with Bangladeshipersonnel as per the schedule of interviews in Appendix C.

1. ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the Paharpur Vihara and Bagerhat Campaign Strategy is to ‘strengthennational capacity in the field of cultural heritage resource management, protection andpromotion, with a wider aim to promote cultural and educational activities and internationalexchanges’.

1.1 Management of national capacity building in Bangladesh

1.1.1 How is this achieved in BGD?1.1.2 Who is responsible at the policy level in BGD for national capacity building?1.1.3 What are the national goals in this respect?1.1.4 What accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that training programs achieve

national capacity goals?

1.2 Contribution of Campaign to Capacity Building in the DOA

On-Site Training:1.2.1 What on-site training has occurred for (a) admin staff, (b) technical staff, and (c)

craftsmen?1.2.2 What have been the outcomes of such on-site training?1.2.3 In what ways were these outcomes useful for the Campaign?1.2.4 What are the further needs for on-site training?

Specialized Training Overseas:1.2.5 What specialized overseas training has occurred?1.2.6 What have been the outcomes of such specialized overseas training?1.2.7 In what ways were these outcomes useful for the Campaign?1.2.8 What are the further needs for specialized overseas training?

Senior Management Training:1.2.9 What senior management training has occurred?1.2.10 What have been the outcomes of such senior management training?1.2.11 In what ways were these outcomes useful for the Campaign?1.2.12 What are the further needs for senior management training?

International Adviser:1.2.13 According to the Master Plan and other Campaign documents, an international adviser

was to assist in setting up and preparing the conservation programs and coordinatingthe on-site training and documentation. Was such an international adviser appointed?

1.2.14 If so, was this a successful step?


40

Project Technical Equipment:1.2.15 What equipment has been obtained (a) at the central DOA office and Project Unit in

Dhaka? (b) at the two sub-project site offices?1.2.16 Has this been used effectively? With what outcomes?1.2.17 What are the further needs for technical equipment, if any?

1.3 Contribution of the Campaign to Capacity Building in Bangladesh Generally

Universities:1.3.1 What is the role of BGD s universities and technical institutions in the cultural heritage

field?1.3.2 Which BGD universities teach (a) archaeology?(b) architectural conservation? (c)

heritage studies?

Schools:1.3.3 What influence, if any, has the Campaign had on school curricula in BGD?

1.4 Contribution of Campaign to cultural and educational activities and related internationalcollaboration and exchange

1.4.1 Have these exchanges led to regular program of international collaboration andexchange?

1.4.2 Which international scientists/scholars have visited, when and why?1.4.3 Which Bangladeshi scientists/scholars have visited abroad, when and why?

1.5 Technical (NB. Dealt with in Werner Schmid s report)

1.5.1 What objectives were achieved in each phase?1.5.2 What was not achieved? Why not?1.5.3 How cost-effective? (see 4.3)1.5.4 What needs still to be done to complete the implementation stage?1.5.5 Have scientific inventories for both movable and immovable antiquities been completed

for (a) Paharpur, (b) Bagerhat, and (c) the whole of BGD? Who by, when, and whereare they kept?

1.5.6 The Master Plan (p. 95) included the drawing up of a priority list of monuments andsites, with micro plans for each site. Has such a list been drawn up?

1.5.7 Have aerial photographs of the sites been taken? Who by, when, where are they kept?1.5.8 What has been done in terms of physical protection of the sites (i.e. fencing, guards)?1.5.9 What will be the final system of physical protection you expect to implement?1.5.10 How much land acquisition has been done and still needs to be done to improve site

security?1.5.11 What should be done under the Post-Campaign strategy?

1.6 Site presentation and cultural tourism


41

1.6.1 What has been done to address the Master Plan s concern that the historic monumentswere not well presented?

1.6.2 How does DOA present the monuments:(a) interpretation practice on the sites themselves what aims? how much information

is provided? What sort of information? In which languages? How is the informationdisplayed? How frequently is it updated?

(b) interpretation practice in the site museums what aims? how much information isprovided? What sort of information? In which languages? How is the informationdisplayed? How frequently is it updated?

1.6.3 What problems and deficiencies are perceived?1.6.4 What needs to be done now?

1.7 Administrative arrangements

1.7.1 What arrangements were put in place for the Campaign?

DOA:1.7.2 What is current size of DOA?1.7.3 What is current scope of its activities? (No of sites protected?)1.7.4 Is it of sufficient size? (NB. professional vs administrative vs non-skilled staff)1.7.5 What is the minimum manpower to execute the desired output?1.7.6 What is the minimum establishment cost of the DOA?

Project Unit:1.7.7 How is the Project Unit structured?1.7.8 Is the structure in line with the Master Plan recommendations (ie. an administrative

centre in Dhaka, with four sections: conservation, publication, photographic,administrative, and sub-project offices at the two sites)?

1.7.9 What is current size of Special Unit (a) Dhaka, (b) Paharpur, (c) Bagerhat1.7.10 Is the Special Unit of sufficient size?1.7.11 What is the minimum manpower to execute the desired output?1.7.12 What is the minimum establishment cost of the Special Unit?1.7.13 Is the range of skills in the Special Unit adequate to achieve desired output?1.7.14 How many archaeologists are there?1.7.15 What skill gaps?1.7.16 What training needs?1.7.17 Problems?

Overall Structural Arrangements:1.7.18 How effective have the arrangements set up for the Campaign been in terms of

management outcomes and costs? (see 4.3)1.7.19 Does they remain suitable today? (see 4.2)1.7.20 Should they continue after the Campaign? (see 4.2)

2. EFFICIENCY OF PROCEDURE AND CO-ORDINATION


42

The second issue to be analysed in the Evaluation is the ‘rationality of resource allocation inrelation to the …[main] Campaign objective’ (Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000).

2.1 Efficiency of Inter-ministerial co-ordination

2.1.1 What is accepted definition of CH?2.1.2 Does DOA look after colonial buildings of C19th?2.1.3 What is the overall administrative structure for CH in BGD?2.1.4 Which ministries are involved in the conservation and protection of cultural heritage in

BGD?2.1.5 How does inter-ministerial co-ordination occur?2.1.6 How effective is it?

Planning:2.1.7 Linkage between DOA and Planning?

Museums:2.1.8 Previously the DOA was called DOAM. What happened to and Museums ?2.1.9 Where are museums now located?2.1.10 What advantages and disadvantages flow from the separation of archaeological sites and museums?

Tourism:2.1.11 The Master Plan suggested that the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism should

coordinate visitor facilities while the DOAM should conserve and present themonuments. Did this division of responsibilities happen?

2.1.12 What is the relationship between the two authorities now?2.1.13 Who looks after visitor facilities now?2.1.14 Who looks after marketing to international tourists now?2.1.15 Is it a problematic relationship?

2.2 Efficiency of departmental co-ordination

Grades and salary scale:2.2.1 The Master Plan recommended that DOAM staff come under Civil Service Rules,

including Grades and salaries. Did this occur?2.2.2 Are there adequate career paths within the DOA?2.2.3 What is the perceived relative status of DOA staff compared with staff in other parts of

BGD s bureaucracy?

Leadership:2.2.4 What kind of leadership is required for the DOA and Project Unit?2.2.5 Are there structural problems in the nature of government and politics in BGD that

prevent effective leadership?2.2.6 What sort of skills are required to present the DOA most effectively to the Minister,

other ministries, and the community?


43

DOA/Project Unit Relationship:2.2.7 Are there any difficulties in the current relationship between the DOA and Campaign

Unit in Dhaka?2.2.8 Are there any difficulties in the current relationship between the Regional DOA Offices

and Sub-Project Units at Paharpur and Bagerhat?2.2.9 What should the future status of Project Unit be?2.2.10 Specifically, should it be absorbed back into the DOA?

2.3 Processing of Campaign Information and Funds

2.3.1 Any problems in processing requests for funds to UNESCO CLT/CH?2.3.2 Were there any problems in transmitting information, ideas to UNESCO CLT/CH?2.3.3 Were there any problems associated with the UNESCO consultants who visited the

sites?

3. COST EFFECTIVENESS

The Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000, require that the cost-effectiveness of Campaignprojects be examined, including national contributions.

3.1 International and national contributions

3.1.1 What have been the costs(broken down into international and national)?3.1.2 How do these compare with the Master Plan estimates?3.1.3 Are there any items in the Master Plan that have not been funded, or funded but not

completed?

3.2 Cost-effectiveness of Campaign projects

This section is dealt with in Werner Schmid’s report.

4. CAMPAIGN PROMOTION

The Draft Terms of Reference, May 2000, require that the Campaign’s promotion be examined.

4.1 National promotion of the Campaign

4.1.1 How has the DOA sought to arouse local interest?4.1.2 What are the visitor figures (broken into local, national, international)?4.1.3 What publications have been prepared by the DOA?4.1.4 What publications have been done by UNESCO?4.1.5 How have they been distributed?4.1.6 Have they made a successful impact?


44

4.2 International promotion of the Campaign

4.2.1 How has the Campaign been promoted internationally?4.2.2 What has been the DOA role in this?4.2.3 What has been UNESCO s role?4.2.4 To what extent have they been successful?4.2.5 What other activities should be implemented for promoting both national and

international cultural tourism in BGD related to these particular sites.

5. ENSURING CAMPAIGN IMPACT THROUGH A POST-CAMPAIGNSTRATEGY

The Draft Terms of Reference note that, while the Campaign does not directly cover relateddevelopments impacting on the sites, such as the construction and management of infrastructurefor cultural tourism and urban development, they are ‘the key to ensuring the impact andsustainability of the Campaign’. Consideration of these developments must be taken into accountin drawing up the Post-Campaign Strategy.

5.1 Infrastructure for cultural tourism

5.1.1 What tourist infrastructure built since 1983 MP?5.1.2 Who by?5.1.3 Why did a change occur in location of visitor facilities and museum?5.1.4 Has the need perceived by the Second Working Group meeting for the widening of

access roads been addressed?

Visitor Management:5.1.5 Is the current level of visitation leading to wear and tear on the physical fabric?5.1.6 Is there a detailed and agreed plan for the circulation of visitors within the monument?5.1.7 Is there a detailed and agreed plan for the circulation of visitors within the monument?

Site Interpretation:5.1.8 Are there plans to re-print the formerly available material or to publish new material?5.1.9 Are there plans to improve the presentation of the site through additional information

boards, through the creation of a site presentation centre (as suggested by the MasterPlan) or through other provisions?

5.1.10 Are there enough guides on site?

Implementation Schedule:5.1.11 Other problems?5.1.12 What still needs to be done?5.1.13 Is there a schedule for implementation?

5.2 Infrastructure for urban development

Development in Vicinity:


45

5.2.1 What urban development is occurring in the vicinity of Paharpur and Bagerhat?5.2.2 What controls on urban development exist generally in provincial BGD?5.2.3 Are they effective?5.2.4 What is the policy towards urban development in the vicinity of the sites?5.2.5 Is there any concern over possible coal mining in the vicinity of Paharpur?5.2.6 Is there any concern over limestone quarrying at Jaipurhat near Paharpur?5.2.7 Are there any other potential resource development impacts (eg. pollution) at the sites?

Buffer Zone:5.2.8 What is the policy regarding development in the buffer zones around the sites5.2.9 Why clear out the living elements from the buffer zones?

6. UNESCO’S ROLE

The final issue to be considered in the Evaluation is the role of UNESCO in conduct of theCampaign, including its periodic review and evaluation (Draft Terms of reference, May 2000).

6.1 UNESCO mechanisms and expertise

6.1.1 Problems with UNESCO mechanisms?6.1.2 Was there enough technical/scientific assistance by UNESCO ?6.1.3 If not, relating to which aspects or in which phase of the Campaign you would have

expected more input or a different kind of input?6.1.4 Has there been any perceived deficiency in the expertise of UNESCO CLT/CH staff?6.1.5 Has there been any perceived deficiency in the expertise of UNESCO consultants?

6.2 UNESCO s partnership role, especially at the international level

6.2.1 Please sum up your general view on working with UNESCO?6.2.2 Do you have any ideas for improving the working relationship with UNESCO?6.2.3 Were the expectations of UNESCO with regard to funding unrealistic?6.2.4 Did you understand from the outset that UNESCO is not a funding agency?6.2.5 Do you think the DOA is prepared to tackle with the remaining issues from its own

resources?6.2.6 Other sources of funding?6.2.7 What sites are on the Bangladesh World Heritage Tentative List?


46

APPENDIX D. SCHEDULE OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS AND GROUPDISCUSSIONS

1. Mr Md Atikul IslamArchaeological Superintendent EngineerPreservation and Conservation of Archaeological Monument of Paharpur and BagerhatProjectInterview conducted 1530-1830, 10 April 2001Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka

2. Dr Md Shafiqul AlamDeputy DirectorDirectorate of ArchaeologyInterview conducted by W. Logan and W. Schmid1530-1800, 11 April 2001Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka

3. Mr Md Atikul Islam, Archaeological Superintendent EngineerMr Md Samiul Hoque, Deputy Director (Planning, Coordination and Administration)Dr Nazimuddin Ahmed, National Evaluator, Former Director, DOAMr Mosharaff, Deputy Director ([Dr Shafiqul Alam, Deputy Director (Publications)Dr M. A. Yahia, Conservation ScientistInterview conducted by W. Logan and W. Schmid0945-1100, 12 April 2001Directorate of Archaeology Offices, Dhaka


47

APPENDIX E. DIRECTORATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND PROJECT UNITSTAFFING


48

APPENDIX F. SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN WORKS AND FUNDING, BY PHASES


49

APPENDIX G. PROPOSAL BY PROJECT UNIT FOR POST-CAMPAIGN STRATEGY

[NB. 1 Lakh = 100,000]


50

APPENDIX H. DRAFT LETTERS RE: ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANT

Draft letters re: Engagement of Consultant, cover letter to Secretary, Ministry of CulturalAffairs, prepared for Md Abdur Rashid Khan, Director (Joint Secretary), Directorate ofArchaeology, to sign and dated 26/6/2000.


51

APPENDIX I. REGISTER OF 330 PROTECTED CULTURAL HERITAGEPROPERTIES IN BANGLADESH, WITH ‘TOP 100’ HIGHLIGHTED (APRIL 2001).