So far, AFCP has supported 10 cultural heritage sites in Nepal. Eight of them are in Kathmandu Valley which includes the Restoration of the Kal Bhairab Shrine and Patan Royal Palace Restoration and Conservation Project, one of the large-scale projects with a budget of US$900,000. [break]
The two outside Kathmandu include ancient Buddhist chortens in Upper Mustang and Pangboche in Solukhumbu.
Martin Perschler, who shares a passion for cultural preservation has has a Ph.D. in the history of architecture from the University of Virginia, coordinates the AFCP in the Cultural Heritage Center at the US Department of State. He is currently in Nepal to monitor the progress and state of several AFCP projects.
The Week caught up with Dr. Perschler to learn more about the projects and its relationship with Nepal. Excerpts of the interview:
Could you please brief us on the selection process of the restoration projects that AFCP funds?
Each year in October, we ask the US embassies from over 136 countries to send in project ideas and proposals to DC. We then have a multi-tiered review process where we screen them to make sure that they meet what our program is able to support.
Our team of archaeologists, art historians and architectural historians review the proposals for technical merits and send in their comments to the Public Diplomacy Program offices in the state departments, who then add their comments.
Then it goes through a panel that determines and prepares a ranked order of proposals. Each year, Congress determines how much the Fund has to support projects. Once we have that list fixed, we can figure out how many proposals to support that year.
In 2010, we supported about 30% of the proposals submitted worldwide. We always end up with more proposals than what we can support, so we encourage applicants that were not successful one year to apply next year.
But there’s also a layer of screening at the embassies even before it gets to us. Like in Nepal, after receiving the package from DC, the embassy here prepares a fact sheet and sends it to cultural contacts and also posts it on their website. So any organization and even Nepal Government can apply for that.
Then the collected proposals are screened through a panel, which selects the best two or three which, when approved, is sent to us.
Criteria that you look for while selecting the proposals?
The criteria are pretty consistent. There are three kinds of projects we support. First, set deals with preserving ancient and historic sites, another category is the historic objects in museum collections which could be one object like a historic sculpture or a whole collection of metal works, for instance. And then we also support projects to document and preserve intangible heritage.
How do you prioritize the proposals?
There are a number of things we look for. For instance. the quality of the proposal, schedule, budget, a clear project plan and urgency. The last one is important because when you have so many proposals and you can only fund only a small set of them, you have to consider what can be put off for another year and what has to be done now.
Supporting documents like photographs that show the damage, site and context are some of the other things that strengthen the proposal.
We also pay attention to the team and experts involved. In case of intangible heritage, we like to receive audio or visual files so that we can see and understand what’s unique about it and the benefit we can bring to help in preserving them.
Do you mobilize experts from the US to monitor the projects?
We prefer that local experts and resources be mobilized. It’s a part of the project mission to support the efforts within each country.
Every so often, say an organization in Nepal would need an expert in some sort of conservation and if that expert is not in Nepal but they know an expert from America can be of help, they can include bringing them over here to participate in the project.
You worked in DC where the heritage sites seem more intact. What are the challenges in heritage preservation you see here in Kathmandu or Nepal where the such sites are dwarfed by close settlements around it?
This is going to sound a bit surprising. But after working in this field for several years, it’s become very clear that the challenges in Nepal or in the US have a lot in common.
For instance, in an urban environment like Kathmandu, development pressures and population needs that may be different from preservation needs are always present. Limitations of resources and funding are also present whether it’s here or Bangladesh or even in Baltimore, where I come from.
One of the things the US has been working on for a while now is to create a system of incentives for private property owners to contribute towards the preservation of the heritage. The government alone can’t shoulder the preservation work, and that private property owners and non-profit world have an important role to play.
Role of modern technology for the documentation and preservation of heritage sites?
We realize that digitization and reliance on computer technology and scanning, while it has its benefit, is not necessarily the best way to preserve things.
We find ourselves going back to the tried and true non-technological ways of preserving documents or buildings.
For instance, before laser scanning and all of this high technology, we used to produce hand-measured drawings of old buildings and translated them into papers.
But now with computers, digital cameras and laser scanners, the tendency is to just scan an historic building and take that computer information to paper.
It, however, is not 100 percent accurate because historic buildings have their own quirks— they’re distorted, they lean.And the only way you notice, appreciate and record them is if you’re physically engaged with the building.
Sometimes the low-tech methods are the best. So in places where getting or maintaining the technology might be a challenge, our first response is maybe the advanced technology is not the answer.
Please highlight the policies or guidelines that you follow. Or are there any policy restraints for the restoration projects?
We’ve a clear instruction from the Congress to support projects in three categories, so we are partly constrained. Beyond that, we seek projects that meet international standards of conservation that are put out by international bodies like World Heritage Committee and International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS).
There are a number of international conventions and guidelines for conservation of historic buildings and even for intangible heritage. So we seek projects that meet those standards and follow those guidelines.
How closely do you follow these preservation projects?
We have a monitoring team and we also ask all of the projects to report every six months on the progress. One of the reasons I’m here right now is every so often we travel to visit the projects to check on their progress— not only those projects that are underway but ones that have been completed.
The Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT), which has been a recipient of a number of our grants, has a record of following on projects that were completed to ensure that they continue to be properly preserved.
So the best arrangements we look for is to find a grantee or partner that understands that once the project is completed, there is still a stewardship responsibility for the sites to make sure that they remain in good shape. Often that kind of information is mentioned in the proposal so that we know in the very beginning that the applicant has a plan for how to maintain and monitor the projects once they’re done.
Do brief us on the relationship between AFCP and Nepal in terms of cultural heritage preservation.
Nepal is one of the top five countries that our program has been partnering with. So it was one of the reasons why my visit was a priority.
Although many of our projects are between $10,000 to $100,000, from 2008, we started supporting projects between $500,000 and a million dollars.
Every year, we support three projects at that scale and Nepal received one of those three grants in 2009 for the Patan Royal Palace project, which was a very competitive process. I believe it’ll be completed by 2012 and we’re very excited about it as after the project completion it’ll open to public after more than 20 years.
In the US, preservation and respect for cultural heritage is more and more defining who we are as a nation today. So to be able to participate in Nepal’s cultural heritage preservation is a natural extension of that.
I see it being greater and I think cultural heritage is an area where people from different parts of the world can come together because we all share the same challenges.
If we can work together with knowledge and desire to preserve the heritages, I believe the result is wonderful and this becomes a great way to build bridges.
Related story
US ambassador visits Mustang to highlight cultural preservation...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
