In April 2015, Nepal was hit by a massive earthquake that claimed thousands of lives and destroyed or seriously damaged many structures, including ancient monuments. On the second anniversary of this tragic event, we are publishing a series of interviews with architects involved in rebuilding the country after the disaster.
Kai Weise has been working as a UNESCO consultant since 2003. During this time, he was involved in the creation of management systems for World Heritage sites in Central and South Asia, in particular - the Kathmandu and Lumbini valleys in Nepal, Samarkand in Uzbekistan, the Indian mountain railways and the Pagan temple complex in Myanmar. The approach to creating these systems has been recognized as exemplary by UNESCO and ICOMOS.
How did you end up in Nepal?
- I am Swiss by origin, but I was born here in Nepal. My father was an architect. On behalf of the Swiss government, he arrived in Nepal in 1957 and eventually opened his office here. After completing my Master's degree in Architecture at the Swiss Higher Technical School of Zurich in the early 90's, I returned to Kathmandu and started working here. Later he got a job as a UNESCO consultant, began to participate in the preservation of cultural heritage sites, in particular in planning measures for the protection of monuments. Today this activity has become the main one for me.
You are also the President of the Nepalese Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Landmarks (ICOMOS). What role does this organization play in the country?
- In Nepal they tried twice to create a regional office of ICOMOS, I participated in the second attempt. The role of this organization changed significantly after the 2015 earthquake: the regional office of ICOMOS in Nepal became a platform for discussing different approaches to the restoration of monuments after the natural disaster. The main dispute was about strengthening the structures of damaged monuments. Some experts argued that if we reconstruct a World Heritage site, we must make it more durable. Others opposed strengthening, seeking to avoid the use of modern materials and hence the loss of authenticity. Still others were neutral, suggesting that the structures be strengthened using traditional, local materials, without concrete or cement. Another controversial issue was whether to keep the foundation of the buildings as it is and build on top of it, or to strengthen it (including by replacing it with a new one).
What was your position in this dispute?
- In the beginning, I was more concerned with preserving the authenticity of heritage sites, but over time I began to distinguish between protected monuments. For example, in Bagan in Myanmar, we distinguish between functioning and non-functioning temples in the sense that some monuments continue to be used for regular services and others do not. Existing pagodas with a certain religious significance are being reconstructed and restored, and monuments not used for rituals are usually conserved.
You work in the Kathmandu Valley and Pagan, with two World Heritage Sites that were badly destroyed during the 2015 and 2016 earthquakes, respectively. Is it possible to develop a typical strategy for the conservation of heritage sites in seismically active areas?
- It's a difficult question. First of all, we need to better understand what guides we work with earthquake-damaged monuments. In most seismically active regions of the Earth, these heritage sites have experienced earthquakes more than once. How did they hold out? What has been done previously to ensure they are earthquake resistant? It is necessary to delve into the past and study those structures and materials that have withstood.
The problem is we are using the wrong tools. After university, we try to use the methods proposed for buildings designed according to modern principles, when assessing buildings that are completely different in nature. Unsurprisingly, these methods often fail. Evaluating a building from an engineering and structural point of view is a matter of calculation based on certain assumptions. To make these assumptions, you need to understand the situation. Lack of understanding leads to complete miscalculation.
Take, for example, the most significant monument in the Kathmandu Valley, the Hanuman Dhoka Palace, which was completely destroyed by an earthquake in April 2015. In the aftermath of the disaster, a Western architect assessed the cause of the incident. According to his calculations, the foundation of the palace was not strong enough for a building of this scale and age. During archaeological excavations, it turned out that the foundation of the palace was in excellent condition and that, in fact, it is three hundred years older than we thought: that is, the foundation was 1400 years old. I don't think that architect was wrong in his calculations. In my opinion, the point is that the basis for his calculations and his method are not suitable for such an application.
Is it possible to apply the experience of other seismically active regions of the world in Nepal, or is the work on elimination of earthquake consequences specific for each country?
- We can learn a lot from each other. For example, in Nepal, we work very closely with the Japanese experience. A friend of mine from India is teaching a course at Ritsumeikan University on Disaster Risk Management for Heritage Sites. Students in this course come from seismically active regions around the world, from South America to Southern Europe. The course has proven that certain methods and approaches are universally applicable. However, when it comes to details, such as materials, we need to be very specific about the location. In Japan, mainly wooden structures are used, in Nepal - a mixture of wood and brick, in Italy - mainly stone and brick.
How were you involved in the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake?
- I was part of a team of experts who developed a strategy for the rehabilitation of monuments affected by the earthquake. The earthquake happened in April, we had only two months left before the monsoons, it was necessary to urgently protect the damaged monuments from the approaching downpours. If this succeeded, we would have time during the monsoon season to develop a long-term strategy for the restoration of monuments. The strategy turned out to be good, but the government used it only partially. For example, a rehabilitation guide was approved, but the measures we proposed were not implemented. We advocated traditional, artisan construction methods, but tenders were often held and contractors selected who had no idea about the specifics of working with traditional buildings. I later developed a Disaster Recovery Cultural Heritage Framework for the Nepal National Reconstruction Agency. This document has been officially published but not implemented.
How do you assess the work on the restoration of monuments after the 2015 earthquake?
“I have heard that in Bhaktapur there have been quite a few community-based restoration initiatives, which mainly used artisan workers. Restoration of monuments is most difficult when it is entrusted to external contractors who are not familiar with traditional construction methods. These contractors are mainly focused on commercial viability, and they find it too costly to hire local artisans. Among the contractors who received restoration projects, we met those who have no idea what they should do. This is an extremely sad situation, because we are talking about the reconstruction of important heritage sites.
What is the role of international organizations in eliminating the consequences of natural disasters?
- This issue has two sides: what international organizations should do and what they are actually doing. In Nepal, rather than supporting the government and other authorities in implementing locally developed programs, UNESCO is channeling its resources towards its own projects. In my opinion, this is wrong. The priority in solving any problems should be with the local community, and especially with local artisans, of course, if they are able to do this. The role of international organizations is to support the initiatives of local communities, to help them on the technical side of the matter.
In Bagan, Myanmar, communication between international organizations and national leaders works much better. There, UNESCO was able to limit itself to government support. In Nepal, UNESCO could play a similarly important role, but this has not yet happened.
How does the local population perceive such interference of international organizations?
- The people of Nepal and local organizations look to such international interventions as a source of funding. On the other hand, many international organizations prefer to compete with local experts and artisans rather than cooperate with them. This has led to negative results more than once. It turns out that the participation of international organizations in the reconstruction of monuments, in general, causes skepticism, but there is also a dependence on this participation.
What is the specificity of the management of World Heritage sites in Asia?
- In Europe, the management of World Heritage sites is more based on legal norms, in Asian countries the work is aimed at building consensus and involving the public. First of all, the very understanding of World Heritage has changed. Today, the legacy is not only for kings and the rich, but also for the common people. This change requires a shift in the management of World Heritage properties from an authoritarian to a democratic approach. We are moving away from the establishment of fences around the monuments, hanging a heritage label on them with the subsequent limitation of contact with them: "Do not enter the fence, do not touch the object!" Our goal is a governance system that provides for the participation of local communities. We are still trying to figure out how to do this. We need to learn how to combine these approaches. There are also a number of monuments, for the protection of which a fence will have to be erected around them. But in conditions when there are whole cities, villages, natural landscapes that are considered World Heritage, it is necessary to consider the local community as part of this heritage and its custodians.
For example, in Pagan, for a long time, the monuments themselves were at the center of the conservation policy. Today, we understand that the management of World Heritage properties must include not only facilities, but also the local community.
Was this strategy for reaching consensus successful in Nepal?
- In Kathmandu, heritage sites are not connected with the locals as closely as in Bagan or Lumbini. Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha, is perhaps the most difficult situation due to the heterogeneity of the communities living there. Until recently, only Hindu and Muslim communities lived in the city; Buddhists came not so long ago from abroad. In creating a management system for a World Heritage site, we constantly wondered which communities we should interact with - local or international. Local communities want to benefit from the monuments in the neighborhood, while the international Buddhist community is keen to use the site for religious purposes. To eliminate this contradiction, we tried to look at Lumbini in a broader sense - to perceive it as an archaeological landscape covering all early Buddhist monuments.
Some experts believe that not all monuments from the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites really have "outstanding global value". How do you feel about this criticism?
- This problem can be viewed in different ways. If we consider World Heritage sites as monuments that truly represent outstanding global value, then many sites should not be on this list, and many other monuments are missing. However, I believe that the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was created to promote the conservation of heritage and not to prepare a representative list. As a conservation tool, World Heritage status may be more effective in some circumstances than in others. We should only use it where necessary.
How do you assess the representation of Nepal on the World Heritage List? Is it adequate for the cultural and natural diversity of this country?
- World Heritage Sites in Nepal truly represent the country's most outstanding and versatile heritage sites: Kathmandu Valley, Lumbini (Buddha's birthplace), Sagarmatha National Park (Everest) and Chitwan National Park. But of course there are a few more sites that could be included in both natural and cultural or even mixed World Heritage Sites.
What are the prospects of the objects included in the preliminary list? Are there any new candidates for the World Heritage List expected in the near future?
- In 1996, seven Nepalese sites were tentatively listed, one of which was Lumbini, which was later included in the main World Heritage List. I took part in the preparation of amendments to the preliminary list of cultural heritage sites in 2008, then we added nine more properties there. The tentative list was aimed at reflecting the diversity of Nepalese heritage and taking into account all parts of the country. Obviously, many of the objects on the tentative list will never make it to the main one.
Potential new nominees could be such sites as the medieval earthen rampart of Lo Mantang and the village of Tilaurakot with the archaeological remains of the ancient kingdom of Shakya. Luo Mantang's nomination process appears to have stalled due to opposition from some members of the local community. Tilaurkot's inclusion in the tentative list depends on the results of archaeological excavations. Another very interesting potential "mixed" site is Shei-Phoksundo National Park and ancient monasteries in its vicinity, which need protection from infrastructure development, theft and general deterioration.
What is special about Nepal as a place of work for an architect?
- Are we talking about architects who create new objects, or about those who work with cultural heritage?
Both
- They are in completely different positions. Monument conservation is an area where you really need to understand the environment and local residents. It is very difficult for an outsider to start working in Nepal. We try to distinguish between the areas in which we need international participation (primarily for advice on conservation methods, technical and organizational issues), and those areas where it is better to rely on local forces. In Nepal, this differentiation has not yet become clear enough. International and national organizations are working on the same issues.
In terms of "new" architecture, in the 50s, when my father came to Nepal, he was the only architect here. In the 60s, one or two other bureaus appeared. Today the situation is completely different: there are many architects in Nepal. However, there is a lack of healthy competition. Building design orders are often distributed by acquaintance. The principle of choosing an architect comes down to minimizing costs, not the quality of the final project.
There are some very good architects in Nepal, but the overall level of architecture is not very high. The society has not yet accepted architects, the added value of their labor is not recognized. People think, "I have a cousin or an uncle, or anyone who will quickly design a house for me, and maybe I'll buy him tea for that." In such circumstances, it is difficult to set a fair fee that people will pay. The only way for an architect to survive is to find an alternative source of income or to fulfill orders with minimal investment, lowering the quality and not going deep into the project. Probably, this is characteristic not only of Nepal, but also of many other countries where the field of architecture is still young and not accepted by society.
You are a member of the Society of Nepalese Architects (SONA) and the Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA). Is there something in common between these two trade unions?
- I am not very affiliated with the Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, although I belong to the division of architects working in foreign countries. It's funny because Nepal is not a foreign country to me. SIA develops guidelines for design contests and runs the contests itself. In this, the two organizations are similar. In Nepal, we also developed principles for conducting design competitions, which allowed young architects to receive orders and gain fame.
The Society of Nepalese Architects is a bit politicized, like any other organization in Nepal that includes several related people. But don't underestimate the role of SONA. This organization has become a platform for discussion of the ethical aspects of the work of an architect in Nepal. We need some quality control because many structures are worthless, even if they were designed by an architect.
