Final Report: Capacity Building for Safeguarding Cultural Heritage ...

Final ReportCapacity Building for Safeguarding Cultural Heritagein Myanmar(Phase II)

© UNESCO/C.Rellensmann

Project Title: Capacity building for safeguarding cultural heritage in Myanmar (Phase II)

Target Country: Myanmar

UNESCO Budget Code: 534MYA4001

Funding Source: Government of Italy

Total Budget Approved: 1,358,700 USD

Reporting Period: 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2015

Executing Agency: UNESCO

Implementing Partners: • DepartmentofArchaeologyandNationalMuseum(DoA)• MyanmarNationalCommitteeforWorldHeritage• LericiFoundation• InternationalCentrefortheStudyofthePreservationandRestorationofCulturalProperty(ICCROM)

Project Starting Date: 18 December 2013

Project Completion Date: 31 December 2015

Responsible Officer: Timothy Curtis, UNESCO Bangkok

Project Team: UNESCO Bangkok UNESCO Yangon Timothy Curtis Sardar Umar Alam KorapatPraputum MooMooHsoe Montira Unakul Ohnmar Myo Clara Rellensmann Rik Ponne


ContentI. Summary 2II. Overview of Project Implementation 6III. Results Achieved 14IV. Visibility 28V. Challenges Encountered 30VI. Sustainability 32VII. Annexes 34

I. Summary To support Myanmar’s commitment to protecting cultural heritage, particularly within the WorldHeritage framework, UNESCO initiated the“Capacity building for safeguarding cultural heritage in Myanmar” project in 2011 with generous funding from the Government of Italy.

Phase I assisted Myanmar in preparing the nomination of the Pyu Ancient Cities, which was Myanmar’s first priority for World Heritagelisting. In June 2014, the Pyu Ancient Cities were successfullyinscribedontheWorldHeritageListatthe38thSessionoftheWorldHeritageCommitteethat took place in Doha.

Phase I of the project provided Myanmar with exposure to world-class cultural heritage management and conservation standards. At the institutional level, the project also assisted the authorities in strengthening its management capacity for cultural heritage sites, including the application of advanced technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Phase II furnished continued support to Myanmar in enhancing the protection of the Pyu Ancient Cities which was confirmed as one of the top national priorities in the country’s culture sector following the site’s successful inscription onto the WorldHeritageList.

At the same time, Phase II also further expanded the government’s safeguarding capacity at other sites, notably, Bagan which is in the pipeline for future World Heritage nomination. This is particularlytimelygiventhepositivesignalfromHEPresidentThein Sein of Myanmar during a visit to Baganin February 2014, when he underscored the importance of sustainably protecting Bagan as one of the country’s most significant cultural heritage assets,usingWorldHeritageasaframework.


2 3

Phase II of the project delivered three main results as foreseen in the project proposal:

• Institutional capacity built for enhancingconservation and management of Bagan;

• Institutional capacity built for enhancingconservation and management of Pyu Ancient Cities;

• Technical capacitybuilt for improvedculturalheritage site conservation and management through Field School of Archaeology and other institutions.

It is expected that the growing attention to these high-profile sites will catalyze local development opportunities and allow the cultural heritage to bring increasing social and economic benefits to the local communities, which will contribute to the long-term sustainable safeguarding of the sites.

This report provides an overview of the projectimplementation in Phase II, including lessons learned, and gives an outlook for on-going support to Myanmar foreseen in Phase III, which has been approved.

Pyu Ancient Cities

• Institutional improvements in theDepartmentof Archaeology and National Museum including establishment of a central WorldHeritage Division and re-organization of sitemanagement units and management protocols at the Pyu Ancient Cities.

• Upgrade of equipment and facilities in thePyu Ancient Cities, including conservation laboratories, procurement of specialized conservationequipment,andvehiclesforuseinsite monitoring.

• Strengtheningofthemulti-stakeholderprocessesof site monitoring and management under the umbrella of the PYUCOM coordinating committee and in close collaboration with the civilsocietyPyuHeritageTrusts.

• ImprovementofmappingofPyuAncientCitiesthrough use of aerial imagery data and GIS in order to provide an integrated basis for site monitoring and management.

Bagan

• Laying the groundwork for World Heritagenomination of Bagan which is an integral part of strengthening the robust framework for enhanced protection of the site.This includesextensive consultations with local and national stakeholders and the preliminary articulation of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value.

• Contributing to the improved managementof Bagan through the identification of key managementissues,theundertakingofHeritageImpact Assessments for high-impact hotel and development projects, and the development of recommendations for interim management measures addressing critical issues including development control and site zoning.

• Institutional strengthening with theestablishment of the BAGANCOM coordinating committee and staffing improvements in the Department of Archaeology and National Museum Bagan branch office including the set-up of a dedicated GIS team and mural team.

• Upgradeofequipmentandmateriel forBagansite management office, including procurement ofspecializedequipmentandvehicleforuseinsite monitoring.

• Improvement of mapping of Bagan throughuse of aerial imagery data and GIS in order to provide an integrated basis for site monitoring and management.

Further technical capacity building

• Further technical capacity building in theconservation of archaeological sites and monuments at the Pyu Ancient Cities and at Bagan, in line with recommendations of the World Heritage Committee. Areasof training included archaeological survey (using both conventional and non-invasive techniques), excavation and site protection;object conservation; monument assessment and conservation; and assessment and conservation of decorative works including murals.

• Further technical capacity building in the

management of archaeological sites and monuments within the World Heritageframework, including development of a risk management strategy (for the Pyu Ancient Cities), use of GIS for site monitoring and management (for the Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan) and undertaking Heritage ImpactAssessment (for both sites).

• Enhanced knowledge about World Heritageamong site management officials, local administrators and relevant stakeholders throughthedistributionofkeyWorldHeritagedocuments in Myanmar language version and study tours to other World Heritage sites inMekong sub-region.

Specifically, the main highlights achieved under Phase II include:

4 5

II. Overview of Project Implementation

The Myanmar authorities engaged actively withtheprojectasavehicle topromoteWorldHeritageamong a wider range of relevant parties in Myanmar. In addition to Ministry of Culture staff, officials from other regional and local governments as well as other local stakeholders were also involved in various project activities. For instance, in technical training activities, the project received a larger-than-expected turnout from DoA and related government staff, as well as the participation of members from professional bodies such as the Association of Myanmar Architects, the Myanmar Engineering Association and ICOMOS Myanmar, who took part either as trainees or as national technical experts.

In response to feedback from the Myanmar authorities and project beneficiaries, and with donor approval, the project was extended twice, first to 31 July2015andsubsequentlyto31December2015.

TheenlargedtimeframeensuredthatDoAandotherstakeholders were not overwhelmed by the volume of project activities, given limited numbers of staff. Adjusting the pace of the project allowed knowledge, skills, in-house capacity and external partnerships to be built up in a manner that was more realistic and sustainable. It also allowed for sufficient time to assist the DoA to respond to recommendations and officialrequestsfromtheWorldHeritageCommitteewhichwererequiredby1December2015. In terms of the implementation of activities as foreseen in the project workplan, the following activities were successfully completed:

• Review and update of workplan with DeputyMinister of Culture and Department of Archaeology, Nay Pyi Taw, 4-6 February 2014 to reflect the most urgent needs, including management priorities at the sites, local development concerns and concerns identified bytheWorldHeritageCommittee.

• Recruitment of Technical Advisor to managethe implementation of the project in-country, who assumed his position based in Yangon on 1 August 2015.

• OfficialMeetingoftheCoordinationCommitteefor the Management of the Pyu Ancient Cities (PYUCOM) to review the management plan of the Pyu Ancient Cities in order to identify priority management actions and select actions for support through the current project. Participants at the PYUCOM Meeting also included international experts, local stakeholders from three Pyu Ancient Cities and arepresentativeoftheItalianEmbassy(HeadofDevelopmentCooperation).Themeeting tookplace in Yangon from 18-19 February 2014.

• ExpertmissiontoBagantoassessWorldHeritagepotential, management issues and stakeholder concerns and follow-up coordination meeting at Nay Pyi Taw with the Director General of the Department of Archaeology to coordinate next steps for Bagan, from 23-27 February 2014.

• PlanningmissiontoNayPyiTawbyUNESCOBangkok GIS Officer to consult with Department of Archaeology regarding GIS for Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan, 13-14 March 2014.

• Assessment mission to Bagan to prepare formural and stucco conservation and in-situ conservation demonstration project, 27 March-7 April2014.ThismissionwascoordinatedwithICCROM experts and followed by a working session with DoA staff on integrating mural recording into overall Bagan inventory, held from 11-20 June 2014 at Bagan.


6 7

• Preparatory works for archaeologicalconservation activities carried out by the LericiFoundation inearly2014were followedby on-the-job training activities in burial site conservation and brick monument restoration at Sri Ksetra, Pyay, from May to June 2014. Burial site conservation and brick restoration were flagged as two major concerns by ICOMOS and theWorldHeritageCommitteeinitsassessmentof the Pyu Ancient Cities World Heritagenomination dossier.

• Facilitation of participation of key staffmembers of the Department of Archaeology at 38thSessionoftheWorldHeritageCommittee,Doha,Qatar14-25June2014.ThePyuAncientCitieswereinscribedontheWorldHeritageListduring this meeting.

• Review of workplan withMinistry of Cultureand Department of Archaeology to reflect the final decision and recommendations of the WorldHeritageCommittee regarding the PyuAncient Cities, 8-9 July 2014, Yangon, Myanmar, including high-priority follow up items related to site management and sustainable local development.

• Finalization of land-use dataset andmaps forPyu Ancient CitiesWorld Heritage GIS, 3-28October 2014, Mandalay, under guidance from UNESCO GIS officer.

• InternationalConsultationMeeting–TowardsWorld Heritage Nomination of Bagan, from10-12 October 2014 in Bagan, which brought together international and national experts to discuss and propose approaches for the future World Heritage nomination and safeguardingof Bagan in the face of accelerated development pressure and to develop a roadmap for the protection of Bagan within the framework of theUNESCOWorldHeritageConvention.

• StudytripbyDoAstaffandlocaladministratorsto Thailand from 21-26 October 2014 tovisit a number of World Heritage and othercultural heritage sites to study: (i) various approaches to cultural landscape management; (ii) community-based tourism and other opportunities for cultural industries associated with heritage sites; and (iii) site interpretation.

• Workshop on Refinement and Improvementof GIS data of Pyu Ancient Cities Field School of Archaeology (FSoA), Pyay, 7 – 17 July 2014 followed by a second related workshop on UpdatingofLargeScaleLandUseMapforPyuAncient Cities, 25 July - 08 August 2014.

• PYUCOMMeeting to reviewmanagement ofPyu Ancient Cities, 7-8 August 2014 in Yangon, Myanmar, with participation of leading experts from ICOMOS, ICCROM, Lerici Foundationand other partners.

• Workshop on Disaster Risk ManagementPlanningforWorldHeritage,13-17August2014,Pyay, facilitated by Dr Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair Professor at the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, withProf Takeyuki Okubo, Director, and Dr Naoko Itaya, Associate Professor, of the same institute.

• ParticipationbyHEDawSandaKhin,DeputyMinister of Culture, at the UNESCO WorldForum on Culture and Cultural Industries, Florence, Italy from 2-4 October 2014.

• Awarenessraisingmaterialsandactivitiesweredeveloped by the PyuAncientCitiesHeritageTrusts, with a view to strengthening cooperation with local authorities and residents in ensuring the conservation and sustainable development of the Pyu Ancient Cities.

• Training for recording and rapid conditionassessment of decorative works at Bagan, 23 November-3 December 2014, conducted by Rodolfo Lujan Lunsford, mural painting anddecorative works conservation expert.

• Expert mission to undertake pilot heritageimpactassessments(HIA)atBaganforselectedinfrastructure projects, plan comprehensive rapid HIA for construction projects in BaganandtheestablishmentofaninterimHIAsystemfor Bagan, 23 November – 4 December 2014, conductedbyArchaeologicalAssessmentsLtd.experts Julie Van Den Bergh and Ellen Cameron.

• Expertmission toprovide technical assistanceregarding the nomination and management of Bagan, 24 November – 5 December 2014, conductedbyKaiWeise,heritagemanagementexpert and DuncanMarshall,World Heritagenomination expert.


8 9

• Working session for recording and rapidcondition assessment of decorative works at Bagan, 4-18 December 2014, Bagan, conducted byRodolfoLujanLunsford,muralpaintinganddecorative works conservation expert.

• Follow up working session to prepare a RiskPreparedness Strategy for the Pyu Ancient Cities, Pyay, 10-13 December 2014, facilitated by Dr Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair Professor at the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage and Rik Ponne, UNESCOTechnical Advisor.

• ArchaeologicalandArchitecturalConservationCapacity Building for Pyu Ancient Cities, consisting of field activities with a capacity building focus including: (i) urn cemetery conservation; (ii) archaeological ground survey; (iii) non-invasive investigations; (iv) risk assessment; (v) mapping of ancient hydrology; and (vi) training in object conservation, December 2014 – June 2015, facilitated by numerousLericiFoundationexperts.

• HeritageImpactAssessmentCapacityBuildingWorkshopinBagan,March2015,conductedbyArchaeologicalAssessmentsLtd.experts.

• ExpertmissiontoprovidetechnicaladvicetotheMyanmar authorities in the conservation and management of the PyuAncientCitiesWorldHeritagesiteinMarch2015,focusingoncapacitybuilding, specifically in the implementation of HIAmethodologyasatoolforimprovingonsitemanagement of development pressures and threats.

• Hands-on on-site practical training forparticipantsintheBaganHIAtrainingfromthePyu Ancient Cities (Sri Ksetra, Beikthano and Halin),14-22March2015.

• Expertmission to Bagan, 24March – 1April2015 to provide technical assistance regarding the nomination and management of Bagan, including a consultative workshop on Town Planning, Tourist Accommodations and Transportation, 26-28 March 2015.

• Expert mission to Bagan to provide technicalassistance regarding the nomination and management of Bagan, January 2015, conductedbyKaiWeise,heritagemanagementexpert, focusing on enhancing heritage zoning guidelines for Bagan.

• ExpertmissiontoprovidetechnicaladvicetotheMyanmar authorities in the conservation and management of the PyuAncientCitiesWorldHeritage site from 18 January – 5 February2015, with a diagnostic focus identifying issues and drafting a workplan to address them.

• Expert mission to undertake rapid heritageimpactassessments(HIA)atBaganfor27hotelprojects prioritized by the DoA Bagan, February 2015, conducted by Archaeological Assessments Ltd.experts.

• Follow up training for recording and rapidcondition assessment of decorative works at Bagan, March 2015, Bagan, conducted by Rodolfo Lujan Lunsford, mural painting anddecorative works conservation expert.

• FollowupworkingsessiononRiskPreparednessStrategy for the Pyu Ancient Cities with a focus on progressing the Risk Assessment Chapter, Yangon, 4-7 May 2015, facilitated by Dr Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair Professor at the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban CulturalHeritage.

• Expert mission to Bagan, 9-18 May 2015to provide technical assistance regarding the nomination and management of Bagan, including a consultative workshop on Environment issues, 13-15 May 2015.

• Expertmission to provide technical advice tothe Myanmar authorities in the conservation and management of the Pyu Ancient Cities WorldHeritagesitefrom17-24May2015and31May – 12 June 2015 to support site management staff in the task of updating the timebound action plan of the Property Management Plan, in accordance with the decision/directives of PYUCOM.

© UNESCO/R.Jigyasu

10 11

• 9thmeetingof thePYUCOM,held inYangon8-10 June 2015, to (i) report on implementation of the Pyu Ancient Cities Property Management Plan’s Timebound Action Plan; (ii) report on implementation of this project; (iii) define and prioritize actions for 2015-2016; (iv) update Timebound Action Plan associated to the World Heritage Property Management Plan;and (v) identify key activities for Phase III of the project.

• MeetingtoupdatetheMyanmarTentativeListon 11 June 2015 in Yangon with national and international experts, with a particular focus on adding Shwedagon Pagoda, revising a number ofexistingentries,discussinggapsandrequiredresearch to identify sites that could help fill these gaps.

• Expert mission to Bagan, 9-15 June 2015to provide technical assistance regarding the nomination and management of Bagan, including a consultative workshop on Archaeology, 12-14 June 2015.

• Rapid condition assessment of standingmonuments in Bagan, 11-19 June 2015, focusing on one monument as a pilot site.

• DevelopedInterimManagementArrangementsfor Bagan Archaeological Area and Monuments, consistingof: (i) InterimHeritageZoningandRegulations for Bagan 2015 – 2016 and (ii) Practical Steps for Implementing the Interim HeritageImpactAssessmentSystematBagan.

• WorkingsessiontodraftRiskMitigationChapterof the Risk Preparedness Strategy for the Pyu AncientCitiesWorldHeritageproperty,14-17July 2015, at the Department of Archaeology and National Museum, Yangon.

• Completed procurement of two Toyota Hiluxpickup trucks for site monitoring at Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan and handover to DoA.

• Completedprocurementoffifteenmotorcyclesfor site monitoring at Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan and handover to DoA.

• Completed procurement of specializedlab equipment for the Field ConservationLaboratory for the Pyu Ancient Cities at SriKsetra.

• Completed renovation and upgrading ofbuilding to house the Field Conservation Laboratory for the Pyu Ancient Cities at SriKsetra.

• StudytripwasundertakentotheAngkorWorldHeritage Site, Cambodia by DoA staff, localadministrators and community representatives involved in the management of Bagan Archaeological Area and Monuments and Pyu Ancient CitiesWorldHeritage property, from22-27June2015.ThefocusofthestudytourwastostudythemanagementofthisWorldHeritageproperty, particularly by the role and function of APSARA authority.

• Supported the participation of two DoA staffin the 39th Session of the World HeritageCommittee in Bonn, Germany, 28 June-8 July 2015.

• Working Session on Updating of HeritageZoning Data of Bagan Archaeological Areaand Monuments conducted at the DoA Bagan Branch Office, 15-18 June 2015.

• Procured high definition aerial photographsof Bagan for integration into the Geographic Information System of Bagan under development.

• Establishment of a dedicated GeographicInformation System for Bagan, which will be linked to the updated monument inventory which is being developed with the support of a separate project.

• Completedupgradeofbuildings tohouse twoemergency Field Conservation Laboratoriesfor the Pyu Ancient Cities at Beikthano and at Halin.

• Public consultations with local administratorsand stakeholders to disseminate and clarify the provisions of the Pyu Ancient Cities Property Management Plan, which had been translated into Burmese in October 2015.

• Workingsessiontodraftburialsiteconservationplan from 7-12 October 2015 at the Pyay Field School of Archaeology, per World HeritageCommittee Decision 38 COM 8B.28 (2014).

• TechnicalassistancetotheDoAforfinalizationand submissionofofficial report to theWorldHeritage Committee per Decision 38 COM8B.28 (2014).

• FinalexternalevaluationofProjectPhaseIandII, with in-country mission conducted from 6-21 December 2015.

© UNESCO/A.Chuamthaisong

12 13

III. Results Achieved Theprojecthasachievedtheforeseenresults,withdetailsasfollows:

Expected Result 1Institutional capacity built for enhancing conservation and management of Bagan

Expected Result 1.2: Updated management plan and drafting of nomination dossier initiated

With a view to World Heritage nomination, theproject has resulted in a draft definition of the conceptual and geographic scope of the site to encompass not only Bagan’s monumental and archaeological heritage but also the site’s living heritage and the surrounding cultural landscape has beenrecommendedbytheexperts.Thishasbeenreinforced by stakeholder concerns for protecting multiple aspects of the site, such as the agricultural landscape and various other cultural features, in addition to the main temples themselves. It should be noted in any case that the nomination process has not advanced at full speed as the Myanmar authorities have not committed to a firm timeline for nomination.With the new administration inplace following the general elections in early 2016, the nomination timeline will have to be revisited.

Substantive preparations for the World Heritagenomination process was initiated with a large consultation meeting in October 2014. Over 30 national and local stakeholders and over 20 national and international experts convened to discuss the future safeguarding of Bagan in the face of accelerated development pressure and to develop a roadmap for the future protection and management of Bagan within the framework of the UNESCO WorldHeritageConvention.Themeetingyieldedthe initial formulation of a tentative statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), including recommendationsforWorldHeritagenominationcriteria and boundaries of the site.

Expected Result 1.1: Improved site management and conservation facilities for sustainable safeguarding of Bagan

In terms of upgrading the site management offices to strengthen the institutional capacity of the authorities to protect and manage the site, the project supported the upgrade of various material at the DoA Bagan Branch Office. This included the procurement ofa pick-up truck for use in site monitoring by the site officials, who had relied on personal bicycles, cars or motorcycles previously. Computer and IT equipmentwasprovidedforgeneralofficeuseaswellas specialized activities of the GIS team that was set up at Bagan.

With regards to the conservation laboratorywhichwas earlier planned for Bagan, site surveys by UNESCO and conservation experts were undertaken in consultation with DoA to determine the preferred location and equipment that would be required.However, ultimatelyDoA informedUNESCO thatgovernment funding would become available next year to build a new conservation laboratory in Bagan andrequestedUNESCOtoallocatethefundsfreedupby this to construct and equipmini emergencyconservation laboratories at the Pyu Ancient Cities ofBeikthanoandHalininstead.


14 15

Over the course of the rest of the project, additional consultations with experts and stakeholders were undertaken to further refine the site’s proposed Outstanding Universal Value, boundaries and managementrequirements.ThisconcludedthattherecommendedWorldHeritagecriteria(iii),(iv)and(vi).Thisselectionofcriteriawouldreflectthescopeof the site whose highlights include:

• A grand ensemble of over 3000 ancientmonuments comprising of temples, pagodas, initiation halls, caves and extending to the four relic stupasofTankyi-taungZedi,Lokananda,Shwe-zigonandTuyin-taungZedi;

• Thearchaeologicalareaconsistingoftheancientpalace site, fortifications, monastic complexes, the remains of individual monuments and possibly of ancient villages and relic landscapes;

• Theexquisitemuralpaintingsandpossiblyotherornamental arts applied to the monuments such as stucco carving, stone carving, ornamental bricks, ceramic elements, as well as metal elements;

• Thelivingculturalheritageanditslinkagetothecontinuity from the past, such as the festivals, monastic life and artistic traditions.

With regards to upgradingmanagement at Bagan,the project has focused on preparations for a Comprehensive Planning Strategy and an Integrated ManagementSystemforthesite.Thesemanagementprovisions will eventually be encapsulated in a World Heritage Property Management Plan, asper statutory requirements of theWorld HeritageConvention. The management of the site wouldhave two levels: in parallel to the development of the management framework for Bagan heritage site proper, planning for the larger Bagan/Nyaung U area is also needed.

Expected Result 1.3: GIS framework created for site monitoring and management

In terms of GIS, initial data collection has already beenundertaken.Thisincludesputtingtogethergeo-referenced and rectified satellite imagery covering the whole site, which is useful for initial land use planning purposes. More detailed and updated aerial imagery has been acquired to provide the highestaccuracy, and detailed plans are being prepared for thedevelopmentof all requireddata layers fora comprehensive GIS-based heritage information andmanagement system.The development of theGIS is being coordinated with the development of an improved inventory system for the site which is being financed under a separate UNESCO project.

The key management issues for Bagan have beenidentified and management responses to these issues have been proposed through a series of consultations and workshops with national and local stakeholders and experts.The outcomes of these consultationsare to form the basis for the Integrated Management SystemforBagan.Theseissuesinclude:

• Townplanning,hotelsandtransportation• Conservationofmonumentsandarchaeology• Agricultureandlandscape• Environment,naturalhazardsandpollution• Community – local socio-economy and

intangible cultural heritage

Given the complicated context for managing the site, which will require a longer-term timeframeand complex political negotiations at local, regional and national levels, the Ministry of Culture requestedin2014that theprojectpropose interimmanagement measures to deal with urgent issues until a comprehensive management framework can bepreparedandadopted.Theinterimmanagementarrangement for Bagan were developed with the following components: (i) update of existing zoning maps including more detailed demarcation to clarify exact boundaries; (ii) recommendations for refined interim zoning regulations; and (iii) recommendations for interim heritage impact assessmentsystem(HIA)forBagan.

At the forefront of management concerns for Bagan is the pressing issue of rapid and often uncontrolled tourism infrastructure development in Bagan which must be addressed urgently in light of the impacts these projects have on Bagan’s heritage. At the request of the DoA, the projecthas engaged the services of a firm specialized in heritage impact assessments to undertake HIAof project prioritized by the DoA, including rapid HIAofselectedhotelsinBaganandretroactiveHIAof theviewing tower andgolf course.This yieldedthe recommendation that a number of hotels with unacceptable impacts in sensitive heritage areas should be decommissioned over a period of time, to preserve the affected monuments and the landscape as a whole. These recommendations have beentaken up for consideration by the high-level Bagan Cultural Heritage Management Committee whichhas recently been set up, under the chairmanship of theMinisterofHomeAffairs.

Expected Result 1.4: Priority conservation activities implemented, including mural paintings and stucco carvings

Regarding conservation activities, an international expert team was put together in conjunction with ICCROM, in order to develop a detailed mural and stucco conservation and training plan in consultationwithDoAandlocalexperts.TheDoAset up a mural conservation team with a primary focus on Bagan. Joint missions of the international experts and field working session at Bagan involving the staff of the DoA were carried out to develop a systematic approach to identifying priorities for conservingmurals.Thisinvolvedthedevelopmentofa recording card for mural paintings and decorative works, called the “Rapid Condition Assessment CardforDecorativeWorks”.

During subsequent trainingworkshops,DoA staffwere trained by an expert conservator-restorer in recording and undertaking rapid condition assessments of decorative works at Bagan monuments using this card. After completion of the initial training, the DoA staff continued with the recording and condition assessment of all 34 Grade I monuments under guidance of two DoA resource persons.Theassessmentofthedecorativeworksof34 monuments helped to determine priorities for emergency hands-on conservation interventions carried out inMarch 2015.TheDoAmural teamcontinues to undertake on-going assessments of the murals using the system prepared under the project.

© UNESCO/O.Myo

16 17

Expected Result 2Institutional capacity built for enhancing conservation and management of the Pyu Ancient Cities

• Strengthenedmanagementplanwithadditionalguidelines such as risk management, as identifiedbyICOMOSandtheWorldHeritageCommittee;

• Improvedcapacityofsitemanagersbyupdatingthe internal organization and responsibilities of the site management office staff;

• With regards to land use management anddevelopment/infrastructure control, closer coordination was undertaken with local and national authorities, other professional bodies and technical universities in order to more effectively apply the zoning plan/regulations for thesite,aswellasintroducingHeritageImpactAssessment procedures;

• Inclosecoordinationwiththethreesite-basedheritage trusts, enhanced public awareness and understanding of the management plan, with a view to optimizing its implementation, particularly wider dissemination of the plan, designation of specific agencies to be responsible for specific tasks in the plan, and enhanced coordination amongst various agencies;

• Contributed to opportunities for localcommunity development linked to the heritage site that are being spearheaded by local authorities and the heritage trusts, through mapping of community-based cultural industries with potential for further development.

Expected Result 2.2: Priority activities of the management plan implemented including improved conservation of archaeological monuments

Phase II of the project has provided full support to the authorities in implementing immediate measures for managing the sites, in line with the management plan developed for the site in Phase I of the project andwithinternationalrecommendations.TheDoAhas paid particular attention to the recommendations givenby theWorldHeritageCommitteeaswellasthe recommendations provided by ICOMOS in its assessment of the site.

Following the inscription of the Pyu Ancient Cities ontheWorldHeritageListinJune2014,thedetailedproject workplan was updated to identify specific management concerns at the Pyu Ancient Cities thatwereaddressedthroughPhaseII.Theseincludeinter alia:

• Strengthened protection of vulnerable urnburial sites, in line with international standards, which was identified as a top priority by the World Heritage Committee in its inscriptiondecision;

In terms of strengthening protection of vulnerable burial sites and brick monuments, the LericiFoundation has undertaken a comprehensive assessment and risk mapping of the burial sites and monuments in the Pyu Ancient Cities. As the burialsiteswerepinpointedbytheWorldHeritageCommittee as a particular concern, the focus of the field interventions focused on the burial site conservation.TheDoA identified one site, HMA-53, at Sri Ksetra to use as the demonstration site for capacityinconservationofburialsites.Thissiteisacemetery consisting of 464 pottery urns containing cremated human remains.

A multi-disciplinary team of experts mobilized by the Lerici Foundation partnered with a dedicatedteam of DoA counterparts in undertaking detailed documentation of the vulnerable burial site, in situ consolidation of exposed archaeological features including urns containing human remains, and inventory and conservation of artefacts which were removed for further study and safekeeping.

In further consultation with the DoA and other international experts, the results from the condition assessment and the field-tested conservation protocols were documented and codified into the form of a conservation plan containing time-bound action items and guidelines which was officially submitted to the World Heritage Committee inDecember 2015.

Expected Result 2.1: Improved facilities of site offices for sustainable management

In terms of upgrading the site management facilities at the three Pyu Ancient Cities, computer and IT equipmentwereprocuredandhandedoverforusebyfor the site management officers, including the GIS team and the field conservation laboratory. A pick-up truck was provided for use in site monitoring by the site officials, along with 15 motorcycles. As field conservation laboratory facilities, DoA has allocated an existing building within the Field School of Archaeology to be upgraded to house the Sri Ksetra FieldConservationLaboratory.Likewise,buildingswere also upgraded to house the emergency labs at Beikthano and Halin. In parallel, laboratory andoffice equipment, ranging from simple tools tosophisticated microscopes were procured for the Sri Ksetra lab. A more fundamental assortment of equipment was also provided for the emergencylabsatBeikthanoandHalin.Theseemergencylabswere specifically requested by MoC as they areconsideredcrucialfortheadequateprotectionandconservation of archaeological finds at these two sites which are located in remote areas.

© UNESCO/R.Jigyasu

18 19

In recognition of the challenges in managing exposed archaeological sites containing fragile human remains and artefacts in the context of still-limited technical and institutional resources, the authorities have declared a moratorium on future excavations of the burial sites for 2016-17 and 2017-18 fiscal years. In lieu of new excavations, the authorities will turn their focus to consolidating, documenting, conserving and interpreting previously-excavated sites. As an exception, one unexcavated pilot burial site will be selected for intervention during Phase III of the project to demonstrate the correct archaeological process from start to finish, as per the protocols developed inPhaseII.(OtheractivitiestheLericiFoundationconducted are described under Expected Result 3.)

In terms of risk management, the project has supported the preparation of a comprehensive Risk Preparedness Strategy for the Pyu Ancient Cities under guidance from Dr Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair Professor at the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,RitsumeikanUniversity,Japan.Theissueofdisasterrisk management was pointed out by the WorldHeritageCommitteeinitsdecisiontoinscribe,byrequestingMyanmartotakeactionondevelopingdisaster risk management guidelines as part of its site management. The results of risk assessmentof buried archaeology and standing monuments undertaken by the Lerici Foundation will beincorporated into this strategy.

In terms of improved capacity of site managers, a heritage management expert and key contributor to the World Heritage nomination dossierfor the Pyu Ancient Cities undertook a series of longer-term missions to the Pyu Ancient Cities to provide technical assistance with site management, including: (i) preparing an updated phased workplan for adoption by the PYUCOM whichreflectstheconcernsoftheWorldHeritageCommittee, ICOMOS, PYUCOM, national and local government and stakeholders; (ii) improving the organizational set up of the Pyu Ancient Cities management offices and the capacity of site managers by updating the responsibilities of the site management office staff; (iii) recommending measures to support the technical backstopping of PYUCOM by devising a mechanism for technical advice on issues such as agrarian landscape management and urban development control; and (iv) developing recommendations for development control and urban/landscape management measures, including Heritage Impact Assessment(HIA)guidelines.

In terms of better land use management, the project focused on ensuring the application of the zoning and development control regulations which were already developed in Phase I as part of the site’s management plan. HIA was introduced asa practical tool to assess whether proposed new development projects – ranging from private home extensions to new roads – could be approved by the DoA. Capacity was built among DoA and related

government and non-government agencies in the application of HIA principles and procedures atthe Pyu Ancient Cities, thereby averting negative impacts from a number of proposed new projects.

In terms of public awareness, the project has collaboratedwiththePyuAncientCitiesHeritageTrust to produce and distribute awareness materials and conduct awareness raising activities at the threecitiesofSriKsetra,BeikthanoandHalin.TheTrust works to assist the local community living in and around cultural heritage sites to be more knowledgeable about heritage values including Outstanding Universal Value. Several of these activities were presided over byH.E. Daw SandaKhin, Deputy Minister of Culture, highlighting the importance local awareness is given by the Ministry of Culture.The project has undertakenthe translation into Myanmar language of the official World Heritage Property ManagementPlan, which has been distributed widely among relevant stakeholders.

In terms of local community development linked to the heritage site, the project contributed to the on-going efforts of the Pyu Ancient Cities HeritageTrustandotherdifferentorganizationsincivil society suchas theSriKsetraSocialWelfareAssociation, scouting groups and interested individuals. These groups have assisted capacitybuilding of community-based tourism and helped to promote the local tour guides in villages located inside theheritage area.TheTrust has developed

a strong ambassadorial role and is working to promote tourism and cultural heritage in Sri Ksetra’svillages.Theygotoruralareasandworksto support villages with education projects.Theyhave a strong focus on the younger generation.

Expected Result 2.3: Improved site maps and GIS framework for site management

In terms of improving the site maps and GIS framework for site management at the Pyu Ancient Cities, the data integrated into the Geographic Information System developed under Phase I was further refined under phase II to meet the standardsoftheWorldHeritageCommittee.Newaerial photo imagery was acquired and used tocreate detailed digitized land-use maps and data qualityhasbeenupgradedbyGISexpertsinclosecollaborationwiththeGISteamofDoA.Throughhands-on-training for the GIS team, the project has helped to enhance the capacity of the DoA to use their site GIS. Nonetheless, due to limitations in basic IT knowledge/skills and entrenched paper-based working protocols, the GIS component still requires further improvements in the futureto ensure that the GIS that has been set up is operationally incorporated into standard working practice of the DoA in routine site management and monitoring activities, rather than used mainly for map production.

© UNESCO/O.Myo

20 21

Expected Result 3Technical capacity built for improved cultural heritage site conservation and management through the Field School of Archaeology and other institutions

In terms of brick restoration, the team undertook a detailed documentation of previous restoration works and the structural condition of a selected monument identified by DoA (Paya Htaung inSri Ksetra), followed by the development of a detailed plan for its restoration approach. Thisserves as model of how to approach monument conservation. Risk mapping was then undertaken for a range of standing brick monuments at the Pyu Ancient Cities in order to understand their current situation, conservation status and recommend measures for action.

For heritage site management, it was requestedto build technical capacity in the process of developing and implementing the various priority management guidelines being developed through the project as explained above.Thiswill advancethe earlier training in more general aspects of WorldHeritagemanagementguidedbyICCROMin Phase I of the project.

Several workshops led by leading international experts from Japan and the UNESCO Chair Professor at Institute of Disaster Mitigation for UrbanCulturalHeritage(RitsumeikanUniversity)were held in to build the DoA’s technical capacity in DRM planning in order to develop a multi-hazard disaster risk preparedness strategy for the Pyu Ancient Cities. By actively involving DoA counterparts in the drafting of this strategy, it ensures that they will have full ownership of the provisions of the strategy, and thus will be better positioned to actually implement the various measures.

Likewise,indevelopingHIAguidelines,ratherthanrelying entirely on outside international experts, the process was conducted in a collaborative manner. Training was conducted at the Field School of ArchaeologyandwithinDoAtoconductHIAforthePyu Ancient Cities and other cultural heritage sites to allow site managers to make informed decisions about development/infrastructure proposals that may negatively impact on the sites’ values.

Expected Result 3.1: A corps of officials with advanced technical knowledge and skills in cultural heritage site conservation and management through Field School of Archaeology and other institutions

In terms of improving capacity in heritage site conservation, Phase II provided an opportunity to build up on the foundational knowledge and skillsthatwerealreadyputinplaceinPhaseI.TheDoA identified the following priorities which are in conjunction with its own workplan of activities:

(i) protection of exposed archaeological areas particularly vulnerable burial sites;

(ii) capacity building in archaeological field survey using non-invasive techniques, includingremote sensing, archaeological ground surveys, geophysical prospecting and targeted test excavations, with a particular focus on the identification of a suitable urn burial site for a conservation demonstration activity;

(iii) mapping of hydrological features, which is among the issues ICOMOS and the WorldHeritage Committee requested additionaldocumentation on;

(iv) risk assessment of standing monuments and underground archaeology, which will inform the risk preparedness strategy being prepared; and

(vi) training in object conservation.

The Lerici Foundation, building up on its well-developed knowledge of the Myanmar context and its earlier capacity-building activities in Phase I, was tasked to conduct these activities using a hands-on, in situ, on-the-job training approach using the Field School of Archaeology at Pyay as the primarybaseofoperations.Thisapproachprovedto be more effective and yielded a more targeted group of trainees with enhanced skills who will be able to apply them in their actual duties.

Through two field seasons in 2014 and 2015, theproject trained a team of DoA counterparts in the comprehensive procedures for conservation of archaeological sites:

• preparatory work such as preliminarymeasurements and on-site investigation in order to plan for archaeological excavations at burial sites;

• risk survey and assessment of variousarchaeological sites to understand their current situation, conservation status and recommend measures for action;

• various techniques of documentation ofarchaeological sites including use of 3D modelling;

• insituconsolidationofburialremains;

• removalandconservationofselectedpotteryurns and other artefacts.

© UNESCO/M.Mahaxay

22 23

Expected Result 3.2: Local stakeholders and temple committees with increased awareness in basic conservation principles

As per result 2.2 above, a range of awareness raising activities at the local level helped ensure that local residents, temple committees, youth as well as local government administrators gained a better understanding of the Pyu Ancient Cities’ archaeological and heritage values, the management provisions for the site, and basic conservation principles.

In terms of broadening the exposure of local stakeholders to international processes of WorldHeritage conservation and management, theproject supported two international study visits. Thestudytoursalsoprovidedtheparticipantswithan opportunity to exchange experiences with other site managers regarding how to deal with a range of conservation issues including managing impacts of development proposals.

The first study trip was undertaken by DoA staffand local administrators from the Pyu Ancient CitiestoThailandfrom21-26October2014tovisitanumberofculturalheritagesites,includingWorldHeritagesitesandpotentialfutureWorldHeritagesites, to study: (i) various approaches to landscape management, including park landscape approach, agricultural fields setting etc.; (ii) community based tourism and other opportunities for cultural industries associated with heritage sites; (iii) site interpretation – site museums, trails, visitor centers.

The second study trip was undertaken to theAngkor World Heritage Site, Cambodia byDoA staff, local administrators and community representatives involved in the management of Bagan Archaeological Area and Monuments and PyuAncientCitiesWorldHeritageproperty,from22-27 June 2015.The focus of the study tourwasto study the management of thisWorld Heritageproperty, particularly by the role and function of APSARA authority. The opportunity to learnabout APSARA was of particular interest to the group.Thepossibilityofsettingupsuchadedicatedmulti-dimensional site management authority is a consideration for Bagan in the future.

Expected Result 3.3: Strengthened capacity of DoA on developing and operating Geographic Information Systems for cultural heritage sites

The GIS team of the DoA and the students ofthe Field School of Archaeology in Pyay have received continuous training in operationalizing, maintaining and updating the geographic information system of the Pyu Ancient Cities. A strong focus in this hands-on capacity building processhasbeen the improvementofdataqualityand data management using GIS technologies. From a core group of trainees produced in Phase I, the DoA has expanded the GIS team to a total of 31 members, who will be expected to support the work of Pyu Ancient Cities, Bagan as well as other sites to be nominated in the future.

© UNESCO/M.Mahaxay

24 25

External EvaluationA comprehensive external evaluation was undertaken of the project covering both Phase I and Phase II in line with UNESCO guidelines and with guidancefromthedonor.Theevaluationfoundthatthe project has had an important and timely impact on cultural heritage conservation in Myanmar at a critical junction in the country’s opening up and renewed development process.

In terms of relevance, both phases of the project are considered very relevant to country and beneficiary needs. Much has been achieved, and that the project’s support is greatly valued by the beneficiary, theMinistryofCultureand theGovernment.Theobjectives of the programme are still valid; and there is a strong case for continuation with renewed focus based on lessons learned.

In terms of effectiveness, both phases of the project are considered to have been effective, particularly in relation to enhancingDoA skills regardingWorldHeritage nomination processes and recognizingOutstanding Universal Value. Useful conservation work has been facilitated and conservation and management facilities have been upgraded at the Pyu Ancient Cities. Progress in enhancing conservation and management techniques is evident but moresupport is needed, particularly at Bagan.

In terms of impact, overall the project was positively impactful towards the protection of heritage and strengthening the capacities of DoA staff at the Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan. Awareness of conservation and management issues has improved in DoA and in at least three districts: Magwe District, Pyay District, and Shwe Bo District; and probably

toalesserextentatBagan.Heritagedocumentationand conservation projects have been supported. FiveHeritageTrustshavebeenestablishedandareactive, particularly at the Pyu Ancient Cities. DoA staff have been up-skilled, Government officials and HeritageTrustmembershavealsobeeneffectivelyengaged. Over 200 people received training in both Phases I and II. Myanmar is now re-engaging with international best practice in heritage conservation.

Theevaluationconcludesthatthereisnodoubtthatskills in conservation and management in DoA have increased as a result of both phases of the project. The continuation of donor investment in culturalheritage would seem justified, given widespread acknowledgement of both need and progress to date. Theachievementof the enlistment forMyanmar’sfirstWorldHeritagesiteisanimportantmilestone

of progress. Attention to date has been focussed mostly on four important sites, but Myanmar has an incredibly rich cultural heritage, and a rapidly increasing management challenge. In considering a third phase it is timely to consider whether focus should continue to be directed in the same way, or broadened to involve other sites, stakeholders and partners.


26 27

IV. Visibility The World Heritage listing of the Pyu Ancient Cities has led to widespreadinternational coverage through UNESCO, regional and national media. Theproject’s support for theWorldHeritagenominationofBagan,which is amorehigh-profile site, has further attracted constant media attention.

TheUNESCOprojectisvisiblyacknowledgedatmostprojectinterventionsites.Italian support is also acknowledged, for instance on specific assets supported by theprojectsuchaslaboratoryequipment.TheGovernmenthasdevelopeditsownPyuWorldHeritageSitewebsite,withpartialsupportfromtheproject.

Significant international profile was given to the project and the donor through UNESCO’s Third World Forum on Culture and Cultural Industries, held inFlorence inOctober 2014. A Round Table “Safeguarding Cultural Heritage forSustainable Development and Peace Building: Success Stories of Italy-UNESCO Cooperation” was organized among representatives of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Mali, Jordan and major international experts who worked with UNESCO and the ItalianGovernment.TheRoundTableincludedHEAlessandroGaudiano(DeputyCentral Director for Programming of Development Cooperation, Ministry of ForeignAffairsoftheItalianRepublic)andHEDawSandaKhin,DeputyMinisterof Culture of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, and Professor Mauro Cucarzi oftheFondazioneLerici,togetherwithUNESCO.


28 29

V. Challenges Encountered In terms of project design, it should be noted that the project was originally designed at the end of 2012 as a direct follow-up of the first phase of theproject.However, as theprojectwasapprovedat the end of 2013, and started implementation on a practical basis in early 2014, a number of developments in the country occurred that led to a shiftofprioritiesregardingprojectactivities.Thus,once the funding had been approved, the workplan had to be readjusted to reflect these changes in priorities. A second update was undertaken at request of the authorities after the June 2014World Heritage Committee meeting, when thePyuAncientCitieswereinscribedontotheWorldHeritage List, to ensure that the project directlyaddressed recommendations given by the WorldHeritage Committee and ICOMOS. The updateddetailed workplans are consistent with the original scope of the approved project document and overall workplan.

Another consideration has been that with new donors and partners now working on a range of conservation and development activities with the Myanmar authorities at both the Pyu Ancient Cities and Bagan, additional efforts for coordination have been necessary both on the part of DoA as well

as UNESCO. This includes the platform of therecently-establishedCultureSectorWorkingGroup.Additional consultations have also been undertaken directlywithvariouspartners,forinstance,tWorldMonuments Fund, JICA, Colombian Ministry of Culture, PACT, and National Research Institute for CulturalPropertiesTokyo,amongothers.Thishasalso resulted in some modifications of activities and associated budget items foreseen in the original workplan, in order to avoid duplications and to maximize synergies.

The only administrative challenge to report thatconcerns overall implementation of the project is that the direct government counterpart, the DoA, has indicated that it is still not in a position to directly receive and implement project funds. In that sense, the administrative procedures required forall project activities are still being arranged directly by UNESCO Bangkok and the UNESCO Projects Office in Yangon, which requires substantial stafftime and the possibility for delays, i.e. for fund transfers into the country. Having the TechnicalAdvisor in-country has allowed for closer liaison with the Myanmar authorities and other in-country partners and thus smoother implementation of activities.


30 31

VI. Sustainability ThesuccessfulinscriptionofthePyuAncientCitieshas bolstered the commitment of the Myanmar government to safeguard cultural heritage sites within the World Heritage framework. Thisreinforced commitment of the Ministry of Culture and other authorities has been reflected in the on-going active collaboration at the Pyu Ancient Cities.WorldHeritageisalsoseenasanimportantlever to improve the protection of Bagan within a longer-term framework, in the midst of a range of development pressures pressuring the site now. Likewise, the eagerness amongst variousstakeholders in Myanmar to include additional sites onMyanmar’s Tentative List, such as Shwedagon,also indicates the larger impact of the project in contributing to the sustainabilty of the country’s rich cultural heritage.

The external evaluation of the project notesthat the process of World Heritage nominationsand successful enlisting has helped this process significantly. However, more remains to be doneto build up the sustainability of management and conservation practices learned under the project. This includes ensuring that new guidelines,protocols and skills for conservation and heritage management which have been introduced under the project are operationalized in the regular working

practice of the DoA and other authorities. Doing sowillrequirefurtherinvestmentsininstitutionalcapacity building to overcome shortages of staff, limitations in technical qualifications and otherresources which are still faced in Myanmar.

Putting on a focus on institutional capacity building was agreed upon by the Ministry of Culture during a meeting with UNESCO in February 2016 on integrated work planning for World Heritage.The meeting was chaired by HE Aye Myint Kyu(Minister of Culture of Myanmar) with the active participation of HE Daw Sanda Khin (DeputyMinisterofCultureofMyanmar),UKyawOoLwin(Director General, DoA) and senior officials from theDoA.Thus,inPhaseIIIoftheproject,variousmeasures should be addressed with a view towards long-term institutional sustainability to carry on improved heritage conservation. These measuresinclude setting up more dedicated technical teams within DoA which can be targeted for advanced training and specialized tasks, as well as forming supportive alliances with other development partners, NGOs, and universities both in Myanmar andoverseas.Withthesemorestableandexpandedsupportive infrastructure in place, the significant gains from the project over Phases I and II will continue to bear fruit in the future.

©UNESCO/H.Ponne

32 33

VII. Annexes ArchaeologicalAsssessments.HeritageImpactAssessmentForBaganTentativeWorldHeritageArea: Practical Steps for Implementing the InterimHIASystematBagan.

____.HeritageImpactAssessmentCapacityBuildingWorkshopinBagan:WorkshopReport.

____.PracticaltrainingforHeritageImpactAssessment Capacity Building in the Pyu Cities WorldHeritagesites.

____.RapidHIAAssessmentforProposedHotel,GuestHouseandLargeRestaurantConstruction Projects in Bagan.

Engelhardt, Richard. Proposed Pyu on-site management responsibilities.

____. Various mission reports and recommendations.

Fondazione“Ing.CarloMaurilioLerici”-Politecnicodi Milano. Training plan.

____. Technical Report of Pyu Cities Survey Mission.

____. Interim Report of Brick Conservation.

____. Technical Report of Activities carried out in the 2° Phase of UNESCO Project.

Lujan-Lunsford,Rodolfo.Assessment,recordingandcurriculum for architectural decorative works conservation at Bagan.

____. Training on recording and rapid condition assessment of decorative works at Bagan.

____. Training workshop on emergency conservation intervention of decorative works at Bagan.

____. Rapid assessment card: Mural paintings and decorated architectural surfaces at Bagan (D-Card)

____.DescriptiveManualofHowtoApplytheMuralPaintings and Decorated Architectural Surfaces Rapid Assessment Card (D-Card)


Annex A: List of reports and publications

Marshall,Duncan.BaganWorldHeritageNomination Project: Desk Review and Mission.

MinistryofCulture(Myanmar).ReporttoWorldHeritageCommitteeinresponseto38COM8B.28:WorldHeritagePyuAncientCities(Myanmar) (1444).

____. Risk Preparedness Strategy (Risk Assessment andMitigation)PyuAncientCitiesWorldHeritage.(undersupervisionofRohitJigyasu)

Moore,Elizabeth.TheBaganCulturalLandscape:KeyValues and Site Boundaries.

NyuntHan.MyanmartranslationofPyuAncientCitiesWorldHeritagePropertyManagementPlan

PyuAncientCitiesHeritageTrust.Reportonawareness raising activities and benefits to local communities after three Pyu Ancient CitiesinscribedtheWorldHeritageList.

____. Report on awareness raising on the Pyu Ancient Cities Property Management Plan.

Travers, Robert and Pyiet Phyo Kyaw. Evaluation of “Capacity Building for Safegauarding CulturalHeritageinMyanmar:Phases1&2”(534MYA4000 and 534MYA4001).

Weise,Kai.Bagancomprehensiveplanningstrategy–initial proposal.

____. Draft Interim Management Arrangements for Bagan

____. Report on thematic consultation: physical planning

____. Report on thematic consultation: environment

____. Report on thematic consultation: archaeology

____. Report on thematic consultations: agriculture, intangible cultural heritage

____. Final report with recommendations on Bagan management

34 35

Annex B: List of consultants and experts Annex C: List of trainees

International experts

Archaeological Asssessments (Julie van den Bergh and Ellen Cameron)

Robin ConinghamRichard Engelhart

Tilman FraschGiogio Gianighian

BobHudsonParitta Chalermpow Koanantakool

KatriLisitzinRodolfoLujan-Lunsford

Duncan MarshallElizabeth Moore Yukio Nishimura

HangPeouBenedicte Brac de la Perriere

Ritsumeikan University (Prof. Takeyuki Okubo and Prof. Naoko Itaya)

Robert TraversGaminiWijesuriya,ICCROM

KaiWeise

National experts

U Aung KyaingDaw Aye Aye MyintDaw Chaw Kalayar

DrKyawLattDrKyawZayaHtunULwinLwinMonDaw Nilar Kyaw

U Myo Myint SeinU Myo Nyunt

U Myo Nyunt AungUNyuntHan

U Nyunt Maung SanU Pyae Phyo Kyaw

Dr Pyiet Phyo KyawU San Shwe

USoeThuraTunU Sun OoDrToeHla

ARCHITECTURE/RISK ASSESSMENT

Sri KsetraEng.ThuraBo

Eng.SaiHlaMyintOoEng. Myat Myat Moe

Eng.LaminThuzarKhin

BeikthanoU Aung Khin MoeDaw Aung Aye OoDZinNweHainU Phyo Ko Ko

UThanKyawOoU Yan Aung

UKyawThunWinUHainLin

DawPhyoPhyoLathDaw Mynt Mynt MarUNaingLinTun

DawKhinZarPhyoULinTunKyi

UAungMyatThun

HalinDawAyeWin

U Sau Naing OoU Arkar Aye

Mr.SaiHlaMyintOoU Min Min UNaingWin

UKyiLin(restorer)

ARCHAEOLOGY

Tun Tun Aye (Archaeologist)Myo Sandar Oo (Surveyor)

UYeMyatLwin(Archaeologist)UHtunAye(Archaeologist)

UMinTheinZan(Archaeologist)UKoKoPhoLamin(Archaeologist)

GEOLOGY

U Kyaw Khaing (Geologist)UManThitMyein(Geologist)

NON-INVASIVE INVESTIGATION

Ground survey teamU Maung Maung Nan Nwe (Archaeologist)

UZawLin(Archaeologist)UZawMinAung(Surveyor/GISExpert)

DawYiMonHan(Geologist)

Non-invasive survey teamU Kyaw Khaing (Geologist)

UManThitMyein(Geologist)UZinOo(Archaeologist)

DawHayMarMin(Archaeologist)DawThetSuMar(Surveyor/GISExpert)

LABORATORY

Myat Myat Moe (Restorer)ThweThweAye(Restorer)

Daw Khin Myint Myint (Restorer)Aye Nilar (Restorer)

Fondazione “Ing. Carlo Maurilio Lerici” - Politecnico di Milano

PatriziaZoleseMauro Cucarzi

Federico BaroccoMichele RomanoTommaso PipanMaurizio BorianiMaraLandoni

Roberta MastropirroGianmario Bonfadini

Rafaella SimonelliFrancesca Vigotti

Massimo SartiDaniele Masetti

Dang Khan NgocHoaNgoc

Christina DanielliGiulia Barella

36 37

MURAL PAINTING AND DECORATIVE WORKS CONSERVATION

Daw Ohnmar (Deputy Director)Daw Aye Nilar (Assistant Director)Daw Myint Myint Oo (Staff Officer)

Daw Malar Aung (Staff Officer)DawLeiLeiWin

UAungKyawWin(AssistantDirector)UKyiLin(StaffOfficer)

UHtooAungChon(StaffOfficer)UWinMyintOo(JuniorStaffOfficer)

UYeWin(AssistantGrade–3)U Tun Naing

U Myat Ko KoUTheinWin

U Kyaw Myint Oo UThanHtayU Myint Soe

Dr.LaiLaiWin(DeputyDirector)USpeSoeLin(StaffOfficer)

Daw Khin Tost Sint (Staff Officer)UWinHtay(StaffOfficer)UAyeLwin(StaffOfficer)

U Ye Tint

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

U Aung Khin Moe (Assistant Director)DawZinNewHan(StaffOfficer)

DawPhyoePhyoeLatt(Research Assistant Grade – 3)

DawWinWinMaw(JuniorStaffOfficer)UZawHtun(StaffOfficer)

Daw Aye Aye Mar (Research Assistant Grade – 3)UThanZawOo(DeputyDirector)

U Aung Aung Kyaw (Deputy Director)UTunTunAye(AssistantLecturer)

UZinOo(FSATutor)U Aung Kyaw (Assistant Director)

Kyaw Khaing(Lecturer,FieldSchoolofArchaeology)

Dr.ThanHtike(DeputyDirector)USawiLiFrand(Director)

UMyintThan(AssistantDirector)UWinKyaing(Principal)DawTinTinWin(Officer)

DawThinThinKhine(Research Assistant Grade 3)UWinWinTun(Halin)Mu Yar Swe (Magway)Dr.SanWin(Professor)

UTheinLwin(DeputyDirectorGeneral)DawKahingShweWar

UKyawNyiNyiHtet(AssistantLecturer)UThanHtikeAung

Tun AungKyawThuSoe

U Saw Naing Oo (Shwebo)UKhinZaw(AssistantDirector)U Yan Aung (Junior Staff Officer)U Pyae Phyo Ko Ko (Beikthano)

ThubaBo(Engineer)SoeWinNaingHteinLwin

UZanLwingOo(StaffOfficer)Daw Mying Oo (Staff Officer)

UKyawNyiNyiHte(AssistantLecturer)U Ar Kar Aye (Junior Staff Officer)DawTarTarLin(Conservator)

GIS

ThanZawOoUKyawMyoWin(DoAGISManager)

UWinKyaingUKyawNyiNyiHtet

(AssistantLecturer/GISOperator)Phyo Ngwe Ye (FSA)U Pho Pyae Ko Ko

(Junior Staff Officer/ GIS Operator)YeMyatLwin

ThetSuMar(FSA)WinWinPhyo(FSA)

AyeWing(FSA)Yin Nyein Aye (FSA)HayMarMin(FSA)

May Myat Mon (FSA)AungMyatThu(PYUCOM)

KoKoPhoeLaMin(PYUCOM)YeKoKoLatt(PYUCOM)

Aung Aung Kyaw (PYUCOM)Tun Tun Aye (PYUCOM)

ManThitNyein(PYUCOM)UZawMinAung

(Junior Staff Officer /Alternate GIS Operator)U Arkar Aye

(Junior Staff Officer /Alternate GIS Operator)UNaingWinDr.ThanHtikeDawThetSuMarUAungThuHein

UZinOo

Daw Phyo Ngwe YeDawEiShweZinMyint

UManThitNyeinUKoKoPhoeLaMinUSaiHlaMyintOo

UThuraBoUZawLin

U Saw Naing OoULinHtunKyiUAungZawMin

U Yan AungU Min Oo

UKyawAungSanHtarUWinHtay

UMinTheinZanDawAyeSandarWinUAungMyatThuUAungKoLattUSanYuWinU Yazar Aung

UMinMinHtikeUZinMyoAung

UHeinLinUSoeSoeLinU Aye Min Oo

DawThanThanHtayHtooAungChun

Min Swe

38 39

Annex D: List of major equipment and materiel procured

Item

ToyotaHilux4WDdouble-cabpickup

Dayang Series motorcycles

Computers

Laptops

UPS

External hard disk (portable)

Printers

Scanners A3

LCDprojector

Furniture for laboratories and site management offices

Chemistry hood

Scaffolding (alloy)

Joiner’s bench

Top loading technical/analytical balance

Conductivity meter

pHmeter

Stereo zoom microscope

Trinocular upright research microscope for geosciences

Attachable digital C-mount camera for microscopes

Adaptor for the Canon EOS700 camera

Moisture meter

Sandblast cabinet

Waterpurifier

Variouslaboratoryequipment(calipers,forceps,magnifyingglasses,clamps,cylinders, drying racks, brushes, probes, spatulas, knives, beakers, etc)

Various laboratory consumables (blades for surgical scalpel, microscope slides, containers, etc)

Various laboratory chemicals (micronised silica, ethyl silicate, silica gel, resin, liquidsyntheticrashadhesive,ethanol,earthpigments,etc)

Small hand tools (electrical drills, hammers, trowels, screwdrivers, etc)

Units

2

15

12

8

13

7

16

4

2

assorted

1

8

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

assorted

assorted

assorted

assorted

Annex E: News articles

GlobalNewLightofMyanmar(8February2015)

www.onuitalia.com/eng/2015/10/28/myanmar-new-italian-initiatives-in-support-of-bagan-candidacy-as-unescos-world-heritage-site

40 41

whc.unesco.org/en/news/1158/

edition.cnn.com/2014/06/21/travel/new-unesco-world-heritage-sites/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3C0X2V2wTQ

www.nationmultimedia.com/aec/Bagan-waits-for-Unesco-nod-30263211.html

42 43

Final Report: Capacity Building for Safeguarding Cultural Heritage ...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report: Capacity Building for Safeguarding Cultural Heritage ...