Cultural Landscape in the Bamiyan Strategic Masterplan 2018

Abstract

The paper deals with the approach taken for the protection of the cultural landscape in the Bamiyan Strategic Masterplan. It starts by illustrating the evolution of the concept of cultural landscape in the UNESCO documents and the difficulty faced in implementing the Bamiyan Cultural Master Plan (BCMP) of 2004–13. It goes on to describe the measures contained in the Bamiyan Strategic Masterplan (BSMP) of 2018 that are specifically aimed at safeguarding the landscape. Special focus is placed on avoiding population and settlement increases on the valley floor and the bypass road cutting across the valley floor.

1 Premise

The Bamiyan Strategic Masterplan 2018 (BSMP) (LaGeS 2018) was prepared in 2017–18 as part of a cooperation project between the University of Florence and the Afghan Ministry for Urban Development and Housing (MUDH) and funded by the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation. The BSMP was officially adopted on November 14, 2018.

The goal of a Strategic Masterplan is to outline the best medium to long term solutions for the sustainable use and enhancement of regional resources. In the case of Bamiyan, owing to its inclusion on the UNESCO list of world heritage in danger (since 2003), the safeguarding and enhancement of cultural heritage was one of the primary points of focus during the preparation of its Strategic Master Plan.

According to its nomination dossier (2003), Bamiyan’s cultural heritage consists of exceptional “cultural landscape and archaeological remains”. However, while putting Bamiyan on the UNESCO World Heritage List has yielded important results concerning the protection of the archaeological remains, the recovery of wall paintings and the safety of the niches which held the Buddhas,¹ there emerged much uncertainty regarding the cultural landscape and—beyond generic restrictions—it is not known which measures should be taken, and which bodies should be appointed, to safeguard the cultural landscape.

Fundamental questions remained open, such as how much of the area should be safeguarded; what should the transition from a description of the fundamental components of the cultural landscape to a safeguard plan look like; and how to find a balance between the protection of the cultural landscape and the local population’s legitimate calls for modernization and development.

Starting from here, this paper will first examine and comment on the reasons for the delay in landscape protection interventions, and then illustrate how the topic of landscape protection was dealt with in the Bamiyan Strategic Master Plan (BSMP) 2018.

2 Cultural Landscape: A Complex Concept

As for the delay in interventions for the safeguarding of the cultural landscape, one reason for this can certainly be found in the complexity of the very concept of landscape, and in the notion of landscape targeted by UNESCO action (Loda and Pettenati 2023): very evocative, as we will see, but hard to transform into an effective protection plan.

This conception of landscape derives from that developed in French regional geography at the start of the twentieth century (and popularized in the United States by Carl Sauer) while analyzing the landscapes forged by traditional (European) farming civilizations.

The UNESCO approach to the topic of landscape is outlined in three fundamental documents, which also provide the basis for the following operational guidelines: the “Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites” from 1962 (UNESCO 1962); the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” from 1972 (UNESCO 1972) which laid down the World Heritage Convention and the relative Heritage List; and the “Budapest Declaration” from 2002 (UNESCO 2002a).

In the Recommendation, which laid down the first cornerstone for the protection of cultural heritage of universal value and the progressive construction of the World Heritage List (WHL), the term landscape never appears alone but always alongside the word “site”. Hence, the purpose of the conceptual device “landscape and site” is to place the specific object of interest (the site) in a fundamentally aesthetic frame which—by referring to an idea of beauty and harmony, unity and balance between man and nature, and stability—exalts its meaning and intrinsic value. At the same time the interchangeable use of the terms “site” and “landscape” projects onto the latter the idea of a physical entity, to be delimitated and preserved with the same principles applied to the preservation (or museumization) of a site.

Article 1 of the 1972 Convention identifies cultural heritage as “…groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science” (UNESCO 1972) (our italics). Again, the landscape, understood reductively as a portion of physical space where single human buildings are situated, is used to refer to an idea of a whole, a setting, a (harmonious) context that substantiates the exceptional value of a particular heritage. In Article 1, the Convention also provides a definition of “site” which would reappear later on as the definition of “cultural landscape”: “Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view” (UNESCO 1972).

The “cultural landscape” concept appears for the first time in the 1992 version of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, (UNESCO 2021) that is, twenty years after the Convention itself,² to then be reused in all the following updates. The concept adopts the idea of a whole, a specific context, which already belongs to the concept of landscape, while strengthening the sense of continuity with a historical-cultural construct and a universe substantially inside traditional farming societies. Indeed, as designated in Article 1 of the Convention, cultural landscapes are the result of “combined works of nature and of man”. “They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal” (Brown 2018, § 47). In the same way, under “Cultural Landscapes”, the UNESCO homepage indicates “cultivated terraces on lofty mountains, gardens, sacred places …—testify to the creative genius, social development and the imaginative and spiritual vitality of humanity. They are part of our collective identity.”

Lastly, the Budapest Declaration (2002) also proposes a similar formulation, hinging on an almost interchangeable use of the terms site and landscape, but where the second term more explicitly takes on the meaning—very close to the meaning assigned to it in French regional geography—of the visual projection of a particular cultural context: “We care for these sites from the deepest forests to the highest mountains, from ancient villages to magnificent buildings, so that the diverse landscapes and cultures of the world be forever protected”.

None of the three texts contains a definition of landscape. The term landscape never appears on its own but is always in association with the term “site”. By putting “landscape and site” together, the landscape is reduced to the aesthetic frame that contains the actual object of interest, i.e., the site, whose intrinsic value is underlined by conveying an idea of a balance between humankind and nature.

Hence the establishment and then the management of the landscape heritage of humanity took its cue from the aesthetic and therefore fundamentally visual sense that the term landscape takes on in everyday language.³ As such, the WHL was able to absorb all its different meanings and evocative power, to go beyond an idea of heritage as a collection of single events/assets and read their value in contextual terms. At the same time, it inevitably paid for the elusive nature of this conception of landscape which makes its translation in operational terms—i.e., its identification, delimitation, protection and management—extremely complex and fragile.⁴

The criticalities resulting from the adoption of quite lax basic definitions in UNESCO practices relating to landscape heritage have moreover been accentuated by the need to satisfy the criteria of authenticity and integrity⁵ which have been a condition for nomination on the WHL. What is more, it has augmented the already arduous task of identifying shared and so-to-speak transcultural criteria to distinguish between the categories of cultural and natural landscape.⁶

Among these issues, subject to broad debate on an international level, I would like to recall the following problems, owing to the significance they take on in the case of Bamiyan (Afghanistan) presented in this article:

• The difficulties connected with identifying the constitutive elements and defining the boundaries of a cultural landscape;

• The unstable balance between protection of the landscape and transformation of the society and territory.

In terms of the UNESCO goals, despite the explicit mention of the cultural landscape in the title of the nomination  document, the attention and protective actions following Bamiyan’s inclusion on the list concentrated exclusively on the archaeological remains, which were rapidly marked off along with the protection areas. The protection of the cultural landscape, on the other hand, found itself relegated to an afterthought.

Between 2005 and 2007, the Technical University of Aachen, supported by UNESCO, carried out a survey of the territorial resources which, as well as adding to the census of archaeological heritage, enabled the recognition of important elements of the landscape and offered a detailed description of the geographical and physical features of the territory, the settlement and architectural structures, water resources and water regulation systems (ACDC 2013).

Nevertheless, the resulting Bamiyan Cultural Master Plan (BCMP)—beyond the ambitious title—was more a stock-take of landscape elements⁷ than a real planning tool. The upshot was that it had no influence in terms of standards to protect and enhance the cultural landscape. Thus, the only regulatory instrument available for use in the Bamiyan context remained the national “Afghan Law on the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” of 2004 for the protection of monuments (not landscape), which was improperly taken as the benchmark for landscape protection in buffer zones.

Moreover, the elements identified by the BCMP as making up the local cultural landscape are distributed in a vast area of around 32 km², equivalent to the whole valley floor. To identify this entire area as UNESCO property could be quite problematic. At the same time, the UNESCO property cannot be reduced to a portion of the valley floor territory, except by way of totally arbitrary and questionable operations of landscape analysis. The topic is highly sensitive owing to the consequences that this definition would have on the future development of the areas falling either inside or outside the UNESCO property perimeter.

In sum, we can conclude that 20 years after Bamiyan’s inclusion in the Heritage of humanity List, the action by UNESCO has without doubt been effective in protecting and promoting its archaeological heritage. On the landscape level, however, there has been a lack of clarity concerning plans and measures to be adopted.

3 The Approach of the Bamiyan Strategic Master Plan to the Protection of Cultural Landscape

The concept of cultural landscape has been subject to further reflection by UNESCO within the framework of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) (UNESCO 2011).

This approach to cultural landscape has greatly helped overcome the impasse in defining the management of Bamiyan’s cultural landscape while developing the Bamiyan Strategic Master Plan 2018. Although the concept of HUL has been developed mainly with regard to urban contexts, quite different from the Bamiyan valley, it is nevertheless an important step forward in discussions on landscape in general, because it clearly specifies, from a holistic and evolutionary perspective, that the central objective of any activity on landscape consists in integrating policies and practices of conservation of the built environment into the wider goals of (urban) development: “The historic urban landscape approach is aimed at preserving the quality of the human environment, enhancing the productive and sustainable use of urban spaces, while recognizing their dynamic character, and promoting social and functional diversity. It integrates the goals of urban heritage conservation and those of social and economic development. It is rooted in a balanced and sustainable relationship between the urban and natural environment, between the needs of present and future generations and the legacy from the past” (UNESCO 2011, § 11). Attention is paid to ‘preserving the quality of the human environment (…) while recognizing [its] dynamic character and promoting social and functional diversity’.⁸

This approach to cultural landscape incorporates the results of the lively scientific debate on the issue, according to which the landscape is both a ‘product and process’ at the same time; it is a complex set of continually evolving tangible and intangible elements. From this perspective, in the context of shifting landscapes, the goals of heritage conservation are to be integrated with those of social and economic development. This will allow for the encompassing of gradual changes in the cultural landscape, resulting in a continuing and lasting transformation, physically, socially and symbolically.

So the landscape is the visible outcome of socio-economic and cultural processes, of underlying (production) structures that govern the transformation of the territory.⁹ The attention and protective actions should, therefore, concentrate on these and not on single visible elements that we see in the territory. In the case of Bamiyan, the above means reflecting on the farming practices that have forged the rural landscape on the valley floor. It is essential to ensure their feasibility and profitability so that the plots of land, buildings and cleaning of the channels—in short, taking care of the land—are not abandoned (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

(Photo M. Loda, 2017)

Bamiyan agricultural landscape

We cannot overlook the fact that feasibility and profitability are connected with the dynamicity and evolution of the farming landscape. Bamiyan’s rural landscape has undergone profound transformations over the course of recent history. Until the 1970s, the typical crop was wheat, while today the dominant crop is the potato. This change to a typical “cash crop” is rooted in the progressive integration of Bamiyan’s agriculture into the national and international markets, recently facilitated by improvements in the road network, connecting Bamiyan with Kabul and Herat. The shift from wheat to potato cultivation, which calls for much more water, has played a decisive role in broadening the irrigation system that shapes the current rural landscape.

At the same time, the valley floor is also the portion of the territory that has been most affected by the transformative pressure of the typical urban functions in recent years—just think of the rate of expansion of the bazaar (Figs. 2 and 3). Only comprising around 50 shops in 2002, it has expanded with great speed since 2011. According to the comprehensive survey carried out by LaGeS in spring 2018 (LaGeS 2018), the bazaar currently consists of 1,487 permanent shops, as well as 566 mobile businesses, providing work for a lot of the inhabitants of the new settlements in the north of the valley who do not own land and seek employment in non-farming activities. Hence, it is mainly towards this area that measures to limit urbanization processes and safeguard the landscape must be directed.

Fig. 2

(Source LaGeS (2018, p. 100))

Start year of shops

Fig. 3

(Source authors’ processing from satellite photos)

Expansion of the new bazaar

Concerns also arise regarding the widespread changes observed in the farm buildings, the qal’a. These make up a typical element of Bamiyan’s cultural landscape, and are often subject to new interventions which contrast starkly with traditional building techniques (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

(Photo M. Loda 2023)

Concrete interventions in a qal’a in Tolwara

These issues provoked widespread reflection during the preparation of the Bamiyan Strategic Master Plan in view of both safeguarding the cultural heritage and meeting the needs of the farmers, while promoting the region’s economy.

With no explicit borders or definition of the cultural landscape to protect in the UNESCO documents, the BSMP put forward solutions based on the principles of protecting the territory and on urban planning-type regulations. A first objective regarding land protection was to reduce consumption of the agricultural land on the valley floor as much as possible, as it constitutes a particularly valuable resource in a mountainous area such as that of Bamiyan, not to mention, a defining feature of the cultural landscape. Therefore, the BSMP identified the cultural landscape as the agricultural landscape of the whole valley floor.¹⁰ The valley floor was categorized as a sort of extension of the UNESCO buffer zones that host the properties, but under the management of urban planning tools.

The first objective of the plan consisted of preventing the progressive urbanization of the valley floor and in safeguarding flat land farming. To this end, the BSMP developed a new tool, the “planning district”, so as to issue different rules to the various parts of the municipality, according to their specific characteristics. The territory covered by the BSMP was divided into six planning districts, each governed by distinct development regulations.¹¹

The whole valley floor was included in planning district no. 1, regulated by particularly rigid restrictions. In District 1, the plan does not allow for the settlement of additional inhabitants, nor the construction of additional dwellings to those already existing¹²; moreover, the plan does not permit the existing buildings to be raised, thereby protecting the views over the sites of archaeological interest. At the same time, by enabling the existing farms to expand their agricultural outbuildings, the BSMP aimed to safeguard the feasibility and profitability of the farming activities and avoid their abandonment, thus ensuring the continuation of land care practices (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

(Source LaGeS (2018, p. 164))

Planning districts in the BSMP 2018

Farming on the valley floor and the agricultural landscape were also protected through the same solution produced with the aim of resolving the delicate question of vehicles crossing through the valley. A highly tense public debate had grown around this issue, between those wanting to protect the landscape and those calling for modernization. The bypass project drawn by the Ministry of Public Work and accepted by the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing as part of the (thankfully never adopted) Bamiyan Urban Development Plan 2012, seriously challenged the safeguarding of the cultural landscape. By cutting across the valley floor a lot of farmland would have been swallowed up, and the portion of the valley around the UNESCO site of Gholghola would have been rapidly urbanized.

It is in fact quite surprising that the proposal had been accepted as consistent with the Bamiyan Cultural Master Plan (BCMP) by the UNESCO experts evaluating the Strategic Plan Bamiyan elaborated in 2013 by the Afghan Ministry for Urban Development (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Bamiyan urban development plan 2012 of the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing

The drawing up of BSMP 2018 dealt with the matter of a variant to the ministerial Bypass project. The proposed solution frees up the valley floor by taking the road along the sides of the southern mountains until it joins the road for Kabul further east (Fig. 7). This solution was officially adopted as Bamiyan City Masterplan by local and national authorities on November 14, 2018 (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7

(Source LaGeS (2018, p. 190))

Bypass proposed by the BSMP 2018

Fig. 8

Bamiyan city Masterplan

4 Conclusions

The strategy adopted by the BSMP to protect the cultural landscape of the valley does not delve into the question of which structural invariants of the cultural landscape to protect, as per its inclusion in the WHL. This task is central to any Management Plan.¹³ However, it provides a planning perspective for safeguarding the cultural landscape within the framework of the valley’s general development, a perspective that was missing until that time. Moreover, in line with the international debate, the Bamiyan situation calls for a reflection on the exact definition and operationalization of the concept of cultural landscape that should be adopted in future interventions. The focus should shift from a vision of the landscape as a collection of elements with “Outstanding Universal Value” to be preserved towards the in-depth comprehension of the functioning of the socio-cultural and production system that this landscape has produced. Finally, greater and more focused attention should be placed on the requirements of the production system responsible for and guaranteeing the (re)generation and transformation of the landscape.