And so, it was Astrid Vella from NGO Flimkien ghal-Ambjent Ahjar who sent a letter to UNESCO alerting them of developments that have been taking place in and around Valletta. And, it is Valletta Rehabilitation Committee [VRP] executive coordinator Ray Bondin – who also elaborates on the “international circles” in which he claimed Valletta’s world heritage status was being discussed – reveals this. Bondin tells me that in a conference organised by the Historic Towns and Villages International Committee which he has just attended, “the whole discussion centred around new concepts of urban historic landscapes. The problems in Valletta were mentioned even there by one of the experts”.
“The World Heritage Centre is at the moment discussing whether or not to send a monitoring mission to Malta,” adds Bondin.
Mechtild Rossler from UNESCO confirms: “Yes, we received information which we are checking. Any information received on the state of conservation of a site is checked with the State Party and with ICOMOS International.” She continues, “So far, we have no reply from ICOMOS or the State Party on recent developments and constructions, and therefore UNESCO is not in a position to comment at this stage. In case of serious threats, a report will be brought to the attention of the World Heritage Committee.”
It is back in 1980 that the story begins. The State Party nominated Valletta to be recognised as a world heritage site by UNESCO, and the city qualified under criteria [i] and [vi] of the organisation’s assessment of outstanding universal value, as illustrated in their Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. According to criterion [i], Valletta “represents a masterpiece of creative genius” – the nomination dossier explains how it is “pre-eminently an ideal creation of the late Renaissance”. Criterion [vi] consists of “being directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic or literary works of outstanding universal significance”. In Valletta’s case, the dossier specifies that it is “irrevocably associated with the history of the military and charitable order of St John of Jerusalem”.
The same dossier also mentions a total of 320 historic monuments in a reasonable state of authenticity, to which Bondin refers in his observation that in the 80s, Government identified this considerable number of monuments, whereas in the list that MEPA has compiled in the last two years, only around a 100 monuments are identified.
The 320 monuments in the 80s list, however, must be some kind of phantom number, as the list seems to have mysteriously vanished into thin air. “MEPA wasn’t around in 1980,” explains Joe Magro Conti from MEPA’s Heritage Management Department. “We asked all the parties concerned about this list, such as senior members of the different committees, as well as Bondin himself, but not even UNESCO knows who compiled the list, what it includes and its whereabouts.” On UNESCO’s world heritage website, in fact, the 320 monuments are still quoted. Rossler explains, “it is one single core zone of 55 hectares which is inscribed on the World Heritage List. It is not a nomination of individual monuments, although monuments are indicated in the nomination file”.
“I am sure the list was presented in the dossier,” says Bondin who, despite making reference to the list, is aware that it was probably not even verified by UNESCO itself. As he explains, “after the application is submitted, UNESCO would send an ICOMOS evaluator whose job is to see that the city is as authentic as possible but who would not have the time to verify the whole list, of course.” Bondin says that he calculates there are circa 150 authentic monuments that could be identified at present.
“People don’t have a clear idea of what protecting a building requires,” Magro Conti tells me, explaining the lengthy process that scheduling the 100 most significant properties in Valletta required. In order to compile this list, MEPA looked back into the Antiquities List of 1932, which was updated in 1937 and again in 1939, and consists of about 35 properties that, upon an agreement with the Church in the Antiquities Protection Act of 1925, exclude all the properties belonging to the ecclesiastical authorities. Magro Conti claims that, since the 30s, none of the government departments, ministries or committees bothered to update the list of antiquities that was compiled before the war, so that up to the present day it still includes properties that do not exist any more as they were demolished in the war.
MEPA also consulted the War Damage List that was compiled in 1944, after the war. “The British did a rapid survey to see which properties in the Maltese Islands were destroyed, damaged, severely damaged or left unharmed. This list did not have legal status but it is a very good source to guide us, and includes 370 properties, including churches and private houses.” Finally, MEPA also referred to the history of the Knights of St John, and their regulations for building in Valletta.
“Definitely Valletta has more than 100 properties that require protection.” Magro Conti emphasises that this is a list of properties that are top priority and that the list is bound to be extended in the future. In fact, MEPA has already started working on the next batch of buildings.
The process is a complex one, having to be approved by several different bodies. Experts, taking into consideration the law’s specifications, first conduct academic and scientific studies. The findings are then passed on to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which is made up of about nine members including MEPA’s very own advisors, along with members from other local departments and organisations, such as the VRP and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. “Members in the Heritage Advisory Committee are sent the agenda, but it depends on them whether to attend or not,” notes Magro Conti. Finally the list is evaluated by the MEPA Board, consisting of 15 members, including representatives of Government departments, the Federation of Industries, and other non-governmental organisations contributing to Malta’s economy. The owners of the properties then need to be informed, and also have the right to ask for reconsideration.
Magro Conti believes that the alerts that were sent to UNESCO were not official and were making a storm in a teacup, making the situation seem worse than it actually is.
This also revolves around what it is that defines authenticity. Konrad Buhagiar, chairman of the VRP, explains how UNESCO’s definition is in itself intentionally broad so as to allow for diverse and specific contexts and situations. “Unfortunately, many people think that restoration is about keeping things as they are. It is not. We, today, are also responsible to pass on to our descendants a heritage which is ‘of today’, and that is not mediocre and poor.”
Groups of urban buildings eligible for inscription on the World Heritage List fall into three categories, and Valletta in fact falls under that of “historic towns which are still inhabited”. UNESCO itself recognises, as stated in the Operational Guidelines, that such towns “have developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio-economic and cultural change, a situation that renders the assessment of their authenticity more difficult, and any conservation policy more problematic”.
“There is a lot of controversy at the moment especially with respect to towns, because towns are built by people and as time passes and lifestyles change, it is imperative that the town remains alive by absorbing new energies.” Buhagiar mentions, as an example, the current discussion on the Tower of London, which is a protected monument and yet its environmental context is changing drastically. Also Vienna, which UNESCO considered delisting in 2002.
Besides, there is a whole procedure for a site to be put on the endangered list, let alone be delisted, it is not that fast and automatic. This includes verification of negative reports and classifications of the type of danger, whether ascertained or potential. Up to this day, no World Heritage Site has ever been delisted.
“Conservation is a relatively young industry. Before the 19th century, very few buildings were restored for the sake of preserving them as historic documents. It is only now that we have this added discipline when intervening on our built heritage and that this new consciousness dictates the sensitive way with which we need to intervene,” Buhagiar says. “It helps when there’s economic viability in restoring a town,” he notes, referring to the recently increasing awareness of Valletta as a cultural centre. “Today there certainly is a demand for properties in the city; prices are rising and more and more restoration is taking place.” However, he does not deny the fact that Government funding is not sufficient for the task at hand and new sources of revenue need to be explored.
Magro Conti laments that responsible agencies are standing aside and loading MEPA with all the responsibility. MEPA is not listed as the responsible agency for Valletta in UNESCO’s Periodic Report 2006, and in the section on authenticity, the report states that the World Heritage Site values have been maintained, thus demonstrating that MEPA is controlling its share of responsibility. The report only draws attention to one aspect where MEPA is involved, relating to the height of buildings. “One of the greatest drawbacks is the lack of coordination and initiative taken by local departments in their individual sectors and in their work together,” Mr Magro Conti, “We are to blame for attracting less funds. UNESCO is tired of waiting for us to pull our socks up.”
Buhagiar agrees, and adds, “Malta has somewhat a bit of a reputation in international circles in that we are constantly making requests for money, when most organisations will only give assistance and, in some cases, funds, if they see that the project in question is well underway.”
The negative aspects that the Periodic Report 2006 mainly refers to, include the fact that VRP should be given legal title; that there is no steering group; no management plan – Buhagiar informs me that Denis de Lucca has actually been working on one recently – there is insufficient funding, lack of human resources, tourism statistics are not provided [by MTA], there are no site interpretations for visitors, not enough signs referring to Valletta as a World Heritage Site, and that it is in need of more resources for conservation.
Now, doesn’t all this ring a bell?
“The World Heritage Centre is at the moment discussing whether or not to send a monitoring mission to Malta,” adds Bondin.
Mechtild Rossler from UNESCO confirms: “Yes, we received information which we are checking. Any information received on the state of conservation of a site is checked with the State Party and with ICOMOS International.” She continues, “So far, we have no reply from ICOMOS or the State Party on recent developments and constructions, and therefore UNESCO is not in a position to comment at this stage. In case of serious threats, a report will be brought to the attention of the World Heritage Committee.”
It is back in 1980 that the story begins. The State Party nominated Valletta to be recognised as a world heritage site by UNESCO, and the city qualified under criteria [i] and [vi] of the organisation’s assessment of outstanding universal value, as illustrated in their Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. According to criterion [i], Valletta “represents a masterpiece of creative genius” – the nomination dossier explains how it is “pre-eminently an ideal creation of the late Renaissance”. Criterion [vi] consists of “being directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic or literary works of outstanding universal significance”. In Valletta’s case, the dossier specifies that it is “irrevocably associated with the history of the military and charitable order of St John of Jerusalem”.
The same dossier also mentions a total of 320 historic monuments in a reasonable state of authenticity, to which Bondin refers in his observation that in the 80s, Government identified this considerable number of monuments, whereas in the list that MEPA has compiled in the last two years, only around a 100 monuments are identified.
The 320 monuments in the 80s list, however, must be some kind of phantom number, as the list seems to have mysteriously vanished into thin air. “MEPA wasn’t around in 1980,” explains Joe Magro Conti from MEPA’s Heritage Management Department. “We asked all the parties concerned about this list, such as senior members of the different committees, as well as Bondin himself, but not even UNESCO knows who compiled the list, what it includes and its whereabouts.” On UNESCO’s world heritage website, in fact, the 320 monuments are still quoted. Rossler explains, “it is one single core zone of 55 hectares which is inscribed on the World Heritage List. It is not a nomination of individual monuments, although monuments are indicated in the nomination file”.
“I am sure the list was presented in the dossier,” says Bondin who, despite making reference to the list, is aware that it was probably not even verified by UNESCO itself. As he explains, “after the application is submitted, UNESCO would send an ICOMOS evaluator whose job is to see that the city is as authentic as possible but who would not have the time to verify the whole list, of course.” Bondin says that he calculates there are circa 150 authentic monuments that could be identified at present.
“People don’t have a clear idea of what protecting a building requires,” Magro Conti tells me, explaining the lengthy process that scheduling the 100 most significant properties in Valletta required. In order to compile this list, MEPA looked back into the Antiquities List of 1932, which was updated in 1937 and again in 1939, and consists of about 35 properties that, upon an agreement with the Church in the Antiquities Protection Act of 1925, exclude all the properties belonging to the ecclesiastical authorities. Magro Conti claims that, since the 30s, none of the government departments, ministries or committees bothered to update the list of antiquities that was compiled before the war, so that up to the present day it still includes properties that do not exist any more as they were demolished in the war.
MEPA also consulted the War Damage List that was compiled in 1944, after the war. “The British did a rapid survey to see which properties in the Maltese Islands were destroyed, damaged, severely damaged or left unharmed. This list did not have legal status but it is a very good source to guide us, and includes 370 properties, including churches and private houses.” Finally, MEPA also referred to the history of the Knights of St John, and their regulations for building in Valletta.
“Definitely Valletta has more than 100 properties that require protection.” Magro Conti emphasises that this is a list of properties that are top priority and that the list is bound to be extended in the future. In fact, MEPA has already started working on the next batch of buildings.
The process is a complex one, having to be approved by several different bodies. Experts, taking into consideration the law’s specifications, first conduct academic and scientific studies. The findings are then passed on to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which is made up of about nine members including MEPA’s very own advisors, along with members from other local departments and organisations, such as the VRP and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. “Members in the Heritage Advisory Committee are sent the agenda, but it depends on them whether to attend or not,” notes Magro Conti. Finally the list is evaluated by the MEPA Board, consisting of 15 members, including representatives of Government departments, the Federation of Industries, and other non-governmental organisations contributing to Malta’s economy. The owners of the properties then need to be informed, and also have the right to ask for reconsideration.
Magro Conti believes that the alerts that were sent to UNESCO were not official and were making a storm in a teacup, making the situation seem worse than it actually is.
This also revolves around what it is that defines authenticity. Konrad Buhagiar, chairman of the VRP, explains how UNESCO’s definition is in itself intentionally broad so as to allow for diverse and specific contexts and situations. “Unfortunately, many people think that restoration is about keeping things as they are. It is not. We, today, are also responsible to pass on to our descendants a heritage which is ‘of today’, and that is not mediocre and poor.”
Groups of urban buildings eligible for inscription on the World Heritage List fall into three categories, and Valletta in fact falls under that of “historic towns which are still inhabited”. UNESCO itself recognises, as stated in the Operational Guidelines, that such towns “have developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio-economic and cultural change, a situation that renders the assessment of their authenticity more difficult, and any conservation policy more problematic”.
“There is a lot of controversy at the moment especially with respect to towns, because towns are built by people and as time passes and lifestyles change, it is imperative that the town remains alive by absorbing new energies.” Buhagiar mentions, as an example, the current discussion on the Tower of London, which is a protected monument and yet its environmental context is changing drastically. Also Vienna, which UNESCO considered delisting in 2002.Besides, there is a whole procedure for a site to be put on the endangered list, let alone be delisted, it is not that fast and automatic. This includes verification of negative reports and classifications of the type of danger, whether ascertained or potential. Up to this day, no World Heritage Site has ever been delisted.
“Conservation is a relatively young industry. Before the 19th century, very few buildings were restored for the sake of preserving them as historic documents. It is only now that we have this added discipline when intervening on our built heritage and that this new consciousness dictates the sensitive way with which we need to intervene,” Buhagiar says. “It helps when there’s economic viability in restoring a town,” he notes, referring to the recently increasing awareness of Valletta as a cultural centre. “Today there certainly is a demand for properties in the city; prices are rising and more and more restoration is taking place.” However, he does not deny the fact that Government funding is not sufficient for the task at hand and new sources of revenue need to be explored.
Magro Conti laments that responsible agencies are standing aside and loading MEPA with all the responsibility. MEPA is not listed as the responsible agency for Valletta in UNESCO’s Periodic Report 2006, and in the section on authenticity, the report states that the World Heritage Site values have been maintained, thus demonstrating that MEPA is controlling its share of responsibility. The report only draws attention to one aspect where MEPA is involved, relating to the height of buildings. “One of the greatest drawbacks is the lack of coordination and initiative taken by local departments in their individual sectors and in their work together,” Mr Magro Conti, “We are to blame for attracting less funds. UNESCO is tired of waiting for us to pull our socks up.”
Buhagiar agrees, and adds, “Malta has somewhat a bit of a reputation in international circles in that we are constantly making requests for money, when most organisations will only give assistance and, in some cases, funds, if they see that the project in question is well underway.”
The negative aspects that the Periodic Report 2006 mainly refers to, include the fact that VRP should be given legal title; that there is no steering group; no management plan – Buhagiar informs me that Denis de Lucca has actually been working on one recently – there is insufficient funding, lack of human resources, tourism statistics are not provided [by MTA], there are no site interpretations for visitors, not enough signs referring to Valletta as a World Heritage Site, and that it is in need of more resources for conservation.
Now, doesn’t all this ring a bell?
09 Jul 08 / M.E.
