The recent unfolding of events at Dwejra during a filming venture by an American company certainly leaves much to be desired. It is a disgrace, a disrespectful act at the expense of one of the islands’ most prestigious sites of unique environmental significance.
There are three sites in the Maltese islands classified as Unesco World Heritage Sites (WHS) – the Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum, the Megalithic Temples and the city of Valletta – all of which were declared as such in 1980. Over and above, Malta has no fewer than seven other sites, including Qawra/Dwejra, listed as “tentative” in view of the possibility of obtaining World Heritage status under the aegis of the United Nations. These sites include the Gozo Cittadella, the coastal cliffs, the knights’ fortifications around our harbours, the catacomb complexes, Mdina and also the untested Victoria lines that run right across mainland Malta.
The site in Dwejra was included in Unesco’s tentative WHS list on May 19, 1998 through a formal submission by the Maltese government.
To qualify for WHS status, a site must be considered as having an “outstanding universal value” after satisfying at least one of 10 selection criteria established by Unesco. These criteria have evolved from the 1972 World Heritage Convention and are explained in what is considered as the “operating tool” of this international legal instrument, namely, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Malta’s submission to the UN on the Dwejra site is based on the claim that this area is of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic significance and offering a considerable insight into the geological processes that shaped the environment of the region. It is well established that Dwejra is hugely significant in ecological terms in view of the specialised ecosystems it supports and the evolution of terrestrial and aquatic life. The claim for Dwejra is also based on grounds of conservation of biological diversity, in particular the threatened species it sustains.
Malta signed the 1972 World Heritage Convention on November 14, 1978. Article 4 of the convention, covering both the conservation of cultural and natural heritage and adopted by the UN in Paris on November 16, 1972, states that: “Each state party to this convention recognises that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, preservation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that state. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and cooperation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain”.
Further to this pivotal article 4, the convention’s article 5 lists what should be the fundamental obligations of state parties to make sure the article 4 provision is adequately implemented. Under international law, it is therefore up to state parties to the convention to take all actions deemed necessary to safeguard the interests of sites considered as having heritage value and that fall under their respective jurisdictions.
Given the gravity of the situation and Dwejra, not least the ludicrous €15,000 bank guarantees in case of damage to which the competent authorities had agreed as reported in the media, it is only natural to express anger and discontent at the way Malta’s national heritage is being managed. But that would not be fair on all those who are genuinely involved in the upkeep of Malta’s precious patrimony, both natural and cultural.
The ongoing restoration works on various fortification sites such as in Mdina, the Majjistral Nature and History Park and the recent initiatives to safeguard Mnajdra and Ħaġar Qim and the restoration of Castille in Valletta, stand witness to the fact that, despite everything, including, perhaps, an element of lack of general appreciation at our end, complacency is not exactly the order of the day in Malta’s heritage sector. Despite these positives, however, we are still a long way off at giving forts St Elmo and St Angelo the prominent stage they deserve.
There are certainly lessons to be learnt from the Dwejra shame. Irrespective of any monetary gains, it is simply irresponsible and nonsensical to permit the use of such sites for anything that goes beyond scientific study and observation.
In the same way we still have a long way to go to fulfil the noble green vision of going beyond the parameters of EU directives on the environment, it is a long and winding road until Malta’s heritage achieves the proper status it deserves. The challenge should not, however, scare us stiff.
sapulis@gmail.com
The author specialises in environmental management.