Reactions of the Environment Commission of the Archdiocese of Malta, (Kummissjoni Ambjent: KA) about the two applications (PA 00167/08 and 00168/08) submitted to MEPA by the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation for the extension of St. John`s Museum.
After reviewing the various position statements made by the various stakeholders, the KA would like to make the following contributions to this public debate:
1. Every one agrees that the current space at the St. Johns Co-Cathedral museum urgently needs to be improved both in terms of its physical extent and the quality of the museum environment.
2. The Foundation is making two alternative proposals for such additional space that have been highly criticized due to the negative impact that they might incur to the site: that of building extra exhibition space in the courtyard of St. John’s Cathedral or excavating chambers underneath St John’s Street and connecting them to existing subterranean water reservoirs. However, the Foundation stated1 that it will submit its applications to MEPA that will result in the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that will ensure that whichever option is chosen will not pose any potential or real risks to the co-cathedral or any of the historical adjacent buildings..
The KA would like to point out that an EIA in itself is NOT meant to ensure that no impacts will occur. An EIA should provide decision makers with an assessment of the significance of any impact(s) of the proposed extension so that they can objectively decide whether to go ahead with the proposal or not. Any EIA should NOT be construed in a way that it defends any proposal. The KA looks forward to an EIA on such proposals as submitted by the Foundation, that is truly objective and that adequately informs decision making. It will then be up to MEPA, as well as up to civil society to judge whether such an assessment was fair and reasonable or simply an apologetic exercise.
3. On the other hand we cannot assume a priori and without the benefit of a complete and technically sound EIA, that any options being proposed are unacceptable. This does not imply that the question will be settled ‘only by the experts’. Sustainable development and sustainable choices require the active participation of an informed civil society including environmental NGOs.
4. Critics of the options provided by the Foundation have proposed that the additional museum space required may be found in a nearby building which would not necessarily be physically joined to the current museum. The Foundation (as well as Din l-Art Helwa) has ruled out such an option claiming that the museum artefacts are the patrimony of the Co-Cathedral and should be displayed under one roof or within the same premises not be dispersed.
For the KA, the primary guiding principle should be the protection of the integrity of St. John’s Co-Cathedral and its various annexes, while at the same time to display its riches in the best possible way. Because the Cathedral complex was never built with the intention of doubling up as a museum, with time, the available space is no longer adequate to properly house and display its riches. Therefore, IF the extension project proposed by the Foundation is found to pose unreasonable risks (as identified through an EIA), then it stands to reason that we have to look for additional space elsewhere. No one, neither the Foundation nor its critics may rule out any option at this stage. This should be the attitude taken by all reasonable people who want to protect our national heritage.
5. St. John’s Co-Cathedral is the heart of a whole living city that is in urgent need of regeneration, attention and support. Any proposal opted for should form part of a Valletta Master Plan which would encompass any future plans for the underground use of our Capital City (such as transport and water collection among others). Furthermore a close-working collaboration between the Cathedral’s Foundation and the Valletta Rehabilitation Committee will be essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of any proposals.
In conclusion, the KA feels that the whole controversial issue needs to be reviewed from a genuinely sustainable perspective by all quarters, without any fundamentalist stances on any sides …unlike what has transpired in the media. The KA feels that the next logical step is to wait for the publishing of a truly objective EIA and for the open debate following it. While we appreciate what St John’s Co-Cathedral represents to most of us, we should do our best not to let our emotions cloud up our reasoning, to the detriment of making the right and most sustainable choices in the long-term. Let us not rush into any uninformed decision.