Editorial

Strong and, quite often, emotional arguments have been made over the past months in favour or against the proposed building of an interim engineered landfill close to two of the island's most treasured temples. Now we have what can well be described as a verdict that comes in the shape of a plea on one hand and a complete rejection on the other.

The plea comes from none other than Mario Tabone, chairman of Heritage Malta, set up, as it happens, under a law enacted following an attack on the Mnajdra temples by vandals in 2001. In his appeal for the country to safeguard the temples, Dr Tabone quoted, quite appropriately, what John C. Sawhill, president of The Nature Conservancy, had said, that our society would be judged not only by what we build but also by what we refuse to destroy.

The arguments put forward so far by the government in favour of the proposal have left many completely unconvinced, particularly now following the completion of the environment impact assessment. Din l-Art Helwa acted correctly to await the completion of the assessment before taking a firm stand. Now that the assessment is out, its views are quite categorical against the proposal. Din l-Art Helwa had asked for "copper-bottomed assurances that the impact of the interim landfill will not adversely affect or endanger the world heritage sites". Its verdict after having studied the impact statement is: "Our position is crystal clear. The proposal to build an interim engineered landfill in Mnajdra should be rejected" as it involves an unacceptable risk.

It feels that to rely merely on appropriate threshold standards being applied, when the stakes for world heritage are so high, would be to risk the possibility of imperilling our world heritage sites. Such a risk should not even be contemplated. Martin Scicluna, executive president, said there could be no guarantee in any technical operation that the standards set would be followed - humans were fallible and Malta did not exactly have a good track record.

Din l-Art Helwa has expressed its views quite clearly and its comments about Malta's track record are quite to the point, particularly in a matter that is of so much importance to the island.

The Times, which has always taken a keen interest in the preservation of Malta's heritage, finds the stand being taken by Din l-Art Helwa and Dr Tabone quite convincing. When vandals attacked Mnajdra on Good Friday in 2001, The Times launched a fund-raising campaign "in a bid to translate into a positive act the national condemnation of the attack".

The campaign was a plea from the heart for the protection of the temples, not just those of Mnajdra but of all the island's temples. They are too precious to lose. The Times was, of course, not the only one to have such feelings. Luckily, there are many others who share the same anxiety over the need for strong protection of the heritage.

The chairman of Heritage Malta was expressing the feelings of those who have the island's heritage at heart when he called on the authorities and the public to put aside pique, entrenched prejudices and fleeting financial interests and for the nation to collectively decide to respect its own past.

In the light of all this, it would be wise on the government's part to take serious heed of what these heritage authorities are saying so that we make doubly sure of saving our heritage for the generations to come.