Well, it turned out to be quite a year for heritage in Wales. While there were occasions which provided cause for great optimism, there was a steady stream of reminders to highlight just how vulnerable our national heritage resource actually is. The sad truth of 2013 however, is that the real negative impacts will not truly reveal themselves until deep into 2014, if not later, as the creeping tendrils of fiscal cuts continue to slowly erode the foundations of museums and heritage organisations in Wales and beyond. Surely the most controversial moment of the year though had to be the Chartist mural debacle. I’ve promised myself on more than one occasion that I would just let the mural story go, but every once in a while we receive little reminders as to why the mural destruction was so symbolic. When Newport city council battered their way through with plans to obliterate the distinctive mural, they critically underestimated the sentiment of locals in Newport. Perhaps there were not thousands demonstrating against the council’s actions, but there were certainly hundreds, not to mention the odd Hollywood celeb to add to the mix. The anger regarding the loss of the mural stimulated a debate as to what constitutes heritage. Is a thirty year old wall mounted mural something that is worthy of protection? Is it part of the heritage landscape worth protecting? Opinion in Newport was clearly divided, with the city council making a concerted decision, that being that the mural was indeed not part of the heritage landscape, and certainly not worthy of saving. This though raises other more pressing concerns, namely what comes next? What else could a council decide to cast by the wayside in the name of development and gain? Perhaps our built heritage, in terms of castles for instance, may not seem under any immediate threat, but the heritage sector is in many respects standing on a precipice. Our museums are slowly being stripped down from the inside out, as budget cuts erode staff positions, education programmes and, in places, the very existence of museums in their entirety. Chapel heritage across Wales is gradually vanishing as more and more buildings fall out of use, while proposed developments seem to be encroaching closer and closer on to the edges of hillforts in Wales (not to mention Offa's Dyke), and it is questionable how close new buildings will get to rampart defences before new residents can confidently claim to actually live on top of an Iron Age fort. Sites and staff are threatened in a manner in which we have not experienced for several decades, and it should be an ongoing cause of concern for all in related fields. At the same time, Welsh Government moved ahead with its consultation on the Heritage Bill for Wales. Many will remember a similar white paper being drafted for heritage in the UK several years ago, before it was bumped in the list of priorities for a general election. Whether a similar fate awaits the Welsh Heritage Bill awaits to be seen, but at the very least government in Wales is actively discussing the future framework for heritage in this country, so the field is at least not being forgotten about. However, the poor old Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales looks set to buy the farm as a result of government involvement, despite almost everyone in public consultation stressing what an incredibly bad idea it would be to merge the RCAHMW and Cadw. While government is certainly focusing on heritage in Wales, the consequences may most clearly be manifest in the loss of another significant organisation. While the RCAHMW remains threatened, the archaeological trusts are fighting their corner, and the Archwilio application, developed by the four trusts, is a positive reminder both of the scale of the archaeological resources at our disposal in Wales, and the intent in this country to enhance public accessibility to those resources and archives. In this respect, Wales has forged a path as a world leader regarding accessibility. Few other, if indeed any nation, can boast the same level of access to historic environment records as Wales currently does. The next challenge is to make sure people know that they can access this information, and of course encourage potential audiences that this information is worth accessing in the first place, but perhaps that is a battle for 2014. For the moment, we can certainly welcome and celebrate the addition of Archwilio to the likes of the People’s Collection project. The real challenge for 2014 will be one of resilience. Local and national government have collectively lined up the culture sector with a succession of budget cut tipped bullets, and are only too keen to pull the trigger. What fate awaits the Newport medieval ship for instance? This internationally significant artefact is going to be evicted later this year, with no obvious home for it to go to. What happens to the Newport ship will probably serve as the acid test for the position of heritage in Wales for the rest of this decade, for if such an assemblage were to be lost to Wales, it would be an indictment on the attitudes of officials in this country regarding our heritage resource. Should the ship be saved, with an intention to display and develop, in a manner akin to the Mary Rose museum which dominated heritage headlines in 2013, then we might have some reason to be optimistic. That all awaits to be seen though, either way, some very significant decisions regarding the heritage of Wales will take place in 2014, and the ramifications will remain with us for much, much longer.
0 Comments
Spend a little time working through government policy papers, local authority strategies, or museum association publications, and a generally consistent message can be identified – heritage matters. There is a great deal of noise that accompanies any discussion on the value of cultural heritage. Be it for tourism, economic development, or the increased considerations for social wellbeing, on paper at least, we are unified in our celebration of and commitment to our heritage. However we do not appear to be so consistent in our protection of that heritage. Sadly and increasingly frequently, stories come in reporting the damage to, or total loss of cultural heritage sites. Many will remember the loss of a Peruvian pyramid in June/July 2013, a tragic developer led destruction of an archaeological site. What awaits to be seen in Peru is what punishment will be meted out to those responsible, following criminal charges being brought against the perpetrators. Another week goes by, and now another story of destruction reaches us, this time from Australia. Again, development led work, mining in this instance, has seen a sacred Aboriginal site at Bootu Creek damaged and severely undermined. What is interesting in the case of Bootu Creek is that this is the first instance of a company (in Australia) being prosecuted for such a culture-heritage crime. In one regard we might be inclined to celebrate, embracing the fact that the perpetrators of damage to a heritage site have finally been made to pay. But have they? A fine totalling the equivalent of £88,000 somehow seems inadequate for the desecration and partial destruction of a heritage site. The inadequacies of the fine are put into much sharper contrast when considering that the company fined, OM Manganese, as part of OM Holdings, contributed to pre tax profits of $8 million in 2013. Will OM Holdings really care about the loss of $150,000, when the costs can be offset by far more substantial financial profits? Will this fine act as a discouragement, or instead is this case study one which suggests that if companies are caught damaging heritage sites, that the financial implications offer no real disincentive to pursue such activities? In a Welsh context, this is a potentially pressing matter. Having been involved in the consultation process on the proposed Heritage Bill for Wales, the issue of enhanced protection of historic sites came up on a number of occasions, and it is heartening in some respects to see the issue of fines being discussed in the consultation document. Cited as a negative within current historic environment protection policy is the current weakness of fines imposed on developers for damaging historic buildings and sites. Point 35 of the document specifically stresses that an element of the consultation will fall on the exploration of ways in which fines might be put to more effective use to deter unauthorised works in the historic environment. As with the Australian example, we should be encouraged that this issue is being addressed by the Welsh Government. Yet the consultation process allows us to make recommendations as to the nature and severity of fines imposed on ignorant and unscrupulous developers. Token fines will deter nothing. Yet we cannot say with conviction that severe fines will do anything else. However we are simply yet to see the impacts of severe fines used in Wales, and there is a very real opportunity to put in place the deterrents that might better safeguard our historic landscapes. This is opportunity we would do well not to miss. Consultation on the Heritage Bill is open now and will remain so through to the 11th of October. If you feel that the historic environment in Wales is worth protecting, get involved. |
Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
|