Italy still has to learn 'prevention'
Current affairs reporter at The Fresh Outlook, Davide Ghilotti, speaks to Guglielmo Pepe, editor of National Geographic Italia magazine, about the recent collapse of the House of Gladiators in the archaeological site of Pompeii, and about conservation of heritage in Italy.
Davide (D): How do you see the collapse of the House of Gladiators in Pompeii – was is just an accident?
Guglielmo Pepe(G): The collapse in Pompeii is a disaster that was both expected and foreseeable. All the premonitory signals were there. Taking a closer look around the streets [of the site] would have been enough to realise the seriousness of the situation – a situation of decay that could have been spotted by anyone, not just by experts.
(D): What is, in your opinion, the scale of the destruction of the House of Gladiators?
(G): Pompeii has a great historic value, both from a symbolic point of view – for the eruption of the volcano, the integrity of the city – and from an archaeological point of view. We are talking about a site that is extremely well-conserved. One of Italy's major resources is its artistic and cultural heritage. Letting it go into a state of disrepair is a deadly sin.
(D): Could it have been avoided?
(G): Clearly. It was a situation at risk. A study was conducted, in 1997, by the director of the excavation site, who filed a report in which he denounced the state of decay of some of the buildings. In the following years, the deterioration of the materials - of the mortars - worsened. The collapse of a building could also have harmed the visitors in close proximity. Still, nobody did anything about it.
Now, emerging from the police investigations is a picture of an awful administration of the site: “ghost” training courses for the employees, expenses blown from 15 million euros to 10 times as much, dodgy contracts. So far, the police are investigating 170 people.
Another big problem is the contracts given to the lowest bidder, which is one of the worst features typical of the Italian system. Organised crime, which can afford to offer the best price because its money comes from illegal sources, wins the contract by offering a low price, and then raises the costs enormously. There are allegations of this kind as well.
(D): I understand that National Geographic Italia warned about the situation of the site in the past.
(G): We did. In a report published in February 2009 we wrote about the situation of Pompeii. It wasn't only us, others also did the same. But if we raise the alarm, and then who is in charge of the intervention shrugs his shoulders or keeps saying that everything is fine, that doesn't help.
It's true that the money that was needed never came, but 110 million euros were actually spent on various contract works. The problem is then that the money that was spent did not correspond to works that were actually carried out. There is a problem of administration of funds, it is a question of how, more than how much. How is this money being spent? If we consider that the money comes from the taxpayers, I think citizens have the right to know that their money is spent in a certain way. There should be proper monitoring. Investing today is also important to generate revenues in the future.
(D): Are there any political responsibilities? Which are they?
(G): Definitely. Minister Bondi [Italian minister of the cultural heritage] who is now claiming that he has no responsibility whatsoever, should go back and read what he said only a few months ago about Pompeii. At that time, he said he was proud of the situation - of the extraordinary works that had been carried out on the site. He can't now deny his responsibility for what happened.
The minister has an direct and objective responsibility. If the supervisor that he nominated, did not carry out his own duty and the warnings that came were left unheard, he is responsible. He trusted people who were not trustworthy. The controls were not adequate. This government should face its responsibilities, and should allow some self-critique.
(D): A year ago, in Rome, part of the Domus Aurea (Golden House) collapsed in a similar way.
(G): Rome has the characteristic of being the capital of the country. It is visited by 28-30 million people every year and is under everybody's eyes. When something of this kind happens there, as it did for the Domus Aurea, quicker interventions are made.
(D): Are the two events symptoms of a country that is not able to administer its own cultural heritage?
(G): They definitely are. The collapse of the building in Pompeii is [linked to] a lack of prevention that is spread across the whole country. Instead of acting after damage has happened, there should be preventive action against these events, which are foreseeable. In Italy this [preventative action] doesn't happen. Pompeii is just the last example.
Italy is a country with a high high hydro-geological risk. There should be an investment of at least 40 billion euros to secure most of the Italian territory against this – it's a lot of money, there's no doubt about it. But if we count how much money has been spent in the last 30 years to fix damages after they happened, maybe investing in prevention would have been better.
(D): How do you see the conservation of heritage in Italy at the moment?
(G): The situation is really bad. The lack of prevention affects both culture and environment, which often walk on parallel paths. In a country like Italy, culture and environment are two cardinal elements of the country's heritage. Still, we don't take care of them.
Just consider that, in the latest government's budget, the state funds devoted to natural parks have been cut by half - 50 million euros have gone down to 25 million, not enough even to pay the wages of the employees. Four million people live in areas covered by natural parks, and tens of millions visit the parks ever year. This has a direct consequence on tourism. As a matter of fact, tourism flows in Italy have decreased, compared to other countries such as Spain. The tourism's structure doesn't work properly here.
These are very simple things. Sometimes, it feels like we are having to deal with people that are incapable of discernment.
(D): Do you think that, after this event, there will be more attention towards similar situations?
(G): My experience tells me that it won't. I'm afraid that after some time, [the spotlight] will fade without any real [improvement]. There is a crisis of valour [in the country], an individualism that is linked to the daily use of resources, without considering the long-term effects for the community as a whole.
There are several signals, however, that Italians are not willing to take this any more. There are a lot of people who want a big change. Maybe these signals will lead to something.
(Read the full article on The Fresh Outlook)
Oct 2010
Davide (D): How do you see the collapse of the House of Gladiators in Pompeii – was is just an accident?
Guglielmo Pepe(G): The collapse in Pompeii is a disaster that was both expected and foreseeable. All the premonitory signals were there. Taking a closer look around the streets [of the site] would have been enough to realise the seriousness of the situation – a situation of decay that could have been spotted by anyone, not just by experts.
(D): What is, in your opinion, the scale of the destruction of the House of Gladiators?
(G): Pompeii has a great historic value, both from a symbolic point of view – for the eruption of the volcano, the integrity of the city – and from an archaeological point of view. We are talking about a site that is extremely well-conserved. One of Italy's major resources is its artistic and cultural heritage. Letting it go into a state of disrepair is a deadly sin.
(D): Could it have been avoided?
(G): Clearly. It was a situation at risk. A study was conducted, in 1997, by the director of the excavation site, who filed a report in which he denounced the state of decay of some of the buildings. In the following years, the deterioration of the materials - of the mortars - worsened. The collapse of a building could also have harmed the visitors in close proximity. Still, nobody did anything about it.
Now, emerging from the police investigations is a picture of an awful administration of the site: “ghost” training courses for the employees, expenses blown from 15 million euros to 10 times as much, dodgy contracts. So far, the police are investigating 170 people.
Another big problem is the contracts given to the lowest bidder, which is one of the worst features typical of the Italian system. Organised crime, which can afford to offer the best price because its money comes from illegal sources, wins the contract by offering a low price, and then raises the costs enormously. There are allegations of this kind as well.
(D): I understand that National Geographic Italia warned about the situation of the site in the past.
(G): We did. In a report published in February 2009 we wrote about the situation of Pompeii. It wasn't only us, others also did the same. But if we raise the alarm, and then who is in charge of the intervention shrugs his shoulders or keeps saying that everything is fine, that doesn't help.
It's true that the money that was needed never came, but 110 million euros were actually spent on various contract works. The problem is then that the money that was spent did not correspond to works that were actually carried out. There is a problem of administration of funds, it is a question of how, more than how much. How is this money being spent? If we consider that the money comes from the taxpayers, I think citizens have the right to know that their money is spent in a certain way. There should be proper monitoring. Investing today is also important to generate revenues in the future.
(D): Are there any political responsibilities? Which are they?
(G): Definitely. Minister Bondi [Italian minister of the cultural heritage] who is now claiming that he has no responsibility whatsoever, should go back and read what he said only a few months ago about Pompeii. At that time, he said he was proud of the situation - of the extraordinary works that had been carried out on the site. He can't now deny his responsibility for what happened.
The minister has an direct and objective responsibility. If the supervisor that he nominated, did not carry out his own duty and the warnings that came were left unheard, he is responsible. He trusted people who were not trustworthy. The controls were not adequate. This government should face its responsibilities, and should allow some self-critique.
(D): A year ago, in Rome, part of the Domus Aurea (Golden House) collapsed in a similar way.
(G): Rome has the characteristic of being the capital of the country. It is visited by 28-30 million people every year and is under everybody's eyes. When something of this kind happens there, as it did for the Domus Aurea, quicker interventions are made.
(D): Are the two events symptoms of a country that is not able to administer its own cultural heritage?
(G): They definitely are. The collapse of the building in Pompeii is [linked to] a lack of prevention that is spread across the whole country. Instead of acting after damage has happened, there should be preventive action against these events, which are foreseeable. In Italy this [preventative action] doesn't happen. Pompeii is just the last example.
Italy is a country with a high high hydro-geological risk. There should be an investment of at least 40 billion euros to secure most of the Italian territory against this – it's a lot of money, there's no doubt about it. But if we count how much money has been spent in the last 30 years to fix damages after they happened, maybe investing in prevention would have been better.
(D): How do you see the conservation of heritage in Italy at the moment?
(G): The situation is really bad. The lack of prevention affects both culture and environment, which often walk on parallel paths. In a country like Italy, culture and environment are two cardinal elements of the country's heritage. Still, we don't take care of them.
Just consider that, in the latest government's budget, the state funds devoted to natural parks have been cut by half - 50 million euros have gone down to 25 million, not enough even to pay the wages of the employees. Four million people live in areas covered by natural parks, and tens of millions visit the parks ever year. This has a direct consequence on tourism. As a matter of fact, tourism flows in Italy have decreased, compared to other countries such as Spain. The tourism's structure doesn't work properly here.
These are very simple things. Sometimes, it feels like we are having to deal with people that are incapable of discernment.
(D): Do you think that, after this event, there will be more attention towards similar situations?
(G): My experience tells me that it won't. I'm afraid that after some time, [the spotlight] will fade without any real [improvement]. There is a crisis of valour [in the country], an individualism that is linked to the daily use of resources, without considering the long-term effects for the community as a whole.
There are several signals, however, that Italians are not willing to take this any more. There are a lot of people who want a big change. Maybe these signals will lead to something.
(Read the full article on The Fresh Outlook)
Oct 2010