Foras Teamhrach

The Office of Public Works published its Draft Skellig Michael World Heritage Management Plan for the preservation of Skellig Michael in July 2007. The public consultation process was launched by Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government John Gormley. A six week timetable was granted for submissions to the Department, although this was then extended, with a final date of 28th September 2007. In 1996 Skellig Michael was placed on the World Heritage List by UNESCO – the international body which selects World Heritage sites as representing the best international examples of cultural and natural heritage. In his announcement of the consultation process Minister Gormley stated - “this is a spectacular medieval island monastic site, whose listing as a World Heritage site recognises the universal significance recognises the universal significance of this cultural landscape.”

In relation to the draft Management Plan, Minister Gormley stated that the timetable of the plan would be for ten years from the date of its publication and added - “I consider that an updated expanded Management Plan is required for Skellig Michael, to ensure the protection, conservation and management of this important heritage site for the next ten years – to 2017.” In relation to the plan itself the Minister stated that “it documents the conversation works carried out to-date by the Office of Public Works, in accordance with best international practice to protect and conserve this World Heritage Site. It also details future proposed works including ongoing maintenance works, confirms current arrangements regarding visitor access and addresses other important management issues.” [1]

The Office of Public Works' (OPW) stewardship of Skellig Micheal has been characterised by highly questionable management and restoration practices both in the 19th and 20th centuries. These practices have been subjected to sustained and insightful criticism by both concerned laypersons and professional archaeologists. This news article is entirely based on archaeologist Michael Gibbons's own submission to the Department concerning the Draft Plan.

The plan consists of an introduction to the site (Chapter 1) the history of the island (Chapter 2), a description of the island including the surviving monastic structures and access routes, the lighthouse period constructions (Chapter 3), the natural heritage of the island including the known bird population and (more briefly) the known mammal population, habitats and vegetation (Chapter 4), the existing statutory protections (Chapter 5), works undertaken to date by the OPW and work still outstanding (Chapter 6) as well as future works and ongoing maintenance programmes (Chapter 7), visitor access and management (Chapter 8) and provides a list of Objectives and Key Actions for the coming years (Chapter 9). However, the plan itself retains several deficiencies which need to be addressed. [2]

Chapter 1 acknowledges the importance of the preservation and authenticity of the remains and their importance as the remains of “unique cultural achievement” (1.4). This is in line with current thinking which stresses the importance of authenticity and truthfulness and of retaining the universal value of world heritage sites (Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2005). It is stated that the main threats to these values are perceived as resulting from continued natural erosion and the impact of visitors. The discussion of works to date in Chapter 6 focuses on the importance of consolidation and structural interventions to prevent further collapses. The proposed future works programme and visitor management programmes discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 deal with possible future damage from continued erosion (and the impact of this on safety) and with controlling the numbers of visitors, the periods of time which they will be able to access the island, and the possible impact of visitors on surviving features such as the steps and pavements. [3]

The single largest impact on the authenticity of the surviving monuments is not addressed, however. Independent observers have claimed that the joint OPW / DEHLG’s “conservation programme” has seriously compromised the authenticity of the main monastic complex itself as well as that of individual structures elsewhere. Over the past twenty years almost all of the Monastic Remains, both in the Main Complex and the South Peak, have been conserved or restored to some degree and work has started on the final remote terraces and structures. The importance of the impact of prior conservation efforts to understand and further conserve archaeological monuments has also been acknowledged at an international level and played a major role in the management of the prehistoric temples at Hagar Qim and Mnajdra on Malta.

Media reports in the 1980’s highlighted concerns by local historian and boatman Des Lavelle that conservation work, including the use of workmen without archaeological supervision and the over-restoration of monuments, was inflicting great damage on the authenticity of the site. The only academic work on the management of the site, a 2000 MA Thesis by Michelle Walshe of UCC, came to similar conclusions, describing the restored sections of the monument as being “like Disneyland,” the Monk’s Toilet behind the small oratory in the main monastery as a “work of fiction,” alleging that stairs and routes around the monastery had been “rerouted” and stated that most of the damage to the site was not being done by tourists but rather by the OPW. In the context of the current works programme on the South Peak, the Project Team confirmed the continued use of unsupervised workmen. The dumping of spoil resulting from continued building work has been reported in the media.

Authenticity is a crucial factor in World Heritage Site Management, and its importance to the outstanding universal value of a site is emphasised in the 2005 “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention”.
“80. The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity.”
In point of fact, OPW building works undertaken as part of the conservation programme in both the Main Monastic Complex and on the South Peak have seriously compromised the authenticity of the site. [4]

The conservation programme to date has been characterised by the destruction of original features and the over-restoration of monuments. As described in the draft management plan and in Rourke’s 2002 article, original terrace walls as well as later walls believed to be 19th century in date, both in the main complex and on the South Peak, have been rebuilt along their original lines rather than simply being preserved in place. It is claimed that this policy has only been used when absolutely necessary. However, due to the extremely low level of prior assessment and the lack of any detailed architectural or engineering reports it is impossible to confirm this. Photographic evidence from the South Peak and from the Main Monastic Complex, as well as Rourke’s statement that the conserved monuments “now look more like they did originally”, suggest that a policy of rebuilding and remodelling the monastery to “match a late 20th/ early 21st century vision of its original state is being followed.” A comparison of the available “before and after” photographs suggest that, at a minimum, the following structures have been entirely or largely rebuilt as a result of the conservation project;

The "Monks Toilet" in the main complex

The roof of the little oratory in the main complex

A leacht on the oratory terrace of the South Peak

The small oratory on the oratory terrace

The altar at the rear of the small oratory

The “prayer station” visible en route to the eye of the needle

Of these, the “prayer station” and the “monks toilet” are the most obvious. In both cases the post-conservation structures bear no resemblance to the pre-conservation state of the remains and have clearly been entirely rebuilt. The roof of the little oratory has been extensively remodelled, the upper four or five courses of stone have been added, the entire profile of the building has been altered and much of the rest of the structure has clearly been “tidied up”. The rear wall of the small oratory on the oratory terrace is entirely new and both the leacht and the altar on the same terrace are essentially replicas of the earlier structures.
The authenticity of these monuments has been further compromised by the fact that no indication is given, either on site or in the draft management plan, of the extent of the reconstruction work involved or that much of the stonework now visible to visitors is not original but the best approximation of the original work that 21st century masons, architects and archaeologists could conceive of. There is now no way of telling which portions of monuments are original and which are replicas. Future generations, academics and visitors will be left with the mistaken impression that they are viewing authentic monastic material. [5]

The surviving archaeological and architectural heritage is an irreplaceable resource and any architectural intervention on or near an archaeological monument inevitably destroys irreplaceable archaeological material and information. In particular, no environmental archaeology policy appears to be in place, and the marine archaeological potential of the island has been ignored despite the presence of documented wrecks and other archaeological material on the island..

During the restoration work, building workers are usually left unsupervised and unmonitored for long periods of time, having discussed the programme of work with the archaeologist and architectural staff beforehand. This significantly reduces the possibility that any previously unsuspected archaeological material will be identified during the work, since the masons are not qualified to recognise it. There is also evidence that some or all of the sites above were dismantled without proper archaeological supervision or record keeping. In spite of repeated requests and continuing controversy the OPW/DEGLG have not released the archaeological reports and stratigraphic diagrams resulting from the dismantling of the oratory, altar and leacht on the oratory terrace. Similarly, an inspection of photographs of the main monastic complex indicates that large areas have been cleared of topsoil without there being any record of their excavation or monitoring in either the Excavations Bulletin or in Bourke’s 2005 discussion of archaeological work on the site. This strongly suggests that this work was not adequately monitored and that a potentially priceless archaeological resource for understanding the development of the site has literally been dumped into the sea. The destruction of organic deposits is one of the other great failures of the conservation project on the main complex. This failure continued on the South Peak and the draft management plan gives no indication that it is to be rectified at any point in the future.

In particular, the draft management plan fails to address a major deficiency. The project team at present consists of a “conservation architect, an archaeologist and a structural engineer” in addition to “experts from the private sector” who are commissioned to undertake specialist work as required. The range of expertise on which the management team draws is extraordinarily narrow; there is no environmental archaeologist, no early Christian specialist, no palaeo-botanical specialist, no remote sensing specialist, no maritime archaeologist, no architectural historian and no post-medieval archaeologist. The research programmes proposed on geology and historic quarrying, water collection, the horticultural aspects of the monastery and the development of drystone construction do not appear to be involve any independent outside experts and should have been conducted prior to the restoration campaign. [6]

It is clear that other aspects of the site’s history and cultural significance have received little attention in either the completed work or the management plan itself. This is in breach of current best practice in conservation works, which call for equal respect to be given to each phase of a site’s history. The rebuilding of sites to fit a particular period is specifically forbidden, both by the ICOMOS Charters dealing with restoration and conservation and by the “Operational Guidelines..” themselves. In spite of this, as seen above, there has been a conscious policy of restoring the site to match a particular vision of the monastic site and of removing material not believed to date to this period.

After the abandonment of the Monastery, the island remained one of the most important Irish pilgrimage destinations, with 16th, 18th and 19th century accounts of a continuing tradition. The discovery of a late 17th-18th century water font in the main oratory in the main monastic complex indicates its continued use during this time. The graveyard in the monk’s garden also appears to be of largely post-medieval date. Remains related to this period have suffered particularly badly from current conservation practices. The altar in the main oratory was removed as a “19th century” feature in the 1980s. Substantial damage has now been inflicted on the non-monastic elements of the site’s heritage.

In addition to the damage inflicted directly upon the surviving physical remains, amounting to sacrilege in some instances, the conservation programme and the draft management plan have failed entirely to deal with less tangible aspects of the site’s heritage. The island seems to be treated solely as an architectural and archaeological complex, and there is a failure to recognise it as a surviving religious centre and part of the cultural landscape of the local community which retains a great importance to the coastal communities on the adjacent peninsula. Skellig Michael was at the centre of a long-standing cultural landscape and oral tradition centring on the Pilgrimage to the island. Oral traditions and folklore are crucial aspects of the heritage of any significant religious complex and interacts in a complex and unpredictable way with the physical reality of the site. The draft management plan does not appear even to have considered the possible components of the intangible cultural landscape on the Skellig or how they interacted through time with the various phases of its physical development. By contrast the “Research Agenda for the Heart of Neolithic Orkney” drew upon the more ephemeral aspects of this World Heritage Site such as folklore and perceptions of the landscape, and broadened the scope of its investigations to include the more modern periods in addition to the prehistoric remains. [7]

Independent monitoring is necessary to secure what remains of Skellig Michael's heritage. This involves regular inspections and preventative maintenance. The monitoring process at present lags seriously behind that found elsewhere. In Malta, extensive projects launched in 2004 and 2005 involve the environmental monitoring of two of these sites. Here the latest technology is being utilised to monitor and record rainfall, air temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, changes in the megaliths’ temperatures, water flow through the site, and soil erosion; all parameters which are indicative of the potential deterioration in the Megalithic temples. In addition, detailed documentation in the form of three dimensional digital models of the sites is being carried out for each of the monuments.

On Skellig Michael, there has been a persistent pattern of questionable environmental practices on the island since the archaeological restoration work began. The issue of the illegal dumping of spoil was first raised by Des Lavelle in 1984. This practice has continued up until early 2007 in spite of the fact that the dumping of construction waste into the sea is illegal, and dumping in a Wildlife preserve is in breach of the EU Habitats Directive. In addition to the dumping of spoil, there have also been difficulties over the years with the burning of rubbish by OPW / DEHLG staff and the use of environmentally questionable Zip lines to move material up to the South Peak. These pose a potential risk to birdlife. In addition there are concerns about the possible damage to the local eco-system from the importation of building materials. The draft management plan pays lip service to the need for a sustainable presence on Skellig Michael but no specific details are provided as to how individual issues such as those above are to be addressed. Nor is there even a list of potential environmental impacts which the Project Team will be keeping an eye on. These issues could of course have been addressed in a separate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but since none was conducted, the lack of such a discussion in the draft management plan is extremely serious. [8]

In his submission, Michael Gibbons emphasises that the root cause of the deficiencies and failures at Skellig Michael has been the lack of any independent assessment of any proposed works on the island prior to restoration work going ahead. This has resulted in a series of ill-thought out actions and a failure to make provision for any future difficulties (most clearly visible in the dumping of excess spoil). In theory, Skellig Michael is well protected by an interlocking series of heritage designations, including its status as a National Monument, a World Heritage Site, a Nature Reserve, SPA and proposed Natural Heritage Area. However, in practice, all of these designations require a very high level of assessment prior to any work that might have an impact on the cultural or ecological integrity of the site going ahead. In addition the “Operational Guidelines…” provide another level of protection in the shape of a requirement to inform UNESCO of any work which might affect the Universal Cultural Value of the Site.

Skellig Michael is in the hands of the Irish State, however, and none of the standard heritage protections were applied. No Environmental Impact Assessment was undertaken in advance of work on the South Peak, and no archaeological assessment of the impact of the proposed works on the surviving monuments was carried out. UNESCO received no detailed information on the proposed works prior to commencement of the building work.

This lack of an EIA, or any other form of assessment, means that no alternative options to the approach chosen were either assessed or presented. Current best practice on large scale developments elsewhere calls for a detailed discussion of all possible options (and the impacts resulting from each), including the “do-nothing” option, prior to work going ahead, but this has never been a feature of works on Skellig Michael. No detailed architectural information was made available (1) prior to work going ahead on the scale of the proposed intervention, (2) of its likely impact on the authenticity of the site, (3) of the measures deemed necessary to mitigating the impacts of the construction work, and (4) the option to do nothing does not appear to have been seriously considered at any point. [9]

The low level of prior assessment has been accompanied by a lack of openness in the discussion of the extent and underlying purpose of archaeological interventions on Skellig Michael. There has been a persistent pattern of misinformation on the part of the State with regard both to the scale of the work and its necessity. Departmental officials have repeatedly described these works as “minimalist,” even though these were later described in UNESCO documentation as a “major structural intervention”. In a similar fashion there has been no public discussion of the rationale behind individual conservation efforts.

The lack of an EIA seriously compromised any effort to assess the impact of the conservation programme (or visitor numbers) on the eco-system of the island. Indeed the environmental impact of the current works programme remains largely unassessed. The plan describes consultation with the NPWS on birdlife and the monitoring of bird numbers, but no particular methodology is specified. The fact that the level of environmental assessment has been inadequate is tacitly admitted in Chapter 9, where it is proposed to guarantee monitoring for projects likely to have a significant impact on the species and habitats for which the island received its SPA status, to develop a monitoring programme for the Manx Shearwater and Storm Petrel, to carry out a census count of breeding seabirds and to carry out a vegetation survey of species which may have been cultivated by monks (9.1.2). This is a welcome development but should surely have preceded rather than followed the South Peak intervention. Other aspects of the Skellig Michael environment, such as the local seal colony and local plant life, are discussed very briefly in the draft plan. However, the effect of importing building materials containing alien species does not appear to have been seriously addressed, and no method of getting rid of waste construction materials is specified. This low level of assessment on a site of European and international importance is in breach of Ireland's international obligations under the World Heritage Convention and the EU Habitats Directive.

The failure adequately to assess proposed work in advance of development has been the key failing of the entire conservation project on the Skelligs, and is the area in which the management of the site has fallen furthest behind, not merely international, but even Irish best-practice. In particular, as a matter of urgency, the remaining proposed conservation works on the South Peak (the walls on the Outer Terrace – 6.3.10) should be halted immediately until an archaeological assessment (at least) of their likely impact and of the available mitigation measures has been conducted. The work still outstanding at St. Michael’s Church and elsewhere should be immediately halted until a complete EIA of the entire conservation programme to date, complete with an inventory of the remaining authentic and unrestored buildings, has been conducted, and an effective environmental and archaeological strategy has been put in place to maximise knowledge gain from any future work.

The current management system on Skellig Michael suffers from a number of deficiencies which have severely damaged the site’s universal cultural value and the island’s environment. The damage to the site’s authenticity may ultimately lead to the deletion of Skellig Michael from the World Heritage List. The management of the site by a small team, ultimately responsible to the Minister for the Environment but in practice operating with minimal oversight and no public process of assessment, has allowed this damage at Skellig Michael to proceed. Regrettably, this management structure is left substantially unaffected by the draft management plan.

The guidelines for the management of world heritage sites for UNESCO recommended the establishment of a research coordination committee for individual world heritages sites in 1993. The World Heritage Management Plans for Avebury, The Heart of Neolithic Orkney and Stonehenge all include research agendas or frameworks designed to maximise knowledge gain from all periods of the sites’ respective histories and at every stage in the management process.

In order to prevent future damage and to return to the standards demanded by international best practice, some form of independent oversight with input from all interested parties and with legally recognised responsibilities is necessary on Skellig Michael. The process of setting up such a body should be a core component of the completed management plan. In order to be effective, however, such a body would require detailed information on the level of interventions undertaken to date as part of the conservation programme. It is now unclear how much of the remaining monuments are authentic, and this will have to be established before any constructive additions can be made to the management structure or any future plans made.

In concluding his submission, Michael Gibbons states that the management of Skellig Michael as a World Heritage Site has persistently lagged behind the standards of other World Heritage Sites internationally. The management structure has remained 19th century in form and ethos and a culture of “instant reconstruction” and of “visualisation” common to OPW/DEHLG projects elsewhere has taken root on the island. While lip service was paid to the principles contained in ICOMOS Charters and the Operational Guidelines, these principles were not put into practice in the management of the site or the conservation programme. The full implications of modern best practice have not been absorbed by the project team. Much of the site has been largely rebuilt by unqualified staff. This has resulted in serious damage to the authenticity of the site.

In its current form the draft management plan fails to address these problems. It provides no coherent overarching philosophy for the management and conservation of the site. It does not provide for adequate assessment of future work. It does not contain an informed archaeological strategy for the site which takes account of best modern practice. It does not guarantee that the necessary skills, technology and planning will be available to effectively manage and monitor the site in the future. Unless the current programme of works is halted immediately, and a new approach that takes account of the standards required by ICOMOS and by modern best practice is adopted and enshrined in the management plan, it is likely that these problems will continue to affect the island's integrity and that a vital part of Ireland's national Heritage will be irretrievably lost. [10]

In late November 2007, UNESCO confirmed that it is to send a representative to investigate the Skellig Michael site. The controversy led UNESCO, along with the International Council on Monuments and Sites, to accept an invitation from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to examine the works on Skellig Michael in the context of the management plan. Senior official Tom Hassell was nominated by UNESCO to visit the island, and he also spoke to interested parties, including Michael Gibbons, on November 26-28th 2007, developments are awaited with interest. [11]

With thanks to Michael Gibbons for sending us a copy of his 2007 submission to the Department of the Environment's Draft Management Plan for Skellig Michael.

Footnotes and References: