Despite a formal request from UNESCO to halt the works on the Gjirokaster Bypass project, construction is continuing. From observations and footage on the ground, it’s estimated that around ⅓ of the project is complete already.
Exit sent questions to UNESCO regarding the fact the Albanian government has ignored their request.
They responded by repeating what they have asked the government to do:
- Submit an Integrated Management Plan for review by the Advisory Bodies;
- Invite a joining World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission to the property to assess progress made in the state of conservation of the entire property, provide guidance on the development of the IMP, evaluate the efficacy of development controls and monitoring indicators, and assess the bypass project;
- Halt the construction of the bypass until such a time as the mission has been able to visit the property to assess if the project has caused or will cause any damage to its Outstanding Universal Value.
They added that the Word Heritage Centre would continue its efforts to support the State Party in implementing this decision, therefore suggesting that no steps have been taken to date.
On the topic of whether the State’s actions could jeopardize the future of Gjirokaster’s UNESCO status, they stated:
“The state of conservation of the World Heritage property “Historic Centres of Berat and Gjirokaster” will be examined by the Committee at its 45th session in 2022.”
Not only are works ongoing, but disturbing footage has emerged of waste from the site being dumped in and around a nearby river. This area is protected by UNESCO, but also, the dumping of construction waste in this way is illegal.
The Municipality has not responded to questions sent by Exit.
Why is the project opposed?
The Gjirokaster Bypass project was conceptualized several years ago to reduce traffic and increase mobility throughout the city. An initial plan was shelved as it was considered unfeasible and risky to the castle, the foundations of homes, and could shift earth layers, presenting significant risks to the integrity of buildings in the old part of the city.
The old part of Gjirokaster and the Castle at the top sit on a hill at risk of various geological disasters. Firstly, there are unstable geological layers, and some of these are already moving or slipping down the hill. These include areas where there are homes, buildings, and roads. Secondly, a deep tectonic fault runs through the hill, with a risk of earthquakes maxing out at 8.2 on the Richter scale. Combining the two risks could bring catastrophic consequences for the city, its buildings, and those who live here.
In 2015, it was determined by Cultural Heritage Without Borders that there are 169 Cultural Monuments in critical condition, risking destruction. These findings were in line with previous studies and recommendations made by UNESCO that called for emergency restoration to preserve them. In the six years since, the situation has deteriorated even more.
Since the first Bypass project was launched in 2015, several cultural monuments have been removed from the list without following legal due process. The ones that were removed from the list fell within the boundaries of the expected project.
200 citizens signed a petition, and in 2016, UNESCO was already raising concerns about elements of the plan and the impact it would have on the city.
Rather than investing in securing layers at risk of slippage and restoring houses to protect them from decay and the risk of a significant earthquake, the Municipality has decided to invest in a bypass, which will do very little to alleviate traffic and nothing to secure the safety of homes and the inhabitants who reside on the castle hill and in the old town. Furthermore, it will actively destabilize the area.
Should a land slippage or earthquake occur, the damage to cultural monuments and the risk to human life would be extreme. As a reminder, the authorities have known about these risks for almost a decade.
Another issue is that the construction of the bypass includes works in the Historic Centre of Gjirokastra, which is a violation of Albanian Law. The works contravene the Albanian Law on Cultural Heritage, the Albanian Charter on Restoration, and the Regulation on the Protection, Integrated Conservation, and Management of the Historical Center and Protected Area.
What and who is behind the project?
Over the years, the design of the project has changed many times. Currently, the project is valued at a staggering EUR 3.26 million for just 800 meters of work.
This seems particularly high for work of this type. To date, the Municipality has denied formal and informal requests for the plans of the project and impact assessments on the environment and cultural heritage surrounding the area.
Furthermore, rather than pausing the work, they have accelerated it with no consideration for UNESCO, the city’s status, the safety of residents, and the security of properties located there.
The company Zenit & Co is responsible for conceptualizing the project, set up in 2018, just before the project was given to them. According to Open Corporates, they haven’t filed financial statements since 2019.
When asked about the continuation of the project, they declined to answer.
Possible conflict of interest
The company awarded the project’s construction is A&E Engineering, which is 100% owned by Entela Cano, a former representative of the Albanian Development Fund. The ADF is the same government agency that is overseeing the development of the Gjirokaster bypass project.
Exit contacted Cano to ask about her role with the ADF- whether she still holds it and, if not, when her contract ended. She also declined to comment.
Awarding the construction contract to a company owned by someone who worked at or still works at the same government agency overseeing the project is a clear conflict of interest.
A&E Engineering is also the same company that won the design and study tender for the new building of the National Theater in 2020. The tender was worth EUR 500,000 and was appealed by two other companies participating in the bidding process.
They claimed that the tender was unfairly granted to A&E Engineering and demanded transparency on the bidding and tender process. The Public Procurement Commission dismissed the complaint on a technicality.
