When I received the invitation to participate with a presentation in the “Island built event” project, I first thought it was just a kind challenge. Since I had a chance to meet in Venice, the artists, the administrators and the lecturers of the University of Volos, who had organized the Greek pavilion for the recent Venice Architecture Biennale, I was aware of their interest in the inherent problematic regarding the relation between locations and their interaction with their inhabitants. In Venice, we already had the opportunity to discuss the mutual projects we were on—that was why I had invited them to take a boat tour to the Minor islands of the Venice lagoon—as well as a program I was working on at that time with the Roman “Osservatorio Normade” group’s artist and architects, who had already worked in Greece. In the past, the minor Venice islands performed out roles very difficult to maintain today. They were a challenge to anyone who wanted to build a non-invasive relation between locations, people and roles. At the same time, as far as the Venice situation is concerned, bonds now exist, which relate to the environmental protection of a very fragile natural environment, and to maintaining the history of the past, still very vivid on the islands. In the Venetian Empire Era, the island had “naturally” found its own inclination regarding certain specific functions, independent of civil society. I am referring to: (a) the function of the religious community, still active nowadays on San Francesco del Deserto, the “Desert’s island” with its motto “Beata solitude, sola beatitude” at the monastery entrance, (b) the function of the military, associated with the surveillance of the entrances to the lagoon from the sea (St. Andrew’s Castle), and (c) the public health function since, thanks to the lazarettos, the city was protected from the invading plague. The islands, because of their geographic position, served as a barrier, discovering this way their own meaning in the complex of duties belonging to an old maritime city. However, enemies no longer approach from the sea (the Italian army abandoned the islands completely in the 1970s), and there is no devastating plague to be controlled in the isolated zones, while the spiritual vocation is now very rare. Therefore, nowadays, paradoxically, the suspended situation of the Venetian islands—functions that do not exist anymore, and functions to be re-invented—underlines the uncertainty of a “desert” location in a dense society like ours. When I received the invitation to participate in a workshop on Youra island, in the Northern Sporades, I thought that the very idea of an island, before even considering its actual geographical location, (Adriatic, or Aegean, Sea), could represent a problem for contemporary culture, especially for anyone preoccupied with imagining non-invasive connections (i.e., not their being used again as sailing ports, heliports, hotels etc.) with modern society. If I had to recap the arising issues, I would summarize them in two concepts: the “island” concept, and the “connection” concept; some ideas emerge from both concepts that I hereby present. “Isolated” ideas, almost as if—as in the past, the geographic nature of the Venice islands was reflected in the dimension of their role— the image was reflected in a text made up of brief thoughts, maybe a little “fragmentary”, maybe its tone “disjointed” as well, depending on my mood at the moment I was arriving on the “island”, if I was in a philosophical or literary mood, or a sort of sociological one. I had no intention of any kind of “intention”, since the concept and the image of the island had encouraged vast production in every era, making it presumptuous to pretend to add something else, without, necessarily, saying something “trite”.(But what if that was the sign, the possible connection of the island as “common ground”?)
The meditation activity—a sort of basso continuo, that doesn’t stop, a delicate and never-ending grinding, a kind of tinnitus that is not in the ear, but is similar to the sort of murmuring one experiences when putting a shell to one’s ear—driven by the interaction of an external factor, by an opportunity presented, begins to unfold. The periplus of thinking around a certain thought defines a boundary upon which the endless activity of thinking smashes. Thinking “regarding a” removes thinking from its fluid condition. The activity of thinking and the expressed thought “regarding a”, are not the same thing. We think, for example, of the sea; a regarding thought smashes its fluidity and a form becomes evident: the “island” of thinking, surrounded by the endless action of thinking. Since thinking, as Heidegger had said, is thinking at “a thing”. What someone thinks about is where the whole idea of thinking becomes specific, and the marine fluidity concentrates on the solidity of the coast, but is also, what human beings use as a point for deliberating. Things to think about, thanks to an etymological dizziness (denken, Ding), becomes the place where (thing, in High German) people can meet. By isolating thought, it becomes a gathering place, the thought of the “object” one is about to discuss, deliberate and decide upon: res publica, towards that object, that belongs to nobody, that is ownerless, that is the marine condition of thought. The vague and marine fluidity of thought belongs to no one, is a res nullius (What is the relative law about the sea? Laws are valid only on the “island” of our thoughts; we can deliberate only regarding what we think about). But still, something about the original marine fluidity of thinking also remains for “localized”, for “insular” thought. There is no one and only thought, like there is no one and only “island”; something about the multiplicity of thinking remains in the particular singularity of the thought as well. The vague multiplicity (lack of ownership rights in thinking), pours into the multiplicity of thoughts, into their distinction (“islands” in the sea of thoughts), and into the individual opinion, on the different and specific points of view regarding things to think about. Thinking “regarding a”, makes a thought that is being increased even more dense, that is multiplying for those who are present. Every thought that renders denser the fluidity of thinking in the moment it is formed, underlined, “isolated”, is also a condition until a communication, a Mit-teilung, is possible, Mit-teilung, res publica. The “isolated” condition of thought is the place of communication and, therefore, granting, once again, an opening to a state in which many participate. But even as communication, thought is not just simply the act of thinking. The difference is not given by the “multiplicity”, but by the distinction. An “isolated” thought, is a distinct thought; thinking without edges, is an “indistinct”, a maritime, a very wide thought. The multiplicity of thinking is lacking in determinations, is fluid, without edges. It is a multiplicity without subjects; it is not a matter of the multiplicity of two or many, but of a multiplicity of something, which can neither be enumerated nor counted. The multiple condition of “isolated” thinking is different; around its edge, the marine vastity roars. The “isolated” thought, being the thought of a “thing” around which people gather or deliberate, is public. That means that in the single thought, in its distinction from the sea of the never-ending activities of thinking, the communication of others is already registered. Rights are valid only on the island, the ownership, the deliberate, the thinking: res publica’s plural condition (the two and the many). Only the “island” of thoughts permits the existence of human community. But if humanity doesn’t gather around, the “island” of thinking represents the sharpest of loneliness. If nobody is around the “thing’ of thinking, even the res publica—that is never a res nullius, sea of thinking, lacking of distinctions and of ownership—is only a no man’s land. From an island to another, from a thought to another: the sea of thinking is striated by routes to one more island, Ulysses’ final destination. His journey is the journey to the island of the common “thing”, the island of thought of a place that belongs to us, where law, ownership, deliberation, thought are valid. The islands that come before that island during the journey through the immeasurability of marine thinking are islands that do not fund communities: island/thoughts/solitude: Calypso from the shore looking at the vast sea.
During the exchanging of letters between Thomas Mann and Karoly Kereny, the latter in his letter of August 1, 1946, speaks of an “archipelagic harmony of insular voices”, as if this were an unfulfilled humanist potentiality, which unrealized brought about the “devouring loneliness of other great Germans: Hölderlin and Nietzsche”. In the Great Hungarian mythology scholar’s comments, a vast landscape opens up before us. But maybe we should rest for a while on the edge of this landscape, paying some attention to the first line of that letter, in the year 1946, and especially to the place where it was written: Tegna. Kereny, in his letter of February 22 of that same year, informs Mann, that he was married in Tegna: “situated at the mouth of the Centovalli, near Locarno”. Kereny is in Switzerland for some years now; Tegna is a very small village of Ticino, “near the studio a six-people rabble”. His two other daughters are in Hungary, and he has just received a letter from one of them, Grazia, confirming she was safe; she had survived a Nazi concentration camp, and was now in Budapest: “Here, it is unbelievable, a miracle, but Grazia is already at home” says Kereny to Mann, “…in a city—Budapest—very severely damaged from the winter difficulties and from famine”. In that same letter of 1946, Kereny recalls that the date he composed the preface for the initial part of their quoted letter exchange (September 8, 1944)—published in 1945 on the 70th anniversary of the writer’s birth, entitled “Romanedichtung und Mythologie”—“…the date of Grazia’s 19th birthday”. At that time, Grazia was in the Auschwitz concentration camp”. “My daughter”, says Kereny, explaining his joy regarding the unexpected event “sick, but on her own”, had arrived in Budapest, alone after taking leave of her Jewish comrades, who were helped “by the Hebrew community of Presburg”, going for a while with “six gypsies”. Gypsies: “Who doesn’t feel pity when thinking that gypsies had to be, and many of them were, exterminated, when we often talk about the “musicality” of the Germans?” The loneliness of his daughter in that difficult situation of her return home, reminds the humanist of his own loneliness. “There is a Jewish and a German community, a community of Swiss and of Mexican people. Is there a community of Humanists or Gypsies?”
There is, therefore, an even harsher condition than the one the Jewish people are in: “I perceive there something tragically symbolic: the destiny of those who are not even Jewish”.
To belong nowhere, to not even be a Jew, since this community has been oppressed even more than you could imagine; to be far from your own country, experiencing the cosmopolitanism of an intellectual who feels he is not fully accomplishing his duty to his own country, Hungary. That is why Kereny’s thought concerns the community of those who respond to a different order of belonging. His thoughts are thoughts motivated by what had just happened in Europe that time: what the “musical” German people had caused without reasoning is the stretched thread, the journey in the incommensurability of human thinking, which constitutes the significant evidence of the letters. The “devouring loneliness of Great Germans” becomes the warning sign that prepares for the disaster. Kereny sees in Goethe’s behaviour, in his coldness and incomprehension of the res publica doctorum virorum, behaviour that borders “between the demonic and the urbane” that marks “the humanism of court”, an example of which is Goethe’s blissful position in Weimar”.
The loneliness, the isolation of the Humanist, the sense of not even being Jewish, are due to an impossible relation with authority, or rather to the cost of sacrificium intellectus. The intellectual who intervenes “for humane reasons” in favour of the “persecuted and the oppressed”, remains alone, and that is a very harsh thing to say, “When wretched men of the past would like to change their salvation into power”.
Therefore, solidarity for solidarity, Humanism per se as the intellectual’s attitude that manifests his affection for the human being, as a prerequisite for being a Humanist, are in opposition to the changing of the character of the unfortunate, who, after avoiding misfortunes, transform their given salvation “into power”. Therefore, the humanist’s isolation (caused by the authorities, without distinguishing between “capitalists or communists”) as Kereny cites, is due to an impossible relationship with authority. When this relationship becomes possible, i.e., in the case of Goethe’s blissful position in Weimar, the intellectual is not able to feel any kind of “humanistic solidarity”. This lack of solidarity marks the intellectual’s behaviour, at the same time is demoniac and urbane (meaning the whole of polite manners, all the manners appropriate to behaving politely in society, the “appearance”, the façade of Humanism). This lack of solidarity, exemplified, according to Kereny, by “Goethe’s secret nature”, is what will be fatal “for the German spirit, or rather, for the whole of humanity”.
The points that Kereny examines, certainly not unknown to most European intellectuals, concern the relation between the humanists’ republic and the authority. Not any authority in particular, but authority per se, as if an ontological difference existed between humanism, solidarity (this latter a criterion that defines humanists), and authority in any possible form. The German disaster is a disaster that affects the role of the intellectual, if he can still be considered a “Humanist”. The devouring loneliness of Great Minds (Nietzsche, Hölderlin), is the loneliness of those who haven’t found the conditions (Goethe’s ambiguity, according to Kereny, is in the background there) for a different solution to the “influence” that an intellectual might have. An influence that obviously differs from impotence: for Kereny impotence could not be the intellectual’s answer to his lack of any relation with a “holder of authority”. Between power and impotence, for the learned, for the humanist, who is one since he is concerned with humanity, appears an utopian solution, that does not deny the singularity of individual thinking, by seeing and estimating the greatness around thinking of the “thing” in common: the participating condition of the res publica. That does not even assume any of the exclusive characteristics of the administrative power, but those of the res publica doctorum virorum: the archipelagic harmony of insular voices that forms the new condition of belonging for those who “…are not even Jewish”. In 1959, Kereny brings the letters, their number fixed “in an irrevocable way since 1955”, the year of the writer’s death, with him to the island of Andros. On the Greek island, he would, beyond all expectation, find the proof of his work on Hermes’ figure. On the island, during the 19th century, an important sculpture representing the Greek god had been found, and on the island, Kereny was noticing how “hermetical”-obscure worships could still survive. What is important here is that in his “Introductory Observations” in the edition of the second part of his complete correspondence, Kereny warmly remembers what finding “refuge and salvation in copying the letters…and in the possibility of continuing the dialogue” meant to him after the writer’s death. A dialogue that represented “…an island for me”. In the letters that Kereny and Mann had exchanged from distant places (Switzerland: Tegna, Ascona, the writer’s American exile in California) the island represents the dialogue. Kereny’s feeling the necessity to carry the letters with him on Andros may not be meaningless—for a European geography of the res publica doctorum virorum. The intellectual image of the island—representing the “archipelagic” discourse between intellectuals—is now a concrete island “a real, remote island” that may be the specific location where all his hypotheses on the existence of obscure worships could be proved, but Andros is also “a starting point for an evocative meditation of the relation those letters manifest”. A starting point, an evocation of the discourse between the insular voices “under the Greek sky”.
My starting point, in a much more prosaic way, was my brief cab journey from my place, to the “Marco Polo” airport. The taxi driver, whom I was meeting for the first time, lived in a village near Venice where I have also been living for about a year now. He knows lots of things, details about the historic buildings, what their role was, a role that nowadays has been lost, who occupied them. I hear him, early in the morning, a clear day in the beginning of summer. I listen to him and I feel a little surprised at the things he knows, that I myself do not know, because I do not, and I do not feel that I do, belong to this place. Belonging to this place, in the way the driver’s conversation clearly reveals, does not entail a period of time (a year or some, ten, twenty years…) but a condition of existence, more than of biography: to be born there, and to live there since for ever. Birth and continuity: that is what distinguishes being one of the inhabitants of the small village where I, too, now live. A belonging that becomes even more solid if our parents as well, our grand parents, and, even further back, our great-grand parents, and then our own children were born and grew up in the same place. This continuity extends, spanning more than one generation. Once, in the house of a friend who was living near Siegen, in the Ruhr district, I remember glancing through a big volume with a black cover containing the genealogy of German families; I thought it was an old book from the years of Nazism, used to define those who could be consider fully Aryan. It was not at all like that: the pages were dedicated to the country she was living in, her genealogy included her parents and in the last row under her father’s surname, the surname of the head of the family, there was her name, born in the early 1960s. I have not had any chance to see another book of that kind, even though I’ve been in Germany plenty of times; my wife is German, but her parents moved to Bavaria after escaping from what was, at the time, East Germany; they were certainly German—my father-in-law comes from a small village situated between the region of Berlin and Pomerania, my mother-in-law is from Schwerin, in the North, near the sea. They left before the construction of the wall, they had not only lost their family house, which was given to others, but their own roots as well, their contact with their birthplace. In that village of Bavaria, where they had settled, between Munich and Augsburg, the ancient roman August, they were new arrivals, even though they had built a house, and their children went to school there. There is no book to include them. Even their pronunciation betrayed them; despite her long stay in Bavaria, my mother-in-law spoke German without the typical south German speech roundings, which often make someone who has tried hard to learn the language, feel lost when trying to discern the precision grammar teaches. My mother-in-law still spoke, after twenty years in Oberbayern, a northern German, where the desinences are very clearly defined, not very “Bavarian-sounding”.
The language we use when we speak, reveals—before any sort of conversation—where we belong; the taxi-driver spoke, unequivocally, a dialect typical of the island of Venice, without pronouncing double consonants, a rough sing-song that distinguishes the dialect of the Venetian countryside from the one of the city. Is it possible to write rhymes in dialect? A rhetorical kind of question: obviously, yes it is. But does writing poems in dialect mean pointing out you belong to a place that can be identified from a geographical point of view as well as from an administrative one?
Or maybe the more local of languages, when written in verse, share, nowadays, an insular destiny? Biagio Marin (1891-1985) is the poet of the island of Grado, born when the (official) spoken language in that thin coastal strip between Friuli and Veneto was German. A place that remained a Habsburg territory till the end of World War I, with a really romantic name: Küstenland. Under the Nazi occupation, after the fall of Fascism, that name reappeared on maps. A name that no longer expressed any kind of romanticism, but the late harshness—fortunately brief—of a new kind of (official) German language invasion. Biagio Marin spoke German since he went to an Austrian high school in Gorizia, afterwards completing his studies in Vienna. But he did not serve under the two-headed eagle flag during the First World War. He deserted and became a soldier serving the Italian monarchy. His belonging to that region was not identified with the figures of civil and military authority and organisation of what was considered to be an (administrative) foreign invasion, and the language, even though he studied and loved it—the language of poets who had very much influenced him (Heine, Hölderlin)—was not his own language. But his language was not even that of the armed forces, which he, of his own free will, had decided to serve, nor was his language that of the even older invasion of the Doge of Venice: his, language was only that of his birth place, of the island of Grado in the Adriatic Sea, not far from Aquileia: a Venetian-Friulian dialect of a hundred or less words, as Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was also from Friuli, had remarked. Pasolini considered Marin’s poems to be the greatest verses written in an Italian dialect of the twentieth century, and that is why he included them in an important anthology of his. A hundred or less words composed Marin’s vocabulary, a distillation of the language spoken in a small fishermen’s village, with a fishermen-village landscape, composed of lagoons, a large sea and sky, “a sea that ends” as Gabriele D’Annunzio once said, shutting himself up in the wide gulf between Venice and Trieste, and inside that marine arch, the island of Grado, praised in many poems by its own particular poet. Biagio Marin did not leave the island of Grado; he passed away in 1985, very old, almost blind, but tenaciously bound to his rite of writing poems, one very similar to the other, like the trees in a forest; that is why it was impossible for him to put together a collection of the best ones. Thanks to Claudio Magris’ initiative, and a preface written by Pier Paolo Pasolini, a volume of his work was published, with a Nietzsche-type title in dialect, La vita xe fiama (Life is a flame), published by an important Italian publishing house (Einaudi Torino, 1970). But even for someone who never moved from his birthplace, for someone who incarnated language in its most delicate tone, there is no continuity; that calm, everyday belonging, that versesless belonging, the taxi driver who bought me to the airport had, does not exist. Even though Marin was a famous poet in Italian literature’s circles, he was an isolated man; the island was his own condition, he, just like the island, had no bond with existence anymore. To be able to compose verses in a language, even the most inward of languages, like the mother tongue of Grado, the language of the previous generations and of the neighbours, “Bisogna taiga le radise” (You have to cut off the bonds) and it’s an operation that “fa mal, mundi mal a tagiale” (hurts, hurts very badly when cutting). But only in this way is the language spoken in a place transformed into an “insular” language, made of crystals and purity: “Dal dolor me xe nati ‘sti cristali’’ (Those crystals are generated from my pain).
Somewhere there are some blessed isles, the gluckselige Inseln, about which Zarathustra speaks. These pages of Nietzsche exude an extreme, almost painful, sweetness, “It is autumn all around, the sky is clear and it is afternoon”. The landscape is where late summer fruits mature, the “tasty and sweet” figs that fall from the trees, and the light red peel bruises and permits us to see the mature pulp. Just like the air from the north that presages the arrival of autumn and causes figs to fall, in that same way Zarathustra centres around and lets fall, almost like mature figs, his teaching upon his friends who hear him. Another wind from north-east, in Hölderlin, was announcing the departure of sailors, and another fig tree, “Still well I remember this” (Noch denket das mir wohl), was growing in the yard, where “women go during festive days” (Im Hofe aber wächset ein Feigenbaum /Am Feiertagen gehn/Die braunen Frauen daselbst…”). In Rilke’s writings the autumn season marks the end of the “long summer” that his extreme legacy commands “the last fruits to be full” (Befiehl den letzten Früchten voll zu sein). The wind also blows in Rilke’s camps, summer already burned away. That same wind that made figs and the teachings of the wise fall upon the blessed isles and filled the navigators’ sails, since “in the sea richness starts” (Hölderlin). Literary images of the fullness of overwhelmed maturity, of abundance. And of detachment; maybe the most explicit conceptual passage is from Nietzsche: “Look at the fullness around us! It is nice looking at remote seas, from the abundance” (Überflusse).
From the blessed isles, one can look towards remote seas, towards that joining together of “the richness of the land and winged war” that distinguishes the trip toward remote shores in Hölderlin’s navigators. This condition, to turn one’s gaze towards infinity, beyond the defined edges of the land, once would be called “God”, but Zarathustra has taught us to say: Übermensch. What surprises is the relation between abundance (Überfluss) and the new dimension of human being, announced by Zarathustra: Übermensch. And their connection in an image about the island. Do we (always) depart from the islands “because” of their replete and perfect condition? Or, on the contrary— thinking about that boat of ours, that has moved away from the Volos shore—do we turn our eyes from the “continental” fullness towards the islands, the islands where there is nothing but the wind, the sea and maybe a rare animal? Is our tendency from continental density towards “insular” rarefaction a “superhuman” manifestation? Up to what point are we children of a technique that, beyond any sort of “humanistic” intention, we are unable to incarnate, almost as a destiny, the “superhuman” condition? I have taken some notes during the crossing from Volos to Youra island.
May 2005May 2005
“A round trip to the Sporades, the boat allows us to get together; it is the first concrete exchange of hypotheses on what to do, or even better on what to think. Some students of the faculty of Architecture are sitting around. I’ve talked about “forcing”, which I think was written about the thoughts on a project regarding a desert island. Maybe there is no thought at all to express, but only the acceptance of what Youra actually is: an island that has been placed under protective measures, restrictive measures, since two extremely rare animal species live in its environment (the Monk seal / monachus-monachus, and a category of wild goat, called Kri-kri). The island of Youra belongs to a marine national park. A fact that resolves the matter about what the island is, and what its administrative identity and role in the contemporary world are. Between our presence around this table and the administrative identity of the island, there is an “empty space” to fill in. This starting condition imposes some limits, and only if we manage to overcome them, will we, maybe, be able to fill in the “gap”. We are searching, just like this boat between the islands and the shore, for a neutral path that will maintain equal distances from the given conditions. A desert island, a modern administrative role. What I think will be fruitful is the idea of enforcing those limits.
What is the created distance between the obscurity of a rock and the legislation in force? The island is not a “desert”. It is a microcosm of visual languages. As if we could encounter that complexity, which De Certeau perceives in common speech in common action as well, which is always an action related to “taking place” (I look at a young girl moving some rocks; around her are only some bushes, some stones and pebbles that emerge from the ground; she tidies up the rocks, rearranges them. In this way, she occupies a time and place).
Taking place defines a discontinuity in connection with the surroundings. Taking place is like “nominating” your own existence.
The net of fencing that surrounds some small buildings; the net of fencing (archetype of every frame), the decorative and apotropaic function of the goat-heads positioned by the entrances. Inside the enclosure: the small church, the custodian’s house, the vegetable garden (a cultivated garden), the grapes, the fig trees, a flower here and there in the small flowerbed, the flag pole with the Greek flag. Roles with strictly intersected symbolic aspects. An eventual work on the primary structures (functional / symbolic) taking place? (And the solar water heaters that appear on some roofs?)
I followed the group as it explored the island, a limited exploration of the areas that could be reached through small paths usually used by some custodians who take turns periodically, without remaining permanently, on the island. Some minutes before getting to the boat, anchored on the rocky shore, I left the group for a bit. I sat down on a rock close to the sea; I did not know, I learned later, that the light blue mass barely visible on the horizon was Mount Athos. I took some notes on slips of paper, receipts that I keep saving, in case they’re needed, in my wallet. I will also write down, those last scribbled notes. “Severance? Isolated island? Only calm silence, not even that since I can hear the wind—light, in brief intermittent gusts; I can hear the waves breaking, but without any trace of violence. It is rather a vast murmur. And the smell of wild plants. It is not true that nature says nothing to me. Or rather, it is true: nature says nothing to me. I am not good at describing this very vast existence. The sun heats the rocks, the plants, me. Nothing remains, nothing that could possibly be taken away”.
“A fullness that dazes, that inebriates. Chasing it with words means getting even drunker. Losing this state of being…there are other states of existence apart from the word. Yes, ‘here and now’. But there is little to say, for me to say, with respect to the vastness before and all around me.”
Built Event is a series of projects that try to conceive an event through its archived material. A living archeology of insignificant places is prepared while a Built Event is performed: the Built Event finds are recorded material from the works and the results of the works themselves.
The term “κτιστό συμβάν” (ktisto symban = “built event”) was used in order to describe the particular area we locate between a procedure and the procedure’s traces: a built procedure (a theatrical preparation of it), a work of tracing, and the procedure’s resultant traces were considered as equally important parts of the same theatrical approach to ‘insignificant places’. Undefined, abandoned, forbidden places are the most promising places for Built Event’s “accurate”, “scientific” performances. The contributions of each participant are proposed as alternative views of these places, as constructed definitions of the insignificant spots. One may call the selected insignificant places ‘places with no evident definition’. The participation of the invited people consisted in attending a theatrical duration of uneasiness on the spot, on the undefined places themselves, ‘in situ’. The collection of designed results was a collection of different particular places coming out from the same one, in a specific moment. Theatricality in the ‘built event’ projects is conceived as a recording of the specific uneasiness of different way of representing the “same place” in a decisive way that leaves traces. The ‘built event’ projects are abundantly filmed, photographed and otherwise recorded; the remains and the results of the “in situ” works are gathered carefully too.
The workshops are organized by the initiators, the invited people and the participants in the form of a congregation or a provisory school where the people invited interpreted the uneasy condition of a particular place. The congregation of people (initiators, invitees and participants) is committed to give a ‘definitized’ response to this place following their particular way of focusing on it. This focusing, the responses and the traces of the entire procedure, formed a theatrical play that actually constitutes the sum of the work. Every participant deposits his own definition of the selected insignificant place through personal involvement and vision. The deposited constructs derive from people of different disciplines (architects, theorists, historians, curators, philosophers, film directors, mathematicians, literature scholars, artists...) These were presented in various forms and media: architectural designs, processed images, texts, but also talks and recordings, each one in its own set terms. The ‘built event’ works were done in the background of a self recording and vice versa.
The procedure itself is a response to the particularities of the place selected.
The selection of place is neither arbitrary nor the outcome of an analysis: The search for a bridge could not anticipate that two of them could be the final focus at once. In the case of “2 bridges_bulitEvent 2” it happened that two parallel bridges over Tavronitis River were found. The Tavronitis site thus became more important than initially expected after the search principles. This happened also in the Island_builtEvent 1 case and in the following works: the terms under which the place had been searched were abandoned as soon as the place had been found. Then the place constituted the only starting point, setting the persistence of a conceptual theme. The place in its “built event” version is never simply “in itself”. This premise creates a difference in the architecture of any place. It makes a difference in the concept of place in politics too. The very “presence” of the place denies its own metaphysical conception. Presence seemed to be organized (in the ‘built event’s structure) as a heterogeneous accumulation of constructs, with no articulations. The place itself acted as the binding of these accumulated concepts, as is also the case with the pages of a book. The place was defined through this possibility of concurrent maintenance of different versions: it is rechargeable. The place, in its Built Event version, is an active archive.
‘Built event’ came out of this architectonic investigation that began to focus on specific insignificant places. Furthermore, “built event” is conceived as a way of defining places through ‘in situ’ meetings of people and the collection of the material they have contributed. By conception, this “built event” procedure produced works that installed a singular relation between the selected places, their ‘conceptual constitution”, their common witnessing by the group of invitees, and the collection of the visit’s remains in the form of a book. The “built event” strategy was aiming at proposing a particular curatorial work, focused on a concrete locus. The selective editing of meetings and remains created an intended inversion: Focusing on a particular place was finally conceived as a cloud of different approaches to something missing: the place; the focused place, through this focusing, appeared blurred again, lost in an archipelago of isolated approaches. The forbidden and isolated island is an archipelago itself, it resists to be conceived as a single unit. The Built Event works are purposefully exercises of conceptual dispersal, while their target appeared to be a blown-up concretization. The very act of focusing creates an intended dispersal of meaning.
A ‘built event’ repeats a specific procedure; it follows a pseudo-methodology. A ‘built event’ work consists of the following steps:
1. Selection of a place
2. Naming of the work
3. Invitation of people - selection of working team
4. Call for works that define the selected place through construction
5. In situ visits
6. In situ workshop
7. Collection of the visits’ and workshop’s traces
8. Construction of the traces book.
Its series of works ends up with a real result formed as an open bounded book. The book is bound with screws; it can be opened, be recharged and re-bound. The works’ deployment consists in the collection of the pages that form this book. The collection of pages is done through a process of direction that involves a place and a group of people. The theatrical act in ‘built event’ works was a work by itself. This ‘built event’ theatrical experience constituted an approach to a place-under-construction.
[ Aristide Antonas ]
The events concern, or rather could take place in one, or two, or even more <
BUILT EVENT X is organized as follows:
1. The performative text is composed, describing the whole of the micro- or mega-events or performative paths that will constitute the project BUILT EVENT X, the specific locations or itineraries, and the specific moments the micro- or mega-events will take place, as well as the performative paths.
2. The text is sent to architects, artists (visual artists), philosophers, anthropologists, people belonging to the film, theater, and music world, as well as to people, in Greece and abroad, whose specializations are linked to subject X, who will be invited to participate in the process of creating BUILT EVENT X.
3. Construction begins from the moment the performative text is sent and remains permanently open, regardless of the fact that the submission of participant works constitutes a <
4. A large screw-bound notebook (usually 50x70 cm in dimension) is created, which will open and close to receive the material participants provide for the events or the initiatory paths. During its construction period, the project will have its own open website, presented as a file where participants may constantly and freely enter material. This website will also provide information on all events. The project BUILT EVENT X creates an open access procedure to object X, which produces the works. The works are produced as possibilities and probabilities, as well as responses to the difficulties in approaching the object. They consist of texts, proposals and constructions, material or <
5. The process of compiling the events and initiatory paths from participants at specific locations and itineraries in an extended time period with, however, a fixed duration, may contain an analogical <
One such general functional compilation [(f(x) = y] of the project could constitute a eidos (form) of <
[ The compilation of the text took into consideration, among others, the works of: A. Badiou (L' être et l' événement), P. Ricoeur (The rule of metaphor), J. Derrida (Signature, Event, Context), Deleuze (The Fold), E. Grosz (Chaos,Territory, Art: Deleuze and the framing of Earth), M. Perloff (Radical Artifice). ]
The Built Event in the project: ISLAND_ BUILT EVENT I
In the post-digital age, one can perceive a sort of resistance and lack in the semantic and material function of location. On the one hand, the physical location as the recipient of events (speech and construction) continues to resist its elimination by the immaterial website. On the other hand, the website bestows universal scope to local incidents, despite the fact that it is often characterized by the lack of an apodictic reduction of local events (speech and construction) to events with a general power.
The selection of an uninhabited location, an island, as the most extreme version of obscurity, prohibition, and forgetfulness, encompasses the expectation that it would lead to an experimental treatment of this resistance and lack. Such a treatment might take place by suspending the identity of the location, as well as by searching for the generalization of this suspension, based on the intentional formulation of chance <
Therefore, on the borderline of momentary memory and the oblivion of the mythological, historical, and recent events on the island of Youra (Cyclops’ cave, the destruction of the monastery, ecological protection and wild goat hunting, immigrants shipwrecked in December 2001), there develops a platform of “poetic” creation with the project: BUILT EVENT, first approach: the suspension of identity.
It is on this platform that the project BUILT EVENT takes place. It is a live construct of events and initiatory paths. It has a beginning and an end that flank a live, non-representational procedure, which, nevertheless, is distinguished by an imitative character, in line with the Aristotelian concept, i.e., a poetic mimesis of the eidos (form) of events rather than their representational images.
This procedure begins at the very moment the e-mail with the construction text of the project ISLAND BUILT EVENT 1 goes out, while the text itself is simultaneously posted in the Architecture Department of the University of Thessaly.
The initiatory process has various parallel levels—there could be more or less—of consecutive live events. These themselves have a parallel chronological succession, yet their structural interiors are linked creating the narrative plot of the project: ISLAND BUILT EVENT 1.
The first level of events takes place every Tuesday in the Architecture Department of the University of Thessaly, where specialists are invited to present thematic units on occurrences the mnemonic space of the island already contains ( shipwrecked migrants, shipwrecks in general, marine parks, political exiles).
The second consists of a presentation, every Tuesday, of speeches and constructions by students taking part in the project, which also incorporates instruction.
The third level of events takes place, approximately every fifteen days (on Wednesday afternoons) and consists of Theoretical explorations: Art—orality—technologies—communications, philosophical thought on the concept of the island, architecture—cinema—travel.
The fourth level contains initiatory voyages (performative paths) to the islands of Trikeri (where women were exiled during the Greek Civil War) and Youra:
First voyage to Youra (A. Antonas, F. Oraiopoulos) via passenger ship and chartered boat,
first voyage (performative path) to Trikeri Island (T. Sakellaropoulos, A. Antonas, F. Oraiopoulos, University of Thessaly architecture students), via coach and chartered boat,
second voyage (performative path) to Youra (A. Antonas, F. Oreopoulos, University of Thessaly architecture students), via passenger ship and two boats,
third voyage (performative path) with guests (Greek and foreign employing multiple approaches—philosophy, science, architecture, art), students from various Schools (Patras, Athens, Volos) on the chartered vessel ODYSSEΥ.
The third trip to Youra includes speeches and discussions, an exchange of views, and constructions.
One last journey (performative path) may take place to present, as a type of gift to the Island, constructions and activities.
The construction of events may continue randomly and unexpectedly up to the last voyage marking the approximate end of the project.
Every event consists of a set of micro-events, with a structural, unstable, incomplete and initiatory character, as a sort of platform, or possible requirements-conditions, whose goal is to set in motion intentional formulations of new speeches and constructions after a direct and live contact with the location itself, whenever possible.
The structure of the above events appears to have an analogical relationship (similarities and differences) to the structure of theatrical activities. The built event lacks the enactive narrative of the text and roles, since each individual presents his personal action and viewpoint at the moment he realizes it for one single time only.
If all these events are created by the presence of specific individuals aiming to formulate speeches and constructions for the suspended identity of the island—something that aspires to approach a type of ontology of the specific location—one must add here the speeches and constructions of all those who did not experience the location directly, as well as the absent speeches and constructions of all those who were invited and were unable to respond, as well as those of all potential absentees during the construction of the suspended identity of Youra Island. However, the latter will never occur, and thus the identity of Youra Island will be permanently suspended. Nevertheless, the project ISLAND _ BUILT EVENT of Youra is contributing to an alteration of its suspended identity. The question is in what direction and to what hidden depths? One possible answer would be to describe—as much as possible—its plot, down to the slightest common trace that may link the internal structure of the events that constructed this type of project with speeches and constructions. In a project of this eidos (form), the production of speeches and constructions, and their organization, in the form of an exhibition and a book, cannot but constitute a type of residue, which will remain from the actual initiatory production procedures of the events.
[ Filippos Oraiopoulos ]
A land can be a desert land, but this is metaphor. An island can be a desert island, but this is literal. And here is a proposition which will doubtless sound strange: an island can be many things, but first and foremost it is a construction of language. As soon as someone mentions Makronisos or Gioura they have, at their immediate disposal, in the universe of the Greek language a source of countless narratives, real and imaginary. The same applies as soon as Mykonos is mentioned. And in these islands, in these Aegean islands, pain and pleasure already play their own song. In other words, an island is a literal concept bursting out into numberless metaphors. Perhaps literature has recognized this, has occupied and has exploited the island as its own particular territory, as its own particular world. From this standpoint, it can be no coincidence that on most of Jules Verne’s islands there is a volcano, which is expected to erupt at the right moment, at the end of the book, causing the island to vanish off the face of the earth. Obviously because the island must disappear after completing its specific literary mission. As an abstract literary concept, however, the island remains, voyaging from book to book, a vessel ready to carry new images, in new stories, the stories always the same as the old ones, but without being like them in any way, since the island in which they unravel is different every time, yet still the same. The island poses, in its own way, the philosophical question of sameness and difference.
Daniel Defoe wrote in the 17th century of the adventures of Robinson Crusoe. A lone shipwrecked sailor, with all the accumulated experience of the civilisation he carries, will construct the world from start. In the second half of the 19th century, Verne wrote The Mysterious Island. In this story, a group of people will dominate nature thanks to the inventiveness of an engineer and indefatigable work by the whole group, to eventually discover the chief engineer, who gives the meaning to the island, and solves the mystery which surrounds it. In the former book, Robinson is the hero. In the latter, the protagonist is the island itself, which, however, finds meaning in the one, in the subject which it is hiding in its bowels. In the title of his book, Verne defined once and for all the predestination of the island: mystery.
The second thing which needs to be recognized in order to explain the symbolic burden of the island is just as simple as the first – if not simpler; the island is a place with borders, but without frontiers. The difference is not without significance. Indeed, while frontiers are the work of civilisations - I would also say of politics – borders are more a work of nature. In other words a more complicated reality. When and how can we speak of borders? Do they define themselves? If not, who defines them? This, apart from anything else, is a philosophical problem. For Aristotle, for example, borders are defined by the shape which surrounds the contents. For the Stoics, however, this definition is inadequate because it only applies to static entities. If the entity is dynamic, how do we define the borders? From this standpoint, how are the borders of a forest determined? If we do not limit it, or it is not limited by nature, a forest is able to take over the whole earth. From the moment that an island has borders without having frontiers, it somehow resembles the Universe, which has borders, yet has no end. The island is a miniature Universe. Perhaps this is the reason why the island is a whole world in itself. This very island, that is the Universe, is what Pascal believed to be our prison. Besides, Utopias – without exception, I think – are islands: worlds of their own, exemplary worlds for our own world.
In The Children of Captain Grant there is an impressive passage in which Verne combines praise of the sea with the literary and ambivalent character of the island. The weather is good and lends itself to conversation on the elegant pleasure yacht Duncan, as it voyages in search of Captain Grant. The words are those of the geographer Paganel:
‘The sea! The sea’ repeated Paganel, ‘is the particular field in which the powers of humankind are put to the test, and the ship is the real vehicle of civilization! Only think, my friends. If the earth were only one great continent, we would not know even a thousandth part of it in the 19th century[…] A thousand miles of desert divide people more thoroughly than five hundred miles of ocean. We are neighbours across one coast to another, but strangers when a forest divides us! England touches Australia, while Egypt, for example, seems a million miles from Senegal, and Peking at the further antipodes from St Petersburg!’
During the conversation the subject shifts to the subject of islands, following the unexpected enquiry of Lady Helen, who wonders whether there are still any Robinsons ‘Take my word for it, madam’ replies the geographer, ‘I know few islands which have not had an adventure of that kind, and whose destiny has not already been realised even before the novel of your immortal compatriot, Daniel Defoe’
The geographer himself will be called to take responsibility for his own island, simultaneously a work of art and of luck. ‘Would the idea of being stranded on a desert island make you very afraid?’ the young Mary Grant asked him. Paganel replies that he would not find the experience very unpleasant, ‘I would begin a new life. I would hunt, I would fish, I would make my home in a cave in the in the winter, and in a tree in the summer. I would make a colony of my island’. ‘All by yourself? the girl continues to question him.
‘By myself if necessary’, replies the geographer, dangerously succumbing to the charm of romantic fiction. ‘Besides, are we ever alone in this world? Can’t we find friends among the animals, tame a little goat, an eloquent parrot, a friendly monkey? And if fate should send us a companion like the loyal Friday, what more would we need to be happy? Two friends together on a rock! That is happiness!’
But as soon as the idea of Happiness comes up, at that crucial point when literature threatens society, the conversation takes a serious turn, and Lady Helen’s practical words intervene, to bring matters back to earth ‘Dear Monsieur Paganel, you are letting your imagination run away with you. It is my belief that reality is very different from dreams. You are thinking only of those fictional Robinsons, who have been placed with care on a well-chosen island, and who Nature treats like pampered children. You only see the good side of things!’ ‘But madam,’ replies Paganel. ‘Do you not believe that someone could be happy on a desert island?’ Lady Helen’s final answer reconciles society with literature, on condition that the latter will serve the former:
‘I don’t believe it. Human beings are made for society, not for solitude. Loneliness can only breed despair. It’s a matter of time. Perhaps at first the difficulties of material existence and the necessities of life may distract the unfortunate creature who has just been saved from the waves; perhaps present necessities will conceal future threats. Perhaps. But later, when he feels alone, far from his fellow-creatures, hopeless of ever seeing his native land and the people he loves ever again, I wonder what he will think, and how much he will suffer. His little island is his entire world. The whole of humankind is contained within himself. And when death comes, so dreadful in that solitude, he will be like the last man on the last day of the world. Believe me, Monsieur Paganel, no-one would want to be that man.
Yes, as everyone knows,
[ H. Melville, Moby Dick ]
I. The Island Entitled Rationality
Greek philosophy, according to Nietzsche in Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, appears to begin with an idiosyncratic idea of Thales of Miletus: the belief that water is the origin, the wellspring of all things. As far back as the Iliad, Oceanus, the river god, is the source of the gods, the begetter of all.
We, of course, have learned, in the meantime, that in history there are no beginnings, only their naming, and that names are not the essence of things, but their transference into another tongue. Thus, the only thing we can claim—and even this we will name—is that in the beginning is the unnamed, the undifferentiated, and that this is what we subsequently call disorder, chaos, diaspora. Therefore, chaos did not exist first to be followed by order, but rather both eternally alternating. Whoever says that in the beginning was water, the sea, the ocean, already introduces a differentiation into the multiplicity, and reduces it to the One. Hegel’s claim that Logos is what is real is an immeasurable violation of reality. When he, himself, asserts that Odysseus’ periplus in the Greek sea is myth rather than logos, then the philosopher desires control over the multiple and his knowledge provides him with it. Power, always had an interest in persuading us that everything is rational. That in the beginning was the Logos, the Word, the whole, the One, and that there is One truth.
It appears that the hypothesis of an originating ambiguity, diaspora, or multiplicity functions better as a productive fantasy to construct unity and the One. Rational thought has had many such constructs (polis, civitas, state, and recently, global village) in the past and the history of these well-ordered systems seems today like a configuration of islands in an endless sea. The order in which we live is probably an exception, and from a logical perspective, failed efforts are the rule. A wise man should, therefore, in the history of these constructs of rationality, include the shipwrecks that cast their shadow upon them.
Where disorder is the rule, it is order that is rare, improbable. The rationality that animates man is nothing more than the edge of a nebula, the pull of a whirlpool, a fold of chaos. Ultimately, science is always, in spite of Aristotle, knowledge of the occurrence, the improbable, the exception. It is—in the terminology of the conference—island knowledge, sporadic. However, even the true archetypes of nature have an island character and can a fortiori be born of a vortex, a tempest, a furtuna (fortune), as well as of the chance events that constitute their foundations, rather than from Platonic ideas. Rational logos is an Archi-pelago: islets of emerging negative entropy in a sea of uncertainty and indetermination.
The miracle of rational thought makes its historical appearance for the first time in the form of the Greek Archi-pelago, thus, at the same time, referring to its sporadic structure. The form (Olympian gods, geometry, polis, oikos) is the improbable, the miracle in relation to the terrifying Dionysian foundation that inundates, again and again, like an ocean hurricane, every differentiation and individualization. Disorder is always on the verge of order; the storm can erupt at any moment and envelop the island. In any case, the sea erodes the island little by little, and anything old upon it as well. Who, however, knows exactly what is happening on the borders between earth and sea, order and disorder, noise and information, meaning and metaphor? We have no information regarding the sea and the dangers that threaten the island. The discussional is surrounded by the cloud of the irrational. Nevertheless, philosophy almost always oversees the island’s peaks, and more rarely its verge, where the boom of the sea disrupts the logos’ articulation.
II. The Emergence of the Archi-pelago
When the poet Friedrich Hölderlin turns his gaze to the land of Hyperion and Diotima, he will not just face the One, a mountainous and diverse peninsula. He will see the multiple, the Archipelago. Having abandoned Hegelian philosophy’s all-encompassing gaze, the poet will embark upon the vessel of poetry to sail to his beloved islands, where, sporadically, Western logos emerged out of the Dionysian Sturm-und-Drang. And as the ancient Greeks asserted that their concern was the salvation of phenomena, so too will the poet of the North-western current salvage the islands of the Archi-pelago from the shipwreck of historical lethe and will gather them into his poetic speech. The enumeration of the names will permit them to reappear through the surrounding noise of the sea.
None of your islands, your flowering islands, have yet been lost
Crete stands, and Salamis flourishes in the dull gleam of the laurel,
And at the hour of dawn, crowned with a shining wreath
Delos lifts her eager head, and Tenos and Chios
Have sufficient purple fruits, while from the drunken hills
The Cypriot wine wells up, and from Calabria
Just as before, silver streams flow to the father’s waters.
They all still live, the heroes’ mothers, the islands,
Flowering from year to year, and when some moments, from the abyss,
Abandoned, the flame of night, the subterranean storm,
Fell upon one of your beloved ones, and she would fall near death into your arms,
Oh divine one! You endured this, because above your dark
Depths many rose and then were lost.
Among them we also find the most beautiful island, Athens, the glorious city, since in the Archi-pelago’s cities the tumult of the sea is permanent. The sea swells do not stop at the coastline; they penetrate and mingle with the voices in the market. They infect the habits of land-dwellers and overturn the Law of the Earth. The disorder of the sea penetrates the order of the island, just like the island, in its turn, is born mid-sea.
Naturally, the Mediterranean, as the word explicitly reveals, alludes to its land and continental boundaries. It is not an ocean yet. This sea is not abstractly divided from the land. Both elements challenge and yearn for each other. The Archi-pelago is the location of a relationship, a place of discussions and disagreements among its numerous islands, its different individualities-rationalities. It is the unspoken means that divides and unites, and as such it escapes our notice.
Nevertheless, it has a direction, a destination, a destiny that guides it, according to G. Benn towards the darkness of the North, to the land of fog and obscurity. A hidden current sweeps it West and North, towards Nowhere, towards Utopia, transforming the Archi-pelago into a mapped body, a pass or footpath to new conquests, new Laws.
However, before being transformed into a non-place, the island remains a place of hospitality that does not reject the Other or the Multiple. Here, in the Archi-pelago, wandering from island to island has not yet become a method, it follows no plan. The Pelasgian Odysseus is still capable of encountering the multiple, he is curious about the multiple, but he is not a wise man, because he simply suffers from it without analytically and systematically investigating it. However, the wise man, who cultivates memory, investigates the multiple and seeks the common cause, the Heracleitian Xynon (common principle). He speculates regarding the common ancestry of all these islands of Homer’s white Aegean, the unspoken element that transforms multiplicity and diaspora into the unity of the Archipelago. Unspoken, because the truth of the Archi-pelago is nothing other than the journey towards unity, the voyage to the Logos common to all. Let us remember that logos in Ancient Greek signifies the relation between one and many, between fragment and unity, oikos and polis, an incorporation into a communication network, determining the differences and seeking the whole, communication amongst the various. No island is capable of expressing the logos of the Archi-pelago on its own. No separate individuality is capable of undertaking it without committing hubris, disrupting the dialogue. As the missing homeland, the center is everywhere, pushing each island individuality to surpass itself. Naturally, the lack of a center produces the utopia of the Islands of the Blest (Plato, The Republic, VII.b), the danger of yearning for the One, the perfect Republic, which oppresses the multiple. The wise man will recognize in the loss of place, the common destiny and the direction of modern Europe, which is moving in stops and starts from Pelasgian wandering to the discovery of open and “free seas” up to today’s adventure of the globalized “free market”.
The Greek Archi-pelago emerges bearing a double danger right from the beginning: one the one hand, of being assimilated into a hierarchically organized domain (dominated by the “cold monster” Leviathan, the law of the city), on the other hand, of being dispersed into inhospitable individualities, incapable of communicating amongst themselves (dominated here by the powers of the earth, the oikos, Behemoth).
Viewed through a mythical image of the Old Testament (Book of Job), the history of the cosmos appears as a constant battle between the powers of the sea, of Leviathan, and the powers of the earth, of Behemoth. These powers appear to have periodically balanced during antiquity, forming the Mediterranean Archi-pelago. This space was dominated for a time by a community of island-cities constantly sailing towards and against each other on a voyage whose purpose was a common logos. The state-island exists, naturally, as a divided whole, among the powers that consider the oikos their root, and those who praise the strength of their ships, among those who fear the divinity of the waves, and the others who seek to transform the sea into a footpath, a road. However, the thalassocratic hubris (mutiny, war), is still contained by the natural boundary, which stands in the way of its acquiring the abstract form of a single planetary space. It is also curbed by the moral law found inscribed on the pediment of the temple common to all the islands and cities of the archipelago, which calls upon each island individuality to self-awareness and self-restriction. Know thyself along with nothing in excess define a boundary, simultaneously aesthetic and moral: liberate yourself from the Infinite, develop your individuality, placing it on a foundation based on logos as a relationship, as the arduous task of harmonizing different wills for power. The moral law of the Archi-pelago calls upon each island individuality to recognize within itself the multiple and not to be taken in by the hubris of the Absolute (Isle of Truth). Hence, the externality of the Archi-pelago is internal and enduring in each particular island. It is an internal sea with a Mediterranean image.
This double danger referred to previously, also exists in the Archi-pelago, it is already recorded in its ancestry and is expressed in the desire of each island-polis to exhaust all the possibilities of roaming eros, which has always driven the island soul to open waters. However, the Mediterranean’s Open and Out are simply one fold in the level of endurance we call the Archi-pelago. The wandering Odysseus, and Aeneas later, and Dante’s Odysseus as well, are not completely cut off from land. Not one of them considers the ship his oikos. The island has not yet been transformed into a vessel completely uprooted from land. The Island exists only in relation to the Archi-pelago.
III The Absolute Island as the New Holy Land
The separation between stable Land and free Sea marked the very beginning of the valid, until recently, European Public Law, which was to be overtaken by International Law in the 20th century.
The origin of the transcendent dimension that will proclaim the planet Earth to be the field of missions where difference will no longer take the forms of hosts (hospites) and guest (hospis), friend and stranger, refugee and asylum giver, as well as friend and enemy, derives from a momentous occasion, which took place in the form of the modern dialectic of Earth and Sea: the arrival of the wandering Odysseus in the Utopia of the New World, the Renaissance island, the New Atlantis.
For the first time in the history of mankind, during the 16th and 17th centuries, the “era of the great discoveries”, the contrast Land—Sea is assumed to be the foundation of a new global law of nations. We are no longer dealing with the enclosed Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea or the Northern Ocean, but with the planet Earth and its Oceans. The British Isles were the first European country to dare to surmount the territorial and land-bound conscience, which ultimately reigned over every island or city-port up to the Middle Ages, deciding to define itself anew as a purely maritime organism. At the same time, this event constituted a fundamental change in the historical and political essence of the island concept. One now viewed only the Land from the sea as an inland, and an island will no longer be a piece of land detached from the continental whole, as the historian Arnold Toynbee asserted, but an element of the sea, similar to a fish or a ship. Edmund Burke characteristically said that Spain was nothing more than a whale stranded upon the coast of Europe. According to Jules Verne, a landsman views a ship as a piece of land, or a version of his home, floating upon the sea; the political thinker refers to a “floating piece of the territory of the state”. A warship appears to us as a floating fortress, and the British Isles as a castle demarcated by the sea, taking the place of a moat. For the maritime being however, all these are metaphors that have sprung from the imagination of a landsman’s brain. Benjamin Disraeli, the great politician and writer of the Victorian Age, grasping the historic change that ensued from Britain’s decision to respond to the call of the open seas, would say that the British Isles were no longer a part of Europe, and that Great Britain was more an Asiatic power than a European.
Leviathan, the great whale was on the move and was ready to seek other oceans, other countries. The British Isles ceased to view themselves under the terms of land law, and redefined themselves under new terms, such as those dealing with a base location and communication lines.
Suddenly, the sea was transformed from a domain of freedom into a footpath or road. The port, portus, ceased being an entry way into the oikos, and became the starting point of journeys headed towards the ocean’s far horizon. With the uprooting of the British Isles, and their transformation into a ship or into the changing center of a far-flung Kingdom, scattered along the entire length and breadth of the globe, Land Law lost its protective force for ever. The boundaries between place and law, state and individual, public and private, as well as between war and peace, or war and piracy began to waver.
The land is clear delimited by state borders. It is fully mapped and permits rational divisions. The sea, however, knows no other borders other than the coastlines. It is open to fishing, to trade, and to war as well. On the sea there are no holy places, no property, nor any justice other than the most uncompromising positive law. The sea contains an irrational or anarchical element, something “beyond good and evil”, which renders it unacceptable from the viewpoint of land Law. Already in John’s Revelation, we read that on an earth purified of sin, the heavenly Jerusalem, there will no longer be any sea: “And there was no more sea” (21.1). Additionally, Fernand Braudel, the historian of the Mediterranean, took this opportunity to remind us of a Turkish proverb: “Allah gave the land to the Muslims and the sea to the Unbelievers”. All this demonstrates that the sea was one form of the externality and shift of every law based on nature, i.e., on the natural conditions of life. The order, which exists in its domain, is purely sporadic, conventional, technical, and the unsubstantiated decision. This may be the reason why on ships, these new floating islands, the most ironclad law applies, in order to counterbalance internally what is missing on the open sea.
In the New Era, the island became the carrier of the territorial change for a new Law of Land and Sea, and the condition for the transition to the total displacement (Ent-ortung) modern technology contributes to. The redefinition of territory is now announced through a new word, which could have only been born then in England, and would subsequently transform into the emblem of an entire era: the Greek word Utopia. In Thomas More’s book (Concerning the highest state of the republic and the new island Utopia; 1516), which does not deal with the great questions of the time regarding the global character of the new seas and the freedom upon them, one, nevertheless, discerns for the first time the potential for a complete retraction of the places upon which all land laws had been founded in the past. For the wandering citizen of the Mediterranean, such a thing would be unthinkable. Because the idea of a global order did not exist in antiquity. In the Archi-pelago, each island perceived itself as the world, the oikos, and viewed everything outside itself either as something unimportant, or as something threatening or chaotic, which would have to be accepted as fate, or simply as prey it could seize.
Utopia does not simply signify a Nowhere, No Place (or Samuel Butler’s Erewhon ), but the non-place in the sense of eu-topia in relation to which a-topia would comprise an even greater denial of place. The step that will lead, subsequently, during the 19th century, to the retraction of the maritime being and its transition to the industrial being, had already been decreed through this word, which began to cast its shadow upon a future gradually developing into the single “global village” of economy and skill. The great fish Leviathan will be transformed into a machine and later into an iron bird. Its domain now appears to have no end.
At the same time, Utopia is a reckless ship, ready for adventure at any moment, a stable Island, an Island embraced by the sea, and at the same time secure land, or more correctly: a new Holy Land. However, the Island of Utopia—just like rational thought—will succeed in become richer and stronger, only if it succeeds in controlling whatever surrounded it. And since New Atlantis’ truth is ecumenical, it would have to dominate everywhere. Its purpose is for the entire planet to become an Island, in the image of Bensalem in Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (1627). The story of the perfect state, the story of the ideal State will be identified with the more and more complete internalization of organization and with a technical and scientific design that peaks when surpassing every multiplicity, every difference.
Here, on the new utopian island, an attempt is being made at reconciling knowledge (technology) and authority. In the Utopia of the depoliticized state, dominated by the ideal of a policy limited to administrative-procedural calculations, the image of the mortal-artificial god is born. Total control over nature, rather than the creation of “neo-natures” in the laboratories of the utopian island, constitutes part of the scientific plan, which is a replica of the divine work and no longer a Promethean stance.
The citizens of Utopia, while they have abandoned every concept of oikos, indubitably believe they have found their true homeland. Oikos and city, city and island, island and ship are fully equated here. Their Island constitutes an image of the One, towards which all the voyages attempted by the other islands of the new archipelago, the Ocean, head for. Absolute uniformity of behavior and the global equation of customs presage the global homogenization of today’s planet. Utopians, instead of learning to free themselves from chaos, as the citizens of the Mediterranean Archi-pelago used to, and thus give form to their life, are striving daily towards an equality that in the far future will make them members of the only great technical-scientific plan. Also, instead of offering symbolic hospitality to the new refugees of the global village, they are simply learning to tolerate the Other and the different. The Utopia of the New Age lives with the voracious promise of equality, which is the elimination of the dissimilar and the multiple. Utopia is the Island-truth that abolishes the Archi-pelago. Thus, the Island of Utopia would find its base in the then Great Island of America.
Then, during the 17th century, but now as well. In what direction is the new Leviathan now heading?
Hans Blumenberg, Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer (Shipwreck with Spectator), Frankfurt 1979.
Massimo Cacciari, The Archipelago, Greek language edition, Athens 1999, (Milan 1997).
———, Geophilosophy of Europe, Milan 1994.
Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Mille Platteaux (A Thousand Plateaus), Paris 1980.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe (1-15), Berlin 1980.
Michel Serres, Hermès IV, V, Paris 1977, 1980.
Carl Schmitt, Land und Meer (Land and Sea), Cologne 1981, (Leipzig 1942).
———, Der Nomos der Erde (The Nomos of the Earth), Berlin 1950.
———, “Beschleuniger wider Willen” (Involuntary Catalysts), Tumult 7/1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY : Hans Blumenberg: Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer [Ναυάγιο με θεατή], Frankfurt 1979 / Massimo Cacciari: 1) Το Αρχιπέλαγος, Athens 1999 (Milan 1997) Γεω-φιλοσοφία της Ευρώπης , Μιλάνο 1994 / Carl Schmitt:: 1) Land und Meer [Στεριά και θάλασσα], Köln 1981 (Leipzig 1942) Der Nomos der Erde [Ο Νόμος της γης], Berlin 1950 / Beschleuniger wider Willen [Ακούσιοι επιταχυντές ], in Tumult 7/1983 / Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe (1-15), Berlin 1980 / Deleuze/Guattari, Mille Platteaux [Χίλια επίπεδα], Paris 1980 / Michel Serres, Hermès IV, V, Paris 1977, 1980.
Dionyssis Kavvadas, PHILOSOPHER
Το συγκεκριμένο κείμενο προσπαθεί να προσδιορίσει το νομικό καθεστώς που διέπει τη νήσο Γιούρα, η οποία ανήκει στο σύμπλεγμα των νήσων Σποράδων, του Β.Αιγαίου. Οι αναφορές του κειμένου καλύπτουν το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο της νήσου, δεδομένων των πολλαπλών ιδιαιτεροτήτων, που αυτή παρουσιάζει σε μορφολογικό και οικολογικό-περιβαλλοντολογικό επίπεδο. Η σχετική νομοθεσία παρουσιάζεται βάσει των προαναφερθέντων ενοτήτων.
Υπάρχουν αναφορές σε προϊσχύσαντες νόμους, διατάξεις, προεδρικά διατάγματα και διεθνείς συνθήκες τα οποία ενσωματώνονται και περιέχονται στη ισχύουσα νομοθεσία. Οι αναφορές αυτές είναι περιορισμένες, δεδομένου ότι βασικό κριτήριο παρουσίασής τους, αποτελεί η διερεύνηση των κοινωνικοπολιτικών καθώς και των ιστορικών συνθηκών που διαμόρφωσαν την κείμενη νομοθεσία. Διαφαίνεται από την πρόσφατη νομοθεσία, μια λεπτομερής καταγραφή θεμάτων και προτεραιοτήτων, τα οποία είχαν τεθεί ακροθιγώς σε προηγούμενα νομοθετήματα, πλην όμως, δεν ενεργοποιήθηκαν επαρκώς. Η έλλειψη ενεργοποίησής τους κατά τον χρόνο θεσμοθέτησής τους, οφείλεται εν πολλοίς, στις μη ώριμες κοινωνικές και πολιτικές συνθήκες της εποχής και στη πιθανότητα να μην έχουν αναπτυχθεί επαρκώς στην κοινωνία μας, οι ενδογενείς διαδικασίες προστασίας και εξοικονόμησης του «περιβαλλοντικού κεφαλαίου».
Το γεγονός αυτό είναι ευδιάκριτο και παρατηρείται σε ένα μεγάλο μέρος της νομοθεσίας, που αφορά ζητήματα περιβαλλοντικά. Είναι αξιοσημείωτο ότι σε κάθε προσπάθεια καταγραφής της νομοθεσίας που αφορά ένα συγκεκριμένο θέμα, παρατηρείται πληθώρα διατάξεων νόμου με συνεχείς επικαλύψεις, που ενώ δίνουν την εντύπωση της απόλυτης πλαισίωσης του θέματος, αδυνατούν να παρέχουν μια πρόσφορη πρακτική προσέγγισής του. Η παράθεση των νομοθετημάτων που ακολουθεί, σταχυολογεί την μελέτη περίπτωσης «Γιούρα», με στόχο την διευκρίνιση του νομοθετικού πλαισίου που υφίσταται.
Κατά το έτος 1992 ιδρύθηκε με Προεδρικό Διάταγμα, το Θαλάσσιο Πάρκο Σποράδων, με στόχους :
-την διαφύλαξη του πληθυσμού της μεσογειακής φώκιας που κινδυνεύει από τον τουρισμό, από την υπερβολική αλιεία και από την ρύπανση, παράγοντες που μειώνουν την τροφή της και καταστρέφουν τους βιοτόπους της.
-την διαφύλαξη και προστασία ενός από τους πιο σπάνιους γλάρους στον κόσμο, του αιγαιόγλαρου, που συμπεριλαμβάνεται στον κατάλογο των απειλούμενων πουλιών.Το είδος αυτό ζει αποκλειστικά στη Μεσόγειο και ο παγκόσμιος πληθυσμός του δεν ξεπερνά τα 2.000 ζευγάρια.
-Τέλος, την διαφύλαξη της χλωρίδας και πανίδας της περιοχής που περιλαμβάνει σπάνια είδη με εξαιρετικό ενδιαφέρον.
Επειδή η δημιουργία προστατευόμενων περιοχών δεν διασφαλίζει από μόνη της την διατήρηση της βιοποικιλότητας, απαιτείται η θέσπιση σχετικών νομοθεσιών και η εφαρμογή κατάλληλων πρακτικών διαχείρισης της βιοιποικιλότητας.
Α.Περιβαλλοντικά και Χωροταξικά θέματα.
Με το Ν. 856/1937 «περί Εθνικών Δρυμών», ξεκίνησε στην Ελλάδα, το θεσμικό πλαίσιο προστασίας της φύσης.
Με το Ν. 1465/1950 «Τοπία Φυσικού Κάλλους», θεσπίστηκαν πάνω από 300 περιοχές της χώρας, ως προστατευόμενοι χώροι, χωρίς παρ’ όλα αυτά να τύχουν ουσιαστικής προστασίας.
Με τον Δασικό Κώδικα και το Ν.Δ.86/69 όπως τροποποιήθηκε με το 996/1971, «περί εθνικών δρυμών, αισθητικών δασών και διατηρητέων μνημείων της φύσης», εμπλουτίστηκε η νομοθεσία για τις προστατευόμενες περιοχές.
Με το Ν.Δ. 191/1974 κυρώθηκε από την Ελλάδα, η διεθνής συμφωνία που υπογράφηκε στο Ραμσάρ του Ιράν. Με τη διεθνή αυτή συμφωνία, λαμβάνονται μέτρα προστασίας των διεθνούς ενδιαφέροντος υγροτόπων και ειδικότερα των υδροβιότοπων. Βάσει της συμφωνίας αυτής, προσδιορίστηκαν 11 (ήδη είναι 10 μετά την συνέννωση δύο εξ αυτών) ελληνικοί υγρότοποι ως διεθνούς σημασίας (η συνθήκη αυτή δεν αφορά την θαλάσσια περιοχή των Σποράδων).
Με το Π.Δ. 67/1981 «περί προστασίας της αυτοφυούς χλωρίδας και άγριας πανίδας και καθορισμού διαδικασίας συντονισμού και ελέγχου της ερεύνης επ’ αυτών», κηρύχθηκαν ως προστατευτέα είδη που περιλαμβάνονται σε εκτενή κατάλογο, τα περισσότερα των ενδημικών φυτικών και ζωικών ειδών της χώρας.
Με το Ν. 1335/1983 κυρώθηκε από την Ελλάδα, η διεθνής σύμβαση για την διατήρηση της άγριας ζώνης και του φυσικού περιβάλλοντος της Ευρώπης.
Με το Ν. 1634/1986 κυρώθηκε από την Ελλάδα το Πρωτοκόλλο του 1982 για τις ειδικά προστατευόμενες περιοχές της Μεσογείου.
Με το Ν.1650/1986 για την «προστασία του περιβάλλοντος», στο κεφ. Δ΄που αφορά την προστασία της φύσης και του τοπίου, εισάγονται πέντε (5) κατηγορίες προστατευόμενων περιοχών, οι οποίες κατά σειρά προβλεπόμενου βαθμού προστασίας είναι: περιοχές απόλυτης προστασίας της φύσης, περιοχές προστασίας της φύσης, εθνικά πάρκα, προστατευόμενοι φυσικοί σχηματισμοί, προστατευόμενα τοπία και στοιχεία του τοπίου και τέλος, περιοχές οικοανάπτυξης.
Με το Π.Δ.60/1998 (ΦΕΚ Α΄61/24-3-1998), περί καθορισμού χωρικής αρμοδιότητας των Τμημάτων Διαχείρισης Υδατικών Πόρων της Περιφέρειας, το νησί Γιούρα εντάχθηκε στο υδατικό διαμέρισμα Ανατολικής Στερεάς Ελλάδας.
Με το Ν. 2742/1999 (ΦΕΚ Α΄207/7-10-1999), καθορίσθηκε ο χωροταξικός σχεδιασμός και η αειφόρος ανάπτυξη της χώρας. Σκοπός του νομοθετήματος αυτού είναι, εκτός των άλλων, και η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος στο σύνολο του εθνικού χώρου και στις επιμέρους ενότητές του, η διατήρηση των οικολογικών και πολιτισμικών αποθεμάτων και η προβολή και ανάδειξη των συγκριτικών γεωγραφικών, φυσικών, παραγωγικών και πολιτιστικών πλεονεκτημάτων της χώρας. Επίσης, η ολοκληρωμένη ανάπτυξη, ανάδειξη και προστασία των νησιών, καθώς και η προστασία των φυσικών και πολιτιστικών τους πόρων. Στο άρθρο 7 του παραπάνω νόμου, καθορίζονται Ειδικά Πλαίσια Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού και Αειφόρου Ανάπτυξης, δηλαδή σύνολα κειμένων ή και διαγραμμάτων, με τα οποία εξειδικεύονται ή και συμπληρώνονται οι κατευθύνσεις του Γενικού Πλαισίου Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού και Αειφόρου Ανάπτυξης που αφορούν την ανάπτυξη και οργάνωση του εθνικού χώρου. Συγκεκριμένα και μεταξύ άλλων, ορισμένων ειδικών περιοχών του εθνικού χώρου, ιδίως τις παράκτιες και νησιωτικές περιοχές, τις ορεινές και προβληματικές ζώνες, τις περιοχές που υπάγονται σε διεθνείς ή ευρωπαϊκές συμβάσεις για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος, καθώς και άλλες ενότητες του εθνικού χώρου που παρουσιάζουν κρίσιμα περιβαλλοντικά, αναπτυξιακά και κοινωνικά προβλήματα. Στο άρθρο 8 του παραπάνω νόμου, καθορίζονται τα Περιφερειακά Πλαίσια Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού και Αειφόρου Ανάπτυξης, τα οποία καταρτίζονται για κάθε περιφέρεια της χώρας, τα οποία αποτελούν σύνολα κειμένων ή και διαγραμμάτων με τα οποία καταγράφεται και αξιολογείται η θέση της περιφέρειας στο διεθνή και ευρωπαικό χώρο, ο ρόλος της σε εθνικό επίπεδο και σε σύγκριση με άλλες περιφέρειες κ.λ.π. Επίσης, στο παραπάνω άρθρο περιλαμβάνονται, οι κατευθύνσεις για την ισόρροπη και αειφόρο διάρθρωση του περιφερειακού οικιστικού δικτύου, καθώς και οις βασικές προτεραιότητες για την προστασία, διατήρηση και ανάδειξη της φυσικής και πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς της περιφέρειας.
Με την μ’ αριθμ. 55015/112/11-1-2002 απόφαση του Γενικού Διευθυντή Περιβάλλοντος, εγκρίθηκε η Ειδική Περιβαλλοντική Μελέτη Εθνικού Θαλάσσιου Πάρκου Αλοννήσου Βορείων Σποράδων.
Λαμβανομένων υπόψη όλων των παραπάνω νομοθετημάτων, εκδόθηκε η μ΄αριθμό 235/2003 (ΦΕΚ Δ΄621/19-6-2003) κοινή υπουργική απόφαση των Υπουργών Ανάπτυξης – ΠΕΧΩΔΕ - Γεωργίας – Εμπορικής Ναυτιλίας. Με την παραπάνω υπουργική απόφαση, χαρακτηρίσθηκε ως Εθνικό Θαλάσσιο Πάρκο με την επωνυμία «ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΙΟ ΠΑΡΚΟ ΑΛΟΝΝΗΣΟΥ και ΒΟΡΕΙΩΝ ΣΠΟΡΑΔΩΝ (Ε.Θ.Π.Α.Β.Σ)», η θαλάσσια και χερσαία περιοχή των Βορείων Σποράδων, που βρίσκεται στην εκτός σχεδίου και εκτός ορίων οικισμών προ του 1923 και κάτω των 2000 κατοίκων περιοχή του Δήμου Αλοννήσου. Η περιοχή που προστατεύεται αποτελείται από τη νήσο Αλόννησο, το Β.Α. τμήμα της Σκοπέλου και τις ακατοίκητες νησίδες Περιστέρα, Αδελφοί, Κυρά Παναγιά, Γιούρα, Σκάτζουρα, Πιπέρι και Ψαθούρα. Η έκτασή της είναι 251.440 Ha, ενώ το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα της (94%), καλύπτεται από θάλασσα.
Το Εθνικό Θαλάσσιο Πάρκο αντιπροσωπεύει ένα μοναδικό σύμπλεγμα χερσαίων και θαλάσσιων μεσογειακών οικοτόπων. Φιλοξενεί πολλά είδη φυτών και ζώων μεταξύ των οποίων και ενδημικά, σπάνια ή προστατευόμενα είδη. Εκτός του επιστημονικού ενδιαφέροντος, η περιοχή παρουσιάζει και αρχαιολογικό εναδιαφέρον, δεδομένου ότι στα νησιά υπάρχουν ευρήματα και μνημεία των προιστορικών, κλασικών και βυζαντινών χρόνων, όπως σπηλαιολογικά ευρήματα, ναυάγια πλοίων, παλιά μοναστήρια και εκκλησίες. Οι σπηλιές της περιοχής αποτελούν ιδανικά καταφύγια της μεσογειακής φώκιας. Ένας απομονωμένος πληθυσμός της capra aegagrus ssp dorcas ζει αποκλειστικά στη νήσο Γιούρα. Υπάρχει αξιόλογη ερπετοπανίδα και ορνιθοπανίδα που περιλαμβάνει μεγάλο αριθμό μεταναστευτικών πουλιών καθώς και πολλά είδη που αναπαράγονται στην περιοχή. Αξιόλογη είναι και η πανίδα των ασπόνδυλων, ιδιαίτερα στη σπηλιά του Κύκλωπα, στη νήσο Γιούρα. Η ποικιλότητα των θαλάσσιων οικοτόπων (όπως τα λιβάδια Posidonia, οι ύφαλοι κ.α.) και η έλλειψη ρύπανσης στην περιοχή, επιτρέπει την υψηλή ποικιλότητα των θαλάσσιων ειδών.
Εντός των ορίων του παραπάνω Εθνικού Θαλάσσιου Πάρκου, ορίστηκαν δύο περιοχές, η περιοχή Α και η περιοχή Β. Το νησί Γιούρα ανήκει στην Α περιοχή μαζί με τα νησιά Ψαθούρα, Ψαθονήσι, Πιπέρι, Παππούς, Κυρά Παναγιά, Στρογγυλό κ.α. Η παραπάνω περιοχή Α χωρίζεται σε εννέα ζώνες και η νήσος Γιούρα ανήκει στην ζώνη Α3, «Περιοχή προστασίας της φύσης, η οποία περιλαμβάνει το σύνολο της χερσαίας επιφάνειας του νησιού Γιούρα και την περιμετρική αυτού θαλάσσια ζώνη που εκτείνεται σε ακτίνα 0,5 ναυτικού μιλίου γύρω από τις ακτές του νησιού».
Στην ζώνη αυτή (Α3) οι μόνες επιτρεπόμενες δραστηριότητες είναι:
Η έρευνα με ειδική άδεια και προυποθέσεις.
Η συντήρηση των υπαρχόντων κτιρίων και των σχετικών υποδομών που ανήκουν στο Δασαρχείο.
Η διαχείριση του ζωικού κεφαλαίου του νησιού από το Υπουργείο Γεωργίας.
Η παράκτια επαγγελματική αλιεία, σύμφωνα με την εθνική νομοθεσία για την αλιεία, σε όλες τις ακτές του νησιού, εκτός από τον όρμο του Πνιγμένου.
Η προσέγγιση, αγκυροβολία και διανυκτέρευση (εντός των σκαφών) σκαφών επαγγελματικής αλιείας (μόνον παράκτιας), σε όλες τις ακτές του νησιού, εκτός από τον όρμο του Πνιγμένου.
Όταν η επίσκεψη στο σπήλαιο του «Κύκλωπα» επιτραπεί, η προσέγγιση και αγκυροβολία των επαγγελματικών τουριστικών σκαφών και σκαφών αναψυχής, θα επιτρέπεται μεταξύ ανατολής και δύσης του ηλίου στα σημεία «Μεγάλη Βάλα» και «Συκιές». Οι επιβάτες θα δύνανται να επισκέπτονται μόνο το σπήλαιο του «Κύκλωπα».
Στην παραπάνω Α3 ζώνη, απαγορεύεται τελείως :
Η μέση επαγγελματική αλιεία σε απόσταση μικρότερη του 1,5 ναυτικού μιλίου από τις ακτές για τα γρι-γρι και σε απόσταση μικρότερη των 2 ναυτικών μιλίων από τις ακτές για τις μηχανότρατες.
Η ελεύθερη κατασκήνωση, η χρήση φωτιάς και το ψαροντούφεκο.
Η προσέγγιση και αγκυροβολία επαγγελματικών τουριστικών σκαφών και σκαφών αναψυχής.
Η ερασιτεχνική αλιεία σε απόσταση μικρότερη του 0,5 ναυτικού μιλίου από την ακτή του νησιού.
Στα θαλάσσια πάρκα, τα οποία αποτελούν προστατευόμενη περιοχή, κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η προστασία των θαλάσσιων οικοσυστημάτων. Οι προστατευόμενες αυτές περιοχές, προσφέρουν «καταφύγιο» σε πολλά είδη φυτών και ζώων που κινδυνεύουν από εξαφάνιση. Προστατεύονται συνεπώς οι τοπικοί θαλάσσιοι πόροι στο σύνολό τους, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του γενετικού αποθέματος της θαλάσσια ζωής.
Το Εθνικό Θαλάσσιο Πάρκο Αλοννήσου και Βορείων Σποράδων, αποτελεί την μία από τις δύο περιοχές της χώρας μας, που έχουν ενταχθεί στο Δίκτυο «Φύση 2000» και συγκεκριμένα, αυτή του νησιωτικού συμπλέγματος των Β. Σποράδων,. Με βάση την Κοινοτική Οδηγία 92/43/ΕΟΚ , την πιο σημαντική για την προστασία της φύσης, η οποία ενσωματώθηκε στην ελληνική νομοθεσία. «καθορισμός μέτρων και διαδικασιών για την διατήρηση των φυσικών οικοτόπων καθώς και της άγριας χλωρίδας και πανίδας», ιδρύθηκε το ευρωπαϊκό οικολογικό δίκτυο Ειδικών Ζωνών Διατήρησης, γνωστό ως «Φύση 2000» (Νatura 2000). Πρόκειται για περιοχές στις οποίες βρίσκονται συγκεκριμένοι τύποι οικοτόπων, που καθορίζονται στο Παράρτημα Ι της προαναφερόμενης Κοινοτικής Οδηγίας ή που περιέχουν οικοτόπους συγκεκριμένων ειδών, που αναφέρονται στο Παράρτημα ΙΙ της Οδηγίας αυτής. Οι Ειδικές Ζώνες Διατήρησης χαρακτηρίζονται μετά από μία διαδικασία τριών
σταδίων. Στο πρώτο στάδιο, τα Κράτη-Μέλη είχαν την υποχρέωση να απογράψουν
τους τύπους οικοτόπων και τα είδη χλωρίδας και πανίδας και να αποστείλουν στην
Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή έναν κατάλογο προτεινόμενων περιοχών.
Κατά τη διάρκεια της πρώτης αυτής φάσης (1994-1996), καταγράφτηκαν οι
περιοχές της Ελλάδας με ιδιαίτερο οικολογικό ενδιαφέρον. Σε κάθε περιοχή
υποδείχθηκαν οι συγκεκριμένοι τύποι οικοτόπων με την έκταση που καταλαμβάνουν
(εντός αυτής της περιοχής), καθώς και τα συγκεκριμένα είδη φυτών και ζώων των
παραρτημάτων με τα πληθυσμιακά δεδομένα τους. Η δεύτερη φάση,είχε ως αντικείμενο τη δημιουργία ενός Καταλόγου Τόπων Κοινοτικής Σημασίας (List of Sites of Community ImportanceSCIs). Στη συνέχεια και με τη συνεργασία της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και μια διαδικασία επιστημονικής αξιολόγησης θα οριζόταν ο τελικός κατάλογος περιοχών του δικτύου. Στην Ελλάδα συνολικά αναγνωρίστηκαν 110 τύποι οικοτόπων, 39 είδη φυτών και 76 είδη ζώων. Με βάση την κατανομή αυτή, καταγράφηκαν 296 περιοχές που περιέχουν τύπους οικοτόπων και είδη της Οδηγίας, μετά από αξιολόγηση σύμφωνα με κριτήρια που καθορίστηκαν από την Οδηγία. Ο κατάλογος αυτών των περιοχών, γνωστός και ως «Επιστημονικός Κατάλογος» αποτέλεσε μία επιστημονική βάση αναφοράς για τον Εθνικό Κατάλογο, για τις εθνικές αρχές, αλλά και για την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή. Οι 296 περιοχές κάλυπταν έκταση που εκτιμάται ότι ανέρχεται σε περίπου 30.000.000 στρέμματα. Στην έκταση αυτή των 30.000.000 στρεμμάτων περιέχονται και μεγάλες θαλάσσιες εκτάσεις (περίπου 6.000.000 στρέμματα), καθώς και εσωτερικά ύδατα (περίπου 1.500.000 στρέμματα). Το χερσαίο τμήμα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων και των εσωτερικών υδάτων εκτιμάται σε ποσοστό περίπου 18,2% της συνολικής γεωγραφικής επιφάνειας της χώρας.
Στην παρούσα φάση έχει οριστικοποιηθεί ο «Εθνικός Κατάλογος» που
περιλαμβάνει συνολικά 150 περιοχές SPA (Περιοχές Ειδικής Προστασίας της
Ορνιθοπανίδας) και 239 περιοχές SCI (Τόποι Κοινοτικής Σημασίας) (ορισμένες από
αυτές εν όλω ή εν μέρει είναι και περιοχές SPA). Οι περιοχές SPA που έχουν
κοινοποιηθεί στην Ε.Ε. από την Ελλάδα εντάσσονται αυτόματα βάσει της Οδηγίας των Οικοτόπων στο δίκτυο Natura 2000.
Πάντως, θα πρέπει να γίνει σαφές ότι οι περιοχές του "ΦΥΣΗ 2000" δεν προορίζονται αποκλειστικά και μόνο για φυσικά πάρκα, στα οποία απαγορεύεται κάθε ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θεωρεί ότι το δίκτυο δύναται να συνυπάρξει με την οικονομική πρόοδο. Κατά συνέπεια, δραστηριότητες όπως η γεωργία, η θήρα ή ο τουρισμός, μπορούν να πραγματοποιούνται εντός των ορίων του ΦΥΣΗ, αλλά στο μέτρο που δεν θίγουν τις ανάγκες διατήρησης της φύσης. Περαιτέρω, το πρόγραμμα δεν έχει σχεδιαστεί με τρόπο που να θέτει σε κίνδυνο θέσεις εργασίας ή το επίπεδο ζωής στις τοπικές κοινωνίες.
Με την 33318/3028/28-12-1998 ΚΥΑ, συνδέθηκε η θεσμοθέτηση των περιοχών του οικολογικού δικτύου «Φύση 2000», με το σύστημα και τις διαδικασίες του Ν.1650/1986, ο οποίος αναφέρθηκε παραπάνω.
Με το Ν. 3044/2002 ιδρύθηκαν οι Φορείς Διαχείρισης Προστατευόμενων Περιοχών. Ένας εξ αυτών είναι ο Φ.Δ. Εθνικού Θαλάσσιου Πάρκου Αλοννήσου και Β.Σποράδων. Με την θεσμοθέτηση των προστατευόμενων περιοχών, η προσπάθεια προστασίας της βιολογικής ποικιλότητας δεν ολοκληρώθηκε, αλλά μάλλον τότε ξεκίνησε. Ήταν εξίσου απαραίτητο να εξασφαλιστεί το καθεστώς διαχείρισης, δηλαδή ο προσδιορισμός και η εφαρμογή όλων των μέτρων, των ενεργειών και των παρεμβάσεων που θα χρειάζονταν για την αποτελεσματική προστασία, οργάνωση και λειτουργία των προστατευόμενων περιοχών, ώστε να εξυπηρετήσουν τους σκοπούς τους, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τον εθνικό και χωροταξικό σχεδιασμό. Απαραίτητη λοιπόν ήταν η διαχείριση των περιοχών αυτών και ο σαφής προσδιορισμός της.
Πέραν των παραπάνω αναφερόμενων, η Ελλάδα έχει υπογράψει και στις περισσότερες περιπτώσεις επικυρώσει, σειρά διεθνών συμβάσεων που σχετίζονται με την προστασία της φύσης, όπως την Σύμβαση της Βέρνης (1979) για την «προστασία της άγριας ζωής και των φυσικών οικοτόπων της Ευρώπης», την Σύμβαση της Βόννης (1979) για την «Προστασία των μεταναστευτικών ειδών άγριων ζώων», την Σύμβαση της Βαρκελώνης που τέθηκε σε ισχύ το 1999 για την «Προστασία της Μεσογείου θάλασσας από την ρύπανση» και άλλες. Όπως προανέφερα, η ύπαρξη ογκώδους νομοθετικού πλαισίου, δεν διασφαλίζει αυτόματα και την εφαρμογή του. Συγκρούσεις αρμοδιοτήτων μεταξύ υπεύθυνων κρατικών φορέων, ασάφειες, συγκρούσεις συμφερόντων καθώς και ανεπαρκείς διαθέσιμοι πόροι, είναι κάποιες απ’ τις αιτίες που συμβάλλουν στην μη εφαρμογή των ισχύοντων νόμων.
Β. Προσδιορισμός Περιοχών Χρήσης
Με το Π.Δ. 453/1977 καθορίστηκαν οι Ελεγχόμενες Κυνηγετικές Περιοχές (Ε.Κ.Π.) καθώς και το καθεστώς που τις διέπει. Η νήσος Γιούρα υπάγεται στις Ελεγχόμενες Κυνηγετικές Περιοχές, για έκταση 10.940 στρεμμάτων . Συγκεκριμένα, απαγορεύεται στη νήσο Γιούρα η προσέγγιση ατόμων με κυνηγετικό όπλο και με οποιοδήποτε πλωτό μέσο σε απόσταση 2.000 μ. από τις ακτές του νησιού, εκτός εκείνων που μεταβαίνουν για κυνήγι σύμφωνα με το πρόγραμμα της Ε.Κ.Π. (ειδική άδεια κατά τις κείμενες σχετικές διατάξεις -άρθρο 262 Ν.Δ.86/69-, ισχύουσα για την κυνηγετική περιφέρεια της Ε.Κ.Π., επιπλέον δε, να εφοδιάζεται και με ειδική άδεια θήρας.)
Επομένως το καθεστώς προστασίας που διέπει την παραπάνω νήσο, καθορίζεται σε εθνικό και περιφερειακό επίπεδο από την ένταξη της νήσου στο «Εθνικό Θαλάσσιο Πάρκο Αλοννήσου και Βορείων Σποράδων», τα Ειδικά Πλαίσια Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού και Αειφόρου Ανάπτυξης, την υπαγωγή του στον Ν.1650/86 σε συνδυασμό με την ένταξή του στο δίκτυο «Φύση 2000» (Natura 2000) και στις Ελεγχόμενες Κυνηγετικές Περιοχές (Ε.Κ.Π.). Σε διεθνές επίπεδο υπάγεται στο νομοθετικό πλαίσιο διεθνών συμβάσεων τις οποίες έχει επικυρώσει η χώρα μας, όπως, μεταξύ άλλων, η σύμβαση της Βέρνης, η σύμβαση της Βόννης και η σύμβαση της Βαρκελώνης .
Έλλη Ευθυμίου, NOMIKOΣ