Snippets from AD’s electoral manifesto: (21) Biodiversity

The following extract is taken verbatim from Chapter 14 of AD’s Electoral Manifesto

Biodiversity.

Biodiversity is not exclusively concerned with bird protection but on our interaction with the eco-system.

Alternattiva Demokratika shall focus on the need for the complete cessation of spring hunting as well as in ensuring that Malta’s EU accession commitments on the halting of bird trapping are honoured.

It is necessary that zones identified for protection under the provisions of the EU Habitats Directive are well managed. In particular it is necessary that Il-Buskett is no longer considered and utilised as a garden. The status of Il-Buskett as a Special Area of Conservation should be respected, something which is currently ignored.

Valley protection is also necessary. This has to be done within the context of a clear and holistic plan to rehabilitate valleys in such a manner that their resident biodiversity is respected and invasive species introduced throughout the years are removed.

L-Estratt segwenti hu mehud kelma b’kelma mill-Kapitlu 14 tal-Manifest Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

Bijodiversità.

Il-bijodiversità mhix kif inħarsu lejn l-għasafar u l-ħarsien tagħhom biss iżda dwar l-interazzjoni tagħna mal-ekosistema.

Alternattiva Demokratika taħdem biex tkun eliminata darba għal dejjem il-kaċċa tal-għasafar fir-rebbiegħa kif ukoll biex l-obbligi li Malta assumiet bis-sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea li l-insib spiċċa darba għal dejjem ikun onorat.

Huwa neċessarju li jkun mħarsa sewwa iż-żoni li Malta identifikat għall-protezzjoni taħt il-provedimenti tad-Direttiva tal UE dwar il-habitats. Fost oħrajn wasal iż-żmien li l-Buskett ma jibqax meqjus bħal ġnien u ma jibqax ikun sfruttat bħala tali. L-istatus tal-Buskett ta’ Żona Speċjali ta’ Konservazzjoni huwa meħtieġ illi jiġi osservat, ħaġa li fil-preżentement mhix issir.

Huwa neċessarju ukoll illi l-widien ikunu mħarsa. Dan għandu jsir billi fil-kuntest ta’ pjan ċar u olistiku jkunu riabilitati l-widien b’mod li tkun rispettata l-bijodiversità ta’ ġo fihom u jkunu ukoll eliminati l-ispeċi invażivi li ġew introdotti tul is-snin.

Is-Saħta tal-Mistra

Qatt daqs f’dawn l-aħħar jiem ma kien ċar li l-PN qed iġorr fuqu s-saħta tal-Mistra.

Il-proposta ta’ JPO biex jitkeċċa RCC mill-PN ma kienitx sostnuta minn provi li jiġġustifikaw tali azzjoni. L-istess tip ta’ provi li kienu meħtieġa fil-Parlament meta minkejja li ma kienux hemm il-mozzjoni ta’ ċensura dwar RCC xorta kienet approvat.

Jidher ċar li kull min miss mal-kaz tal-Mistra ta’ qabel l-elezzjoni ġenerali 2008 ma tistax tiġih waħda tajba.

“X’għamilt ħażin?” qal JPO lil Gordon Pisani f’diskursata bejniethom fil-presenza ta’ avukat meta sar magħruf li kien hemm kuntratt dwar l-art tal-Mistra u d-disco proġettat?

Kien ikun aħjar kieku Pisani wieġbu : “x’għamilt tajjeb?”

Sa dakinhar li faqqa’ l-każ tal-Mistra l-kredenzjali ambjentali ta’ JPO kienu tajba ħafna. Il-kampanja biex iwaqqaf is-simenterija taċ-Ċaqnu kif ukoll il-kampanja kontra l-miżbla (landfill) ħdejn l-Imnajdra kienu fost l-aħjar mumenti tiegħu. Tant li għal xi żmien kien deskritt bħal wieħed mill-politiċi bl-aħjar kredenzjali ambjentali f’Malta. Kien ingħata t-titlu ta’ The green politician of the year.

Issa minn persuna li ħadmet daqstant favur l-ambjent bilfors tistenna li qabel ma jieħu pass iqis sewwa. Jara l-impatti ta’ dak li jkun qiegħed jippjana b’mod iktar metikoluż minn ħaddieħor. Sfortunatament il-kuntratt li JPO kellu dwar il-Mistra u xtaq jaħbi (“mhux aħjar ma tkunx taf” qal lill-Pisani) juri li l-introjtu pekjunjarju kien l-iktar ħaġa importanti għal JPO.  Il-ħarsien dovut lill-Mistra skond dak li tipprovdi d-Direttiva dwar il-Habitats kien xi ħaġa irrelevanti.

F’dan kollu kien mgħejjun minn kultura ta’ irresponsabbilta fl-istrutturi tal-MEPA li qieset li ma kien hemm xejn ħażin filli żviluppatur jew persuna interessata fi żvilupp tiltaqa’ ma’ membri tal-Bord fil-magħluq, minn wara dahar kulħadd.

X’hemm ħażin?

Il-PN għażel li jipprova jgħatti dan kollu. Issa il-PN jeħtieġ li jħallas il-kontijiet talli ma kellux il-kuraġġ morali li jgħid li JPO żbalja. Irid iħallas il-kontijiet talli ipprova jpinġi lil JPO bħala l-vittma, meta l-vera vittma kienet il-komunita’, li suppost kellha MEPA biex tiddefendiha u minnflok kienet kompliċi ma’ JPO.

Kull min iċċappas mal-każ irid jerfa’ l-piż u jġorr fuq spallejħ is-saħta tal-Mistra. Anke RCC flimkien ma’ Gonzi u JPO għandu responsabbilta morali għal dak li ġara minħabba l-pariri li ta. Anke’ jekk kienu biss ta’ damage control.

Il-Partit Laburista li permezz ta’ Alfred Sant kellu l-karti f’idejh qabel l-elezzjoni tal-2008 tilef l-inizzjattiva minn idejh.  Sant iddeskriva lil JPO bħala morally and  politically corrupt. Imma s-suċċessur tiegħu m’għandux skrupli li jindiehes ma JPO u jipprova jinqeda bih. Huwa u jimxi b’dan il-mod Muscat qed juri li anke’ hu m’huwiex interessat f’servizz iżda f’logħba ċess. L-iskop aħħari  li jqarreb il-jum li jkun fil-gvern il-Labour, għal Muscat jiġġustifika kollox. Jiġġustifika kull mezz li jintuża. L-aqwa li jdgħajjef lill-għadu poltiku tiegħu.

Meta Muscat jimxi b’dan il-mod ikun qed juri għal darba oħra li m’hemmx x’tagħżel bejn il-PN u l-PL. Il-politika l-ġdida tagħhom hi nieqsa mill-valuri. Hi nieqsa mill-impenn favur dak li hu sewwa.  Huma interessati fil-maniġġi u fil-mossi: mhux daqstant dawk li jġibu lilhom il-quddiem, daqskemm dawk li jpoġġu lin-naħa l-oħra f’dawl ħażin.

Is-saħta tal-Mistra JPO raxxa ukoll fuq il-Labour.

Il-mozzjoni dwar RCC kien l-ewwel pass li deher.  Biha l-Labour ingħata l-opportunita’ li jidher kif fil-fatt hu: partit bla sinsla.

Il-PN ma jixraqlux ikun iżjed fil-Gvern. Pero’ il-Labour ma joffrix soluzzjoni. Għax minn ġot-taġen nispiċċaw fin-nar!

Barely scratching the surface

The Noise White Paper, just published for public consultation, identifies the need to coordinate the existing fragmented administrative structures as its first target. This is being done in the belief that it will eventually lead to a smoothening out of administrative inconsistencies. Better coordination could also ensure that, in the long term, issues in respect of which the authorities have, to date, been reluctant to act upon can be addressed in an appropriate manner. Hopefully.

The White Paper deals with the abatement of neighbourhood noise. Its reach should have been much wider. It postpones dealing with the noise generated by fireworks and village feasts to some future date. Cultural aspects and tradition are reasons used to justify this postponement. In reality, the government at this time cannot withstand the anticipated reaction of the fireworks lobby, which has yet to come to terms with restrictions based on safety as is evidenced by reactions to the findings and recommendations of the November 2011 inquiry report on accidents in fireworks factories. Clearly, the government considers that now is not the time to regulate excessive fireworks noise. On the eve of a general election, votes are considered to be a more important consideration.

We have been informed (correctly) that the EU Environmental Noise Directive is not applicable to our airport because the traffic it handles is below the established threshold.

The White Paper does not address the issue of noise generated by aircraft approaching or taking off from Malta’s only airport when flying over residential areas. In particular, the impact of approaching aircraft on Birżebbuġa’s residential area at all times of the day (including during the night) comes to mind.

Now, to be fair, one must state that the airport cannot be transferred to any other site. The flight paths leading to the airport are fixed and their use is determined by the prevalent winds. Malta needs its only airport to be operational. Yet, its operation must be such that it does not cause unnecessary hardship to residential areas along the approaches to and around the airport.

This leaves only one option: regulating the airport’s operating times to restrict aircraft movements during the silent hours as is done at Heathrow, Brussels and Fiumicinio, to mention three airports with which readers are familiar.

The airport authorities need to encourage the use of less noisy aircraft through the determination of differentiated aircraft landing charges dependent on the noise generated by the aircraft. It is about time that the airport authorities start respecting the surrounding communities. This is a missing but essential element of the airport’s sustainable development strategy.

The Noise White Paper draws up a list of those authorities that are empowered to regulate some aspect of noise control. One would expect that the police, the Malta Tourism Authority, the health authorities and the Malta Environment and Planning Authority coordinated by the Noise Control Board to now be in a better position to ensure that commercial outlets (particularly those in a mixed use area) are no longer a nuisance to residents in the vicinity.

It should also be less problematic to deal with nuisance caused by air conditioners fixed in the most awkward places.

But noise does not only impact the health of human beings. It also has a health impact on flora and fauna. This is partly regulated through the Habitats Directive of the EU, which is an integral part of Maltese law.

It is positive that the Noise White Paper recognises this and emphasises the need to ensure its implementation. This should now place more onus on Mepa to ascertain that open-air activities generating excessive noise are immediately brought to order. Examples that come to mind are open air discos at Buskett, Paradise Bay and Ta’ Qali. The first two impact biodiversity in Natura 2000 sites and the last is too close to residential areas, particularly Attard. The aborted Mistra “Spin Valley Disco”, which the Nationalist Party and its stooges at Mepa defended before the 2008 election, would also fall foul of these provisions as it was sited right in the middle of a special area of conservation.

Excessive noise also has a damaging impact on the welfare of animals, both farm animals and pets. The impact of noise on farms and agriculture is completely ignored by the White Paper.

Fireworks regulations, for example, are only concerned with residential areas and the distances to be observed from areas that serve as a residence for more than 100 humans.

Excessive noise in agricultural areas severely impacts agricultural production (like milk, poultry, eggs, rabbits…) and can have a considerable economic impact.

It is up to the minister in question to decide whether to prefer the fireworks at the expense of negative impacts on animal husbandry. He may not worry unnecessarily as animals do not vote!

While the White Paper on Noise Prevention is welcome, it barely scratches the surface. We need to go deeper and tackle areas ignored by the White Paper because noise pollution is an issue that has been neglected for far too long.

 

This article was published in The Times of Malta , April 14, 2012

 

on the same subject on this blog :

7th February 2009 : The value of silence

7th November 2009 : When pigs are able to vote

AD comments on the Dwejra report of the MEPA Audit Officer

AD has published the report which the MEPA Audit Officer finalised after an AD request for an investigation of MEPA’s processing of the application relative to the Dwejra protected site.

Carmel Cacopardo AD Spokesman on Sustainable Development and Local Government stated that the report shows once more that the Environment Protection Directorate has been set aside and practically ignored in the whole process. The fact that the application was processed by the Planning Directorate with minor and informal roles for the Environment Protection Directorate demonstrates how the environment role of MEPA has been reduced  to one of mere decoration.

Carmel Cacopardo added that it is worrying that the MEPA Audit Officer has concluded that the Environment Protection Directorate has abdicated its responsibilities to the Planning Directorate. This is the logical consequence of years of ignoring by MEPA of its environmental responsibilities. This is also reflected in the report’s conclusion that the Environment Protection Directorate has failed to screen the application to establish the impact of the proposed activity and this in direct contrast to the guidelines issued by the EU on the implementation of the Habitats Directive transposed onto the Maltese statute book as per Legal Notice 311 of 2006.

AD’s chairperson, Michael Briguglio added  that the report concluded that MEPA was aware at least since the 14th October 2010 that the applicant was not observing the conditions which it had established yet it remained static and apprehensive as it wanted to avoid litigation and action for damages for possible disruption of filming activities. This is grossly irresponsible and AD expects an explanation from the MEPA CEO who needs to also explain why no monitoring was carried out when the permit clearly explained that this was to be carried out at the applicant’s expense. The substantial sums of money being paid by the taxpayer to finance MEPA  are not resulting in responsible management added Michael Briguglio.

Finally AD insists that Mr Austin Walker as one of the most paid CEOs in the public sector does not only owe the public an explanation but he must also shoulder responsibility for MEPA’s inability to react.

MEPA Audit Office Dwejra Report

Mental Gymnastics at MEPA

Over the past two years, three special areas of conservation were in the news: Mistra (Spin Valley disco), Baħrija Valley and, now, Dwejra. Next in the news will be the White Rocks sports development, bordering Pembroke.

The Director for Environment Protection at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is on record as saying that an SAC should not be “a keep-out zone”. To my knowledge, no one has made such an assertion. It is, however, to be underlined that permissible activities in and around SACs are limited in terms of the EU Habitats Directive.

Decisions of the Environment Protection Directorate relative to SACs need to be adequately motivated. This is unfortunately not always apparent. What is also very clear at this stage is that the Environment Protection Directorate seems to have been kept out of the process leading to the original decision on the use of the Dwejra site, only to be pushed onto the frontline at the eleventh hour when a damage limitation exercise was embarked upon.

The Habitats Directive is very clear. As a rule, it permits activities on and in the vicinity of SACs only if these activities are required for the purpose of managing the site. Other activities may also be permitted but when this is the case they are subject to stringent procedures and conditions.

The Habitats Directive (transposed into Maltese legislation by Legal Notice 311 of 2006) may permit an activity in or in the vicinity of an SAC provided the Environment Protection Directorate determines it is not detrimental to the site either on its own or cumulatively with other activities.

However, in so determining, the Environment Protection Directorate has to carefully consider the proposed activity and correlate it to all the characteristics of the SAC. In particular, it should also consider what is known as the “corridor effect”. That is, whether an activity in or outside an SAC is likely to have an impact on any area of the SAC or another protected area in the vicinity, say a marine conservation area as is the case in Dwejra.

An SAC should be considered as a whole and should not be parcelled into areas where activity is permissible and others where it is not, as Mepa seems to be suggesting. Malta cannot go on with declaring areas to be SACs only to subsequently commence mental gymnastics in order to invent exceptions whenever the need to justify something crops up.

Analysing statements made after the Dwejra saga, it is clear Mepa failed to do the above. By stating the site was “bare rock”, worse still, by stating there is no eco-system to protect (even if this absurd statement was later retracted), Mepa in my view abdicated its responsibilities as the competent authority entrusted by the EU to act on its behalf to manage SACs, which are today part of an EU Natura 2000 network.

At least two parallel investigations are under way. One by the Mepa audit officer, the other by independent experts to scientifically examine and report on any impacts on the site as a result of the permit issued by Mepa.

So far, the applicant (Fire and Blood Productions) and the sub-contractor have been censured for not observing the permit conditions imposed by Mepa. However, no official comment as to whether Mepa overstepped its brief in issuing the Dwejra permit has yet been made. This I submit is the primary pending matter as, in my view, Mepa should never have authorised the placing of sand at Dwejra.

Earlier this year, in an article entitled Land Speculation At White Rocks (July 7) I had written about another SAC, that at Pembroke. The proposal there does not involve the temporary placing of sand but the development of a sports complex in an area which is very close to the Pembroke SAC. In view of conflicting information it is not yet clear how and to what extent this proposal impacts the Pembroke SAC.

After considering the manner in which SACs have been mismanaged by Mepa in Mistra, Baħrija, Dwejra and, now, possibly Pembroke it is legitimate to ask why the government has bothered to declare them as areas worthy of protection.

It is clear so far the government is only interested in paying lip service to such issues and, subsequently, to engage in mental gymnastics to justify anything.

As stated by Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco (The Cost Of Decisions That Count, The Times, November 27) one should not use this serious incident to discount the validity of a number of environmental initiatives. However, if the government wants to be taken seriously on environmental issues it must put its house in order. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a priority.

 

Published in The Times of Malta, Saturday December 4, 2010

The mauling of Dwejra : an environmental crime

 

Some would have formed the opinion that the basic information on the Dwejra debacle is known to all.

Not quite, I would say.

MEPA issued a permit containing The Consent Conditions relative to a number of sites in Malta and Gozo to be used for filming parts of the tele-serial “Game of Thrones”. One of the sites was at Dwejra Gozo.

Two site specific conditions applicable to Dwejra (conditions 23 and 24 of The Consent Conditions) refer to Areas of Ecological Importance and Sites of Scientific Importance. These are terms used by the Structure Plan to classify the protection afforded to areas of conservation (Structure Plan Policies RCO 1, RCO 2 and RCO 3). Given that the Dwejra site is a Special Area of Conservation I searched and noted that in The Consent Conditions there is no reference whatsoever to Special Areas of Conservation rules and policies, regulated in terms of the Habitats Directive of the EU which was transposed into Maltese law through Legal Notice 311 of 2006 (Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations 2006).

This leads to the logical conclusion that the consent issued by MEPA for the use of the Dwejra site to film part of the tele-serial “Game of Thrones” was only processed in terms of land use planning considerations. Environmental considerations are completely absent: they were completely ignored. The Consent Conditions being a written proof  of this.

Planning vs Environment

During the national debate as to whether it made sense to have land use planning and environment protection forming part of the same authority the Gonzi-Demarco duo  always insisted that MEPA dealing with both would lead to having a much better protection of the environment. Coordination, it was said, was the name of the game. In practice we are faced with something else: land use planning considerations are ruling the day and environmental considerations are being continuously sidelined. The Dwejra case being a typical example.

 

The Species Data Form

Dwejra was included as a Nature 2000 site and consequently as a Special Area of Conservation by the European Union at the request of the Maltese Government which also supplied the detailed justification as to why the area should be protected. The scientific reasons justifying the selection of the site as a Special Area of Conservation are available on the Species Data Form which MEPA had submitted to the EU on behalf of the Government of Malta some years back. An electronic copy is available at the EU website.

EU LIFE+  financial support

In 2003, given the importance of the protection afforded to the site the EU through its LIFE+ Fund  supported a conservation project for the area headed by Nature Trust Malta then in partnership with MEPA and WWF Italy. The EU forked out €324,000 of the EU taxpayers’ money.

Permissible Activity

Permissible activity in a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a very delicate matter. It is regulated primarily by regulations 18 and 19 of Legal Notice 311 of 2006.

Regulation 18 establishes that a permit is necessary for any activity in an SAC. It also determines who needs to be notified.

Regulation 19 goes in detail and establishes the parameters within which MEPA as the Competent Authority can act. When the consent required is not related to the management of the SAC and it is likely to have a significant effect thereon, MEPA or the applicant is to carry out “an appropriate assessment of the implications of the operation or activity on the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives”.

Legitimate question

After having ascertained, through the assessment, that the integrity of the site is not affected MEPA is required to obtain and take into account “the opinion of the general public and representations made”.  This means that the assessment carried out has to be subject to a public consultation.

In view of the above it is legitimate to ask: was an appropriate assessment carried out? And further, when was this appropriate assessment subjected to the scrutiny of the public in order that representations could be made by the public as well as environmental NGOs?

I am not aware as to whether an appropriate assessment was carried out and hence nor am I aware as to its possible conclusions. However if this assessment was carried out I do not recollect that it was subjected to public consultation.  Nor have any of the environmentalists with whom I have discussed the matter any recollection of this public consultation ever taking place.

The public interest

Regulation 19 of Legal Notice 311/2006 further specifies what is to be done if the appropriate assessment results in negative implications for the SAC site. In such cases MEPA as the Competent Authority may only give its consent to the activity “for imperative reasons of overriding public interest …… of a social or economic nature.”  These reasons are defined as relating to human health, public safety, or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or other reasons which in the opinion of the EU Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.   

The consent must be accompanied by “compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.”  The EU Commission is furthermore to be informed of these compensatory measures taken by the Competent Authority.

MEPA’s responsibilities

To date the public has been informed in detail as to how the conditions of the permit which MEPA issued to Fire and Blood Productions were not observed. The public is aware that Fire and Blood Productions has apologised for the damage caused but shifted the blame onto its Gozitan sub-contractor.

This only explains one small part of the saga. No one has yet commented as to how MEPA has contributed to the debacle when it is crystal clear that it is precluded from issuing a permit for the Dwejra site in terms of the provisions of the Habitats Directive.

MEPA as the Competent Authority has the duty to ensure that the provisions of the Habitat’s Directive of the EU are observed to the letter. As explained above, through its actions MEPA has ignored both the letter and the spirit of the Habitats Directive.

This leads me to conclude that the damage caused to the SAC was not caused just by the Gozitan sub-contractor acting on behalf of Fire and Blood Productions. Through its lack of observance of the provisions of Legal Notice 311/2006 MEPA has made it much easier for damage to be inflicted onto the Dwejra SAC. Instead of protecting the environment the now reformed MEPA has facilitated its damage.

This is an environmental crime for which persons having a name and a surname are directly and personally responsible.                        

Accountability

It is time to translate words into action.

I hope that investigations currently in hand will identify the names of those responsible in order that they may be requested to account for both their actions as well as their inaction which have led to the Dwejra SAC mauling.

In a country where the organs of the state are bursting at the seams with lawyers one may sometimes assume that in Malta the rule of law is strictly observed. Such incidents prove that one is grossly mistaken in making such assumptions.    

Environmental legislation must be adhered to first of all by the state. If the state through its institutions ignores environmental legislation how do we expect Joe Bloggs to respect it?

The EU has given us the tools to hold decision takers to account. This is a reason why a large number of environmentalists voted in favour of Malta’s accession to the EU. It is the only way to save what’s left of our heritage.

Published in the Environment Supplement of  The Malta Independent on Sunday,   November 21, 2010

AD asks MEPA Audit Officer to investigate Dwejra mauling

Following a request by AD MEPA has released a copy of the consent conditions for the use of Dwejra and other sites  in connection with “The Game of Thrones” teleserial shootout. AD is releasing the a copy of the Consent Conditions.

In the meantime Carmel Cacopardo AD spokesman on Sustainable Development and Local Government has written to the MEPA Audit Officer requesting that he investigates the whole matter.

In the written request Cacopardo on behalf of AD has stated that :
“It is inconceivable how MEPA could have issued any kind of permit for activities at Dwejra in view of the strict rules imposed by the  EU Habitats Directive which has been transposed into Maltese legislation.

In my opinion the Environment Protection Directorate of MEPA as the Competent Authority in terms of the Habitats Directive has permitted activities which it is duty bound to prevent from happening.

You are kindly requested to investigate the manner in which MEPA has handled this incident through both the actions and inactions of the Planning Directorate and the Environment Protection Directorate in MEPA.”Consent Conditions

AD demands Mepa information on Dwejra ‘mauling’

 

Carmel Cacopardo, AD’s spokesman on Sustainable Development has asked MEPA in terms of the Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment Regulations of 2005 to release a copy of the permit (including the relative conditions) which it has issued for filming in the Natura 2000 site of Dwejra Gozo.

“The mauling of the Natura 2000 site at Dwejra Gozo in the year 2010, is further proof that MEPA is either incompetent, oblivious of its responsibilities, or else it is unwilling to administer such EU Natura 2000 sites in terms of its responsibilities as the Competent Authority for Malta an EU Member State,” Mr Cacopardo said. “The Dwejra debacle follows the obscene development permits issued by MEPA in Mistra, Baħrija valley, Ramla l-Ħamra Gozo, all Natura 2000 sites. Furthermore it is to be underlined that Malta has received substantial financial aid under the EU Life Project in connection with the management of the Dwejra Natura 2000 site.”

The latest incident at Dwejra raised a number of questions in respect of which answers were expected, he said.

“1. Why was this permit not monitored when it is well known that filming companies tend to ignore limitations imposed by regulatory authorities ?

“2. Why did MEPA not send any of its inspectors at Dwejra, a Natura 2000 site, to monitor adherence to the conditions of the issued permit as is usually done in such cases, thereby ensuring that no damaging actions are taken in hand?

“3. Where was the sand used at Dwejra transported from?

“4. Did the Works Division in the Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs issue a permit for the transportation of sand as is required by article 3 of the Sand Preservation Act ?

“5. How can MEPA be sure of the origin of the sand used if it did not carry out adequate monitoring? In particular can it 100% exclude that the sand used was not transported from Ramla l-Ħamra, another Natura 2000 site?

“6. What legal action will be taken in connection with what has happened?”

The AD spokesman said the government through its agencies was not only paying lip service towards the protection of the environment, but to date all it had done had proven to one and all that it did not have an inkling of what environment protection was all about.

as published in timesofmalta.com 4th November 2010

also on maltastar.com 5th November 2010

Land Speculation at White Rocks

Having first class sports facilities in Malta is an objective which everyone shares. Hence the point at issue, in my view, is not whether a sports complex should be developed but how this can be done and the manner in which it should be financed.

The government has opted for direct negotiations with the selected partners. Was it right in directly selecting the proposed developers and negotiating away from the spotlight of tendering rules and procedures which a normal democratic society imposes?

My view is that the method of selection clearly indicates the government’s disdain for transparency and accountability, even if the final deal will eventually be presented for Parliament’s approval. Removing the major part of the process from the continuous scrutiny of the public institutions set up purposely for their examination, is a clear indication of what could lie in store. Comments have already surfaced as to the ethical credentials of those selected as partners.

An eventual agreement will consist of two elements: the provision of the sports facilities and a prime site residential development consisting of around 300 residential units. The second element is intended to finance the first, the land being made available by the taxpayer through publicly-owned land.

Three documents need to be examined in order to identify the applicable parameters and the considerations to be made.

The first document of relevance is the Development Brief for the White Rocks site issued by the then Planning Authority in 1995. Even if then the proposed development was for an “upmarket tourism project” the development parameters drawn up are of extreme relevance to today’s discussion.

The site, the brief informs us, has a total area of 36.9 hectares. This is subdivided into three zones. Zone 1, having an area of 38 per cent of the total, consists of the existing holiday complex and its facilities. Zone 2 (39 per cent of the area) consists of a mixed garigue and rocky coastline, including the marine environment and archaeological resources. Zone 3 (23 per cent of the area) consists of agricultural land.

The 1995 brief laid out that only Zone 1 was to be released for development. The brief identified one exception: an underground structure in Zone 2 which was to be rehabilitated and in respect of which no extension of its footprint was to be considered.

The second document of relevance to the White Rocks site is the North Harbour Local Plan approved in August 2006. This document, in addition to ignoring any development potential of the White Rocks site, defines it as a “green wedge”. Now, to my mind this means that no development is permissible on the site.

The third document of relevance is the Habitats Directive of the EU applicable to these islands as of May 2004. Zone 1 of the White Rocks site is adjacent to a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which has been so declared by Malta and approved by the EU Commission. This spills over into Zone 2 described above.

Now the only development permissible in SACs is that which is necessary for the management of the site. The Habitats Directive further lays down that activities on sites adjacent to SACs are restricted too, such that they serve as a buffer zone and are not the indirect cause of damage to the said SACs.

If the above parameters are adhered to, it is not at all clear which sports facilities can be developed on the White Rocks site. Given that Zone 1 covers 38 per cent of the total area, the space is limited both in terms of area as well as in terms of potential for the development of sports facilities. This would leave unanswered questions as to where the 300 projected residential units intended as payment for services rendered by the developing consortium are to be built.

One hopes that in planning the development of the sports complex the limits identified in the 1995 development brief will not be ignored.

Given the development parameters established in 1995, to which one must now add the responsibilities derived from the EU Habitats Directive of the European Union, it is doubtful whether the White Rocks site is suitable for development as a sports complex of the extent indicated by the Prime Minister and other government spokesmen.

Furthermore, it is neither possible nor acceptable to develop 300 residential units on the site to settle the costs of this development.

This is just land speculation in its crudest form. In an overdeveloped Malta the least one expects is a government engaging in speculative development in order to settle its bills and simultaneously claiming that the environment is one of its main policy pillars!

One wonders whose advice government is listening to. At times it seems that it has retained its Xagħra l-Ħamra advisors: those that had convinced it to promote a golf course without having first understood its environmental implications. Governments never learn.

published in The Times of Malta, July 3, 2010

The White Rocks Project

Dirk Urpani, AD Spokesman on Sports and Youths stated that AD appreciates that at last Government has produced a plan to utilise the abandoned White Rocks site for sports. Dirk Urpani expressed the hope that this project may further enhance a sporting mentality into the minds of the Maltese, all of which stand to gain only if it is properly implemented.

Carmel Cacopardo AD spokesman on Sustainable Development added that
government’s enthusiasm would only be justified if the proposed development is sustainable and consistent with government’s declared policy on the inauguration of the current session of Parliament in 2008. It was then solemnly declared that the Gonzi government would be guided and inspired by the principles of sustainable development. It is now time for Government to show one and all what it has learned from its environmental blunders, including those of the recent past, as was most recently observed in the press by the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism and the Environment.

AD, added Cacopardo, assumes that since it has been declared by Government that the environment is one of its policy pillars it has already taken into consideration the fact that the White Rocks Area borders a Special Area of Conservation which of its very nature limits the type of development and activities permissible. This is one of the duties which Malta has assumed through EU membership as it was this same government which identified this area (adjacent to the White Rocks area) to form part of EU’s Natura 2000 sites subject to the regulations detailed in the Habitats Directive.

In view of the above, Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson, concluded that it would be appreciated that the Prime Minister, even as Minister responsible for the Environment, puts everyone’s mind at rest how these responsibilities will be honoured now that detailed plans appear to have been finalised.

AD will be able to comment further about the project when the detailed plans are published.

_______

 

Dirk Urpani, kelliemi ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) dwar iż-Żgħażagħ u l-Isports jgħid li AD tapprezza li fl-aħħar tfaċċa pjan biex iż-żona mitluqa magħrufa bħala White Rocks tintuża għal attivita sportiva. Dirk Urpani esprima t-tama illi dan il-proġett jista’ jgħin l-iżvilupp sportiv fil-Maltin. Dan iżda jseħħ biss kemm-il darba l-proġett ikun implimentat sewwa.

Carmel Cacopardo kelliemi ta’ AD ghall-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli kompla li l-ħeġġa li qed tintwera tkun ġustifikata biss jekk l-iżvilupp propost ikun wieħed
sostenibbli u konsistenti mad-diskors programmatiku tal-Gvern fil-ftuħ tal-Parlament fl-2008 fejn gie dikjarat solennement li l-Gvern Gonzi ser ikun illuminat mill-prinċipji ta’ żvilupp sostenibbli. Huwa l-mument li l-Gvern juri jekk tgħallimx mill-iżbalji ambjentali li għamel anke’ fil-passat riċenti, u dan kif osserva tant tajjeb reċentement f’ġurnal lokali s-Segretarju Parlamentari responsabbli mit-Turiżmu u l-Ambjent.

AD, żied jgħid Cacopardo tassumi li billi l-ambjent illum huwa pilastru ewlieni tal-politika dikjarata tal-Gvern dan diġa ħa in konsiderazzjoni il-fatt li
l-area tal-White Rocks tmiss ma’ Żona Speċjali ta’ Konservazzjoni (Special Area of Conservation) li allura minna nnifisha tillimita x’tip ta’ żvilupp u attivita’ tista’ issir fl-inħawi. Dan huwa wieħed mill-obbligi li Malta daħlet għalihom bis-sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea meta kien il-Gvern innifsu li identifika ż-żona biex tagħmel parti min-Natura 2000 tal-Unjoni Ewropea. L-obbligi kollha dwar dan joħorġu mid-Direttiva tal-Habitats.

Għaldaqstant temm jghid Michael Briguglio, Chairperson ta’ AD,  AD tapprezza jekk l-Prim Ministru jserraħ ras kulhadd u jekk issa li jidher li hemm pjani dettaljati dwar il-progett jinforma lill-pubbliku kif dawn l-obbligi ser ikunu onorati.

AD tkun tista’ tikkummenta fid-dettall dwar il-proġett meta l-pjanijiet kollha
dettaljati jkunu pubbliċi.