L-Onorevoli jerġa’ jagħmilha

Malta Parliament

Hi sfortuna li d-dibattitu politiku fil-pajjiż reġa qiegħed jikkarga.

Il-Parlament hu l-post fejn issir il-kritika. Imma l-kritika, anke jekk iebsa mgħandiex tkun insolenti. L-insulti ma jagħmlu ġid lil ħadd: la lil min jgħidhom u l-anqas lil min jirċievihom.

Il-każi riċenti li dwarhom l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia kien kostrett li jagħti ruling, għal wieħed tnejn huma inkwetanti, għax ifisser li fuq naħa waħda hemm min qed jitlef rasu u fuq in-naħa l-oħra hemm min hu sensittiv iżżejjed.

Ovvjament kullħadd tad-demm u l-laħam u meta tkun ilek taqla ġo fik, fl-aħħar tixpakka. Dak li qed jiġri bħalissa fil-Parlament. Diskors li ma jagħmel la ġid u l-anqas ġieħ lil ħadd.

Kien floku kliem l-iSpeaker li ipprova jberred ftit l-affarijiet billi ta ċans biex dak li jkun jerġa jaħsibha u forsi juża kliem iktar addattat.

Imma jidher li ċerti nies ma jitgħallmu qatt.

Advertisements

Kumpens doppju għaIl-PN

 PN. arma imkisra

 

Huwa tajjeb li l-Qorti Kostituzzjonali, fuq talba tal-Partit Nazzjonalista, eżaminat l-iżbalji fl-għadd tal-voti fl-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013. Avolja damet ftit iżżejjed biex waslet għal konklużjoni.

Imma l-PN, wara li ngħata żewġ siġġijiet oħra, issa spiċċa biex ingħata kumpens doppju tal-voti li kiseb fl-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013. Għax filwaqt li issa ħa żżewġ siġġijiet ġodda il-PN baqa bl-4 siġġijiet kumpens li kien ħa fl-2013.

Sitwazzjoni li ma nistax ngħidilha farsa, għax tad-daħq mhiex.

Imma ċertament l-anqas ma nista insejħilha ġustizzja, għax hi deċiżjoni inġusta.

Sadanittant, il-PN fil-Gvern dejjem sab diffikulta biex jaċċetta li anke Alternattiva Demokratika għandha dritt għal rappresentanza proporzjonali. Għax il-5000 vot u fuqhom li kellha Alternattiva Demokratika fl-elezzjoni tal-2013 bla dubju kellhom jissarfu f’rappresentanza ferm iktar mill-pakkett ta’ 50 vot ta’ Claudette Buttigieg!

A Secret Plan for Delimara

external-emergency-plan-censored

The Seveso Directive of the European Union is a legal instrument originally enacted in 1982. Subsequently amended, the present version was enacted in 2012 and is referred to as the Seveso III Directive.

Its full name is “Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC”. It has also been transposed into Maltese legislation through the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 2015.

As the technical name implies, the Seveso III Directive seeks to regulate sites which have the potential for major industrial accidents. It seeks to achieve its aim primarily through prevention but also by planning to minimise the impact of accidents which may occur on such sites.

The Directive was originally enacted as a result of the industrial accident in the Italian town of Seveso in 1976, when toxic fumes emitted from a chemical plant contaminated the surrounding residential area. It aims to improve the safety of such sites, both the safety of the employees working in such sites and the safety of residents, and the commercial communities, in the area.

One such site is the Delimara power station. This site has to follow the rules set out in the Seveso III Directive and in the Maltese regulations which transpose it into Maltese law.

Through these regulations, the Civil Protection Department is responsible for prepare emergency plans to be applied in the event of an accident.  There has to be an internal plan, one that applies to the industrial plant itself, and an external emergency plan, that applies beyond the boundaries of the plant.

The internal emergency plan is drawn up in conjunction with the management of the plant and discussed with the staff. Members of staff are undoubtedly trained not just in the correct running of the plant but also with regard to the protocol they should follow if there is an accident.

The external emergency plan concerns residents and business in the vicinity of the industrial plant. The Seveso III Directive requires that such a plan be subject to public consultation. In fact, regulation 10(5) of the Control of Major Hazard Regulations 2015 states  “The Civil Protection Department shall ensure that the public concerned is given early opportunity to give its opinion on external emergency plans when they are being established or substantially modified.”

Today is, in fact, the closing day for a public consultation exercise organised by the Environment and Resources Authority in respect of the Delimara Power Station. Among the documents which the Authority published for consultation one finds a report entitled External Emergency Plan prepared by the Civil Protection Department. However, the report made available is only part of the full report as the most important part – the part on operational issues – is missing. The available partial-report makes interesting reading, but  we are informed that the censored part has been removed as its availability would be “a threat to national security”.

Those running the Department of Civil Protection are maybe not aware that they have the duty to inform and that in this day and age they have no authority to act as a big brother. The public has the right to be informed and this right is the prerequisite for its active involvement in the formulation and eventual approval of the external emergency plan.

In a democratic society the right of the public to be informed is a basic element of good governance. By opting for secrecy, the Department of Civil Protection has chosen to take a completely different path – one that ignores the citizen and his right to participate in meaningful actions and decisions.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 27 November 2016

Is-siġġijiet tal-PN u l-proporzjonalitá

constitution-article-521

Il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali tat deċiżjoni dwar l-ilment kostituzzjonali tal-PN u iddeċidiet illi l-PN għandu jingħata żewġ siġġijiet addizzjonali fil-Parlament. Din hi d-deċiżjoni finali tal-Qrati Maltin dwar il-każ, u allura issa ser tkun implimentata.

Hi deċiżjoni li jixirqiha kull rispett, imma dan ir-rispett ma jfissirx li hi deċiżjoni tajba, għax fil-fatt hi deċiżjoni żbaljata. Għax ma kellhomx jiżdiedu s-siġġijiet, imma kellhom jitnaqqsu! Il-calculator tal-Prim Imħallef ħa żball. Kulħadd jista jiżbalja, mhux hekk?

Ovvjament il-Partit Nazzjonalista bħalissa qiegħed jippontifika dwar il-proporzjonalitá bejn voti miksuba u siġġijiet mirbuħa fil-Parlament. Peró l-proporzjonalitá li jemmen fiha l-PN hi dik bejn il-PN u l-Labour. Din wasslet biex għal żball ta’ ħamsin vot il-PN jippretendi żewġ siġġijiet Parlamentari, imma fl-istess ħin il-5506 vot fl-ewwel għadd ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika fl-aħħar elezzjoni ġenerali huma injorati.

Sewwa, 50 vot, skond il-PN, jixirqilhom rappresentanza imma 5506 vot għandhom ikunu injorati.

Ser ikun hemm min iwieġibni u jgħidli: jekk Alternattiva Demokratika jidhriha xi ħaġa messha tmur il-Qorti hi ukoll. It-tweġiba tiegħi hi waħda ċara: Alternattiva Demokratika diġá għandha parir legali li meta l-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta tipprovdi għal proporzjonalitá unikament għal żewġ partiti u tinjora lil bqija din qegħda tiddiskrimina.

Nafu li għandna raġun.

Il-problema hi biss li l-establishment jaħsibha mod ieħor. Meta jidhrilna li jkun il-mument opportun, nieħdu l-passi neċessarji.

Narmu l-ilma tax-xita fil-baħar

Malta storm

 

Nhar il-Ġimgħa l-inżul tax-xita ma waqafx u bosta mit-toroq prinċipali kienu mimlijin ilma. Kien hemm ukoll tappieri tad-drenaġġ f’xi inħawi li kienu qed ifawwru ilma jrejjaħ. Dan kollu mhux l-ewwel darba li ġara. Jiġri kull meta tagħmel xita qawwija jew inkella xita fit-tul.

Dan ġara u jibqa’ jiġri minħabba f’inkompetenza tal-awtoritajiet tul is-snin. Għax, minkejja li ilna iktar minn 135 sena b’liġijiet u policies li jobbligaw li l-ilma tax-xita li jaqa’ fuq il-bjut tar-residenzi tagħna jinġabar f’bir apposta, dan, ħafna drabi, ma jsirx.

Flok ma jinġabar fil-bir, dan l-ilma jispiċċa fit-triq inkella fid-drenaġġ. Għalhekk ikollna ħafna ilma fit-triq kif ukoll tappieri jfawru d-drenaġġ!  Din hi responsabbiltá ta’ min għażel li jagħlaq għajnjeh għall-irregolaritajiet minkejja li kellu l-obbligu li  jara li dawn l-irregolaritajiet ma jseħħux.

Xi snin ilu, f’eserċiżżju ta’ ħela ta’ flus, il-Gvern kien iddeċieda li jinfoq il-miljuni (inkluż ammont sostanzjali mill-fondi tal-Unjoni Ewropeja) biex iħaffer mini taħt l-art ħalli fihom jinġabar l-ilma tax-xita li imbagħad fil-parti l-kbira tiegħu, jintrema l-baħar. Il-Gvern immexxi minn Lawrence Gonzi kien daħal għal din l-ispiża minnflok ma dar fuq is-sidien tar-residenzi (u fejn applikabbli fuq l-iżviluppaturi li bnewhom) biex iħaffru l-bjar nieqsa ħalli b’hekk, l-ilma tax-xita, flok ma jinġabar fit-toroq u fid-drenaġġ li jfur fit-toroq u l-bajjiet tagħna, fil-parti l-kbira tiegħu jibda jinġabar f’dawn il-bjar.

Minflok ma l-ispejjes tħallsu minn dawk li ħolqu l-problema,  tqiegħed piż ieħor fuq l-ispiża pubblika. Minn fondi pubbliċi tħallsu l-ispejjes tal-iżbalji li saru minn min kien responsabbli għall-iżvilupp.

Fost il-kawża ta’ dawn il-problemi, hemm blokki ta’ flats u maisonettes f’kull parti ta’ Malta u Għawdex.

Bħala pajjiż, infaqna l-flus biex irmejna l-ilma l-baħar ħalli mbagħad nerġgħu niġbruh mill-baħar fl-impjanti tar-reverse osmosis. Kien ikun ħafna iktar utli kieku dan l-ilma nġabar fid-djar tagħna kif kienu jagħmlu bi ħsieb missierijietna. Għax in-natura kull sena tipprovdilna biżżejjed ilma għall-parti l-kbira tal-ħtiġijiet tagħna u huwa kollu tort tagħna li din ir-riżorsa prezzjusa qed tinħela.

Ippublikat f’Illum : Il-Ħadd 20 ta’ Novembru 2016

Paceville: protecting the underdogs

paceville-mp-land-use

As the short time allotted for public consultation on the proposed first draft of the Paceville Masterplan approaches its conclusion, it is time for some commonsense to prevail at the Planning Authority.

On TV, last Thursday, we heard the Authority’s Executive Chairman Johann Buttigieg plotting the first steps of a U-turn on a number of contentious issues contained in the draft. This U-turn is welcome, as it is clearly being planned on the basis of the reactions of the public and the environmental NGOs to the proposed Paceville Masterplan.

The most serious point at issue is the extent to which the nine projects around which the Masterplan is woven will engulf properties belonging to residents and small scale business people. It will hopefully now be clear, once and for all, that no one will be coerced through threats of compulsory purchase (veiled or otherwise) to make way for any one of the nine projects.

Mr Buttigieg declared that “no-one would be forced to sell”. While this declaration is welcome, it is certainly not sufficient. Everyone is aware that there are many ways through which pressure may be brought to bear on residents and business people. It is certainly time for all stakeholders to be vigilant and present a common front.  Being constantly on the look-out may help  identify those triggering incidents such as that of the car which was recently set ablaze in St George’s Park at Paceville at the same time as residents were meeting elsewhere to discuss their reactions to the proposed Paceville Masterplan.

The Planning Authority should be proactive. It should be at the forefront when it comes to taking initiatives that make sense. A case in point is the need to implement the public domain legislation recently enacted by Parliament  in order to better protect both the coastline and the foreshore to a minimum distance of fifteen metres from the shoreline.

It is well known that there is just one stretch of coastline within the draft Paceville Masterplan boundaries that is not intensively developed: the Cresta Quay site, also referred to as the Villa Rosa site 3. This site is crying out for protection and it can be protected, yet the draft masterplan – ignoring public domain legislation  – earmarks this site for a number of high rise blocks.

This proposal, in addition to reducing the recently approved public domain legislation to hot air, runs counter to the draft masterplan philosophy of siting high-rise developments away from the coast. It seems that someone may have been pressured into having second thoughts when the Masterplan was being drafted. There is no other reasonable explanation for this contradiction.

The public consultation has revealed that the drafting of the Paceville Masterplan was flawed, as it ignored issues of fundamental importance.  However, there is till time for the Planning Authority to align the Masterplan to the expectations of stakeholders. The belated declaration by Johann Buttigieg that (after all) he too has reservations on some aspects of the Masterplan is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this will be reflected in an overhaul of the draft and in the production of a new one which respects the stakeholders who have invested in Paceville over the years.

The investors promoting the nine projects which the Planning Authority identified may contribute to the regeneration of Paceville only if they tread carefully in full respect of residents and small-scale business people who have shaped the present-day Paceville, warts and all.

So far, this has not happened, as some of the developers think that they have some God-given right to ride roughshod over one and all. Unfortunately, the Planning Authority has generally obliged, as it has rarely been on the side of the those bearing the brunt of the bulldozer culture that has to date reigned supreme in land-use planning issues.

We await the second draft of the Paceville Masterplan, in the hope that the Planning Authority will turn a new page and assume its rightful place in protecting the underdogs.     

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 20 November 2016

Trump environmental policies causing concern

Clean air and water and a healthy environment shouldn’t be partisan issues, environmentalists say, but they also acknowledge that’s more a wish than reality following the election of Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump promised a raft of major environmental policy changes during his presidential campaign —  abolishing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ending environmental regulation, bringing back the coal industry, selling off public lands and tearing up the Paris climate accord to name a few — and post-election indications are he’s getting ready to move aggressively on many of those.

One signal of that is Mr. Trump’s appointment of Myron Ebell, a lobbyist and vocal climate change denier, as head of the EPA transition team. Another is the report that he is considering Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who supports drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and the aerial hunting of wolves and bears, as Interior Department secretary.

Environmentalists are girding for a long battle on those global and national issues, with the outcomes having a ripple effect on the environments and economies of states, including Pennsylvania.

“Trump’s election will be devastating to climate change control efforts and the future of the planet,” said Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, at a Wednesday teleconference held by five environmental groups in Washington, D.C. The groups collectively spent $100 million to support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Mr. Brune said Mr. Trump will become the only major nation head of state to reject climate change as real and man-made, a outlier position that “is already causing international blowback.”

“He said he’ll cancel Paris, but whether he can is a question,” Mr. Brune said. “Trump must chose wisely, otherwise I can guarantee him the hardest fight of his political life.”

Sky Gallegos, executive vice president of political strategy for NextGen Climate Action, called Mr. Trump’s election “a surprise and a disappointment,” and vowed a strong defense of “bedrock environmental laws.” Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said he’s confident the 46 Democratic U.S. senators can “erect a firewall” against the worst of the regulatory rollbacks Mr. Trump campaigned on.

In Pennsylvania, state legislators and former regulatory officials differ in assessing the the biggest impacts of Mr. Trump’s election on the state’s air, water, land and public health, or if they’ll be good or bad.

Most say a Trump administration likely will kill the federal Clean Power Plan, which sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-burning power plants. Federal environmental budget cuts also could end tax credits for renewable energy programs.

“I think on the federal level we’re looking at the possibility of a major reversal of environmental protections and climate initiatives, and that will be both environmentally and economically damaging to the state,” said John Quigley, who was Gov. Tom Wolf’s first DEP director in 20015-2016.

“Going back to the glory days of coal and oil is counter productive and really not achievable,” Mr. Quigley said. “Trump’s emphasis on fossil fuels misses the boat economically and environmentally.”

“Trump’s success in the election was based on playing to the fears and prejudices, both economic and otherwise,” he said. “But the world is different than what he portrayed it, and he’s eventually going to crash into that reality.”

State Rep. Leanne Krueger-Braneky, D-Delaware County, said she has grave concerns about how Trump administration environmental policies will affect environmental health in Pennsylvania.

“He supports fossil fuel development, denies global warming and won’t regulate gas drilling and methane leaks which affect people like me who have asthma,” said Ms. Krueger-Braneky, who is on a PennFuture panel of present and former state officials who will discuss the impact of Trump administration environmental policies on the state next Thursday in Philadelphia.

“I hope in Pennsylvania that governor Wolf will continue to fight for common-sense environmental regulations even though he’ll be doing it without support from the federal government,” she said.

State Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Marshall and House speaker, though not available to answer questions, issued a statement predicting the new administration’s policies will benefit the state’s energy suppliers and “lead America to energy independence and a resurgence in manufacturing.”

The statement continued: “This will lead to a vibrant expansion of good family-sustaining jobs in our state. We look forward to working with the new president on a pro-energy, pro-jobs approach.”

David Hess, DEP secretary from 2001 to 2003 under Gov. Tom Ridge, said he’s taking more of a wait-and-see attitude about what Mr. Trump’s policies will mean to Pennsylvania, but the biggest impacts could come from cutbacks to the EPA’s budget in future federal budgets, which could cause a cascade effect in states that rely on that money to fund air, water, waste and mining program permitting, oversight and enforcement programs. He said the state DEP is already dealing with budget reductions that total almost 40 percent over the last 13 years, resulting in a 20 percent staffing reduction..

Although Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric has raised real concerns about the eventual direction of his environmental policies, he said, his ability to change things too much is limited by legal constraints, which should prevent him from disbanding the EPA.

But Mr. Hess said Mr. Trump’s victory, plus Republican gains in the state Senate and House, also could embolden state legislators to reduce regulations. In October, the state Senate passed legislation aimed at identifying all state environmental laws more stringent than federal regulations, with the idea to roll those back.

But the movement away from environmental regulation at the federal level may be short-lived and limited by political realities more complex than Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric and election success.

The election day surprise may have been huge, but Mr. Trump’s mandate is not, said John Hanger, who was president of Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, a statewide environmental advocacy organization before becoming Department of Environmental Protection secretary from 2008 to 2011.

“If he was smart he’d be conciliatory and cautious, but initial reports are that he will be anything but that,” Mr. Hanger said. “I think he will overreach and the people around him will overreach. That might work when you win 60 percent of the popular vote but not when 53 percent of the public voted for someone else.”

Has the Paris agreement been Trumped?

trump-global-warming

In December last year, on the outskirts of Paris, representatives of 196 countries signed an agreement setting out ambitious goals to limit the increase in the global warming. They also agreed to hold governments to account. What is known as “The Paris agreement” came into effect on 4 November 2016.

The agreement was skilfully drafted in such a way that it would not require the approval of the Congress of the United States of America. If such an approval had been required, it would have been rejected outright by the Republican- dominated Congress. Instead, it was implemented by Presidential decrees thereby making it possible for the USA to join the civilised world in combating global warming and, consequently, climate change.

As from 20 January, in addition to Congress, Republicans will have Donald Trump in the White House. On the basis of Trump’s statements during the Presidential electoral campaign, as well as a result of his nominee dealing with environmental matters in the Presidential transition team, there will most probably be a shutting down of the Environmental Protection Agency and a huge bonfire of environmental regulations in Washington, sometime after January 2017.

Trump holds that climate change is fiction, created by the Chinese in order to ensure that the United States is not competitive as a result of being tied up by agreements and regulations.

While President-elect Trump has pledged to dismantle climate change action programmes, the state of California is exercising significant leadership and embracing the clean energy industry, a magnet for new investment and job creation. Other US states are following in the footsteps of California: Texas and North Carolina are embracing the clean energy industries resulting in massive investments and new job opportunities.

The head of Donald Trump’s environment transition team is Myron Ebell, Director of the Centre of Energy and Environment of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell also chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, comprising over two dozen non-profit organisations that question global warming. Myron Ebell has been described as “an oil industry mouthpiece” – a description  which sums it off in just four words.

The Clean Power Plan, through which President Obama  had sought to implement the conclusions of the Paris Agreement, appears to be for the chop. This plan had established the first ever national carbon emission standards for power plants, the largest  source of carbon emissions in the United States. The aim was that, by 2030, these emissions would be reduced by 32 per cent from those in 2005 consequently preventing thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of childhood asthma attacks. In addition, it addressed the fuel economy of passenger vehicles, sought commitment of US industry to reduce carbon emissions, boosted clean energy programmes and increased low-carbon investment. It further developed a strategy to reduce methane emissions, partnered with agriculture producers and set aggressive goals for the reduction of the Federal Government’s  greenhouse gas emissions.

Going by Trump’s statements all this may be reversed in the coming weeks.

This will undoubtedly have an impact on, and influence decisions to be taken by, other countries and may well end up with the newly emerging economies taking a stronger lead in climate change diplomacy.

The Paris agreement was only the starting point. At Marrakesh in the coming days the international community was planning to improve the Paris agreement by focusing more on the importance of adaptation to climate change, including adaptation finance. However, it is now expected that US financial pledges made by President Obama will not be honoured by the new administration. This will inevitably lead to a derailing of plans aimed at ensuring the safety of the global environment.

Some are still hoping that Trump’s rhetoric will not be translated into action. Unfortunately, the first days of the transition of the new presidency do not give much cause for optimism in this respect.

 

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 13 November 2016

Townsquare: qed jgħadduk biż-żmien?

Townsquare.Fawlty Tower 

Il-bieraħ kont preżenti għall-ewwel seduta tal-appell mid-deċiżjoni tat-torri ta’ Townsquare.

Ir-rappreżentant legali tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar nixxef lil kulħadd meta talab lill-membri tat-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent  l-Ippjanar [dak li sa ftit ilu kien il-Bord tal-Appell] biex jikkunsidraw li l-Kunsill Lokali ta’ tas-Sliema, l-għaqdiet ambjentali u l-Awtoritá tal-Ambjent ma kellhomx dritt li jippreżentaw  dan l-appell.

Tafu għaliex?

Għax kull wieħed minnhom kellu rappreżentant fil-Bord tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar meta din ħadet id-deċiżjoni dwar it-torri ta’ Townsquare.

Uħud minnkom forsi tiftakru kemm kien hemm min ftaħar li s-separazzjoni tal-Ippjanar mill-Ambjent kien ser iwassal għal iżjed attenzjoni u fuq kollox li l-Awtoritá tal-Ambjent kien ser ikollha id-dritt mhux biss li tipparteċipa fil-Bord imma li fuq kollox kien ser ikollha d-dritt li tappella mid-deċiżjonijiet tal-Ippjanar biex tħares l-ambjent aħjar.

L-Avukat Robert Abela jidher li għandu ideat differenti minn dawk li ħabbru diversi Ministri fil-Parlament.

Inkella, dawn l-istess Ministri ppruvaw jgħadduk biż-żmien!