It-tnaqqis tal-iskart iġġenerat, jipproteġi l-art agrikola

Ir-residenti ta’ Birżebbuġa jilmentaw dwar it-tniġġiż mill-ħsejjes iġġenerati mill-Port Ħieles. Ir-residenti tal-Furjana jilmentaw dwar l-impatti tal-cruise liners fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom, kemm minħabba t-tniġġiż tal-arja kif ukoll minħabba t-tniġġiż akustiku. Ir-residenti tal-Gudja, Ħal-Luqa, Ħal-Kirkop u tal-irħula tal-madwar huma effettwati mill-operat tal-uniku ajruport li għandna. L-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin għat-Trattament tal-iskart qatt ma tqies ġar eżemplari mir-residenti ta’ Wied il-Għajn.

Ħadd ma jixtieq miżbla wara biebu. Miżbla jew faċilità għall-immaniġjar tal-iskart wara l-bieb, tfisser iktar minn impatti negattivi jekk teħodlok ukoll l-għodda ewliena tal-għixien tiegħek inkella teqridlek darek. Dan hu l-każ tal–bdiewa u r-residenti tal-Magħtab.

Il-miżbla tal-Magħtab ilha topera mill-1977, meta l-miżbla f’Wied Fulija (Iż-Żurrieq) kienet qed toqrob li timtela.

Il-bdiewa tal-Magħtab ilhom jaqilgħu fuq rashom żmien. Wieħed mill-bdiewa li ltqajt miegħu l-ġimgħa l-oħra spjegali li lill-familja tiegħu, fl-1975 kienu ħadulhom 75 tomna raba’ li kienet tinħadem, ftit iktar minn 84,000 metru kwadru, biex jiffurmaw parti mill-miżbla li nħolqot dakinnhar. Illum ser jeħdulhom 25 tomna oħra biex ikabbru madwar 28,000 metru kwadru.

Kif nistgħu nevitaw li l-kumpless tal-iskart fil-Magħtab ikompli jikber billi jibla’ 254,144 metru kwadru ta’ art, primarjament raba’ li tinħadem, kif qed tipproponi l-Wasteserv?

X’ġustizzja hi li sezzjoni waħda tal-popolazzjoni tkun mistennija li ġġorr waħedha l-piż tal-impatti li lkoll kemm aħna nikkontribwixxu għalihom? Ma jkunx iktar ġust li l-piż jinqasam? Fejn ser niġbdu linja?

Jekk nillimita ruħi għall-materja presentment taħt il-lenti, dik tal-immaniġjar tal-iskart, neħtieġu ppjanar sew u dan fil-kuntest tal-għodda ta’ politika kurrenti li tikkonċerna l-iskart. Imma jeħtieġilna li nimxu mal-miri ta’ ħidma stabiliti, għax inkella ma naslu qatt.
It-tnaqqis tal-ħolqien tal-iskart, li dan jintagħżel (is-separazzjoni) u li jkun riċiklat huma tlett għodod bażiċi fil-ħidma li ssir biex l-iskart ikun immaniġjat. Jekk dan isir sewwa l-ammont ta’ skart li jispiċċa fil-miżbla għandu jonqos b’mod sostanzjali. B’riżultat ta’ hekk jkun hemm inqas ħtieġa ta’ art biex tkun kkonvertita f’miżbla. Dan hu l-iskop tal-leġislazzjoni ambjentali tal-Unjoni Ewropeja li suppost li ilna nsegwu sa minn meta fl-2004 isseħibna fl-Unjoni Ewropea.

Il-politika dwar it-tnaqqis tal-ħolqien tal-iskart tfisser tnaqqis ippjanat tal-iskart iġġenerat. Inizjattivi dwar amminsitrazzjoni elettronika huma passi posittivi f’din id-direzzjoni. L-amministrazzoni elettronika hi waħda bla karti, avolja xi kultant din twassal sempliċiment biex tnaqqas l-użu tal-karta minn uffiċċju u żżidu f’ieħor. Anke it-tnaqqis fl-iskart li joriġina mill-ippakkeġġjar ukoll jikkontribwixxi b’mod sostanzjali għall-iskart iġġenerat. Fi djarna hu possibli ukoll li nnaqqsu l-iskart li nipproduċu. F’dan il-kuntest kampanji ta’ informazzjoni u edukazzjoni għandhom rwol importanti.

Imma hemm kontradizzjoni fil-politika tal-Gvern f’dan ir-rigward. Id-deċiżjoni li jkollna inċineratur tirrikjedi ammont kontinwu ta’ skart biex jitma lill-inċineratur. Filwaqt li suppost li qed ninkoraġixxu t-tnaqqis tal-ġenerazzjoni tal-iskart, l-inċineratur jirrikjedi l-oppost: il-ġenerazzjoni kontinwa ta’ ammont sostanzjali ta’ skart. Mingħajru l-inċineratur ikollu jagħmel id-dieta.

Is-separazzjoni tal-iskart tinvolvi l-għażla ta’ tipi differenti ta’ skart. Dan jiffaċilita li l-iskart li jkun intagħżel ikun użat u mhux mormi. Is-separazzjoni tal-iskart organiku, per eżempju, jiffaċilita it-trattament ta’ dan l-iskart biex minnu jkun prodott kemm l-elettriku kif ukoll il-kompost. L-iskart organiku jammonta għal madwar 50% tal-iskart iġġenerat fid-djar. Imma fl-industrija tal-catering l-iskart organiku jammonta għal porzjon ferm ikbar mill-iskart iġġenerat f’dik l-industrija.

Skond il-Wastserv, 27,000 tunellata ta’ skart organiku inġabru mid-djar matul l-2019. Dan jista’ jiżdied għal 70,000 tunellata fis-sena jekk f’kull dar nagħmlu sforz ikbar biex l-iskart organiku jkun separat. Il-Wasteserv ma tipprovdix informazzjoni dwar l-iskart miġbur mill-istabilimenti tal-ikel. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan in-nuqqas ta’ informazzjoni l-Wasteserve qed tindika li ma tafx x’qed jiġri f’dan il-qasam. Lanqas ma hu ċar jekk l-iskart organiku mhux ipproċessat li dan l-aħħar deher imħallat ma skart ieħor f’ritratti u filmati dwar l-operat tal-miżbla tal-Magħtab hux inkluż fl-informazzjoni ippubblikata mill-Wasteserv.

Li niġbru l-iskart organiku b’mod separt u li nipproċessawh ma jfissirx biss li jkun hemm inqas skart li jmur fil-miżbla: ifisser tnaqqis mhux żgħir fil-gassijiet serra (greenhouse gases) attribwibbli lil Malta u allura tnaqqis tal-impatt Malti fuq it-tibdil fil-klima.

Ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart f’Malta għadu lura meta mqabbel ma dak mistenni minna. L-unika qasam li qabad huwa dak li jirrigwarda l-iskart tal-ippakkeġġjar. Iż-żieda meħtieġa fir-riċiklar ukoll tnaqqas l-iskart li jinġabar fil-miżbla u għaldaqstant meta naslu biex inżidu r-rata tar-riċiklar il-Wasteserv ikollha inqas ħtieġa li tuża’ art agrikola biex testendi l-miżbla tal-Magħtab.

L-għajnuna li nistgħu nagħtu lill-bdiewa tal-Magħtab biex ikunu jistgħu jibqgħu jaħdmu ir-raba’ tista’ timmaterjalizza biss jekk inkunu kapaċi innaqqsu bil-kbir l-iskart li nibgħatu fil-miżbla. Għandna niftakru li l-istrateġija kurrenti għall-immaniġjar tal-iskart fil-gżejjer Maltin għandha l-mira ta’ skart zero sas-sena 2050. Għadna lura biex naslu!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 1 ta’ Marzu 2020

Reducing waste generation protects agricultural land

Birżebbuġa residents complain about the noise generated by the Freeport. Floriana residents complain about the impact of cruise liners on their lives through depleted air quality, as well as acoustic pollution. The residents of Gudja, Luqa, Kirkop and other villages in the area are affected by the operations of our only airport. The Sant’ Antnin Waste Treatment Plant has never been considered a good neighbour by the residents of Marsaskala.

Understandably, no one wants a landfill on his doorstep. In addition to bad neighbourliness, matters are even worse if the projected landfill (or a waste management facility) takes over your means of making a living. This is the case that the Magħtab residents and farmers are emphasising.

The Magħtab landfill has been in operation since 1977, when use of the landfill at Wied Fulija (Iż-Żurrieq) was being scaled down.

The Magħtab farmers have been at the receiving end for quite some time. One particular farmer, whom I met last week, told me – way back in 1975 – his family was dispossessed of 75 tumoli (over 84,000 square metres) of agricultural land that was taken over for the then proposed landfill. Today, another 25 tumoli (around 28,000 square metres) of agricultural land worked by the same family will also be taken up.

The point at issue is whether the proposed take-over of 254,144 square metres of additional land, mostly agricultural, to be absorbed into the Magħtab landfill complex, can be avoided, in whole or in part.

Futhermore, is it fair – or even ethical – for one section of the population to be expected to bear the brunt of impacts to which each one of us contributes? Should the burden not be spread, thereby ensuring that all communities shoulder part of it?

Where do we draw the line?

Limiting myself to the current issues of waste management, the problems to be faced have to be first resolved on the drawing board, on the basis of the policy options available. Subsequently, we need to ensure that the established targets are scrupulously observed in practice.

Waste minimisation, waste separation and waste recycling are three basic waste-management tools which should be used properly. Adequate use of such tools would reduce substantially the amount of waste going to landfill. As a result, if properly utilised, these policy tools would lead to a substantially reduced demand for land to be used as a landfill. This is the objective of the EU acquis which we ought to have followed since 2004 on EU accession.

A policy of waste minimisation involves a planned reduction of waste generation and initiatives relating to electronic government are a positive step in this direction. Paperless administrative processes reduce paper waste, for example, although sometimes they just shift the generation of the waste from one user to another. Reducing packaging waste also contributes substantially to waste minimisation. Even in our homes we can ensure that we minimise the waste that we generate: educational campaigns play a much important role in this respect.

There is, however, a contradiction in government policy in this regard: the decision to develop an incinerator requires a steady flow of waste to feed it. While we should be encouraging waste minimisation, the incinerator would require the opposite, waste maximisation – otherwise it would have to go on a diet.

Waste separation at source involves identifying and separating different streams of waste. This facilitates dealing appropriately with such waste. The separation of organic waste, for example, makes it possible to treat such waste in an appropriate digestor, thereby producing electricity and compost. Organic waste accounts for approximately 50 per cent of domestic waste. It does, however, account for a much larger portion of the waste generated by the catering industry.

Having a separate collection of organic waste has, according to Wastserv, resulted in a substantial amount of organic waste being collected from domestic households: 27,000 tonnes during 2019. This has the potential to grow to around 70,000 tonnes annually, if every household makes an effort in the separate disposal of organic waste. Wasteserv, however, does not provide data regarding organic waste collected from catering establishments, thereby indicating that this is not of any significance. Nor is it clear whether the unprocessed organic waste seen mixed with other general waste at the Magħtab landfill is included in Wasteserv’s published statistics on collected organic waste.

The separate collection of organic waste not only contributes to a substantial reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill: it also contributes to a reduction in released greenhouse gases, thereby reducing Malta’s contribution to climate change.

Waste recycling in Malta is still far behind what is expected. Malta’s recycling rates are still very low, except in the area of packaging waste. Adequate recycling would substantially reduce the amount of waste going to landfills, as a result reducing the uptake by Wasteserv of agricultural land for use for this purpose.

We can only help our farmers keep their agricultural land if we reduce – and eventually eliminate – waste going to landfills. We should remember that the current Waste Management Strategy for the Maltese Islands has targeted the attainment of a zero-waste objective by 2050.

Our performance to date is not encouraging.

Published in the Independent on Sunday : 1 March 2020

Il-Wasteserve: fil-Magħtab qed topera bla permess

Diversi bdiewa fil-Magħtab ġew mitluba biex jikkuntattjaw il-Wasteserve sa tmiem dan ix-xahar biex ikun iffaċilitat aċċess għall-art li qed jaħdmu u dan bl-iskop li din tkun eżaminata, “bil-ħsieb li possibilment tiġi akkwistata għal skop pubbliku”. L-avviż legali numru 1261 li kien ippubblikat fil-Gazzetta tal-Gvern tas-17 ta’ Diċembru 2019 jgħid li hemm tmien biċċiet art fil-Magħtab li qed ikunu ikkunsidrati. Din l-art għandha qies totali ta’ 254,144 metru kwadru, jiġifieri ftit iktar minn 226 tomna. Il-parti l-kbira minn din l-art għadha qed tinħadem minn bdiewa minkejja ċ-ċirkustanzi diffiċli li nħolqu kemm ilhom joperaw il-miżbliet fil-Magħtab sa mill-1975.

Xi ħtieġa għandha l-Wasteserve għal din l-art? Hemm tlett materji ewlenin dwar l-iskart li huma pendenti.

Il-miżbliet tal-Magħtab dalwaqt jimtlew. Bla dubju din is-sitwazzjoni wasalna għaliha qabel ma kien antiċipat minħabba li qed jintrema wisq skart. Ir-riċiklar għadu f’livell insinifikanti. Il-ġbir tal-iskart organiku b’mod separat għadu fil-bidu. Hemm ħtieġa urġenti biex in-nies tagħraf iktar il-ħtieġa li tnaqqas kemm l-iskart kif ukoll l-ammont tiegħu li qed jintrema fil-miżbliet.

Il-Gvern, probabbilment li qed iħejji biex jimplimenta l-wegħda elettorali dwar l-egħluq tal-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin li jittratta l-iskart. Din hi l-wegħda numru 27 fil-Manifest Elettorali tal-Partit Laburista fl-Elezzjoni Ġenerali tal-2017. Probabbilment li dan ukoll jispiċċa fil-kumpless tal-iskart tal-Magħtab li l-Wasteserve tirreferi għalih bħala iċ-Ċentru Ambjentali tal-Magħtab.

It-tielet pendenza hi dwar l-inċineratur li hu ppjanat li jibda jopera sa mhux iktar tard mill-2025.

Il-Wasteserve teħtieġ l-art għal dan kollu li ser iwassal biex il-Magħtab ikun ikkonvertit permanentement fiċ-ċentru tal-iskart fil-gżejjer Maltin.

Il-Wasteserve, fuq is-sit elettroniku tagħha tiddeskrivi l-kumpless tal-Magħtab bħala ta’ daqs komparabbli mal-Belt Valletta, li hi mifruxa fuq 600,000 metru kwadru.

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, Aaron Farrugia, Ministru għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar, li hu politikament responsabbli għall-Wasteserve, spjega, waqt intervista mxandra fl-aħbarijiet, li l-estensjoni ippjanata għall-miżbla tal-Magħtab teħtieġ 145,000 metru kwadru ta’ art filwaqt li l-inċineratur propost u “faċilitajiet oħra” jirrikjedu 105,000 metru kwadru addizzjonali. Il-facilitajiet oħra hi referenza għall-wegħda elettorali tal-Partit Laburista biex jingħalaq l-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin għat-trattament tal-iskart.

Meta tgħodd din l-art kollha għall-proġetti tal-Wasteserve fil-Magħtab ifisser li d-daqs tal-kumpless għall-iskart ser jikber għal madwar 850,000 metru kwadru, meta l-proġetti jkunu kollha mplimentati. Dan ifisser li l-254,144 metru kwadru ta’ art, primarjament raba’, imsemmija fil-Gazzetta tal-Gvern tas-17 ta’ Diċembru 2019 tista’ isservi bl-eżatt. Xejn ma neħodha bi kbira, iżda, jekk il-Wasteserve, bħal Oliver Twist, tkun trid iktar.

Meta nfittxu fuq is-sit elettroniku tal-Awtorità għall-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) niskopru li l-permessi magħrufa bħala IPPC permits għall-miżbliet fil-Magħtab ilhom ftit li skadew. Dan ifisser li l-Wasteserve qed topera fi stat ta’ illegalità.

Dawn il-permessi imsejħa IPPC permits (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) jinħarġu mill- ERA skond kif tistabilixxi direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewropeja u dan wara li jkun hemm studji dettaljati dwar l-attività (f’dan il-kaz miżbla) u l-impatti tagħha. Skont is-sit elettroniku tal-ERA il-miżbla għal skart mhux perikoluż Ta’ Żwejra fil-kumpless tal-Magħtab qed topera fuq bażi ta’ permess li skada fl-24 ta’ Lulju 2018 (permess IP 0001/05). Min-naħa l-oħra l-miżbla għal skart mhux perikoluż tal-Għallis, ukoll fil-kumpless tal-Magħtab, qed topera fuq bażi ta’ permess li nħareġ f’Jannar 2013 u li suppost li skada fil-bidu tal-2018 (permess IP 0001/06).

Jekk il-Wasteserve mhiex kapaċi tosserva liġijiet bażiċi ambjentali, ħadd ma għandu jeħodha bi kbira li sezzjoni tal-pubbliku jimxu fuq l-eżempju tagħha.

Għaliex ir-regolatur ambjentali, l-ERA, tittollera dawn l-affarijiet? Ic-Chairman tal-ERA, l-Professor Victor Axiaq, għandu jispjega x’inhu jiġri. Messu ilu li rreżenja.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum :Il-Ħadd 23 ta’ Frar 2020

Wasteserve illegality: sort it out.

Farmers in Magħtab have been asked to contact Wasteserve by the end of this month in order to facilitate access to their land “for necessary studies with the intent of potential acquisition for public purposes”.

Notice No. 1261, published in The Malta Government Gazette of the 17 December 2019, lists eight plots of land in Magħtab which are being considered. This land has a total area of 254,144 square metres, slightly more than 226 tumoli. Most of it is currently in use as agricultural land, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances arising from the operation of landfills in the vicinity since 1975.

What does Wasteserve need this land for?

There are three pending major waste management issues. The landfills at Magħtab will be shortly filled to capacity. Undoubtedly this state of affairs has been reached earlier than anticipated due to the fact that too much waste is still going to landfill. Recycling is still at an insignificant level and the collection of organic waste as a separate stream is still in its infancy. Much still needs to be done in instilling awareness on the need to substantially reduce both the amount of waste generated as well as the portion of it going to landfill.

The Government will most probably also seek to implement its electoral pledge to close down the Sant Antnin Waste Treatment Plant. This is pledge number 27 in the Labour Party Electoral Manifesto for the 2017 general election and it, too, will most probably be directed towards the Magħtab waste complex, which Wasteserve refers to as the Magħtab Environment Complex.

The third pending issue is the so-called thermal facility, ie the incinerator, scheduled to be in operation by 2025.

Wasteserve needs land to address all three issues, in the process converting Magħtab permanently to the waste centre of the Maltese islands.

The Wasteserve website describes the Magħtab complex as being comparable in size to Valletta, being spread over an area in excess of 600,000 square metres.

Earlier Environment and Planning Minister Aaron Farrugia, politically responsible for Wasteserve, explained on television that the planned extension to the Magħtab landfill requires 145,000 square metres of land, while the proposed incinerator and other facilities would require an additional 105,000 square metres. The “other facilities” is an indirect reference to the Labour Party’s commitment to close down the Sant Antnin Waste Treatment Plant.

Adding up all this land required for the Wasteserve projects at Magħtab would bring the Waste Complex size to around 850,000 square metres when all the pending projects are implemented. This means that the proposed take up of 254,144 square metres of mostly agricultural land as declared in the Malta Government Gazette edition of the 17 December 2019 could be just enough space. Like Oliver Twist, Wasteserve will, however, most probably come back for more.

Perusal of the information available on the website of the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) indicates that the IPPC permit for the landfills at Magħtab expired quite some time ago, signifying that Wasteserve is operating in a state of illegality.

The IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) permits are issued by the ERA in terms of the provisions of the relative EU Directive after detailed studies on the operations and impacts of the proposed activity have been carried out or updated. According to the ERA website, the Ta’ Żwejra non-hazardous landfill within the Magħtab complex is operating on the basis of a permit which expired on the 24 July 2018 (permit IP 0001/05). On the other hand, the L-Għallis non-hazardous landfill, also within the Magħtab complex, operates on the basis of a permit which was issued way back in January 2013 and should have expired at the beginning of 2018 (permit IP 0001/06). Malta’s only landfill complex is thus operating without a valid permit at law.

If Wasteserve does not follow the provisions of basic environmental legislation, it is no surprise that a section of the population is inclined to follow its example.

Sort it out!

Why does the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA), the environment regulator, tolerate this state of affairs? The Chairman of ERA, Professor Victor Axiaq, owes an explanation. His resignation is long overdue.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 23 February 2020

L-aħdar: sens komun ambjentali

Iktar minn sentejn ilu, nhar l-20 ta’ Marzu 2017, il-Kunsill Eżekuttiv tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar irrifjuta applikazzjoni għal kontroll tal-iżvilupp intenzjonata biex tistabilixxi x’jista’ jinbena fuq art f’ Ta’ Durumblat il-Mosta, b’kejl ta’ 38,600 metru kwadru.

Ma kienitx sorpriża meta iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa din l-applikazzjoni reġgħet tfaċċat fil-forma ta’ applikazzjoni ġdida fuq art ftit ikbar fid-daqs, din id-darba 40,500 metru kwadru. Il-proposta hi biex iż-żona kollha tkun żviluppata f’waħda residenzjali b’binjiet ta’ erba’ sulari, b’waħda minnhom parzjalment taħt il-livell tat-triq.

Il-ġlieda biex inħarsu l-ambjent jeħtieġ li nġedduha kuljum billi l-forzi tar-rebgħa qegħdin f’posizzjoni b’saħħitha li jibqgħu jippruvaw sakemm iġibuha żewġ.

Għadna taħt l-effett tal-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjioni li kien implimentat taħt id-direzzjoni tal-ex Ministru tal-Ambjent tal-PN George Pullicino bir-riżultat li madwar żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art barra miz-zona tal-iżvilupp (ODZ) ingħataw għall-iżvilupp. Dakinnhar, fl-2006, l-Opposizzjoni Laburista kienet ivvutat kontra din l-inizjattiva, imma hekk kif ħadet is-setgħa, konvenjentement insiet kollox. Huwa biss issa li bosta qed jirrealizzaw kemm hi kbira l-ħsara ambjentali li ser tkun ikkawżata minn dan l-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni. Sfortunatament, ir-rimedji possibli għal din il-ħsara huma limitati. Is-sitwazzjoni hi agħar minħabba li l-Gvern, bi strateġija ċara ma jaġixxix. Għax hu konvenjenti li jistax jwaħħal fil-Gvern ta’ qablu għal din il-mandra.

Il-punt hu li ma għandna l-ebda ħtieġa ta’żvilupp massiċċ fuq art verġni, bil-konsegwenza li tisparixxi iktar art agrikola fil-periferija taż-żoni urbani tagħna, bil-possibiltà li jingħaqdu fiżikament il-lokalitajiet. Il-mistoqsijiet li qamu sentejn ilu meta konna ffaċċjati bl-applikazzjoni oriġinali għadhom hemm, mhux imwieġba. Dawn ġew injorati mill-iżviluppaturi u dan minħabba li l-applikazzjoni l-ġdida hi identika għal dik oriġinali.

Għalfejn iridu żvilupp daqshekk intensiv? Xi studji hemm li jkejlu l-impatt tal-proposti ta’ żvilupp fuq l-infrastruttura tal-inħawi? Iż-żona li hu propost li tkun żviluppata hi sostanzjali. Zona li kien jagħmel sens li tkun pulmun aħdar għall-Mosta ser tispiċċa mibnija b’mijiet ta’ residenzi u garaxxijiet.

Meta għandna Gvern li mhux kapaċi jieħu posizzjoni ċara kontra żvilupp esaġerat, l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ma tantx għandha fejn tiċċaqlaq u dan billi d-deċiżjoni bażika favur l-iżvilupp esaġerat ilha li ttieħdet mill-Parlament sa mill-2006. Li baqa’ li jkun deċiż huwa n-natura tal-iżvilupp permissibli, inkluż jekk ikunx permess bini intensiv inkella bini baxx b’ħafna spazji miftuħin madwaru.

L-iżvilupp propost fil-Mosta m’huwiex sostenibbli għax ma nistgħux nibqgħu nitilfu iktar raba’ bla bżonn.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi l-uniku partit politiku li konsistentment oppona l-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni u emfasizza l-ħsara ambjentali li dan kien ser jikkawża fil-lokalitajiet tagħna. Dawk li jridu jħaxxnu bwiethom, ovvjament jaħsbuha mod ieħor. Dawk li jiddeċiedu, min-naħa l-oħra, b’mod konsistenti injoraw l-impatti ambjentali.
Din il-problema mhix waħda limitata għall-Mosta, imma hi mifruxa ma’ Malta u Għawdex. Kelli l-opportunità li niġbed l-attenzjoni għal diversi eżempji f’lokalitajiet oħra bħall-Marsaxlokk, il-Mellieħa, Ħ’Attard, Pembroke, San Ġiljan, tas-Sliema u diversi lokalitajiet oħra, fejn ir-rgħiba tħalliet issaltan.

Din hi kampanja favur is-sens komun, għax is-sens komun ambjentali hu aħdar. Huwa d-difiża tal-ġid komuni. Il-ħarsien tar-raba’ minn żvilupp mhux neċessarju hu essenzjali għax ma nistgħux nibqgħu nitilfu iktar art fi ġlieda mar-rgħiba. Hu mod kif inqegħdu fil-prattika dak li nipprietkaw dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli.

Meta jkollok daqshekk politiċi jipprietkaw kemm jemmnu fil-prinċipji tal-iżvilupp sostenibbli diffiċli li wieħed jifhem kif Alternattiva Demokratika hi prattikament waħedha fuq il-front politiku li jopponi l-iżvilupp esaġerat.

Il-ħarsien tal-ambjent hu ferm iktar minn eserċizzju ta’ tindif. Huwa dejjem tajjeb li jinġabar l-iskart mormi mal-kosta jew fil-kampanja. Li topponi l-iżvilupp esaġerat huwa tindif preventiv tal-periferiji urbani tagħna. Ir-residenti jeħtieġu l-appoġġ. Imma anke huma jeħtieġ li jifhmu li jekk ser jivvutaw bħas-soltu l-affarijiet mhux ser jinbidlu.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Ilum: Il-Ħadd 28 t’April 2019

Environmental common sense is green in colour

Over two years ago, on 20 March 2017, the Planning Authority’s Executive Council threw out a Planning Control application intended to determine the nature of permissible development in a stretch of land at Ta’ Durumblat Mosta having an area of 38,600 square metres.

It was no surprise that, earlier this week, the application was resubmitted to the Planning Authority in respect of a slightly larger area in the region of approximately 40,500 square metres. The proposal is to develop the whole site into a residential area subject to a proposed height limitation of three floors and a semi-basement.

The battle to defend our environment needs to be renewed every day, as the forces of greed are well placed to continue with their endeavours, until they succeed in gaining acceptance of their proposals.

The rationalisation exercise was carried out under the direction of former PN Environment Minister George Pullicino. It has resulted in around two million square metres of land outside the development zone (OZD) being given up for development – and the full impact is yet to be felt.

In 2006, the then Labour Opposition voted against this initiative, yet it conveniently forgot all about its stand when it was elected into office and it is only now that many are starting to realise the significant environmental impact of the rationalisation exercise. Unfortunately, the possibilities to remedy the damage in store are very limited and this limitation to act is further compounded by a government which (strategically) fails to act, as it is most convenient to be able to point fingers at your PN predecessors in government.

The point at issue is whether we need further large-scale development on virgin land, with the result of gobbling up more agricultural land on the periphery of our urban areas which will potentially merging neighbouring localities.

The queries raised two years ago – when the original application was submitted – are still unanswered. These queries have been ignored by the developers as the application that has been resubmitted is practically identical to the original one.

Why are the developers proposing so intensive a development? Do studies exist to assess the impacts which this proposal will have on the infrastructure of the area – which is substantial? Hundreds of residential units and garages will be constructed in an area when it would make more sense for it to remain as a green belt around Mosta.

Faced with a government which is reluctant to act against over-development, the Planning Authority does not have much elbow room for manoeuvre because, for all intents and purposes, the basic decision in favour of over-development has already been taken by Parliament – way back in 2006. What’s left to be decided is the nature and extent of the development. Whether, for example, the development would be intensive as proposed in the application or else low-density, such as limited to bungalows with a 25 per cent site coverage

The proposed development in Mosta is certainly not sustainable, as we cannot afford to lose more land to the current development spree.

Alternattiva Demokratika has been the only political party to continuously and consistently point out that the implementation of the rationalisation exercise will cause environmental havoc in our local communities. Those seeking to line their pockets obviously think otherwise. The decision-makers have also been consistent in ignoring environmental impacts.

This problem is not limited to Mosta but is spread all over the islands. I have had the opportunity to point out various other instances in Marsaxlokk, Mellieħa, Attard, Pembroke, St Julians, Sliema and various other areas where, once again, greed has won the day.

This is a campaign for commonsense to prevail, as environmental common sense is inevitably green in colour, in defence of the ecology and the common good. Protecting agricultural land from unnecessary development is essential as we cannot keep losing more land to greed. It is also the only practical way to implement sustainable development.

With so many political personalities proclaiming their adherence to basic principles of sustainable development, I fail to understand how Alternattiva Demokratika is practically on its own on the political front in consistently opposing over-development.

Protecting the environment entails much more than clean-ups. It is laudable to clean up the mess of rubbish accumulated along the coast or in the countryside but at this point in time campaigning against over-development is an exercise in preventively cleaning up the periphery of our urban areas. Residents need our support but they must, however, also note that if they vote as usual, they will be condemning themselves to more of the same.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 28 April 2019

Il-mina mhix soluzzjoni: hi problema

Il-mina li hi proposta taħt qiegħ il-baħar bejn Għawdex u Malta ser ikollha impatti negattivi konsiderevoli kemm fuq Għawdex kif ukoll fuq Malta. L-iżjed wieħed ovvju hu l-ġenerazzjoni ta’ madwar miljun u nofs metru kubu ta’ radam li ser jispiċċa fil-baħar. Dan ser jagħti bidu għal ħmar il-lejl ambjentali ieħor: għax l-iżviluppaturi ma baqgħalhomx fejn “jiżviluppaw” fuq l-art! Qed ifittxu l-ispazju. L-Awtorità dwar l-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi diġa identifikat fejn dan jista’ jsir. Mhux ta’ b’xejn li r-residenti tax-Xgħajra qed jirvellaw.

Il-problemi assoċjati mal-mina proposta huma bosta. Art agrikola madwar il-punti tad-dħul, fuq iż-żewġ naħat, kemm f’ Ta’ Kenuna fil-limiti tan-Nadur kif ukoll ħdejn

L-Għerien fil-periferija tal-Mellieħa u ma tul il-wied tal-Pwales ser ikollha tagħmel il-wisgħa. Din ser tispiċċa tkun trasformata f’toroq kif ukoll f’faċilitajiet għall-kontroll tad-dħul fil-mina. Magħhom imbagħad jiżdiedu pompi tal-petrol, kull naħa tal-mina.

Hu ċar, minn dak magħruf s’issa, li d-dħul għall-mina min-naħa ta’ Malta ser ikun viċin ħafna tal-ilma tal-pjan tal-Miżieb, jekk mhux dritt minn ġo fih ukoll! Dan l-ilma tal-pjan hu f’kundizzjoni tajba, l-aħjar wieħed fil-gżejjer Maltin. Din kienet ukoll waħda mir-ragunijiet ewlenin l-għaliex fil-passat riċenti kellhom ikunu abbandunati żewġ proġetti kbar fl-inħawi, dak tal-golf course u ieħor konness mat-toroq (in-network TEN-T).

Għandu jingħad ukoll li volum kbir ta’ traffiku ser ikun iġġenerat u dan ser jgħaddi viċin ħafna tar-riżerva naturali tas-Simar fix-Xemxija. Il-ħsejjes, id-dwal u t-tniġġiż tal-arja ser ikollhom impatt negattiv konsiderevoli fuq ir-riżerva, b’mod partikolari matul il-lejl, ħin li fih in-natura ukoll tfittex li tistrieħ.

Dawn il-problemi li inevitabilment jinħolqu mill-mina għandhom iwasslu lil min hu rasu fuq għonqu biex ifittex soluzzjoni alternattiva biex titjieb il-konnettività bejn Għawdex u Malta. Soluzzjoni li tevita dawn il-problemi u iktar.

Ħa nkun ċar: il-konnettività bejn il-gżejjer ta’ Għawdex u Malta teħtieġ titjib konsiderevoli: is-soluzzjoni imma, mhiex il-mina. Is-soluzzjoni għandha tkun waħda li tiffaċilita l-moviment bejn il-gżejjer mingħajr ma żżid mal-problemi li diġa għandna. B’mod partikolari għandna nevitaw li nkabbru l-problema tat-traffiku iktar milli hi diġa. Dan nistgħu nagħmluh jekk niżviluppaw soluzzjoni li tnaqqas flok ma tkabbar id-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi.

Hu stmat li l-mina proposta ser iżżid il-medja kull jum tal-movimenti tat-traffiku bejn il-gżejjer mit-3000 tal-lum għal madwar 9000: żieda bi tlett darbiet fuq perjodu ta’ ħmistax-il sena. Wieħed ma jridx wisq għerf biex jifhem dawn iċ-ċifri, li nsibuhom ukoll fl-istudju ekonomiku kkummissjonat fl-2015 mill-Awtorità tat-Trasport u l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija. Għax il-ħlas biex tgħaddi mill-mina ser jinġabar minn fuq kull karozza u allura d-dħul ser jiddependi mill-ġenerazzjoni tal-ikbar ammont possibli ta’ traffiku. L-eżistenza tal-mina tiddependi fuq dan: bla traffiku ma tistax teżisti. Dan imur kontra l-oġġettiv ewlieni tal-Pjan Nazzjonali tat-Trasport (National Transport Master-Plan 2025) li fi kliem mill-iktar ċar jispjega kemm it-tnaqqis tal-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna hu l-mira fit-tul tal-politika tagħna dwar it-trasport.

Is-soluzzjoni meħtieġa trid tindirizza l-moviment tan-nies u mhux il-moviment tal-karozzi. L-unika soluzzjoni raġjonevoli allura hi l-introduzzjoni ta’ katamaran (fast ferry service) bejn Għawdex u Malta: bejn l-Imġarr f’Għawdex u punti varji mal-kosta f’Malta li jistgħu jinkludu x-Xemxija, Tas-Sliema u l-Belt Valletta. Ma dan imbagħad ikun hemm ħtieġa tat-titjib tas-servizz tat-trasport pubbliku minn fejn jieqaf il-katamaran għall-bqija tal-pajjiż.

Hu essenzjali li s-soluzzjonijiet li nagħżlu għall-problemi tagħna tat-trasport ikun jħarsu fit-tul ħalli nnaqqsu u mhux inżidu l-problemi li nħallu lil ta’ warajna.

Ippubblikat f’Illum: il-Ħadd 3 ta’ Frar 2019

The proposed Tunnel is not a solution: it is a problem

The proposed tunnel below the seabed linking Malta and Gozo will have considerable negative impacts on both Gozo and Malta. The most obvious one is the generation of around one and a half million cubic metres of bits of rock which will be dumped into our seas, kick-starting another environmental nightmare, land reclamation. The construction lobby has run out of space to “develop” on land. The Environment and Resources Authority has already started identifying potential sites. The residents of Xgħajra have good reason to be up in arms.

The problems associated with the proposed tunnel are manifold. Agricultural land around the two points of exit of the proposed tunnel will be gobbled up: at Ta’ Kenuna on the outskirts of Nadur, and close to L-Għerien, on the periphery of Mellieħa and further along the Pwales valley. This agricultural land will make way for the roads and toll-control facilities leading to the tunnel. Then, they will inevitably be complemented by more petrol stations.

On the basis of what is known so far, it is already clear that on the Malta side the tunnel will be bored through or very close to the Miżieb aquifer, which is still in a very good state – the only one on the island so graded. This fact has been one of the determining issues leading to the abandonment of other large scale projects in the area (the golf-course and part of the TEN-T network).

One could also add that a substantial amount of traffic will be channelled very close to the Simar Nature Reserve in Xemxija. The resulting noise, light and air pollution will have a considerable negative impact on the reserve, especially at night, a time when nature seeks its resting time.

The problems generated by the proposed tunnel are substantial. There is, however, a reasonable solution to the connectivity issue.

Let me be clear: connectivity between the islands of Gozo and Malta needs considerable improvement. The proposed tunnel, however, is not the solution. The solution should be one which facilitates movement between the islands without creating more problems than we already have! In particular, we should avoid worsening the traffic problem. This can be done if the solution we seek is not one which increases our car dependency.

It is estimated that the proposed tunnel will increase average daily traffic movements between the two islands from the current 3,000 to a projected 9,000 – a threefold increase estimated over a fifteen-year period. One immediately understands the purpose of these projections referred to in the feasibility study commissioned jointly by Transport Malta and the Gozo Business Chamber in 2015. The toll to be charged – and, consequently, the tunnel’s economic performance – is dependent on generating the maximum traffic possible. Traffic underpins the very existence of the tunnel. This runs counter to the basic objective of the National Transport Master-Plan 2025 which in crystal clear language spells out the reduction of cars from our roads as the long-term objective of Malta’s National Transport Policy.

The solution needs to address the movement of people between the islands, not the movement of cars. The only reasonable solution would be the introduction of a fast-ferry service between Gozo and Malta, between Mġarr in Gozo and various points in Malta, which would include Xemxija, Sliema and Valletta. This should be linked to an improvement in the public transport links between these points and the rest of the country.

It is essential that we seek long-term solutions to our transport problems, such that we do not leave future generations burdened by our problems.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 3 February 2019

Beyond the trees

The public debate of the Central Link project is currently concentrated on the manner in which it will impact the tree population along its route. It is an important discussion because it is concentrating on one of the visible impacts of the project. The trees should definitely by protected and preferably increased in number.

However the number of trees impacted is just an (important) detail. There are other “important details” which need to be considered, amongst which the agricultural land to be taken up, the emissions – which need to be reduced, in particular the minute particulate matter- as well as noise pollution.

Little discussion has, however, ensued on the basic question: do we need the proposed improvement of the road network?

To answer this basic issue, we need to consider the different options available to facilitate sustainable mobility around our islands. These are options that are available to each and every one of us, but do we make use of them?

Why do we make use of private cars for very short distances? Are we aware of the fact that around 50 per cent of journeys in private cars on our roads are of under 15 minutes duration?

To answer the basic question we cannot just focus on traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is, in reality, the effect and not the cause of our transport problems: it means that our roads are bursting at the seams. We need to consider the issue in depth and in a holistic manner.

The National Transport Master Plan for the Maltese Islands does just that. When considering the proposals listed in the Master Plan, it is not a question of pick and choose: it is an integrated plan. Some of the proposals are easy to implement, others are tough as they strike at the real cause of our transport problems: our behaviour. Little effort is being expended in this direction.

The operational objectives for road transport in the Master Plan place great emphasis on the need to reduce the role of the car in the busy congested urban areas as well as on the provision of alternatives to private vehicular demand in these areas.

Unfortunately, instead of implementing these basic operational objectives Transport Malta is focusing on increasing the capacity of the road network in order to address traffic congestion. As a result, it is addressing the effects and ignoring the cause of the miserable state of our road network.

Government’s policy of massive investment in the road network, will, in the long term, be counter-productive as it will only serve to increase the number of vehicles on our roads and, consequently, cause more congestion.

Just throwing money at problems in the form of substantial subsidies of public transport is not as effective as we would like. The positive impacts of these and other subsidies are being cancelled out through the massive road network investment: a declaration that the private car is the preferred mode of transport of the policy maker.

As a result, the clear message of Malta’s transport policy is that public transport is only tolerated as life is only made easy for the users of private vehicles. It should, in fact, be the other way around.

The National Transport Master Plan clearly emphasises that the lack of importance given to long-term planning means that a long-term integrated plan based on solid analysis with clear objectives and targets is lacking. This has resulted in the lack of strategic direction and the inherent inability to address difficult issues such as private vehicle restraint.

It is about time that the government starts implementing its own Master Plan which so far it has consistently ignored.

published in The Independent on Sunday : 24 June 2018

Common sense at Buleben

The farmers at Buleben have been served with an evacuation order because the land they have tilled for generations is required to make way for the construction of new factories. We are told that our economy needs the land for factories. We also need our fields for agriculture and too much has already been lost!

We have been there before. One hectare after another is being gobbled up by concrete or tarmac. At Buleben, they want to enlarge the industrial estate. In other localities, roads, new residential development or hotels are planned instead of protecting agricultural land. Lately, we gave witnessed a never ending list of applications for petrol stations. There also seems to be an on-going competition of high-rise development: contrasting phallic symbols of all shapes and sizes.

Undeveloped land is under continuous siege.

In this specific case, the government through Malta Industrial Parks Limited is the developer and, like some of the other developers, at times it too tries to ride roughshod over one and all.

Do we consider this as progress? We need to stop and reflect on the consequences of the considerable damage which is piling up. Is anybody considering these impacts?

The expansion of the industrial estate was planned many years ago, as far back as the late 1960s when the then newly set up Malta Development Corporation embarked on the development of industrial estates. Fortunately, not all land available was then developed. However, agricultural rents from farmers in the area have not been accepted since then. They have now received their marching orders and must be gone within one month!

Ta’ Buleben, was always considered as an extremely fertile agricultural area. Erin Serracino Inglott in his dictionary Miklem Malti explains that the word Buleben means “the owner of herds producing large quantities of milk”. When agriculture was the principal economic activity, it was of paramount importance to be able to farm land which yielded abundant harvests.

The land at Buleben is owned by the government. It can argue that there is insufficient space for existing industrial estates to expand. The government could also inform us that an industrial estate which could have been put to use instead of the Buleben one was that of Ricasoli. But in the meantime, the Ricasoli Industrial Estate was given over for speculation by a previous government which ignored the need for more space for industrial use. Such reasoning would be correct. However pointing at yesterday’s serious mistakes to try to justify today’s shortcomings would not solve anything. We are still shouldered with the responsibility to take care of what’s left of society’s assets.

This is what the Zejtun NGO Wirt iż-Żejtun led by Architect Reuben Abela is doing. Even Żejtun requires and deserves protection. It is definitely a step forward that more of our fellow Maltese are voicing their concerns about protecting our national heritage.

As emphasised by Wirt iż-Żejtun, it is possible to address the need to provide more space for factories without taking up more agricultural land. We should take note that the Local Plan for the South, approved twelve years ago, included a declaration on the need to provide protection to agricultural land in the surroundings that contain a large number of protected carob trees which have graced the area for possibly hundreds of years.

It would be pertinent if we remember that  Punic remains were discovered in the Buleben area some years ago and it would be realistic to expect that more archeological remains could be uncovered if more land is disturbed.

Another important consideration concerns the proximity of the proposed industrial estate extension to the residential area of Ġebel San Martin at Żejtun. The proposed factories will be too close to the residential area. I have not seen the drawings of the proposed development, as they have not been made available. However, NGO Wirt iż-Żejtun is on record as stating that only a few tens of metres would actually separate the residential from the industrial.

When one considers that the existing industrial estate is already a cause of nuisance, acoustic primarily, throughout the day, this signifies not only that this nuisance will increase but that it would also be made worse.

At the time of writing this article, Members of Parliament elected on behalf of the Labour Party from the Third Electoral District (which incorporates Żejtun) have declared that the government is in listening mode and is considering alternative sites. This is a good step forward. It is always appropriate to ensure that common sense is in charge. But this also means that the proposal as made was not sufficiently analysed before the planning stage was concluded.

If the proposal is not scrapped, another green lung, this time around Żejtun, will be lost. It is useless to complain that the young generation is barely interested in agriculture if consecutive governments treat farmers in this manner.

Our land needs protection from excessive development. If the Buleben proposal is not discarded at the earliest we may soon see our last carob tree!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 11 February 2018

published in The Independent on Sunday : 11 February 2018