Lil hinn mir-rapport tal-KPMG dwar l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni

Kif mistenni, ir-rapport tal-KPMG dwar l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni jpinġi stampa sabiħa tal-industrija. Dan minkejja li l-awturi tar-rapport jikkonċedu li l-informazzjoni fir-rapport faċli li tintuża biex biha tasal għal konklużjonijiet ferm differenti minn tagħhom.

Jiena eżaminajt ir-rapport biex nara kemm dan jitkellem dwar numru ta’ affarijiet importanti bħall-iżvilupp esaġerat (over-development), ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni, l-ambjent u l-klima. Kien ikun importanti kieku konna infurmati dwar il-veduti tal-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni dwar dawn il-materji u oħrajn. Imma ftit li xejn hemm kummenti dwarhom, skond l-awturi tar-rapport.

Ma jiena bl-ebda mod sorpriż li l-KPMG ma qalulna xejn fir-rapport dwar l-iżvilupp esaġerat jew ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni. Dan ovvjament juri, għal min għadu ma ndunax, li l-industrija la jidhrilha li hemm żvilupp esaġerat u l-anqas ma għandha ebda interess fir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni. Kif diġa spjegat f’artiklu riċenti tiegħi (Illum 22 ta’ Settembru 2019: Sħab ma min iħammeġ), l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ma għandha l-ebda interess li tirriċikla l-iskart li tiġġenera hi stess, meta dan ikun possibli: interessata biss li jkollha fejn tarmi l-iskart tagħha b’mod issussidjat.

Hi tħammeġ u int tħallas. KPMG jaqblu ma dan?

Fir-rapport tal-KPMG hemm żewġ referenzi ghall-ambjent. L-ewwel referenza hi dwar in-nuqqas ta’ użu ta’ materjal sensittiv ambjentalment fil-bini u jenfasizza li dan ma jsirx ħtija tal-konsumaturi li ma jinteressawhomx! It-tieni referenza hi dwar l-għaqdiet ambjentali u tisfidhom biex il-proposti li jagħmlu jkunu realistiċi!

L-awturi tar-rapport jinsistu li dawn is-suġġerimenti mhux biss għandhom ikunu realistiċi imma għandhom jirrikonoxxu li mhuwiex realistiku li twaqqaf il-kostruzzjoni u l-iżvilupp.

KPMG qed jgħixu fis-sħab għax kieku forsi kienu jirrealizzaw li l-ambjentalisti ilhom żmien twil iressqu proposti li l-gvernijiet kontinwament jinjoraw għax il-gvernijiet moħħhom biss f’kif jinkoraġixxu iktar bini a spejjes tal-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna. Ikkunsidraw pereżempju l-eżerċizzju tar-razzjonalizzazzjoni, approvat fl-2006 imma li l-impatti tiegħu għadna inħossuhom kuljum f’kull rokna ta’ dawn il-gżejjer. Il-ħsara li saret, u li għadha qed issir, mill-Gvern id f’id mal-iżviluppaturi, hi waħda enormi. Imma, dwar dan, skiet komplet mingħand KPMG.

It-tibdil fil-klima, skont ir-rapport ta’ KPMG, qiesha ma teżistix, għax fir-rapport ma hemm l-ebda referenza għaliha. Dan ovvjament ifisser li l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni mhiex interessata fil-materja.

M’aħniex qed nistennew lill-awturi tar-rapport ta’ KPMG jispjegawlna kif l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ħarbtet pajjiż bi żvilupp esaġerat u l-pretensjoni tagħhom li aħna, l-bqija, nħallsu d-djun ambjentali tagħhom. Il-ġungla tal-konkos li qed tiżviluppa madwarna qed tifgana. L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni kontinwament trid iktar art għal żvilupp li donnu ma jintemm qatt.

L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni hemm bżonn li tiġi f’sensiha. Ilkoll jeħtieġilna nifhmu, qabel ma jkun tard wisq, li dan il-bini li għaddej kullimkien mhux sostenibbli u li l-progress ma jitkejjilx bil-bini, bit-toroq jew bin-numru ta’ karozzi li ma jispiċċaw qatt.

Il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna għandha titkejjel bl-ispazji miftuħin li jipperpettulna li niskopru mill-ġdid l-egħruq naturali tagħna fil-ħajja naturali li l-urbanizzazzjoni bla limitu qed teqred ftit ftit.

L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni hi determinata li tisfrutta dan il-mument fejn qed titħalla tagħmel prattikament dak li trid: tibqa’ għaddejja b’bini bla limitu sakemm timla kull ċentimetru possibli, inkluż il-baħar, fuq skala li jħabbatha ma Dubaj! Dik hi l-viżjoni.

Imma għada jasal għal kulħadd, mhux biss għal dawk li jridu jisfruttaw is-sitwazzjoni illum li tippermettilhom iħaxxnu bwiethom bi ħsara għall-komunità kollha. Nittama li meta jasal jibqalna l-enerġija u l-kapaċità li nsewwu l-ħsara enormi li qed issir lil kulħadd.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 6 t’Ottubru 2019

 

Beyond the KPMG construction industry report

As expected, KPMG’s report on the construction industry paints a very rosy picture of it, although its authors concede that “others may arrive at a different conclusion” on the basis of the information contained therein.

I have searched through the report to identify the incidence of a number of important expressions like “over-development”, “re-cycling” (of construction waste), “the environment”, and “the climate”. The views of the construction industry on these terms (and others) would have been quite interesting, had they been expressed. According to the authors of the report, however, practically none of them were.

I am not surprised that the terms “over-development” and “recycling” do not feature in the report. This obviously indicates that the industry does not consider there is any “over-development” and, in addition, that the industry is not bothered about recycling its construction waste. As explained in a recent article of mine (TMIS, 22 September 2019 entitled In cahoots with the polluter), the construction industry is not interested in recycling its waste, when this is possible; it is only interested in subsidised dumping sites. They pollute, you pay. Does KPMG endorse this?

There are two references to the environment in the KPMG report. The first points fingers at consumers and emphasises that there is a lack of environmentally-friendly materials in properties because there is no demand for them! The second focuses on environmental lobby groups and challenges them to come forward with realistic suggestions! The authors of the report, however, point out that “such suggestions should be grounded in reality, and recognise that halting all construction and development is not a realistic option.”

KPMG is apparently reporting from the moon as it would have otherwise realised long ago that the environmental lobby has brought forward a multitude of proposals which have been generally ignored by governments, which have continuously sought to ensure that development is facilitated at the expense of our quality of life. It would suffice for a moment if they were to consider, for example, the rationalisation exercise introduced way back in 2006 but the impacts of which are still being felt still being felt up to this very day all around our islands. The damage done by government in cahoots with the developers is enormous but KPMG is, however, completely silent on the matter.

Climate change does not feature at all in the report, meaning that the construction industry is generally not bothered.

We do not expect the authors of the KPMG report to explain how the construction industry has been a major force in ruining this country through over-development and through expecting us to foot their environmental bills.

The concrete jungle developing all around us is suffocating. It is fuelled by a construction industry which has no idea of where to stop and that continuously wants more land for development.

It is about time that the construction industry is cut down to size. We should all realise, before it is too late, that the ongoing building spree is unsustainable and that progress is not measured in terms of buildings, roads or the enormous number of cars on our roads.
Our quality of life is actually measured through the open spaces we can enjoy and through rediscovering our natural roots, which have been obliterated as a result of the ever-expanding urban boundaries.

The construction industry is bent on making even more hay while the sun shines: on building more and more for as long as their Dubaification vision remains in place.

The sun rises for everyone, not just for those seeking to make hay while it shines. When it sets, we rest – preparing for tomorrow and hoping that, when it comes, there will still be time to repair the extensive damage being done to us all.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 6 October 2019

 

Sħab ma’ min iħammeġ

Il-pjan ta’ Malta dwar l-immaniġjar tal-iskart huwa intitolat “A Resource Management Approach.” Huwa titlu li għandu sinifikat u jwassal messaġġ li kull skart jeħtieġ li nħarsu lejh bħala riżorsa li għandna nagħmlu użu tajjeb minnha.

Bdejna nirriċiklaw l-iskart li niġġeneraw. F’kontenituri mxerrda mal-pajjiż jinġabar il-plastik, il-ħġieg, il-karta u l-metall. Nhar ta’ Tlieta l-ġbir tal-iskart minn wara l-bibien ta’ djarna jiffaċilita li nirriċiklaw fid-djar tagħna. Tliet darbiet fil-ġimgħa, bieb bieb, jinġabar l-iskart organiku.

Meta ser nirriċiklaw l-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni?

Meta tara r-rapporti dwar il-laqgħa li l-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi Maltin kellha f’Kastilja f’nofs il-ġimgħa tirrealizza li l-emfasi kontinwament kienet li hemm bżonn iktar postijiet fejn jintrema’ l-iskart. L-ebda vuċi ma lissnet imqar kelma waħda favur kemm hu meħtieġ ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni kif ukoll dwar kemm dan jagħmel sens ekonomiku u ambjentali.

Hemm raġuni waħda sempliċi l-għala ħadd ma tniffes u lissen kelma favur ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni: għax għalfejn tħabbel rasek fuq x’tista’ tagħmel ġaladarba għandek Gvern li jimmina kull inizjattiva dwar dan billi joffri is-soluzzjoni l-faċli permezz ta’ ħlas baxx biex tkun tista’ tarmi l-iskart tiegħek?

Iktar kmieni matul il-ġimgħa kien irrappurtat li s-sidien ta’ żewġ barrieri, waħda Għar Lapsi u l-oħra fl-Imqabba, ħadu l-inizjattiva u minn jeddhom għollew il-ħlas biex jintrema l-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni fil-barrieri tagħhom minn €8 għal €15 għal kull tunellata. Ir-reazzjoni għal dan kif irrappurtata fil-media hi tal-biki: il-Gvern jaqbel li joffri inċentivi biex is-sidien tal-barrieri jżommu l-prezzijiet stabbli bit-€8 kull tunellata għal tal-inqas tmintax-il xahar!

Jidher li l-Gvern għandu idea perversa tal-prinċipju ambjentali “min iħammeġ iħallas”. Flok ma jassigura li l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ddaħħal ftit ordni f’xogħolha u ssib soluzzjoni għall-iskart li tiġġenera, il-Gvern, b’mod irresponsabbli juża t-taxxi li jiġbor minn fuqna biex jissussidja t-tħarbit tagħhom. Huma jħammġu u aħna nħallsu.

Ir-riċiklar tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni jinvolvi li tissepara u ssib użu għall-ikbar ammont ta’ materjal li ma jkunx hemm użu għalih fis-sit tal-kostruzzjoni. Il-kwantità ta’ skart li tista’ tirkupra tvarja minn sit għall-ieħor imma tista’ tkun waħda sostanzjali. Tinkludi kull forma ta’ ġebel u metalli, inkluż rinforz tal-konkos minn strutturi li jkunu spiċċaw.

Uffiċjali tal-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi kontinwament jiftaħru dwar kemm jaqblu mal-iżvilupp sostenibbli. Tant jgħidu dwar dan l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li jġibulna qalbna ġunġliena, kienu ma nafuhomx biżżejjed! Mhux aħjar jippruvaw ipoġġu fil-prattika dak li jgħidu li jemmnu fih biex jippruvaw isolvu l-problemi bl-iskart li qed jiġġeneraw u b’hekk inaqqsu l-impatti ambjentali tal-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni?

Mhuma ser jagħmlu xejn qabel ma jispiċċaw daharhom mal-ħajt u jkollhom iħallsu minn imneħirhom tal-ħsara li qed jagħmlu. L-unika soluzzjoni possibbli hi t-tassazzjoni ambjentali. Jekk tkun applikata lill-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni din tkun tfisser il-ħlas ta’ taxxa fuq il-ġebla li toħroġ mill-barriera u fl-istess ħin żieda konsiderevoli fuq il-ħlas biex jintrema l-iskart sakemm l-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi tifhem li jagħmel anke sens ekonomiku u ambjentali li tirriċikla l-massimu li tista’ mill-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni.

Imma nafu li l-Gvern għandu allerġija għat-taxxi. Jippreferi jagħmel użu mis-sussidji u b’mod partikolari favur dawk li ma għandhom l-ebda dritt għalihom.

L-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi Maltin għandha linja ċara: huma impalaw il-profitti, u inti tħallas il-kont. Jistgħu jibqgħu għaddejjin biha sakemm nibqgħu b’Ministru tal-Ambjent li m’għandux idea x’laqtu.

Kulħadd hu konxju li l-Gvern hu ħaġa waħda mal-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi. Sakemm l-iżviluppaturi jibqgħu jiġu ssussidjati m’hemmx ċans li l-problema tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni tibda tissolva. .

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum 22 ta’ Settembru 2019

In cahoots with the polluter

Malta’s current Waste Management Plan is entitled “A Resource Management Approach.” This is not simple a fancy title – it encapsulates the underlying philosophy for the management of our waste which is that waste is a resource which can be put to good use.

We have started recycling our waste. Recycling bins around the islands cater for plastic, glass, paper and metal waste. Waste collection carried out on a Tuesday is an effort to facilitate recycling in our homes. Three times a week the door-to-door collection is aimed at our organic waste.

What about recycling construction waste?

Going through the reports on the Malta Developers’ Association Meeting at Castille in mid-week, the need for dumping sites for the construction waste being generated was emphasised by all those reporting: not one word was uttered in favour of the need to recycle construction waste. Neither was there any mention of the economic and environmental benefits derived from such an exercise. Who cares!

There is a very simple reason for this attitude: why rack your brains as to how to recycle when the government is continuously undermining all your efforts by offering the easy way out through cheap rates for the dumping of construction waste?

Earlier in the week, it was reported that the management of two quarries at Għar Lapsi and Mqabba had unilaterally decided to increase their dumping charges from €8 to €15 per tonne of construction waste. In reaction, it was reported in the local media that “government had agreed to provide incentives to the quarry owners to keep the price stable at €8 per tonne for at least another year and a half”.

It seems that the government has a perverted understanding of the polluter-pays environmental principle. Instead of ensuring that the construction industry cleans up its act and adequately addresses the question of how to deal with waste that it generates, the government is irresponsibly using taxpayers’ money to subsidise their mess.

Construction waste recycling is the separation and recycling of recoverable waste material generated during construction activity. The quantity of recoverable construction waste varies and includes masonry and metal items, including steel reinforcement used in discarded concrete structures.

The officials of the Malta Developers Association repeatedly claim that they are “in favour” of sustainable development. How about putting their beliefs into practice and applying them to resolving the issue of the construction waste which they generate, thereby contributing to a reduction in the environmental footprint of the construction industry?

They will not do it until such time that they are forced to pay up in full for the mess they are creating – in other words, without discounts or subsidies. Applying “the polluter-pays principle” through environmental taxation is the only possible solution. Applied to the construction industry, this would mean taxing the extraction of stone on the one hand and simultaneously increasing – many times over – the dumping charges until the Malta Developers Association realises that it makes economic sense to recycle all the recoverable construction waste.

But the government says that it is allergic to taxes. It has a distinct preference for dishing out subsidies, especially where these are not justified.

The Malta Developers Association clearly has one formula: they plough the profits and you pay their bills. They can only keep at it as long as the holder of the post of Minister of the Environment has no clue as to what his brief is all about.

It is common knowledge that the government is in cahoots with the Malta Developers Association and that as long as the polluter is not forced to pay up in full there is no end in sight to the mess developing around us.

 

published on the Malta Independent on Sunday : 22 September 2019

It-tibdil fil-klima hi kawża ta’ inġustizzji

Kulħadd hu konxju li f’partijiet differenti tad-dinja t-temp għaddej minn estrem għall-ieħor. In-National Geographic, riċentement, taħt it-titlu “It-tibdil fil-klima tisforza Gwatemali biex jemigraw” irrappurtat ukoll li “n-nixfa u t-tibdil fil-klima qed jagħmilha diffiċli għall-bdiewa ta’ mezzi żgħar biex jgħajxu lill-familji tagħhom. Dan qed iwassal għal kriżi umanitarja.”

L-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tal-Ikel (FAO) u l-Programm Dinji tal-Ikel tal-Ġnus Magħquda huma kkonċernati li n-nixfa qed ikollha impatt sostanzjali fuq dawk l-iktar vulnerabbli fl-Amerika Ċentrali. Din diġa wasslet biex intilfu 280,000 ettaru ta’ raba’ fil-Gwatemala, l-El Salvador u l-Honduras, u bħala riżultat ta’ dan effettwat is-sigurta tal-ikel ta’ żewġ miljun ruħ.

Nafu anke minn esperjenza tagħna stess f’Malta kif in-nixfa u l-għargħar huma kawża ta’ ħsara kbira lill-uċuħ tar-raba’: ħsara li qed tkun iktar spissa.

Xi pajjiżi qed isofru min-nuqqas ta’ xita. Oħrajn għaddejjin minn esperjenza differenti: fi ftit ġranet ikollhom ix-xita kollha li normalment tagħmel f’sena u dan bil-konsegwenza ta’ għargħar kbar. Dan it-tibdil fil-klima qed iseħħ ħtija tal-ħidma u l-imġieba tal-bniedem, ħidma mifruxa fuq ħafna snin li wasslet għal żidiet sostanzjali ta’ emissjonijiet ta’ karbonju (carbon emissions).

Hu ċar li t-tibdil fil-klima hu theddida għar-riżorsi bażiċi tal-ikel u l-ilma li fuqhom jiddependu l-komunitajiet tal-ġnus: dan kollu hu ostaklu kbir għad-dritt għal ħajja li għandu kull wieħed u waħda minna.

Il-politika dwar il-bidla fil-klima, fuq inizjattiva u l-insistenza ta’ stati gżejjer, ewlenin fosthom il-gżejjer fil-Paċifiku, preżentement qed tiffoka fuq il-ħtieġa li ż-żieda fit-temperatura tad-dinja ma taqbiżx 1.5 grad Celsius fuq it-temperatura pre-industrijali. Hemm kunsens fost il-komunità xjentifika globali li jekk iż-żieda taqbeż din iċ-ċifra hemm possibilità kbira ta’ apokalissi klimatika. Dan ma jikkawżax biss estremitajiet ta’ nixfa u għargħar imma ukoll jogħla l-livell tal-baħar b’mod li jinqerdu z-zoni kostali kif ukoll gżejjer diversi jispiċċaw taħt wiċċ l-ilma.

Ir-rapport speċjali tal-lnter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ippubblikat f’Ottubru li għadda jispjega fid-dettall il-veduti tal-komunità xjentifika globali dwar x’inhu jiġri: jispjega x-xjenza tal-bidla fil-klima u l-effett ta’ dan fuq id-dinja. 224 xjenzjat ewlieni minn 40 pajjiż differenti eżaminaw 30,000 studju xjentifku: il-konklużjonijiet tagħhom ma jistgħux ikunu injorati.

Ir-rapport tal-IPPC iwissina li t-temperatura tad-dinja diġa għoliet bi grad Celsius fuq it-temperatura pre-industrijali. Jekk nibqgħu għaddejjin bl-istess livell ta’ attività, sa mhux iktar tard mis-sena 2050 din it-temperatura ser tiżdied b’nofs grad Celsius ieħor, ikompli jwissina r-rapport. Għal din ir-raġuni l-komunità xjentifika hi tal-fehma li l-emmissjonijiet tal-karbonju għandhom jonqsu tant li sa mhux iktar tard mis-sena 2050 l-emmissjonijiet netti jkunu zero.

Hemm resistenza għal dan l-oġġettiv f’numru ta’ pajjiżi. Erbgħa minnhom (ir-Russia, l-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika, l-Kuwajt u l-Arabja Sawdita) ippruvaw ixellfu l-kunsens globali dwar il-konklużjonijiet tar-rapport tal-IPPC waqt il-laqgħa f’Katowice dwar il-klima iktar kmieni dan ix-xahar.

Kull pajjiż għandu sehem x’jagħti biex it-tnaqqis fl-emmissjonijiet jintlaħaq, u dan soġġett għall-prinċipju ambjentali li jistabilixxi li r-responsabbilta għalkemm hi waħda komuni tintrefa b’mod differenti (principle of common but differentiated responsibility). Anke Malta teħtieġ li terfa’ is-sehem tagħha ta’ din ir-responsabbiltà b’mod li tikkontribwixxi biex jonqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju ħalli jkun assigurat li ż-żieda ta’ 1.5 gradi fit-temperatura tad-dinja ma tinqabizx.

Meta l-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija f’Malta ma baqgħitx issir bl-użu tal-HFO (heavy fuel oil), żejt maħmuġ, u minflok qlibna għall-gass sar pass importanti l-quddiem. Imma meta nħarsu fit-tul dan mhux biżżejjed għax il-gass hu fuel ta’ transizzjoni: transizzjoni fit-triq lejn enerġija li tkun iġġenerata kompletament minn sorsi renovabbli. Neħtieġu iktar enerġija ġġenerata mix-xemx u mir-riħ kif ukoll għandna bżonn nagħrfu nagħmlu użu tajjeb mill-enerġija ġġenerata mill-mewġ li hi abbundanti fl-ibħra madwarna.

L-applikazzjoni tat-teknologija f’dawn l-oqsma toħloq xogħol sostenibbli u fl-istess ħin ittejjeb il-kwalità tal-ħajja ta’ kulħadd.

F’dan is-sens il-qasam tat-trasport f’Malta għadu ta’ uġiegħ ta’ ras u dan minħabba l-emmissjonijiet tal-karbonju li jirriżultaw miż-żieda astronomika ta’ karozzi fit-toroq tagħna. Sfortunatament, flok ma jinvesti f’trasport sostenibbli, l-gvern għaddej bi programm intensiv ta’ żvilupp tal-infrastruttura tat-toroq li inevitabilment ser iwassal biex jinkoraġixxi użu ikbar tal-karozzi fit-toroq tagħna. Dan iwassal biex jikkanċella l-progress li sar biż-żieda reġistrat fl-użu tat-trasport pubbliku.

Biex tkompli tagħmel l-affarijiet agħar, il-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex hi essenzjalment mina għall-karozzi,mhux mina għan-nies. Hu stmat li bħala riżultat ta’ din il-mina proposta ċ-ċaqlieq ta’ karozzi bejn iż-żewġ gżejjer jiżdied minn medja ta’ 3,000 għal medja ta’ 9,000 kuljum, u dan fi żmien 15-il sena. Hu possibli li jkun provdut serviz alternattiv u sostenibbli, indirizzat biss lejn in-nies, permezz ta’ dak li nirreferu għalih bħala fast ferry. Dan jista’ jwassal lin-nies dritt minn Għawdex saċ-ċentri kummerċjali tal-pajjiż. Il-karozzi, imma, huma fattur ċentrali għall-mina proġettata u dan għax il-ħlas li jsir għall-użu tal-mina huwa dipendenti fuq in-numru ta’ karozzi li jagħmlu użu minnha!

Dan kollu jmur kontra l-ispirtu tal-Pjan Nazzjonali għat-Trasport-2025 li jistabilixxi l-oġġettiv ta’ tnaqqis ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna bħala mira li tista’ tintlaħaq. It-tnaqqis tal-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna mhux biss itejjeb il-kwalità tal-arja li permezz tagħha nieħdu n-nifs: hu ukoll il-kontribut żgħir tagħna bħala pajjiż kontra l-inġustizzji maħluqa minn tibdil fil-klima għax inkun qed innaqqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju bil-konsegwenza ta’ tnaqqis fiż-żieda tat-temperatura tad-dinja.

Għax il-ġlieda kontra l-inġustizzji li qed jinħolqu bit-tibdil fil-klima hi responsabbiltà tagħna ukoll.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 30 ta’ Diċembru 2018

Climate justice is our responsibility too

Everyone is aware that different parts of the world are experiencing weather extremes.  Under the heading “Changing climate forces desperate Guatemalans to emigrate”, National Geographic recently reported that “Drought and shifting weather are making it difficult for many small-scale farmers to feed their families, fuelling a human crisis”.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme of the United Nations are concerned that drought is having a considerable impact on the most vulnerable in Central America. It has led to a loss of 280,000 hectares of agricultural land in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, as a result affecting the food security of more than two million human persons.

We are aware, even as a result of local experience, that drought and floods cause considerable damage to agriculture and are occurring with increasing frequency. Some countries are experiencing an acute lack of rain while others are experiencing a concentration of a year’s rainfall in the space of a few days. These changing patterns of the weather are the result of human behaviour, accumulated over a large number of years through ever-increasing carbon emissions.

Clearly, climate change threatens essential resources – such as water and food – on which communities depend, putting in question their very right to life.

The politics of Climate Change, on the initiative and insistence of island states, in particular Pacific island micro-states, is currently focusing on the need to limit increases in global warming to not more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. There is a consensus among the global scientific community that, beyond such an increase, a climatic apocalypse would be more likely. This will be the cause of not just more drought and floods but also of unprecedented rise in sea level, as a result wiping out coastal areas, and low-lying islands all around the globe.

The special report issued by the lnter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October explains in detail the views of the global scientific community on the current state of play: it explains the science of climate change and the future of the Earth. A total of 224 leading scientists from 40 countries have assessed 30,000 scientific papers and their conclusions cannot be ignored.

Its report warns that the earth has already warmed by one degree Celsius more than the pre-industrial age. If we retain the present level of activity, we are warned that the temperature will rise a further half of a degree before the year 2050.

This is the reason why the scientific community considers that carbon emissions must be reduced, achieving net zero emissions before the year 2050. However, there are various pockets of resistance to attaining such an objective in a number of countries. So much that four of them (Russia, the United States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) have sought to water down the global consensus on the IPPC report conclusions in Katowice, at the climate change summit held earlier this month.

Each and every country has a role in achieving this substantial reduction of carbon emissions, subject to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Malta also has such a responsibility to contribute to a reduction of carbon emissions in order to ensure that the 1.5 degree barrier is not breached.

In Malta, the switching of energy generation from one dependent on heavy fuel oil to gas was a positive step. However, in the long term, this is not enough as gas is considered a transition fuel: a step on the path to energy generation completely dependent on renewable sources. We require more energy generated from the sun and wind and we also need to ensure that good use is made of energy generated from waves – so abundant in the sea around us. The application of technology will lead to the creation of new, sustainable jobs and simultaneously contribute to an improvement in the quality of life for everyone.

Transport, however, is still a major problem considering Malta’s carbon emissions due the astronomic increase in the number of cars on our roads. Unfortunately, instead of investing in sustainable transport, the government has embarked on a massive programme of further development of the road infrastructure which will only result in encouraging more cars on our roads. Consequently, this will cancel out the progress being achieved with the registered increase in the use of public transport.

To add insult to injury, the proposed tunnel below the seabed between Malta and Gozo is essentially a tunnel for the use of cars. It is estimated that, as a result of this tunnel, the vehicle movement between the two islands will increase from 3000 to 9000 vehicle movements daily over a 15-year period. An alternative sustainable service providing for the movement of people would be a fast ferry service from Gozo to the commercial centres of Malta. However, the encouragement of the use of cars is central to the projected tunnel as tolls will be paid by car owners.

All this runs counter to the National Transport Master-Plan 2025 which establishes the reduction of cars from Maltese roads as an achievable target.

Reducing the number of cars on our roads will not only improve the quality of the air we breath but will also be a small but important contribution to global climate justice through a reduction in carbon emission levels.

Climate justice is our responsibility too.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 30 December 2018

Political calculation or environmental principle?

calculator

 

Joseph Muscat’s declaration that the Freeport Terminal will not be permitted to expand in Birżebbuġa’s direction due to its impacts on the residential community will inevitably have an effect on the Planning Authority. Viewed in the context of the recent Planning Authority decision not to approve the proposed Ħondoq ir-Rummien development, a pattern seems to be developing.

Given the fact that these two decisions are closely associated with localities that politically support the Labour Party it is still not clear whether this newly discovered sensitivity to restrict development which negatively impacts residential communities is based on political calculation or on environmental principle. This consideration is inevitable, in particular due to the report in this newspaper on 22 June that the Prime Minister had stated, in a discussion with environmental NGO Flimkien għall-Ambjent Aħjar, that he does not care about impact assessments, as residents get used to everything. As far as I am aware, the Office of the Prime Minister never corrected this report.

The Freeport Terminal debate clearly indicates that Birżebbuġa residents are determined to deliver a different message: they have had enough. During the last seven years there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between Birżebbuġa Local Council, MEPA and the Freeport Terminal Management. This has led to a number of improvements, the most important of which was the setting up of a tripartite Environmental Monitoring Committee that has served to build some bridges and to explore solutions to existing problems caused by the operation of the Freeport Terminal.

There was a time, around two years ago, when pressure was put on Birżebbuġa Local Council to drop its objections to specific operations. I distinctly remember representatives from the oil-rig repair industry  trying to convince the Council of the “benefits” that an oil-rig industry based at the Freeport Terminal could generate.

When these representatives realised that no one was convinced, an amendment to the environmental permit was forced through the then MEPA Board. To their credit, only three of the then board members understood the real issues and voted against the proposal: the two MPs (Joe Sammut and Ryan Callus) and the environmental NGO representative Alex Vella of the Ramblers Association.

The amended environmental permit would have permitted minor repairs to ships and oil-rigs berthed at the Freeport Terminal. However, after the MEPA Board meeting all hell broke loose, leading Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to disassociate himself from its decision and publicly align himself with the minority on the board opposing the changes. He then stated that he was in agreement with “his representative”, Labour MP Joe Sammut.

While the Freeport Terminal, faced with the reaction of residents, eventually relinquished the newly-acquired permit, the internal debate within the Labour Party continued, leading to the recent statement by Joseph Muscat that he is not in agreement with an expansion of the Freeport Terminal operations that would have a negative impact on the Birżebbuġa community.

Irrespective of whether it is a matter of principle or a political calculation which has led the Prime Minister to make such a statement, I submit that this is still a significant turning point that has been achieved as a direct result of Birżebbuġa Local Council’s persistent lobbying. It contrasts with the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who looks forward to an increase in the operations of the Freeport Terminal, without batting an eyelid over the resulting, continuously increasing, impact on the residential community.

The Prime Minister’s statement, while being a positive first step, is certainly not enough. It needs to be translated into policy as an integral part of the revised Local Plans currently under consideration. It is also important that the Prime Minister’s newly identified sensitivities are exported to other areas in Malta and Gozo. It is essential that, in a small country such as ours, third party rights opposing “development” are reinforced.

The issue at stake is far larger than Birżebbbuġa or the Freeport Terminal. It is a tug-of-war between those supporting “development” at all costs and our residential communities. The government must, through planning policy, be supportive of all our residential communities without exception.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 31st July 2016

Greening the Constitution

Chadwick Lakes 02

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party –  is in agreement that 50 years after its adoption Malta’s Constitution needs to be updated.  However such an exercise, as emphasised in AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto, should be carried out with the direct involvement of civil society. The Constitution belongs to all of us.

There are a number of issues which require careful consideration. In AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto at least fourteen such issues are identified. They vary in scope from electoral reform to widening the issues in respect of which discrimination is prohibited, by including protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. AD also proposes the introduction of a Constitutional provision in favour of a balanced budget, thereby ensuring that government is forced to discard budget deficits and consequently to control the spiralling public debt.

One very important issue is the need to entrench environmental rights and duties in the Constitution. The proposed Constitutional Convention, supported by AD, should aim at Greening the Constitution. That is, it should aim at addressing environmental rights and duties such that they are spelled out in unequivocal terms.  Environmental rights and duties should as a minimum be spelled out as clearly as property rights in the Constitution. They are worthy of protection just as the rights of individual persons.

Article 9 of the Constitution very briefly states that “The State shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the nation.”  Further, in article 21 of the Constitution we are informed that this (and other safeguards) “shall not be enforceable in a Court” but that this (safeguard) shall be “fundamental to the governance of the country” and that it shall be the aim of the State to apply it in making laws.

It is not conducive to good governance to first declare adherence to specifc safeguards, but then specifically excluding the Courts from ensuring that such safeguards are being observed.

The strategy of announcing principles but then not providing the legislative framework for their implementation was also taken up in environmental legislation. In fact articles 3 and 4 of the 2010 Environment and Development Planning Act  announce a whole list of sound environmental principles. However  in article 5 of the same Act it is then stated that these cannot be enforced in a Court of Law!

When I had the opportunity of discussing the Environment and Development Planning Bill with Mario de Marco (then Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism and the Environment) I had proposed on behalf of the Greens that the declarations  in articles 3 and 4 of the Bill should not be just guiding principles. They ought to be made enforceable by our Courts subject to the introduction of  a suitable transition. Unfortunately Dr de Marco did not take up the Greens proposal.

As things stand today, article 3 of the Environment and Development Planning Act announces very pompously that the government,  as well as every person in Malta, has the duty to protect the environment. Furthermore it is announced that we are duty bound to assist in the taking of preventive and remedial measures to protect the environment and manage resources in a sustainable manner.

Article 4 goes further:  it  states that government is responsible towards present and future generations.  It then goes on to list ten principles which should guide government in its endeavours.  Integrating environmental concerns in decisions on socio-economic and other policies is first on the list. Addressing pollution and environmental degradation through the implementation of the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle follows immediately after.  Cooperation with other governments and entities enshrines the maxim of “think global, act local” as Malta both affects and is affected by environmental impacts wherever they occur.  The fourth guiding principle is the need to disseminate environmental information whilst the fifth one underlines the need of research as a basic requirement of sound environment policy.  The waste management hierarchy is referred to in the sixth principle followed immediately by underlining the requirement to safeguard biological diversity and combatting all forms of pollution.  Article 4 ends by emphasising that the environment is the common heritage and common concern of mankind and underlines the need to provide incentives leading to a higher level of environmental protection.

Proclaiming guiding principles in our Constitution and environmental legislation is not enough. Our Courts should be empowered in order that they are able to ensure that these principles are actually translated into concrete action.   Government should be compelled to act on the basis of Maltese legislation as otherwise it will only act on environmental issues when and if forced to by the European Union as was evidenced in the past nine years.

Greening the Constitution by extending existing environmental provisions and ensuring that they can be implemented will certainly be one of the objectives of the Greens in the forthcoming Constitutional Convention.

published in the Times of Malta 18 May 2013

Within limits

the earth

The EU Commission has just published a draft of its Seventh Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP) covering up to 2020 which draft is entitled “Living well, within the limits of our planet”.

The draft which is open for public consultation aims “to step up the contribution of environment policy to the transition towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy in which natural capital is protected and enhanced, and the health and well-being of citizens is safeguarded.”

It is a programme which is based on the principle of subsidiarity meaning that decisions and action are to be taken as close as possible to those impacted. Some at the level of Member States, others at an EU level.

This draft EAP is based on three basic principles, namely: the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle and the principle of rectification of pollution at source.

Its objectives are nine in number and include the protection of natural capital, resource efficiency, the attainment of a competitive low-carbon econony, enhancing the sustainability of the EU’s cities and  increasing the EU’s effectiveness in confronting regional and global environmental challenges.

Launching the draft EAP Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “The new Action Programme sets out the path for Europe to become a place where people live in a safe and healthy natural environment, where economic progress is based on a sustainable, green economy and where ecological resilience has been achieved.”

Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: “We cannot wait until the economic crisis is over before we tackle the resources, environmental and climate crises. We must address all these at the same time and so include climate and environmental concerns into all our policies. This strategy gives businesses and politicians the long-term view we very much need for making the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon society in Europe.”

The basic message and direction of the 7th EAP are contained in its title: ensuring an adequate standard of living (living well) but at the same time being conscious that there are limits to the resources available.

All our actions must be within “the limits of our planet”.  As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, examining our policies in Malta will reveal that we are still off target in many areas.  An environmental consciousness is developing at at fast rate, but unfortunately this is not matched with appropriate government action.

originally published at di-ve.com on 7 December 2012

Sustainable water policy required

rainwater harvesting

Malta needs a sustainable water policy that is implemented rather than just being talked about.

A sustainable water policy has a long-term view. Addressing today’s needs, it keeps in focus the requirements of future generations. It would protect all our sources of water while ensuring that this basic resource is valued as an essential prerequisite for life. Without water, life does not exist. With poor quality water or with depleted water resources we are faced with an inferior quality of life.

Measures to protect the water table are being implemented at a snail’s pace and risk being in place only when there is nothing left to protect. The number of metered boreholes is too little. The electronic tracking of water bowsers transporting ground water is stalled.

Alternattiva Demokratika considers that national institutions have been ineffective as the handling of groundwater is still a free for all.

Rainwater harvesting has been neglected for a long time. Building development, large and small, has ignored rainwater harvesting obligations. These obligations have been in place on a national level for over 130 years. However, they are more honoured in the breach.

Many residential units constructed in the past 40 years have no water cisterns. Consequently, rainwater is discharged onto our streets or directly into the public sewers. Flooding of streets and overflowing sewers are the result.

The Government has decided to tackle this by applying public funds to a problem created mostly by private developers. Through the storm water relief projects funded primarily by the European Union, the Government will, in effect, exempt the culprits. Instead of the polluter pays it will be the (European) taxpayers who will pay, thereby exempting the polluter from his responsibilities!

The developers have pocketed the profits while the taxpayer will foot the bill. This is the result of successive governments lacking the political will to penalise the culprits.

In addition, rainwater discharged into the public sewer is overloading the three sewage purification plants now in operation and, consequently, increasing their operating costs during the rainy season. These increased costs are shouldered by all of us, partly as an integral part of our water bills and the rest gobbling up state subsidies to the Water Services Corporation. This is due to the fact that water bills are a reflection of the operating costs of the WSC, which include the management of the public sewer and its contents!

Storm water plays havoc with residential areas, especially those constructed in low lying areas or valleys carved by nature for its own use and taken over by development throughout the years! Overdevelopment means that land through which the water table recharged naturally was reduced considerably throughout the past 40 years. Instead, storm water now gushes through areas with heavy concentrations of nitrates which end up charging the aquifer. A report by the British Geological Society has identified a 40-year cycle as a result of which it would take about 40 years of adherence to the EU Nitrates Directive to give back a clean bill of health to Malta’s water table.

Treated sewage effluent is being discharged into the sea. Being treated means that, for the first time in many years, our bathing waters are up to standard. But it also means that we are discharging into the sea millions of litres of treated sewage effluent that, with proper planning, could have been used as an additional water source for a multitude of uses. Instead, it is being discarded as waste.

After the sewage treatment plants were commissioned as an end-of-pipe solution at the far ends of the public sewer, the authorities started having second thoughts on the possible uses of treated sewage effluent. At this late stage, however, this signifies that means of transporting the treated sewage to the point of use have to be identified (at a substantial cost) when the issue could have been solved at the drawing board by siting a number of small treatment plants at points of use.

This could obviously not be done as the Government has no idea of what sustainable development is about. The Government led by Lawrence Gonzi excels in speaking on sustainable development, yet, he has failed miserably in embedding it in his Government’s method of operation.

I have not forgotten the speech from the throne read on May 10, 2008, by President Eddie Fenech Adami, on behalf of the Government, outlining the objectives of the legislature that is fast approaching its last days. The President had then stated: “The Government’s plans and actions are to be underpinned by the notion of sustainable development of the economy, of society and of the environment. When making decisions today, serious consideration will be given to the generations of tomorrow.”

In water policy, the Nationalist-led Government has failed miserably. The mess that it leaves behind is clear proof that during the past 25 years it has taken decisions that have completely ignored tomorrow’s generations.

published in The Times of Malta, December 1, 2012