It-tigra taċ-Ċaqnu sparixxiet?

Għax hekk bil-fors taħseb meta taqra s-sentenza tal-Maġistrat Mifsud li l-ġimgħa l-oħra illibera liċ-Ċaqnu mill-akkuża li kellu zoo illegali fil-kumpless Montekristo fil-limiti ta’ Ħal-Farruġ.

Dan minkejja li kulħadd jaf mhux biss biz-zoo illegali, imma ukoll bit-tigra li għamlet għal tifel u weġġgħetu serjament.

Fis-sentenza taghha l-Qorti qalet hekk :
“Il-Prosekuzzjoni f’dan il-kaz naqset li tipproduci lista tal-annimali li seta’ kien hemm fil-lok in kwistjoni fil-jum tal-incident. Lanqas fil-Proces Verbal esebit f’dawn l-atti ma tinstab lista ta’ annimali li kien hemm jekk kien hemm f’dak il-jum. Fil-process kollu l-Qorti sabet ritratti biss ta’ annimal wiehed u li jidher li hija tigra. Allura kif xi hadd jippretendi lil din il-Qorti issib lil xi hadd hati li zamm zoo meta min investiga hadd ma ndenja ruhu jaghmel lista tal-annimali li kien hemm, jekk kien hemm, biex ikun ippruvat li kien hemm zoo skont id-definizzjoni tal-ligi?”

Il-fatt li l-Pulizija ma ippreżentatx provi għandu jħassibna ħafna. Iktar u iktar meta nafu li ċ-Ċaqnu għandu l-fama li jipprova jagħmel li jrid. Ħafna drabi jirnexxielu għax min għandu l-obbligu li jwaqqfu ma jagħmel xejn.

Ma nafx jekk dan kienx kaz ta’ negligenza mill-Pulizija inkella jekk hemmx spjegazzjoni oħra, agħar minn hekk. Nittama li l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija isib il-ħin biex jinvestiga lill-Pulizja li għamlu din il-froġa u wara jiehu l-passi li jirriżultaw meħtieġa.

Għax it-tigra taċ-Ċaqnu ma sparixxietx. Huma l-pulizija li qed jisparixxu, ftit ftit.

Advertisements

L-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar tinkoraġixxi l-ispekulazzjoni tal-art

L-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar qed toħroġ il-permessi ta’ żvilupp għall-pompi tal-petrol u d-dijsil ħierġin bħall-pastizzi.

Xi xhur ilu, f’diskors li għamel il-Prim Ministru kien qal li l-Gvern immexxi minnu jaqbel li karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petrol jew bid-dijsil għandhom jispiċċaw mit-toroq Maltin. Nhar l-10 ta’ Settembru 2017 Joseph Muscat kien ħabbar li l-Gvern kien fi ħsiebu li “dal-waqt” jagħti bidu għal konsultazzjoni pubblika biex ikun stabilit meta u kif għandha tkun implimentata din il-politika li bħala riżultat tagħha jkunu jistgħu jinxtraw biss karozzi li jaħdmu bl-elettriku jew karozzi simili.

Għaddew seba’ xhur u għadna qed nistennew li jibda dan il-proċess ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika. Sadanittant, aħna u nistennew, l-ispekulaturi tal-art, bl-għajnuna tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar għaddejjin xalata: jippjanaw kif jirrovinaw iktar raba’, 3000 metru kwadru kull darba, u dan biex jibnu pompi li ftit ieħor mhux ser ikollna bżonn. Imbagħad x’nagħmlu bl-art li tkun diġa ġiet rovinata?

Alternattiva Demokratika taqbel li m’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petrol u d-dijsil fit-toroq tagħna. Fil-fatt kienet Alternattiva Demokratika, bil-ħsieb li tintlaħaq il-mira strateġika ta’ Karbonju Żero fil-gżejjer Maltin li fil-Manifest Elettorali ta’ l-aħħar elezzjoni ġenerali poġġiet quddiem l-elettorat din il-proposta speċifika: li fi żmien 20 sena, ċjoe sal-2037, għandhom jispiċċaw il-karozzi kollha li jaħdmu bil-petrol u d-dijsil mit-toroq Maltin. Alternattiva Demokratika kienet l-uniku partit politiku f’Malta li kien ċar fuq dan f’Malta sa minn qabel l-elezzjoni ġenerali.

Id-dikjarazzjoni tal-Prim Ministru tal-10 ta’ Settembru 2017 kellha twassal għall-konklużjoni loġika li m’għandniex bżonn ta’ iktar pompi tal-petrol u d-dijsil. Kien ikun floku kieku tħabbar moratorju immedjat. Fil-fatt messna qegħdin ngħoddu l-ġranet li neħilsu darba għal dejjem mill-karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petrol u d-dijsil. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan messu hu ovvju li fil-futur qarib m’hu ser ikollna bżonn l-ebda pompa tal-petrol jew dijsil: dawn għandhom jonqsu mit-80 li għandna illum sa xejn u dan meta tkun implimentata b’mod sħiħ il-politika mħabbra mill-Prim Ministru u li dwarha ilna 7 xhur nistennew il-konsultazzjoni pubblika.

M’għandniex bżonn ta’ pompi ġodda: imma għandna bżonn li jagħlqu l-pompi li ġja hawn mingħajr ma jinħolqu oħrajn flokhom. L-20 sena proposti minn Alternattiva Demokratika fil-manifest elettorali tal-2017 biex jispiċċaw mit-toroq Maltin karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petrol jew bid-dijsil kienu meqjusa raġjonevoli, suffiċjenti u fl-istess direzzjoni ta’ deċiżjonijiet politiċi simili li ittieħdu minn pajjiżi oħra. Dan hu żmien biżżejjed biex tkun żviluppata l-infrastruttura nazzjonali meħtieġa għall-karozzi li jaħdmu bl-elettriku. Hu ukoll biżżejjed biex dawk li għandhom dawn it-tip ta’ karozzi jibdew jidraw ftit l-iżvilupp ta’ din ir-realtá ġdida bla petrol jew dijsil.

Bosta pajjiżi oħra diġa ddeċidew, inkella qegħdin fil-proċess li jiddeċiedu li fit-toroq tagħhom ma jkollhomx iktar karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petrol jew bid-dijsil. Dawn jinkludu in-Norveġja u l-Olanda (it-tnejn sal-2025), il-Ġermanja (sal-2030), Franza, r-Renju l–Indja u ċ-Ċina (lkoll sal-2040). Ma jdumx ma jkun hemm oħrajn ukoll.
L-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar qegħda tkompli tinjora dan l-iżvilupp importanti fil-politika tal-pajjiż billi tibqa’ għaddejja bl-applikazzjoni tal-politika imsejħa 2015 Fuel Service Stations Policy b’mod robotiku. Din il-politika dwar il-pompi tal-petrol u d-dijsil tippermetti qies massimu permissibli ta’ 3000 metru kwadru imma l-Awtoritá qatt ma qieset li kien neċessarju li tordna tnaqqis fil-qies tal-proposti li kellha quddiema. Għax kollha kellhom il-qies massimu ta’ 3000 metru kwadru. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan l-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar flok għal pompi qed toħroġ permessi għal żoni massiċċi kummerċjali barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp.

Din hi l-agħar forma ta’ spekulazzjoni tal-art u f’dan il-kaz it-tort hu unikament tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar. L-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar hi ta’ theddida għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Dan hu l-punt li għamlu ż-żgħażagħ mill-Moviment Graffiti u l-Kamp Emerġenza Ambjent meta nhar il-Ħamis ipprotestaw u ħarbtu laqgħa tal-Bord tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar waqt li dan kien qiegħed jikkunsidra applikazzjoni għall-pompa ġdida tal-petrol u d-dijsil f’Ħal-Luqa.

Għandna Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar li hi ala bieba mill-ambjent u mill-kwalitá tal-ħajja. Bil-provi.

 

 

The Planning Authority encourages land speculation

Development permits for fuel stations are being approved left, right and centre by the Planning Authority.

Some months ago,  in a speech made in public, the Prime Minister said that the Government agrees that use of petrol and diesel cars should be phased out and that, in future, all cars should be electric. On the 10 September 2017, Joseph Muscat announced that government would “shortly” be launching a consultation on “setting a cut-off date beyond which all new car purchases would have to be electric or similar vehicles.”

Seven months have elapsed, and we are still waiting for the consultation exercise to be launched. And while we wait, land speculators (with the Planning Authority’s assistance) are in festive mood, plotting the ruin of 3000 square metres at a time to develop fuel stations that we will shortly not need any more. And what will be done with the spoiled land then?

Alternattiva Demokratika agrees with the proposal to establish a cut-off date for cars that run on petrol and diesel. Indeed in its manifesto at the last general election,  with a strategic zero carbon future for the Maltese Islands in mind, it put forward this specific proposal to the electorate: that internal combustion engine cars should be off our roads in 20 years time, that is by 2037. Alternattiva Demokratika was the only political party in Malta that took this clear stand before the general election.

In view of the Prime Minister’s declaration of the 10 September 2017, the logical conclusion is that new fuel stations are not required. An immediate moratorium would be in order and, in fact, we should be on the eve of the start of a countdown that would rid us of cars that run on petrol or diesel. Consequently, there will be no need for fuel stations in the not too distant future: reducing from the current 80 to none, when the phase-out – which is still subject to public consultation – is fully implemented.

We do not need new fuel stations: what we need is that existing fuel stations are closed down without their being replaced. The 20-year time-frame proposed by Alternattiva Demokratika in its 2017 electoral manifesto was considered to be reasonable, sufficient and in line with similar policy decisions taken in other countries. This time-frame was deemed sufficient to develop the required national infrastructure for electric-powered cars. It was also deemed to be a reasonable length of time to permit those who own vehicles running on internal combustion engines to adjust to the development of a new reality without petrol or diesel.

Various other countries have decided on – or are considering – the elimination of internal combustion engine driven vehicles from their roads. These include Norway and the Netherlands (both by 2025), Germany (by 2030), France, the United Kingdom, India and China (all by 2040). Others will soon follow.

The Planning Authority continues to ignore this policy development by applying the 2015 Fuel Service Stations Policy robotically. This policy establishes a maximum permissible size of 3000 square metres but the Authority did not consider it appropriate to scale down any of the proposals submitted for its consideration as all the approved stations cover the maximum size possible. As a result, the Planning Authority is churning out permits for massive commercial areas outside the development zone.

This is land speculation at its worst and the Planning Authority has no one to blame but itself and is a threat to future generations. This is the point made by the protestors from Graffiti and Kamp Emerġenza Ambjent last Thursday, when they stormed a Planning Authority Board meeting considering a development application for a new fuel station at Luqa.

We have a Planning Authority which doesn’t give two hoots about the environment and our quality of life.

 

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 April 2018

 

A gambit declined

 

The setting up of a pre-electoral alliance is a complex exercise. Alternattiva Demokratika recognised the strategic importance of forming pre-electoral alliances a long time ago – in fact, prior to the 2008 general election, it had (unsuccessfully) taken up such an initiative itself.

The actual result of the 2008 general election was so close that any pre-election alliance would have had a substantial impact on the final result. This was very clear in the polls commissioned and published in the run-up to that general election.  The difference in votes on a national level between the PN and the PL in the March 2008 general election was a mere 1580, with AD receiving 3810 votes first count votes.

When examining the possibility of forging a pre-election alliance there is generally a choice between two approaches to take: either a principle-based approach or a pragmatic one.

The principle-based approach for a pre-election alliance seeks a long-term view based on building bridges that can possibly withstand the test of time. A pre-election alliance based on principles is based on an agreed shared vision. Even if it is not all-encompassing, this can be easier for voters to identify with as it entails a positive proposal: the shared vision.

On the other hand, the pragmatic approach is one aimed solely at the desired result. It is arithmetically driven. It can signify the lumping together under one umbrella of all sorts of views with (possibly) a minimum common denominator.

The National Front pre-electoral alliance set up by Simon Busuttil and Marlene Farrugia  was, in my opinion, one of the latter. Not only did it include the Nationalist Party and the Democratic Party but also the fringe elements of the PN itself, which had previously been weeded out over the years as undesirables.

The National Front was a pragmatic exercise to the extent that an analysis of the actual votes cast clearly shows that the PD link with the PN resulted in no votes being added to the PN by the PD.  Some may argue, for example,  that votes cast for PD candidates in the fifth district (Marlene Farrugia’s home district),  helped the PN turning the tides on Labour by recapturing Labour’s fourth seat. This is not so, as the gain of an additional seat by the PN on the fifth district was exclusively due to boundary changes: the village of Marsaxlokk having been moved to the third district and it being substituted by the hamlet of Ħal-Farruġ from the sixth district.

The PN/PD alliance failed in its major arithmetic objective as it is clear that it failed to attract a significant number of disgruntled voters. Actually, it rather repelled them with its continuous negative messages and sent most of them back to Labour. Unfortunately, this failed attempt will dissuade any other attempt at alliance-building in the immediate future, as no political party enjoys being taken for a ride, as was Simon Busuttil’s party.

Declining the invitation to join  the National Front as an appendix to the PN  was the correct response from Alternattiva Demokratika. It was an exercise in foresight that has been proved right. Listening to “independent” journalists and self-centred intellectuals advocating the Busuttil/Farrugia National Front was a very sad experience, as these were the same people who should have taken the PN itself to task for its internal contradictions on issues of good governance. By endorsing the PN-led National Front, unfortunately, they ended up endorsing the PN’s misdemeanours when they should have been at the forefront of those insisting that the PN clean up its act before claiming any right to wear the suit of shining armour.

In another context, it was former PN Finance Minister Tonio Fenech who made the most appropriate statement earlier this week in the Malta Independent. Answering his own rhetorical question as to what the Nationalist Party stands for, Tonio Fenech replied: “The only true answer I can give is, I don’t know”.

And so say all of us.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday – 18 June 2017

The airport and its neighbours

3D aerial view of scheme.MIA 2015

 

Earlier this week, the management of Malta’s International Airport announced a €78 million investment programme, aimed at enlarging the terminal buildings, improving and upgrading existing facilities for the handling of passengers and  further developing a business hub.

The airport terminal at Gudja is Malta’s only such facility and so, to a certain extent, the further development of the existing capacity to handle the arrival and departure of passengers is essential. And yet, due to the limitations of size, the proximity of Gudja’s airport to the surrounding villages of Luqa, Gudja, Kirkop and Safi has to be borne in mind. Size limitations signify that even essential works will have an impact on the surrounding communities and thus have to be thought out carefully.

Its been over five years since MEPA has received a planning application for the consideration of an updated master-plan for Malta International Airport. PA5548/10 was submitted in November 2010. A previous version of the master-plan was approved in 1997 (PA5681/96) while another version, submitted in 2003 (PA5306/03), was withdrawn.

The latest proposed master-plan currently under consideration by MEPA includes provision for the enlargement of the terminal building to include additional facilities to handle passenger traffic as well as the construction of five new buildings for a range of commercial and leisure activities.

The proposed masterplan and the environmental planning statement (EPS) published late in 2014 for public consultation focus on the proposed business hub and emphasise that the well-established trend for international airports is to expand to “include ancillary business and retail facilities.”

The masterplan was fed by two studies commissioned by the Malta International Airport. The first – carried out by Locum Consulting – studied the office market in Malta and apparently concluded that the “high quality office stock supply” is limited in comparison to the existing demand.  An audit of the proposed masterplan was also carried out by Eriksson + Partner GmbH.

The EPS contains selective quotes from these two reports, but the reports themselves have not been made public. Both MEPA and MIA have resisted requests to publish these reports as they consider that they are commercial reports and do not contain information on environmental impact.

Malta’s only airport has its requirements. In particular, it needs to cater for the increasing number of passengers it handles. This year, the number of passengers handled has recently surpassed the 4.5 million mark. It will undoubtedly continue to rise and it stands to reason that the passenger-handling facilties, currently bursting at the seams, need to be upgraded.

What number of passengers is being planned for? What are the forecasts ? This information is not available as part of the documentation which has been published to date.

The inevitable increase in the number of passengers to be handled by MIA will have an impact on the surrounding area. The traffic generated, and the  emissions associated with this, will further deteriorate the air quality in the main roads leading to Gudja. There will also be an increase in noise pollution.

The Environment Planning Statement identified the Ħal-Farruġ Road/Qormi Road roundabout at Luqa as requiring upgrading  as a result of long-term traffic projections made. It did not, however, identify any other major traffic impact on the villages surrounding the airport. In particular, the EPS did not consider it relevant to consider that already, at this point in time, the residential area of Gudja – less than 50 metres away from the boundary of the airport carpark –  is being used by airport employees and passengers as an additional carpark, thereby creating an unnecessary burden on Gudja itself.

The current burden for the airport’s core functions, and the first phase of the Skyparks project, are primarily being borne by the communities of Luqa, Gudja, Kirkop and Safi.

Additional impact due to an increase in the airport’s core functions is unavoidable. But making matters worse through further development of the airport as a business hub is verging on sadistic. Gudja’s airport should not be compared to major airports when determining long-term functions, but rather to regional airports.

Given Malta’s size, practically all facilities are available within a 15-minute drive from the airport. It would hence make sense for the airport’s management to realise that the airport’s corporate social responsibility should not be limited to funding some restoration projects. It is about time that it focused on the fact that human beings reside in the surrounding villages. The airport’s contribution to Malta’s economic performance is welcome but this should not be at the expense of the quality of life of the surrounding communities.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday, 27 December 2015

Fejn kont, meta nbniet il-Belt Valletta ?

La Valette

 

Eħe, fejn kont meta 450 sena ilu l-Gran Mastru La Valette ħolom li jibni l-Belt fuq l-għolja Xiber-ras?

Jiena ma kontx hawn. Kieku kont, probabbilment bħal bosta oħrajn, kien imissni l-istess xorti ta’ dawk li kienu meqjusa li jipprotestaw wisq! La Valette ma kienx jittollera l-kritika!

Nagħmlu żball oħxon nippruvaw niġġudikaw illum deċiżjonijiet li ittieħdu l-bieraħ imma imbagħad nagħmlu dan bil-kriterji tal-lum. Kieku kellha issir il-proposta biex tinbena illum, hemm ċans tajjeb li l-Belt Valletta ma kienitx tinbena. Imma fiż-żmien li nbniet kien jagħmel sens għad-difiża tal-pajjiż. La Valette qabad u iddeċieda. La għamel EIA u l-anqas talab permess ta’ ħadd!

L-istess nistgħu ngħidu, per eżempju għall-Port Ħieles. Kieku l-idea kellha tfaqqas illum bla dubju li l-Port Ħieles kien jinbena differenti, ħafna iktar il-bogħod mir-residenzi ta’ Birżebbuġa. Imma meta l-Gvern fl-1962 beda jesproprija l-art biex eventwalment inbena l-Port Ħieles, il-ħsieb kien differenti. Anke l-ideat ta’ ħarsien ambjentali dakinnhar kienu għadhom ftit primittivi, jekk kienu jeżistu.

Aħna qegħdin hawn illum u kull wieħed minna għandu l-obbligu li jiftaħ ħalqu illum.

Tul is-snin li għaddew ikkritikajna d-deċiżjonijiet żbaljati li għamlu ħsara ambjentali kbira. Waħda wara l-oħra.

Bħalissa fuq l-aġenda hemm iċ-ċirkwit propost għat-tlielaq tal-karozzi.

Diġa ktibt dwar dan is-suġġett diversi drabi wara li giet ippubblikata t-talba għal espressjoni ta’ interess dwar iċ-ċirkwit. Issa nistennew il-proposti li jridu jkunu sottomessi sal-20 ta’ Jannar 2016.

Mhux nistenna proposta li jkollna l-karozzi jtellqu fit-toroq ewlenin tal-pajjiż bħalma jiġri f’Monaco! L-indikazzjonijiet dejjem kienu dwar artijiet sostanzjali fl-inħawi ta’ Ħal-Far li fuqhom ikun propost li jiġi żviluppat iċ-ċirkwit. L-istorbju, qed jintqal, “mhux problema” għax diġa hemm storbju mhux żgħir f’kull ħin tal-ġurnata mill-ajruplani neżlin lejn, jew tiela’ mill-ajruport ta’ Ħal-Luqa. Storbju li “ndara” mir-residenti fl-inħawi tul is-snin. Ftit iżda jintqal li anke jekk l-istorbju jindara xorta jagħmel il-ħsara lis-saħħa tan-nies.

Diġa fil-preżent ikun hemm numru ta’ karozzi fl-inħawi fejn min isuqhom ikun qed jipprattika d-delizzju tiegħu billi jtellaq. Xejn ma hi esperjenza pjaċevoli għar-residenti fl-inħawi li issa jridu jiddeċiedu jekk jibqgħux jissaportu inkella jekk iridux isemmgħu leħinhom.

Nistennew u naraw.

Il-bluff tal-PN dwar l-ambjent

marthese portelli + george pullicino

Il-PN qed jipprova jiġbor ġieħu. Qed jitkellem u jipprova jagħti l-impressjoni li l-għandu l-ambjent għal qalbu.

Qed ixerred id-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli dwar l-ODZ. Il-PN ma jaqbilx mal-bini barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp (fl-ODZ) tgħidilna l-kelliema tal-PN dwar l-ambjent Marthese Portelli bi kważi d-dmugħ f’għajnejha.

Sadanittant imma l-PN jibqa l-partit li fiż-żmien li għamel fil-Gvern għamilha possibli biex isir bosta bini barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp.

Fl-artiklu tal-bieraħ fuq dan il-blog semmejt iż-żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art ODZ li saru tajbin għal bini bil-barka tal-PN fil-Gvern.

Imma hemm bosta iktar eżempji.

Tiftakru meta twaqqgħet il-Lukanda Solemar fil-Marfa u l-binja li telgħet flokha kienet ferm ikbar milli kien indikat fil-permess? Dakinnhar l-iżviluppatur kien bena bla permess fuq art pubblika, ukoll barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp. Il-Gvern immexxi mill-PN (direttament jew permezz tal-MEPA) flok ma applika l-liġi u waqqa’ l-bini bla permess, sab “soluzzjoni” billi wara ħruġ ta’ “sejħa għall-offerti” irranġa kollox. Anke dakinnhar  l-arroganza rebħet billi l-Gvern baxxa rasu quddiem min ħataf l-art u abbuża. Dakinnhar ukoll art ODZ inbniet u l-Gvern immexxi mill-PN ma tniffisx ħlief biex jikkoopera ma min seraq l-art pubblika.

Smajtu f’dawn il-ġranet dwar il-bini tad-diversi friegħi tal-Lidl, b’mod partikolari dawk ta’ Ħal-Safi u Ħal-Luqa li t-tnejn inbnew f’żoni ODZ ukoll fi żmien Gvern immexxi mill-PN. Fl-2008 Alternattiva Demokratika kienet semmgħet leħinha dwar il-każ. Ara hawn dak li ktibt dakinnhar.

Nista’ nibqa’ sejjer, u ma nispiċċa qatt.

Dawn huma kollha dnubiet ambjentali li ma nħafrux u l-anqas ma ntesew bħala riżultat tal-aħħar elezzjoni ġenerali. Għax għadna nbatu l-konsegwenzi bħala pajjiż. Ser nibqgħu nbatu l-konsegwenzi, u l-PN li kien il-kawża ta’ dan kollu frisk bħal ħassa, jidhirlu li l-Passat għadda u mar.

Mhux jien, jgħid Simon Busuttil. Mhux jien tgħid Marthese Portelli.

Imma sadanittant lil dak li kien responsabbli biex idderiġa din il-ħerba, lil George Pullicino, ħbewħ u issa tawħ l-inkarigu ta’ kelliemi tal-Opposizzjoni għal Kindergarten.

Il-passat ambjentali tal-PN ma nistgħux ninsewh. Għax mhux biss ħarbat il-preżent iżda għamel il-futur ta’ dan il-pajjiż iktar diffiċli.

Meta tqis dan kollu, d-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli tal-PN dwar l-ambjent hu kollu bluff. Il-passat tagħhom hu mera tal-futur. Kważi ħamsa u għoxrin sena huma iktar minn biżżejjed biex juruna dak li fil-fatt jemmnu.

Il-Labour huma agħar minn hekk, kif qed naraw u ilna naraw ġimgħa wara l-oħra minn Marzu 2013 sal-lum.

Fi ftit kliem, m’hemmx x’tagħżel bejniethom!

L-irħula madwar l-ajruport ta’ Malta

ipp

Il-Malta Today illum irrappurtat dwar l-iżvilupp propost fl-Airport Internazzjonali ta’ Malta.

Hemm applikazzjoni pendenti għal Masterplan li tinkludi diversi binjiet.

L-impatti ikkawżati minn dan l-iżvilupp ser ikun sostanzjali fuq il-komunitajiet madwar l-Airport u ċjoe fuq l-irħula ta’ Ħal-Luqa, l-Gudja, Ħal Kirkop u Ħal-Safi.

L-iżvilupp propost ser jiġġenera ħafna iktar traffiku fid-direzzjoni tal-ajruport u per konsegwenza iktar tniġġiż tal-arja.

L-airport ta’ Malta hu airport ta’ pajjiż żgħir, daqs wieħed reġjonali fil-kontinent Ewropew,  u ma jagħmilx sens li jkun fih facilitajiet bħall-ajruporti l-kbar tad-dinja. Il-facilitajiet provduti għandhom ikunu kompatibbli mad-daqs żgħir tal-pajjiż. Għandhom ukoll jieħdu in konsiderazzjoni li tefa ta’ ġebla l-bogħod hemm erbat irħula li fihom hemm diversi negożji żgħar. Kif ser jiġu effettwati dawn in-negozji żgħar? Din mhix biss materja ta’ kompetittivita’, imma fuq kollox hi materja ta’ infrastruttura ekonomika u soċjali fl-irħula tagħna li bi proġetti bħal dawn ser titmermer b’rata aċċellerata.

Fil-ġranet li ġejjin jagħlaq iż-żmien ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar ir-rapport li jikkonsidra l-impatt ambjentali. Imbagħad ikollna ċans li niddiskutu dan il-proġett f’iktar dettall.

L-ibliet u l-irħula tagħna għandhom bżonn inkoraġġiment biex isaħħu l-infrastruttura ekonomika u soċjali. L-iżvilupp veru ma jkissirhomx iżda jagħihom is-saħħa.

 

Ħalluna naħdmu ………ħalluna ngħixu

Ħalluna naħdmu.

Hekk qal l-iżviluppatur Sandro Chetcuti waqt laqgħa organizzata man-nies tan-negozju mill-Partit Laburista. Dan hu slogan li qed jintuża issa biex ifisser ġlieda kontra l-burokrazija. Fost oħrajn kontra l-hekk imsejħa burokrazija fil-MEPA.

Qalulna li fil-Ġermanja permess ta’ żvilupp joħroġ fi tlett xhur iżda f’Malta jieħu ta’ l-inqas tmien xhur.

Li ma qalulniex li f’Malta l-industrija tal-bini tħalliet għal snin sħah tagħmel prattikament dak li trid. Bil-konsegwenza li presentement hawn iktar minn 70,000 post residenzjali vojt. Dawn il-postijiet vojta huma ekwivalenti għal 9 darbiet daqs iż-żona residenzjali ta’ B’kara.

Ma qalulniex li minkejja l-attaparsi kontrolli l-MEPA ħarġet permessi li qatt ma kellhom joħorġu.

Il-Lidl ta’ Ħal Safi inbena bħala riżultat ta’ permess ta’ żvilupp li qatt ma kellu joħroġ. Tant li wara li l-Uffiċjal tal-Verifika (Audit Officer) tal-MEPA fi Frar 2008 ikkonkluda l-investigazzjoni tiegħu kienet irreżenjat il-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll ta’ l-Iżvilupp.

Il-Lidl ta’ Ħal-Luqa mhux biss nbena f’żona li ma kienx permess li jsir dan il-bini talli l-parkeġġ tiegħu qiegħed sitwat taħt l-aħħar parti tal-flight path għall-mitjar internazzjonali ta’ Malta. Jiena infurmat li waqt li kien għaddej ix-xogħol ta’ kostruzzjoni fis-sit tal-Lidl f’Ħal-Luqa minħabba l-jib tal-krejnijiet li kien hemm fil-parking area l-aċċess għall-mitjar ingħalaq għal xi ħin. Huma u neżlin l-ajruplani tant ikunu fil-baxx meta jkunu fuq il-parkeġġ tal-Lidl ta’ Ħal-Luqa li kien hemm periklu serju ta’ inċident minħabba dawn il-krejnijiet.

Il-problemi konnessi mal-MEPA huma is-swaba politiċi li hemm fiha l-ħin kollu. Ir-riforma tal-MEPA ma indirizzatx l-iżjed element essenzjali u ċjoe kif jinħatru dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet. Dwar dan Alternattiva Demokratika fil-manifest elettorali li ser tippreżenta għall-elezzjoni ġenerali li għandna wara l-bieb ser terġa’ tipproponi soluzzjoni li lill-politiku toħorġu l-barra mill-proċess li permezz tiegħu preżentement qiegħed involut direttament fid-deċiżjonijiet u minflok issaħħaħ ir-rwol tiegħu (tal-politiku) fejn tidħol is-sorveljanza.

Il-MEPA għandha rwol importanti. Sfortunatament m’hiex titħalla taqdi dan ir-rwol. Tkun tista’ taqdi dan ir-rwol meta jinħatru persuni kapaċi fit-tmexxija tal-MEPA. Dawn il-persuni jeħtieġ li jkunu disponibbli biex kontinwament jagħtu kont ta’ egħmilhom. Ir-rwol tal-MEPA mhux biss li toħroġ jew iżżomm il-permessi tal-iżvilupp. Fuq kollox għandha l-obbligu li fid-deċiżjonijiet tagħha u permezz tagħhom tassigura li l-kwalita’ ta’ ħajja li ngħixu lkoll kemm aħna titjieb.

Biex dan ikun jista’ jsir il-MEPA trid trabbi is-snien mal-Gvern u l-awtoritajiet pubbliċi. (Għax fost l-agħar deċiżjonijiet tal-MEPA hemm dawk fejn huwa involut il-Gvern: il-power station f’Delimara, il-Freeport f’Birzebbuga, l-impjant tal-iskart ta’ Sant’ Antnin f’Marsaskala……) Meta dan ikun jista’ jsir, imbagħad  ikun possibli li jingħad li l-MEPA qed taqdi l-missjoni tagħha.

Ħalluna ngħixu!

What it takes to Green Cinderella

_______________________________________________________

published on Saturday March 20, 2010

__________________________________________________________

Malta’s environmental policy has to date been EU driven for the simple reason that the political establishment in Malta has resisted its development. Dumping environmental responsibilities with land use planning has, in my view, been an integral part of this strategy.

Notwithstanding its past performance, the government’s declaration that it will now embark on consultations leading to the formulation of an environmental policy, which is locally driven, is welcome news. Only time will tell whether this is another exercise in green-washing.

The government’s commitment to safeguard the environment is not to be gauged through its declarations but through its actions or lack of them. Its lack of environmental credentials has been manifested many times. The latest being by Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco who, when introducing the Environment and Development Planning Bill in Parliament, stated that the environment will “no longer be the Cinderella of development”.

This has not come about accidentally. It was a deliberate exercise as a result of which the expertise, which the former Department for the Environment was slowly accumulating, was wiped out. Those who plotted the merger needed to ensure that environmental decisions were subject to development considerations at all times.

Cabinet responsibility for the environment made its first appearance immediately after the 1972 Stockholm Human Environment Conference. In 1976, Malta had a Minister for Health and the Environment. His environmental remit focused on landfills. During his watch, the Luqa and Wied Fulija landfills were closed and a new landfill at Magħtab was opened!

The first real minister for the environment in Malta was Daniel Micallef. He was appointed in 1986 during Labour’s last months in government by then Prime Minster Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, who was seeking to counterbalance the widespread corruption in the Lorry Sant-led Ministry of Works. This corruption was subsequently documented.

Between 1986 and 2002 much was achieved. It would suffice to state that when, in 2002, the Department for the Environment was disbanded it had more credibility and was much more effective than Mepa’s Environment Directorate is today.

A local company that bottles water and soft drinks was recently awarded the 2009 Environment Award for Industry by the Cleaner Technology Centre. The company had relocated to a new site, upgrading its facilities to function eco-efficiently. But it still makes use of substantial amounts of water extracted from the water table through boreholes and sells this as bottled water and soft drinks. Extraction is to the tune of 51 million litres annually. The director of the Cleaner Technology Centre, when prodded in other sections of the press, admitted that the award adjudicating board was not aware that the company extracts ground water through boreholes. Seen within the context of Malta’s depleted water table this award is environmentally blasphemous.

Some persons entrusted with environmental matters have a proven capability of justifying the unjustifiable. This partly explains why Malta’s environmental administration is in shambles.

Within this context I believe there are more pressing issues than the drafting of an environmental policy. Applying all the EU environmental acquis would be a good first step.

A point I have harped on in these pages (1) (2) is the non-implementation of the waste from electric and electronic equipment directive. This directive applies “the producer responsibility principle” as a result of which producers and their representatives have to take back electrical and electronic waste from consumers. Most importers are aware that they are in breach of the directive’s provisions. They feel, however, that they cannot honour their obligations unless the government reviews the eco-contribution regime as, otherwise, they will end up paying twice for the same responsibilities: a payment through eco-contribution and another one through financing the take-back.

There is also a need for legislation regulating noise pollution. EU legislation on the matter (the environmental noise directive) deals only with traffic/transport-generated noise and substantial parts of it are not applicable to Malta. As the EU does not deal sufficiently with the matter, Malta has to date considered it safe to conveniently ignore the need for noise pollution legislation completely. In a densely populated community this issue is of the utmost importance, yet, successive governments have not been bothered.

These examples (water, waste, noise) just scratch the surface of the deficiencies of the environmental set-up, an area which has been continuously muzzled, sidelined, ignored and deprived of resources. It is this attitude which has to change.

The environmental policy this country needs is one which enables its government to be clear and consistent. Declarations on their own are not sufficient as commitment has been continuously absent. If the government really wants to translate its declarations into action it will take much more than an environmental policy to Green Cinderella.