The Metro consultation: taking us for a ride

In 2008 Professor Mir Ali from the School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, published a paper entitled “Urban Design Strategy Report on Tall Buildings in Malta.”

Professor Ali comments on the lack of mass transport facilities in Malta and links the functionality of tall buildings with the availability of mass transport facilities. He emphasises that: “Once there is a BRT or MRT system, integration of tall buildings with transportation can result in high efficiency, consolidation of services and a better urban life.” BRT signifies Bus Rapid Transit System. MRT signifies Mass Rapid Transport.

The need for a mass transport network has been felt for a long time. Greens in Malta have been emphasising that it is one of various solutions to address transport issues in the Maltese islands.

Government’s announcement last weekend on a three-route metro is just a first step. Greens definitely agree with the objective though not with the specifics proposed. As ARUP emphasised, government’s massive expenditure on long-term road building will not solve anything. Most of it is money down the drain.

Government’s announcement has only presented a sketch of a solution. The proposal needs to be much more detailed than that. While the identification of the routes as well as the location of the stations is definitely important information, we need more analytical information to digest.

ARUP identified potential routes and stations on the basis of studies. It is said that studies were also carried out on various options, as a result of which ARUP discarded the Bus Rapid Transit, the surface tram, the elevated light metro and combinations. We need to be able to digest these studies to understand why ARUP have discarded alternative solutions. All studies carried out by ARUP should be available for examination in the Metro public consultation. If this is not possible what is the purpose of a public consultation?

The proposal for a Metro should not be an excuse for developing open spaces as has already been pointed out with reference to the proposed B’Kara and Pembroke Metro stations. We already have too few open spaces.

Proposals have to be analysed within the wider context of transport policy in Malta.  Specifically private car use must be substantially reduced for any mass transport proposal to be economically feasible! This must be clear even at this stage. It is inevitable, but government is conveniently being silent on the matter! Has ARUP advised on the matter in its feasibility studies? We have a right to know.

It is the intention to utilise the stations to attract metro users from the surrounding areas. Some, living nearby, will come on foot. Others living or working slightly further away may come by private car, by bus or by bike.  Most potential metro stations do not have parking areas around them. This signifies that it is essential that more emphasis is laid on the interaction between the proposed Metro and local and regional transport.

The metro’s functioning has to be seen within the existing urban context. This is very relevant to the debate but unfortunately the detailed advice which government has received in this respect has not been divulged. Just one tit-bit of information has inadvertently emerged. When asked as to why the Metro will not make it to Gozo, it was stated that there is not sufficient population on the sister island. This begs the question: how come then that a tunnel is planned below the sea to link the two islands?

The announcement further informed us that most of the Metro will be underground with only a small stretch being above ground for topographical reasons.  Depending on the size of the tunnels between the metro stations this could generate a substantial amount of inert waste. An estimated excavation volume of 4.9 million cubic metres, presumably measured in situ, is indicated. Once excavated this would amount to around 8.6 million cubic metres after taking account of the increase in volume after excavation. This is a substantial amount of inert waste which, as already hinted, can only be utilised in land reclamation projects. For comparative purposes 8.6 million cubic metres of inert waste is close to the amount that was used in the whole Freeport project at Kalafrana for land reclamation purposes!

I am not aware of any land reclamation currently required in the national interest. We cannot be forced into land reclamation as the only solution to dispose of the inert waste generated by the Metro project.

Excavation of an underground Metro does not only generate excessive inert waste. It also endangers our historical heritage: in particular when excavating below, around or close to national monuments in Valletta, Mosta, Balluta and elsewhere. Excavation is also proposed next to ecologically sensitive sites.

This is definitely not on.

Proposed solutions above ground have to be examined in detail too and discussed as part of the public consultation. A hybrid metro-tram system mostly above ground, and/or a Bus Rapid Transit system, are other possibilities which should make it on the table of any serious public consultation. They do not generate inert waste, can be implemented in a shorter time frame from that proposed by ARUP and cost a fraction of the proposed outlay. In addition, substantially less environmental impacts are involved. Any selected solutions should respect our historical and ecological heritage.

Through constructive criticism we can explore alternative solutions which are being deliberately shut out with a stage-managed consultation. We need more than PR stunts: logos and flashy video clips are not the information we need for a mature public consultation. Government must put all its cards on the table. The ARUP studies must be subject to public scrutiny. Otherwise, the public consultation is taking us for a ride.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 10 October 2021

Il-metro: ħtieġa ta’ informazzjoni

Fi tmiem il-ġimgħa l-Gvern ħabbar il-posizzjoni tiegħu dwar il-Metro. Imma l-istudji li għandu ma ippubblikahomx.

Kif jista’ jkollna diskussjoni matura dwar il-proposta jekk il-Gvern iżomm għalih l-informazzjoni li għandu?

Naqblu dwaril-ħtieġa urġenti li l-pajjiż ikollu mezz ta’ transport tal-massa. Dan ilna ngħiduh bħalma ilna ngħidu lil-infieq massiċċ tal-Gvern fuq it-toroq ma solva xejn. Kien ħela ta’ flus. Anke l-konsulenti tal-Gvern qed jgħidu li minkejja l-infieq fl-infrastruttura tat-toroq għad għandna problem kbar.

L-issue l-kbira li teħtieġ diskussjoni hi dwar jekk il-metro jkunx taħt l-art inkella jekk ikunx prinċipalment f’livell tat-triq. Prinċipalment dan qed ngħidu minħabba l-iskart li ser ikun ġġenerat kemm-il darba l-metro jsir taħt l-art.

Jekk, kif indika l-Gvern, l-għażla tmur favur metro taħt l-art l-iskart ġġenerat ser jispiċċa radam fil-baħar, reklamazzjoni sfurzata. Aħna ma naqblux ma dan u jidhrilna li għandu jsir sforz biex dan ikun evitat.

L-għażla ta’ metro f’livell tat-triq [jeżistu ukoll sistemi hybdrid: metro/tramm] jelimna l-parti l-kbira tal-iskart, inaqqas iż-żmien tal-implimentazzjoni, inaqqas l-ispiża u jkun ta’ benefiċċju ambjentali ferm ikbar.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan hu meħtieġ li jkunu ppubblikati b’mod urġenti ir-rapporti u l-istudji kollha li saru u dan għax sa llum ftit li xejn ġiet ippubblikat informazzjoni li tista’ tkun ta’ għajnuna għad-diskussjoni pubblika. Il-logos u l-videos huma ‘PR’, mhux informazzjoni. Ma jistax ikollna diskussjoni matura dwar dawn il-proposti jekk  l-informazzjoni li għandu l-Gvern iżommha għalih u din tibqa’ moħbija mill-iskrutinju pubbliku.

Improving waste collection

Waste collection in our towns and villages does not cater for a modern 21st century European island state. It is approximately fifty years out of phase. It has not evolved with time to take into consideration modern day requirements.

The waste collection schedules do not cater for the needs of shift workers, of short-term tenants and small local businesses.

Local government governs at a local level. It takes decisions necessary in order to address the varying requirements of the community which it leads. Our local councils unfortunately do not have such an authority. Government (directly as well as through Wasteserv Malta Limited, the state waste operator) is continuously breathing down their necks such that they cannot plan and carry out waste collection differently and in an efficient manner.

A news item in the Malta Independent on Monday pointed at a proposal of the Local Councils’ Association on an alternative to the door-to-door waste collection in our towns and villages.

Our restricted pavements, as things stand, are during parts of the mornings cluttered with waste bags. In addition, they are also used for restaurant tables and chairs.  Possibly if there is enough space, pavements can also be used for the mobility of pedestrians! Vulnerable persons with different mobility disabilities and parents caring for young children are often at a loss in such situations. They are the first squeezed out of pavements!

It is within this context that the Local Councils’ Association has proposed a gradual shift from a door-to-door waste collection system to one where waste is deposited at specific collection points. The proposal is interesting even though it is not easily applicable in all localities. Specifically in village cores and in urban conservation areas there may not be sufficient space suitable for the development of the necessary infrastructure for the development of waste collection points. Our streets are already cluttered with services: drainage, water, electricity and communications! I believe that it will be slightly difficult to find adequate space for these collection points in some of our streets.

The proposal was submitted to government some months ago in response to the public consultation in hand on the Waste Management Strategy. It entails the identification of 13,000 collection points serving 250,000 households. It is envisaged that each household could possibly be within a 100-metre distance from a waste collection point.

I have discussed this proposal with Local Councils Association President Mario Fava who is very enthusiastic on its workability. Studies detailing the proposal have not to date been carried out locally but the method is practiced in a number of European cities.

Such a collection system could be the source of various benefits in our localities. Top of the list would be cleaner pavements and roads as a result of substantially reduced waste spillage. There would be less traffic congestion and obstruction as a result of not having a waste collection vehicle doing the rounds at a speed of 5 kilometres per hour through the streets of our towns and villages. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from fuel consumption by waste collection vehicles would be substantially reduced. (Electrification of waste collection vehicles could likewise attain the same objective of greenhouse gas emission reduction.)

The next step should be a pilot project in a number of localities as a result of which the required infrastructural improvements should be identified and implemented for a selected number of waste collection points. Such a pilot project should not only consider the workability of the proposed alternative. It should also seek to address how those facing mobility difficulties can cope and what assistance would be required to ensure that they will eventually benefit from the proposed improvement to the waste collection system.

The new waste management strategy is long overdue. I hope that when finalised it will recognise that local councils, both individually as well as through their association are fully capable of planning and delivering the services which our towns and villages require in this day and age. They should not be obstructed from functioning as a local government.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 26 September 2021

Nitgħallmu min-natura

Aħna familjari ma kif taħdem l-ekonomija linejari. Nagħmlu użu mir-riżorsi li nsibu madwarna u wara li ma jkollniex iktar bżonnhom narmuhom.  

In-natura taħdem ferm differenti minn hekk u minn għandha nistgħu nitgħallmu ħafna. Fil-fatt jekk nippruvaw nimxu fuq il-passi tan-natura nistgħu nsolvu bosta mill-problemi li nħabbtu wiċċna magħhom.  

Teżisti linja ta’ studju speċjali imsejħa biomimicry (imitazzjoni tan-natura) li tfittex kif nistgħu nifhmu iktar lin-natura u nitgħallmu minn għandha. Li nibdlu l-mentalità tagħna li narmu kollox hi waħda mit-tagħlimiet bażiċi li għandna bżonn.

Ħarsu lejn siġra. Meta jasal il-waqt addattat għaliha twaqqa’ l-weraq li jitmermru fil-ħamrija madwar is-siġra.  Dawn, imbagħad isiru ħaġa waħda mal-ħamrija u jservu biex is-siġra terġa tassorbi n-nutrijenti akkumulati.

Hekk taħdem l-ekonomija naturali. In-natura ma timxix bħalna, ma tarmi xejn. Issib użu għal kollox. Għalhekk ngħidu li l-ekonomija tan-natura hi waħda ċirkulari għax ma tarmi xejn, u tirriċikla kollox.  Kull prodott naturali li jispiċċa ma jintremiex iżda jitmermer u jerġa’ jitwieled mill-ġdid f’xi forma jew oħra. Jidħol f’ċiklu naturali ġdid.

Fil-ktieb tagħhom Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things William McDonough and Michael Braungart jiffukaw fuq dan kollu. Jidentifikaw inizjattivi speċifiċi  industrijali u kummerċjali li bihom inaqqsu l-użu ta’ materjali fl-ekonomija, dik li nsejħula dematerialisation. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan jista’ jitwettaq ħafna iktar bl-użu ta’ inqas riżorsi.  Ikollna l-istess kwalità ta’ servizz (jew aħjar) b’inqas użu ta’materjal: effiċjenza prattika fl-użu tar-riżorsi.

Dan iwassal mhux biss biex jonqsu l-ispejjes tal-użu tal-materjal imma ukoll jitnaqqsu l-ispejjes konnessi mal-enerġija użata: dawn huma uħud mill-benefiċċji li ġġib bidla minn ekonomija linejari għal waħda cirkulari.  Twassal ukoll għal żieda fl-investiment kif ukoll għal żieda fl-impiegi li jistgħu jinħolqu. Il-kontribut finali jkun li ntejbu l-kwalità tal-ħajja ta’ kulħadd.

Din il-ġimgħa l-Ministru tal-Ambjent aġġornana dwar il-pjan nazzjonali ta’ azzjoni biex ikunu applikati f’pajjiżna l-prinċipji tal-ekonomija ċirkulari.  Dan hu tajjeb, avolja dan hu paroli li ilna ħafna nisimgħu dwaru tul is-snin: mingħajr ma jsir xejn.

Il-Ministru fisser il-pjani tal-Gvern fuq il-magni li ser ikunu stallati madwar Malta biex permezz tagħhom ikun iffaċilitat ir-riċiklaġġ tal-fliexken tal-plastik u skart ieħor konness mal-ippakkeġġjar. Riżultat ta’ din l-inizjattiva fliexken tal-plastik u kontenituri oħra (tal-birra u tal-inbid, per eżempju) jinġabru f’magni mxerrdin mal-pajjiż u minnhom tieħu lura d-depożitu li tkun ħallast meta tkun xtrajt l-ilma, birra, inbid jew inkella luminata.

Però jkun utili li niftakru li fl-2004, kien hemm proposta kważi simili li kienet ġiet ippreżentata lill-Gvern immexxi mill-Partit Nazzjonalista. Din il-proposta kienet bħala alternattiva għall-eko-kontribuzzjoni li kienet qed tkun introdotta dakinnhar.   Kienu Farsons li fl-2004 ipproponew skema ta’ depożitu fuq il-kontenituri, liema depożitu kien ikun jista’ jittieħed lura kif kien qed iseħħ fid-Danimarka. Sfortunatament kien hemm oġġezzjonijiet kbar għall-dik il-proposta u din għaldaqstant flok ma kienet diskussa u mtejba ġiet imwarrba u injorata. Il-Gvern dakinnhar qagħad fuq dak li qalu industrijalisti oħra tal-luminati li kellhom aċċess ikbar għall-widna tal-Prim Ministru Gonzi. Dan hu kollu dokumentat.

Wara sbatax-il sena, mela, erġajna wasalna fil-punt tat-tluq oriġinali. Imma sadanittant inħlew sbatax-il sena.  

Hu fl-interess ta’ kulħadd li din l-iskema titħaddem sewwa u li tirnexxi. L-iskop hu li jkun irkuprat 85 fil-mija tal-iskart tal-ippakkeġġjar li hu ġġenerat fil-gżejjer Maltin. Nemmen li hu possibli li din il-mira tintlaħaq, kif kien anke possibli li tintlaħaq sbatax-il sena ilu. Din l-iskema ddaħħal ftit sens fil-politika tal-immaniġjar tal-iskart f’Malta. Nittama li ma tkunx ostakolata bħal ta’ qabilha.

Nistennew li jasal il-jum li tkun implimentata.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 23 ta’ Mejju 2021

Lessons from nature

We are accustomed to the functioning of the linear economy. We extract the resources from the earth, we make use of them and subsequently when they are beyond their useful life, we throw them away.

Nature works quite differently. We can learn a lot from nature. As a matter of fact, if we try to imitate nature, we can solve many of the problems which we face.

Biomimicry is a relatively new branch of study which seeks ways in which we can learn from nature. Discarding our throwaway attitudes is one such basic lesson.

Take a look at any tree. At the appropriate time, it sheds its leaves, which disintegrate in the soil below. Nature does not waste the leaves shed by the tree, as they are reused and reabsorbed through the roots of the same tree as nutrients.

This is how nature’s economy works. Mother nature functions on the basis of a cradle-to-cradle philosophy in contrast to our cradle-to-grave attitude. The natural economy is a circular one which does not throw anything away: it recycles everything. At the end of the useful life of any natural product this does not end in a landfill but it gives birth to another product, a new fruit. It is reintroduced into the natural cycle.

In their book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things William McDonough and Michael Braungart focus specifically on this matter. They identify specific industrial and commercial initiatives which seek to dematerialise the economy as a result of which we can end up doing much more with less use of resources. The same or better level of service is achieved but, in the process, there are substantially fewer material inputs: practical resource efficiency.

In addition to saving on material costs as well as energy used, the transition from a linear to a circular economy presents numerous potential benefits. In particular, it attracts additional investment and can create thousands of jobs that practically and realistically contribute to making the world a better place to live in.

This week the Minister for the Environment gave an update on a national action plan to intensify efforts to align Malta to circular economy principles. This is positive even though we have heard this a multitude of times over the years.

The Honourable Minister outlined government’s plans on plastic bottle return machines which will be available all over the islands to facilitate their recycling. As a result of this initiative plastic bottles will be returned at which point a deposit paid on their purchase will be refunded.

It would be pertinent to point out that way back in 2004, or thereabouts, a proposal essentially very similar to this had been submitted to the then PN led government as an alternative to the eco-contribution scheme.  In fact, Farsons had then proposed the setting up of a deposit refund scheme for packaging waste on the basis of the Danish model. It was however unfortunately shot down instead of being developed and adapted to the local circumstances. Government instead opted for an eco-tax as emphasised by another powerful lobby which had a much easier access to Prime Minister Gonzi and his entourage. This is all documented.

Seventeen years down the line we are back at the original point of departure. Seventeen years have in the meantime been wasted. It is in everybody’s interest that the proposed scheme functions successfully. The objective is to achieve an 85 per cent recycling of the packaging waste generated on these islands. I believe that it is achievable now just as it was seventeen years ago. It puts back some sense in Malta’s waste management policy! Hopefully it will not be sabotaged once more.

I look forward to the implementation date.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 23 May 2021

ERA’s accountability: keeping up the pressure

On Tuesday, slightly after 11am I received a telephone call from the EIA office at the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) informing me that the Waste to Energy (WtE) Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) has been resubmitted for public consultation by Wasteserv.

Last October I had presented a number of submissions in response to the Waste to Energy EIA. Hence being informed by ERA of this latest development.

Exchanges between ERA and Wasteserv on the matter are not in the public domain. However, from the various reports in the media one can draw a fairly accurate picture as to what has transpired between 23 December 2020, when the “original” EIA was subject to an online public hearing and last Monday when the ERA website made the “new” EIA available for the latest round of public consultation. The minutes of the public hearing are available on the ERA website.

ERA has rejected the original EIA submitted by Wasteserv and sent it back to the drawing board.

Some may rejoice that ERA has, for the first time ever, rejected an EIA. It would, in my view, be more pertinent to ask why ERA has taken so long to assert its authority.  It has been hibernating for too long a time. There were many instances in the past when it should have acted similarly but it did not. That is an issue worth examining in depth. In particular ERA needs a thorough overhaul of the procedures in use for the vetting of EIA experts and coordinators.

Notwithstanding, I believe that ERA’s rejection of the original WtE EIA is a positive first. It is an encouraging sign that the environmental lobby’s work is bearing fruit. We need to keep up the pressure to ensure that all public authorities get to their senses the soonest. They must realise that the public is fed up with authorities that are generally insensitive to good governance.

From the various press reports it has transpired that ERA’s instructions to Wasteserv were that the EIA had to be drawn up again without making use of the services of Engineer Mario Schembri, the coordinator of the original EIA. ERA issued this instruction in order to address my submissions that Engineer Schembri’s involvement at various levels of the waste management industry in Malta constituted a conflict of interest as a result of which he could be neither independent nor impartial as an EIA coordinator, as is clearly spelt out in sub-regulation 17(2) of the EIA Regulations.

Did ERA need to be in receipt of such submissions in order to act? The relative information is public knowledge and has been so for quite some time: ERA could and should have acted on its own initiative long ago!

I had also pointed out that the EIA documentation submitted under the direction of coordinator Engineer Mario Schembri was incomplete as it quoted relevant reports which were not made available to the public to be scrutinised as part of the public consultation exercise. These reports dealt with the site selection exercise for the WtE project, a major issue of controversy. No explanation was ever forthcoming for this omission. However, I note that the “new” EIA now includes both “missing” reports.  The first report was drawn up in December 2015 while the second one was drawn up in December 2019.

The next steps require an analysis of the coordinated assessment submitted by the new coordinator Dr Joe Doublet specifically in order to identify and assess the difference in his assessment of the technical studies which are being resubmitted. The coordinated assessment by Dr Joe Doublet runs into 507 pages. Its perusal will therefore take some time!

This should lead to considering the extent to which the submitted studies together with the new coordinated assessment address the concerns of stakeholders thereby ensuring that the country’s environmental objectives can be met without subjecting anyone to unnecessary impacts and/or hardships.

Various stakeholders have so far, to their credit, spoken up.

It is up to the environment lobby to ensure that Wastserv’s proposed operations are properly scrutinised. This is the purpose of the EIA process which is managed by ERA.

The current public debate is one way of being sure that ERA’s accountability to the public is real, not fake. This is the only way that the whole community can be protected.

I will keep up the pressure, holding ERA continuously to account for its shortcomings.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 May 2021

Waste Management consultations

The Minister for the Environment has informed us that, tomorrow, Monday, he will be publishing a new Waste Management Strategy for public consultation.

The current waste management strategy is up for renewal as it was originally envisaged to cover between 2014 and 2020.

It is indeed unfortunate that the public consultation has been delayed this far. It has also once more been slotted in a festive period, thereby reducing its effectiveness.

One hopes that the strategy being submitted for public consultation, next Monday, will be accompanied by the studies which have been carried out in order to assist in its preparation. We need to understand the motivation for the proposals being made through studies, not through political soundbites. When proposals are buttressed by serious studies it is much easier for them to be accepted.

One such study commissioned some months ago is a waste characterisation study. This study which has presumably been carried out simultaneously in all the regions should identify the composition of our waste by region. There are known to be significant variations in waste generated in the different regions which variations are a reflection of a standard of living which inevitably varies. These variations need to be quantified as they have an important effect on the manner in which the waste management services are impacted.

We also need to be informed as to the results attained so far in the implementation of measures to organise and modernise waste management. I would expect that, for example, the documentation available in the public consultation should be accompanied by the reports drawn up to examine the uptake of organic waste collection from domestic households. 

In my opinion, the experience so far is generally positive. There is however a need for substantial improvement. This applies across the board, not just to the organic waste stream but also to general recycling which so far still lags far behind what is expected.  Recycling is officially at 12 per cent, but most probably, from what I have been informed, it is closer to 8 per cent of the municipal solid waste generated.

On Thursday an online public consultation is scheduled on the Environmental Impact Assessment relative to the proposed Magħtab incinerator, also referred to as the waste to energy facility. Some reports feeding this consultation are unfortunately tainted by conflicts of interest which may eventually result in the invalidation of the whole EIA consultation process.

This is unfortunate as waste management urgently requires more focused attention, not just to attain compliance with EU standards but more importantly because it may eventually translate into a better quality of life for all of us.

We need to minimise the waste that we generate. For example, our supermarkets need to be encouraged to use biodegradable packaging as this would ensure a further increase in the organic waste stream and consequently a further potential reduction in the mixed waste black bag. So far as a result of the introduction of the organic waste collection the black bag content should have reduced by about fifty per cent in content. This can be further reduced with suitable policy initiatives aimed at a reduction of the waste going to landfill.

Incinerating our waste, should not be an encouraged option. 

The shift to a circular economy is an opportunity which we should embrace. It is the time to shift seriously to a sustainable consumption mode. The personal choices we make accumulate in our waste bag which should be reducing gradually in both size of bag and volume of content.

There is still much to do. I sincerely hope that we can achieve much more. This will however only happen if we can tap the good faith of the environmentally conscious among us. It is only at that point that the moderate improvements achieved to date can be transformed into a definite success. We need it, and it can be done.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 13 December 2020

Il-governanza tajba u l-ħarsien tal-ambjent

Fl-assenza ta’ governanza tajba ma nistgħux inħarsu l-ambjent sewwa. Il-governanza tajba hi essenzjali għall-ħarsien ambjentali.  Huwa għalhekk li iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa ssottomettejt oġġezzjonijiet dettaljati bħala parti mill-proċess ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika mniedi mill-ERA fil-kaz tal-istudji dwar l-impatt ambjentali (EIA) dwar l-inċineratur propost għall-Magħtab.  

Li jkunu regolati l-kunflitti ta’ interess li b’mod inevitabbli jitfaċċaw f’kull proċess regolatorju huwa element essenzjali mill-proċess ta’ governanza tajba.

Ir-regolamenti f’Malta dwar l-istudju tal-impatt ambjentali, imsejsa fuq is-sens komun u fuq id-direttivi tal-Unjoni Ewropea jfittxu li jassiguraw illi dawk involuti fil-proċess tal-EIA ikunu ħielsa minn kull xorta ta’ konflitt ta’ interess. Kunflitt ta’ interess hi sitwazzjoni li tinħoloq meta persuna b’interessi varji jispiċċa  jaqdi interess u fl-istess ħin jikkonfliġġi ma ieħor.

Ħmistax ilu fl-artiklu intitolat Il-fiduċja: għal ġol-inċineratur emfasizzajt li dawk li jaħdmu fuq EIA għandhom ikunu professjonali, indipendenti u imparzjali. B’referenza partikolari għall-applikazzjoni dwar l-inċineratur għidt li m’huwiex aċċettabbli li dawk inkarigati biex jagħmlu EIA ikunu fl-istess ħin li qed jagħtu parir lill-iżviluppatur parti ukoll mill-awtorità regolatorja. Dawk li jixtiequ jagħmlu karriera fil-qasam tat-tħejjija ta’ rapporti tekniċi għall-EIA huma liberi li jagħmlu dan imma mbagħad m’għandhomx jitħallew jikkontaminaw il-proċess tal-EIA.

F’artiklu f’ġurnal ieħor bl-Ingliż il-ġimgħa l-oħra l-Professur Alan Deidun, is-suġġett ta’ din il-kitba, kien kritiku ta’ dan kollu. M’għandi l-ebda diffikulta dwar dan għax jagħtini opportunità li nispjega iktar.   

Il-Professur Deidun li hu membru tal-Bord tal-ERA ġibed l-attenzjoni tagħna li kieku hu ma jinvolvix ruħu darba kull tant f’rapporti tekniċi għall-EIA, bħalma għamel fil-kaz tal-inċineratur, ikun hemm il-periklu li nispiċċaw b’numru ta’ konsulenti mhux Maltin li jieħdu f’idejhom partijiet sħaħ tal-proċess tat-tfassil tal-EIA. Fil-fehma tal-Professur Deidun dan jiġġustifika li waqt li hu regolatur, fl-istess ħin jagħti parir lill-iżviluppatur!

Jiena konxju li għandna numru żgħir ta’ konsulenti, uħud minnhom professuri fl-Università tagħna li fil-passat mhux imbiegħed ġiebu ruħhom bl-istess mod tal-Professur Deidun: membri fuq il-Bord tar-regulatur u jagħtu l-pariri lil dawk regolati, imbagħad meta l-kaz jiġi quddiemhom jastjenu!  

Waqt li dan kien ħażin, fil-kaz tal-Professur Deidun l-affarijiet huma agħar. Deidun ġie maħtur biex ikun membru tal-Bord tal-ERA biex hemmhekk huwa jirrappreżenta lill-għaqdiet ambjentali. Jekk jastjeni mill-jieħu sehem fi kwalunkwe kaz li jiġi quddiemu fil-Bord ikun qed joħnoq il-vuċi tal-għaqdiet ambjentali. Għaldaqstant, b’żieda mal-kunflitt ta’ interess ikun qed imur ukoll kontra l-iskop li għalih inħatar fuq il-Bord tal-ERA.  Minħabba l-kunflitt ta’ interess tiegħu il-Professur Deidun ser joħnoq il-vuċi tal-għaqdiet ambjentali fl-iktar mument kritiku: meta jeħtieġilhom isemmgħu leħinhom.  

Apparti lill-Professur Deidun l-EIA tal- inċineratur jippreżentalna persuna oħra: il-koordinatur tal-EIA, l-Inġinier  Mario Schembri.

Is-Sur Schembri ilu żmien attiv fil-qasam tal-immaniġjar tal-iskart fejn kien ta kontribut pożittiv sostanzjali. Kien strumentali biex twaqqfet il-GreenPak li taħdem bħala kooperattiva: iġġib flimkien diversi negozji li jpoġġu fuq is-suq Malti diversi prodotti. Il-GreenPak taħdem biex f’isem il-membri tal-kooperattiva tirkupra l-iskart tal-ippakkeġġjar (packaging waste). Kienet fuq quddiem nett biex tinkoraġixxi ir-riċiklar fil-gżejjer Maltin, kontinwament tħeġġeġ lill-Kunsilli Lokali u lill-pubbliku biex jirriċiklaw.  

Is-Sur Schembri ilu CEO tal-GreenPak sa mill-2005. Għandu għarfien u esperjenza sostanzjali fl-immaniġjar tal-iskart. Huwa operatur fl-immaniġjar tal-iskart u għaldaqstant fil-proċess tal-EIA tal-inċineratur ma jistax ikun la imparzjali u l-anqas indipendenti huwa u janalizza d-dokumenti u r-rapporti li għandu quddiemu.  Anke hu għaldaqstant għandu kunflitt ta’ interess li jkompli jikkontamina l-process tal-EIA.

Ma nistax nifhem kif l-ERA ħalliet dan kollu għaddej u ma ħaditx passi, għax dak li qed ngħid m’huwiex xi sigriet, iżda huma fatti magħrufa minn kulħadd.  

F’soċjeta demokratika li tfittex li tapplika l-prinċipji ta’ governanza tajba huwa normali li jkunu identifikati każi ta’ kunflitt ta’ interess li dwarhom jittieħdu passi. Imma fejn ma jitieħdux passi jinħolqu bosta problemi. Fil-qasam ambjentali meta ma jittieħdux passi, dan jimmina l-isforzi li jkunu saru favur il-ħarsien ambjentali.  

Għax fil-qasam ambjentali, is-saltna tad-dritt (rule of law) hi importanti ukoll!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 25 t’Ottubru 2020

Good governance and environment protection

We cannot adequately protect the environment in the absence of good governance. Good governance is an essential prerequisite for environment protection.

This is why, earlier this week, I submitted detailed objections to the incinerator EIA process in the ERA-driven public consultation process. Adequate regulation of the conflict of interests which inevitably present themselves in any regulatory process is an essential element of good governance.

Based on both common sense as well as the relative EU Directive, Malta’s EIA Regulations seek to ensure that those involved in the EIA process should be free from conflict of interests.  A conflict of interest being a situation in which a person is involved in multiple interests and serving one interest could involve working against another.

As emphasised in my article a fortnight ago (Incinerating fairness, trust and common sense: 11 October) those carrying out an EIA must be “professional, independent and impartial”. It is not acceptable for those carrying out an EIA to be part of the regulatory process and simultaneously advise those regulated. Those who wish to embark on a career carrying out EIA technical reports are free to do so but they should not be permitted to contaminate the EIA process.

In an article entitled ‘C’ is for Cacopardo, not for collegiality…………. In last week’s edition, Professor Alan Deidun took me to task for my views. I have no difficulty with that, on the contrary it gives me the opportunity to explain further.  

Professor Deidun drew our attention that if he did not involve himself in the “occasional” consultancy there was a risk that we would end up with non-Maltese consultants taking over parts of the EIA process. In Professor Deidun’s lexicon this justifies acting in this manner.

I am aware that we had quite a handful of other consultants, some of them professors from our University, who in the recent past acted in the same manner as Professor Deidun: sitting on regulatory boards and then advising those regulated, subsequently abstaining from the board’s sitting when their report turns up for consideration.

That was bad enough.  In Professor Deidun’s case it is even worse. He is appointed to sit on the ERA Board in representation of environmental NGOs. If he abstains from giving his input in any instance on the ERA Board, the voice of the eNGOs, as a result, cannot be heard. In addition to having a conflict of interest between his role as a regulator and being the advisor of the regulated, Professor Deidun is thus ignoring completely the purpose of his appointment to the ERA Board. Professor Deidun’s conflict of interest will be silencing eNGOs at a crucial point: when it is essential that their voice is heard.

In addition to Professor Deidun the incinerator EIA presents us with another character: the EIA coordinator, Engineer Mario Schembri.

Mr Schembri has been active in waste management in Malta for a very long time. Among his positive contributions he was instrumental in setting up GreenPak which operates as a cooperative, bringing together the business interests which place various products on the Maltese market. GreenPak seeks to recover packaging waste on behalf of the members of the cooperative. It has been a positive contribution in encouraging recycling in Malta, continuously encouraging Local Councils and the public to do their bit.

Mr Schembri has been CEO of GreenPak since 2005. He is definitely knowledgeable and experienced in waste management. He is however a waste management operator and cannot as a result of this fact be an impartial or independent contributor to the EIA process. He too, thus, has a conflict of interest and thus contaminates the EIA process too.

I fail to understand how ERA has allowed the incinerator EIA process to proceed this far without acting to address these cases of conflict of interest as the above are well known facts to all.

In a democratic society seeking to apply good governance rules it is normal to identify and act on a conflict of interest. Failure to act, however, is problematic. In environmental matters such failure undermines the whole effort of environment protection.

The rule of law matters, in environmental issues too! 

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 25 October 2020

Tweġiba lill-Professur Alan Deidun

Alan Deidun għoġbu jwieġeb l-artikli tiegħi tal-Ħadd li għadda fuq l-Independent on Sunday u fuq l-Illum. Wieħed minnhom , dak fuq l-Independent on Sunday huwa riprodott fuq dan il-blog. L-artiklu tiegħu hu intitolat ‘C’ is for Cacopardo, not for collegiality ………

Fl-artikli tiegħi jiena ġbidt l-attenzjoni li l-Professur Alan Deidun għandu konflitt ta’ interess meta filwaqt li huwa membru tal-Bord tal-ERA, r-regolatur ambjentali, fl-istess ħin kien involut fit-tfassil ta’ wieħed mir-rapporti tekniċi li jiffurmaw l-EIA dwar il-propost inċineratur fil-Magħtab.

It-tweġiba tiegħu dehret illum fl-Independent on Sunday u ser inwieġbu fl-qosor illum.  Imma għandu jisma’ iktar dettalji dwar l-EIA tal-inċineratur matul il-ġimgħa u dan billi nhar l-Erbgħa li ġej 21 t’Ottubru jagħlaq il-perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar l-EIA fuq il-proposta ta’ żvilupp ta’ inċineratur. Sadakinnhar ser nippreżenta bil-miktub lill-ERA, bħala parti minn dan il-proċess ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika numru ta’ osservazzjonijiet dwar l-istess EIA, inkluż dwar l-istess Professur Alan Deidun.

Ser nillimita ruħi għall-argumenti u għalissa ser ninjora l-insulti u l-paroli vojt tal-Professur.

Deidun mhux l-uniku wieħed li waqt li jifforma parti minn awtorità regolatorja jissottometti studji għall-konsiderazzjoni tal-awtorità li jifforma parti minnha. Qablu kellna oħrajn. Din hi prattika li mhix aċċettabbli u għandha bżonn tieqaf. Ilha tiġi ikkritikata u hemm bżonn tieqaf malajr kemm jista’ jkun.

Immaterjalment minn kemm jagħmel rapporti: jekk hux wieħed jew mija ma tagħmilx differenza. Deidun u oħrajn għandhom bżonn li jifhmu illi meta taċċetta ħatra fuq awtorità regolatorja din l-aċċettazzjoni inevitabilment teffettwa l-ħidma professjonali tiegħek. L-impatt, in parti jiddependi mill-integrità tiegħek.

Tajjeb li nżommu quddiem għajnejna li fil-każ ta’ Manoel Island riċentement, f’Ġunju 2020, ġie annullat permess ta’ żvilupp minħabba li wieħed minn dawk involuti fit-tfassil tal-EIA kellu konflitt ta’ interess.

Fit-tweġiba tiegħu Deidun ħass li kellu jagħmel referenza għal xogħol professjonali tiegħi ma diversi Kunsilli Lokali. Konvenjentement Deidun nesa’ li jiena ma niffurma parti minn l-ebda korp regolatorju u għaldaqstant il-ħidma professjonali tiegħi mhiex limitata bħal tiegħu.

Fl-aħħarnett Deidun jgħid li ma jmissnix ikkritikajtu għax hu ambjentalist bħali. Jibqa’ l-fatt li Deidun mexa fuq il-passi ta’ dawk li mxew ħażin. Mingħajr ma nnaqqaslu l-mertu dwar fejn ħadem tajjeb, daqstant ieħor jixraqlu l-kritika iebsa, limitata fuq dan il-kaz.

Sfortunatament l-attitudni tal-Professur Deidun, u ta’ oħrajn li aġixxew bħalu, tagħmel ħsara kbira lill-istituzzjonijiet regolatorji. Jekk iwarrab jew jitwarrab minn fuq il-Bord tal-ERA, aħjar għal kulħadd.