Tniġġiż tal-arja fil-portijiet

Il-kwalità tal-arja fil-portijiet tagħna hi ta’ tħassib kbir. Niddependu minnha biex nieħdu n-nifs. Ir-residenti fil-lokalitajiet madwar il-portijiet qed isiru iktar konxji ta’ dan u jinsistu b’qawwa li tittieħed azzjoni. Ilkoll huma mħassbin miż-żieda astronomika fil-mard respiratorju madwarhom u fil-pajjiż kollu.

Madwar sena ilu l-għaqda ambjentali Maltija Birdlife flimkien ma’ esperti minn għaqda ambjentali Ġermaniża ħadet sehem f’eserċizzju li fih tkejlet il-kwalità tal-arja. Il-kampjuni tal-arja li nġabru minn madwar il-Port il-Kbir kienu jindikaw presenza għolja ta’ trab fin, li ħafna drabi jispiċċa fil-pulmun tagħna.

Il-Port il-Kbir hu ċentru ta’ attività marittima. Jinkludi terminal tal-cruise liners li tul dawn l-aħħar ħames snin kellu medja ta’ 300 cruise liner fis-sena li ġie Malta.

Il-Cruise liners jużaw ħafna elettriku.

Il-grupp ambjentali T & E (Transport and Environment) f’ rapport li kien ħareġ u li kien hemm referenza għalih fil-media lokali, kien qal li l-emmissjonijiet tal-kubrit mill-cruise liners li żaru Malta żdiedu biex fl-2017 kienu madwar 148 darba tal-emissjonijiet tal-kubrit mill-karozzi karozzi kollha fil-gżejjer Maltin dakinnhar. Din il-konklużjoni kienu waslu għaliha meta studjaw informazzjoni li kisbu mis-satelliti.

L-istazzjon televiżiv Ingliż Channel 4, f’rapport investigattiv li xandar madwar sentejn ilu li kien jiffoka fuq il-linja tal-cruise liners P & O kien ikkonkluda li t-tniġġiż li joħloq cruise liner li jġorr madwar 2,000 passiġġier matul kull ġurnata li jopera kien ekwivalenti għat-tniġġiż ta’ miljun karozza kuljum. Dawn il-vapuri l-kbar jagħmlu użu mill-heavy fuel oil, żejt li kif smajna ħafna drabi tul is-snin iħammeġ ħafna. Fost oħajn fih ammont għoli ta’ kubrit – madwar 3,500 darba daqs kemm hemm fil-fuel li jintuża għall-karozzi.

Jista’ jkun hemm nuqqas ta’ qbil fuq iċ-ċifri eżatti tal-emissjonijiet minn dawn il-vapuri. Ħadd iżda ma jkkontesta li dawn huma sostanzjali.

Il-komunità internazzjonali tfittex kontinwament li tirregola dak li jseħħ fl-ibħra internazzjonali. Aħna, iżda, bħala pajjiż għandna noqgħodu ferm iktar attenti għal dak li qed jiġri fil-portijiet u l-ibħra tagħna. L-emissjonijiet, b’mod partikolari dawk ta’ trab fin minn vapuri fil-portijiet u l-ibħra Maltin għandhom impatt dirett fuq il-komunitajiet residenzjali li jgħixu fil-madwar. Dan jgħodd b’mod partikolari għall-lokalitajiet fil-Port il-Kbir kif ukoll għal dawk fill-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk.

Hemm żewġ materji partikolari li għandhom jingħataw prijorità. L-ewwel nett hemm ħtieġa li l-awtoritajiet regolatorji Maltin jinfurzaw b’mod strett ir-regoli ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li jobbligaw lill-operaturi tal-vapuri li fil-portijiet juzaw zjut li jniġġsu inqas u b’mod partikolari li dawn ikollhom kontenut baxx ta’ kubrit. It-tieni miżura meħtieġa hi dwar it-titjib fl-infrastruttura tal-portijiet tagħna biex ikun possibli illi l-vapuri li jidħlu fil-portijiet tagħna jagħmlu użu minn elettriku ġġenerat fuq l-art u b’hekk ikun possibli illi jintfew il-ġeneraturi tal-elettriku fuq il-vapuri. Miżura ta’ din ix-xorta telimina t-tniġġiż tal-vapuri fil-portijiet tagħna minn dak il-mument li jitfew il-ġeneraturi.

F’Malta diġa saru tal-inqas żewġ studji dwar l-implikazzjonijiet kemm-il darba l-vapuri li jżuru Malta jkollhom jagħmlu użu minn elettriku ġġenerat fuq l-art. L-ewwel studju kien sar fuq talba ta’ Transport Malta u kien konkluż fl- 2014 filwaqt li t-tieni wieħed, li kienkonkluż fl-2018 kien ġie kkummissjonat mill-management tat-Terminal tal-Port Ħieles. Iż-żewġ studji kkonkludew illi kemm-il darba l-vapuri li jżuru Malta jibdew jagħmlu użu minn elettriku ġġenerat mill-art, meta jkunu fil-portijiet tagħna, ikun hemm titjib sostanzjali fil-kwalità tal-arja fl-istess portijiet u fil-lokalitajiet kollha li jmissu magħhom. Ir-rapporti jikkonkludu ukoll li dwar jekk dan jaqbilx ekonomikament jew le, fl-aħħar jiddependi fuq kif jaġixxu l-kompetituri tagħna!

Irridu nistaqsu mistoqsija waħda ċara: jagħmel sens li ninkoraġixxu u niddependu fuq ħidma ekonomika li tagħmel ħsara lil saħhitna?

It-tweġiba għal din il-mistoqsija hi ovvjament le. Il-portijiet tagħna huma riżors prezzjuz li għandna nużawh biex intejbu l-kwalità tal-ħajja tal-kommunitajiet madwar il-kosta.

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 18 t’Awwissu 2019

Air Pollution in our ports

The quality of the air we breath in our major ports is worrying. More residents in the areas around our ports are aware of this and are demanding action: they are all worried by the astronomic increases in the incidence of respiratory illnesses.

Around 12 months ago Maltese eNGO Birdlife carried out an air quality measurement exercise with the support of German experts from the German eNGO Nature and Biodiversity Union (NABU). Air samples taken from the Grand Harbour area indicted the presence of a high level of microscopic particulate matter, which ends up in our lungs.

The Grand Harbour is a hub of shipping activity and also includes a cruise liner terminal which, during the last five years, has had an average annual call rate of over 300 cruise liners.

Cruise liners make use of a large amount of electricity.  In a report covered in the local media, the campaign group T & E (Transport and Environment) said that sulphur emissions from cruise liners visiting Malta in 2017 were around 148 times as much as those emitted from the entire car fleet on the islands. This conclusion was reached after analysing satellite data.

In an investigative report it carried out two years ago focused on the P & O cruise liner company, the UK Television Channel 4 concluded that a cruise liner carrying around two thousand passengers had a daily pollution equivalent to one million cars. Large ships run on heavy fuel oil, which contains 3.5% sulphur – 3,500 times what is permitted in road fuel. There may be a lack of agreement on the exact figures for emissions from the shipping industry, but no one contests that they are substantial.

The international community continuously deals with what happens on the high seas. We can, however, deal more appropriately with what goes on in our ports. Particulate emissions in our ports by the shipping industry has a direct bearing on the residential communities surrounding our ports, notably Grand Harbour and Marsaxlokk Bay.

There are two specific issues which need to be prioritised. The first is for the regulatory authorities to ensure that EU legislation on restricting fuel use to the low sulphur type is observed. The second concerns the need to focus on infrastructural improvements in our ports to facilitate supplying the shipping industry with shore-based electricity, as a result ensuring that the ships’ generators – and consequently the resulting emissions to air –  stops when the ship berthed.

Two studies have already been carried out in Malta on the implications of a shore-to-ship electricity supply for the shipping industry. The first, which was completed in 2014, was carried out by Transport Malta and the second, carried out on behalf of the Malta Freeport Terminals, was completed in 2018. Both studies came to the conclusion that if the shipping industry changed to shore-side electricity there would be a substantial improvement in air quality in our ports. The issue of feasibility, however, is substantially dependent on what our competitors decide!

Does it make sense to keep encouraging economic activity that harms our health? The answer to this question is a definite “no”. Our ports are a most precious natural resource that we should use to enhance the quality of life of our coastal communities.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 18 August 2019

Manoel Island: one step forward

The controversy on the future of Manoel Island has been going on for ages.

The citizen’s action some 18 months ago led by eNGO Kamp Emergenza Ambjent and publicly supported by the Gżira Mayor Conrad Borg Manchè as well as various eNGOs led to the current breakthrough with MIDI, as a result of which common sense will be given the opportunity to prevail.

The setting up of the Manoel Island Foundation with environmentalist Claire Bonello as chair is a landmark decision. It does not signify agreement with what has been done to date but rather a determination that in the future, if we put our heads together, we can possibly avoid past mistakes. In time, perhaps, we can also seek to reverse some of the mistakes carried out so far.

When, together with countless others, I joined the protest at Manoel Island 18 months ago, I had one objective in mind: that access to the open spaces and the foreshore of Manoel Island belonged to all of us. There was an urgent need that this access be claimed back and subsequently guaranteed. This has now been done.

The Guardianship agreement focus specifically on the public’s right of access which right has always been in existence even though MIDI did its best to obstruct its use over the years. MIDI has (at last) bound itself to respect such a right of access and together with the Gżira Local Council has spelled out the details on how this can be reasonably exercised. The efforts put in by all environmentalists bore fruit such that MIDI clearly understood that it could no longer avoid the negotiating table. It risked further reputational damage which it could ill-afford.

The cynics among us correctly maintain that there is nothing for which to thank MIDI that has after all obstructed the public’s right of access for so many years! They are of course right, but it is time to move on to the next challenges. We move forward incrementally, one small step at a time.

The Guardianship agreement seeks to address two diametrically opposed positions: the Gżira community’s right of access as supported by the environmental lobby on the one hand and the MIDI development rights granted by Parliament in the 1990s on the other hand.

One can argue until eternity that Malta’s Parliament was irresponsible when it unanimously approved the motion granting development rights to MIDI over the Tigne peninsula and Manoel Island. I still hold that same view. No Green could ever support such a Parliamentary motion, not even with the restoration sugar-coating obligations woven into the agreed concession.

Given that Parliament has no political will to reverse the 1990s decision and take Manoel Island back into public ownership, the Gżira Local Council, supported by eNGOs was right to seek and arrive at the Guardianship agreement. The agreement fills a void which Parliament and government could not even understand, and consequently could not address.

A price had to be paid for the Guardianship agreement to be concluded. This was the acceptance, subject to the provisions of the agreement, of the Manoel Island Masterplan and commitment on the part of those around the negotiating table not to oppose or object to its implementation. I think that this is the point of contention brought forward by those who disagree with the Guardianship agreement. This might be considered a high price to pay. However, it must be pointed out that the agreement contains a number of limitations on the Masterplan’s implementation and grants the Manoel Island Foundation a legal basis to halt the commercialisation of the foreshore or the green open spaces.

Alternattiva Demokratika considers the Guardianship agreement to be a positive step forward as it addresses the pressing issue of access based of a realistic appraisal of the situation. Gżira Local Council and the eNGOs involved are to be applauded for their determination in reaching this goal. Moreover, the Guardianship agreement does not exclude the possibility that in future, a responsible Parliament would seriously consider taking all of Manoel Island back into public ownership. It should however be noted that only a green MP can guarantee that the matter makes it to Parliament’s agenda. The others are too “business friendly” to even consider the matter.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 1st April 2018

L-ODZ w it-tidwir mal-lewża

nut

 

Il-proposta tal-PN biex deciżjonijiet dwar l-ODZ jibdew jittieħdu mill-Parlament b’maġġorana ta’ żewġ terzi hi politika ta’ min qata’ qalbu li jista’ jindirizza l-kawza tal-problema u minflok jinfex fl-effett. Hija ukoll dikjarazzjoni li din is-sitwazzjoni mistennija li tkun fit-tul jew permanenti.

Kif diġa kelli l-opportunità li nikteb, id-diżastru akkumulat fl-ODZ hu riżultat ta’ falliment tal-istituzzjonijiet li la l-bieraħ u l-anqas illum ma jispiraw fiduċja. Ir-rapport li kien tħejja mill-MEPA dwar iż-Żonqor u l-posizzjoni li ħadet il-MEPA dwar per eżempju l-pompa tal-petrol li kienet proposta għall-Magħtab huma tnejn mid-diversi eżempji dwar dan.

L-awtoritajiet għandhom l-inkarigu li jipproteġu dak li hu għażiż għalina. F’dan l-inkarigu, b’mod ġenerali fallew. M’għandhomx joqgħodu jistennew liċ-ċittadini individwali jew lill-għaqdiet ambjentali biex jirrealizzaw il-gravità tas-sitwazzjoni.

Il-proposta tal-PN hi politika ta’ min qata’ qalbu għax flok ma tindirizza l-problema tfittex illi toħloq mekkaniżmu li jimblokka d-deċiżjonijiet temporanjament. Għax dik hi r-relevanza tal-mekkaniżmu tal-vot ta’ żewġ terzi fil-Parlament li ultimament jikkonverti ruħu għal deċiżjoni b’maġġoranza sempliċi kif stqarr il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni fl-artiklu tiegħu llum. Issa din it-tip ta’ proposta tista’ tagħmel sens biss jekk tkun għal perjodu qasir ta’ żmien u dan sakemm jitnaddfu l-awtoritajiet u jinħolqu l-mekkaniżmi biex dawn jaħdmu sewwa bla tfixkil jew indħil mill-politika partiġjana.

Dan hu ir-rwol tal-Parlament: li jfittex l-aħjar mod kif ikun amministrat il-ġid komuni u li fejn ikun hemm problema dwar dan jidentifika soluzzjonijiet li jindirizzaw l-issues mingħajr tidwir mal-lewża.

Sfortunatament il-Parlament Malti, tul is-snin wera li hu bla snien fit-twettiq ta’ waħda mill-iktar funzjonijiet importanti tiegħu, dik li jgħarbel il-ħidma tal-Gvern. Din la saret u l-anqas qegħda ssir. Mhux ma issirx sewwa, imma sempliċiment ma issirx għax numru mhux żgħir ta’ Membri Parlamentari għadhom ma fehmux li din hi responsabbiltà tagħhom. Kieku dan fehmuh, dawk il-Membri Parlamentari li aċċettaw ħatriet fuq bordijiet u awtoritajiet ma kienux jagħmlu dan. Għax meta aċċettaw dawn il-ħatriet huma kkompromettew il-ħidma tagħhom bħala Membri Parlamentari għax poġġew lilhom infushom fis-sitwazzjoni ta’ kunflitt ta’ interess kontinwu u dan minħabba li issa suppost li jridu jissorveljaw il-ħidma tagħhom stess.

Din hi is-sitwazzjoni. Bla tidwir mal-lewża l-qagħda tal-ODZ f’Malta u Għawdex hi rifless tal-qagħda ġenerali tal-governanza fil-pajjiż.

______________

fuq dan il-blog, dwar l-istess suġġett ara ukoll :

Froġa oħra ta’ Simon Busuttil.

L-ODZ u l-Parlament.

Taking back control

turtle dove

 

Throughout this Sunday morning the Electoral Commission will supervise the counting of the votes cast  in yesterday’s  spring hunting abrogative referendum. The first reliable projections of the result should be available at around  10.00am with a final result early in the afternoon.

Irrespective of the result, this is history in the making as, for the first time ever, Maltese voters will be directly taking a decision on environmental policy. They will decide whether spring hunting in the Maltese islands will be consigned to the history books.

This is the end of a two year journey that began in  April 2013 when the first steps were taken to form a broad-based anti-spring hunting Coalition of  environmental NGOs together with Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party in Malta. Initially, Alternattiva Demokratika’s initiative was met with scepticism: there was widespread fear of confronting the parliamentary political parties which had created the current spring hunting mess.

Constructive dialogue with both the Maltese authorities as well as with the EU Commission had failed to yield results, yet when push came to shove there was still considerable reluctance to think outside the box.  This mess could not be cleared by applying the same thinking that led to its creation. The spring hunting mess was created by successive governments that were held to ransom by the hunting lobby. There was only one solution: government was the problem so it could never be part of the solution – civil society had to take back control of the decision-making process to have order restored.

This was going to be a mammoth task. The fact that the abrogative referendum tool had never been used since its introduction in 1998 understandably added to the reluctance.

As late as 18 June 2013, some environmental NGOs were still hoping that the Maltese Government, or the EU Commission itself, would act in a reasonable manner and stop spring hunting.  In fact, reports in the press at that time were speculating on then EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik initiating an inquiry into spring hunting in Malta.

Early in the day, few people were conscious of the empowerment potential of the abrogative referendum. Almost none of the eNGOs was aware that the abrogative referendum process is independent  of government or Parliament.  Some eNGOs  supported the initiative almost immediately but it was an uphill struggle to convince others, taking weeks and a great deal of patience until practically all eNGOs were on board.

The collection of signatures to initiate the process for calling this abrogative referendum was launched on 10 August 2013 at Il-Buskett. Initially the uptake was very slow, as voters took some time to understand that this was no ordinary petition.

Then, on 23 and 24 October 2013, one of the worst massacres of wild birds in Malta took place. It is best described in a Birdlife Press release which stated  as follows :

“Despite the presence of six BirdLife Malta teams and as many ALE units in the Buskett area this morning at least one Booted Eagle, Ajkla tal-Kalzetti, was shot down inside Buskett Gardens as it left its roost this morning. Several others, including Short-toed and Booted Eagles, were shot at and many more were seen carrying injuries after last night’s shooting spree by hunters in Dingli, Buskett, Girgenti, Siġġiewi and Zebbuġ.

This morning’s second confirmed victim was a Short-toed Eagle, Ajkla Bajda, shot down in Gozo.

The shootings follow what can only be described as a massacre yesterday evening, after more than 50 eagles were seen by birdwatchers counting passing migrating birds in their regular watch-point above the wooded valley of Buskett. At least 10 eagles are known to have been shot down and many more targeted by dozens of hunters in locations around Buskett. Several as yet unconfirmed reports were also received from members of the public who saw eagles and other large birds of prey being shot at and shot down.”

This marked the turning point in signature collection as within ten days of the massacre of these eagles the required number of signatures had been received . The verification process was commenced immediately and the petition was finalised for submission to the Electoral Commission.

By July 2014, the Electoral Commission had concluded its vetting of the signatures submitted and six months later, in January this year, the Constitutional Court threw out the hunters’ objections.

For the past three months we have been actively campaigning to drive the message home: spring is the time when birds are on the way to their breeding grounds. They need to be protected. This message has been conveyed through the different spokesman and women ambassadors who, together with hundreds of volunteers, have done wonders to ensure that practically every voter is aware the he or she has the power to take a decision in order to clean up the mess which Parliament and the government have created over the years.

Today we will know what the decision is.  Saving any last minute surprises, it is clear that after today’s result Maltese civil society will cherish its newly discovered empowerment. Tomorrow, Monday, will not be just the start of a new week.  Hopefully, it be the start of a new era of ever-vigilant NGOs, now armed with the knowledge that they can hold government to account for inadequate legislation whenever they consider that this is necessary.

The abrogative referendum is the tool through which civil society can bring government to order. Today’s result will just confirm whether it can make use of it.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 11 April 2015

Wara l-vjolenza fil-Buskett: ir-referendum dwar il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa

referendum

L-inċidenti tal-ġimgħa l-oħra kienu gravi. Kemm il-qtil tat-tajr protett kif ukoll l-attitudni irresponsabbli ta’ dawk il-200 kaċċatur li ddemostraw il-Belt waranofsinnhar u iktar l-azzjoni vjolenti tat-30 ruħ minnhom li baqgħu sejrin sal-Buskett u sawtu lil dawk li kienu qed josservaw l-għasafar fil-Buskett.

L-attutudni tal-FKNK kienet waħda ambivalenti. Min-naħa l-waħda tiddisassoċja ruħha minn dak li ġara. Imbagħad min-naħa l-oħra qalet li “tifhem il-frustrazzjoni tal-kaċċaturi”.  Minkejja dan, imma, n-nies hemm barra ma jifhmux l-affarijiet kif qed jippruvaw ipinġuhom l-FKNK.

 

Fost il-kummenti tan-nies spikkaw dawk dwar ir-referendum abrogattiv li dwaru l-proċess skond il-Liġi miexi kif suppost. In-nies trid iktar informazzjoni dwar ir-referendum u tixtieq li dan isir illum qabel għada.

Wara li nġabru l-firem għar-referendum, dawn ġew ivverifikati mill-Kummissjoni Elettorali li infurmat b’dan lill-Qorti Kostituzzjonali. Ir-Reġistratur tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali nhar it-3 ta’ Lulju 2014 ħabbar li kien hemm 41,494 firem validi biex jissejjaħ referendum abrogattiv dwar l-Avviż Legali 221/2010 liema avviż legali jippermetti li permezz ta’ deroga ssir kaċċa għas-summien u l-gamiem fir-rebbiegħa.

Dan l-avviż tar-Reġistratur tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali jfisser li dakinhar tal-avviż beda jgħodd iż-żmien għall-oġġezjonijiet: hemm fil-fatt tlett xhur ċans u dawn jagħlqu fl-aħħar tal-ġimgħa d-dieħla, nhar il-Ġimgħa 3 t’Ottubru 2014.

Wara li jidħlu l-oġġezzjonijiet, li bla dubju ser jippreżentaw (kif għandhom kull dritt) il-kaċċaturi, tibda l-aħħar fażi tal-mixja legali. L-ewwel dawk li qed jikkoordinaw il-proċeduri tar-referendum iwieġbu l-oġġezzjonijiet, u mbagħad il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali, wara li tisma’ dak li jkollhom xi jgħidu l-avukati tagħti d-deċiżjoni tagħha.

Nistennew deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali bejn Diċembru u Jannar. Wara, jekk il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali tiddeċiedi li r-referendum abrogattiv għandu jsir (u s’issa ma jidher li hemm l-ebda raġuni għala m’għandiex tgħid li għandu jsir) ikun possibli li tiġi stabilita d-data tar-referendum abrogattiv. Din tkun mhux qabel ma jgħaddu tlett xhur mid-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali, imma mhux iktar tard minn sitt xhur mill-istess deċiżjoni.

It-triq hi ftit twila, imma jeħtieġ li nieħdu paċenzja ftit ieħor.

Fl-aħħar m’għandix dubju li ser naslu biex il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa f’Malta tispiċċa darba għal dejjem. Il-vjolenza m’hu ser taqta’ qalb ħadd. Pjuttost qed tiftaħ għajnejn iktar nies li sa ftit ilu kienu bierda u li issa iktar minn qatt qabel qed jirrealizzaw il-gravita’ tas-sitwazzjoni.

Wasalna hawn minħabba li ż-żewġ partiti politiċi fil-Parlament tul is-snin baxxaw rashom għal dak li riedu l-kaċċaturi. Huwa bis-saħħa tar-rieda popolari u b’mod partikolari dawk il-41,494 firma li nġabru mill-għaqdiet ambjentali u Alternattiva Demorkatika li fl-aħħar ser ikun possibli biex flimkien inħassru dak li għamlu l-PN u l-PL: biex il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa f’Malta tispiċċa darba għal dejjem.

submission of referendum signature requests

 

L-għasafar tagħna lkoll

flamingo

Il-maġġoranza tal-Maltin iridu li l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa tieqaf darba għal dejjem.

Is-survey li kien ġie ippubblikat mill-gazzetta Malta Today wera li fil-fatt, 59.8% tal-votanti jivvutaw biex il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa tieqaf.

Għalhekk fuq stedina ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika beda l-proċess biex jinġabru flimkien l-għaqdiet ambjentali ħalli flimkien jiffurmaw Koalizzjoni kontra l-Kaċċa fir-Rebbiegħa. Dawn bdew jinġabru bil-mod.  Qegħdin jiltaqgħu u jiddiskutu.

Kif l-għaqdiet ambjentali ilestu u jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet, flimkien nibdew it-triq li twassalna għal referendum abrogattiv, jiġifieri referendum li jħassar minn fuq il-kotba tal-liġijiet ta’ Malta r-regoli li jagħmluha possibli li jkollna l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa.

Bil-vot tiegħek tista’ tagħmel dak li l-ebda Gvern ma kien kapaċi jagħmel s’issa. Tista’ tgħid le għal kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa.

Għax l-għasafar tagħna lkoll.

Land Reclamation and the construction industry

land reclamation 01

The issue of land reclamation should be tackled in a responsible manner.

The Netherlands used land reclamation successfully to adequately manage its low-lying land. Hong Kong made use of land reclamation to create high value land required for its airport on the Chek Lak Kok island. Through land reclamation Singapore expanded its container port, an essential cornerstone in its economy.

In Malta land reclamation was used in the past to create the Freeport Terminal at Kalafrana in the limits of Birżebbuġa.

MEPA has during the recent past engaged consultants to assess the potential of land reclamation in Maltese waters.

A 2005 study was commissioned by MEPA and carried out by  Carl Bro. This study identified six relatively large coastal areas as search areas for potential land reclamation sites. The study had  recommended that these six areas, or a selection of them, be “investigated in further details in parallel with the execution of a pre-feasibility study, before a principal decision is taken on whether land reclamation is considered realistic under Maltese conditions. It is recommended that such investigations and studies be carried out by the Government prior to the involvement of the private sector in possible land reclamation projects.” (page 8 of report).

MEPA took up this proposal and commissioned ADI Associates together with Scott Wilson to carry out a detailed study on two of the identified coastal areas. These studies were finalised in 2007 and 2008 and consist of 4 volumes. The coastal areas identified and studied are those along the  Magħtab/Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq coastline and the Xgħajra/Marsaskala coastline.

These latter studies conclude with a detailed set of recommendations on more focused studies relative to environmental and economic impacts which would be necessary if land reclamation is to be further considered.

In Chapter 10 of its electoral manifesto the Labour Party is committed to utilise a programme of land reclamation as an important tool in the infrastructural development of the country.  The said electoral programme emphasises the environmental and economic sensitivity of such projects and underlines a  commitment to high standards in environmental, social, economic, land use planning and sustainable development fields.

In Parliament it has been declared that the next step would be for expressions of interest to be submitted by those proposing  projects for  development on reclaimed land. A call should be issued in the near future.

I believe that this is not the way forward.  On the basis of the studies carried out to date and such additional studies as may be required it would have been much better if government presents for public consultation a detailed draft land reclamation strategy.  Such a strategy would then be subjected to public consultation. A dialogue is required, not just with the developers but also with civil society, including most importantly with environmental NGOs.

The draft strategy would undoubtedly indicate the proposed permissible development on the reclaimed land. It would be interesting to note if the said strategy would consider the need for residential development in view of the over 70,000 vacant residential properties  on the islands. On the basis of existing and possibly additional studies the strategy would also seek to ensure that Malta’s coastline is protected much more effectively than Malta’s countryside has been to date.

All views should be carefully considered before such a strategy is finalised.

Once the strategy is finalised its environmental impacts should be carefully scrutinised  as is provided for in the Strategic Environment Assessment Directive of the EU. This Directive now has the force of law in Malta. It is only when this assessment has been finalised and the impacts identified are suitably addressed through changes in the draft strategy  itself (if required) that it would be reasonable to invite expressions of interest from interested parties.

Land reclamation is no magic solution to a construction industry which is in urgent need of restructuring. Even if land reclamation is permitted it cannot and will not offer a long term solution to an ailing construction industry which has been capable of contributing to an accumulating stockpile of vacant dwellings which are equivalent to 9 ghost towns, each the size of B’Kara.

The country would be economically and socially much better off if the construction industry is assisted in its much needed restructuring. It would undoubtedly need to shed labour which can be absorbed by other sectors of the economy. Retraining would  be required  to ease the entry of the shed labour force into other economic areas.

This  would certainly be much more beneficial and sustainable than land reclamation.

published in The Times  on 27 April 2013 under the title: Land Reclamation and Building

Reflections on an Environment Policy

The current debate on what should form part of a National Environment Policy is a healthy exercise. It is focusing not only on the different aspirations of each citizen but also on the role of each one of the towns and villages which together constitute this country.

The environmental issues we face are the result of the manner we organise our lives both individually and as a community. In fact it can be safely stated that the manner in which economic activity has been organised throughout time has created different environmental and social impacts.

The exercise at this point in time is hence the clear identification of these impacts and subsequently seeking the best manner in which they can be tackled. This is done on two fronts: firstly through the formulation of an environment policy and secondly by integrating this environment policy with economic and social policy within the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD).

The NSSD has already been formulated and approved by Cabinet almost three years ago after a long process of consultation. It established targets and objectives which have unfortunately been ignored by the same Government which has approved them. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that these exercises can be a waste of time as their only purpose seems to be an exercise to prove that the new hands on deck can do things in a better way than those they have replaced. 

The National Environment Policy Issues Paper identifies a number of areas which are to be tackled but excludes a number of important ones. What is in my view objectionable and bordering on the insulting is the ignoring by the Issues Paper of the NSSD. It also ignores matters which have been tackled by the NSSD as well as the specific targets identified. This the NSSD did after extensive consultation with civil society, which the Issues Paper promises to go through again.

 

Eco-taxation

One such case refers to the use of economic instruments to attain environmental objectives. The Issues Paper queries whether and to what extent there is agreement  with the use of such instruments to further environmental objectives. Simultaneously with the publication of the Issues Paper, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech through the pre-budget document was lauding the idea of introducing a carbon tax and the possible utilisation of the proceeds to affect a tax shift. This is in the spirit of the former EU Commission President  (French Socialist) Jacques Delors’ 1993 EU White Paper entitled “On growth, competitiveness and employment. The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century”.

So whilst the Environment Ministry is requesting our opinion on the use of eco-taxation (and other instruments) it seems that the Finance Ministry is dead-set to proceed.  Do these two Ministries form part of the same government? 

Both the Environment Ministry and the Finance Ministry would do well to go back in time to the debate on the introduction of the eco-contribution (2003-05) where they could identify a number of issues raised by civil society.

Should fiscal objectives be the purpose of environmental taxation or would it rather be environmental improvement? All over the globe governments declare that their aim in applying eco-taxation is environmental improvement. Yet they resist transferring political responsibility for environmental taxation from the Finance Ministry to the Environment Ministry. Such a move would lend credence to statements on the environmental objectives of eco-taxation and would ensure that the design of specific measures is more in line with encouraging changes in behaviour. Retaining political responsibility for environmental taxation at the Finance Ministry on the other hand signifies that the objective is to tax behaviour but not  to change it. This reluctance is generally reflected in the manner  in which eco-taxes are designed. Fiscal policy makers pay attention to the fact that changing behaviour would mean drying up a source of revenue. Hence eco-taxes designed for fiscal objectives are intended not to affect the elasticity of demand. This is done by selecting items in respect of which there are no alternatives and thus irrespective of tax added to the price there is no alternative to purchasing the product or service. The eco-contribution exercise clearly illustrates this argument.

 

Environmental nuisance 

The Issues Paper has failed to project an understanding that environmental issues can be most effectively tackled at a micro-level. In fact the Issues Paper adopts an exclusively macro approach and does not give any weight to the real life issues. Issues of environmental nuisance are the ones which the man in the street feels strongly about. These include primarily noise, air quality and odour nuisance caused by neighbours in residential areas. They could range from an air conditioner fixed below your bedroom window to a neighbour’s fireplace chimney spewing smoke right into your living room or a bakery belching black smoke onto your washing line. Or the newly opened restaurant or snack bar in a transformed ground floor flat whose operator wouldn’t care less about where the odours from his kitchen end up.    

Information

Access to environmental information is an important aspect of environment policy. Yet the drafters of the Issues Paper ignored it. The environmental information aspects of the Åarhus Convention have been incorporated into Maltese legislation as a direct result of Malta’s EU accession. This legislation provides a mechanism through which the citizen requests the release of information which up till then would be withheld by the authorities. This is a very primitive form of governance. The state should release information without having its hand forced to do it. This is the minimum required in an age of transparency and accountability. 

Policy proposals and other initiatives must be buttressed by studies which not only justify the proposal or initiative but which also identify the resulting impacts and the manner in which these can be addressed. Studies must be published at an early stage and not in the final stages of a discussion. Otherwise the public debate cannot be fruitful.

Transparency and accountability

Transparency and accountability are not only duties of the state. They are also a responsibility of private enterprise.  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is one way in which private enterprise informs the public on its activities. It is a function as important as financial reporting. Financial reporting having been accepted by society for quite a long time as a reporting requirement.

In Malta currently two companies publish a CSR report. Vodafone (Malta) and Bank of Valletta (BOV) have already published two editions of their CSR report. There has been considerable improvement in the information made available by Vodafone (Malta) in its second report, but BOV’s reporting  can be substantially improved.

The environment policy should identify the type of organisations that should have the duty to report publicly and on a regular basis on their environmental and other impacts. By organisations I understand not just industry and business but also public corporations, government departments and local authorities. A reasonable first step would be for companies quoted on the stock exchange to take the lead followed by public bodies such as Enemalta, Water Services Corporation, Heritage Malta and Air Malta.

CSR reporting should be guided by international standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative G3 guidelines and should be subject to auditing in order to verify that the statements made reflect what the organisation is really up to. 

Alternattiva Demokratika, AD, the Green Party in Malta has earlier this month published a document in reply to the National Environment Policy Issues Paper which lists and discusses the areas missed out by the said Issues Paper.  In addition to focusing on the urgent need to implement the NSSD, environment information, environmental nuisance and environment information it also points out the need to tackle the uptake of environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) Regulations of the European Union, light pollution, contaminated land, environmental and sustainability planning at a locality level better known as Local Agenda 21,  the role of civil society and environmental NGOs in environment policy and environment  research.  

We hope that when the environment policy is drafted it will include the widest possible list of issues and will tackle them in an holistic manner keeping in mind the parameters established in the National Sustainable Development Strategy.                 

Alternattiva Demokratika considers that environment policy is one of several instruments through which improvement in the quality of life can be attained. Protecting the environment signifies that we better our quality of life. It also signifies that each one of us acts in a responsible manner. However primarily it must be government which leading the way should act in an appropriate manner in order that it leads by example.

 published in

The Independent on Sunday, October 17, 2010, Environment Supplement