Il-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex: il-qerda finali t’Għawdex wara l-bieb

Nhar l-Erbgħa festa pubblika. Hi ukoll id-data tal-egħluq għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika li qed tagħmel l-Awtoritá tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) fuq it-termini ta’ referenza għall-istudju dwar l-impatt ambjentali (EIA) tal-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex.

Is-sit elettroniku tal-ERA jippreżenta żewġ dokumenti sabiex jassistu lil dawk li qed jipparteċipaw f’din il-konsultazzjoni pubblika. Dawn id-dokumenti jispjegaw il-proposta u jidentifikaw numru ta’ fatturi li jistgħu jkunu jeħtieġu investigazzjoni, u dan biex dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjoni jkunu megħjuna jagħmlu l-“aħjar” għażla.

F’dawn id-dokumenti hemm numru ta’ nuqqasijiet li jistunaw u juru kemm Transport Malta tiġi taqa’ u tqum mill-wirt ambjentali tagħna.

Transport Malta tibbaża l-proposti tagħha fuq ir-rapport ta’ Mott MacDonald, datat Marzu 2012 u intitolat: Preliminary Analysis: Assessment of Road Tunnel Options between Malta and Gozo. Wara li kkunsidrat erba’ proposti differenti għall-mina kif imfisser fir-rapport ta’ Mott MacDonald, Transport Malta ddeċidiet li tagħżel il-proposta numru 4 b’emenda: hi proposta li tkun tikkonsisti f’mina waħda b’żewġ karreġjati u tibda mill-inħawi taħt Ta’ Kenuna fin-Nadur Għawdex u tispiċċa fl-Imbordin biswit il-Wied tal-Pwales f’San Pawl il-Baħar.

Fid-dokumenti jgħidulna li l-ewwel tliet proposti kienu skartati għax setgħu jikkawżaw ħsara ambjentali sostanzjali, f’qiegħ il-baħar jew lir-riżerva naturali tal-Għadira. Imma la Transport Malta u l-anqas l-ERA ma ħassew il-ħtieġa li jgħidulna fid-dokumenti li ippubblikaw li meta ntagħżlet il-proposta numru 4 u ġġebbdet sal-Imbordin biswit il-Wied tal-Pwales din ġiet viċin wisq tar-riżerva naturali l-oħra, tas-Simar, u tgħaddi dritt mill-Miżieb, mal-pjan tal-ilma.

Ir-riżerva naturali tas-Simar hi sit ikklassifikat bħala Natura 2000 tal-UE, u l-pjan tal-ilma tal-Miżieb hu l-unika wieħed sura li fadlilna. Allura hemm il-possibilitá kbira li din il-proposta għal mina tmur kontra żewġ direttivi importanti tal-Unjoni Ewropea: id-Direttiva Qafas dwar l-Ilma u d-Direttiva dwar il-Abitat.

Fl-2015 il-medja ta’ movimenti ta’ karozzi bejn Malta u Għawdex, kif jirriżulta mill-istatistika uffiċjali, hi ta’ madwar 3000 kuljum. Id-diversi studji u rapporti ppubblikati sal-lum jikkalkulaw li l-mina, meta tkun lesta, tista’ twassal sabiex in-numru ta’ karozzi li jaqsmu bejn iż-żewġ gżejjer jitla’ bejn 9000 u 10000 kuljum. Gordon Cordina minn Ecubed fir-rapport tiegħu kkummissjonat minn Transport Malta u l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija jindika li ser tintlaħaq iċ-ċifra ta’ 9000 karozza kuljum, fil-waqt li r-rapport Mott MacDonald jipponta lejn l-10,000 karozza kuljum.

Din iż-żieda konsiderevoli fil-moviment ta’ karozzi teħtieġ li tkun analizzata fil-kuntest tal-politika kurrenti dwar it-trasport. Il-master plan dwar it-trasport addottat mill-Gvern preżenti u ffinanzjat mill-Fond Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp Reġjonali hu ċar. Dan il-pjan jgħid li matul l-għaxar snin li fih ser ikun effettiv (2016-25), wieħed mill-oġġettivi ewlenin tal-politika tat-trasport f’Malta hi emfasi fuq l-użu ta’ mezzi alternattivi għall-karozzi privati u li fil-gżejjer Maltin jonqos l-użu tal-karozza privata.

Mela Transport Malta, għan-nom tal-Gvern Malti fl-2016, tistabilixxi politika dwar it-trasport biex tkun indirizzata l-konġestjoni tat-traffiku billi tinkoraġixxi bdil fl-imġieba favur mobilitá sostenibbli, u mbagħad toħroġ bi proposti bħal dawn tal-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex, li biex jagħmlu sens, jirrikjedu żieda enormi fit-traffiku.

Id-dokumenti fuq is-sit elettroniku tal-ERA għall-informazzjoni ta’ dawk li jridu jipparteċipaw f’din il-konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar il-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex jinjoraw kompletament il-politika dwar it-trasport.

Din hi s-sitwazzjoni li għandna illum. Drajna b’awtoritá tal-ippjanar sinkronizzata mal-lobby favur l-iżvilupp. Sfortunatament jidher li l-Awtoritá dwar l-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi miexja fuq l-istess passi. Il-jiem huma magħduda. Bla dubju dan ser iwassal għall-qerda ta’ Għawdex ukoll.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 12 t’Awwissu 2018

Advertisements

The Malta-Gozo tunnel: the final countdown to Gozo’s plunder starts now

Next Wednesday is a public holiday. It is also the closing date of the public consultation being carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) on the terms of reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried out on the proposed Malta-Gozo tunnel.

The ERA website presents two documents to assist those participating in the public consultation. These documents explain the proposal and highlight a number of issues that will require further investigation in order to assist the decision-takers in choosing for the “optimum” solution.

There is a number of glaring deficiencies in these documents which indicate the contempt that Transport Malta has for our environmental heritage.

Transport Malta bases its proposals on the Mott MacDonald Report of March 2012 entitled: Preliminary Analysis: Assessment of Road Tunnel Options between Malta and Gozo. After considering the four options for a tunnel as resulting from the Mott MacDonald report, Transport Malta opted for an amended version of option number 4 which is proposed as consisting of a single bore two lane tunnel between the area below Ta’ Kenuna in Nadur, Gozo and L-Imbordin along the Pwales Valley in St Paul’s Bay in Malta.

We are told in the published documentation that the first three options were discarded because they could be the cause of considerable environmental damage to the seabed, as well as to the Għadira Nature Reserve. However, neither Transport Malta nor the ERA considered it appropriate to mention that the selected option, an amended option 4, stretches the Malta portal of the proposed tunnel to the Pwales valley very close to the Simar Nature Reserve and right through the Miżieb perched aquifer.

The Simar Nature Reserve is an EU Natura 2000 site, while the Miżieb perched aquifer is the only part of our water table that is still in a relatively good state. Consequently, two important EU Directives will most probably be infringed: The Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive.

Based on NSO statistics, in 2015 average number of daily vehicular crossings between Malta and Gozo was around 3,000. The various studies and reports published to date indicate that it is estimated that a tunnel between the two islands would trigger an increase to between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle crossings daily. Gordon Cordina of Ecubed in his report commissioned by Transport Malta and the Gozo Business Chamber indicates a 9,000-daily mark, while Mott MacDonald points towards the 10,000 mark.

This considerable increase in vehicular movements needs to be analysed in terms of current transport policy. The Transport Master Plan, adopted by the current government and funded by the European Regional Development Fund, is very clear. It lays down that during its 10-year lifespan (2016-25) it will be an operational objective of transport policy in Malta to aim to provide alternatives to the use of private vehicles and to reduce the role of the private car as a means of transport in the Maltese Islands.

So, Transport Malta, on behalf of the Maltese government, spells out transport policy in 2016 aimed at addressing traffic congestion in Malta by encouraging a modal shift towards sustainable mobility. Yet it then comes out with proposals such as the Malta-Gozo Tunnel, which can only be feasible if there is an astronomical increase in vehicular traffic on our roads.

The documents placed by the ERA on its website to feed the public consultation process on the proposed Malta-Gozo tunnel ignore transport policy altogether.

This is the current state of affairs. By now we are accustomed to having a Planning Authority acting in synch with the development lobby. Unfortunately, it seems that the Environment and Resources Authority is closely following in its footsteps. The final countdown is on. It will inevitably lead to the plunder of Gozo as well.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 12 August 2018

Il-baġit u l-ilma

world-water-week-graphic-2

Il- baġit jiddiskuti l-Korporazzjoni għas-Servizzi tal-Ilma, iktar milli l-ilma innifsu. Jagħmel dan fil-paġni 37 u 38 tiegħu fi ħmistax il-linja.

L-ilma tal-pjan, ir-riżerva li tipprovdilna n-natura, l- baġit ftit li xejn jinteressah. Jgħidilna li għandna nnaqqsu d-dipendenza tagħna fuqu. Il-bqija, mill-baġit ma tirriżultax il-ħtieġa li nagħtu importanza lill-miżuri biex jiġi eliminat is-serq tal-ilma tal-pjan. M’hemm l-ebda referenza għall-eluf ta’ boreholes imħaffrin b’mod illegali f’kull rokna ta’ Malta u Għawdex li permezz tagħhom dan ir-riżors naturali tal-pajjiż għadu qiegħed jinsteraq għall-gwadann privat.

L-anqas imkien ma hemm referenza għall-obbligu li Malta tosserva d-Direttiva tal-EU dwar l-Ilma [Water Framework Directive] fil-politika li tiddetermina l-prezz li bih jinbiegħ l-ilma.

Fi ftit kliem l-impatti ekonomiċi ta’ din ir-riżorsa naturali huma għal darba oħra injorati minn dan il- baġit.

Wara li smajt lill-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni jwieġeb id-diskors tal-baġit, jidher li l-anqas l-Opposizzjoni ma’ jidhrilha li l-ilma hu importanti. Wara kollox x’ilna li smajna lil Simon Busuttil jiftaħar bil-proġett li permezz tiegħu l-ilma tax-xita, fil-parti l-kbira tiegħu jispiċċa l-baħar?

Il-prijorità li Joseph qatt ma kellu

Labour u l-Ambjent

Wara l-froġa tal-Cafè Premier, Joseph kien qalilna li l-affarijiet setgħu saru aħjar. Kien għadu qed jitgħallem!

Issa reġa’ għaffiġha.

Wara li s-soċjetà ċivili għal darba oħra semmgħet leħinha, Joseph qed jitlob li l-pubbliku jindikalu siti alternattivi fejn jista’ jpoġġi l-Universita “Amerikana”.  Qed iħokk rasu biex jara jsibx sit flok iż-Żonqor! Dan minkejja li gie dikjarat li intagħzlet l-art ODZ għax din tiswa’ inqas! Qalulna li kieku l-art tiswa’ iktar il-proġett ma jkunx vijabbli, jiġifieri l-investitur iħoss li ma jagħmilx biżżejjed qliegħ!

Fid-diskussjoni li għaddejja fil-pajjiż diġà ssemmew diversi siti. Uħud huma addattati iktar minn oħrajn!

Din x’serjetà hi li wara li tiddeċiedi u tkun ankè iffirmajt ftehim preliminari taparsi tikkonsulta? Konsultazzjoni bis-serjeta kienet tkun ferm differenti.  Gvern serju  kien jaħdem differenti.

Fuq is-sit elettroniku tal-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru Muscat qed jitlob proposti mill-pubbliku għal siti alternattivi għaż-Żonqor liema siti jridu josservaw 5 kriterji :

  1. jkunu fis-“South”,
  2. jkunu użabbli bħala Università internazzjonali,
  3. li l-qies tal-proposti jkun ta’ madwar 90,000 metru kwadru, avolja l-Gvern lest li jikkunsidra li dawn ikunu mqassma fuq iktar minn sit wieħed,
  4. li biex titwassal l-infrastruttura neċessarja fis-sit identifikat ma jkunx hemm bżonn interventi kbar,
  5. li s-siti ma jkunux soġġetti għal protezzjoni ambjentali, b’mod partikolari protezzjoni li tirriżulta minn Direttivi Ewropej (jsemmi tlett eżempji: Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Water Framework Directive).

Issa kieku Muscat nieda din il-konsultazzjoni qabel ma iddeċieda kont bla dubju ngħid li kien ikun pass tajjeb. Imma li mexa b’dan il-mod wara li l-opinjoni pubblika ġabitu dahru mal-ħajt, il-proċess  jista’ jkun deskritt biss bħala farsa.

 

Fi ftit kliem dan mhux eżerċiżżju ta’ konsultazzjoni, iżda wieħed ta’ damage control.  Joseph qed ifittex li jsewwi l-ħsara li għamel billi għal darba oħra għaffeġ. Għax nesa li suppost għall-Labour fil-Gvern l-ambjent kellu jkun prijorità.

Għax ngħiduha kif inhi issa ma setax jibqa’ jgħidilna li l-affarijiet setgħu saru aħjar. Għax it-tweġiba ovvja tkun: kemm ser iddum ma titgħallem?

Il-billboard ta’ Audrey Harrison hu ħafna l-bogħod mill-prijorità ta’ Joseph. Għax l-ambjent qatt ma kien prijorità ta’ Joseph. Kieku l-ambjent kien prijorità għal Joseph, kien jibda mill-ewwel fuq sieq tajba!

Malta’s EU story : the environment

JOINT SEMINAR BY THE OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN MALTA AND THE TODAY PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

Friday 3 October 2014

address by Carmel Cacopardo

eu-flag

 

Since Malta’s EU accession there has been a marked contrast of interest in issues related to environmental governance.

EU accession has generally had a positive influence on Maltese environmental governance.  A flow of EU funds has been applied to various areas which Maltese governments throughout the years did not consider worthy of investing in.  On the one hand we had governments “occasionally” applying the brakes, seeking loopholes, real or imaginary,  in order to ensure that lip service  is not accidentally translated into meaningful action. On the other hand civil society has, in contrast, and  as a result of EU accession identified a new source of empowerment, at times ready to listen, however slow to react and at times ineffective.

Land use planning and abusive hunting/trapping have for many years been the main items on the local environment agenda. Water, air quality, climate change, alternative energy, biodiversity, noise, light pollution, organic agriculture, waste management and sustainable development have rightfully claimed a place in the agenda during the past 10 years. Some more frequently, others occasionally.

Land use planning has been on the forefront of civil society’s environmental agenda for many years. Abusive land use planning in the 80s fuelled and was fuelled by corruption. It led to various public manifestations in favour of the environment then equated almost  exclusively with the impacts of land development. Many such manifestations ended up in violence. Whilst this may be correctly described as history, it is occasionally resurrected  as in the recent public manifestation of hunters protesting against the temporary closure of the autumn hunting season.

Whilst hunting and land use planning may still be the main items on Malta’ environmental agenda the ecological deficit which we face is substantially deeper and wider.  It is generally the result of myopic policies.

For example it is well known that public transport has been practically ignored for the past 50 years, including the half-baked reform of 2010. This is the real cause of Malta’s very high car ownership (around 750 vehicles per 1000 population). As the Minister of Finance rightly exclaimed during a pre-budget public consultation exercise earlier this week traffic congestion is a major issue of concern, not just environmental but also economic. Impacting air quality, requiring additional land uptake to construct new roads or substantial funds to improve existing junctions traffic congestion is a drain on our resources. May I suggest that using EU funds to improve our road network  will delay by several years the shifting of custom to public transport, when we will have one which is worthy of such a description.

The mismanagement of water resources over the years is another important issue. May I suggest that millions of euros in EU funds have been misused  to institutionalise the mismanagement of water resources. This has been done through the construction of a network of underground tunnels to channel stormwater to the sea.  The approval of such projects is only possible when one  has no inkling of what sustainable management of water resources entails. Our ancestors had very practical and sustainable solutions: they practised water harvesting through the construction of water cisterns beneath each and every residence, without exception. If we had followed in their footsteps the incidence of stormwater in our streets, sometimes having the smell of raw sewage due to an overflowing public sewer, would be substantially less. And in addition we would also avoid overloading our sewage purification plants.

Our mismanagement of water resources also includes the over-extraction of ground water and the failure to introduce an adequate system of controls throughout the years such that  most probably there will be no more useable water in our water table very shortly. In this respect the various deadlines established in the Water Framework Directive would be of little use.

Whilst our Cabinet politicians have developed a skill of trying to identify loopholes in the EU’s acquis (SEA and Birds Directive) they also follow bad practices in environmental governance.

It is known that fragmentation of environmental responsibilities enables politicians to pay lip service to environmental governance but then creating real and practical obstacles in practice.

Jean Claude Juncker, the President elect of the EU Commission has not only diluted environmental governance by assigning responsibility for the environment together with that for fisheries and maritime policy as well as assigning energy with climate change. He has moreover hived off a number of responsibilities from the DG Environment to other DGs namely Health and Enterprise.

In Malta our bright sparks have anticipated his actions. First on the eve of EU accession they linked land use planning with the Environment in an Authority called MEPA with the specific aim of suffocating the environment function in an authority dominated by development. Deprived of human resources including the non-appointment of a Director for the Environment for long stretches of time, adequate environmental governance could never really get off the ground.

Now we will shortly be presented with the next phase: another fragmentation by the demerger of the environment and planning authority.

In the short time available I have tried to fill in the gaps in the environment section of the document produced by The Today Public Policy Institute. The said document rightly emphasises various achievements. It does however state that prior to EU accession the environment was not given its due importance by local policy makers. Allow me to submit that much still needs to be done and that the progress made to date is insufficient.

Those unrealistic water bills

Water Bill.Malta

Our water bills will have to change as water in Malta is not realistically priced. The Government is aware of this yet it is not informing the public. The Labour Party on the other hand is ignoring the pointers and foolishly insisting on the unsustainable electoral promise of reducing water bills.

A realistic water pricing policy is needed to ensure proper management of water resources. This can be done by ensuring that proper subsidies are in place for the basic use of water while simultaneously penalising waste.

In terms of article 9 of the Water Framework Directive of the European Union, Malta, like all other EU member states, must have a realistic water pricing system in place. The pricing system shall take account “of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs…”

In a report dated November 14, 2012 in reply to Malta’s submissions on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, the European Commission takes Malta to task on the pricing of water. The report, addressed to the European Parliament and the European Council, states that “it seems that environmental and resource costs have not been included in the cost recovery calculation”.

The price for water which the Water Services Corporation charges is limited to recovering its operational costs.

When the corporation extracts groundwater it does not pay for the water extracted. The cost of the water extracted (referred to as the resource cost) is ignored. This is obviously an incorrect practice as groundwater does have a cost which is dependent on a variety of factors. Once identified, on the basis of proper studies, this is a cost which must be added to the current charges. This is a matter which the Malta Resources Authority as the regulator should have been analysing for the past years.

In addition to the operational costs and the resource costs there are also the environmental costs which must be identified and quantified. The EU, in order to assist in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, facilitates a Common Implementation Strategy through which Guidance documents and technical reports are produced assisting member states in coming to grips with what is expected from them to protect water resources within their territories. Guidance document No. 1, in fact, entitled Economics And The Environment, is a 274-page long technical document which explains in detail what is to be taken into consideration.

I am informed that the Malta Resources Authority, after EU accession, carried out such an exercise of identifying and costing in detail the resource and environmental costs of water. Producing these studies is part of its role as the competent authority to report to the Commission on the economics of water use as required under Article 5 of the Directive –

that the management of water resources in the Maltese Islands is on a sound footing. The authority, I am informed, also made detailed professional proposals as to the Programme of Measures required by article 11 of the Water Framework Directive. This leads me to conclude that the Government has been in receipt of sound professional advice as to what needs to be done to manage in a professional manner Malta’s water resources. Unfortunately this advice has been ignored. This is a political responsibility yet to be shouldered.

The Auditor General’s Performance Audit entitled Safeguarding Malta’s Groundwater, published in February 2012, is an eye-opener as to the measures which have not yet been implemented (fully or partially). One of the most worrying is the metering of boreholes. The MRA has not been given adequate means which would go a long way to fast-track this control on the rate of extraction of groundwater. The end result is that notwithstanding that metering of boreholes was accepted by the Government as a suitable measure very late in the day, its implementation is already two years behind schedule.

The metering of boreholes should be the first step of a process leading to a long-term objective ensuring that all boreholes are no longer operational. It should be clear to all that ground water is public property.

Even agriculture should be slowly weaned away from the use of ground water. Adequately polished treated sewage effluent would be a suitable alternative.

Water is a precious resource essential for our well-being. It is essential for the well-being of our families, for our agriculture, for our manufacturing industry as well as for tourism. Notwithstanding its being a basic requirement for practically all our activities, it has been mismanaged for a very long time. Successive governments have ignored its mishandling.

Water has been considered as a freebie for far too long. It is now time to pay for past mistakes. If we take longer to realise this fact the environmental bills will be insurmountable. Hence it is irresponsible for the Labour Party to promise a reduction of water bills.

originally published in The Times, December 22, 2012

L-Unjoni Ewropeja dwar il-politika tal-Ilma f’Malta

River Basin Management Plans

Nhar l-14 ta’ Novembru 2012, ftit iktar minn ħmistax ilu, l-Unjoni Ewropeja ippubblikat rapport dwar il-mixja ta’ Malta biex twettaq l-obbligi tagħha stabiliti fil-Water Framework Directive. Kellna skiet fil-pajjiż dwar dan ir-rapport. Dan ir-rapport tista’ taqrah hawn .

Il-Gvern ma tkellem xejn dwaru. L-anqas l-Awtorita dwar ir-Riżorsi ma qalet xejn. Il-media baqgħet siekta ukoll inkluż dawk li jippużaw tal-indipendenti. Il-ġurnaliżmu investigattiv ma nduna b’xejn.

Il-bieraħ is-Sibt Alternattiva Demokratika organizzajna konferenza stampa li fiha irreferejna għal dan ir-rapport. Ir-rapport hu wieħed tekniku ħafna imma nistgħu niffukaw fuq tlett kummenti li jagħmel.

L-ewwel kumment hu dwar il-boreholes. Fl-2008 sar proċess ta’ reġistrazzjoni ta’ boreholes. Għaddew iktar minn 4 snin u minkejja li dan hu qasam kruċjali l-Gvern u l-Awtorita’ dwar ir-Riżorsi għadhom mexjin b’mod kajman biex jintroduċu kontrolli dwar l-użu tal-ilma tal-pjan minn dawn il-boreholes. Dan hu qasam li fih kulħadd għadu jagħmel li jrid. Mhux aħna biss qed ngħiduh. Qed qed tgħidu ukoll l-Unjoni Ewropeja.  Fir-rapport li nsemmi hawn fuq l-UE tgħid li m’hemmx monitoraġġ ta’ “private groundwater abstractions”.  Dan hu iktar gravi meta wieħed iżomm quddiem għajnejh illi 45% tal-ilma li nixorbu, imwassal fi djarna mill-Korporazzjoni għas-Servizzi tal-Ilma ġej mill-ilma tal-pjan. Jiġifieri l-ilma tal-pjan hu sors strateġiku biex il-Korporazzjoni għas-Servizzi tal-Ilma jkollha ilma xi tqassam fid-djar għall-konsum.

Minkejja dan kollu meters ftit li xejn ġew istallati ma dawn il-boreholes. L-anqas l-electronic tracking tal-bowsers għadu ma sar. Sadanittant l-ilma tal-pjan jibqa’ jinbiegħ fil-bowers qiesu m’hu jiġri xejn!

L-Unjoni Ewropeja fir-rapport tagħha tiġbed l-attenzjoni ukoll għall-frammentazzjoni: jiġifieri li l-politika dwar l-ilma hi maqsuma bejn diversi awtoritajiet: l-Awtorita dwar ir-Riżorsi (MRA) u l-Awtorita’ dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (MEPA). Iżżid kumment dwar kumitat Inter-Ministerjali li kellu jitwaqqaf u li ħadd ma jaf jekk dan twaqqaqfx u minn min hu kompost.

Alternattiva Demokratika taqbel li fil-qasam ambjentali (mhux biss dak dwar l-ilma) hemm frammentazzjoni. Dan jista’ jkun rimedjat billi l-MRA u l-MEPA jiġu amalgamati f’Awtorita waħda taħt it-tmexxija ta’ Direttorat Ambjentali b’saħtu.  Il-ħarsien tal-ambjent u l-użu sostenibbli tar-riżorsi naturali bħall-ilma jistgħu u ġhandhom isiru aħjar b’awtorita’ konsolidata.

Ir-rapport tal-UE jipponta subgħajh ukoll lejn l-impatt tal-agrikultura fuq ir-riżorsi tal-ilma tal-pajjiz. Dan il-fatt, jempasizza r-rapport, messu wassal għal formolazzjoni ta’ strategija ċara dwar miżuri meħtieġa. Strateġija bħal din tirrikjedi l-parteċipazzjoni tal-komunita’ agrikola fl-istadju tal-formolazzjoni tagħha.

Huwa ċar illi l-fatt li r-regolatur dwar ir-Rizorsi (MRA) u d-Dipartiment tal-Agrikultura huma ir-responsabbilta politika tal-istess Ministeru, dan qiegħed iżomm lir-regolatur mill-jaġixxi b’mod effettiv. Għandu jkun sottolineat illi l-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Istatistika żvela li matul l-2009-10 l-agrikultura użat il-fuq minn 28 miljun metru kubu ta’ ilma, li jammonta ghal hafna iktar milli qatt kien stmat. Dan hu kważi id-doppju tal-ilma li tiċċirkola l-Korporazzjoni għas-Servizzi tal-Ilma.

Hemm bżonn li l-ilma jittieħed b’iżjed serjeta’. Biex dan isir jeħtieġ li jintrifsu ħafna kallijiet.

The risk of failure stares us in the face

The United Nations Environment Programme is one of the success stories of the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Through its Mediterranean Action Programme, UNEP successfully brought together the states bordering the Mediterranean. In 1976, they signed the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution.

Malta signed the convention and a number of protocols, among which a 1980 protocol against pollution from land-based sources and activities, known as the LBS Protocol. One of the commitments that Malta entered into in the 1980s was to ensure that sewage should be treated before being discharged into the sea.

Malta was not in a position to honour its LBS Protocol commitments as the finance required to carry out the infrastructural development was not available. It was only as a result of EU accession that such funds were made available for the Xgħajra and the Gozo plants. (Funds through the Italian protocol were used to construct the Mellieħa plant.) This has come about because, in 1991, the EU adopted its Urban Wastewater Directive, which Malta had to implement on EU accession.

Notwithstanding the availability of EU finance, it was only in 2011, when the third sewage purification plant at Ta’ Barkat Xgħajra was commissioned, that Malta finally came in line with the EU Urban Wastewater Directive. This is clearly evidenced by the latest positive results on the quality of bathing waters along Malta’s coast. The waters off Wied Għammieq/Xgħajra, site of the sewage outfall for over 75 per cent of Malta’s sewage, have registered the most notable quality improvement.

While recognising that Malta has honoured long-standing commitments, it is unfortunate that the long wait was not utilised to identify possible uses of recycled sewage on the basis of which the available EU finance would have yielded long-term benefits. Lessons learnt from the Sant’Antnin sewage purification plant at Marsascala seem to have been ignored.

The sewage purification plants have been designed as an end-of-pipe solution. Situated at the point of discharge into the sea, the whole infrastructure is based on the wrong assumption that sewage is waste. Its potential as a resource was ignored at the drawing board. In fact, I remember quite clearly the statement issued by the Water Services Corporation in the summer of 2008 in reply to prodding by Alternattiva Demokratika. WSC had then derided AD and stated that the treated sewage effluent had no economic value.

Since then we have witnessed a policy metamorphosis. Water policy has slowly changed to accept the obvious and unavoidable fact that sewage is a resource that should be fully utilised. During the inauguration ceremony of the sewage purification plant at Il-Qammiegħ Mellieħa, Minister Austin Gatt had indicated that the possible use of recycled sewage would be studied.

The decision to study the matter had been taken when the design of the infrastructure was long determined. At that point, provision for the transfer of the recycled sewage from the point of treatment to the point of potential use was not factored in. Substantial additional expenditure would be required for this purpose. This is a clear case of gross mismanagement of public funds, including EU funds.

It has been recently announced that a pilot project is in hand to examine the impacts of recharging the aquifer with treated sewage effluent. This pilot project was listed in the First Water Catchment Management Plan for the Maltese Islands as one of three measures submitted to the EU in 2011 in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The other two measures are the efficient use of water in the domestic sector and using treated sewage effluent as a source of second class water.

AD agrees that a successful pilot project on recharging the aquifer could lead to a long-term sustainable solution of the management of water resources in Malta. This is, however, dependent on the nature of the liquid waste discharged into the public sewer. I am informed that tests which have been going on for some time at the WSC pilot plant at Bulebel industrial estate have revealed specific chemicals that are being discharged into the public sewer and which are proving difficult to remove from the treated sewage effluent.

The successful use of treated sewage effluent for a multitude of uses, including recharging the aquifer, is ultimately dependent on a tough enforcement policy ensuring that only permissible liquid waste is discharged into the public sewers. Recharging the aquifer with treated sewage effluent while technically possible is very risky. On the basis of past performance, enforcement is an aspect where the risk of failure stares us in the face!

The technical possibilities to address the water problem are available. What’s lacking is the capability of the authorities to enforce the law. I look forward to the time when they will develop their teeth and muscles. Only then will the risk be manageable.

 

Published in The Times of Malta, June 16, 2012 : Risk of failure staring at us

Dak li tiżra’ taħsad

Il-Qorti Ewropeja tal-Ġustizzja f’deċizjoni li tat nhar l-Erbgħa 22 ta’ Diċembru 2010 qalet li Malta kisret id-Direttiva dwar l-Ilma (Water Framework Directive) meta naqset milli tagħmel il-moniteraġġ neċessarju u tirrapporta dwaru.

It-Times tirrapporta illum fil-paġna 4 “Malta guilty of violating Water Framework Directive”. Irrappurtat l-istorja ukoll online nhar l-Erbgħa “One size fits all as EU Court convicts Malta” .

Qiegħed jingħad  illi dawn ir-regoli li saru fis-sena 2000 ma jgħoddux għal Malta.  Ngħid jien, allura, għaliex fin-negozjati għad-dħul ta’ Malta fl-EU ma tqajjimx dan il-punt kif tqajmu diversi oħra biex jieħdu in konsiderazzjoni ċ-ċirkustanzi partikolari tal-pajjiż? Ir-realta hi li din hi biss skuża biex tgħatti inkompetenza grassa.  

Hemm ħafna mistoqsijiet x’jiġu imwieġba.

Din kienet responsabbilta’ tal-MEPA.

Ninsab infurmat li għal perjodu ta’ żmien  kien hemm min kien qiegħed iħejji biex isir il-moniteraġġ neċessarju. Imma min kien imexxi dak iż-żmien ġie jaqa’ u jqum tant li l-uffċjali inkarigati kienu irreżenjaw. Għax xebgħu jaħdmu f’ċirkustanzi li min kien imexxi ma kienx jinteressaħ li jisma’ u jsegwi l-pariri tekniċi.

Tajjeb ħafna li l-Gvern jgħid illi issa fi ħsiebu jikkoordina mal-Kummissjoni Ewropea biex isib mod prattiku ħalli tkun implimentata d-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti. Imma naħseb li kien ikun ħafna aħjar li kieku l-Gvern ta każ tal-pariri li kellu f’waqthom. Ninsab infurmat li anke’ pariri bil-miktub  hemm. Dawn kienu wissew illi it-traskuraġni u l-inkompetenza ser iwasslu għal dak li qed jiġri llum.

Għax dejjem bla eċċezzjoni dak li tiżra’ taħsad.

L-ilma mormi l-baħar

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

Il-Korporazzjoni għas-Servizzi tal-Ilma (KSI) taħseb li d-drenaġġ ippurifikat m’għandux valur ekonomiku. Ħadd ma jrid iħallas għalih. Jidher li għalhekk hemm l-arranġament li l-ilma msoffi jispiċċa l-baħar.

 

Dan huwa riżultat tal-inkompetenza tal-awtoritajiet li ħallew aċċess inkontrollat għall-ilma tal-pjan permezz ta’ boreholes illegali mifruxin ma’ Malta kollha. Din hi responsabbilta tal-Awtorita Maltija tar-Riżorsi iżda għal snin twal kienet ukoll responsabbilta tal-KSI.

 

Jekk l-awtoritajiet tul is-snin ippermettew it-teħid tal-ilma tal-pjan b’xejn permezz ta’ boreholes illegali, m’huwiex ovvju illi ħadd m’hu lest li jħallas biex juża l-ilma irriċiklat ? Jekk tista’ liberament tinqeda b’xejn tkun baħnan jekk tħallas !

 

Il-KSI tidher li assumiet li m’huwiex ser ikun hemm bdil fis-sitwazzjoni u għalhekk għażlet speċifikament is-siti għall-impjanti tad-drenaġġ fit-truf ta’ Malta fejn huwa iktar possibli li l-ilma msoffi jintrema l-baħar mil-ewwel. Dawn huma l-istess postijiet li minnhom kien (u għadu s’issa) jintefa d-drenaġġ fil-baħar. Li kieku taw każ li l-ilma seta jintuża kienu jintagħżlu siti iktar viċin iċ-ċentru tal-pajjiż biex dan ikun aċċessibli bla diffikulta fiż-żoni agrikoli kollha mingħajr il-ħtieġa ta’ ħafna spejjes addizzjonali.

 

Id-Direttiva tal-EU dwar id-drenaġġ [EU Wastewater Directive] tistabilixxi biss il-kwalita li l-ilma jrid ikollu qabel ma jintefa’ l-baħar. Ma toffri l-ebda gwida dwar x’jista’ jsir mill-ilma. Dak sta għalina f’Malta biex niddeterminawh. Meta tqies li madwar 60% tal-ilma tax-xorb f’Malta huwa prodott b’mod artifiċjali u bi spiża sostanzjali permezz tal-impjanti ta’ disalinazzjoni, huwa irresponsabbli li l-ilma prodott mill-impjant ta’ purifikazzjoni tad-drenaġġ jitqies bħala xi ħaġa ta’ bla valur. Qed nitkellmu dwar xi ħaġa (l-ilma) li f’pajjiżna dejjem kienet skarsa.

 

Mhux il-bogħod il-jum meta bħala riżultat ta’ iktar tnaqqis fl-ilma tal-pjan, kif ukoll bħala riżultat tal-miżuri li Malta trid tieħu biex timxi mal-EU Water Framework Directive ser ikun neċessarju li jkun ikkunsidrat li l-ilma prodott mill-impjanti tal-purifikazzjoni tad-drenaġġ fix-Xgħajra u ċ-Ċumnija tal-Mellieħa ikun użat. Imbagħad ser ikun hemm min jirrealizza illi l-impjanti tar-riċiklaġġ tad-drenaġġ qegħdin il-bogħod wisq. Imbagħad ser ikun hemm min jargumenta li l-ispiża biex ikun trasportat l-ilma hi għolja wisq.

 

Din hi inkompetenza amministrattiva. Min ser jassumi r-responsabbilta’ ?