Green labour?

One party's weakness is another party's strength though it may come as something of a tall statement for Labour to claim that it will put the environment among its highest priorities.

At face value it is welcome news to hear that the Malta Labour Party wants to make the environment and the health of citizens a priority. After all, EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has already stated the obvious by saying that the environment up until now has not been a priority for the Maltese government.

It has come to this: the "outright dereliction" of the environment generally neglected, not so much in words but lack of follow-up by a Nationalist government, has given Labour plenty to crow about.

Environmental reports published as part of the accession process have made us more aware of the full scale of our problems. But the MLP does not believe that joining the European Union will help us to solve them. It subscribes to the view that the Maltese all by themselves, with a little goodwill, education and discipline, are capable of putting right our environmental wrongs. "The Labour Party believes that everyone should do their bit for a better environment." Failing this is the MLP prepared to enforce stiff penalties on transgressors?

While the Labour Party acknowledges the worth of Europe's environmental regulations it refuses to hold that the entire package is wholly suitable for Malta because "the nature of the Maltese environment is different from the continental environment of EU countries." This is not without an element of truth.

Exceptions for small islands could have featured more strongly in the negotiations. But Europe's environmental regulations in the majority of cases will be highly adaptable and beneficial to Malta. The truth is that Labour wants no-one above it: "Il-Partit Laburista... irid li nibqghu kmand f'darna u naghmlu u ninfurzaw ligijiet addattati ghalina." (The Labour Party desires that we remain captain of our own house making and enforcing laws adapted to us"). So much for thinking globally or even on a regional level.

The MLP document on the environment does not hold back in condemning the environmental abandon which has gradually invaded the country. It accuses the government of hiding behind volumes of reports while often failing to take the measures recommended by the reports it has commissioned. It is noted that the effect of this environmental abandon has begun to reveal itself in health problems such as cancer and respiratory diseases. Labour complains that it was not given a chance to correct all this during its two year term cut short in 1998.

All I remember of those years is Labour leader Alfred Sant's helicopter flight over Maghtab and a cosmetic sprucing up of Bugibba. There was a valley near Chadwick Lakes which had its banks torn apart and replaced by caissons with funds from a project meant for coastal erosion control. Beach nutrition schemes involving the dumping of sand on beaches enjoys an unselective thumbs up from the Labour document which speaks quite transparently about "projects for the protection of sand from erosion".

In May 1997 the last glass milk bottle disappeared from shops. The old milk bottle was the mainstay of a recycling system already inbuilt into our lives. Its phasing out began in 1988. Labour, with all its new-found interest in matters environmental, having failed to prevent this loss, could now at least offer a realistic word of encouragement to local soft drink bottlers.

These should be urged to retain existing glass bottles and even promote their products on the market as preferable to imports packed in plastic. In the likely and necessary event that Malta becomes part of the European Union this would go a long way toward registering a genuine environmental credibiltiy despite past horrors.

Labour makes use of the Green Party's "breath of clean air" phrase just as happily as it parades the old "quality of life" jingle popular in Francis Zammit Dimech's day as Environment Minister. But the party's eye is not single and the environment features as just one hue among a changeable range of misty filters. Green politics is only skin-deep unless it can be demonstrated that the environment is the main lens through which society and its actions are viewed - hardly evident within either of the two main political parties so far.

Dismantling MEPA

The latest EU Accession Report 2002 has politely but stiffly informed the government that its progress in the Environment Chapter has not been good enough. Public tolerance is lower than ever toward new developments which are impacting people's lives. With all its flouts and flaws we do have an evolving planning institution which deserves to be strengthened and brought into line.

In this month's strategy paper "Towards the Enlarged Union" the European Commission warns that our administrative capacity in the field of environment is still very weak. "It is crucial that Malta implements its plan to increase the staffing of the competent bodies in this area considerably (mainly the Malta Environment and Planning Authority) and to reinforce its permitting and inspection practices. These plans need to be adhered to strictly."

Yet the first thing a new Labour administration promises to do after getting into government is to make "all the necessary changes in present systems and structures". This sounds well and good until the reader understands it is a veiled reference to the dismantling of MEPA. There are strong indications that this could include a revival of the former arrangement. Passing projects with a minister's personal blessing through Parliament will hurl us back to the days of chaotic and unplanned development.

Greens have already come out strongly on this, attacking the Labour Party leader for his threat to bulldoze a bypass around the very planning policies which were set up to protect our environment.

Labour is prepared to take the Planning Authority (which is still in the process of upgrading to incorporate the Environment Protection Department) to pieces and put it back together again with roughly the same responsibilities - planning, nature protection, natural resources (quarries, water and energy now under the Malta Resources Authority) and something vaguely referred to as the environment which could well turn out to be the responsibility of a redecorated Unit ghas-Servizz tat-Tisbieh pavement works crew.

It looks like the same faded rose by another name but with added ministerial powers to more efficiently over-ride planning decisions and guidelines. The system is really not up to another shake-up of this sort. MEPA needs to finally settle down, iron out the chinks and get on with it.

Election candy

Labour advises incentives for more efficient energy use but does not reveal whether a revised tariff scheme would meet with its approval or not. Renewable energy is honoured with a token bow, by encouraging proposals and initiatives made by the private sector toward harnessing energy from wind and other sources. By now we know that "encouragement" promised by politicians frequently mean nothing more solid than a smile and a pat on the back .

For the past decade or more, any political body currying favour would always boast, as does Labour now, that they are "open to co-operating in research on new sources of alternative energy wherever it is economically viable and promoting its use."

At last week's Enemalta conference Professor Edward Mallia demonstrated that studies had reconfirmed our wind resource offshore to be well worth tapping. Yet a local private company has complained of "bureaucratic hurdles". Fine tuning the system is by far the preferable option rather than causing further delays by tearing down the whole structure only to rebuild it under another name.

Labour says it is all in favour of considering the needs of a locality before decisions are taken and putting the needs of the community before the needs of the developer. This does not play out when compared to the party's recent conduct over the proposed Hondoq ir-Rummien development and the golf course issue. In both cases the protests of the local community have gone unsupported by the two main parties.

While Labour has promised to stop the development from going ahead, this is only hinted at in the environment document. A review by an elected Labour government of local plans to reflect the needs of the community could well mean a reversal of the Grand Harbour Local Plan policy which placed Kalkara Valley inside the development zone. References to retaining green lungs in urban areas is also made. A cursory mention is given to agri-tourism but which dispays a traditionalist rather than ecological bent.

Higher buildings "where suitable" will stop more land from being devoured under a Labour government but there is no mention of Gozo where AD has gone one better with a new proposal to prevent skyscrapers ruining the Gozo skyline.

The MLP document notes the total absence of control over noise pollution yet in past years this subject did not exist. It was the EU Directive on noise that brought our attention to the need for possible remedies. Labour claims it will introduce World Health Organisation controls on permissible noise levels for residential areas in towns and villages and even higher ones in quiet localities. There is no mention of how it will regulate excessive noise from fireworks or air horns.

The Opposition claims it would form a serious government which would implement the law with the help of educational campaigns and fair enforcement of the law. Considering that crimes against the environment are crimes against society I would like to see less emphasis on fair and more on enforcement. Those caught red-handed should be made to pay dearly and no-one should be let off.

While Labour promises to remove illegal kiosks at popular bays it goes too far with a proposal for public showers on beaches showing unawareness of the water situation. The banging of empty pots by angry housewives at Castille during the Labour years of water cuts still rings in the ears. "The country will produce enough water to meet the demand."

As with electricity, this demand is always rising but Labour makes scant reference to any water-conserving policy. Fresh in the collective memory is a failed attempt to put up water and electricity rates. One reason why solar has not taken off is that electricity generated at the power station is still too cheap to make alternatives attractive enough.

Much of the present administration's disregard for the environment is put down to "ineffective administrative structures which exist to serve a small sector of the population". Is the document referring to hunters or developers or both?

Scrapping waste policies

Major criticism is directed at Government's handling of the waste problem. The document claims that there is no integrated and co-ordinated programme dealing with all aspects of waste management but does not present any viable alternative to the present waste management strategy.

The only real quarrel that bona fide Greens have with the waste strategy is that it should have been introduced earlier. There are also problems with delays in implementation of recycling and the lack of a determined effort to steer the country clear of mass incineration.

Labour begins by saying that it is not in favour of incineration as a means of treating municipal waste but acknowledges that if no one does anything it will happen. With or without Europe incineration will become a necessary last option if we do not solve the waste problem by recycling or minimisation of waste at production point. A Labour government fails to present any guarantees against large-scale incineration but promises to give attention to public health should this come about. The Greens are alone in holding out for alternatives to incineration as the coming decade's final solution.

When it comes to the already carefully drawn up and well researched waste policy for Gozo there is no doubt about the threat a Labour government presents when it vows to "re-evaluate" the plan. There is in other countries a generally well-accepted policy on waste that it should be processed close to where it is generated. Paradoxically Labour wants to apply this rigidly to a small island scenario without considering the environmental costs.

The dumps at Maghtab, Wied Fulija and Tal-Qortin, Gozo, are to be given "immediate attention" by a Labour government which undertakes to close Maghtab within 21 months of being elected. Labour proposes something highly risky due to the high vulnerability of the water table. Only the blissfully unaware would advise, as the MLP document does, the use of quarries for mixed waste "for the first few years" until it is able to establish landfills and land reclamation.

Turning its guns on the present government by quoting principles straight out of the EU-commissioned waste management strategy, Labour attacks the present practice of mixing hazardous and non-hazardous waste. "This is a very dangerous policy," says Labour, with the admonition that it is "not acceptable in Europe and the United States." Yet Labour is quite prepared to dump the extensive study and action plan to replace this with its own whimsical design.

The siting of an engineered landfill is an imminent consideration to which all responsible parties and individuals should offer their rational input. Huge resistance is expected wherever the landfill is proposed and environmentalists will be in a twist over the sacrifice of countryside for a safer European system of final waste disposal which cannot be recycled or treated. Yet party leader Alfred Sant stated last May that a Labour government would scrap the preparatory work done on landfills so far and start from scratch.

Spearfishing, harmful detergents and the MDC

I am in agreement with several points raised in the MLP document, a good proportion of which was put together by consultation with environment groups: a fatigued electorate should not settle for anything short of a clear picture on exactly how these inspired thoughts will be brought into actual being. It does not take too much of a cultured eye to discern between the valid green policies and those that make a fine performance of parading as green but fail to make the grade.

The plan to collect rainwater runoff from streets while jointly exercising great attention to the fact that it is polluted and at the same time searching for an acceptable use is the kind of hoop that poorly informed politicians have the public (but most of all themselves) jumping through.

Stormwater runoff, unless treated by large land-hungry treatment plants, is not safe for use and even dangerous to marine life as it is swept into the sea. The plan to build dams in valleys will have a certain impact on valley ecology. Water would be less of a problem if rooftop collection were to be enforced but this is not mentioned.

Taking an inventory of toxic chemicals from industry and other sources is a commendable idea but the project will end up on some dusty shelf unless it forms part of a specific action plan.

As regards encouraging the consumer to use "detergents that do not harm the marine environment" is Labour ready to subsidise these with a lower tax rate or put an eco-tax on harmful products to steer the consumer toward a better choice?

Labour's environment document puts the emphasis on measures against anyone contaminating or over-extracting ground water from the aquifer and promises that drinking water quality results will be regularly published in the government gazette. Equally the public is to be informed whenever air quality drops below safety levels.

Concrete steps are to be taken where the Nationalist government has not done enough to reduce pollution from vehicles including public transport for the reduction of disease.

Help is to be given to anyone wishing to export material for recycling. Will this translate into the release of unused storage space on Malta Development Corporation property? This is an easily achieved measure for which the Federation of Industry has been begging for years.

Labour's assurances that when international conventions are signed they will be put into practice does not say much for the present government's performance in that area.

There are plans underfoot to revive the protection of marine life in danger through introduction of rescue plans and marine parks. The give away phrase is "for the enjoyment of everyone". Green policies must benefit society as a whole rather than trying to give a piece to all conflicting sectors until nothing is left. It is to be assumed that the enjoyment of marine parks is not to include spearfishermen although this crucial requirement fails to gain a mention in the document.

High levels of lead in the environment is recognised as a problem and every possible measure is promised for its control. Yet there is not the remotest suggestion that the sheer amount of lead pellets being dishcarged by hunters from shotguns is one of the main contributors to contamination of soil in rural areas.

Labour does its best to attract clay pigeon shooters by promising them the facilities they want outright with no mention of environment impact assessments for rural noise (which it vows to prevent) or leadshot in soil.

Reclamation schemes and animal parks

An unqualified statement of the type which makes every environmentalist shudder is the Labour Party's jovial cry that it intends to recycle stone in reclamation projects on land and at sea. How can anyone be sure that this will not translate as making large areas of natural or coastal habitat available to developers under the thin guise of a recycling project?

Labour charges itself with the duty to "understand" the impact of stone waste currently being dumped on the seabed but sees nothing wrong in dumping rubble at sea "after all the necessary studies on environmental impact have been made."

Farmers will be encouraged in the use of organic farming methods by a Labour government. If the encouragement is to be anything like that experienced so far we have little to look forward to.

The bottom falls out when one reads that the Labour concept of a nature reserve stops at the impoverished idea of interactive animal parks stocked with rabbits, horses, llamas, ponies and ducks, etc. Nature trails are consigned to valley courses keeping hikers from disturbing hunters on the hills and cliftops.

Mining the seabed for mineral resources as a way of reducing the negative impact of quarries on land is another failed attempt at a green thinking. Labour promises to address the problem of private property which has been abandoned but does not mention any alteration to the rent laws.

A Labour government promises to encourage participation of non-governmental organisations such as environment groups and anyone else who wishes to contribute to "the setting up of a serious environmental policy in this country."

Dr Sant has stated that the MLP would not make promises it knew it could not fulfil. By this measure representatives of environment groups could rightly expect a seat on government committees on energy, transport, GMOs, etc. At the same time Dr Sant would be digging deep into his bag of proposals from "several individuals and firms" for the development of a yacht marina and golf course on Gozo. A promise is a promise.

Only the hunters and developers, who between them hold the environment in a death grip, get specific assurances from the MLP. Meanwhile the rest of us are plied off with ambivalent pseudo-green utterings which lack the life-giving needle of political will. The haystack of hastily pounded out theories abounds as the MLP scarecrow appears against a green backdrop.

If you enjoy being out in the cold with your nose pressed up against the EU window pane... if you delight in playing economic solitaire - vote Labour. If your vote is an environmental one - don't risk it.