MHRA questions impact analysis on Ghallis landfill

The Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association has strongly questioned to what extent the government has analysed the impact on the tourism industry before deciding to have a new engineered landfill at Ghallis.

In a harsh statement as a reaction to the comments made by the Ministry of Resources and Infrastructure, the MHRA said that the ministry has not clarified this point.

"We insist that the ministry publish the report it referred to and clearly shows to what extent the impact on tourism has been studied.

"The ministry's statement clearly showed a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the tourism industry.

"The MHRA does not claim to be an expert on landfills, however, it is in a very good position to analyse the effects of such a decision on the tourism industry and if the ministry concerned does not listen, then it had to be prepared to take responsibility for the forthcoming negative effects."

On Friday, the Ministry of Resources and Infrastructure stressed that the decision to have a new engineered landfill at Ghallis was not taken haphazardly.

The ministry was reacting to comments by the MHRA which strongly opposed the proposed site.

The ministry said that the preferred siting was based on studies that had been on-going since 1996. Originally, 16 sites were identified and were seen to have potential to be developed into an engineered landfill, the ministry said.

However, during this period and after further studies a shortlist of six sites was proposed. Based upon this shortlist, a project description statement was published by the ministry in 2002.

But the MHRA yesterday reaffirmed its negative stand on the proposed engineered landfill: "We will be discussing this issue with our European counterparts within HOTREC and any necessary action will be taken through European Union channels which understand the dynamics of the tourism industry from an international perspective.

"The MHRA has a great deal of respect within HOTREC and if we have to take our arguments up to a European level in order to convince the government on the great mistake being made then we will do so," concluded Winston J. Zahra, president of the association.

The association stated that the site chosen will cause major problems for the tourism industry: "The national disaster referred to by the association is one linked to the negative effects on the experience of tourists who visit our island and not, as interpreted by the ministry, due to the fact that the association does not appreciate the difference between a land rise site and an engineered landfill site.

"We have to appreciate that our overall product is what we use to market our island and what ultimately leaves an impression on the tourists who visit us.

"Locating such a facility in this area is going to compound the negative impact created in the past by the Maghtab site. The ministry has to realise that any negative effect on tourist numbers to our island has a negative effect on employment and tourism earnings. Do we want to take this great risk with everything else our industry has to deal with?"

The MHRA said it would also like to know who the experts involved in the report process were, who was actually consulted about the choice of the site, who the contractors chosen to carry out the works are and on what basis the choice of contractors was made.

The MHRA would also like to know if the owners of the quarries have been consulted, who is going to benefit from the material cut out of the area, who is going to control the method by which this material is disseminated, what kind of penalties are being imposed on the contractors concerned for non-conformity with to the contractual clauses hopefully put in place. These questions are yet unanswered and the public deserves to know the facts, it said.

The MHRA further stated that what is being created is the largest quarry in Malta and people have not realised that this process is going to greatly upset many people in the area.

"It makes no sense to create another huge hole on our island where there are so many unused quarries all over the place. The ministry has failed in its response to the MHRA's initial comments to answer the questions about noise and dust pollution and the problems caused by the movement of the material cut out of the land."

The MHRA insisted that the ministry give the relevant answers to the public as people living in the area needed to know the facts. The ministry cannot avoid these questions by professing that the process leading up to the decision was an extensive one.

The MHRA believes that while our waste management strategy needs to look forward for 20 years this does not mean that we have to identify and create one specific site for 20 years.

"What if we dig this massive gaping hole for 20 years and in three years' time technology becomes available to render the use of landfills unnecessary?

"What do we do then? Leave this great big hole in the ground? The MHRA believes that a long-term strategy is required, but disagrees with limiting the strategy by the use of one site only and strongly urges the government to move away from this trend of thought and open up the subject to more discussion before moving ahead with this project."