Opposition takes government to task on PfP

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman George Vella yesterday complained that while the government deemed it fit to seek House authorisation to accede to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context, it had not followed the same procedure to reactivate Malta's membership in the Partnership for Peace programme, which was not promised in the PN electoral manifesto. The government had informed Nato of its decision when Parliament had not even been reconvened after the general election. Dr Vella pointed out that in 1996, the Labour government's note verbale to Nato had said that Malta's membership in the PfP programme was "herewith being terminated". But the PN government had told Nato it was reactivating Malta's membership which was "suspended in 1996". Dr Vella said this was not the case. It was a blatant case of misinformation and was not acceptable.

Malta's membership in the PfP was not in conformity with the Treaties Ratification Act. He also pointed out that the EU's foreign committee was giving weight to national Parliaments' scrutiny of foreign and defence agreements.

Dr Vella quoted Nato sources saying there had been a great debate whether to accept Dr Gonzi's request as a reactivation or a new application for membership.

He was speaking after Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg introduced the Prime Minister's motion.

Dr Borg said that by signing this convention, Malta would bind itself that whenever there was a project that could have a negative environmental effect on neighbouring countries, it would have to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment. It benefited more those nations with a land frontier.

As a small nation, it was in Malta's interest to sign because of other countries' mega projects, including thermal or nuclear power stations or crude oil refineries. When projects likely to have an adverse impact were undertaken, neighbouring countries must be informed and an EIA was mandatory. He said that the government had started implementing the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) mentioned in this convention in 2006. This assessment took place before the environmental impact assessment.

Dr Vella said that while Malta was adhering to a convention which safeguarded citizens' health in trans-boundary projects, the government did not provide any information on the health hazards that the Delimara power station and its extension might cause.

When the opposition attended the Mepa sitting which granted preliminary permission for the extension of the Delimara power station and asked on environmental health reports, the Department of Health had not been in a position to give any information on the project's possible impact on people living nearby. His parliamentary questions on the incidence of cancer in Malta, particularly in the southern region, were never answered. The government had now declared it was to rehabilitate Delimara Bay after having allowed its destruction over the last 20 years.

Dr Vella said the government's arrogance was unacceptable. While adhering to a convention which gave the right to information to protect people's health in projects being developed in neighbouring countries, the government had denied the Maltese environmental health information of local projects.

Referring to strategic environment assessments, Leo Brincat (PL) said Malta was to remain without conventional and renewable energy plans until November 2011 because no SEA had been undertaken. What had motivated the government to take so long to adhere to this treaty?

The mechanism of the convention could not be enough to address health hazard issues in mega projects, although the introduction of the strategic environment assessment improved this process. Malta should ensure that it could administer its obligations under the convention in case of complaints against it.

Mr Brincat argued that the possible introduction of nuclear energy plants in neighbouring Mediterranean countries could affect Malta. He augured that the element of good-neighbourly relations played a leading role in this regard, and even countries not adhering to the convention would keep the Maltese authorities informed.

Italy would generate 25 per cent of its energy needs through nuclear power. This plant would be in Sicily and it was only fair to expect Italy to provide information and necessary assurances to Malta in relation to this development, even out of a sense of good-neighbourliness.

Winding up the debate, Dr Borg started by referring to the opposition's stance on Malta's participation in the Partnership for Peace programme.

He said it was not true that a new application had been instituted but Nato had only reactivated the original application itself. It was precisely because of Malta's position on neutrality that Malta was a member of the PfP rather than a member of Nato. Turning to the Delimara power station, Dr Borg said the government had provided enough information on its development.

The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context applied only to trans-national and not to national projects. It would give Malta the right to seek information on a project being developed by any of its neighbouring countries. Malta would acquire a right to participate in the process of implementation of these projects and also to demand post-project analysis.

Dr Borg stated that in the case of Italy's decision to develop nuclear plants, the convention would give Malta and Maltese NGOs a right to seek information from Italy. The convention would provide Malta with important tools to be able to demand information from neighbouring countries on projects which might have an impact on Malta.