The application for the development of a solar farm on agricultural land at Tar-Ragħad, Mġarr, has sent shockwaves through those who put environmental, ecological, social and economic issues before short-sighted commercial projects.
The three-megawatt photovoltaic plant would take up 43,303m² of what is described as “empty plot of land currently not being used” and “dominated by flat fields”.
The Planning Authority screening datasheet shows that trees will be cut down and rubble walls altered or demolished for the project.
It also confirms that the principal use of the site, which lies in an ODZ, is agricultural. The panels will cover greenhouses, also constructed as part of the project.
How can glasshouses be productive if they are covered by solar panels? One hopes that both the PA and the ERA boards can see through this gimmick.
Looking at the section on environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the project description report, the aesthetic, ecologic, economic, social and hydrologic impacts of the project are conspicuous by their absence. This is only to be expected when impacts and mitigation measures are drafted by the applicant.
The PA screening data states that the development does not necessitate trenching of a connection to the potable water distribution network or sewage system but it has conveniently ignored that the area will be covered by 6,023 photovoltaic modules of 500 watts each. This will contribute substantially to water run-off from the site, which “will be disposed of in the street” and find itself in the sea or in the sewer system. And it will prevent the absorption of rainwater by the soil to supplement the water table. These hidden costs will be borne by society and the ecosystem.
The solar panel cover will have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem, as will the removal of trees and alteration of rubble walls- Alfred Baldacchino
The solar panel cover will have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem, as will the removal of trees and alteration of rubble walls, both natural habitats. This will lead to biodiversity loss in an ODZ, something which ERA is entrusted to ensure does not happen, in line with Malta’s EU obligations. No reference whatsoever is made to these factors in the project development report. These hidden costs will have to be borne by society and the ecosystem.
Aesthetically, the impact of such an expanse of reflecting material seems of no concern to the PA, ERA or the person who drafted the report. No studies in this field have been undertaken either.
These panels will affect both residents and wildlife from wherever the panels are visible, by day and night, another hidden cost to be borne by society and biodiversity.
What about the economic aspect of the project? The PA confirms that the area is “mainly used for agriculture”. The report highlights that the footprint is composed “of plots of land currently not being used”. How can the fields be used if the owners of the land have not allowed the farmers to continue using them? And how will the products which were, or which can be produced, from these fields impact prices on the local market? Has the PA studied the loss of revenue to farmers and the increase in price to consumers compared to the profits to be made from the solar farm?
Without a doubt, solar panels are beneficial and essential but not at such a cost to society, ecology and the economy.
Our urban roofs are quite adaptable to the use of solar panels. There are so many official buildings, such as schools and car parks, which can accommodate far more solar panels than those being proposed to obliterate agricultural land in Mġarr.
The PA should not use only its economic ruler for its decisions. If the PA has any planning vision – social, ecological, environmental, economic and aesthetic – it would rise to its obligations in the interests of the whole country.
Why is it not obligatory for new buildings to have solar panels on their roofs? Some may argue that this would make these buildings more expensive for the construction industry. Is the PA only interested in accommodating this sector to the detriment of the environment, biodiversity, hydrology and society that are shouldering all the hidden costs?
One hopes that both ERA and the PA will fulfil their responsibilities in the interest of all stakeholders and take into consideration the burdens they may inflict on society and the environment by their decision.