State of Environment Report

I refer to the contribution by Mr Joe Mizzi, MP (The Sunday Times, September 15) on the State of the Environment Report (SoER) for Malta, 2002.

Much has been written about this report and most of the comments made were highly favourable. The editorial heading of The Times of September 3 says it all: "New report blazes a trail".

This is apparently not the opinion of Mr Mizzi and his adviser(s). As co-ordinator of this report I feel it is my duty to reply to some of his unfortunate comments.

Mr Mizzi finds the report as too voluminous and he compares it to the SoER for Europe (which is half as much). Indeed, the worthiness of a report may not be judged by its volume. Nonetheless, it should be evident that the SoER for Europe can only be general in scope and therefore brief.

In our case, the national report is meant to be comprehensive and all its recommendations and conclusions have been justified by a full documentation of all that is known to date. This explains its voluminous proportions. It also explains why national SoERs of other countries may be even more voluminous.

Mr Mizzi criticised the composition of the panel of experts responsible for the compilation of this report. Furthermore, he claims that "more credible and objective sources are needed for future reports". May I point out that this is the same panel (with only one exception) which was responsible for the first SoER for Malta in 1998, and which was approved by the then Minister responsible for the Environment, in the Labour Administration, Dr George Vella. I believe that Dr Vella's good judgment is not being questioned here.

Mr Mizzi criticised the lack of earth scientists on the panel of experts. May I point out that each expert was assisted by a whole group of collaborators coming from diverse scientific fields.

After finding the report too voluminous, Mr Mizzi goes on to point out a number of issues that in his opinion should have been included. I agree. The problem is that in most of the cases he refers to, we lack sufficient scientific evidence to be able to elaborate on such issues or to verify and then to make concrete comments. For other cases mentioned in his contribution, I prefer to allow my colleagues and panel experts to reply individually, if they deem it opportune.

As for Mr Mizzi's references to Adrian Mallia's contribution on land use and mineral resources (including quarrying), I wish to point out that Mr Mallia and his team made a number of highly defined and specific recommendations. Furthermore, we are pleased to note that most of such recommendations are mirrored in Labour's own policy document on the environment.

Mr Mizzi claims that there is no straight-forward assessment of whether threatened species have fared better or worse since the first report in 1998. I beg to differ. The report carries full documentation compiled by Professor Patrick Schembri and his collaborators on this aspect of biodiversity.

Furthermore, Professor Schembri and his team gave a thorough and a first-rate review of the state of other living resources such as fisheries and agriculture. Mr Mizzi does not make any reference to these valid contributions. Instead, he chooses to limit himself to a remark about Professor Schembri's assessment of our present data on the effects of aquaculture on the environment, and to his involvement as an environmental and independent consultant as approved by the EPD and the PA on these matters.

I find this remark highly unjust and invite Mr Mizzi to read the text again before he reaches any conclusions.

Mr Mizzi finds no problems with the SoER's assessment of air and water quality. This is presumably because our findings agree in general with his own evaluations and perceptions.

Throughout his contribution Mr Mizzi tries to compare the findings of the SoER 2002 with Labour's own policy document on the environment, published recently. I fail to see the purpose of this attempt, since the two documents are completely different in scope. Indeed, any environment policy document should be based on a scientific assessment, such as that provided by the SOER.

Finally, I fully agree with Mr Mizzi that the solution to local problems comes from effective government and good leadership coupled with honest and competent management.

More than this, I fully agree with the stated conclusion of Labour's environmental policy document (Section 21.1: Conclusions), that the full co-operation of all citizens is urgently required so that Malta will collectively rise up to the challenge of solving our current environmental problems.

I quote: "No one is to be excluded, and through effective leadership, all persons may be able to contribute towards environmental protection".

I hope and indeed would like to believe that if Mr Mizzi were to be given the opportunity by the electorate to head a future Ministry of the Environment, he will be able to translate these wise words into action.

Our scientific community is too small to start excluding from our confidence some of its key members (including those named by Mr Mizzi). The environmental problems we have to face are too overwhelming for anything less than what is needed, that is: wise judgment and long-term vision.