The landfills problem

I refer to the article under the heading "From a dump to a controlled landfill" (The Sunday Times, May 12), issued by the communications co-ordinator at the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.

While I agree in principle that we need a new engineered landfill, I disagree with the ministry`s view that an engineered landfill ensures sustainable waste management. On the contrary, there is nothing sustainable about landfills, although we still need them until we find better alternatives.

The Labour Party is preoccupied with Government`s poor handling of the landfills issue. I believe that Malta cannot afford to make a mistake on this, because its effects will be permanent. Labour`s views are only part of the widespread disappointment shown at the lack of professionalism and irresponsibility evident in the proposal for new landfills in the Project Description Statement (PDS) issued by the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.

This proposal lacks technical standards and relics on irrational rather than scientific criteria. Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish whether this proposal will result in an engineered landfill regulated by international standards, or a glorified dump which the PN keeps exalting in a politically partisan manner.

Perhaps Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry cannot tell the difference between a landfill and a dump. Indeed, a few weeks ago, the mini-ster claimed that Maghtab is not a landfill but a dump, but now his communications co-ordinator contradicts him by writing that "Maghtab can be called a landfill".

It is essential that politicians tell the truth about engineered landfills. It is a fact that engineered landfills remain a permanent threat to the environment and to people`s health, although Dr Zammit Dimech insists otherwise.

It is also a fact that the present landfills, including Maghtab, were started in the Seventies under a Labour government. However, it is politically dishonest that Dr Zammit Dimech repeats this without mentioning the fact that European legislation and the EU directive on landfills were issued many years after Maghtab was opened. Indeed, the Labour government at that time had not breached any European standards on landfills.

The same cannot be said for the new landfills proposed in the PDS, albeit issued by the PN administration four years after the publication of the EU directive and decades after the issue of US regulations on landfills. What is striking about the PDS are its technical mistakes and disregard of standard practice, its non-compliance with the EU directive on landfills and other international regulations, and the lack of justification for the sites selected.

I am even more preoccupied that such blatant disregard of standards will persist for the remaining 45 initiatives to be implemented in the ministry`s "waste project". The government`s lack of professionalism in its approach to waste management will directly compromise public health and the environment, as evident from the following points mentioned in the ministry`s article.

¤ Waste separation will be introduced in the same year that the proposed landfills will be opened. This is bad planning. Waste separation should be introduced earlier in order to avoid many problems.

¤ The ministry maintains that the two landfills receiving hazardous and non-hazardous waste respectively, should be located next to one another. The ministry argues that this will be more economical. However, Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry disregards the practice followed for hazardous waste landfills which requires that they are located in sites with a particular geology, which is not found in any of the seven proposed sites, including Benghajsa and Ghallis.

If economy is the issue here, I suggest that rather than economise at the expense of people`s health, the ministry should economise on its huge spending on consultants who are providing the ministry with inadequate and wrong advice.

¤ The ministry`s article notes that the report issued in 1997 for George Vella, then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Environment, was the first to list the seven sites considered for the proposed landfill. However, the ministry fails to mention that the Labour government refused to follow its recommendations. Later, the PN administration accepted this report without reservations so that the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure selected Benghajsa and Ghallis on the basis of the 1997 report.

This report relied on four criteria, one of which is in breach of the EU Directive 80/68/EEC. Another considered the potential mineral value for quarrying of the sites. The PA (now the MEPA) is supposed to have the evidence for this in its Minerals Resources Assessment report (1996). The problem is that the MEPA refuses to make this report public, and would not even pass me a copy even though I am a member of the Planning Board! It is evident that the site selection criteria are unscientific and based on unverifiable data.

¤ The communications co-ordinator for the ministry has still not confirmed whether the design for the hazardous waste landfill found in the appendix of the PDS is the work carried out by a professional trained in landfill design and knowledgeable on landfill standards. Effectively, the design presented in the PDS has a number of serious technical defects which will lead to the landfill`s failure with dire consequences to the environment and people of Birzebbuga or Naxxar.

¤ The ministry`s article confirms that a geological and hydrogeological report are not included in the PDS. This proves that the EU and US procedures for the opening of new landfills were disregarded. Dr Zammit Dimech dishonestly redeems the situation by making an incorrect statement during a recent radio discussion on landfills, during which he confidently exclaimed: "God forbid that we do not know Malta`s geology!" The sites selected in the PDS point to the contrary.

Despite the amateur results, Dr Zammit Dimech insists that his ministry had engaged the services of local and EU experts to compile its PDS. One of these, Dr Ing. Christopher Ciantar claims that the proposed landfills go well beyond the "rats, smells, occasional fires and pollution" (The Sunday Times, May 12) which we associate with dumps.

However, if only 20 per cent of the waste at Maghtab landfill (renowned for rats and smells) is known to be potentially ignitable and edible (by the rats!), while the proposed engineered landfill for domestic waste will have much more, at least 60 per cent of such waste, then what will be the deterrent to keep rats away from the landfill?

We know that Dr Zammit Dimech likes to rely on versatile experts, very much like Dr Ciantar, but I never imagined he would include the Pied Piper of Hamelin!

Despite the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure`s handling of the landfill problem, it insists that the proposed engineered landfills will not be anything like Maghtab. We would be convinced of this when the ministry states which are the international standards and regulations it has followed and corroborate this by revealing the qualifications in landfilling held by the persons collaborating in the PDS. After all, Dr Zammit Dimech claims that he has adopted a non-partisan approach to this issue, so we expect that he selected the most competent.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party will continue to present its constructive views on waste management and tell the public the truth about landfills. We have also shown what are the modern procedures adopted in Europe and the US regarding landfills. It is now up to the government to follow these procedures, rather than expect the Labour Party to tell Dr Zammit Dimech which sites are suitable for landfilling. When Dr Zammit Dimech insists that Labour give this information, he keeps reminding us that his own consultants are unreliable despite the considerable amount of taxpayers` money his ministry spends on them.