The national protest – ‘Enough is Enough’ – organised by Moviment Graffiti and about 60 other NGOs last Saturday was a howl of anguish, a heartfelt plea from a country reeling from decades of environmental abuse caused by successive governments. These have allowed the greed of construction developers, individual land and property owners and their myriad leeches and hangers-on free rein.
The civic society activists made six demands.
First, change policies radically so they no longer safeguard the interests of the few at the expense of public well-being. Second, bring greater transparency to the decision-making processes of the environment and planning authorities.
Third, halt all large-scale development projects until a comprehensive, sustainable development plan is introduced. Fourth, regulate the construction industry effectively. Fifth, address traffic congestion by promoting alternatives. Sixth, safeguard the remaining few open spaces and protect the natural habitat.
The hundreds of marchers who thronged Valletta were right to be angry about the state of Malta’s environment and its wrecked architectural landscape. I am full of admiration for those who had the civic courage to organise the march and those who joined them.
But while I understand why they did it, I firmly believe that their demands – which focussed their anger on the ‘environmental and planning authorities’ – do not go far enough.
Those authorities are merely the instruments of the politics adopted by successive governments in the last 60 years at the behest of the sovereign electorate which placed them there.
It is up to us to demand change and the protest march was a good starting point.
It is my contention that to concentrate on seeking changes to the way our planning and environmental policies are drawn up and administered – as the protest marchers demanded – is rather like, in that now tired cliché, trying to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. The issue is more fundamental, and more urgent.
Ever since its independence, Malta’s approach to land use has been the very stuff of neo-liberal laissez-faire economic doctrine in a field which has enriched both the state and powerful individuals within it.
The paramount environmental challenge now facing Malta is the need to control building development and the way we use and share this tiny land
I have been fighting this reckless economic approach to land use, the environment and development since I had the privilege of leading Din l-Art Ħelwa 18 years ago.
The state of Malta’s environment was already endangered then, the reckless expansion of the development zones in 2006 being simply the harbinger of what we are experiencing today. We are reaping the whirlwind of what was sown then, as well as in the preceding years.
The story of Malta’s environmental and spatial planning of the last six decades has been marked by greed, exploitation, abuse, misgovernance, political chicanery and ineptitude. Any plan for improving Malta’s current abysmal environmental plight must take as its starting point the rampant over-development which has occurred over the last few decades. And it must seek explicitly to reverse it or slow it down.
Whichever way one looks at it, the current situation is unsustainable.
Malta’s spatial development requires a radical policy shift. This must start from the clearly stated presumption of a determination to shift the argument, as a matter of policy, against further speculative construction development.
It must pivot in favour of rebalancing economic and social needs. Economic arguments which ride roughshod over people’s genuine concerns about their environment, their health, safety and well-being must no longer take precedence over citizens’ rights to enjoy a decent quality of life.
This criterion should drive the formulation of a strictly controlled environmental and planning policy based on severe limitations over all developments. A controlled moratorium.
Let me be absolutely clear. This does not mean the sudden application of the brakes. Nor does it mean that there will be no construction development allowed.
But it does mean radically slowing down the current manic rate of excessive and haphazard construction over an ‘adjustment period’ of two years in a controlled manner.
First, the rate of approval of development applications should be reduced immediately by setting annual threshold limit figures for different types of construction development, be they dwellings, high-rise buildings, hotels, shops, restaurants, or industrial complexes until an acceptable balance is achieved.
Second, planning permission for the remaining unbuilt plots of land within the development zones must be allocated in a phased manner, and in the priorities dictated by clear social needs, to slow down and stabilise development.
Third, a hoarding tax should be introduced on any properties lying empty for more than 12 months after completion. Buildings left uncompleted should attract a daily fine if they are left in shell form for longer than a year after the start of construction.
Fourth, a property tax should be introduced on second homes. Last, but certainly not least, the remaining open areas of ODZ must be made inviolable.
The irresponsible approach adopted to planning by successive governments means that hard decisions must now be taken to salvage what remains of the good and begin the process of reversing the vandalism and uglification that now marks large swathes of this country.
Enforced restraint in the use and development of land for this and future generations must henceforth guide government policy.
After more than 60 years of almost non-stop building frenzy, which has left the islands of Malta and Gozo in a shambolic state and its people’s quality of life reduced not improved, it is time to draw a line.
The crux of my argument is that it is no good fiddling around on the edges of the problem. Previous efforts since 1992 to put better planning, environmental and administrative rules in place have failed. Only a controlled reduction on construction development can prevent the unrelenting attack on Malta’s quality of life which this generation is enduring, and which future generations will inherit ifleft unchanged.
The paramount environmental challenge now facing Malta is the need to control building development and the way we use and share this tiny land. The qualities of thrift and moderation must replace the laissez-faire attitude of the last 60 years.
Which of our political parties will put the national interest first by adopting a tightly controlled moratorium strategy?