I refer to the article by Joe Mizzi, MP (The Sunday Times, May 5).
Everybody agrees that engineered landfills are today essential for every one of us because only they can assure sustainable management of waste. In Malta it seems we still have a problem to understand the difference between a dump and a landfill notwithstanding all the efforts being made by the Government to distinguish between the two. In this regard the Opposition is not helping to make the public aware of this distinction.
The fact that other countries already have such landfills shows that waste management should not be an issue of partisan politics. The information given should be correct so that everyone can participate in a constructive way. The Project Description Statement (PDS) is a document that should facilitate this process and should not be considered as a conclusive report on a particular site.
Even though Maghtab can be called a landfill, Government is emphasising the great difference between what is being proposed and Maghtab. It should be emphasised that the new proposal does not mention two layers as referred to by Mr Mizzi but to a number of layers that include one for the collection of liquids and another which prevents liquids from leaking.
The present situation, which is already being addressed, is not the result of any particular administration. As we already stated before, Maghtab, which started being used as a dump in the Seventies by a Labour administration together with two other dumps in Marsascala and Wied Fulija in Zurrieq, was never planned as a landfill.
The situation at Maghtab today is the result of misinformed decisions taken over a number of years. Today the Solid Waste Management Strategy contains 56 initiatives which Progett Skart is implementing. One of the initiatives is the construction of an engineered landfill for non-contaminated waste and non-construction and demolition waste. Another initiative is the construction of a landfill for toxic waste.
Following a proposal by the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure the possibility of combining the two landfills on the same site is being considered even though the infrastructure of one will be different form the other as the document indicates.
We feel that there is no need to repeat common facilities, such as the provision of a weighbridge. This makes economic sense! We are of the opinion that the waste management problems will be better addressed if we could construct both landfills on the same site.
The 54 other initiatives of Progett Skart represent a serious plan drawn up to follow a waste hierarchy, which calls for the creation of opportunities to minimise and prevent waste and at the same time to increase the demand for recycling and recovery. For this reason the priority of the other initiatives is separation of waste and for the non-contamination of the other waste fractions of the same waste.
Mr Mizzi is of the opinion that waste separation should have been the first step before the construction of the two landfills. The truth is that waste separation only makes sense when you have different facilities to absorb the separated components of waste. Otherwise what is separated at one`s home is again put together either in the same scammel or in the same waste dump.
That is why the construction of an engineered landfill needs to be taken up for waste separation at source to be taken up effectively. According to the Waste Management Strategy these landfills should be operational in 2004 (Initiatives D12 and D13). The Strategy also lays down that the separation of waste should be in place during the same year.
Planning of the landfills and on waste separation already started. Talks are being conducted on waste separation with some local councils, besides those of Pembroke and Marsascala. A project for the separation of waste in industrial zones was launched. We also launched an educational programme with councils, industries and other entities.
But the success of this process does not depend only on the government but on each of us and especially on those who are in a position to influence other members of the community. Data about producers and collectors of all streams of waste are being collected as required by Progett Skart. Such data also cover toxic waste.
The fact that the two landfills could be constructed on the same site does not mean that the waste is not going to be separated, as Mr Mizzi is suggesting. It only means better economic planning and better land use. Besides these two landfills other components are being planned for the waste management project. These include a Civic Amenity facility and a facility for the treatment and interim storage of toxic waste earmarked for export.
As rightly said by Mr Mizzi the selected sites started being considered as far back as 1997. The seven sites which were chosen, and about which a report was submitted to Dr George Vella, Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Environment in the Labour administration, on September 1, 1997, that is a year before the 1998 general election, were Wied Moqbol, Benghajsa; ix-Xoqqiet, Benghajsa; Benghajsa; Wied Ghammieq, limits of Kalkara; Ta` Majru in St Thomas Bay; iz-Zonqor in Marsascala and Ghallis, limits of Naxxar. These sites were considered in various preliminary exercises.
The document published by the Works Division evaluated these sites, which were shortlisted. This exercise was not carried out on a particular site but to identify one or more sites, about which a more detailed investigation and an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) would be carried out. The PDS emphasises two reasons why Ghallis and Benghajsa could be considered by different experts independently of any developer.
The first reason is that the sites could accommodate all the components of the project and can take the projected waste generation for the next 20 years. After comments by all those concerned are taken into account, a detailed analysis of the site will be carried out. All public complaints will be considered, included Mr Mizzi`s, if these are addressed to the Directorate Planning.
A geological and hydro geological assessment, as well as any other relevant study, will be carried out whether these are mentioned or not in Appendix B of the PDS. That is another reason why the general public was given the opportunity to propose terms of reference for the EIA.
Maybe countries less developed than Malta understood better than us what a landfill is, and invested in this technology before us. Maybe they realised before us that landfills do not harm the environment or public health. It would now appear as though a few of us are more worried about the development of a landfill than Maghtab even though all streams of waste are deposited at the Maghtab dump while only segregated and stable waste will be deposited in the new landfills.
All precautions will be taken so that this facility, wherever situated, will be of the most technologically advanced type with a laboratory on site to analyse the waste. This all contrasts with Maghtab.
The document published by the Works Division was prepared by a team of experts. It was drawn to help us understand what the government is proposing. The details of the project so far were not addressed. This document is for consultation. The details will be tackled as soon as the site for the landfill is known.
The architect whom Mr Mizzi may be referring to is a pro-active professional in public works who is not only versed in theory but also in practical work. Even though this architect was never involved in the design of the landfill he is the same architect who in 1997 was commissioned to prepare a report and proposals about the rehabilitation of Maghtab and other dumps in Malta and Gozo. This report was presented to Architect Charles Buhagiar, then Minister responsible for Public Works.
Unfortunately some are associating this project, which safeguards the health and the interests of the Maltese, with partisan interests. The Opposition has at least so far accepted that Malta should have an engineered landfill but is not offering any alternative about the ideal site for a landfill. Is it because it believes that its mission is just that of opposing everything, of creating doubts and of trying to instil fear?
Mr Zahra is communications co-ordinator at the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.