Why golf course application should be rejected

I write as a member of the University Chaplaincy Media Team to affirm our stand against the proposed Rabat golf course and to explain why we and the Malta Jesuit Province believe this project would be illegal and unjust. This in the light of recent renewed media interest in the issue and also of the new Prime Minister's declaration that he will place the environment at the top of his government's agenda.

In a sense, the prolonged uncertainty about the fate of this application is worrying in itself. We are here talking about an application made by a developer to create a golf course on land to which he has no shadow of a claim and which has for generations been leased to 90 or more farming families, being the basis of their whole way of life.

If approved, this project would effectively destroy this way of life, regardless of the vigorous objections of the vast majority of these farming families as well as their rights as tenants. The fact that this application has not been speedily rejected is an indictment of our planning system and institutions. It is a disservice to the farmers and even to the developer, who surely deserves to be told at some stage that his application will be rejected so that he can direct his energies more profitably elsewhere.

However our objections are not solely based on these general considerations, but more specifically on the 1991 Church/State Agreement, which has been incorporated into the laws of Malta and which regulates the purposes for which the Government may use the property transferred to it from the Church.

The operative provision is Article 2 (1): "The Government shall use the property transferred to it by virtue of the Present Agreement to promote the safeguarding of the environment and the development of agriculture and (my underlining) to meet the country's most pressing social requirements, such as social housing and public utilities, as well as for humanitarian, educational and cultural purposes..."

Most of the property falling within the planned golf course is subject to this agreement and its text should therefore be analysed in detail. The first thing to note here is the emphasis on the safeguarding of the environment and the development of agriculture.

Not only are these the foremost requirements imposed, but it is also clear that they must always be respected, even when, for instance, Government intends to use the property to provide social housing. This is because these criteria are stated as cumulative and not alternative.

Safeguarding the environment implies the essentially conservative aim of preserving the environment in its current state. By what twisted logic can it be argued that the substitution of indigenous flora on the fairways by an alien species of grass will "safeguard the environment"? Seashore Paspalum, the grass species which will be introduced, is highly invasive and, if not contained within the golf course perimeter, could have extremely damaging consequences for the island's bio-diversity.

In fact, the EIA recommends that the risk of such an invasion be countered by biannual inspection of all ecologically sensitive areas and sand dunes as far away as Buskett, Girgenti and Ghadira, and the removal of the alien grass by hand! And how could replacing cultivated fields by the golf course green "develop agriculture"?

The same article of the agreement goes on to say that the property must also be used to meet the nation's most pressing social requirements, some of which are then listed. While this list is not exhaustive, it remains clear that certain uses can never be authorised under this agreement. Thus partisan political uses are specifically prohibited, as is any transfer of property to: "persons or entities whose nature, aims and activities are not in conformity with the moral teachings of the Church" [Article 2 (2)].

Since the list of pressing social requirements refers exclusively to social, public, humanitarian, educational and cultural uses, all of which would employ the property for the public benefit, it is therefore obvious that a private golf course must also be considered as a use of the property which can never be authorised under the agreement.

This is because a private development of this sort, being exclusive, profit-oriented and socially divisive, necessarily prevents the general public from using and enjoying the property. Consequently the Rabat golf course proposal should never be approved as it is in clear violation of the terms of the Church/State Agreement.

The developer, Angelo Xuereb, has reacted to our stand by questioning our "incomprehensible presumption" in "giving judgment" on "environmental, urban and rural matters" and by claiming that such arguments should not be allowed to stand in the way of a project which benefits Maltese society as a whole (The Malta Independent, April 29, 2001). In his own words: "Does the fact that it is a privately promoted rather than State-run project make it any less worthy?"

Malta's "urgent social requirements" must be understood to include the golf course, since such a project would generate tourist income which would "give a positive contribution to the country's economy" (ibid.)

We disagree. In defending the Church/State Agreement we are not only asking the Government to respect the binding international treaty, now also part of Maltese law, to which it agreed. We are also demanding the observance of those moral commitments which the Church, in its concern for social justice and the common good, desired to impose on future users of the property it voluntarily transferred to the state of Malta.

We are defending the principle that land which was given to the Church to use for charitable purposes should continue to be used for the purposes for which it was donated and not given to a few individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Moreover the agreement does not authorise any use of this land which would be financially profitable, otherwise why should it list the permitted uses? Nor does it state that the Government may use the property in any way which is "worthy", but that it shall use it in a way which promotes the safeguarding of the environment and the development of agriculture and meets the nation's most pressing social requirements.

The inescapable conclusion is that the government must use the property in ways which directly and in themselves promote all these specified aims. We therefore reject the reasoning that the common good can be indirectly promoted through tactics which in themselves are unjust and unlawful (i.e. eviction of the farmers and violation of the Church/State Agreement). The end does not justify the means.

Besides being illegal and unjust, we do not even believe that this project would indirectly benefit Maltese society. On the contrary, we are convinced that it would cause great harm to the Maltese social fabric. There are many reasons for this, ranging from the obliteration of precious recreational space for hikers and family outings, the damage that would be caused to the integrity of the traditional agrarian landscape surrounding our old capital city and the possible threat to Mdina's foundations which the Museums Department has warned of and which it seems has still not been assessed by the authorities. In this contribution I will focus on the detrimental impacts on our water supply.

Mr Xuereb claims that the golf course would require 77,000 cubic metres of water every year. This figure may well be underestimated. Indeed, the EIA itself states that 134,000 m3 would be required if Triploid Bermuda grass were to be used instead of Seashore Paspalum.

Even, however, if we stick to the initial figure, it is clear that the golf course would use up a massive amount of water. We are told that much of this water would be made available by the government from the public water supplies and that the developer will also be constructing a reservoir to collect run-off rainwater from the golf course greens. Each of these proposed water sources is socially problematic.

As regards the water the government would make available, this issue merits close scrutiny in a country which has few natural water resources and where over half of much-needed fresh water is produced from sea-water by expensive processes of desalination.

It appears that the Water Services Corporation has already agreed to make this water available to the developer The water to be diverted towards the golf course would be taken from two boreholes currently being used by the WSC to extract water from the Mean Sea Level Aquifer (the lower water table) for the public water supply.

Where there is a shortfall, other water which is currently being used for agricultural purposes as it is not considered fit for human consumption would also be diverted from various public springs, boreholes and pumping stations which extract water from the upper aquifer and are located in places such as Dingli and Bingemma.

Diverting all this water to the Rabat golf course will inevitably restrict the supply of public water available to all Maltese and deprive farmers in places such as Dingli and Mgarr of the water they need to cultivate their crops. Mr Xuereb simply denies that this will happen, saying: "The WSC would not have agreed in principle to sell us any supply of water if this was required for other uses" (TMI, April 29, 2001).

This is, however, an act of faith we cannot make as it stands to reason that these farmers would suffer as a result of the diversion of the water they are currently using towards the golf course.

Moreover, it is clear that such a massive diversion of public water would reduce the overall supply available to consumers, possibly inflating the cost of the water supplied by the corporation and leading to an increase in water rates that all of us will have to bear.

The negative social impact of such a diversion appears even greater as we are reliably informed that the water produced by the Dingli pumping station could be treated and used for human consumption for a fraction of the cost of producing fresh water through seawater desalination, potentially reducing the price of the water bills we pay.

The other proposed water source is also problematic. The proposed reservoir to collect run-off rainwater will not be large enough to collect all the run-off rainwater which will flow from the site of the golf course.

Since the golf course will almost certainly have been treated with pesticides and fertilisers, these potentially toxic chemicals will be present in the uncollected run-off water and will contaminate the water table. In this respect, the warnings of the Malta Resources Authority submitted to the MEPA are a matter for acute concern.

It follows that as far as its impact on water supply is concerned; the Rabat golf course would have a negative effect on the common good and would actively frustrate the achievement of the objectives of the Church/State Agreement.

Instead of promoting the development of agriculture, this golf course would take water away from farmers throughout the north-west region of Malta. Instead of promoting the development of the country's public utilities, it will exacerbate the problems we face due to over-exploitation of our underground water sources, reduce the amount of water available for the public water supply and promote an increase in the cost of water.

And if it is true that this private project would not be economically viable were the government not to make the water available for free or at the heavily subsidised agricultural rates of 18c per cubic metre, instead of the commercial tariff of Lm1.10 per cubic metre, then it is clear that Maltese society as a whole will have to shoulder the burden of paying for this private development which will be enjoyed by an elite few.

Mr Xuereb is wont to challenge the right of people to oppose his golf course project on the grounds that they lack the necessary expertise given that he has commissioned hundreds of pages of technical reports.

Apart from being an inherently undemocratic argument which aims to restrict debate to a privileged few, we believe that it is also flawed as it totally ignores the moral principles codified in the Church-State Agreement. It is to defend these principles that we have taken our stand.

David E. Zammit, LL.D., Ph.D. (Dunelm), is a University lecturer and member of the University Chaplaincy Media Team.