Hazardous cargo, excessive smoke and other stories

For some time now the need has been felt for reliable data on what type of sea traffic is passing within or close to our waters and what materials are being transported. The figure for vessels which entered Maltese ports for servicing or to load/unload cargo last year was 6,728.

An estimate by the Malta Maritime Authority puts the amount of hazardous cargo passing through Maltese waters and ports on large container ships at roughly 20 per cent of the total load.

In the past year 900,000 metric tonnes of oil were transferred at bunkering points involving 2,000 vessels around the Maltese Islands. The MMA is very much aware that it would take just one major incident to result in "catastrophic impacts on the Maltese environment and the economy".

Ship-generated waste and cargo residues containing hazardous waste need to be notified and classified. Last year Malta, as an accession country, embarked on an EU-funded twinning project with France to set up a notification and reporting system for ships, regardless of flag, which are carrying dangerous or polluting goods bound for, or leaving, Maltese ports.

The project is also aimed at improving port and marina reception facilities, and enhancing enforcement procedures for pollution prevention within Maltese waters.

Adequate port reception facilities are essential to reduce the chances of ships dumping their waste at sea and polluting coastlines. Are the waste facilities in Maltese ports adequate for receiving all types of waste entering our harbours?

A European directive has launched a legal notice on port reception facilities for onboard waste and cargo residues this year. The law allows for fixed or mobile units to receive waste.

Barges transporting oily waste and trucks which have been provided by private companies in Malta must now be duly authorised although "the whole system could be better co-ordinated".

Now that regulations are in place a survey, carried out as part of the twinning project, also urges that waste management plans should be produced by the port and various terminal operators.

Waste reception facilities at marinas are "acceptable" according to the maritime authority, which also notes "room for improvement".

An upgrade should include more self-regulation on the part of the yachting community and the general public to make use of the facilities wisely and keep down expenses for marina operators or "the costs would finally have to be met by boat owners themselves".

Malta is in a perfect location to administer a central vessel traffic monitoring system for the Mediterranean should funds become available. A project along these lines has been submitted within recommended Trans-European Network guidelines.

From Malta it would be possible to log movements of dangerous and polluting materials, and link up with SafeSeaNet.

VRT in Malta and Europe

In a letter to The Times last month a reader asked:

"Do people know that as of 2002 the Vehicle Road Worthiness Test (VRT) also includes exhaust emissions? So, why do we continue to see vehicles emitting clouds of black exhaust on a daily basis, with obvious harm to our health and to that of our children?

"Why are EU regulations concerning vehicle emissions and air quality not being enforced? Should excessive exhaust not be an offence for local wardens? How many such fines have been issued? Can someone please explain or is no one ever responsible for anything in this country?"

Malta has a particular problem because of its high rate of old bangers (12% compared to 1% in UK). Even though legislation beyond what is called for in Europe has been put in place, the regulations are not always properly implemented.

In most EU countries old vehicles represent an insignificant percentage of the total vehicle fleet due to high maintenance costs. In Malta however nearly a third of all licenced vehicles are more than 10 years old. This breaks down as 36 per cent of all lorries and 70 per cent of all buses and coaches on the roads today.

Phase 2 of the roadworthiness test, involving the obligatory testing of exhaust emissions, did indeed enter into force in January 2002. A spokesman for the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Environment insists that exhaust testing procedures are fully compliant with Directive 96/96/EC.

In the first 10 months following the entry into force of the testing for exhaust emissions 78,000 vehicles were tested. The number which failed to meet the required emission standards for petrol or diesel engines seems low at 1,400. There appear to be a number of reasons for this:

The European directive exempts vehicles with diesel engines which were manufactured before 1979 from the use of VRT equipment for exhaust emission testing. This was done because the pre-'79 fleet was insignificant in number and it was found too costly to clean them up.

Malta took measures to get around the directive by introducing a further regulation, over and above EU law, calling for a visual inspection of the emissions to deal with the smokey old cars, trucks and buses. Technically, a vehicle which fails to pass a visual inspection by the VRT station operator can be failed on the VRT, although with a mean truck driver looking on this has not turned out to be a very common practice.

On a more positive note, the replacement of old, heavy, high-pollution vehicles with new low-emission Euro2 and Euro3 vehicles is being encouraged. In the public transport sector over a hundred old buses have been replaced with the help of government co-financing at Lm32,000 per bus.

In the road haulage sector Malta became a member of the European Conference of Ministers for Transport, an organisation that allows freight market access to 43 European countries for haulers using low-emission lorries.

Second hand vehicles being imported into Malta are also required to undergo a full VRT, including testing of exhaust emissions, before being registered and licensed in Malta. Registration tax on electric vehicles was brought down to zero per cent to encourage the purchase and use of low emission vehicles.

Despite all the efforts, the ministry admits: "It is true that a number of cars are seen each day on our roads evidently emitting black or white smoke from their exhaust tailpipes." Since the introduction of the second phase of the VRT the transport authority (ADT) has been examining the possible causes of these excessive emissions.

The ADT has found four main causes. Either the car has never undergone a VRT emissions test as the testing of Class I vehicles is only carried out every two years. Or the car has passed its VRT but has been poorly maintained in the interim period between tests.

It is possible that testing is not being carried out correctly, especially where the visual inspection on older vehicles is subject to the tester's judgment. Finally, it is the owners who sometimes cheat by adjusting the engine fuel system and the air induction system (usually just after a VRT) in order to improve the performance of the vehicle.

In the past year the ADT, in conjunction with other government bodies, has introduced a number of measures to combat the problem: Spot checks on VRT stations to ensure full compliance with regulations, ADT enforcement officers report excessive smoke from tailpipes and order retesting of vehicles at VRT stations or inspection at the Technical Department of the ADT, proposed new legislation for the roadside roadworthiness testing of vehicles and a Certificate of Conformity with emission standards on new cars to be introduced.

Wardens have been known to book a number of vehicles for "alteration (tinted glass) without the necessary permit" or "lights other than those prescribed". Engines "causing undue noise (ineffective silencer)" occasionally attract a warden's attention.

Yet despite the numerous examples fouling our streets the number of wardens booking vehicles with exhaust pipes emitting excessive smoke are relatively few.

Golf curse

The Mepa Planning Directorate report on the golf course was savaged by the applicant two days before Thursday's hearing. Developer Anglu Xuereb claimed the environment impact assessment showed that the advantages of a golf course at Verdala would outweigh the disadvantages.

He failed to mention that the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, where the EIA was sent for reviewing, had strongly questioned how this conclusion had been reached.

According to the directorate this conclusion was subsequently dropped in the second draft of the environment impact statement.

Conversation with an environment officer

On the afternoon of July 28 a reporter from The Times rang Mepa's emergency numbers for Malta and Gozo. There was no reply.

A behind-the-scenes scramble resulted in a colour advertisement in the days that followed, heralding mobile phone numbers for the emergency phone-in service which suddenly claimed a live service for 17 hours out of 24. (During the early hours callers can leave a recorded message.)

On August 20, after calling the emergency number for illegal developments, I filed a report by e-mail as instructed. The next day my phone rang:

"Did you file a report with Mepa about an illegal construction in a valley?"

"Yes, it appears to be a trapper's hut."

"Ehh... difficult."

"Why?"

"If it's a temporary structure..."

"Why should that make it difficult?"

"Do you know the owner?"

"No."

"Ehh that makes it very difficult then."

"What difference does it make?"

"What if he has a licence to trap - how can we do anything?"

"This one surely does not have a licence to trap in the valley - it is against the law. To make things worse, they closed off a public footpath with a makeshift wire fence to discourage people from disturbing the trappers."

"No, probably the government closed it."