The country's Waste Management Strategy is built on solid principles which, if well implemented, will guarantee sustainable waste management, the Church's Environment Commission has concluded.

Commission chairman Victor Axiak told a news conference yesterday that the commission wanted the strategy, which was based on principles that made sense, to be a point of reference and it would be a shame to allow such principles to be weakened.

Reports which did not take into consideration such principles, such as the impact assessment of the projected waste management plant at Sant'Antnin, the commission's opinion states, should be avoided.

Prof. Axiak said the commission had submitted its objections to this report to the relevant authorities and hoped they would be addressed in the next impact statement which was being drawn up as a result of the new application for a modified plant.

The commission hoped that the new statement would also consider alternative sites, since it did not believe these had been given due consideration in the first impact assessment.

The commission's objections include that the plan was not in conformity to the strategy's principles of sustainable development, community responsibility and the precautionary principle.

The choice of one site for all the necessary facilities to treat solid waste was not justified and a serious attempt was not made to find alternative sites.

The impact assessment also did not make a credible analysis of all the impacts the proposed project would have on the Marsascala community including the socio-economic ones, and those on water and air, ecology and transport.

Prof. Axiak said that one of the biggest challenges for sustainable development on the Maltese islands was the management of solid waste. This problem was the result of several factors including the high population density, the size of the Maltese islands and past choices made by the people and authorities.

For many years Malta produced solid waste without any control or responsibility towards the country's limited resources. It was now the time to settle accounts.

Towards the end of the 1990s and at the beginning of this century, the administrative and legislatives basis towards waste management started to be built. It was a good beginning leading to the drawing up of the strategy which the country had to follow.

WasteServ was set up to implement the strategy which was currently being revised and strengthened.

The most positive result of the strategy was undoubtedly the closure of the Maghtab and Qortin landfills. Following these developments the authorities showed commitment and allocated money and resources to implement the strategy, which, however, met with several obstacles and problems. Situations which required a different approach were also arising.

The strategy was based on four main principles - that of sustainable development, that of one's responsibility towards the waste created, the precautionary and the polluter pays principles.

The commission agreed with these basic principles and believed that the implementation of the strategy had to be measured against these parameters if one had to ensure that the right direction was being taken.

The closure of the rubbish dumps and the introduction of the eco-contribution were completely in line with these principles.

But the plan that Gozo's waste is sent to Malta should be revised. The implementation of sustainable principles, Prof. Axiak said, was crucial to ensure that decisions would not present just an economic advantage - they also had to be environmentally sensitive and socially fair.

The commission was pointing out, he said, that although the strategy mentioned a need for the people to fully participate in the decision making process, when it came to implementation, this principle seemed to be simply reduced to an information process.

At the same time, one appreciated the fact that WasteServ worked on several projects in schools, in the media and at homes, to inform the public on the importance of producing less waste and how some of it could be reused.

As the authority in charge of implementing the strategy, WasteServ had the duty to continuously consult the stakeholders who had a direct responsibility in this matter, including industry and voluntary organisations.

Prof. Axiak said the commission strongly deplored the lack of responsibility of those who did not care about the efforts the country was making to manage waste and illegally and abusively dumped their waste.

This was irresponsible behaviour which reflected the irresponsibility of these people who were not realising that others were suffering because of them and that they were also paying for the damage they were generating.

Everyone should carry the responsibility of such behaviour, especially those who had the responsibility to lead, administer and guide citizens, including the Church. This responsibility had, as of yet, not been shouldered well and as should be.

The commission pointed out that although a lot was being done to promote recycling, recovery and good disposal, a lot more could be done on reduction.

The eco contribution could be used to help in reduction. Its introduction on plastic bags, for example, could lead to a reduction in their use by 40 per cent in one year.

On construction and demolition waste, the commission said it was probable that the amount of C&D waste being created was increasing substantially.

It was also probable that the polluter pays principle was not being applied enough and the market prices for stone slabs did not reflect the real price the people had to pay in terms of the environmental damage caused.

The commission said that while it realised that there was a social need for decent homes at reasonable prices, there was little evidence that families were benefiting from this and it was the construction industry which was benefiting from the low cost of stone.

The commission deplored the blatant abuse in the exaggerated prices being asked for properties. The exaggerated profits being made were creating a lot of social problems, it said.

On waste separation, the commission said it could not see any valid reason as to why not all councils were implementing the bring in sites project.

It said that the strategy considered the use of waste for the generation of energy. The most direct way this could be done was through an incinerator. As long as the impact of this technology was not negative to health and the environment, this alternative made sense, especially when one considered that for a country the size of Malta it did not make sense to create more landfills.

Unfortunately, the country's experience of incinerators was one of inefficient ovens. The St Luke's incinerator, for instance, was an example of how an incinerator should not work.

So one would not be amazed if a proposal for the building of a central incinerator or more to burn domestic waste would be opposed by many.

It was difficult to convince the people to accept a modern incinerator which worked well because they had lost confidence in the accountability of the operators of such plants.

The Church's Environment Commission was set up within the pastoral secretariat of the archdiocese of Malta. It has already presented opinions on the golf course at Verdala, the landfills close to the Mnajdra temples and the development at Kalkara valley.

In reply to the commission's news conference, the Ministry for the Environment said it noted the commission's positive opinion on the country's waste management strategy.

Regarding the commission's opinion on the Sant' Antnin recycling plant in Marsascala, the ministry said it would have been preferable had the commission commented on the second environment statement that was published earlier this week, where the concerns mentioned in its report were addressed. This document has been sent to the local councils of Marsascala, Zejtun and Zabbar.