The long and winding road to Sant'Antnin (2)

January 2005: During a meeting organised by the Marsascala local council, a member of the socialist group within the European Parliament, Joseph Muscat, threatened to freeze the €16 million of European funding. What is meant to be an information meeting becomes a rough and messy affair. During this meeting, the council also very conveniently failed to discuss the recommendations of reports it had commissioned - with public funds - to Alfred Vella and Joe Doublet - to assess the EIA. At the same meeting, when I challenged George Vella to comment on his recommendation to use Sant'Antnin to treat all of Malta's waste as reported in The Times of August 1998, he bellowed that The Times is a "bicca gazzetta" (a newspaper not worth the paper it is written on) and conveniently disassociates himself from his 1998 recommendation.

June 2005: The government took on board the very valid contributions of Prof. Vella and Dr Doublet. The proposal is improved to include an enclosure of the whole facility, a state-of-the-art technology to treat odours, as well as a reduction in the amount of gas stored on site.

September 2005: After the Ombudsman is dragged into the equation, he found no irregularities in the process despite the allegations. During this time, the Church Environment Commission is also dragged into the issue and, despite my reassurances, it raised serious concerns that the facility was destined to treat all of Malta's waste; Mepa organised a public hearing that yielded little understanding on the proposal. The public hearing acted as a forum of political emotion. Subsequently, the Mepa board approved the outline application. The objectors lodged an appeal right away. During a meeting with the objectors' representatives at this same time, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed the stance taken by my government a year before, stating that the Malta Labour Party (MLP) believed that "this Sant'Antnin plant can be upgraded but its throughput should not be increased". It took the Leader of the Opposition 12 months to realise that he is in agreement with this government's recommendation on Sant'Antnin!

October 2006: WasteServ issued a request for proposals for its EU-funded projects. These tenders dealt with the development of a mechanical treatment facility; the development of an anaerobic digestion plant; and the development of a material recovery facility. The mechanical and anaerobic plants will treat the 35,000 tonnes of organic waste whereas the material recovery facility will treat the 36,000 tonnes of dry recyclables.

January 2006: The MLP issued its policy document for the environment and stated that the short-lived Labour government had shown diligence by introducing an alternative method of composting waste at Sant'Antnin to reduce the impact on residents. Accordingly, Labour believes a facility upgrade is not necessary despite its earlier recommendations to have Sant'Antnin treat all of Malta's waste and despite Dr Sant's statement that he has no objection to having the plant upgraded.

March 2006: The non-governmental organisation Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar places an advertisement encouraging signatories to "Stand Up And Be Counted". In this advertisement, among other issues, the NGO insisted with the government to invest in a better waste management infrastructure.

December 2006: Mepa issued a full development permit for the facility upgrade. Despite the 19 pages of permit conditions, the uproar continued and the European Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, is dragged into the scene, not once but twice. The full development permit discussion was yet again marred by controversy. Despite its earlier plea, a representative from the NGO Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar publicly and vociferously opposed the upgrade on the opinion that the government is "bulldozing ahead" with the proposal.

January 2007: Contracts for the upgrading of the Sant'Antnin facility to meet European Union standards and obligations were signed with the preferred bidders.

February 2007: The objectors file an objection with the Mepa auditor and an appeal against the full development permit. The objectors also visit the European Parliament to object to MEPs. Two MEPs (out of a total of 130) attended the meeting. One of the outstanding arguments that the representatives of the objectors have is that the size of the site requested in the Project Description Statement is misleading despite the detailed map included in appendix B of the same document. This site plan highlights the full extent and size of the site. How can an alternative site assessment go so wrong when the proposed development will treat 71,000 tonnes per year, that is, 12,000 tonnes of waste less than what the facility is permitted to handle today?

Mr Pullicino is Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment.