Government is going ahead with the controversial plans to replace Għadira road with one that runs through the back of the nature reserve and will be presenting three proposals to the planning authority.
An announcement was made by Transport Minister Austin Gatt on the matter yesterday in a news conference in which an environmental consultant said that the existing road is acting as a barrier to the replenishment of the sand on the beach, sustaining the government's fundamental argument for this controversial project.
Dr Gatt said he would present three options to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and let the authority decide which was the most suitable after a full environmental impact assessment was carried out on each of them.
He also said that if the EIAs proved that the project was unsustainable, the government would back off and withdraw the plans.
The first option is a new 15-metre-wide road passing the Danish village (an area that is already disturbed) and over a bridge resting on three pylons connecting the road to the existing green caravan site.
The second option would have the new road developed over an existing one, a few metres inland and then over the bridge to connect the road to the caravan site.
The third option, submitted in 2004, is a tunnel that would link existing roads to the road of the caravan site.
Dr Gatt insisted that the government's plans to rebuild the road as part of the EU's Trans-European Transport Network (Ten T) includes safeguarding and regenerating Għadira bay, which is slowly being eroded.
That claim, he had admitted in the past weeks, is not backed by any scientific studies. But yesterday, environmental consultant Adrian Mallia was brought in to put his weight behind it.
Mr Mallia, whose company Adi Consultants carried out a strategic environmental assessment of Għadira bay in 2004, said that the existing road was acting as a barrier to sand movements towards the sea and from the sea towards the dunes.
"The problem at Ghadira bay is that there are two sources of loss of sand. Due to the barrier effect of the road, material from land is being blocked by the road and sand being blown to the sand dunes is also ending up on the road and then swept away. From a scientific point of view, it would be better if the road were not there. Studies have to be carried out but, from the indications available so far, it would be better if the road is removed," he said.
When contacted about this, BirdLife Malta executive director Tolga Temuge insisted that the report carried out by Adi Consultants is not a scientific survey on sand dune erosion.
He stressed that his organisation was not objecting to improving the ecological and tourism value of Għadira bay but the government had to prove scientifically that there was a problem. "We need a proper scientific survey if there is a problem and only the scientists can tell us this," he said.
The conservation group said last week that removing the existing road could itself have a negative ecological effect. Without the road, BirdLife said, the beach could retreat and ruin the protected habitat behind it, including the Għadira nature reserve, the only such natural sanctuary in Malta.
Its main charge has been that the new road at the back would cut through a Natura 2000 site, which it also manages. It had even accused the government of "scaremongering" when it tried to prove the need for a new road by claiming that the beach would eventually disappear.
Dr Gatt insisted yesterday that the cards have been on the table for years and that BirdLife even mentioned the road in a report drawn up in 2007.
He stressed the need to have a decision on the matter and explained that the January 2009 deadline was mentioned by the government as the date by which it wanted to set the ball rolling.