The heat is on

Resources Minister George Pullicino, who is fuelling the debate on the need to overhaul Malta's energy generation sector and protect vulnerable Malta from the predicted consequences of climate change, says there is no time to waste.

Your ministry has presented two strategies on two major issues - climate change and waste management. They were launched within a week of each other and reveal ambitious targets. Is this being done because we are running out of time with EU deadlines?

There are deadlines we need to reach by a certain date, which makes our life more difficult. I would have preferred it if this country started working on certain plans beforehand, but the dates are what they are today, and we have to respect the targets. One important thing we all have to understand is that there is a cost, not just for non-action but also for acting late. So if we manage to implement what we need to reach the targets on time, we will not only save our environment, but also save money. When we say the EU has pushed us, it means we have actually pushed ourselves because the discussion regarding the renewable energy package was not simply discussed with us. We were present for all the discussions within the European Commission so we were part of those who wanted to reach the targets within the deadlines.

The climate change strategy includes no less than 87 recommendations, ranging from rethinking the transport infrastructure, to changing the way the civil service works, to replacing the Marsa power station. What are the cost estimations to implement this strategy as presented?

The strategy was presented, but that does not mean there is no other work that needs to be done on the strategy itself. We have already started discussing this. First, out of these 87 recommendations, which ones need to be prioritised? Let's assume that 50 will have the biggest positive impact in terms of change, then we shouldn't be judged that we eventually only performed on 50 out of the 87. We should be judged on what we enacted. First we need to identify the priorities and then we need to calculate costs. There is a price tag for elements within the strategy, but not for all of it. For example, on energy generation, the strategy is saying that by 2018 we need to invest around €1.2 billion. So I would like to start this process with the committee, as well as with the Finance Ministry, to see what is actually needed to implement this. We also need a better administrative capacity to take the issues forward, and that comes at a cost.

In the report, it says, 'to date, national action has focused on mitigation' (the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change). Could you outline the national action referred to?

The mitigation is this report.

It says 'national action'.

National action on mitigation is Enemalta's plan to reduce CO2 from our energy generation. That is the biggest element on which we have worked. In 2011, the new turbine at Delimara should be installed. In 2012, we will have the interconnection (gas pipeline) with Sicily, and the new turbines at Delimara start to be replaced - so at this point we need to have closed down the Marsa Power Station (2015) and then switch to natural gas. Natural gas can take different forms - the decision on which kind of gas to use has not been taken yet. There, Enemalta needs to do some work. This is the scenario mapped out. To achieve 20 per cent (reduction of emissions) to the amounts we had in 1990, we need to implement all these actions.

The most recent figures released by the National Statistics Office in June 2008 show that Malta's contribution to climate change, as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, has increased by 45 per cent since 1990. This is obviously not the direction we should be going in. Realistically, how do you plan to succeed in reversing this trend?

The energy industry is more than 60 per cent of our total volume of emissions. So if we manage to get it right there... but that doesn't mean it's enough on its own. When we speak about targets, it's not just 20 per cent less emissions compared to 1990 levels. We also need to achieve 10 per cent of our energy from renewable sources and we need to stick to not more than five per cent in transport, agriculture and waste. Our predictions show that carbon emissions from energy generation will keep on increasing. They will only start decreasing after 2011, when we get the new turbine installed at Delimara. Our country still needs energy to develop, but we need to reduce the volume of emissions from energy generation. Most people think their energy use must be cut for us to achieve our targets, but this is not the case. It requires a change in the plants, as well as the type of fuel we will use in these plants for energy generation.

Enemalta itself admits in the Generation Plan that because the Marsa power station is so old, it is contributing to a higher energy bill and environmental burden. It was said that this power station will shut down by next year, but its lifeline now stretches to 2015. Why are we waiting till the last minute?

There's a lot of work to be done in terms of infrastructure to meet the 2015 deadline. And there is also a cost. At the moment, the Marsa power station is only kicking in when the one at Delimara is not sufficiently supplying the island. But because there is a delay in the implementation of things, the Marsa power station will shut down in 2015. There are planning processes that need to be followed, but we need to get the changes to our energy sector done on time to meet our targets. Based on the emissions trading scheme, if we go over our CO2 quota by as little as 0.05 per cent, we could pay as much as €45 million. On the other hand, if we save enough emissions to be able to sell that same amount, it will be an income for us. What is different is the fine we would incur if we went over.

The climate change strategy admits 'an urgent need for adaptation action'. As an island, Malta is very vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. What action is prioritised in the strategy to deal with this impact?

Definitely the issue of flood relief. A technical team at the University drew up a report in 2004 (The First Communication of Malta to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), and now they are completing the second report with updated data. The 2004 report speaks of the impact of climate change and predicts, among other things, that autumn will be very dry, that we will have our precipitation mostly concentrated in winter, and that we will have more flash floods. There are other impacts listed, but we need to deal with flood relief. And there are other issues tied to that - we need to have more reservoirs and we need to lessen the demand for water.

One of the main consequences for the region is in fact a reduction in the availability of fresh water. There are several measures that can be taken now, like catchment of rain water, storage, stopping water theft... all things we have been hearing about for some time. Yet, bowsers can still be seen taking water illegally in broad daylight. In 2006 (latest available data) more groundwater was stolen than the total amount of water produced from reverse osmosis plants in the same year. Why can't water theft be curbed?

Yes we can. And we will.

How? When?

We started last year by making a moratorium on water extraction. And I think we have shown very clearly that we took action on those cases that were reported, and there was enforcement.

How many persons were charged and fined?

Since January 2007, there were 22 closed cases of theft (cases where fines have been paid in full) and the average fine is €1,200. We will be taking further action. And we also need a plan for the different areas that consume underground water - the industrial, hotel and agricultural sectors. Of course, we need to understand that when we curtail, there is an economic and a social impact. So we need to look into when and how. And that's the reason why we said this is an important document, so let's go to Parliament and discuss it. Hopefully, there should be a consensus on this. And then, we can start adopting these measures.

If the direction has been understood and the measures required have been outlined, isn't it taking an unnecessarily long time to implement? This raises questions on whether promises made will actually be kept this time?

Let's understand where we were and where we are. Let's take the waste management scenario. In 2004, on entering the EU, we had decided that by May 1 of that year we would shut down Magħtab. Would anyone have thought that in 2008, the volume of separated waste would be triple the amount collected in 2007? We need to understand that when we speak about targets, these are not the government's targets but ours, and we all need to work to achieve them. If we want to decrease the amount of consumption, the average Tom, Dick and Harry have to understand what they are consuming so that they have to pay the real price. We did it. What amount of support did we get?

One of the main alternative energy projects listed in the climate change strategy is the offshore wind farm at Sikka l-Bajda, right opposite the largest conservation project funded by the EU and designated as a protected area by the government because of the seabird colonies breeding there. The committee that advised you on renewable energy also advised you to consider alternative sites. Are you?

Yes, of course. Sikka l-Bajda is only one of the sites. Yet, we only have one reef of Sikka l-Bajda's size. We now need to evaluate the impact.

Which are the other sites?

In the coming days we will be defining the sites we are considering. Each site needs to be studied for its environmental impact. Yet, there is no doubt that for each and every site we identify, a whole discussion will be sparked by each and every community close to that site saying 'not in my back yard'. This makes life more difficult because this island is so small and it has a high population density. We need to achieve our 10 per cent target for renewable energy through having wind farms, solar energy, and energy recovered from waste. All these need space for plants. What I hate about this country is that rather than going through a process, we try to kill the process at the very beginning. Either we win together to achieve the targets or we will all have to pay. It took us a full six years to get a permit for the Sant'Antnin plant.

In the second strategy related to waste management, it is stated that energy recovery from waste will provide five per cent of our energy requirements. One of the contributors is a proposed incinerator at Delimara, but waste-to-energy incinerators are proven to be inefficient producers of energy. On top of that, the incinerator will increase carbon emissions, and it is a known fact that recycling saves far more energy. Leaving aside the health and environmental concerns, how can an incinerator be considered as renewable energy?

We are not substituting recycling with incineration.

The strategy says that 5.7 per cent of our waste stream is being separated. It also states that the incinerator will take 20 per cent of our waste based on present estimations. So if our recycling rate increases, how is this going to affect the amount of waste that needs to be fed into the incinerator, which needs a constant waste stream based on the capacity it was designed for?

The strategy says that we need to shoot up the amount of separated waste that we collect. Whatever you do, you will still finish off with high calorific material which people dump with other waste, and because material in a mixed waste stream is contaminated, you will not be able to recycle it. That needs to be incinerated to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill. That does not mean there will be no effort from our side to reduce that volume.

But if we increase the amount of separated waste then we will decrease the amount of waste going to the incinerator. Since the incinerator needs a constant supply of waste, wouldn't it be a problem?

Just as with renewable energy, we also have targets for recycling. By 2013, when this facility will be set up, Malta needs to be recycling between 55 to 80 per cent of its waste or we will be paying penalties. The discussion is on the remaining 20 per cent. From an environmental and economic point of view, it makes no sense to recycle the remaining 20 per cent because you need to drive the process so hard it makes no sense - just incinerate it. Right now, the price of recycled material is down to almost zero. It is so nice to talk about recycling, but then what do you do with the recycled material? Most of our recycled (separated) material is being shipped abroad to be thermally treated (incinerated) in China.