Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat yesterday called for a national conference on the role of local councils in waste management.

Speaking during the discussion in Parliament on the national waste management strategy, he said local councils could play a more proactive role in waste management to act as catalysts to a wider process. He suggested that not only the local councils but also other stakeholders and the general public should be invited to attend.

Mr Brincat said that, on the publication of the government draft strategy, Labour had met most leading environmental NGOs, business organisations and individual specialists in waste management issues.

The opposition did not insist on a parliamentary vote in yesterday's discussion to send a signal that, although its appraisal would be analytical, possibly critical, but also objective, it does not want to hinder the way forward of a strategy since it was better to have a flawed strategy than no strategy at all.

However, on its part the government seemed more interested to find out who the PL met rather than the conclusions reached. Given the bad experiences people like a senior Central Bank official went through when giving a purely technical second opinion without any breach of ethics, Labour and all those met insisted on strict confidentiality to avoid any possible harassment.

Mr Brincat said that it was a majority view that, while the NGOs had a direct input in the formulation of 2001 waste strategy under former minister Francis Zammit Dimech, this time round they were virtually presented with a near fait accompli, so much so that the final version hardly differed from the original draft. The 2005 audit carried out by the government on the basis of 2001 waste strategy identified targets reached or not, but did not analyse the causes that led to such achievements or failures.

The final report did not take any account of developments from 2004 to date, in spite of a six-year learning curve within the EU as a member state.

"Both our statistics and those of the EU show that Malta remains a laggard in waste sector," he said, adding that in some cases data was not up to date while in others it has not even been submitted.

Malta did not even feature on the radar of the European Environment Agency's waste management latest fact sheets for 2009. Although the latest State of the Environment Report was meant to cover up to 2008 in the waste sector, it only covered the period between 2004 and 2006.

Mr Brincat said Malta was still miles away from reaching the landfills directive where the amount of bio-degradable municipal waste that ends in landfills should have been reduced by the end of next month by some 75 per cent.

According to Mepa figures, between 2004 and 2008, waste increased in volume three times over. On the other hand, recycled waste represented only seven per cent of municipal waste. Although according to EU norms waste should have increased by some 25 per cent on the basis of 2005, Mepa was predicting an "alarming increase of 60 per cent" by 2020 - a proof that Malta's waste management strategy has been neither sensible nor sustainable.

Apart from risking facing EU fines there can be a tendency for more household waste to be incinerated.

Malta was also behind in waste packaging where, till last year, some 50 per cent of it should have been recovered and 45 per cent of it recycled. The opposition was seeking information on what was happening to the authorised schemes licensed by Mepa for 2010.

The Director for the Environment had stated in court that only one company was licensed because another one was struck off after having failed during the execution of a pilot project. However, the government was not only allowing it to operate without a licence, apart from allowing it to offer services officially to local councils and industrial operators, an MHRA letter stated that Resources Minister George Pullicino had reassured its members that the licence would soon be reissued anew.

Although recycling of construction waste increased five-fold in recent years, only four per cent ended up in the waste stream. It was totally unacceptable that the government was waiving stiff penalties on developers. In a particular instance, 75 per cent of a massive fine was waived. In Australia, major developers are asked to pay up front approximate amounts based on guesstimates of waste disposal fees to avoid any irregularities and slippages in payments.

Although the government boasts of a 31 per cent increase in environmental management, most of it goes on waste management in spite of poor results achieved. The government strategy on green jobs was still hazy and stakeholders were never taken on board to formulate it.

The government's major failure was that, apart from showing lack of commitment on recycling, recovery and disposal, hardly any emphasis had been placed on waste prevention and waste reduction.

The government had not even kept its promise to review the 2001 strategy annually up to 2005 and biannually ever since. There was not any strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of what worked and or went wrong with the 2001 strategy.

While Minister Pullicino had drafted and launched a consultation document on strategy, it was now being owned by the Office of the Prime Minister and people were told it would be merely implemented by the Resource Ministry.

The 2001 waste strategy had made a proposal that the opposition came up with in the recent Mepa reform debate but which the government did not accept: that there should be a separate environment protection agency or authority.

Environmental education should be extended way beyond the work done by Eko Skola to reach out to the adult sectors.

The opposition was proposing that the polluter pays principle also should apply to government that should, in turn, be obliged to launch compensatory environmental projects to make good for any environmental damage caused by the government or any of its entities.

Mr Brincat said operators in the waste sector should be held personally responsible for any shortcomings that could threaten public health or resources.

The eco-contribution was merely serving as a financing vehicle for WasteServ, an organisation that contrary to its declared intent of shedding some of its activities, is eager to extend its influence and outreach even more. As things stood WasteServ was almost totally dependent on state financing. The opposition has long called for a discussion on WasteServ in the House Public Accounts Committee, particularly in the light of major shortcomings highlighted by the Audit Office in terms of thousands of euro of direct orders in 2008 without justification, breaches of financial regulations and consultancy arrangements reached without any supporting documentary evidence.

The opposition was not against the Sant' Antnin Recycling Plant but against the devious site selection process and implementation. Last February Minister Pullicino told Parliament that by May this year the plant would be treating a third of all waste generated. According to Finance Minister Tonio Fenech by March 2010 only half of the EU cohesion funds allocation had been secured.

Despite the positive effect of bring-in sites and the domestic separation of waste, the total contribution was very modest.

Turning to Magħtab, Mr Brincat said that expert opinion has it that the methane generated was too little to generate electricity. One has to ensure that no dioxins were created. According to many experts Magħtab still needed some serious addressing.

Iż-Żwejra had almost grown as big as Magħtab itself and was encroaching on the coastline.

The opposition had called for a serious update on the hazardous waste landfill. What was holding up finalisation of the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) process which had dragged on for years?

Labour also called for a transparent account of funding of Magħtab to ensure most efficient cost benefit and value for money derived.

The opposition took a prudent stand on the landfill fees issue as it felt a culture change was needed but felt the government should have reached an earlier agreement with stakeholders through proper consultation.

Mr Brincat said that the only shift in the incineration policy was that, while the government had hinted that it was urgent and immediate, it now seemed to be postponing it till 2015, possibly for electoral considerations.

What was evident was that the government had been committed even before the publication of the draft waste strategy to locate an incinerator at Delimara which would be some eight times the size of the Marsa incinerator.

Apart from socio-economic and health considerations, in incineration one had to look also at the commercial and financial aspects since this was a heavily capital intensive project which was in itself very waste hungry. It would be in the operator's best interest to use it to its maximum to ensure quickest return on capital employed.

Mr Brincat paid tribute to the late Julian Manduca for his strong stand against incineration in the past.

The opposition did not exclude that certain technical studies submitted on incineration were made by people interested in selling their own technology. The taxpayer could be penalised heavily if the government gave private operators generous tariffs and fees to operate the plant.

Concluding, Mr Brincat said that the general feeling was that very little of substance had changed between the draft and the final report and that the implementation tended to take a course of its own in Malta irrespective of any amount of planning.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.