A number of leading environmentalists have voiced scepticism about the recently-launched National Environment Policy, calling it “a theoretical wish list” that “lacks any concrete targets or accountability”.
The draft National Environment Policy, launched on Monday by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Environment Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco, covers the period 2011-2020. It spans a whole range of environmental issues including climate change to green jobs, noise pollution, urbanisation, resource conservation and eco-taxes.
The report envisages a country that will have “effectively addressed its main environmental concerns” by 2020 and which, by 2050, will have transformed itself into a “low-carbon, zero-waste society”.
Simone Mizzi, executive president of Din l-Art Ħelwa, pointed out that the policy needed to be “executed and coordinated by a strong authoritative and single body”. Otherwise, Mrs Mizzi said, it would become “just one of the many well presented policies that we already have which are not effective”.
Hydrologist Marco Cremona spoke of his frustration at the policy’s lack of concrete proposals. “It’s all very well and good having grand visions and long-term strategies,” he said, “but there have been innumerable policy documents. What Malta needs are action plans with measurable targets that individuals can be held accountable to.”
Speaking about the policy’s section on fresh water, Dr Cremona gave an example of what he hoped a National Environment Policy would contain. “It would be far more useful, for instance, if Dr de Marco pledged to reduce fresh water extraction rates by two per cent over the next two years. It might not sound all that grandiose a number but it is an achievable and measurable target.”
The draft NEP says it will ensure fresh water extraction “remains within the sustainable yield of the aquifer” but fails to define the “sustainable yield” or provide targets for limiting extraction. It suggests conservation measures, water-pricing policies, the use of alternative water sources and enforcement of already-existing regulations as means by which water extraction rates will be kept within sustainable limits. It does not elaborate.
Dr Cremona questioned the NEP’s assertion that there were about 5,000 registered green jobs. It was likely, he felt, that every Enemalta, Water Services Corporation and WasteServ employee had been lumped into the “green jobs” category. The NEP might well be adhering to EU-established criteria for defining green jobs, Dr Cremona said, but to categorise standard office jobs as “green” was outright misleading.
The report speaks of doubling the number of green jobs to 10,000 by 2015.
Astrid Vella, from Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, welcomed the NEP’s provisions with regard to air pollution, the safeguarding of coastal areas and the efficient use of water, stone and soil resources but felt that the proposals for the management of land resources lacked “the courageous measures Malta requires”.
It was perplexing, Ms Vella said, that the NEP was endorsing the taking over of more virgin land through rationalisation plans when there were 76,000 vacant properties in Malta and Gozo. The destruction of more virgin land would go on unchecked unless real clout was given to heritage authorities like the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, she said.
Virgin land, Ms Vella argued, would continue to be lost unless the NEP was accompanied by a revision of the 2006 local plans approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
The local plans set a framework upon which to base decisions on land use and development. Among other things, they set development zones, green areas and other protected areas within each locality. The plans, of which there are seven, were approved in 2006 and cover a 10-year period.
Environmentalist Alfred E. Baldacchino was especially alarmed by what he described as “fundamental misunderstandings” as to what the terms “environment” and “sustainable development” meant. The report did not define the terms and simply used them as “buzzwords”, Mr Baldacchino felt.
Dr de Marco’s introduction to the report betrayed a misunderstanding of what sustainable development actually meant, he said. In his foreword, Dr de Marco spoke of addressing environmental challenges “without involving unacceptable socio-economic impacts”. Such a comment, Mr Baldacchino argued, was nonsensical.
“Sustainable development, by its very own definition, does not involve negative socio-economic impacts. If it did, it would not be sustainable. Such comments serve to discredit the entire report.” he said.
Mr Baldacchino also took issue with the NEP’s specific section on Gozo. If this was a national policy, he asked, why was an entire section dedicated to Gozo? Singling out one region, he added, made no sense from an environmental point of view.
It is not all bad news, however. Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar welcomed the NEP’s proposals for the retrofitting and upgrading of existing historic urban areas and its recommendation that social housing policy be modified to support rental subsidies and the purchase of existing buildings rather than building on previously-undeveloped land.
Similarly, despite its concerns, Din l-Art Ħelwa called the NEP a “comprehensive document that highlights urgent needs in terms of improvement and enforcement of current legislation”.
One further concern regarded the political consensus – or lack thereof – on the NEP. The NEP needed to be a cross-party document, Mrs Mizzi said, if the public cooperation it required was to be forthcoming.
Dr Cremona spoke in similar terms, pointing out that a change in government would likely bring about changes to the NEP or its disregard altogether.
Dr de Marco had pre-empted criticism of the policy’s lack of concrete targets and deadlines at its launch, arguing that many of the action plans referred to in the NEP had already been drawn up and that it was now simply a matter of implementing them. The NEP, Dr de Marco said, was a holistic policy document: the nitty-gritty of individual environmental action plans would come later.
The policy document, which can be viewed and downloaded online, now enters a six-week consultation period.