King Priam’s dilemma

The draft National Environment Policy document issued by the government is a much-needed initiative that touches on the multi-faceted aspect of raising environmental awareness. It also sets policies and regulations through various measures with the aim of improving the quality of life of the Maltese and also to make Malta increasingly attractive as a tourist destination.

There should be zero tolerance to neighbourhood noise after 11 p.m...- Joseph Farrugia

It is understandable that there might be conflicting interests on some aspects of environmental policy and the government will have to weigh different perspectives to maximise the common good. One major consideration has to be public health and the policy has to include concrete measures to safeguard basic citizen rights and their well-being.

The authorities and the media have been flooded with complaints asking for clear regulations and strict enforcement of laws to address the issue of what is being termed as “neighbourhood noise”. For thousands of families around Malta, neighbourhood noise – arising from various sources such as entertainment outlets during the night, machinery left running all day in residential areas and others – is the worst form of pollution that they suffer from and the one that has the most adverse effect on their lifestyle and health. It is therefore surprising that the document should only include vague references to the subject and makes no mention to tangible measures to eliminate the brazen abuse of residents’ rights in many parts of Malta.

In his article (September 2) following my contribution on the subject – When The Authorities Hear No Evil, September 1), Tourism, Culture and Environment Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco admits that the law is fraught with loopholes that provide abusers with ample room to navigate round regulations with impunity. He states: “We must acknowledge that, at present, responsibilities for regulating noise are spread across a myriad of regulatory entities.” In the same article he adds that “the institutional and legal framework for dealing with neighbourhood noise is consequently rather complex and, unfortunately, not as effective as it should be”.

I am undecided whether this situation is the result of fragmentation of responsibilities or whether it is conveniently designed this way to accommodate the interests of those who stand to gain financially from other people’s suffering. I am also not convinced that the existing legislative framework does not provide for noise control and that the real issue is unwillingness to enforce rather than the legal infrastructure. Whatever the case, what many people are expecting is that the consultation period will pave the way for regulations that are clear to all and enforceable.

In this respect, the document and recent pronouncements made by the parliamentary secretary do little to put my mind at rest. Dr de Marco wrote in The Malta Independent on Sunday (October 2) that the aim of legislation on neighbourhood noise is “to have an effective noise system grounded in clear and objective noise standards and thresholds and an efficient regulatory and enforcement system”.

The National Environment Policy document briefly touches on neighbourhood noise – almost as an afterthought – by mentioning legal consolidation and the introduction of “objective noise standards”. While legal consolidation should be fully supported and, hopefully, address the prevailing sorry state of affairs, I find the introduction of objective noise standards rather suspicious.

Why doesn’t the document declare in simple terms that households will not be exposed to any neighbourhood noise after 11 p.m.? Are we going to have to put up with situations where we will still have to bear with the thumping emanating from entertainment outlets at 3 a.m. if these fall within the so-called “objective noise standards”?

Who is going to decide on those standards anyway? How are they going to be measured and enforced? Will the onus of proving that an establishment is operating within or without the standards fall on the citizen, the authorities or the business establishment? If the police tell you at 3 a.m.: “Sorry, sir, but according to our measurement the noise falls within the objective standards but as the wind happens to be blowing your way today it sounds louder in your area than it actually is! Have a good night, sir”, what do you do?

To be honest, I am uncertain whether this document is really what it claims to be or whether it is a Trojan horse intended to legitimise the abuses occurring across Malta and Gozo, and open up further loopholes for the perpetrators to evade justice, leaving citizens even worse off than they are today. The concept of “objective noise standards” can only be acceptable if it applies to certain times of the day. There should be zero tolerance to neighbourhood noise after 11 p.m. as people have a right to sleep. The document falls short of providing such fundamental assurances.

The policy recommendations would have been more credible if they provided clear answers to the following basic questions:

Will residents be given guarantees that owners of outlets – dance clubs, wedding halls, hotels, licensed and unlicensed farmhouses – will be prosecuted if they cause a disturbance after 11 p.m.?

Will outlets and event organisers be given a licence to operate after 11 p.m. only subject to complete soundproofing?

Will the operators of machinery in residential areas (construction, containers, generators etc) be obliged to turn them off after normal working hours and weekends?

Will sound levels be monitored during the day (Objective noise standards? Yes, good idea!) to minimise inconvenience to households?

Will the law protect people from noisy neighbours (like do-it-yourself construction projects during weekends that go on for months; private parties in rented properties)?

Will residential neighbourhoods be protected from unruly revellers during all times of the day?

Will action be taken against owners of vehicles with mobile discos?

Will justice be immediate and free from bureaucracy with stiff penalties that are sufficient to deter repeated abuse (wardens – for once – we love you!)?

These simple yes and no questions require answers if the National Environment Policy is to have any relevance to the man in the street. The issue of noise pollution cannot be understated and merits more than a passing mention in the policy document. I know persons who were bullied and beaten until they had to sell their house at a loss because they dared to lodge complaints about neighbourhood noise. In other civilised countries, there is not even the need to ask such questions because the answers are known and respected by all and the citizen is protected.

The control of neighbourhood noise is important for industry as well. For example, how can we possibly market Gozo to tourists as a quiet place when many farmhouses are being rented to groups who go there with unruly behaviour in mind and disrupt the public peace till the early hours of the morning? How many productive days are being lost due to people not turning up for work because of sleep deprivation?

In spite of these misgivings, I believe that all is not lost. The document is still open for public consultation and there is still time and the opportunity to get the authorities to draw up appropriate policies with regulations that bite. If this does not materialise, we will be burdened with a set of pseudo policies that are only there to mask a status quo.

In a democracy, the citizen is king, and, as in Troy, the king in this case is presented with a gift. The coming weeks will be decisive in ascertaining whether this wooden horse will be burnt together with all the bad intentions and academic jargon concealed within it or whether it will be worthy of display as an equestrian monument that proudly stands on its hind legs to defend citizens’ rights. Let us hope for the latter.