It is in the nature of political leaders to be concerned about their legacy. This is neither pure vanity, nor hubris, more a natural wish to leave the country with a worthwhile improvement to its social, economic and international standing in the world for the benefit of the people they serve.
A random examination of the legacy left by the last few generations of political leaders illustrates the point.
On the world stage, George W. Bush and Tony Blair will be remembered for their disastrous intervention in Iraq. Margaret Thatcher will be remembered for rescuing her nation from the economic morass into which it had sunk, Helmut Kohl for the reunification of his country.
Closer to home, Eddie Fenech Adami’s great legacy is Malta’s accession to the European Union. George Borg Olivier’s, the attainment of independence. Dom Mintoff’s lay in the huge social strides that were made for ordinary Maltese.
What about Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s? Although only two years into his premiership – and, he would like to think, perhaps another 10 ahead of him – what is likely to be his lasting legacy?
The failure of Malta Tagħna Lkoll, the introduction of citizenship for sale, the reckless approach to meritocracy, transparency and accountability, the shenanigans over Malta’s energy supply are essentially ephemeral political issues – part of the daily-changing tapestry of political life in Malta, here today, gone tomorrow.
Looking back in 20 or 30 years’ time, what substantive legacy will Muscat have left? Will it be built in marble through the introduction of improvements to the Constitution of Malta leading to a better governed country? Or will his legacy be marked by concrete, by architectural and cultural vandalism, the loss of Malta’s last vestiges of open countryside and further rapid degradation of the built and rural environment?
The history of Malta’s environmental and spatial planning over the last 50 years is a dismal story of greed, exploitation, abuse, misgovernance and political ineptitude.
Until 1992, Malta’s construction development was like something out of the Wild West, with government ministers (of whom Labour’s Lorry Sant was the most blatant example) treating land as though it were a personal fiefdom, there to distribute as political favours or, sometimes, even to line their own pockets. (Plus ça change, you might add).
And the succeeding 22 years since 1992 have been equally fraught environmentally, with the five-year period leading up to the election in 2008 being shockingly botched by the then Environment Minister, George Pullicino. Who can forget or forgive the increase in building heights or the totally unnecessary “rationalisation,” actually an expansion, of the building development zones in 2006?
Prime Minister, look around you and weep. This is the stark state of Malta’s urban and environmental heritage landscape your government has inherited
Today, the Prime Minister appears to be blind to Malta’s earlier abysmal history in planning. He is understandably determined to push ahead with further economic and social reforms which would generate stronger growth and wealth for the country. He seeks sustainability through a balance between social, economic and environmental objectives.
But the problem is that in seeking these desirable objectives he is not starting with a tabula rasa, a clean sheet, when it comes to Malta’s environment and land use. He has inherited a legacy of major earlier land abuse. He would be making a gross error to assume that Malta’s future spatial planning is simply to be a continuum of the construction development that has gone before.
Unless this government – with its fallacious talk of “Dubai and Singapore”, of land reclamation, encouragement of high-rise buildings and a “new rural policy” – acknowledges as its start-point the rampant over-development which has occurred in Malta over many decades, and seeks explicitly to reverse or to slow it down, it risks perpetuating the same faults and mistakes of the past, and making things worse. What price economic and social progress then?
Malta’s biodiversity and countryside continue to be threatened by land development and over-exploitation. Further limestone extraction is unsustainable. Freshwater resources are threatened by over-abstraction, pollution from nitrates, lack of rain-water harvesting and poor infrastructure. Malta’s architectural heritage and culture are under threat from demolition, ugly design and new and restored buildings which undermine street character. Above all, there is an over-supply of housing units, with a quarter of Malta’s housing stock lying empty.
The cultural landscape is threatened by the extent of the encroaching built-up area, industrial and coastal development, taller buildings and urban fringes that obstruct views of historic centres, increased road traffic, poor standards of design and workmanship and lack of maintenance.
Growth in car travel has led to the use of public land for more roads and parking, damaging streetscapes, affecting the cultural and natural heritage and creating a serious impact on health and quality of life. Our air pollution is one of the worst in Europe. The limited coastline has been abused, badly planned, gradually taken up by uses that do not require a coastal location, and pillaged with the connivance of both political parties.
Prime Minister, look around you and weep. This is the stark state of Malta’s urban and environmental heritage landscape your government has inherited.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the country is at a tipping point. We can either continue to eradicate the last remaining vestiges of “Old Malta” (for example, Mdina, Cottonera, Rabat, Valletta, Lija, Attard, Balzan), and extend the ugliness and ruination (of, for example, Buġibba, Qawra, Sliema, St Julian’s, Mellieħa and elsewhere) to the whole island. Or we can change course.
The Prime Minister can determine to make his legacy ending the last 50 years of over-development.
How? The remaining countryside must be tightly protected. The current over-supply of dwellings and industrial sites must be brought under control.
The rate of approval of development applications should be reduced by adhering to annual threshold figures for different types of construction, be they dwellings, hotels and so on, until a better balance between supply and demand is achieved.
The remaining unbuilt plots of land within the development zones must be allocated in a phased manner to slow down and stabilise development.
Plans for swathes of high-rise building zones should be dropped.
A hoarding tax should be introduced on any properties that remain empty for more than 12 months after completion. Buildings that are left uncompleted should attract a daily fine if they are in shell form for longer than a year after the start of construction. Also, a property tax should be introduced on second homes.
The paramount environmental challenge facing Malta in the 21st century is the need to control building development and the way we use and share this tiny land. The qualities of thrift and moderation must replace the laissez-faire attitude of the last 50 years. Sustainable development in Malta requires a seismic policy shift.
Planning is a balancing act. The core principle should be that it both protects and adds value to the environment. This does not mean stopping construction. But it does mean changing the focus to regeneration, renewal and beautification of what already exists and halting the plunder of the few open spaces that remain.
Is the Prime Minister’s legacy to be one of further degradation and worsening of Malta’s heritage landscape? Or is it to be one where he is remembered for bringing the construction juggernaut under control and saving the environment?