If the part of the new university which the government says is to be built in Marsascala lies in Żonqor Point, then it is clear the government is set to have its way and that it is simply not true that it has taken the message of the growing environmental lobby to protect virgin land.
Speaking, most ironically, at a consultation meeting called “Government that listens”, the Prime Minister announced what he called a new plan for the university that is better than the first as only one part of the project is to be built in Marsascala and the other elsewhere in the south.
It will only be better than the first if it is not built outside the development zone at Żonqor. The Prime Minister keeps hammering the point that the south has to benefit from the project, apparently disregarding the wider, national perspective. He said the rise in environmental awareness had shaken his government and remarked that it was not right for the whole country to be available for construction. However, he quickly added, he had to keep in mind the country’s interest.
He is making it sound as if those who insist on the protection of the national environment do not have the national interest at heart.
This would be a huge misrepresentation of their stand. The Prime Minister said he would ensure that building in outside development zone areas would always be the last resort but there were times when it might be necessary.
This is well recognised but the government is not giving a good example of its intentions. There does not seem to be a national interest for a new university to be built on virgin land, or, for that matter, to be located in the south.
The government has not said if the Jordanian investors have specifically asked for land at Żonqor. However, even if they did, the government could have easily persuaded them to choose somewhere else if they really wanted to have a university in Malta.
As in so many other instances, the government has not been transparent enough over this issue, a matter that contrasts sharply with what it had promised when it sought the people’s mandate in 2013.
In the light of the erratic way the government is so often acting, it is no wonder that NGOs are showing increasing concern over how the government is looking at environmental protection.
Din l-Art Ħelwa, standing at the forefront of the national environmental consciousness for the past 50 years, was right when it said that the two new clauses in the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development had rendered any improvements made to the protection of outside development zones purely cosmetic.
One clause states that where no other feasible alternatives exist in the urban area, development may be permitted in outside development zones. Projects of a sustainable nature will be permitted in ODZ “as a last resort where it is essential for the achievement of sustainable development”.
Calling on the government to strike off the two clauses, Din l-Art Ħelwa said that including them in the law will be fatal for the countryside, rural areas and coast.
It remarked: “The wording introduces uncertainty, can be applied very broadly to many development schemes and thus creates loopholes that can be utilised to bring development into protected areas. They render null any improvements that have been incorporated into the final SPED draft”.
The issue today is: should we keep destroying the environment or start taking real care of the little virgin land that has remained?