It is clear that Leo Brincat, the Minister for Sustainable Development, is confused about what sustainability means and seems to think that it is about “the economy, social order and environment in that order”. Yet, regarding the ‘three pillars’ of economy, society and environment, the UN’s 2010 ‘Background paper on sustainable development’ does not suggest that one is more important than the other.
On the contrary, what it does state is that: “Sustainable development embodies integration and understanding and acting on the complex interconnections that exist between the environment, economy, and society. This is not a balancing act or a playing of one issue off against the other but recognising the interdependent nature of these three pillars.”
In fact, the UN explicitly warns against an interpretation like Brincat’s where it says that “… sustainable development has… been hampered by development being defined primarily as economic growth”.
Malta’s new Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development contains a clause which states that in the case of projects of “national importance” the government may, “after balancing economic, social and environmental priorities… conclude that the positive aspects of these projects outweigh the negatives and decide in their favour”.
We have already heard Mepa’s Johann Buttigieg refer to projects of “national importance”; the American University has not (yet) been designated as such, he reassured us on Times Talk. We have heard no definition of this concept, however.
Who decides what is of national importance and on what grounds? Are the so-called “positive aspects” to be calculated solely in terms of GDP?
In fact, Mepa’s vague talk about “balancing” economic and environmental priorities and weighing up the “positive” and “negative” aspects of a project shows exactly that misunderstanding of sustainability, which the UN warned its member states against, as quoted above.
Sustainability, to repeat, is not to be construed in terms of gains and losses to the economy, environment and society. Rather, the point is to develop all these in tandem, to the mutual benefit of all three.
Not only do Brincat, Mepa and the relevant authorities seem to equate development with economic growth; they seem to, more or less, equate sustainability with that which is feasible. We can see this in their readiness to sacrifice the one for the other.
A communication from Parliament, for instance, claims that: “… the use of vacant land outside development zones is to be considered only when no other feasible alternatives exist…”
Government entities see our precious natural environment as mere empty spaces, waiting to be filled with more buildings
Mepa’s 2014 document on the selection of Żonqor for the AUM, similarly, describes almost half of the area as “bare land with rocky outcrop” despite the fact that, as it emerged in Parliament, there might be about 80 trees there. It also resulted that no experts were consulted and none of the various impact assessments required by EU law were conducted before Żonqor was proposed as a site for AUM. Could this be because such studies were not “feasible”?
We have been offered no official definitions of what is to be counted as unfeasible, perhaps because these are words we have only just started to hear.
In the Oxford Dictionary, feasible is defined as “possible and practical to do easily and conveniently.” Clearly, then this cannot have anything to do with sustainability – which, if understood in the UN sense, requires study, planning and commitment and is hardly the easiest or most convenient option. It is however the most fair.
Yet, our politicians, driven by this short-sighted view of ‘development’, apparently have decided that there is nothing at Żonqor worth preserving for our children.
This brings me to my final point about the conceptual misunderstandings that can be gleaned from these reports, one that shows the very essence of the institutional vision for development in Malta.
This is the description of undeveloped land as ‘bare’ or ‘vacant’.
These government entities see our precious natural environment as a mere empty space, waiting to be filled with more buildings. They do not bother to go and see for themselves what is actually there; they do not distinguish between different habitats and species and do not see the complex processes of nature and agricultural work taking place there. Did they speak to the farmers or the residents of Marsascala before deciding upon Żonqor to see how this decision would impact their lives?
All of this work, which would have truly determined the sustainability of such projects, was probably deemed ‘unfeasible’ in their view. Our authorities would rather take the quick and easy option of selling this land to a foreign construction company.
It is now up to each of us to decide whether we agree with this portrayal of Malta’s natural spaces and whether we buy into this vision of development as economic growth in the limited sense of construction or if we believe that, together with the other signatories to conventions on sustainability, Malta might envisage another sort of development.
The good news is that there is another way. It is up to us to determine whether we are prepared to give up our commitment to true sustainable development and replace it with mere considerations of ‘feasibility’ and whether to go along with or else oppose all further construction on ODZs.
Colette Sciberras is teacher of philosophy at Giovanni Curmi Higher Secondary.