The two great environmental questions in the first half of June have been those relating to ODZ land use and to the sudden rash of high-rise building proposals, mostly in a narrow strip of coast between Tignè and St. George’s Bay.

The Nationalist Party has put forward a proposal for Parliament to have the final say on any projected use of ODZ land through a two-thirds majority vote. For no apparent reason, there would be two two-thirds majority votes and a final simple majority if the first two ‘fail’. This hardly seems a great advance as the government of the day will have its way in the end.

And then, should both sides of the House agree on some extravagant ODZ take-up like a motor racing track,this two-thirds majority business, allegedly approved by all e-NGOs will still leave us (the e-NGOs) with rotten egg on our faces.

On the other side, e-NGOs and civil society have been much exercised by the sudden mushrooming of high-rise plans, with individual components presented in isolation, and at least two approaching PA evaluation dates. A temporary suspension of such projects has been called for until a coordinated plan has been drawn up.

Government response in both areas held no surprises, coming in what has become the standard “format”. Against the proposed new ODZ ‘rules’, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat presented his solution, which appeared to be very different from the PN proposal: leave such decisions in the hands of the planners – a course of action the exact opposite of current Muscat practice. One need only look at the “American university” saga to see this.

On high-rise, Muscat made it quite clear that no one would be allowed to hinder such ‘prestigious’ projects; but he had anticipated NGO objections by engaging a nameless UK firm to help draw up a local plan for Paceville.

There is no indication how this is going to work: will the local plan tell the developers what they can develop or will the developers tell the ‘UK firm’ what local plan they want? Tourism Minister Edward Zammit-Lewis was not very clear about this.

There are points of contact between proponents and opponents as well as between the problems themselves. Taking people first: both sides, though not in equal measure, give the impression that we have all the time and space and resources to come up with ‘solutions’ to these problems. No really radical measures seem warranted.

Whether we can sustain present and near-future rates of expansion, be it horizontally or vertically does not seem to concern many people

The NGO speakers at a press conference, both of them architects, were understandably careful not to be taken as strongly against development.

Looking at the problems themselves: the letter ‘D for Development’ is much used on every side. Development cannot, should not be stopped; it just needs to be properly regulated in its close impacts – traffic, parking, shading – and in its wider and less visible but no less real impacts like air quality, health effects from traffic pollution, and demands on power, water and sewage infrastructure.

This regulation is to be achieved through formulation of a local plan, it is said, without much indication of how ‘local’ is local in such a small eco-system already under stress and already using up much ‘non-local’ eco-capital, e.g. the fuel to keep ourselves well-supplied with drinking water, and the land and sea needed to keep us and 1.7 million tourists well fed.

In the ODZ matter, ‘development’ also features prominently, though this has a ‘sustainability’ ring fence. No one says quite what that entails.

Still less how ‘sustainability’ is to be determined, indeed if over any (recent) span of time the sustainability index of development of our eco-system has ever been determined.

Where does that leave us in terms of sane decisions on land use in or out of the development zones? Practically nowhere.

Inside development zones, in the core high-rise area, post-2000 development has created very heavy demands on open spaces, driving and parking spaces, and on infrastructure for services. We are now proposing further massive doses, pushed along by brilliant intuitions like “As we cannot expand horizontally we must expand vertically” - which is like saying that as we now cannot afford increased waistlines we must all become taller and thinner, without much care whether our organism can stand the strain.

Whether we can sustain present and near-future rates of expansion, be it horizontally or vertically does not seem to concern many people and certainly not those in power.

There is another aspect. This “relaxed” attitude is dangerous enough set against a stable eco-system. But that is not there any longer. Climate change, with all its implications is with us. Predictions for our patch – should we want to worry about just that – are for less rainfall and higher summer temperatures, parameters that will further stress our already highly stressed eco-system.

Yet here we are loudly broadcasting our intention to have more of everything. We want more tourist arrivals; more top-end and high-rise accommodation; more cars, more roads to take more cars, more petrol stations to fuel more cars; more cruises starting and stopping here, with the required flock of flights to bring and return passengers, this just when beady eyes are beginning to focus on maritime and aircraft carbon emissions, hitherto untouched by the climate change people.

We need not ask for who the bell tolls. It is tolling for us and for Din l-Art Ħelwa.

Edward Mallia is honorary chairman of Friends of the Earth (Malta).

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.