I can understand why the call to reopen access to Manoel Island resonates with so many. The islet is a microcosm of the country – its history mirroring that of Malta. First it was occupied by foreign powers and now a corporate takeover of public land.

But those who have walked over Manoel Island, swam from its rocky terraces or fished from the foreshore know that it’s a tiny green oasis offering some respite from the concrete jungle which has become the rest of Malta.

There is a very strong case for this green lung to be declared a national park for the public. So the MIDI consortium has been given a concession for a third of the area. This shouldn’t preclude an agreement being reached for the State to claim it back for the people. It’s not as if government hasn’t been good to MIDI over the years.

Chances are that if the public could buy the same area at the same rates as afforded to the consortium, be similarly exempted from stamp duty, maybe have planning application fees waived and get a whopping €3.3 million discount from a tariff for dumping construction waste at sea, the public could afford to buy back the land.

So the MIDI consortium has been given a concession for a third of the area. This shouldn’t preclude an agreement being reached for the State to claim it back for the people

Unfortunately, it is never the public which gets preferential treatment to enjoy the best sites in the country at discounted rates. It is always the case of the private sector profiting at the expense of the public. Which is why the clamour for the conversion of Manoel Island to a public park is getting stronger. Make it a national park – the people deserve it.

■ As the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. That applies for laws too. Laws are only of any use if they are enforced in a timely and effective fashion. Otherwise they just serve as an opportunity for our politicians to spout hot air and trot out platitudes.

This holds especially true of the recently enacted Public Domain Act. Back in May, Environment Minister José Herrera waxed lyrical about the “revolutionary” legislation which was approved by both sides of the House. According to this law, the first 15 metres of the coastline, the country’s seabed and government-owned sites of historical and ecological importance are automatically classified as being within the public domain.

The State has a duty to preserve such properties and to ensure public access to them. They cannot be commercialised. NGOs and local councils can also apply for ecologically, historically or culturally significant sites to be classified as being public domain sites following a parliamentary resolution to this effect.

It’s a good law. We get environmental safeguards, public participation and protection of future generations in one legislative package. What’s not to like?

The way that the law has effectively been totally ignored is the problem. Within the first three months of its enactment, the Public Domain Act has been constantly ignored. The most glaring example of this is that of Manoel Island.

Here we have a concession granted to the MIDI private consortium for only 30 per cent of the total area of Manoel Island (as per information published on MIDI’s website) with the foreshore being specifically excluded from the contract. Adherence to the Public Domain Act and the terms of the contract should mean that the public should have access and use of the foreshore. There are no two ways about it. The foreshore is not reserved for MIDI, nor should access to it be denied.

Yet, the authorities look the other way or wring their hands about unsubstantiated claims of vandalism while the public domain law is being flouted. Fat lot of good that “revolutionary” law is having.

The effects of the Public Domain Act are being stultified in other ways. When NGOs make a request for sites to be given public domain status and protection, the Planning Authority has to carry out a public consultation exercise. This is no different to the other consultation exercises which the PA carries out – namely consisting in uploading the proposals online and accepting comments submitted. It’s not a big deal.

However, when the NGOS Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar and Friends of the Earth (Malta) submitted several applications, the Planning Authority sat on its hands and hasn’t bothered to start the public consultation exercise.

So the whole process is suspended indefinitely until the authority finds a gap in its busy permit-issuing activity to fulfill its obligations under the law.

Again – I am underwhelmed by the authorities’ enforcement of the law which Herrera described as “a legacy that both sides of the House bequeathed to the country”. Rather than any form of legacy, it’s another case of much sizzle and little sausage. And – as usual – the public loses out.

drcbonello@gmail.com

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.