Another survey has reconfirmed that corruption is the big issue for voters in this election. This also emerged at the University debate. The Chamber of Commerce has likewise emphasised good governance in their electoral policy proposals.
The economy is a staple feature of every election. But it is not always a game-changing buzzword. The economy was not a main PL battle-cry in 2013, as the PN have a pretty solid reputation there. If anything, it was the PL that needed to prove itself on this.
The PN had, in fact, started their 2013 campaign with the billboard “Labour won’t work”, evoking old memories of fiascos like the PL’s replacement of VAT with CET in the 1990s, or the rationing and economic flops of the 1980s. But in 2013, people were not especially concerned about the economy, which was doing fine. Younger generations cannot remember the 1980s and 90s anyway. Voters were more excited about lots of other things, and wanted a change.
One of the top catchwords was the environment, as it was already in 2008. The PN administration had upset people with excessive development, and then also frustrated some contractors by reining in on permits. In 2013 the PL seized the moment, declaring that the environment would be “truly a priority” (remember that billboard?).
So far in this election, the environment has been elusive. This is a missed opportunity. The environment is a huge concern. The PN has done some soul-searching with their IdeaAmbjent initiative, and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil recently presented some good environmental proposals and pledges for the future. I have mentioned this before and will not go into them here. I have not yet seen any PL document.
These last four years must also be assessed on their own merits, without flinching or diverting attention to pre-2013 controversies (of which there were plenty). The environment is a broad subject but most people are concerned about land use and over-development. So let’s focus on that here.
The wheels came off the PL green wagon straightaway after the election. Unsustainable development set in as the order of the day. The new government immediately increased hotel building heights and relaxed rules on illegalities. It reduced application fees, extended expired permits, and encouraged major land reclamation projects without any overall strategy.
The government then issued a new rural policy, widely seen as justifying more building outside the development zones (ODZ), while ignoring biodiversity, ground water, soil loss and other ecological concerns. It issued a high-rise policy, proposing to transform Malta into the Dubai of the Mediterranean. Faced with this onslaught of construction, in November 2013 an environmental protest was staged with crowds of annoyed people marching down Republic Street.
The government is asking us to consider its economic and social successes. But why should we now ignore its environmental failures?
Next was the replacement of the overall Structure Plan with a flimsy waste of paper called the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development. Meanwhile, the relaxation of hunting rules triggered a national referendum on spring hunting in April 2015.
The next major planning controversy was the allocation of a large tract of countryside at Żonqor in Marsascala for construction. This angered so many people that a second environmental protest was held in June 2015, the largest ever seen in Malta. Front Ħarsien ODZ was launched, some of whose founders morphed into the new Partit Demokratiku political party, now in coalition with the PN.
Mepa was split in 2016, with the environmental regulator weakened in planning matters. Its concerns are ignored regularly by the Planning Authority today. The Paceville master plan is an ongoing controversy, as are the permits for skyscrapers in Sliema and Mrieħel. There is more, but I’m running out of space. The water aquifer problem has still not been addressed. Traditional houses are being torn down everywhere. Traffic is the biggest cause of air pollution, but congestion is increasing. Most Natura 2000 sites are still unmanaged. These are all big issues, and solutions are not created overnight, but there has been little progress if any.
Weren’t there any positive things on the land-use front? Well, yes, but honestly, not many great innovations from an environmentalist standpoint. Two highlights were the Inwadar Park and the Public Domain Act, both already proposed years earlier.
The Prime Minister claims that his government had only one large ODZ project, the Żonqor university. This disingenuously ignores that the government’s 2014 rural policy has paved the way for a continual stream of smaller ODZ construction. The new policy could have put a stop to this, but it did not. Its cumulative impact on the dwindling countryside is serious. This damaging policy needs a major rethink.
I have followed the environmental scene for years. I have met saints and sinners there like anywhere else, and the construction industry will undoubtedly continue to pressure and compromise whoever climbs into the driving seat in June. It is a vital sector of the economy, but its practices, direction and energies need an overhaul for this country to have a sustainable future.
Sustainable development has three pillars – the economy, society and the environment. The government is asking us to consider its economic and social successes. But why should we now ignore its environmental failures? The environment matters too.
petracdingli@gmail.com