Proposals to build floating villages and reclaim land to create new green areas and beaches are a “populist” view of the environment that ignores “holistic biodiversity”, a leading environmentalist believes.
“These proposals are a populist view of the environment. Once you touch the seabed, you’re going to have an impact,” said Alan Deidun following plans announced by Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Farrugia on Wednesday.
Among the 21 proposals submitted by 17 local and foreign companies was to have floating villages. “It will be difficult for a thing like this to be completely independent of the seabed and there is always need for some form of anchoring,” said Dr Deidun, who is a marine biologist.
The anchoring or mooring would have to be on “a really massive scale”. Another option would be for the village to rest on pylons – like pillars on the seabed – which would have a negative impact of the marine environment. Dr Deidun said even if it were technically possible for the village to be “completely floating” the shade it would create would always have an impact. “If it’s water less than 50 metres deep it will have a massive shading impact and the seaweed – the posedonia – will be left without light.
“It would not have an impact if the village were built in offshore water, in a depth of 100 metres – because there is nothing that thrives in sunlight. “However out there, a floating village would interfere with migrating sea animals like turtles, dolphins.” He said that the restrictions for land reclamation in shallow waters were quite tight, with only two zones that were unprotected: Xagħjra and the area close to St George’s Bay.
If the villages were built further out at sea, then other conditions would have to be factored in: how would people get to the village? Would it be built in situ or brought as a finished product on site? “Are beaches and boutique hotels built on reclaimed land financially feasible if they are out at sea? Who will go to a boutique hotel if they are some 10km out to get to Mdina?
These need to be coastal – and the more coastal they are the bigger the impact,” he said. On the building of green areas on reclaimed land – another one of the listed proposed projects – Dr Deidun said: “Let’s not fool ourselves. These will obviously be part of something vaster – no private company will invest in a mere green area for the public and spend millions just to give the Maltese people a green area.”
He said that this would technically amount only to “a landscaped area”. It will be nice to look at but from the point of view of biodiversity it’s pointless. It’s like having a roundabout,” he said. Michael Falzon, president of the Malta Developers Association, said he had not seen the proposals so was not in a position to judge.
“If it’s economically feasible or not depends on the person who’s proposing them – that’s his job. I don’t think that there are 17 companies prepared to waste money just for the fun of it,” he said, adding that he hoped marketing studies were being carried out.