In its recent call for private reclamation projects, the Government made no attempt to make any distinction between landfill reclamation to extend promenades and docks and the creation of artificial islands.
Overseas sites being mentioned as examples for Malta to aspire to, such as Holland, Dubai, Hong Kong and Miami, were all built on drained marshland or shallow lagoons that do not pose the problems of Malta’s deep water sites.
In spite of these more viable conditions, these projects have encountered serious problems with Dubai suspending the building programme of two out of three projects due to the economic crisis and subsidence.
The problem of stability has led the Hong Kong experts to report: “Man-made land or islands that are reclaimed from the sea are suitable for building airports, harbours and industrial parks for material transportation because of their broad air and land spaces. However, the reclaimed foundation settlement process is of public concern, including the continuous impact of ocean processes on its stability.”
In Malta, landfill reclamation has been used at Sliema, Msida, Marsa and Marsascala, however such reclamation is hugely expensive, so a private company is unlikely to undertake such a costly project just to extend a promenade or build industrial warehousing. Therefore, the likeliest option would be speculative residential projects.
The launch of this land reclamation programme has coincided with the release of NSO statistics confirming that, from 2005 to 2011, the number of vacant properties in Malta has risen by 36 per cent to a total of 72,150.
This means that 30 per cent of taxpayer funding to provide and maintain services of water, electricity, drains, roads and even policing is being wasted due to the number of empty properties that are equivalent to nine times the size of Birkirkara.
How can the Government encourage projects that would add to the present glut and reduce the chances of sale of existing properties? The government is giving a carte blanche to private companies to propose any type of project “as long as the project does not harm the environment”. It is incomprehensible that after the exhaustive 2008 Scott Wilson study commissioned by Mepa, which forecast serious environmental damage to protected marine life as well as financial non-viability, the Government is still considering such a proposal.
This government is undervaluing Malta’s beauty and true identity
Malta has never yet carried out a coastline building project without harming the environment. Even minor works to a slipway produced a plume of silt while projects like Portomaso and Ċirkewwa created murky seas and deposits that continue to affect the seabed years later.
Are we to imperil our thriving diving tourism, fisheries and ecology for more development projects? Effectively, most of the northern coast from St Julian’s to Gozo is protected as a Natura 2000 site. So are we now to inflict more damage to the south of the island, which is already blighted by industrial sites like the Freeport that cause sea and noise pollution? How can such projects ‘improve the quality of life’, as has been claimed, other than the quality of life of speculators? Is this an electoral promise made by a party but paid for by the public?
Malta prides itself on its low rate of unemployment and, in fact, construction sites are employing an increasing number of foreign workers because fewer Maltese workers are attracted to heavy manual labour.
So why is this government pinning so much on mega projects such as land reclamation or a bridge to Gozo, which studies have already shown to be unsuitable for Malta?
It would be far more intelligent to focus on the reuse of eyesores like derelict hotel sites as well as restoration projects, all of which would generate employment and genuinely improve Malta’s competitiveness as a tourist and relocation destination.
While it is laudable that the Government has stressed that all project have to be economically, socially and environmentally viable, how independent will this assessment of viability be? Furthermore, it is of grave concern that the authorities are ready to consider projects that “might not fully comply with EU directives” and did not mention the EU obligation to carry out a strategic environment assessment for projects that will permanently change Malta’s ecology and land mass.
Successive governments have allowed Malta’s beautiful landscapes to be ruined by development. Are we now to lose our precious seascapes too, just to please speculators? This government is undervaluing Malta’s beauty and true identity. Short-term gain by aping countries like Dubai will only result in long-term loss of our uniqueness as a ‘gem in the Mediterranean’.
Astrid Vella is coordinator of Flimkien għal-Ambjent Aħjar.