The opposition's spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat has reiterated his call for the government to hold a national conference on the state of the environment.

Speaking during the debate on Mepa's The State of the Environment Report, Mr Brincat said that such a conference should be held now as well as in the future, every time such reports were published. This would ensure that their contents would not remain within the confines of Mepa and parliamentary dimension but instead take on board all stakeholders, because the environment belongs to all.

He said the debate was one of utter importance, as there was a clear necessity to assess the validity of such a report.

The environmental policy was a positive one but one needed to highlight that data compiled in the report tackling waste and biodiversity, among others, was irrelevant. He called for further studies and research in order to get a true picture of the current environmental situation in Malta. Suffice it to say that a local analyst had found incorrect information in 80 pages of the report. What was needed was a more sustainable modus operandi.

Mr Brincat welcomed the government's invitation to the opposition to be part of the process to improve on Malta's environmental policies. But more clarification and specific terms of reference needed to be provided by the government in order for the opposition to help in this process in a constructive way. Unless this was done, it would be merely a case of pie in the sky.

Comparing the tackling of the environmental policy to the recent Mepa Reform Bill process, Mr Brincat deplored the way the reform had been undertaken due to the lack of timeframes and the uncertainty with which sustainable development was to be maintained.

He warned that the opposition wanted to ensure that until this exercise was completed, there would not be a repetition of the atrocities that had taken place before, and were still taking place after, the Mepa reform.

It would be wise to review the present policies before embarking on new ones. Mr Brincat repeatedly harped on the fact that while such a strategy was desirable, it did not mean that legislation would not be implemented and enforced.

Malta needed an interim solution until further decisions were made. The government needed to fill in data gaps, provide a clear roadmap with identifiable recommendations from this report and work on providing clearer timeframes. Implementation and enforcement were two important weaknesses. There should also be stronger political will.

Malta's success in the financial services sector should serve as a model on which one should build in order to conform to the Environment Protection Act.

Mr Brincat reiterated that the debate should not be confined to Parliament but called for a national environment conference, where all stakeholders would be able to express themselves openly.

Despite more environmental awareness, environmental agencies were reporting an environmental deficit. Current factors affecting it, such as demographics and ineffective land use, were not allowing for sustainability. More effective monitoring was required.

He called for the use of eco-certification systems in tourism accommodation. It was crucial to have a more sustainable tourism linked with environmental awareness and intensive natural heritage training.

Mr Brincat expressed his concern in relation to the energy sector and said it was important to develop alternative energy. By the end of June, Malta was obliged to present a detailed report to the EU indicating its targets for the use of clean green energy. But Malta did not as yet have a plan in this regard.

He criticised the low-level use of solar energy, despite the fact that Malta was blessed with sunshine.

The transport reform was the key to all issues in the environment sector. Public transport needed to be reliable and efficient to such an extent that it would manage to bring about a culture change, thereby reducing the use of private vehicles. If this was not reached, Malta would not reach the non-ETS sector levels of the EU.

The government must grab the bull by the horns and address the issue of emissions, especially because the government had conceded that emissions could rise by more than 18 per cent by 2020 even if, according to regulations, Malta could not exceed the 2005 levels by more than five per cent. This would have a serious impact both on health and on Malta's public purse.

Mr Brinat also asked the government to provide Parliament with an update on the implementation of the rural strategy.

He quoted extensively from the report, indicating that the two main factors affecting air quality were the generation of electricity and traffic emissions. Particulate matter needed to be identified and quantified and Mepa must be capable of addressing it. Certain zones indicated high levels of particulate matters, such as Msida, with levels going well beyond those established as acceptable by EU standards.

While acknowledging that particulate matter was increased by sand from the Sahara desert, Mr Brincat emphasised the need to seriously address the problem of traffic emissions.

Depletion of the ozone layer was mainly due to foreign causes. But here again, together with the use of chemicals, traffic played a leading role. By the end of 2006 Malta had been meant to have stopped the use of HFCs. Although Malta had adhered to the EU nitrogen oxide limits, certain areas - notably Floriana, Gżira, San Ġwann and Fgura - had registered a strong increase in levels. This was partly caused by inadequate levels of ventilation, which Mr Brincat insisted must be improved.

Both the EU and the report itself called for the taking of further measures to ensure that Malta reached its targets. But the government had still to declare what these measures were and whether any additional ones were being implemented.

Mr Brincat emphasised that in addressing transport, the government also needed to address the level of sulphur dioxides being generated by the increase in sea traffic around Malta's shores.

He expressed concern that the there was insufficient sampling for lead and dangerous chemicals content, as the report also affirmed.

He did not see any reason for the opposition to meet Mepa on the black dust issue, as proposed by the Prime Minister in the Budget and as repeated by Dr de Marco during the debate. The opposition was prepared to cooperate once sampling and testing were carried out.

The report also confirmed that greenhouse gasses had increased by 50 per cent between 2000 and 2007. Mr Brincat questioned whether independent studies were being undertaken, if measures were designed to address this and whether targets were being reached. The committee for climate adaptation, which had been established a year after the climate change committee, had not as yet yielded results.

He asked the government to indicate how often this committee had met and when Parliament was to expect a report. He called on the government to establish measurable targets and obtain expert advice on adaptation of climate change. To correctly address climate change the committee itself needed experts on the economy, tourism and agriculture, among other sectors, but these were lacking. Although this lack of experts on the committee might be for reasons of efficiency, at least they should be available for consultation.

Considering that Dr de Marco's portfolio now included climate change, environment and tourism, Mr Brincat augured that this would bring about a change in attitude towards the environment by the Malta Tourism Authority, which in the past had not always been considered to be on board on the issue.

The rest of Mr Brincat's speech will be carried tomorrow.