Why do we need a policy on environment if we already have a sustainable development strategy approved and endorsed by Parliament? Is this just another delaying tactic to put off taking real action on water, waste, biodiversity, air quality, coastal areas and other issues?
These were among questions voiced at a public consultation held last week by the Tourism and Sustainable Development Unit within the Office of the Prime Minister.
This is the first phase in formulating the national environment policy, to be followed by testing different options before formulating a final draft. At each stage there will be opportunities for participation.
The National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) risked being another paper tiger without a clear and co-ordinated policy. Reviewing and monitoring the performance of the NSSD will be an ongoing task for the unit.
Dealing with Malta’s environmental problems requires a way forward that calls for an integrated approach in which responsibilities are clearly assigned. Protecting health, natural resources, national identity, and pleasant surroundings are different aspects of Malta’s quality of life being taken into account in the new policy approach.
Opening the discussion, Tourism Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said tourism must respect the environment, and warned that economic figures were no excuse. In a reference to noise, he suggested going beyond the requirements of the EU directive “to truly solve this national problem”.
Policy co-ordinator Marguerite Camilleri pointed out that Malta has many national commitments and obligations. An integrated policy would give direction and promote networking that would help improve implementation.
There is an urgent need to define priority actions in relation to different policies on water, waste, air, biodiversity, climate and land use. Communicating more widely would lead to a policy that gives direction to the public and private sector. More involvement is expected from producer organisations and non-governmental organisations.
Matthew Quinn, director of the Welsh Department of Environment and Sustainability, explained how Wales had grappled with setting up an environment policy when Wales already had a strategy for sustainable development.
“It was clear that the three pillars of sustainable development (environment, social and economic) needed to be equal and give clarity to objectives. Environment is a complex issue; it takes a long time to see change – so persistency and a clear direction is very important.”
The Irish experience was covered by Matthew Crowe, who was instrumental in setting up the enforcement arm of Ireland’s environment protection agency. Illegal dumping is a sore spot in Ireland where, despite plenty of rain and catchment areas, water management is becoming a huge challenge. Integrating mainstream environmental considerations into other sectors such as transport, agriculture, and energy is part and parcel of the policy presented by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Set up in 2004, Ireland’s enforcement network spreads across 50 organisations with a focus on specific problem areas.
A tax on landfill waste and plastic bags raises €60 million annually for waste prevention and recycling programmes, research and enforcement. The police and customs department are involved in roadblocks that check for illegal transport of waste. “It’s all about networking between organisations to deliver better implementation,” explained Crowe.
It is not easy to give environment centre stage, especially when times are tough economically. “It is the job of the environmental administration to keep it on the agenda.”
Carmel Cacopardo pointed out that environmental taxation was proposed as part of the NSSD in 2008. In response to disillusionment over lack of implementation, it was explained that the new policy envisages both short and long-term targets.
Labour environment spokesman Leo Brincat urged that the implementation process should be well underway before the next election so that the electorate could judge its performance.
A series of workshops held later in the day helped to pinpoint some rather large stumbling blocks. A separate workshop was held to identify new issues, such as radiation.
Disappointment arose around the workshop on waste and resources, in which an environmental consultant rued the dumping of good quality stone in the name of quarry rehabilitation.
Programmes to minimise waste are hardly visible. Earlier in the day, Dr de Marco himself had condemned the mentality of demolishing buildings to develop a site instead of opting for regeneration.
A consultant sitting in on the workshops revealed that policies tested under the Strategic Environmental Assessment directive frequently fail or perform very weakly because they lack targets or are unclear over how they will be implemented. He also identified the need to link air quality more closely to land use planning.
Participants who had tried to report air pollution to the authorities were often met with confusion and ended up going round in circles. They perceived a passing of the buck from Malta Resources Authority down to local councils, the police and wardens, with little or no results.
The message from an employee within the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) to the policymakers came across firmly: “Assign who is responsible – be very clear.” It is also a question of enough funds and manpower, which are frequently denied the agencies whose brief it is to regulate and enforce.
The nuisance caused by dust emitted from quarries still operating on police permits issued in the 1960s had driven Mepa to start a new permit process to bring them in line. Less visible particles – emitted mostly by road vehicles and which behave like gases – are a real danger.
Despite celebrating the year of biodiversity taxpayers’ money is still being used to plant alien species in public areas.
Enforcement becomes problematic when cases end up in court. As one Mepa officer put it, “magistrates and judges are not sufficiently sensitive to environmental issues”.
Gathering data in a single place where all departments can access it, and empowering local councils to apply spot fines, would help to put the policy on its feet.
There is a distinct air of impatience on the part of the public about further discussions on the environment. After listening to years of talk, people want action.
“We want to put environment on the agenda of each and every ministry,” head of unit Marie Louise Mangion said.
It may take some time and unfortunately we will not see the effects immediately. But it will be a good start.