Two weeks ago, The Today Public Policy Institute (of which I am a member) published a comprehensive report setting out the urgent need for Malta to confront its imminent water crisis.
Malta is among the world’s most water-stressed countries. Its groundwater reserves are being depleted. They are severely affected by both nitrate pollution and increasing salinity – consequences of largely unregulated human activities.
For 35 years, Malta has been increasingly dependent on energy-intensive desalination. However, groundwater still contributes most of the water used in the country, especially by water-thirsty agriculture during the dry seasons. Inadequately regulated private groundwater extraction has exacerbated the situation.
Of even greater concern, Malta relies heavily on importation of agricultural produce and other commodities whose production requires significant water use. This import of ‘virtual water’ – foreign water consumed elsewhere for Malta’s ultimate benefit – constitutes around 10 times the total amount of water consumed from domestic sources. This makes Malta very vulnerable to water crises in other parts of the world, over which it has absolutely no control.
The main driving force for Malta to address these problems, especially the depletion of the aquifers, has been its obligations under the EU Water Framework Directive. But mitigation efforts have been patchy and have not changed the rate of groundwater depletion. This is in part because Malta has not had a comprehensive integrated water policy and plan.
The Maltese population is largely ignorant of the water problem and its dimensions. Even within government, there is a dearth of reliable data relating to the water situation. This was recognised before the last election by the three political parties when they pledged to produce a National Water Plan.
Shortly after the election, the Malta Water Association (MWA), a reputable, highly informed NGO, presented a document to the new Labour government on how to develop a sound policy framework through systematic analysis.
It also stressed that the development of a Water Plan required national consensus and agreement among the political parties to de-politicise the debate and achieve the necessary action.
Signs of action by the government since then have been notable by their absence. The plan appears to have fallen between the cracks in government, some-where between agriculture, resources, environment and energy.
An under-resourced Water Unit within the Ministry for Energy and Health has been tasked with developing a National Water Plan, but the terms of reference for this plan, its funding and the timeframes for its development have not been published.
In the development of its National Water Policy, the previous Nationalist administration relied largely on stake-holder consultations, and presented facts and data containing considerable inherent uncertainties.
An oil spill could render our desalination plants useless with untold consequences for our drinking water, our tourism and industry
Consultations, in the absence of a sound policy framework, led to stasis. It inevitably produced a plan dictated largely by vested interests and electioneering imperatives, without the analytical framework to allow policymakers to select from clearly defined options based on measurable economic and social outcomes.
The result was a one-off initiative and a multi-million Euro project – the Flood Relief Project – unrelated to an overall strategic plan or even a sound understanding of the overall economic context.
The think-tank’s report, ‘Why Malta’s National Water Plan Requires an Analytical Policy Framework’ (www.tppi.org.mt), argues passionately and convincingly for the development of a comprehensive water policy analysis, followed by a proper Framework and Plan. Objective policy analysis produces a detailed picture of the aspects planners need to consider, based on reliable facts and minimised risks and uncertainties.
These include the real value of water and its economic contribution as a justification for future public expenditure. The choices, costs and benefits of various options for enhancing water supply. Establishing the essential sectoral linkages, especially between water management and the agricultural sector. The social, environmental and income factors. The legal and regulatory framework. The demand for water and its elasticity. And financial issues, including tariffs, revenues and the levels of justified subsidies to water users.
Policy analysis needs to be done in phases, with the most urgent issues considered first so that action can be taken accordingly. Pilot projects provide a sound basis for generating much of the data needed. They help test feasibility, modality, affordability and economic and social impact.
Overridingly, in the Maltese context, reverse osmosis needs to be considered a fall-back, rather than the leading edge of water management. The highest priority must be given to the rehabilitation and conservation of the water aquifers, which will require extensive analysis of the rate and causes of deterioration, and an integrated and fully costed strategy to achieve measurable goals. Following this, a feasible and affordable set of actions to win public support needs to be put in place.
Because agriculture is the major user of Malta’s groundwater, a Water Policy Framework and Plan requires the same comprehensive level of analysis of the agricultural sector itself so that farmers’ water use can be properly understood in terms of economic and income contribution, efficiencies, market com-petitiveness, and social value. Only then can long-term commitments be made about water usage in this sector.
The creation and management of a long-term Water Plan requires a level of analysis and information generation for which the government does not currently possess the capacity. Malta needs to follow the practice of other European countries in which objective analysis is carried out by independent policy institutes, based perhaps in the University.
Successive Maltese governments have turned their faces against confronting the impending water crisis. It would appear that the difficult political challenges of dealing with the farmers, commercial interests and their constituents have led successive ministers to prefer to believe in magic and miracles to solve the problem.
But as several places are now discovering – for example, Brazil, Australia and California – magic and miracles do not provide hard solutions to water scarcity.
Last year the luxury tourism destination of the Maldives faced a disaster when the only water purification plant serving its densely populated capital was devastated by fire. Chaos broke out as Maldivians attacked shops to get bottled water and other countries rushed to send supplies by sea and air. Local authorities declared a disaster situation.
Comparison between the Maldives and the Maltese is not far-fetched. The most likely disaster to befall Malta is a major oil spill in the seas around us, which are a major route for oil tankers. An oil spill could render our desalination plants useless with untold consequences for our drinking water, our tourism and industry.
We may prefer to live as if the crisis isn’t happening, but the fact is that while the biggest perceived threat to the environment has been property development and the loss of countryside, we have failed to focus on the polluting effects of agriculture and its huge impact on water resources as a result of the extraction of groundwater.
We might secretly be afraid of the impending disaster if the mean sea level aquifer becomes contaminated or disaster strikes our desalination plants, but it seems we are also confident that a divine miracle will somehow spare us the worst consequences. The reality is that only a catastrophe will force politicians to recognise the gravity of the situation and to tackle it objectively – by which time it may be too late.