Social Solidarity Minister Michael Falzon’s recent outburst in Parliament, which managed to pool together, in the same kettle of fish, social housing projects and snails (bebbux), raised more than one eyebrow.
The minister attributes, in fact, the constraints and caveats the government faces in identifying amenable sites for social housing projects to the fact that siting such projects in particular areas would bristle members of the public who would cry foul as some “snail” would be obviated.
Ensuing on such a train of thought, Dr Falzon opined that the government is essentially facing a Hobson’s choice... either resort to high-rise or else spill construction into areas presumably hosting the “snails”.
Such a line of reasoning probably takes the biscuit for the most dismissive one when it comes to all areas outside development boundaries. To boot, Dr Falzon had been entrusted with a different portfolio within the previous public administration, a portfolio which encompassed the Planning Authority as well.
As a result, it stands to reason that he has an inkling of the planning and development legal framework on these islands, particularly the existence of Outside Development Zones and of scheduled areas, which have been enacted for very specific reasons. This renders his comments all the more unfortunate given that during his stint as planning doyen he most certainly was exposed to legitimate concerns harboured by objectors and environmental NGOs to particular developments, with these concerns venturing way beyond the presence of a “snail”.
Is it so hard to fathom that there is a swelling cohort of individuals on these islands who are adverse to any form of development in ODZ areas due to a simple statistic – i.e. that one-third of the island is already under brick and stone – and that the same individuals cherish the open, uncluttered nature of undeveloped land as a breathing space within the congested miasma that is the rest of the island? Simply dismissing those who campaign for the non-obliteration of open spaces as “snail buffs” is disrespectful.
The timing chosen by Dr Falzon for his preposterous outburst is uncanny, on the eve of World Biodiversity Day (May 22), when we should in fact be celebrating the wonder of all forms of biodiversity, snails and all, and in the immediate aftermath of a sobering report by the United Nations on the heightened extinction rate the world is experiencing at the hands of human activity.
Simply dismissing those who campaign for the non-obliteration of open spaces as ‘snail buffs’ is disrespectful
This is obviously not to discount the modest “snail” or any other miniscule indigenous species which have roamed these islands before our ascent roughly 10,000 years ago. At least eight of the demonised denigrated “snails” are actually endemic species (known to the world only from these islands), such as the Maltese doorsnail (Dussies ta’ Malta), and are listed in environmental legislation as protected species, as is the norm in any country which cherishes its native biodiversity. The very reason that roughly one-eight of the country is included within the confines of Natura 2000 sites is to protect native biodiversity, snails and all, for posterity.
It’s a parrot’s secret that Dr Falzon is an afficionado of hunting and trapping. This necessarily obliges him to occasionally venture beyond the beaten track, to partake of the amenity value of our open areas, rendering his statement all the more anomalous. The pejorative reference to “bebbux” is populist and reminiscent of the spiel used by a number of local developers, who have, in the not so distant past, reserved their opprobrium mostly for “gremxul” (lizards), “ħaxix ħażin” (weeds) and “xagħri” (garigue), responsible in their views for the non-development of particular areas.
Despite his misplaced statement in Parliament, Dr Falzon is going beyond his line of duty in implementing laudable initiatives within his portfolio, ranging from the promotion of adoption to children’s rights and family support facilities, in line with his aptitude for commitment. The legitimate public backlash in response to his recent foray in the environmental sphere is thus unfortunate and should solicit him to renege in future on such spurious reasoning.
I am confident that the commendable and constant search for alternative sites for social housing projects and the conservation of our natural patrimony and open areas are not mutually-exclusive goals and that they can be both achieved without causing unnecessary angst.
Mediocre MEP campaign
I have steered away from getting embroiled in any way in the current MEP campaign, specifically due to the internecine and factional fighting that our overtly-partisan system is constantly generating.
The general mediocre nature of such a campaign so far stands out, however, with most candidates simply resorting to tow their party’s line and to swipe jibes across the fence.
The most courageous and audacious proposals invariably emerged from the smaller parties (PD, AD) and from some of the independent candidates (Arnold Cassola), who, despite the many caveats that our electoral system and broadcasting regulations throw in their way, still managed to make their voice heard. A number of individual environmentally conscious candidates also stand out within the two major parties, including Miriam Dalli and Michael Briguglio.
As is the norm in these campaigns, there have been those who have complained of the profligate ways of some candidates, accused of probably breaching thresholds for maximum permissible expenditure. It has never and it will never be a level playing field, given the lack of scrutiny in such cases, and those who play by the book will invariably end up with cold feet.
It is a cutthroat race where, as a candidate, you are obliged to divert effort and attention to fitting in as many home visits as you can and to peddling as much advertising ware as possible, rather than to formulate innovate solutions to today’s challenges. Anyway, my tuppence worth of advice is that home visits by political candidates should be banned outright, given that they epitomise the very essence of clientelism, clipping the candidate’s wings when it comes to integrity and impartiality.
A robust line of gatekeepers, separating our policy-akers from the electorate, should be in place if we are to weed out the abuse that such conviviality invariably brings about.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece