Showing posts with label Environment Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment Policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
The Planning Authority has failed
A few days ago I was interviewed by Kevin Schembri Orland, The Malta Independent, about the Planning Authority, development and the property market. You can check it out here.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Impacts of Development
Monday, October 10, 2016
Master Plan in Reverse
Michael Briguglio
When it comes to big development projects, the Labour government is gambling excessively on the big developers’ card.
Rather than relying on evidence-based policymaking, the government assumes that big developers have some magic power to cater for Malta’s social, economic and environmental needs.
This is a far cry from having a national master plan which would verify opportunities, risks and alternatives. Instead, Malta is experiencing a series of development proposals which simply ignore the respective cumulative impacts on Maltese society.
Gasan’s Townsquare project in Sliema is a case in point. One of Malta’s most congested areas will have a 38-storey high-rise, 159 residential units and various commercial outlets, unless the approved project is reversed in the upcoming appeal process.
Townsquare has a shortfall of 234 parking spaces and will result in an estimated increase of 3,500 cars daily in the area. The Sliema local council has been left in the dark about a required ‘green transport plan’ and waste management, and there is no sewage impact assessment.
The project’s social impact assessment is incomplete, outdated (it was carried out almost a decade ago) and says nothing on mitigation measures.
Save for some exceptions, the assessment of the project practically ignored the 40-storey development proposal at Fort Cambridge, just a few metres up the road. Not to mention new high-rise development at The Point in Tignè.
The Planning Authority approval of high-rise at Mrieħel also has clear shortcomings. This joint project by the Gasan and Tumas groups was approved without a master plan for the area. It comprises a lack of 498 parking spaces, and will result in an estimated daily increase of 2,700 cars in the vicinity. As in the case of Townsquare, the PA decision on this project could be reversed through an upcoming appeal process.
The government assumes that big developers have some magic power to cater for Malta’s social, economic and environmental needs
In the past days Maltese society learned of further proposed mega-projects, including land reclamation and high-rise at the ex-Jerma site in Marsascala and the government-sponsored Paceville plan.
The latter is currently undergoing a public consultation process. Here, new high-rise development is being proposed in what seems to be a wish list of certain big developers.
Perhaps the most controversial project in the Paceville plan is the land reclamation project by and for the Tumas group. When the original Portomaso development was proposed, residents and other stakeholders were promised that no further development will take place, but this condition was already broken once through the approval of further development, so what the hell?
Now, what is being proposed is the reclamation of land next to a marine special area for conservation, which, incidentally, was already damaged by Portomaso development some years ago. The land reclamation will mostly comprise residential and hotel development, and a 15-storey building height of Preluna dimensions.
The Planning Authority has said the Paceville plan will be subject to a strategic environmental assessment. But this inevitably raises a question. How come strategic environmental assessments are not being carried out elsewhere? And this, in turn, raises a more pertinent question which the government refuses to reply: why is the government not carrying out a national master plan on high-rise, land reclamation and other mega projects?
Given Malta’s small size, it is only reasonable to have national studies on ecological, social, economic, traffic, waste and other impacts before accelerating the auction of development proposals.
Such studies could estimate Malta’s carrying capacity for such projects, the economic risks and opportunities of relying on such a development model, and the impact on our road arteries, which, in many instances, are already clogged.
Such studies could also show how necessary financing of public infrastructure is going to be carried out, and whether such financing is really a priority compared to other infrastructural needs in the country.
What is stopping the government from commissioning a national master plan?
Friday, May 13, 2016
No more glyphosate in Sliema - Local Council instructs ELC
Sliema Local Council has instructed contractor Environment Landscapes Consortium (ELC) to stop using the controversial glyphosate. The council is also undergoing an exercise to introduce more environment-friendly plants which are suitable for the Maltese landscape.
---
Activists to march against controversial weed killer
Times of Malta 14 May 2016
Organic farming activists opposed to a controversial weed killer and the use of genetically modified crops will march down Valletta next week as part of a global protest movement.
Activists all across the world will take part in 21 May's March Against Monsanto, with the aim of raising awareness about the multinational's business practices and lobbying in favour of GMOs and weed killer glyphosate.
Malta's march is being organised by the Clean Food Movement. The movement is calling on the government to oppose an extension of glyphosate's EU license.
Glyphosate, most commonly known through its brand name Round-Up, is one of the world's most common herbicides. The WHO has said that it is "probably carcinogenic", although the link has not yet been definitively proven.
MEPs voted to restrict glyphosate use, including at the pre-harvest stage, last month. But European Commission documents have revealed that it favours extending glyphosate's license for a further 15 years.
France, Sweden and Italy oppose extending glyphosate's license, and more than 1.4 million people across Europe have signed a petition calling for the chemical to be banned.
Environmentalists have said the Commission's position runs against the EU's precautionary principle, which calls for regulatory caution if there is any scientific doubt.
Malta's position remains unclear, with an Environment Ministry spokesperson saying last March that discussions remained ongoing. Maltese MEPs all voted in favour of the EP position to approve glyphosate but restrict its use, except for Labour MEP Miriam Dalli who sat out the vote.
A 2013 study by Friends of the Earth found that Maltese had the highest incidence of glyphosate in their bodies out of all countries surveyed. Nine out out every 10 urine samples taken tested positive for the chemical.
Monsanto is one of the world's largest agrochemical corporations, with revenues topping $15 billion in 2015. It has long been the target of activists' ire, with its methods of promoting GMOs in Latin America and India coming under particular scrutiny.
The March Against Monsanto will take place on Saturday 21 May at 10am.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Why Malta needs a clean-up
(This article originally appeared as 'Summer Rain Brings Relief')
Times of Malta 24 August 2015
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150824/opinion/Summer-rain-brings-relief.581764
The rain in the past days might have spoilt some summer events, yet it also brought some relief in other quarters. Indeed, public discourse that featured quite prominently referred to the rain’s cleaning of the streets, pavements, beaches and promenades.
Malta does not seem to be coping with the increased volume of waste littering every corner of the island, albeit being more pronounced in certain areas. The summer season, where tourism numbers increase, makes matters much worse.
All sort of rubbish is accumulating. Dog pooh, plastic bottles, loose construction bricks, garbage bags galore, odd household appliances, you name it. No wonder Facebook pages dedicated to rubbish are being set up, powered by mobile and smartphone technology.
The accumulation of rubbish adds up to the lot of vacant buildings, including those in a dilapidated state, which have unfortunately become a permanent eyesore in Malta. The same can be said of industrial areas, from Mrieħel to Ħal-Far, parts of which are suitable for film scenes of ruin. Maybe it wasn’t a surprise that Malta was recently chosen for the filming of scenes for a film in war-torn Libya.
The accumulation of rubbish and dilapidation is not only adding up to the uglification of Malta but has other negative impacts too. Think of persons with disability, those with pushchairs and elderly people whose access is impaired due to the occupation of walking spaces by rubbish.
Think of the impact on tourism, a pillar of the Maltese economy. It is true that, quite often, some tourists themselves add to the mess but, if anything, this only means that the problem requires even more attention.
The current state of policymaking and implementation does not help things. Local councils tend to spend a substantial amount of their limited budgets to waste management but the battle is draining their resources. The fact that councils cannot generate revenue and remain dependent on minsters’ priorities for various services does not help.
Green wardens come at a high expense to local councils, thus making use of their services prohibitive. Such wardens do impose fines on offenders, and rightly so, but enforcement is the exception, not the rule. The upcoming centralisation of wardens within a government entity will not improve matters in terms of local council management.
It would make much more sense to have a decentralised warden system managed by councils, whereby a substantial amount of revenue from fines is used for the benefit of the locality rather than to feed an expanding bureaucracy. Unfortunately, however, subsidiarity does not seem to be on government’s agenda.
The waste problem reveals another challenge for Maltese society: that of having stronger communities.
When people litter public space one notes a lack of civic pride. Dutch anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain had referred to this as “amoral familism” when referring to Malta and I would imagine American sociologist Robert Putnam would relate this to the breakdown of social capital.
In the case of the latter, social networks are threatened by an ever-increasing rise of individualism and unconnected individ-uals. A striking example that many can relate to is having neighbours in apartment blocks putting out garbage bags at untimely hours despite having clear signs in the condominium with rubbish collection times. Or having dog pooh on pavements in front of schools.
The increase in food waste, from milkshakes to half-bitten burgers, from pizza boxes to cans and bottles, is also a main reason why pigeons are increasing at a level almost similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Many people complain about their presence and even about rats roaming the streets at night but what about human behaviour, which is actually attracting such animals?
Hence, investing in education and social capital is just as important as enforcement. The former can have a cultural effect whereas the latter is more immediate, provided that it is not tarnished by political patronage.
The fact that such policy-making is so low on Malta’s national agenda reveals that quality of life is second fiddle to other concerns. I can only sigh when I hear ministers speaking of Malta as a hub of excellence, high worth and what have you.
Times of Malta 24 August 2015
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150824/opinion/Summer-rain-brings-relief.581764
The rain in the past days might have spoilt some summer events, yet it also brought some relief in other quarters. Indeed, public discourse that featured quite prominently referred to the rain’s cleaning of the streets, pavements, beaches and promenades.
Malta does not seem to be coping with the increased volume of waste littering every corner of the island, albeit being more pronounced in certain areas. The summer season, where tourism numbers increase, makes matters much worse.
All sort of rubbish is accumulating. Dog pooh, plastic bottles, loose construction bricks, garbage bags galore, odd household appliances, you name it. No wonder Facebook pages dedicated to rubbish are being set up, powered by mobile and smartphone technology.
The accumulation of rubbish adds up to the lot of vacant buildings, including those in a dilapidated state, which have unfortunately become a permanent eyesore in Malta. The same can be said of industrial areas, from Mrieħel to Ħal-Far, parts of which are suitable for film scenes of ruin. Maybe it wasn’t a surprise that Malta was recently chosen for the filming of scenes for a film in war-torn Libya.
The accumulation of rubbish and dilapidation is not only adding up to the uglification of Malta but has other negative impacts too. Think of persons with disability, those with pushchairs and elderly people whose access is impaired due to the occupation of walking spaces by rubbish.
Think of the impact on tourism, a pillar of the Maltese economy. It is true that, quite often, some tourists themselves add to the mess but, if anything, this only means that the problem requires even more attention.
The current state of policymaking and implementation does not help things. Local councils tend to spend a substantial amount of their limited budgets to waste management but the battle is draining their resources. The fact that councils cannot generate revenue and remain dependent on minsters’ priorities for various services does not help.
Green wardens come at a high expense to local councils, thus making use of their services prohibitive. Such wardens do impose fines on offenders, and rightly so, but enforcement is the exception, not the rule. The upcoming centralisation of wardens within a government entity will not improve matters in terms of local council management.
It would make much more sense to have a decentralised warden system managed by councils, whereby a substantial amount of revenue from fines is used for the benefit of the locality rather than to feed an expanding bureaucracy. Unfortunately, however, subsidiarity does not seem to be on government’s agenda.
The waste problem reveals another challenge for Maltese society: that of having stronger communities.
When people litter public space one notes a lack of civic pride. Dutch anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain had referred to this as “amoral familism” when referring to Malta and I would imagine American sociologist Robert Putnam would relate this to the breakdown of social capital.
In the case of the latter, social networks are threatened by an ever-increasing rise of individualism and unconnected individ-uals. A striking example that many can relate to is having neighbours in apartment blocks putting out garbage bags at untimely hours despite having clear signs in the condominium with rubbish collection times. Or having dog pooh on pavements in front of schools.
The increase in food waste, from milkshakes to half-bitten burgers, from pizza boxes to cans and bottles, is also a main reason why pigeons are increasing at a level almost similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Many people complain about their presence and even about rats roaming the streets at night but what about human behaviour, which is actually attracting such animals?
Hence, investing in education and social capital is just as important as enforcement. The former can have a cultural effect whereas the latter is more immediate, provided that it is not tarnished by political patronage.
The fact that such policy-making is so low on Malta’s national agenda reveals that quality of life is second fiddle to other concerns. I can only sigh when I hear ministers speaking of Malta as a hub of excellence, high worth and what have you.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Transport Quandaries
The Times, February 9, 2015
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150209/opinion/Transport-quandaries.555353
Transport Minister Joe Mizzi recently announced that a grand total of 38 cars failed the emissions test in Malta over a 22-month period. Yes, 38 cars. In addition, another 155 cars faced licence restrictions. This occurred after Transport Malta received 22,182 SMS emission reports and sent 681 notifications, including second notifications, for cars to be submitted for emission testing.
These figures reflect the sad state of Maltese administration when it comes to environmental matters. Many questions come to mind in this regard.
For example, why is it that only 681 notifications were sent when Transport Malta received 22,182 reports? Can detailed statistics be provided? What were the criteria for submission of notifications?
In sectors such as construction, delivery and tourism, but even in the case of many private cars, there are vehicles that would never be allowed on the road in a society that gives serious consideration to the environment. I wonder how such vehicles pass VRT tests.
The argument that such cars are required for our economy is short-sighted, to say the least. To begin with, many societies which have strict emissions policies also happen to be high economic performers. Besides, the emissions by junk vehicles which are polluting our roads have high environmental, health, social and economic costs.
The car emission issue is, in my view, one of Malta’s most pressing environmental concerns. Judging by the government’s performance and PR, it seems that the best it can do to tackle emissions – apart from removing 38 cars from the road - is to come up with a scheme to incentivise the few owners of certain luxury cars to drive on weekends. I wonder whether anyone is taking this proposal seriously.
There are other transport issues which also deserve serious attention.
As we all know, Malta has exceptionally low standards when it comes to roads. It seems that strict monitoring and certification takes place only when EU funds are involved or when certain local councils voluntarily choose to fulfill their responsibilities towards residents. Unfortunately, though, local councils’ restrictive budgets do not permit a thorough upgrading of road infrastructure.
Roads also tend to be monopolised by cars at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. In various urban areas, people are literally unable to walk, play or ride bicycles due to excessive pollution, lack of space, excessive traffic, lack of holistic planning, poor infrastructure and so forth.
To make matters worse, many roads in localities are characterised by restrictive pavements that often give priority to garages, signage which hinders accessibility and shoddy workmanship. Very often, a walk on the pavement becomes a major hurdle for persons with disability, parents with children, elderly persons and others.
Basic proposals, such as having shared space between cars and bicycles through sharrows, are being ignored by Transport Malta, even when local authorities support them. Various new projects, such as the new coastroad, seem to be giving very little space to pedestrians. Or will it have a proper promenade and ample space for cyclists?
Notwithstanding the above, there are examples of good practice. A notable case is the pedestrianisation of Valletta, though one hopes that the monti issue will not eat up precious open space.
Another positive example concerns regulations on front seatbelts, where practically all Malta has been following the rules since the late 1990s. The same cannot be said with regard seatbelts at the back, where enforcement seems to be lacking.
The introduction of wardens, traffic lights and traffic-calming measures have also generally lead to more disciplined drivers, even though there are exceptions.
So why can’t we have better practice when it comes to emissions and quality of roads?
A practical way forward would be to ensure that traffic wardens give more imporance to car emissions. They should use their authority when clear cases of heavy pollution are seen on the roads. When this is the case, they should order examination of such vehicles by Transport Malta.
Local councils should also be given more authority. Along the lines of subsidiarity, councils can adopt fiscal measures to encourage or discourage certain modes of transport and can also introduce schemes, for example with respect to parking, through which revenue can be generated for infrastructural purposes.
With regard to public transport, I eagerly await the government’s information campaign as well as the long overdue tabling of its agreement with the new operator.
At first glance, I welcome certain promised improvements, such as encouraging the use of cards rather than paying on the bus. At the same time, and from the sparse information available, it seems that the removal of day tickets and weekly tickets might have a negative price impact on certain users.
The transport issue is very much in synch with the consumer vs citizen debate.
As consumers, we require cars as a source of identity, as a source of personal freedom and as a practical tool that enables mobility.
As citizens, we have our environmental rights and responsibilities, which go beyond having a car and which relate to everyday democracy. Clean air, access to open space and practical mobility without necessarily resorting to a car are key indicators of a good quality of life.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150209/opinion/Transport-quandaries.555353
Transport Minister Joe Mizzi recently announced that a grand total of 38 cars failed the emissions test in Malta over a 22-month period. Yes, 38 cars. In addition, another 155 cars faced licence restrictions. This occurred after Transport Malta received 22,182 SMS emission reports and sent 681 notifications, including second notifications, for cars to be submitted for emission testing.
These figures reflect the sad state of Maltese administration when it comes to environmental matters. Many questions come to mind in this regard.
For example, why is it that only 681 notifications were sent when Transport Malta received 22,182 reports? Can detailed statistics be provided? What were the criteria for submission of notifications?
In sectors such as construction, delivery and tourism, but even in the case of many private cars, there are vehicles that would never be allowed on the road in a society that gives serious consideration to the environment. I wonder how such vehicles pass VRT tests.
The argument that such cars are required for our economy is short-sighted, to say the least. To begin with, many societies which have strict emissions policies also happen to be high economic performers. Besides, the emissions by junk vehicles which are polluting our roads have high environmental, health, social and economic costs.
The car emission issue is, in my view, one of Malta’s most pressing environmental concerns. Judging by the government’s performance and PR, it seems that the best it can do to tackle emissions – apart from removing 38 cars from the road - is to come up with a scheme to incentivise the few owners of certain luxury cars to drive on weekends. I wonder whether anyone is taking this proposal seriously.
There are other transport issues which also deserve serious attention.
As we all know, Malta has exceptionally low standards when it comes to roads. It seems that strict monitoring and certification takes place only when EU funds are involved or when certain local councils voluntarily choose to fulfill their responsibilities towards residents. Unfortunately, though, local councils’ restrictive budgets do not permit a thorough upgrading of road infrastructure.
Roads also tend to be monopolised by cars at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. In various urban areas, people are literally unable to walk, play or ride bicycles due to excessive pollution, lack of space, excessive traffic, lack of holistic planning, poor infrastructure and so forth.
To make matters worse, many roads in localities are characterised by restrictive pavements that often give priority to garages, signage which hinders accessibility and shoddy workmanship. Very often, a walk on the pavement becomes a major hurdle for persons with disability, parents with children, elderly persons and others.
Basic proposals, such as having shared space between cars and bicycles through sharrows, are being ignored by Transport Malta, even when local authorities support them. Various new projects, such as the new coastroad, seem to be giving very little space to pedestrians. Or will it have a proper promenade and ample space for cyclists?
Notwithstanding the above, there are examples of good practice. A notable case is the pedestrianisation of Valletta, though one hopes that the monti issue will not eat up precious open space.
Another positive example concerns regulations on front seatbelts, where practically all Malta has been following the rules since the late 1990s. The same cannot be said with regard seatbelts at the back, where enforcement seems to be lacking.
The introduction of wardens, traffic lights and traffic-calming measures have also generally lead to more disciplined drivers, even though there are exceptions.
So why can’t we have better practice when it comes to emissions and quality of roads?
A practical way forward would be to ensure that traffic wardens give more imporance to car emissions. They should use their authority when clear cases of heavy pollution are seen on the roads. When this is the case, they should order examination of such vehicles by Transport Malta.
Local councils should also be given more authority. Along the lines of subsidiarity, councils can adopt fiscal measures to encourage or discourage certain modes of transport and can also introduce schemes, for example with respect to parking, through which revenue can be generated for infrastructural purposes.
With regard to public transport, I eagerly await the government’s information campaign as well as the long overdue tabling of its agreement with the new operator.
At first glance, I welcome certain promised improvements, such as encouraging the use of cards rather than paying on the bus. At the same time, and from the sparse information available, it seems that the removal of day tickets and weekly tickets might have a negative price impact on certain users.
The transport issue is very much in synch with the consumer vs citizen debate.
As consumers, we require cars as a source of identity, as a source of personal freedom and as a practical tool that enables mobility.
As citizens, we have our environmental rights and responsibilities, which go beyond having a car and which relate to everyday democracy. Clean air, access to open space and practical mobility without necessarily resorting to a car are key indicators of a good quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)