One of the Church Commissions established as a direct result of the Diocesan Synod (1999-2003) was the Environment Commission (Kummissjoni Ambjent), which has now developed into an inter-diocesan one, for Malta and Gozo.
During my time as Public Relations Officer of the Archbishop’s Curia, which came to an end last April, I could see that this Kummissjoni Ambjent (KA) was surely one of the most active and productive Church commissions.
What prompts me to write is the recent appeal made by the KA to all those involved in the environment, from the highest authority of the country to every citizen, to be more responsible and transparent so that each and every individual is accountable for his or her actions.
In the span of a few years, the KA issued a number of reflections and press communiqués on various environmental issues. The purpose of the KA is not to offer immediate solutions but rather that of identifying and eliminating their cause. There were times when the recommendations of the KA fell on deaf ears (or were discarded), or were used for purposes other than those for which they had been put forward. To this end, I believe it is worth recalling some if the KA’s past recommendations that would have led to more responsibility.
1. In the case of the Sant’Antnin Solid Waste Treatment Plant at Marsascala, the local residents were not convinced that the risks this plant posed could in fact be controlled as stipulated by experts. While agreeing in principle with the project, the KA had suggested setting up a Regulatory Board made up of representatives from WasteServ, MEPA, and above all, the residents of the locality. This Regulatory Board would have been responsible for monitoring the operation of this plant at all stages. The KA considers that the irony of it all was that in the midst of this controversial issue, all concerned parties, while saying that they agreed with the recommendations of the KA, completely ignored the suggestion of setting up the Regulatory Board, which would have given more power and control to the residents on all environmental decisions taken in their locality.
2. On the issue of the change in development boundaries in 2006, the KA had appealed to all those concerned to put the common welfare and the quality of life in our country first and foremost. This is the responsibility of every Maltese citizen.... especially those embracing the Christian faith. The KA is of the opinion that unfortunately there is little evidence that this appeal did in fact have any effect on the choices made.
3. In 2006, the auditor of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority concluded that either the Mepa Board or that of the DCC had not acted correctly and that the choices made for certain developments were neither justified nor based on coherent reasoning. At that time the KA had enquired (and is still doing so) whether all those who had some kind of political and/or technical responsibility in these cases would be held accountable for their actions. Only recently, Mepa has approved a development project partially outside the development zone (ODZ) at Tal-Marga Valley in Qala, Gozo, which is not in line with its own Local Plan for Gozo and Comino. The KA feels that this type of inconsistency leads to the public losing faith in the system and become suspicion about its objectivity.
4. Our parish feasts often offer another example of lack of responsibility towards our neighbours. Over the past few years, the KA has appealed for all abuse in the use of fireworks, as well as the behaviour of some individuals, to stop. The KA had argued for ALL those who have some kind of responsibility in the matter, to carry out their duties as required by their office. The KA considers that this is also true where fireworks are concerned: (a) the civil authorities need to demonstrate that they are sincerely willing to change the regulations that control the production and letting off of fireworks; (b) the media should understand its journalistic responsibility by initiating a national and rational discussion on the control of excessive behaviour. The KA laments that to date it seems the only time the media is really interested is when it has to report a tragedy of some sort; (c) the local authorities (both civil and those belonging to the Church) should work together so that our feasts are instrumental in bringing unity and not disagreement in the community.
5. In a press statement issued in March, the KA had agreed with the Revision of the Solid Waste Management Strategy on the need of improving technical standards and codes of practice in all operations regarding waste management. These practices need to be developed at all levels, from the collection of waste from households to that of the chief engineer, who is responsible for the waste treatment plants or incinerator. The commission added that it is high time that the responsibility of the operator be tied-in with liability towards the general public. This means that any operator, paid to ensure that the plant is functioning according to the established criteria, should be held responsible individually and directly for any hazards to public health and/or environment resources, if it is proven that this hazard was caused through negligence on his/her part. The company employing the person concerned should also shoulder this responsibility. This should apply to all sectors and not only that of waste management.
6. In the same press statement, the KA praised the document on National Strategy for Policy and Abatement Measures Relating to the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which was aimed at a coherent and coordinated policy development so that this issue would be effectively dealt with on a national level. The KA stated that it cannot understand the logic behind the new 60 km/hour speed limit in main national highways, while at the same time the government’s document recommends finding ways and means of improving traffic flow on these same major roads. As regards the new power station at Delimara, the KA said the authorities are duty-bound to ensure that this would be fully compatible and in line with other strategic decisions and proposals in fields such as those dealing with pollution and air quality.
The KA expressed its regret that we are still far from reaching this high level of accountability and to eradicate once and for all the mentality of “anything goes”. It maintains that every environmental strategy will succeed or fail at the implementation stage, which has three levels of responsibility: political, administrative and technical.
The KA addressed its appeal for more accountability and transparency to each citizen. The commission believes that these important elements in our behaviour should be spurred by our Christian moral values.