It’s not even a year since the largest environmental protest in Malta was organised by Front Ħarsien ODZ in response to the government’s proposal for an allegedly “American University” at Żonqor Point. Yet much has changed since then, in the approach of both major political parties to the issue of ODZ land.
Originally, the campus was to be built on 90,000 square meters outside the development zone (ODZ). Since then, the footprint has been reduced drastically by 72,000 square metres. This was mostly due to civil society’s insistence that alternative sites be located for the project, and as a result of the controversy, it seems that development in rural areas has moved up a notch or two in public awareness and on political agendas.
In fact, both major parties are currently rethinking their stance on the issue. The PN is busy drawing up a list of “exceptions” to the rule of no development in ODZ. In other words, it is asking which types of development projects are important enough to warrant new construction in rural areas.
Similarly, a declaration by Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech reveals that the PL is re-considering the issue too. The government has made a “conscious decision”, we are told, not to encroach further on ODZ. Apart from Sadeen Group’s Institute of Higher Education at Żonqor (which is all that is left of the “American University”), there are no further “national projects” envisaged for the future.
Thus, it seems like the debate has reached the stage where we are finally attempting to determine what constitutes a project of “national importance” – a “national project”, as the government is now putting it, or an “exception” in PN’s terms. This is significant due to Malta’s overarching planning policy (SPED) which requires that the use of ‘vacant land’, including ODZ areas, is to be considered only after all other possibilities, such as the reuse of existent buildings, have been exhausted. If there are no “feasible alternatives”, and especially for projects of “national importance,” rural areas can be used “as a last resort”.
In general, therefore, this is a move in the right direction; in fact, in an earlier article I argued that we need a clear definition of what is considered “unfeasible”, as well as what types of projects are of “national importance”. However, both parties’ approaches are somewhat short-sighted, as I hope to make clear.
Some commentators immediately criticized the PN for not sticking to their earlier claim that “ODZ is ODZ”. Yet even the most fanatical environmentalist accepts that some development is unfeasible anywhere except in ODZ. Waste-water systems that drain into the sea are one obvious example. The question is whether projects like a higher education institute which will cater mostly to foreign students is important to the nation in the same way? Does it become ‘unfeasible’ if it is built within the development zone, where land costs significantly more?
At the same time, government is currently “tweaking” development boundaries in order to redress certain “injustices” committed in the past. We were promised that ODZ areas would suffer zero net loss and it seems government intends to swap parcels of ODZ land for others in rural areas that are within the development zone. Something similar has already been proposed for Indawar Natural Park near Zonqor. The government seems to want the Maltese public to accept that the beach area around the pool, which is already protected from development, as compensation for the loss of natural park land.
Making promises in the run-up to the election is not the way serious planning and policy-making proceeds. It is no good the PN drawing up a fresh set of exceptions to the ‘no development on ODZ’ rule – even if these are set out in a manifesto. This is because other policies that are in place may impinge on ODZ, as we can currently see, in the controversies surrounding Żonqor.
The PL’s electoral manifesto aimed to attract foreign universities and institutions to the country, and the 2015 Budget emphasized the regeneration of the south of Malta, both laudable proposals per se. The American University seemed to fulfil both purposes, yet besides SPED, which as we saw, discourages the use of ‘vacant land’; there are Rural Policies and Local Plans in place which legislate against development on the proposed site at Zonqor.
Thus, rather than a new set of ‘exceptions’ or pre-election promises about ODZ, what is required, it seems, is that the gargantuan planning task that started in the 90s be finished. I attended an evening course at Mepa and left with the impression that in order to sort out this issue, all of our national, local and subject policies – there are 41 listed on SPED – must be examined for inconsistencies in relation to Rural and ODZ policies.
A case in point: The National Education Reform, started under PN administration, has over the last few years reorganised the school system into colleges. This, apparently, required new schools and many of these, like Żokkrija, were built outside the development zone. Some of the old schools now stand empty, apparently having been put up as collateral for the loans that financed the new ones.
A more holistic and forward-thinking approach might have foreseen the ageing Maltese population and the growing need for retirement homes. It might have found a way to use the empty schools for this purpose, for which they would seem ideal. Instead, it is likely that new homes for the elderly will be proposed as private construction enterprises in ODZ.
Thus the issue of ownership needs to be tackled too. It is no good promising not to build outside the development zone if the landowners, who are often powerful party-financers, will keep looking for ways to exploit policies that, for instance, are in principle aimed at helping the agriculture sector. We saw something of the sort recently with the Munxar ‘agro-tourism’ non-starter, and it is likely that health policies could be construed to suggest that homes for the elderly, like schools and universities, are projects of ‘national importance’ too.
In any case, it is very encouraging that the PL and PN both seem to acknowledge the importance of the issue, and have set ODZ policy reviews on their agenda. To either party that wants to convince us it is genuine, might I suggest that some inclusion be made for the expropriation of long-standing empty buildings for public purposes? Had such a provision been in place, a “national project” like Żonqor could have been suitably housed in the derelict Jerma Hotel. Secondly, if owners are to be compensated for “injustices”, might this not take a monetary form rather than the tweaking of boundaries? Perhaps the government could put its money where its mouth is, possibly tapping EU funds to purchase ODZ areas and designate them as public land.
In short, before making promises on ODZ, our politicians should consider at length how their proposals will be affected by earlier ones. A final case in point is whether the government’s recent promise not to encroach on ODZ nullifies their earlier commitment to consider a motorcar racing track, which apparently is unfeasible anywhere except outside the development zone. If so, why has this not been publically announced? Is anyone even thinking about these issues from a holistic perspective, apart from some hard-working people at Mepa and some NGOs?
Colette Sciberras