What would you say best describes your first months in office under this new administration? What was done so far and what is in the pipeline?

I differentiate between the time before Dr Gonzi became prime minister and after as there were two distinct phases of my work as Environment Minister. During the first phase I was mostly focused on matters related to agriculture while in the second part I have shifted the focus to the environment. This is not to say that either one of the issues was or is being neglected to the expense of the other but rather that one sector needed special attention at given periods of time.

Certainly, considerable focus during these past months has been on the waste management issue whereas before, attention was given to the pre-accession schemes and negotiations pertinent to the agricultural sector. In the agricultural sector, a lot of emphasis was placed on the development of the SMPPMA, to help the Maltese agricultural product compete in the new post-accession scenario.

As for waste management, the major breakthrough was the closure of Maghtab and Qortin. As is the case with other issues, now that these sites have been closed they have been forgotten. Having been debating these problems for such a long time, once the sites were finally closed they were no longer top of the agenda.

It is very hard to close a facility such as Maghtab. Using the landfills in the way we did was a very easy solution. I always say it – without investment, we get Maghtab! If we do not want an unregulated system such as that, then we have to invest.

There are many issues on the environmental agenda: renewable energy, emission control, etc. However, the most important thing is certainly the waste management issue.

There was also the afforestation project. Over the past year we have planted 10,000 trees. It takes a while to see the fruits of this work. Right now we are planting saplings 40cm high and it will take some eight to 10 years to see the full effect. The trees planted in Ta’ Qali in 1990-1991, have grown to about three metres high now.

Basically we have chosen some six to seven sites. The idea is to focus our efforts instead of having a dispersed effort over too many areas. The sites earmarked for afforestation are the area under Torri L’Ahmar in Mellieha where, over the past six months, some 2,000 trees have been planted out of a total of 4,000. In the area it is calculated that some 50,000 trees will be planted over the years, which will serve as an extensive recreation area.

Another important area is Kennedy Grove which will be extended to five times its present size. There are plans for another national park in Delimara next to the lighthouse near Xrobb L-Ghagin, where we will be working on the project with Nature Trust. We will also be upgrading Ta’ Qali. We want to instil the concept of public participation. We want people to own these projects. The government will act as a catalyst but if there is no backing from the public or the NGOs, it cannot

really be called a success. That is why we are introducing a tree adoption scheme where the public will be encouraged to adopt a tree to be planted in one of these national parks.

The government is trying to help the agricultural sector make a holistic leap forward. I believe that over the years we have focused too much on production to the detriment of the concept of agro-industry.

Artisan foods, for example, are not given enough exposure. A lot of our neighbours offer a larger range of these types of foods. Recently I met someone who started selling bajtar tax xewk (prickly pears) ready peeled and packaged. This is the way forward; in this way we can market the product.

Next week I will be visiting a company in Gozo which is preparing artisan foods. The company is small, but we do not need large-scale operations. We have a good product, we just need to market it better.

What about organic farming. There seem to be mixed feelings in the industry about it?

Yes there are. First of all, one has to keep in mind that in Malta there is a lot of parcelling of land, where a large stretch will be

divided between a lot of

farmers who have different crops and use different methods.

This means that for proper organic farming to take place we need cooperation between farmers. Otherwise, the pesticides on neighbouring farms could contaminate organic fields.

However, there are measures that can be taken. Organic farming is a possibility and is already happening. At the fair of artisan foods in Gozo next week, I will meet some farmers who have been growing their crops organically.

The way different fields are grouped together hampers proper organic cultivation because the area used for organic cultivation can be surrounded by farmers who use pesticides. That land will then be contaminated and cannot be called “organic” in the strict sense of the word. This does not mean that nothing can be done – especially from the government side.

First we established a committee to prepare a strategy addressing the issue. Soon we will be announcing the setting up of the authority that will responsible for the sector, in conjunction with the standards authority. The role of the authority will be to coordinate the efforts of the farmers wanting to grow products organically and to promote the process in general.

I believe that there is potential. However, it is a trend that will take time to pick up in Malta. You have to keep in mind that over a million tourists visit Malta each year. Their consumption can be considered a form of export. In this sense I think that we have to project our culture in the foods we produce. When you eat something that comes from an area you have visited as a tourist you get back the memories of the place where you ate the food. We have made some progress in this direction, but there is more work to be done.

What is the plan regarding waste separation?

The most prominent issue, now that Maghtab and Qortin have been closed, is the investment we will be making in the new waste treatment facilities. Then there is the rehabilitation of Maghtab, Qortin and Wied Fulija. There are three phases of rehabilitation. The first priority is to reinforce the sides of these sites. The mounds of waste dumped at these sites are structurally weak and therefore have to be reinforced, in order to avoid slides, which would have the collateral effect of releasing large quantities of toxins in the process. At Maghtab there are very steep gradients that could produce large slides. I had said from the beginning: do not think that the problem has been solved now that we have closed Maghtab; more work has to be done there.

The second process is to treat the sites and extract the toxins and gases there are, which have been produced through the decomposition of the materials dumped there. Next year 600 steel pipes will be inserted in the waste mounds in order to extract the material.

I recently had the opportunity to visit a landfill in Tel Aviv, which is very similar to our Maghtab and is actually closer to residential areas than our landfill is. There I had the chance to see in practice the system we will be implementing over here. The steel wells are used to extract the gasses from the site, the gas is then stored and can be burnt to generate energy.

Apart from the obvious benefit of using this resource, one has to keep in mind that the site at the moment is plagued with fires that break out as a result of toxins at the site and are fuelled by the gases beneath the mounds. The extraction of the gasses will help mitigate this. In certain places, temperatures of 200 degrees Celsius have been registered.

After this process has been completed and the gases have been extracted, then special material will be placed over the area and the landscaping work can begin. The tender for the work will be issued shortly, in fact the work on the rehabilitation of the site is scheduled to start next year or early in 2006. The whole project should be ready in eight to ten years.

What about the suggestions that have been made regarding turning Maghtab into a golf course?

Absolutely not – I cannot really see how you can play golf over a hill. Levelling the waste mounds is absolutely out of the question. If we had to do so, the excavating and unearthing process would release an untold amount of toxins into the environment. This was stated clearly in the technical reports prepared for the site. Instead we will be laying some material that will serve as an insulator over which we will place layers of soil that will then be planted with trees.

In certain respects we were lucky that over the years construction waste was dumped along with the organic waste because this served as a catalyst for the toxins. The landfill that I visited in Tel Aviv is different. There they have very high percentages of toxic waste and therefore have a much bigger problem with this issue.

Some people have said that the closure of Maghtab was only cosmetic as we now have the site at Ta’ Zwejra. However, to compare the engineered facilities we have there with the unregulated mess we had at Maghtab is completely wrong. For one thing, at Ta’ Zwejra, the entire area is lined in order to prevent any seepage of toxins beyond the site. There are five protective layers in all. Secondly the bottom of the landfill is inclined in such a way that the toxic liquids that reach it are gathered in one place where they can then be pumped back to the surface. These liquids are then poured back on to the waste in order to accelerate the decomposition process.

After that, just as we will be doing at Maghtab, steel shafts will be inserted in the site for gas extraction, which will be then used for energy production. When the site is exhausted it will be surfaced with an insulating layer and turned into agricultural land. The comparison is totally fallacious – it’s like comparing a 100-year-old car with a modern vehicle.

After these temporary sites have been filled we will transfer the dumping at the Ghallis engineered landfill. Hopefully, Mepa will issue the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the landfill soon, together with the permit. The project should be up and running by next year or early the year after at the latest.

Coupled with this, the capacity of materials recycled will increase. I had already announced that bring-in sites will be increased from the current 50 to 300-400 across Malta, together with three or four civic amenity sites, which will be used for disposal of bulky waste. Therefore we will have, on one hand an increase in the engineered landfill capacity and at the same time we will be increasing the tonnage of separated material ready for recycling and therefore less landfill space will be used. All of this will be very difficult to achieve if there isn’t increased participation from the public in the waste separation process.

TMID has been informed that the government has been offered more technologically advanced solutions for the bring-in sites. The sites in question could be underground and could be emptied once a week instead of once every other day? Can you confirm this information and is the government considering this option?

Yes we have been presented with proposals. As you probably know, they are very expensive too. I do not exclude these bring-in sites completely. The good thing about them is that they are underground and therefore they do not have any visual impact on the surroundings as well as the fact that they have larger capacities than the ones we have in use at the moment.

I do not exclude their use completely; there may be important conservation areas such as Mdina, certain areas of Rabat, Valletta, etc., where it would make sense to employ these special bring-in sites, but it does not make economic sense to use them for the whole of Malta.

The people developing these storage systems want to sell the system to the government and not rent or manage it for a fee. If I had to implement all the projects that are presented before me I would make the government bankrupt.

The information we have is that the system, albeit requiring a larger initial investment, would be more economical in the long run. Would it therefore not make sense to invest in it?

No, the systems we have been presented with so far do not seem to be as cost-effective. The money saved from emptying the receptacles less often does not compensate for the extra millions spent on the initial implementation.

Recently, you were involved in the eco-tax contribution issue. Do you think that the carriage may have been put before the horse on the issue? Is it really an eco-tax or is it just another revenue-generation measure?

We called it an eco-contribution and not a waste management contribution because it is the first step in a shift towards eco-taxation. Many European countries are shifting from labour-related to ecology-related taxation.

But that was precisely the argument levelled against the introduction of this tax: that this was the introduction of a new measure and not a shift from one tax mode to the next.

Yes of course, but as I explained earlier there is no revenue related to this sector. If we do not want Maghtab we have to invest, and the money must come from somewhere. The income projected to be collected from the eco-contribution is still not enough for the investment we have to make. The changes we have to implement in our waste-treating facilities over the next three years will cost us some Lm32 million, of which the EU will be funding Lm24 million. However, these figures do not include recurrent expenditure. The funds that will come from the eco-contribution are not sufficient to cover the expense involved in maintaining Wasteserv once the new facilities are in place. Recently we have been presented with Wasteserv’s three-year plan, which contemplates a growing recurrent expenditure, in tandem with the increase in its capacity. Up till now the government simply never collected anything for waste management and the result was Maghtab.

The reality is that even countries that are less developed than we are pay supplementary taxes, specifically for waste management. With regard to your question as to whether the tax has an ecological element to it, I say the tax has been introduced in such a way that it stimulates collection scheme.

I am happy to say that there are a lot of people from the private sector who have approached the government to see how they can implement a collection scheme.

The major aim was not to collect money, although that is important, but to stimulate the collection of materials. Some people, for example, have criticised the lack of distinction between eco-friendly fridges and regular fridges. When it comes to waste management, which is what we addressed at this stage, the type of fridge does not make any difference to the waste stream; they both cost the same to dispose of.

Does this mean that more taxes will be introduced in the 2005 budget? And, are there plans to start the shift from a labour-focused to eco-focused tax?

Nobody will cheer when you announce new taxes but the reality is that if we want proper waste management, we need to invest. I am one of those who advocate a shift towards eco-taxation. I actually believe that we do not have a choice.

Sweden will make an Lm250 million shift in its focus from labour to eco-tax next year. I cannot confirm anything about the 2005 budget because we are still discussing it, but it is definitely on the agenda.

Regarding the introduction of new taxes, however, I think we need to start looking at ways in which we can cut present expenditure, instead of adding more tax. This year we have already given the construction industry over Lm1.7 million in subsidies for the disposal of its inert waste. We have already made it clear to the Federation of Industry that this will stop by the end of the year.

By next January we will not be giving any subsidies to the construction industry. It is doing well, and we cannot afford this sort of subsidy any longer. Earlier this year, we agreed that subsidies should fall to 38 per cent and then gradually down to zero per cent by the end of the year.

Does the government have any plans for the future regarding disposal of inert waste? TMID has information that the landfill solution will not last long.

The landfills we have will be filled within five to six years. The solution is land reclamation. Obviously I am talking about inert waste, it would be too dangerous to try land reclamation with organic waste. We are currently in discussions with a Danish company, Carlbro, commissioned by Wasteserv and Mepa. They are preparing a report to highlight areas suitable for land reclamation as well as the methods to be used.

The areas good for land reclamation are not as available as one might think. There are vast areas with particular marine life, such as colonies of posedonia plant that cannot be touched.

The report has not been finalised yet, however it is understood that land reclamation will follow the patterns used in other countries with similar projects. The land filled will be in the form of an island and not an extension to the present shoreline.

The advantage of land reclamation is that after so many years, the government could then benefit from an estate that can be exploited.