The latest issue of the scientific journal, XJENZA, violently disturbed the stagnant waters of officialdom with the publication of a study by Professor Alfred Vella and Mr Renato Camilleri on “Fine Dust Emission from Soft Stone Quarrying in Malta”.

Their study showed that the fine dust emission rate from the 67 local active soft stone quarries stood at 11,500 milligrams per square metre a day. The accepted international guideline ranges between 100 and 300 milligrams per square metre a day.

It turns out that the local emission rate measured an incredible 38 times more than the highest international recommended level.

According to the authors of this study, the final outturn works out roughly at a two-litre bottleful of what is technically described as particulate matter (PM 10) for every person living in Malta.

This is considered as “an alarming level” of dust pollution.

Disturbing scenario

It appears that this is the first study of its kind in Malta. The authors of this study claim that the harmful fine dust particles, produced by soft stone quarries, amounts to at least l, 200 tonnes a year – and they reckon that this is a conservative estimate. They hasten to add that an estimated additional 15 per cent of this fine dust has been found with the more coarse dust within the confines of quarries. When disturbed by trucks and machinery, this, too, is whipped into the air.

To this must be added the substantial, but unquantified, dust thrown into the air in the process of stone dressing and polishing on the building sites.

Disturbing though it is, this is by no means the full picture.

According to a report on The State of the Environment, published by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority last January, other sources of particulate matter originate from atmospheric sea salt, originating from sea spray, dust brought about by winds from the Sahara, tyre and brake abrasions, as well as emissions from cars (of which we have too many) and industry.

Public health considerations

All things considered, a point has been reached where the problem of air pollution in these islands demands crisis management.

When the 2005 State of the Environment Report was published last January, it was considered, at media level, to make “powerful – not to say disquietening – reading”. Yet, the powers-that-be slumbered, and the media turned its attention to other things.

The study published in XJENZA now raises urgent public health considerations, which could not be swept under the carpet. The public interest demands reassuring solutions.

It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to say that the environment is one of his government’s priorities, and for politicians of all hues to make noises that achieve no results.

Neither is it any comfort to claim that European Union Membership is a catalyst for eventual future change.

Malta must instantly proceed to uplift itself from third world status, and prioritize a strategic programme that would deliver improvements to correct what we know to be wrong.

Lack of political will

Four years ago, the government established, with much fanfare, the National Commission for Sustainable Development. This was tasked with a National Sustainability Plan with clear and objective targets, but it was starved of human and other resources – no better evidence of the lack of political will to launch a proper strategic plan for the environment.

Until this is done, Malta will languish embarrassingly at the bottom of the EU environmental league table.

The human cost is unacceptable.

The time has come to raise the issue of accountability at the EU level and elsewhere.

How can ministers boast that we ended the year 2005 “on a high”, and that we are “on the right track”, when the environment is steadily going to the dogs, and the powers-that-be seem to be paralysed to the point of impotence?

People’s right to know

Why hasn’t the government decided to canalize, as a matter of urgency and priority, the e800 million or so, allocated to Malta by the EU, to environmental projects that would significantly reduce health risks?

At what stage, if any, would the EU intervene, to request the government to conform to acceptable environmental standards?

Air quality standards on these islands are such that they are deemed to have an adverse impact on the health of the population. Who is answerable for the consequences — ultimately, as well as in immediate terms?

The people have a right to know.

[email protected]