From hunting to littering and from construction sites to waste separation, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino’s aim is to foster a self-regulating society. Mr Pullicino details the concept, lays down

ultimatums on bring-in sites and waste packaging and goes over the controversial issues of hunting and development permissions. Interview by David Lindsay

Environment and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino seems to be continually stuck between a rock and a hard place.

When the spring hunting season was opened this year, he raised the ire of the anti-hunting lobby, and when it was closed abruptly in May, he drew the wrath of Malta’s hunters.

Similarly, the rationalisation of Malta’s development zones had approved less than 10 per cent of the hundreds of applications, alienating the remaining 90 per cent of land owners looking to have their holdings included, and at the same time provoking the fury of the anti-development lobby.

The polemics perhaps demonstrate a growing environmental awareness in the country, which makes the post of environment minister an increasingly hot one to occupy.

But in areas of enforcement, Mr Pullicino firmly believes the country should be moving toward a state of self-regulation rather than state intervention.

“I keep saying we need to have a transformation from a society that believes in and expects state enforcement to a society that is, by nature, compliant,” Mr Pullicino said with reference to Malta’s littering regulations.

An increasing number of former Drydocks workers have been recruited and retrained to enforce the regulations, as well as the new construction site rules.

The littering regulations can land a litterbug with a Lm50 fine for dropping a packet of cigarettes in Valletta, while the construction site regulations announced last week lay down a raft of new rules and fines against public untidiness.

The construction sites rules are to become effective in October for several parts of the island, including Valletta and Gzira, with a gradual nationwide introduction running until October 2009.

The rules will bring about three major changes to the ways in which Malta’s often shabby construction sites are managed.

The first is the long-awaited obligation to properly “hoard” a construction site – sealing the site and its dust and debris from the surrounding area.

A bank guarantee has also been introduced, funds from which will be used by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) to restore the pavement and road in the vicinity of a construction site should a contractor default on his obligations.

Thirdly, signage is to be put up at all construction sites stipulating the names of the developer, the architect, all contractors and sub-contractors and a phone number on which a site manager can be contacted day and night.

“The site manager will be the person responsible for all the works done by all contractors and sub-contractors and now at least the public will be able to contact a person responsible for the site.”

While the majority of the population will undoubtedly welcome such regulations, Mr Pullicino believes self-regulation is truly the way forward for the country’s environmental well-being.

“The government cannot send wardens or police to each and every corner of the country; it is the mentality that needs to change.

“We can establish regulations, or go to Parliament and enact laws, but the hardest part of the process is fostering culture change.

“We would not have had the need to introduce construction site management regulations if only building contractors did their job properly.

“I would have preferred compliance and self-regulation from all contractors but unfortunately, some still have the mentality that if they have a concrete mixer or a truck, they have the power to do as they please on our streets.”

The notion of self-regulation had been instilled in Mr Pullicino through an experience he had as a 17-year-old on holiday in Munich.

Finishing off a soft drink on his way into a museum, Mr Pullicino recalls, there had been no litter-bin in sight so he instead placed his empty can discreetly on a ledge and proceeded to the museum’s entrance.

But just as he purchased his ticket, he felt a tap on his shoulder and a voice saying, “I believe this is yours; be careful because the next time you leave something behind, you might get a large fine.”

Little did the elderly man following a teenager all the way to the museum’s entrance to hand him back his litter know he was actually instilling a strengthened sense of civic conscience and duty into a future environment minister.

The hunting polemic and

self-regulation

The notion of self-regulation also extends to the highly sensitive area of hunting and trapping, an area in which Mr Pullicino had been embroiled over the first half of the year.

The ministry is in the process of reviewing a self-regulation proposal from the Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FKNK) and will be providing its feedback, Mr Pullicino said, without going into the details of the proposals.

A self-regulation system, Mr Pullicino said, will be in place by the opening of the autumn season.

Mr Pullicino is adamant that, “This is the only way we can go forward,” pointing out that the EU is not even against bird hunting, but is rather in favour of a sustainable practice.

Noting how the European hunting federation FACE, of which the FKNK is a member, recently signed an agreement with BirdLife International, he added, “I hope that in Malta we can also arrive at concrete dialogue and discussion between BirdLife Malta and the FKNK.”

One could be forgiven for being somewhat sceptical about such prospects, given the less-than-favourable relationship between the Maltese parties and Mr Pullicino conceded, “There has to be a better approach.”

“Up to now,” he added, “I have to admit that the situation is still very much polarised within the Ornis Committee although the body had been set up to get all parties around the same table, but it has definitely helped to a certain extent.”

Last May, the government gave an unequivocal message that it would not permit illegal hunting practices, when it closed off the spring hunting season some 10 days early after a purported massacre of honey buzzards.

Asked whether the government would take the same action this autumn should a similar instance occur, Mr Pullicino replied, “Yes, definitely.

“What we did was to tell the hunters’ organisations there must be a halt for a period of examination, and that between this incident and the next, there should be enough time in which to come forward with a proper proposal for self-regulation.

“But if this period of reflection does not help, and such an instance recurs, they will probably need a second such period of reflection.

“I just hope there will be no need to go for that.

“I have made myself quite clear on this and I have to say that this is not only the position of George Pullicino, but it is, rather, the position of the government of Malta.”

Mr Pullicino insisted the government “will keep on defending the rights of hunters” but asked if that would include allowing spring hunting next year – which would be considered by the European Commission, already threatening legal action on the matter, as a violation of the Birds Directive for a fifth year running – he conceded, “we will have to see about that.”

He added, “There has been no decision as yet with regard to what we are going to do about spring hunting next year.

“But unfortunately, the incidents that took place in Malta last May have definitely dented our arguments with the Commission for spring hunting.”

Malta’s derogation on trapping, on the other hand, is set to expire at the end of 2008, after which the activity is to be significantly curtailed.

A study is currently under way to determine the number of birds needed to be trapped to sustain the breeding programme going on at Marsa.

“Hopefully,” Mr Pullicino explained, “we will manage to get the numbers and be able to proceed after the derogation date with a precise number of birds allowable for trappers.”

“Waiving” of EIAs and new enforcement

Another bone of contention with the European Commission is over what has been perceived as the waiving of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) by Mepa on certain projects.

But Mr Pullicino argued that whenever the requirement for an EIA was “waived”, the decision had been taken on the basis of specific criteria and not “just because someone decided so.”

He added that “in each and every case there was a specific process” that had been followed.

In the case of the Fort Cambridge development, for example, Mepa had even followed the Annex Three regulations although the rules had not yet been transposed in Malta, he explains.

This fact, he said, forms part of Malta’s reply to the Commission over a recent complaint about the foregoing of an EIA for the development.

“There was always justification behind the decision and there was no decision taken by anyone without proper process,” he added.

“The land use issue will remain one of the most important and hotly debated subjects on the island and as such, we need to keep ensuring the processes are transparent and explained properly to the public.”

Illegal construction is also continually in Mepa’s sights, and Mr Pullicino heralded the recent new means of tackling such abuse as “a very important step forward with respect to enforcement in the countryside, where we need to clamp down in a harsher manner.”

The new means of enforcement are multifaceted. Firstly, no illegally constructed building will be sanctioned if it is not on aerial photographs taken by Mepa in May of this year.

As such, a prospective builder would have to first demolish the illegal building and then apply for a sanction.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Mepa will now be able to demolish illegal structures without giving an enforcement notice, after which the owner would be able to take Mepa to court for damages – putting an end to the appeals process which at times takes years to resolve.

Maximum fines for illegalities have also been raised from Lm1,000 to Lm10,000, while a new appeals board with the sole job of hearing enforcement appeals will be appointed so as to expedite the process.

Packaging waste and bring-in sites ultimatum

While a new household waste separation scheme is expected to start at the beginning of next year, the long-awaited packaging waste scheme, which will do away with eco-contributions on such waste, has been somewhat more problematic.

The private sector has until the end of August to come up with a packaging waste scheme for the potentially lucrative operations, failing which Mr Pullicino says, the government will implement its own recent White Paper on the matter.

“Hopefully,” Mr Pullicino added, “there will be no need for the government to intervene, as there is interest from the private sector.”

Mr Pullicino disagreed with the very term “waste management”, arguing waste, in actual fact, is a resource – as evidenced by recent successes in recycling and exporting plastics and used tyres, toxic items that would have otherwise ended up in Malta’s landfills.

Some 30 tons of crushed glass are also being used as a hard stone aggregate replacement as base layers in new roads.

Civic amenity sites, meanwhile, are growing in popularity, with the Maghtab site alone receiving bulky refuse from 35-50 people per day.

But while Malta’s bring-in sites have proved similarly popular with most of the public, the same could not be said for most local councils, with which Mr Pullicino has a bone of contention and an ultimatum.

A recent advertising campaign by the ministry underlined the number of bring-in sites each locality is meant to have, as well as the number that have been installed – several councils have been shown in default of their obligations, some of which have so far refused to install a single site.

Mr Pullicino warned, “Up to now we have been patient but there will arrive a moment when we will tell the local councils we have simply had enough.

It will then become the central government’s decision where to place them, and we will place them.

“The bring-in sites are 80 per cent EU funded and we have given our word to the people that we would have a site for every 300 households.”

Some councils, he said, have flatly refused to have the sites; others remove them quickly after criticism from residents while others still argue there should instead be door-to-door separation at source.

But, Mr Pullicino argues, the door-to-door scheme would not operate daily and is intended to complement the bring-in sites, as is normally the case where similar schemes operate.

ODZ and urban sprawl

The operations of Mepa are continually under the spotlight of scrutiny and criticism; a natural fact according to Mr Pullicino.

“Mepa will never become popular,” he observed.

“It is criticised by developers for being too heavy-handed and by anti-development interests that feel development should be further curtailed.

“But if you look at construction trends over the past 10 years, you see that Malta’s urban sprawl has grown by just 0.4 per cent over the last decade, compared with the EU average of five per cent.”

He reminisced how, as a young architect just out of university after specialising in urban planning, he had been a “voice in the wilderness” at a public consultation meeting establishing the height restriction for Sliema and Tigné in 1994 – paving the way for the current development of the Tigné peninsula.

“Unfortunately that proposal was carried through. There were so many commitments made back then that we can’t simply turn back the page now.

“At Tigné, for example, what you see being constructed now was decided upon in the early 1990s and of course we could not tell the company that won the competition we want to lessen the development’s volume of construction.”

Asked how careful we have to be when making new commitments, Mr Pullicino pointed to the controversial Outside Development Zone rationalisation process as evidence that the government stands firmly against giving out more land for development.

He cited the fact that less than 10 per cent of the requests for inclusion in the scheme were granted, which, he says, “has unfortunately not made this government very popular with those who had wanted their land included in the development zones.”

But while the granting of land had been harshly criticised, not so were the stringent criteria established by the government in awarding the land for development, he points out.

Mr Pullicino added, “We made a very important decision to close off the process to establish the land that can be developed, which was started in 1989.

“And for once this country now knows precisely what land can be developed and what land cannot be developed.

“This was a decision that could not continue being postponed and for those people who were against the process, I would advise them to at least look at the general facts.”