From Mr J. Grech
Dear Prime Minister,
As Minister for the Environment we wish to bring to your attention the outline development permit on planning application PA03368/06, granted on 6 June 2007. CMA CGM has since applied for a full development permit with two applications on the basis of the Outline Permit issued to Malta Freeport. The first application is to dredge the bottom to accommodate modern large container ships; the second is to extend the West Quay in Terminal One land wise.
Following the PDS, Mepa seeks public consultation on the Terms of Reference (TOR). Once the TOR is agreed upon and published, one does not expect to have changes. At this point I wish to refer to page 29 of the technical appendices on Marine Baseline where Mepa made the following remark and I quote:-
“Mepa – Kindly note that the TOR were not amended. Rather, discussions were held with the EIA coordinator. Kindly amend text.”
“ADI – The paragraph explains the progress of events. Discussions were held and as a result of the discussions, there was agreement to changes in the TOR. This effectively translates into an amendment of the TOR.”
Our first question is, were there changes in the TOR to the EIA?
As per correspondence dated 30th November 2006 from ADI Associates, one notes that the EIA contractors minuted the meeting, which discussed in detail the Terms of Reference for the Environment Planning Statement. This letter outlines the agreed changes to the TOR and asks Mepa to endorse the contents as a valid record of the discussion. ADI stated that the Environment Planning Statement would be carried out in line with the TOR as amended.
ADI believed that changes were recommended and the EPS was so conducted. Was it legal?
The second point is about the proposed changes. Were they for the benefit of having a true picture of the state of affairs in relation to the applications or was it going to have adverse effect on the final EPS report. Professional advice pointed out that most changes proposed were cost effective and indicated an urgency to carry out an EIA as quickly as possible.
The dredging of the main basin (the body of water between Terminal One and Terminal Two). It was proposed that the main basin would not be dredged; it was agreed that the 14.5-metre draft would cater for vessels of maximum LOA of 385 metres. The proposed 15.5 metres in the PDS was abandoned. Saving of thousands, if not millions, of euros.
The extra metre can easily be cleared when maintenance dredging is carried out at the expense of the MMA. So it was also decided that maintenance dredging is outside the scope of the project and hence it will not be assessed in the EIA. We now know that dredging equipment has since been extended to dredge deeper.
It was also agreed that the reference to Alternative Sites was not relevant in this case.
It was also agreed that existing bathymetric data would be used and no new surveys carried out.
As for the geology and geomorphology, it was agreed to utilise existing data and no new surveys were required.
As for marine ecology, Mepa considered the request for the EIA not to survey pelagic organisms; it was preliminary agreed to provide a desk study of the organisms known in the area. Data from previous studies will be referred to. As regards the infauna, it was agreed that sampling over such a large stretch, (over 2 km in length) was not feasible, therefore a desk study blah blah blah …..
It seems that not all Mepa officials knew about this mysterious meeting because in the technical appendices on page 29, Mepa asked about the status of the Posidonia meadows. (Posidonia is a marine plant protected by the Habitat Directive, LN 311/2006 and the Burn Convention, which protects deliberate picking collecting, cutting, uprooting, possession or sale) The EIA consultants replied that the scope of the EIA is to assess the impact and not provide hypothetical scenarios. ADI Associates only conducted a desk study and stated that Mepa was requesting a complete study in its own right, which is outside the scope of the EIA. Posidonia meadows may be thriving much more vigorously since the original survey and past dredging, but who is to know as no surveys were conducted.
And it goes on and on, changes in Water Quality study, Archaeology Study, Noise and vibration impacts, and landscape.
As for the social impact, Mepa agreed that a Social Impact Assessment is not required. It was also agreed that some aspects of the social impact would be addressed in the individual chapter of the EIA. Three aspects of the social impact were particular groups such as moorings, recreational area and noises.
The EIA fail to distinguish the social effects between the period during the construction of the projects and the effects during operation. To start with, one can put up with the effects during construction, knowing that the impacts are temporary, although at times these can cause discomfort and inconvenience. The main social effects are mainly during the operational period. This means that the effects and impact on the operational side of the applications will be on a permanent basis, irreversible and have adverse direct, local and national effects. The EIA’s main study concentrated on the effects during the construction period and in some instances during operations. This can easily be proven by the following remarks between Mepa and the EIA contractors in the Technical Appendices on page 55. As far as we are concerned, ADI did a marvellous job and study. It also did a good job of quoting other studies and I would have to write volumes to justify my group’s points of view.
Mepa – Kindly clarify what is meant by good operational practice and project management procedure.
ADI – These are standard construction and operational management measures aimed at reducing environmental impacts and improving construction procedures.
Mepa – Kindly include a list of these measures.
ADI – Since this is an operational issue and the permit application is only at outline stage, this issue would be further addressed in the full development through Mepa’s standard request for a CMP.
Before any work on the projects starts, consider thepresent conditions, Birzebbuga residents are inundated with irritable, continuous, penetrating noises 24/7, originating from ships’ generators, quay side cairns, other cairns, haulage tracks and sirens with no respect whatsoever for residents. With the proposed project the noise will increase threefold because the buffer zone will be reduced to less than 200 metres away from residential housing. Noise study did not include the impact it would have on residents. The report states that Mepa does not establish noise levels, as there are other environment authorities that quote standards. No amount of compensation can ever satisfy or rather make up for the inconveniences.
Concentrated heavy metals in the seawater will increase. There will be an increase of pollution from chimneystacks. We will lose pleasure craft moorings and a possibility that the Sailing Club will have to move or disband. The water polo pitch is now derelict and useless, caused by new currents since the introduction of the sandy beach, a direct Freeport impact. We will lose the Wied Il-Buni promenade, so popular with bathers, and Sacred Heart Promenade will suffer the same fate. Pretty Bay may lose its artificial Mepa-made sandy beach.
In short and to the point, Dear Prime Minister please stop the applications and refer the matter for a new EIA with full participation as directed in the Aarhus Convention. The people have the right to know and the right to participate in the decision-making. With this project, we, the residents of Birzebbuga stand to lose and so will the nation. We cannot make more sacrifices for the sake of the nation, it’s our time to say no to more inconvenience. We want to prevent Birzebbuga from becoming a carbon copy of the Marsa Menqa; we want to preserve the beautiful blue clear sea, and we want to maintain silent night hours; we want to have peace of mind.
Our next letter will be on the low flying passenger aircraft training over Gudja Airport and Birzebbuga for hours on end, and the night flights. We seek the European Silent Hours standards. At present we are studying the legal aspects of the problem.
John Grech
Secretary
Birzebbuga Environment Action Group.