There are some reports and studies that are shelved, others that are ignored, and yet others that are merely ‘passed for filing’.’

Now that we are in the Internet and social networking age, the easiest way to ‘publish’ anything without any advance notice, fanfare or publicity is by merely putting it on line.

The 2nd Communication of Malta to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change falls in the latter category.

Although the 1st Communication was given much deserved local publicity, and also served as a platform for a healthy debate on climate issues during a whole-day seminar in a leading local hotel at a time when climate issues were not so much to the fore, this time around we had a bit of an anticlimax.

I am not referring to the report itself but to the shameful manner in which the authorities treated it, as it was merely put on line and submitted to the UN within the agreed time schedules.

I raised this point recently during a parliamentary statement made by the Minister of Resources and Rural Affairs (MRRA) on the Cancun Climate Summit – a statement I had personally triggered by submitting a formal request to the Prime Minister before the House rose for the Christmas recess. The dry reply I got from the Minister was that, given that a Climate Adaptation Report was in the consultation process, it made little sense to focus on this report concurrently – even though, to be fair, he did not rule out giving it due attention at a later stage.

Quite frankly, I find this hard to fathom, or even accept, particularly since much more effort seems to have gone into the preparation of this document than the draft adaptation report itself – in fact I have reason to believe that meetings previously agreed upon were simply replaced by email consultations between the parties involved.

The 2nd Communication of Malta to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, dated May 2010, is credited to the MRRA, Mepa – which falls under the PM’s domain, the University of Malta and UNDP.

Were we to go by the acknowledgments, we would find that the project team acknowledged the support of numerous individuals, government and non-government officials and organisations, without whose support this project would not have been completed successfully within the agreed time frame.

Having read through the report, I can honestly say that it is way beyond hype to acknowledge the fact that this is indeed “a high quality report on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change”.

If I am allowed to say so, I got the impression that, if anything, this report triggered most of the findings and conclusions of the adaptation report that I hope will be discussed in Parliament shortly – on which occasion we hope to be able to give our official reaction as the Opposition group in the House.

I feel that the launch of the Maltese UNFCCC document deserved wider and more extensive publicity – compared to the negligible publicity that it received – both in terms of its high value content, as well as to the efforts of those responsible in order to prepare such a professional job.

In fact, the document runs for almost 380 pages and I very much doubt how many members of the general public are aware of its existence, in spite of all the efforts that were put into its compilation. I even wonder how many people even got down to reading through its executive summary.

The 1st National Communication was presented to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC on the eve of our accession to the European Union, so in this particular instance this document should have gained added importance, since it happened to be our first report as an EU member state.

My suspicion, and the suspicion of others, is that although the ministry in question is responsible for climate change issues, the Minister was compelled to admit that formal responsibility for the Communication’s preparation had been vested in Mepa, which has its own Climate Unit, and not the MRRA.

I sincerely hope that, without any further undue delay, the MRA – the rather toothless regulator – will successfully manage to establish an effective and efficient Climate Department/Unit/Directorate to continue in an even more pro-active manner the sterling work carried out by Mepa so far, in spite of human resources and budgetary limitations.

As things stand today, not only do we need permanent structures to monitor and assess greenhouse gas emissions but, now that our national climate change policies are harmonised with those of the EU, also the adoption of a more effective and efficient approach, particularly vis-à-vis the major emitters – the energy providers and the transport sector – which fall way beyond the realm of the ministry under whose aegis the MRA operates, in a nominally independent manner – the Resources and Rural Affairs Ministry.

I do hope that the real reason why this report, which was very ably coordinated by Prof. Charles Sammut, was not the end result of an internal, inter-ministerial turf war, as I managed to detect when the waste management strategy document was debated and approved by the House recently.

I am sure that government spokesmen and apologists will be quick to dismiss all this as the end result of conspiracy theories, but something tells me that it is an issue where I could be right – for reasons best left unknown (officially).

If you need further proof of this, kindly bear in mind that although we have not yet been given time to discuss this UNFCCC report, while the draft Adaptation Report was completed only recently – after much unexplainable delay – this UN report carries a May 2010 date, while the minister’s preface is dated October 2009.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com