The recent controversy fuelled by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in connection with his plans regarding land reclamation is ridiculous. It appears that election fever, coupled with the onset of the silly season, continues to rage unabated and the tempers of the party faithful are rising – perhaps not surprisingly, considering that the mercury hit 40°C this week. Still, it is a fact that past examples of land reclamation have been successful and have provided valuable space for intelligent and sustainable use for many purposes. Land reclamation is not new to the Maltese islands. I mention the Marsa Sports Grounds, which is entirely reclaimed land, the sea originally reaching inland as far as Qormi since ancient times. This is not to mention a host of both private and public projects around the coast, including a cruise liner terminal in Grand Harbour. Inevitably, there will always be pressure from NGOs and environmentalists resisting any reclamation work as this changes the ecological balance of the seabed in a harmful way.
The argument against reclamation needs to be counter balanced by the economic benefits the country derives from the clever use of reclaimed land. Stop and wonder how many cubic tonnes of coastline rock have been eroded by Mother Nature over the millennia. Economists will argue that as an over-populated island, regrettably not blessed with any natural resources (such as minerals, mountains or other riches) we have progressed in many commercial activities over the years and as a result maintain a relatively high standard of living. Being more contrite, one could argue that, as the most densely populated country in the world, with a relatively large population living on a tiny rock, we need more elbow room.
Just consider how, from the time of the Knights of St John when the population was under 80,000, we have grown to over 420,000 and – in order to support the tourist sector investment – we continuously aim to increase the number of visitors to two million annually. As stated earlier, the island is not growing but, on the contrary, there is constant coastal erosion and rising sea levels. Consider for a while the ambitious cruise liner industry and therefore, in this specific context, how vital it is for NGOs to carefully weigh the advantages of better paid jobs benefitting from substantial investment (both private and public) to reclaim land from the sea. In the past we squandered millions to buy industrial peace at the Drydocks et al and now we are penny pinching on bread-and-butter issues.
The concerns of NGOs in this context cannot be dismissed, and their objections have to be carefully considered in respect of upsetting the biodiversity levels of the seabed. Any scientist will tell you that the uncontrolled dumping of inert waste disturbs the water table by contributing to turbidity, and in large measures it also lowers the photosynthetic capabilities of aquatic species. Here studies show that it can be detrimental to the marine ecosystem as a whole (remember NGOs made no fuss when they discovered Midi’s excavation of a 10-storey car park underneath the football ground in Tigné Point and the dumping of the waste in an unauthorised sea location).
Further complications arise when inert material is contaminated with toxic materials such as heavy metals or other chemical species that could be absorbed by the marine ecosystem and contaminate food chains. Naturally nature has its own inbuilt mechanism to fight such intrusions (consider the underwater damage caused by severe grigal storms in the winter months) but this may take ages to establish full ecological normality. There will always be an ecological price to pay when inert waste, usually from construction and demolition sources, is arbitrarily dumped into the sea. The hardest hit, from a purely environmental standpoint, is obviously the seabed, which not only loses its integrity in terms of physical characteristics but also suffers deterioration to the natural habitat under water which, in extreme cases, can be wiped out altogether.
The classical objection is the love of sea grass meadows which is typical vegetation in the Mediterranean. Posidonia oceanica covers large areas of seabed at various depths around the coastline and environmentalists are concerned that it will be eradicated by the excessive dumping of earth and inert waste. Sea grass has a high ecological value as it stabilises the seabed and serves as nurturing grounds for an immense variety of fish species and other marine organisms. It is like destroying the grass in the fields when there are so many animals that survive by grazing it as fodder.
Moving on to the advantages of reclamation, we see with nostalgia old photographs showing how the parish church in Msida was built facing the sea but now we tend to ignore, or take for granted, the vast stretch of reclaimed land that enabled the improved road infrastructure right up to Rue D’Argens. Just look at the immense stretch of reclaimed terminals ( I believe there are now three) at the privatised French-owned Freeport which, in the process of dredging, has contributed tons of sand carefully deposited in Pretty Bay creating one of the largest beaches in Malta.
Other examples include the wide promenade developed out of reclaimed land at Gzira, the creation of an impressive harbour, breakwater and passenger terminals at both Cirkewwa and Mgarr – the list goes on and includes the Viset development of various berthing facilities for ocean-going liners at Valletta waterfront which has also contributed considerably to the increase in the number of passengers visiting Valletta. Such dredging and the construction of jetties/reclaimed land has been paid for out of the national coffers, but one cannot exclude that in the future there will be SPV company structures (such as Malita to finance the Piano designs for Valletta’s city gate) which can be also be used to finance public projects such as marinas.
There is also the ongoing reclamation of parts of the shoreline at Smart City which, when completed, will no doubt contribute thousands of ICT jobs. The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) has also paid independent consultants for two major studies on the reclamation of land and just this week has released for public viewing two such – one dating back to 2005 that explored the idea of disposing of construction waste at sea, and the other from 2007 that explored the feasibility of land reclamation at two specific areas.
Without a careful interpretation of these two studies, it remains a mystery whether the environmental authority has engaged itself in such a controversy to discourage or otherwise the environmental and economic feasibility of land reclamation within our islands’ coastal areas.
Certainly there was much talk about the use of inert material from Maghtab mountain in time being moved into the sea at Qalet Marku to develop a small island, as the water level there is relatively shallow. Naturally, the construction lobby is very much in favour of sustainable work that will secure jobs in the near future. Any large-scale conservation project will inevitably stimulate the regeneration of key areas such as the inner harbour area, but designs have to blend in and show great sensitivity for the aesthetic value and historical significance with the functional considerations of a busy cruise line terminal and a promenade with multifarious commercial, cultural and leisure activities. The question one may be asking is what is the alternative use of reclaimed land?
The answer is not very difficult to give since, with a bit of imagination, one can think of a number of creative projects that can be accommodated, thus relieving pressure from building in ODZ areas. What are the environmental and economic implications of engineering an artificial island in Malta’s territorial waters similar to those found in Singapore where even a secondary airport was developed on reclaimed land?
But opposition to such massive developments comes from the NGO war zone saying (quite rightly) that we do not have a sufficient capacity of inert waste (except for Maghtab, which is still currently undergoing a slow rehabilitation extracting tons of methane gases).
It is a Catch 22 issue – more inert waste/debris from construction means a faster tempo of construction activity in an island that shamelessly boasts of over 70,000 unoccupied dwellings. This is strongly resisted. It is true that when completely rehabilitated, the Maghtab landfill will be ready for immediate use, and that creating a 200-tumoli artificial island at Qalet Marku could perhaps be a convenient way of relocating recycling plants from Marsascala or erecting onshore wind turbines or, even better, constructing a mega-solar power station away from urban areas.
To conclude, various administrations have paid scant attention to the erosion problem, even if they realise that unattended these are getting worse due to increasing competing land uses on an ever shrinking land. Now, as the subject has been raised again by the Leader of the Opposition, it has been politicised and may, in the coming months, become taboo. Ironically, from now until the day when the election pistol is fired, only islanders branded as “red at heart” can vouch for the usefulness of planning for future reclamation ventures that come with a promise to secure job generation particularly by building modern yacht marines. Clearly, there is considerable demand for these, and yet Mepa has been sluggish to approve new ones (with no apologies for the Hondo stalled application). Indeed, we now face a political decision to seriously consider a medium-term solution to land reclamation. One may not be in complete agreement with this proposal, but the crux of the matter is that hopefully it will not fizzle out as a pre-election political gimmick (remember the reduced 25 per cent tax rate for managers promised in 2008and 7,000 new jobs in ICT?).
Yes, Malta is shrinking and will continue to do so unless we put our shoulders to the wheel and wholeheartedly consider an ecologically sustainable plan to combat and/or replace the centuries of land erosion.
[email protected]
The writer is a partner in PKF an audit and business advisory firm