In 2016, a supposedly "revolutionary" public domain law, submitted as a private member's Bill by the Opposition, was unanimously approved and enacted. It aimed for a legacy that both sides of the House would be bequeathing to the country, ensuring the protection of the national, cultural and historical heritage owned by the government for the benefit of future generations.
In essence, the law prohibits the commercialisation of the first 15 metres of the coastline, the country's seabed and government-owned sites of historical and ecological importance.
A list of properties that may be declared as public domain is included in the law. These include waterways, aqueducts, natural springs, valleys, public roads, public squares, woods, parks and sites of ecological and historical importance.
Other assets, such as art collections and libraries, can also be classified as public domain.
The concept of a public domain is essential so that the collective good and the public interest can be safeguarded against unsustainable development, commercialisation and environmental destruction.
Nine years have passed since then, but is there any tangible and solid proof that the law is achieving what it originally set out to do? At the time, it was hailed as a 'quantum leap' and a 'paradigm shift' in the protection of Maltese cultural, historical and natural heritage. Speculation on state-owned property was supposed to be prevented.
There is an inherent public utility deriving from special areas such as the foreshore and the sea. Yet, even to this day, we are witnessing an increase in commercial activities encroaching on local beaches. Anyone believing in the value of the public domain should be concerned about the privatisation of these public spaces. Such a trend is affecting leading Maltese beaches like Perched Beach, Għadira and Comino, especially in the height of summer.
And what about public spaces all over the island near the coastline and areas of historical and ecological value being taken over for outdoor seating or other amenities by commercial entities?
So many public spaces are not being preserved as free and accessible. Too many pavements meant for safe walking by pedestrians are being obstructed by so many illegal structures put up by commercial operators or, worse, with the approval of the Planning Authority.
The government is seriously failing in its legal responsibility to protect these public spaces and other areas of a sensitive nature consistently with their preservation and the maximisation of public utility.
This special law was expected to provide for the protection of national heritage from the very grassroots, conferring ownership rights onto the government, which, however, does not have the right to commercialise such public domain property. Indeed, the government is prohibited from granting any real rights over property belonging to the public domain. It cannot grant any concessions of any type unless it proceeds to declassify the property from the public domain.
Today, one would be justified to query whether such a declassification mechanism provided by the law itself was specifically intended to easily accommodate private and commercial interests, indirectly circumventing the main aim of the law itself while retaining an apparent and meaningless protection.
Clearly, there are no good intentions in implementing the provisions of the law. Not only that, but despite its enactment, the situation of the public domain in Malta has been going from bad to worse.
There is a discernible incompatibility between the current political agenda and the operation of public domain law. No public domain department within any public authority exists, and declarations of properties designated as public domain are very scarce.
In contrast, two years ago, three areas of land in Qawra and Sliema on the foreshore from the public domain were declassified to be able to grant emphyteutical concessions over such land. Such declassification was done with the support of the majority of MPs.
The coastline is defined by our Constitution as 'public property' to which access must remain open at all times. The rights in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend, practically, on having public spaces in which to exercise them. We continue to be in dire need of sustainable urban development through access to quality urban public spaces.
The sale of prime beachfront public land to private developers for a pittance continues unabated. High-rise developments where public land is given away for very little and preferential deals keep on making the news regularly. Public assets are being misused and our natural heritage is being squandered.
A conflict of interest over the renting of public land for a Senglea restaurant was not declared, while a questionable concession was about to be granted to International Hotel Investments (IHI), allowing it to develop residential and office buildings, including 12 high-rise units, on the coastline instead.
The prices and methods used to give away public land for touristic purposes need to be seriously reviewed and assessed, even from a policy angle.
We must stop any government from offering generous, corruption-tainted deals on priceless public land, resulting in the public losing access to property that should fall under the public domain law.
Just last year, the head of the professional association representing architects and civil engineers firmly stated that the government is attacking public spaces by failing miserably to properly design and manage them.
It is high time that NGOs and us mortals make better and full use of a right given to us by the law, allowing us to propose land parcels that should be declared as public domain.
Mark Said is a lawyer