Malta's planning and construction systems are failing to integrate even the most basic geological safeguards, leaving the country "very much backwards", compared to its European neighbours, and placing the population at risk, the president of the Malta Chamber of Geologists Dr Peter Gatt said.

In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, Gatt said that geological science is "not at all" integrated into national planning and decision-making processes on construction. Gatt warned that without the proper geological expertise embedded within the construction industry, developments risk quite literally being built on unsafe ground.

"The Planning Authority issues permits for development, but there is no obligation for an assessment of the ground itself. One could have a situation where the Planning Authority issues a permit for development of, for example, a high-rise building, but whoever is going to build that building has no idea what kind of ground they are going to build on," Gatt said.

Asked whether the Building and Construction Authority comes into play, he replied that while the BCA may require a ground investigation report, there is no structured link between the type and condition of the ground and the development permit itself.

"Obviously, there is an intimate connection between what is going to be constructed and the ground itself. Unfortunately, that connection is not being addressed properly in the current planning system, and it also puts Malta very much behind other countries, and this is unacceptable," Gatt said.

He said that in several neighbouring countries like Italy and Greece, there is a mandatory requirement to have a geological assessment and report of the ground by a geologist before any excavation and construction is done.

He characterised Malta's regulatory framework as significantly "underdeveloped" compared to neighbouring jurisdictions like Italy and Greece.

Gatt said that while local regulations simply mandate core extraction, they fail to specify that a professional geologist must perform the assessment.

Furthermore, unlike Italian law, Maltese regulations do not require the development of a comprehensive geological ground model.

According to Gatt, failing to assess the suitability of the ground has direct consequences for construction.

If the ground conditions are not appropriate, problems can arise, including settlement issues or failures during excavation, Gatt said.

"There have been a series of failures in Malta in the past few years, where third-party property buildings have actually collapsed in the excavation process," he said.

Gatt explained that although the system has historically functioned in this way, the scale and nature of development have changed dramatically, and present "archaic" regulations are inadequate for the modern construction industry.

"In the past, the Maltese used to build two or three storey buildings, usually even without a basement. Nowadays we are excavating deeper for basements and garages especially and sometimes excavating down to 10 metres or more. We are building high-rise buildings, and I think that the relevance and quality of the ground and its properties is becoming much more important, but the planning system and regulations are not adequate for the present-day situation," he said.

BCA refusal and Jean Paul Sofia inquiry recommendations

Gatt said that beyond the absence of legislation, there are institutional decisions that, in his view, actively marginalise geological expertise within Malta's construction framework.

One example he cited was the BCA's refusal to accept the Malta Chamber of Geologists' application to become a member of the Building Construction Consultative Council (BCCC), the body tasked with advising on standards and reform within the sector.

"We had applied and they refused our application. In other words, they are saying we are not stakeholders of the industry. That is unthinkable and unacceptable, anywhere in the world, because geologists are definitely stakeholders, of the construction industry," Gatt said.

He labelled the decision "incomprehensible", pointing out that the Chamber's documented warnings about excavation-related failures and ground instability have since materialised into actual third-party property damage and tragic loss of life.

Gatt pointed out that the Board of Inquiry into the tragic death of Jean Paul Sofia in 2022 had explicitly recommended that, prior to any excavation works, there should be a report by a geologist assessing the ground conditions.

Yet, according to Gatt, no progress has been made in implementing that recommendation.

"Not only was there no progress, but they are still refusing to recognise the Chamber of Geologists," he said.

He confirmed that the Chamber has since opened court proceedings against the BCA over the refusal.

Gatt noted that Malta's position stands in contrast to international practice.

"In Malta, we are refused. I think that is placing very high risks on the local population, and the BCA must take responsibility for that," he said.

He argued that the absence of geological representation at decision-making levels has consequences that go beyond professional recognition and instead touch directly on public safety.

"There are areas in Malta where the ground is unsafe, where the ground is moving as well," he said, referencing cases of landslides, damaged roads and structural cracks in buildings caused by ground movement.

"If one is buying a property, they would not know that the ground below it may be moving, as nobody would have informed them," he said.

Gatt said that the present ground movement at Sta Venera that has resulted in the evacuation of residents is a case in point, but the BCA has continued to ignore geologists, and the professional association that represents them.

Gatt added that the refusal to integrate geologists structurally into the system contradicts the stated objective of improving construction standards in the wake of fatal collapses.

"We need to take public safety much more seriously, and the exclusion of the Chamber of Geologists from the BCCC by the BCA shows that we are not taking the situation seriously," he said, warning that failure to address these issues "might result in more tragedies in the future."

He said he hoped the authority would change its attitude.

No geological service - a European anomaly

Malta is currently the sole European nation lacking both a National Geological Service and formal legal recognition for the profession of the geologist.

Gatt said that this dual absence places the country in a unique, and, arguably precarious, regulatory position compared to its EU counterparts.

"There is a significant impact. Firstly, all countries in Europe have a Geological Service or a Geological Survey, as it is sometimes called. Even small countries like Luxembourg, for example, they have the Service Géologique de l'État, which was founded in 1936. The United Kingdom established its Geological Survey in 1835. Greece established one in 1952, Cyprus in 1950 and Israel in 1949," Gatt said.

"Our situation is a bit different because we were a colony. The colonial government did have geologists, but they were British geologists working in Malta and advising the government. We are no longer a colony, and we have ended up with an administrative lacuna here, where we do not have an institution which is actually gathering data about the nature of the ground and ground conditions itself - the ground on which we build and from which we get our resources," he said.

That absence, Gatt added, has implications for quarrying, groundwater and natural resources management.

"We really have no regulations, or a scientific application, geology in this case, in the quarrying industry. We have a quarrying industry which is not very efficient, in a small country where the resources are limited," Gatt said.

Despite 70% to 80% of concrete being made of quarried aggregate, Gatt warned that geological science is "barely applied" to ensure its quality. This represents a critical gap in the safety and quality standards of the modern construction industry.

"When it comes to groundwater we still rely on boreholes, but also water galleries, which were built by the British over a century ago. We need to update. We need to have the right institutions, and the Geological Service is the right institution. Unfortunately, we do not have that," Gatt said.

While a draft Geologists Act was submitted to the government last year, Gatt said that Malta is "decades behind its neighbours".

In Italy, geologists have been recognised by law for over 60 years, since 1963, leaving Malta as a "stark outlier" in European professional standards.

"With the help of our legal aid, the Malta Chamber of Geologists did submit a draft Geologists Act, but it is now really in the hands of government to decide what to do. It was submitted through the appropriate ministry and permanent secretary, but we have not heard about it yet," Gatt said.

'Very dangerous and irresponsible' - The geological map controversy

Gatt reiterated his claim that Malta's updated geological map contains serious inaccuracies and omissions, particularly in the Hamrun/Sta Venera area.

He pointed out a significant discrepancy between the geological map of 1993 that categorised the strata as Middle Globigerina Limestone, which is a weaker and more friable rock, whereas the 2022 update reclassified the same area as Lower Globigerina, a significantly more competent and durable rock

A recent ground investigation, he said, confirmed the presence of Middle Globigerina.

"Whoever is going to build will be under the impression that they are building on relatively stronger rock, but it would be the Middle Globigerina, which is a weak and problematic rock. I think that is a very dangerous situation and very irresponsible," Gatt said.

He criticised the fact that the Continental Shelf Department, which publishes the maps, employs no geologists.

"We have a department, with no geologists, which is publishing and updating the geological maps of Malta," Gatt said.

He said local geologists were not consulted in the update process and that peer-reviewed Maltese research had been ignored.

"Can we call this an updated geological map? I do not think so. Where are the updates?" Gatt asked.