Public opinion and the environmental crimes Act

After all the sabre-rattling that stalled Parliament in the past months, it is refreshing news to hear that in the coming days it will approve the Crimes Against the Environment Act at committee stage.

Significant damage to the quality of the air, soil and water, which causes death or harm to human beings, plants and animals will now be a criminal act that may lead to severe sentences, including life imprisonment. This Act enables us to challenge polluters including waste management operators. It also transposes EU directives on the shipment of waste and on the handling of nuclear and hazardous radioactive substances. Moreover, it will now be a criminal office to endanger wild fauna and flora species.

The implications of this are wide but we all know that it now depends on implementation and the role of regulatory bodies. While it may be easy to prosecute individuals, is it equally possible to proceed against the usual prime suspects, i.e. corporations owned by the state itself and by influential commercial players?

Past experience has shown that whenever communities voiced anxies about environmental health issues, their concerns where often met with denial, complacency and even cover-ups. On the street there is now widespread mistrust in regulators as many of us do not know what to believe any more. While most of us may not be familiar with scientific jargon, some scientists have been sticking out their necks and joining the fray.

Let us take the case of Marsascala, where foul odours are back as confirmed by biologist Dr Joseph Buhagiar. In this locality the frequency and intensity of smells reported by residents is increasing. The human nose may be an efficient odour detector even though it was never meant to be a precise measuring instrument.

Now most people are reporting a sickly smell of  fermented rubbish on top of their concern about the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

Assessing the situation in Marsascala is hard as no baseline air quality assessments were carried out before the upgrading of the  Sant' Antnin Waste Treatment Plant, even though they were originally part of the terms of reference issued by MEPA. As things stand, residents  are not able to compare the current situation with  baseline data. Odours strongly affect people's daily life, health and mental wellbeing. Many resent many broken promises that were made.   

As a result, the return of foul  smells in Marsascala is fueling further mistrust in official versions. Residents clearly remember how government defended the  €27 million plant upgrade that was promoted with great pomp. Barely two years ago special bus tours took thousands of people to visit this site as a weekend attraction.

In spite of the perception management tactics that are applied, skepticism among residents remains strong as their nose does not allow them peace of mind. They continue to trust their nose even though the European Commission turned down their objections. Only last year the Constitutional Court found that residents' appeals were heard by an adjudicating board that was not duly impartial because it was appointed by the same Environment Minister who supported the project.

The Crimes against the Environment Act should also apply for the controversial new power station annexe in Delimara. From the very beginning the powerstation extension opened the way for more questions than answers. Originally the plant was supposed to start operating on May 4th 2012. Originially it was permitted to use Heavy Fuel Oil only until this September. During this period, independent UK analysts were contracted to monitor air quality and determine whether the power station may continue to use this heavy pollutant or switch to cleaner gasoil. MEPA is now recommending a nine-month extension that will give the independent consultants another year to present their findings. If this permit is extended, both MEPA and Enemalta will have peace of mind that they will not have to face flak before the general election.

But residents will not have peace of mind. One observant acquintance articulated his concerns: "There is a red-tinged plume that was previously observed on the horizon off Marsa. Now it seems that it has shifted to the Delimara area. We were told that this pinkish hue indicates the presence of hazardous nitrogen oxides and sulphure oxides."

Residents in the area expressed ample anxiety when the new power station filters were recently damaged. As soon as Enemalta released  its statement, physicist and environmentalist professor Edward Mallia aptly asked: "How is it that Enemalta only waxes informative when things go wrong? One possible reason lies in the fact that, that way the public has no means of checking if the 'explanations' given have any connection with reality."

It is now common knowledge that the Delimara plant will generate 31 tonnes of hazardous waste per day. This will fill 12 to 15 containers per week. Enemalta contracted a company to export its waste to Italy, Germany or Spain. The Crime Against Environment Act may eventually offer some solace as the contractor will be held accountable. Yet, our recent history shows that legal measures are not enough. We need to make sure that serious breaches will no longer be complacently tolerated.

Journalist Caroline Muscat describes a very telling account, which dates to 2010. Then she exposed the dumping of fly ash from the Marsa power station in an open quarry in Siggiewi.  "Enemalta had contracted the disposal of fly ash from the Marsa power station to Polidano Brothers ... 4,000 cubic metres of fly ash had been transferred to Polidano Brothers. It disappeared - it was mixed into concrete and to this day we don't know where it was used. The company refused to answer the questions put to it and MEPA did not reveal the information or hold the contractor accountable although such illegalities are liable to a fine of €58,234 or up to six months' imprisonment, or both. MEPA refused to comment on the details of the investigation although it confirmed that it had been finalised." Her story should serve as an eye-opener; let us make sure that the new Act is not merely more eyewash.

During the Parliamentary debate on this Bill, Labour MP Leo Brincat mentioned some other recent cases that may qualify as crimes against the environment. "Is the alleged incineration of animal remains imported from North Africa, going to be a repeat of the Merkaptan fiasco?", he asked. His account of how Enemalta Corporation did not dispose of Mercaptan gas in the proper manner is still fresh in our collective memory. It was only recently revealed and confirmed that Marcaptan gas was illegally destroyed by fire in an Imgarr field 3 years ago.

It is truly shortsighted that environmental issues tend to suffer from our political penchant for partisanship and short-termism as up to now we do not have a consensus-based and holisitic policy.  Whereas the electoral heat and the uncertain economic situation may currently render public opinion rather ambivalent towards environmental issues as a whole, public health remain a high priority on the public agenda. In the coming days we must not allow the new Crime Against the Environment Act to serve as a well-timed electoral gimmick.

We are in dire need of transparency and accountability in environmental health matters because the social cost we are paying is far too high for individuals and for the state. Perceptions may be manipulated in the short run but in the long term people expect substance.