People are owed an explanation on scrapyard fires

Updated with link to ERA's right of reply

Two successive scrapyard fires in as many weeks should be cause for major concern. The hours-long fires spewed thick black toxic fumes into the air, apart from potential seepage of contaminated runoff into the ground. They are the closest to a major environmental disaster this country has experienced over recent years.

Firefighters took hours to battle the flames with the last operation on Triq Garibaldi in the Marsa industrial estate, stretching their resources to the limit. Firefighters deserve our praise for the manner by which they handled these two disasters.

And yet, the silence from the environmental authorities has been glaring. The only comments were made in response to media questions about the second scrapyard fire, which concerned a site that has a long history of abuse.

We would have expected the Environment and Resources Authority to publicly come forward of its own volition and provide all relevant information about permits and mitigation measures adopted by the two scrapyards involved. We would have accepted ERA to publicly state that an investigation will be carried out to determine the cause of the fires and inform the public what mitigation measures are being taken now to ensure the toxic waste from the fires will be disposed of correctly and prevented from further contaminating the surroundings.

We got nothing of this. For all its worth, ERA is already doing all the above but unless it goes public with its actions it will not be enough to put people’s minds at rest that things are being done the right way.

In these circumstances we would have expected the environment minister to make an announcement of sorts—hold a press conference, make a statement in parliament, issue a press release—to show that somebody in government does care about people’s wellbeing.

Somebody needs to put people’s minds at rest that rules are being enforced and if breaches are discovered, legal action will follow. If the two scrapyards did anything that fell afoul of regulations or acted irresponsibly, they should face the consequences for the environmental damage they caused.

We are not too sure this will be the case. When replying to media questions about the JAC Steel Ltd scrapyard on Triq Garibaldi—this scrapyard was also the site of another massive fire in 2021— ERA showed how meek it is in dealing with abusive behaviour.

An ERA official was quoted saying that the authority’s interest was to “push him [the operator] towards compliance” in a way that safeguards the best environmental interest.

The official reiterated ERA was working with him and trying to push him to apply for the necessary permits. But the official also admitted that the operator sometimes agreed and complied but at other times carried on with the illegalities. Indeed, fines were levied and stop orders issued but the abuse persisted over time.

It is obvious that the daily fines are not an adequate deterrent and unless a company’s machinery is not rendered unusable while a stop order is in force, it will continue to abuse.

Enforcement with a human face is good—working with operators to comply could be an important first step to inculcate a culture change. But authorities like ERA have to also be conscious of what could be perceived as weakness on their part by perpetrators. This is why enforcement with a human face must also have its flipside—enforcement that is relentless.

When abuse is persistent, continuous and repetitive, the authorities should stop being nice. If operators are unable or unwilling to fulfil their obligations they should be stopped.

And if the law has loopholes that allow operators to continue working despite the abuse being flagged, it is the minister’s duty to propose legal changes to ensure that environmental crime is punished with no ifs and buts.

It is ironic that while the JAC scrapyard was operating with an environmental permit in hand, last December, KPH Ltd, an animal feed cooperative, was protesting in court the lack of observance of the rules by the scrapyard. KPH and JAC operate two distinct neighbouring sites.

In a judicial protest, KPH had lamented about scrap metal piles that were growing higher than the dividing wall between the companies’ sites and seepage of oils into the ground whenever it rained.

The logical question to ask in these circumstances is how was the company allowed to continue operating a scrapyard when it persistently flouted the law? Maybe someone in authority can bother to give an honest, transparent answer. At the very least, the people who have had to inhale the toxic fumes are owed this explanation.

Right of reply: ERA says it ensured compliance at law before issuing permit for Marsa waste scrapyard