Qala terminal designs stoke public fears

The government has so far refused to reveal the names of the shareholders involved in Kalamarine, despite being asked to do so in a number of parliamentary questions.  

The consortium is the sole bidder for the Gozo cruise liner terminal and plans to site the terminal inside the quarry owned by Gatt Constructions Ltd, were inadvertently revealed by the Milan office of Chapman Taylor, who won a design competition for the terminal concept.

MaltaToday has tried to confirm whether Gatt Constructions is involved in Kalamarine, but attempts to contact Victor Gatt have so far been unsuccessful.

But the quarry earmarked for the terminal is itself adjacent to a quarry owned by Road Constructions Ltd, a company owned by Joseph Grima and Victor Hili, which still has enough hard stone for the next 40 years of extraction: the high quality stone was used in the City Gate project.

The quarry was only recently granted a renewal permit in 2014, but this quarry is not visible in the Chapman Taylor design because it is depicted as farmland.

No replies were forthcoming from Road Construction Ltd to questions sent by MaltaToday on whether they have reached any agreement with

Kalamarine to sell off their own quarry – surely a major obstacle to the development and landscaping of this extensive project.

Both Road Construction and Gatt Constructions are leading firms on the island whose rivalry is well known: even politically, Road Construction has a history of enjoying patronage under PN administrations.

Extensive EIA necessary

Qala was not the Labour government’s preferred choice for a cruise liner terminal. In July 2013 when announcing the call for expressions of interest, Gozo minister Anton Refalo said that while there is no preferred site for the project, proposals for Hondoq ir-Rummien at Qala would not be considered due to the environmental impact.

But he declared that Marsalforn also had huge potential for a yacht marina. The bid to create a Gozitan ‘Portomaso’ in Marsalforn never materialised when the foreign partners for a local investor lost interest in the project.

MaltaToday is informed that the project would also have involved residential development in the vicinity or beneath a protected valley. A similar proposal made to the previous government was in fact rejected.

Sources in MEPA’s Environment Protection Directorate who spoke to MaltaToday dismissed claims by Chapman Taylor that work on the project could possibly start in 2016.

A project of 220,000m² requires a rigorous Environment Impact Assessment that would take over two years to complete. In the case of the botched Hondoq marina, which also involved the development of a former quarry over 180,000m² of land, a final decision still has to be taken 13 years after the application was presented.

MEPA has also made it clear that it was not involved in the site selection of the Simar quarry for the Kalamarine development.

MEPA experts told this newspaper that on paper the project appears as an improvement to the landscape due to the existing quarries, but the construction of a completely new village in one of Gozo’s most secluded areas is “very problematic”, apart from its impact on marine life.

Most of the objections against the Hondoq project, which also involved the conversion of a quarry into a Mediterranean village and a yacht marina, apply to the one proposed in is-Simar. Even the reconfiguration of the coast requires studies on geological impacts and on water currents.

Even the reasons that led MEPA’s Environment Protection Directorate to recommend a clear refusal in 2011 to Hondoq, may apply to the Simar proposal. Hondoq was refused because it was a “major urban-type development proposed ODZ and in an area which should be kept free from even small-scale urban development.”

The directorate had also said that rehabilitating the quarry at Hondoq could be addressed without any new development, but through simple measures like the accumulation of quarry debris and afforestation. In fact it said that the project could set a “dangerous precedent which will result in further undesirable development” on natural areas because of the need of new roads.

The most controversial aspect of any such project such as the Simar terminal would be the development of a new road passing through agricultural land. Other impacts would be those on marine life, such as legally protected Posidonia meadows, and the impact of light pollution on bats and birds.

Another major obstacle to the project is the strong prevailing winds, that would make any landscaping through the use of plants and trees difficult.

Impact on Posidonia

A scientific report that had formed part of the EIA for the Hondoq project had clearly shown that excavating parts of the rocky shoreline to create a channel for the yacht marina’s inlet, would turn the waters murky and lead to a significant degradation of the marine life in the area.

“The effect may extend to 1,000 metres away from the shore… this includes the nearest shoreline at Comino and the eastern-most tip of Gozo.”

The Hondoq project also risked major damage to Posidonia meadows in the Gozo-Comino channel from construction dust, while other substances such as nitrates and phosphates could be released into the bay. The study expressed concern that effluent from sea craft could also pollute the Gozo-Comino Channel.

One major difference between Hondoq and the Simar project is that the latter includes the cruise liner terminal: back in 2012, MEPA’s Environment Protection Department said a cruise liner berth at Mgarr harbour would be “objectionable in principle” because of the threat posed by dredging to the protected Posidonia meadows and other protected species like the lesser Neptune grass.

That project envisaged a new berthing facility within the port consisting of a platform 80 metres long and 15 metres wide, positioned on concrete piles, and connected to the shore via a 100 metre-long bridge.

A preliminary environment impact study indicated that almost half of the continuous Posidonia beds in the area would be directly lost as a result of dredging. And increased turbidity levels from the manoeuvring of large cruise liners, would also jeopardise any remaining Posidonia beds.

So MEPA can only approve such a large-scale project like a cruise liner terminal, when it is clearly in breach of EU nature protection directives, in the event that it must be carried out for reasons of “overriding public interest”.

But then this would have to be justified with the European Commission, accompanied by an appropriate compensation for the “loss of habitat”.