[ANALYSIS] Five reasons the Central Link project has got under people’s skin

1. The project was the tipping point over an accumulation of many other factors

The Central Link project is not happening in isolation.

It is happening amid Malta’s largest ever property boom and a breakdown in trust in the planning process, marred by what are increasingly seen as self-serving interests. People have simply been faced by an economic model which they are expected to accept in the same way that they accept changes to the weather.

One would suspect that had this project been approved in a more environmentally-friendly scenario, it may have received less flak. Malta still lacks a social pact which gives assurance that any infrastructural sacrifice, like, for example, widening roads to serve bus lanes and cyclists rather than cars, takes place against a backdrop of environmental gains.

Instead road widening for cars is taking place against a backdrop of an unstoppable increase in the number of cars and endless development literally taking place in people’s backyards.

2. It came after Labour’s massive victory in June’s MEP elections

Labour's massive victory may have energised the environmental protest movement

Ironically Labour’s massive victory in the MEP elections may well have created the perfect climate for an environmental protest movement to grow.

Civic action is increasingly seen as the best antidote against an omnipotent, albeit popular, administration. Moreover, one should not forget that nearly one-third of the eligible voters did not vote in MEP elections, a figure which may well contain within it floating voters and the apolitical segment, which was so vital for Labour to win in 2013.

Reality abhors a vacuum and this movement may well be serving this purpose. This issue has unexpectedly created a reference point to a collective angst. In this case it has attracted a wide demographic, which includes apolitical segments, floaters and even some PL voters. Besides, irrespective of who leads the PN, people are pragmatic enough to realise that too much blue in protests of this kind is bound to be counter-productive to the cause.

The worst scenario for such protests would be if the PN faction opposed to Adrian Delia hijacks this space in its desperate bid to find a home. This would be a godsend to the Labour government, among those who still feel an itch whenever the PN establishment presents itself as eco-warriors.

3. Trees are an important reference point

Trees also powerful symbols

The uprooting of trees may pale into insignificance when compared to the loss of 50,000sq.m of agricultural land, which is the most negative aspect of this project.

But one can never underestimate the symbolic aspect when analysing protest movements. Centenarian trees give this movement a powerful motif. The government keeps driving the point that a row of historical trees set between the Our Lady of Victories chapel and the Saqqajja hill, originally earmarked by the same government for uprooting, are here to stay. This point had already been established a year ago but some people were still confused.

Yet people can do their own research and many are offended by the government’s way of doing maths. While official documents are pointing that 549 trees will be uprooted, including clusters of Aleppo pines further down the road just next to the chapel, government was talking about three trees which will be uprooted on the Saqqajja hill.

Furthermore, people tend to identify with mature trees, which serve as landmarks. The attachment towards these trees is rooted in their present location and not towards the 766 new trees to be planted along the route.

4. Allergic reactions to government’s overdrive touches the same raw nerves which Labour tapped in before 2013

People tend to get suspicious of studies that are used to justify projects that are a fait accompli

One of the major pitfalls in the public relations strategy of 2013 Nationalist governments was their constant appeal to technocratic rationality in order to justify already-taken decisions on projects which are often used to enhance the reputation of ministers as ‘doers’. For example, people still gave little credence to studies showing that emissions from the new Delimara power station were within acceptable limits.

Neither did they believe that there was no alternative to it, despite the presentation of voluminous cost-benefit studies incidentally authored by economist Gordon Cordina, whose studies are now quoted to justify the Central Link Project. While these studies can help inform public opinion before a project is approved, people tend to get suspicious when studies are presented as a justification for a fait accompli.

For example, in this case the Environment Impact Assessment does show that in the absence of the project, travel times due to congestion would increase substantially. But the same study also shows that even with the project, waiting times will increase over present levels in just ten years’ time.

The EIA concludes  that “with a present rate of 33 new cars being introduced on Maltese roads every day, the capacity of the upgraded roads will eventually be reached unless the availability and use of alternative/public modes of transport is amplified.” Yet no study has been carried out on how to reduce congestion through policies aimed at reducing cars.

Another discontentment tapped by Labour before 2013 was the perception that in all decisions taken by PN governments, the environment always played second fiddle. Labour’s answer to this was the creation of an Environment and Resources Authority.

Many expected that the new authority would hold its ground in the face of institutional pressures, and chairman Victor Axiak often lived up to this expectation. This explains the disappointment felt at Axiak’s vote for the project on the pretext of the ‘national interest’, something well catered for by the sheer composition of the PA board where government appointees constitute the majority.

This should have given him enough room to vote against. Ironically had Axiak voted against the project, critics would have at least felt that their voice was still represented in the institutions.

5. In a two-party system it is not just the majority which counts

Malta may be a car-loving nation but this is not just about the majority

The government probably banked on the fact that the majority wants faster connections and sees road-widening as a quick fix to everyday congestion. This is partly true except for the fact that in the absence of a decrease in the number of cars such benefits may be short term, something acknowledged by Infrastructure Malta CEO Frederick Azzopardi.

But while one should not underestimate support for road projects, there are segments of the population who have different values, lifestyles and priorities.

Meanwhile, the government faces one major problem. It is no longer facing two audiences composed of a loyal herd of government apologists, pitted against those who are bent on opposing anything for partisan reasons. One factor that government seems to ignore is that a propaganda overdrive tends to get under the skin of non-partisan people, especially when the ‘facts’ presented are misleading, like focusing exclusively on a row of 70 trees and ignoring another 549.