Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1327573
12 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 13 JANUARY 2021 OPINION IT might, perhaps, be a little late in the day to recall an electoral promise made by Lawrence Gonzi back in March 2008; but then again, the same pledge was also repeated by Joseph Muscat as re- cently as May 2017… yet it still remains every bit as distant and unattainable as it had been almost a full decade earlier. So here it is, in the original Gonzi wording: "ODZ is ODZ […] The real is- sue for our country is to find real solu- tions for our environment. And we have to find the solutions to move forward. We need strict rules to lay down the exception. To me, ODZ is ODZ…" And this is how the Muscat version was reported, just under four years ago: "A new Labour government would commit itself to a legislature where no public projects on Outside Develop- ment Zone land are implemented…" Well, I need hardly add that neither promise has actually materialised, all these years later. Suffice it to say that, between 1995 and 2015, there were 12,572 approved applications in ODZ areas in Malta; and between 2015 and September this year, that figure rose to 4,850: i.e., more than a third of the corresponding statistic for the previous two decades. Plotted onto a linear graph, the result would be a noticeable spike in ODZ de- velopment taking place over the past five years alone. And OK: most of those applications were for 'private' (as opposed to 'pub- lic') projects – so they wouldn't have been covered by Muscat's 2017 elec- toral pledge, even if it had been imple- mented as promised. But some of the more recent ODZ developments do involve govern- ment infrastructural works – includ- ing road-widening projects in Dingli, Attard, Qormi and elsewhere - and in any case, most of those private pro- jects can be put down to specific policy changes, enacted after 2013, to permit the redevelopment of dilapidated rural 'dwellings' in ODZ areas (resulting in a tsunami of applications for countryside villas, etc.) Besides: the upshot still remains more (and more, and MORE) ODZ devel- opment… despite the fact that we had repeatedly been promised less, under both Nationalist and Labour adminis- trations. And while neither Gonzi nor Muscat is still around to assume responsibility for their abysmal failures… the current administration has also made a couple of promises of its own: including the launch of a new PA rural planning pol- icy, last June, which Environment Min- ister Aaron Farrugia declared would: "reduce to a minimum permits for de- velopment in ODZ, with the introduc- tion of narrow-ended definitions that cannot be open to interpretation…" So… um… what went wrong? How did so many repeated declarations, to the tune of 'ODZ is ODZ', always prove so utterly impossible to ever translate into an effective environmental policy? Reason I ask is that, just this week, we find ourself beset by at least four new threats to supposedly protected, devel- opment-free zones (on top of all the other planned projects we already know about: mainly for fuel stations, super- markets, new housing complexes, etc.). One involves a permit application for a drive-in cinema on agricultural land near Marsascala; and the other three take the form of landowners' objections to the proposed rescheduling of the Tal-Wej area, limits of Mosta, as a Nat- ura 2000 site. In different ways, all four cases go some distance towards answering the above question. So without further ado, let's get the Mosta objections out of the 'Wej' (ahem) first. As far as I can see from the news re- ports, none of those four landowners has actually submitted any planning ap- plications to develop their own land, in an area now proposed for zoning as an ecological/archaeological reserve. As one of them put it (and yes, it happens to be Louis Deguara, former Health Minister under Gonzi… not that it really matters, though) the ob- jection is based on a mere technicality: specifically, that "they were not given any information on the scientific, so- cial, cultural and policy considerations, which led to the selection of the site as a Natura 2000 site." Nonetheless, the area in question has been targeted by speculators in the past: including the sale, in 2018, of 2,750 square metres as "an invest- ment opportunity, since it is adjacent to (building) scheme and with plans to be in rationalization for development of terraced houses and villas". In any case, it is hard to imagine any other plausible reason to object to the creation of a Natura 2000 site – in an area known for its unique fresh-water rock-pools; and which is also rich in ar- chaeological remains, etc. – apart from the glaringly obvious: i.e., that it might upset any plans to develop the site in future. As things stand, it remains unclear whether any such plans already exist or not. But Deguara did drop a teenie-wee- nie little hint, when he pointed out that another parcel of land in the same area had already been developed in the past. "Construction has already taken place in close vicinity of these rock pools… far closer than my own plot, which is around 400m away…" This chimes in rather nicely with the overall message in that previous- ly-quoted ad; and as such, it also spells out the first part of the answer we are all looking for. Going on past experience, the mere fact that a parcel of land is excluded from the development zones is no guar- antee that it will never be developed in future. On the contrary, recent statis- tics suggest that the chances of that land being one day 'rationalised' are ac- tually quite high. This in turn creates an automatic 'in- vestment opportunity' that should, by rights, never be permitted at all. For not only does it translate into a situa- tion where 'ODZ land' can always be rescheduled to allow for development (which, in itself, defeats the whole pur- pose of even having development zones to begin with)… but it also rewards speculators, by ensuring a steady sup- ply of cheap land – supposedly on the pretext that it 'cannot be developed' – that will most likely be transformed in- to a prime building area, at no addition- al cost to the developers themselves. Small wonder, then, that so many peo- ple would snap up so much ODZ land, for next to nothing, at every opportuni- ty. It's the equivalent of speculating on the stock-market: only without any real risk to the investor. For let's face it: under these condi- tions, the value of your investment can only ever increase exponentially… with the worst-case scenario being that the land in question simply remains ex- cluded from the development zones forever: which would certainly impact any hope of future profits… but which still doesn't quite translate into any real 'loss'. To be fair to Louis Deguara and the other three Tal-Wej developers, how- ever: the most that can be said is that there is no real indication that this was their intention when deciding to buy those plots of land in the first place. But that is the one thing that cannot be said for the Marsacala speculators: who (presuming they actually own the land at all… which isn't a given, consid- ering that land ownership is not even a requirement to submit planning ap- plications to the PA) must have bought their ODZ parcel on the cheap, precise- ly with a view to developing it in future. Without even entering the merits of the project itself (personally, I have nothing against drive-in cinemas: and I can even see a certain value in this par- ticular endeavour, given that it takes place against a backdrop of COVID-in- duced social distancing, and all that)… what we are looking at here remains another case of pre-emptive ODZ spec- ulation, to add to all the rest. It is, in brief, just another hammer nailed into the coffin of that old 'ODZ is ODZ' promise: and like the Tal-Wej examples, it merely illustrates that nothing substantial can ever really be expected to change…. as long as it re- mains possible to buy ODZ land on the cheap, only to later convert it into an immensely lucrative business concern, at the simple stroke of the Planning Au- thority's pen. By the same token, however, these cases also point towards what is specif- ically preventing those ODZ promises from ever becoming a reality. Ideally, it would take a government with the political will to actually reform the Local Plans, and iron out all the ex- isting loopholes once and for all; but if that's too unrealistic – and I'm afraid it is, for now – the other alternative is to simply introduce a cost (to be paid by the developer, and concomitant to the revised value of the land once it is 'rationalised') for converting ODZ into developable land. For as long as the above incentive re- mains in place, you can hardly expect local businessmen – or indeed, anyone at all – not to avail of it, sooner or later. If, on the other hand, the investment also comes with a certain degree of risk attached… who knows? Maybe there'll be less of a national drive to develop every last square inch of this country, to the detriment of pres- ent and future generations; and maybe – just maybe – our great-grandchildren might actually get to enjoy a little un- spoilt countryside for a change… 'ODZ is ODZ'… except when it isn't Raphael Vassallo