Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1547312
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 OCTOBER 2026 OPINION Giving construction waste a second life Alistair Grima Policy executive, The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry MALTA recycled approximate- ly 1.25 million tonnes of miner- al construction and demolition waste in 2024. During the same year, another 1.04 million tonnes was used for backfilling in quar- ries. Both constitute forms of waste recovery, but they serve different purposes. While backfilling uses suitable material to restore exca- vated areas, recycling creates op- portunities to process recovered waste into materials that can be used again. According to the National Sta- tistics Office, recycling of miner- al construction and demolition waste declined by 13.6% in 2024, while backfilling increased by 58%. These developments warrant closer consideration, particular- ly when examining how Malta can strengthen the commercial viability of recycled construction materials. The Malta Chamber's Pre- Budget Document 2027, Reset & Lead, addresses this opportunity through several proposals aimed at improving material recovery, establishing quality stand-ards and supporting the development of secondary markets. An important starting point is how construction and demoli- tion waste is handled on site. Materials that are proper- ly classified and separated are generally easier to recover and pro-cess than mixed waste. The Malta Chamber therefore pro- poses stronger requirements for waste classification and separa- tion at source, alongside greater emphasis on dismantling rath- er than demolition where this would improve the recovery of materials. These requirements should be supported by clear technical guidance, contractor training and appropriate waste-tracking systems. Effective recovery must be considered from the outset of a project rather than addressed only once demolition works have been completed. Equally important is ensuring that recovered materials meet the standards expected by the construction industry. Recycled aggregates and other secondary construction products must be suitable for their intended ap- plications, supported by appro- priate testing, certification and quality assurance. For contractors, architects and developers, confidence in material performance is essen- tial. Establishing clear technical requirements would provide greater certainty when specify- ing recycled products, while en- suring that circular construction does not come at the expense of safety, durability or building quality. However, improving material recovery and certification will achieve little without sufficient market demand. The Malta Chamber there- fore proposes the develop- ment of secondary markets for con-struction and demolition waste, including minimum re- quirements for reused or locally recy-cled materials. Public procurement can sup- port this transition by introduc- ing recycled-content require- ments in public projects where technically feasible, helping es- tablish demand while maintain- ing appropriate quality stand- ards. The financial implications for businesses must also be recog- nised. Recycling infrastructure, material processing, testing and certification all require in- vestment. In this regard, the pre-budget document calls for targeted grants, fiscal incen- tives and research funding to support construction and dem- olition waste recovery. This en- sures that circular construction be-comes a viable commercial opportunity rather than simply another regulatory obligation. Another proposal involves conducting a national industri- al material flow assessment and establishing a digital by-product exchange platform. Such an ini- tiative could help identify reus- able materials across different industries and facilitate connec- tions between businesses gener- ating these materials and poten- tial users. Ultimately, successful imple- mentation will require coor- dination between regulators, con-struction operators, recy- clers, designers and prospective buyers. Any new requirements must be technically justified, proportionate and accompanied by the necessary guidance and support. Malta already processes sub- stantial quantities of construc- tion and demolition waste. The next opportunity lies in strengthening the conditions under which recovered materials can reliably return to the market. By combining effective recov- ery practices, recognised quali- ty standards and commercially viable demand, Malta can make better use of existing resources while creating new oppor-tu- nities for businesses operating within the construction sector. Courts and regulators: Who decides administrative sanctions? Paul Edgar Micallef Lawyer. The opinions expressed are his own SOME time ago in this news- paper I listed various questions that I firmly believe need to be ad-dressed in relation to the imposition of administrative sanctions. One key question I asked was: Who should be em- powered to impose such sanc- tions, which in some instances include hefty punitive financial penalties or the suspension or withdrawal of the authorisation to operate in the regulated sec- tor? The issues relating to the im- position of administrative sanc- tions by regulators are a thorn in the overall effectiveness of regu- lation given legal contestations, especially when the sanctions con-sisted of substantial finan- cial penalties. As things stand there is considerable uncertain- ty whether administrative sanc- tions can be imposed by regula- tors or conversely, if regulators should apply for a court order imposing such sanctions. Under ordinary law, various regulators are empowered to impose sub- stantial punitive sanctions. This notwithstanding, in the past dec-ade, various constitutional lawsuits contesting the ordinary law allowing such sanctions have been lodged with success. Significantly, the courts have not always taken a uniform stand in this regard. In the ma- jority of cases, the First of Hall of the Civil Court (Constitu- tional) and the Constitution- al Court presided by different judges have determined that powers under ordinary law al- lowing a public regulator to impose hefty punitive penalties, are tantamount to sanctions of a criminal nature and there- fore in breach of Article 39(1) of the Constitution. This article requires that a person accused of a criminal offence should be afforded a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court. However, there have been some singular instances where the courts took a different ap- proach and ruled that the im- position of such penalties was not in breach of Article 39(1). Whilst each case has its own particulars, the fact that the courts presided by different members of the judi-ciary have not always been uniform in their interpretation and appli- cation of Article 39(1) of the Constitution, means that some degree of uncertainty will con- tinue. What is needed is a clear and unequivocal legislative in- tervention revising the applica- ble constitutional norms. Matters need to be addressed on two levels: The first is to amend the Constitution, and the second is amending ordi- nary legislation and ensuring some degree of procedural uni- formity by regulators when de- terming sanctions. This is easier said than done. Amending the relevant norms of the Consti- tution requires a two-thirds majority of the House of Repre- sentatives. In doing so, the right balance between safeguarding a person's rights and the need for effective regulation needs to be identified. My proposal is that regula- tors should be empowered to impose punitive sanctions sub- ject to basic safeguards includ- ed within the context of the amendments to the Constitu- tion. Regula-tors empowered to take such measures should by law be guaranteed independ- ence from all other persons. The manner in which the headship of a regulator is ap- pointed and removed from of- fice should be reflective of such independence. Decisions imposing punitive sanctions should be subject to transparent procedures where- by a person who is investigated is afforded ample opportunity to defend himself or herself pri- or to the final decision is taken. If a sanction is im-posed, the aggrieved person must have the right to contest the decision be- fore a court within a given time- frame. The decision imposing the sanction must be suspended pending a final court judgment. The first step in taking matters forward is for government to is- sue a public consultation with its proposed solutions, listing the arguments for and against. Whatever measures are pro- posed should endeavour to pro- vide for some uniformity across the regulatory landscape. If ex- ceptions for the application of some of the proposed measures are to be made for certain reg- ulators, then plausible reasons should be provided.