Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/219723
28 Letters maltatoday, SUNDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2013 Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Waste treatment The James Debono interview with Kevin Gatt (published in the 16 November edition of MaltaToday), coordinator of the new Waste Management Policy recently issued for public consultation produced a solid core of good sense, but in the central area dealing with 'organic waste', there seems to be a significant amount of confusion. For a start: there is only one Mechanical Biological Treatment plant in operation at present, that at Sant'Antnin; another is projected for Maghtab. The specification for the SA plant stipulated that out of a total of 71,000t p.a. waste throughput, 35,000t could be Municipal Solid Waste, containing among other things, organic waste. Unfortunately there was a hidden and untested assumption behind that figure: that it represented in large part good quality OW, with a certain value of biogas yield… but more of this later. It was then said that, "of the al- lowed 35,00t throughput which is coming via black bags, only half of it is composed of organic waste which can be directed to digestion". There are two or three very problematic statements in that. In the first place, the 35,000t input from black bags with mixed MSW, has not been reached; second, there is no clear basis for that 50% of OW, as no regular testing of the input waste has been reported. The apparent suggestion that the 50% non-organic waste was removed before inputting the waste into the digestor is not correct. So much so that the biogas yield from the OW input was under ½ of that "expected", and the final solid product (compost) was unuseable from too high a heavy metal content, being sent to landfill. And if the feed rate was really about half the digestor operational capacity – as is implied by the proposal to add 40,000t to it – how come the hydrolyser tank was not stopped once for cleaning in nearly three years of operation, an omission that was the probable cause of a major breakdown? The length of time necessary to optimise bacterial action after a stop cannot be compared with the long months the plant has been out of useful action because of the breakdown. So the proposal to increase, temporarily, the throughput of the current, low grade OW does not make sense, even if it were at all technically possible. The only sense it may make is a "propaganda" one, as SA may be able to reach its "design" electricity output. On the SA downside, the volume of useless compost to be sent to landfill will increase, though Maghtab would get some relief from "black bags". Administratively it would require "consultation" with the Local Councils, which now direct their "black bags" to Maghtab. Well may Kevin Gatt say if that was an actual quote that "while not cast in stone, increasing the throughput …". Minister Leo Brincat practically disowned the idea with the first protest from a M'Skala resident; the M'Scala mayor said he was quite sure the proposal will never be implemented, and Wasteserv has disowned it as well. There is point in continuing with the "quote": this extra throughput was to continue "until 35,000t of organic waste may be secured through the three-tier separation program proposed". This "organic waste" is clearly presumed to be of good quality; the three-tier program is assumed not to take very long to install. But why run all these "risks"? The Local Councils Association has recently issued a tender for the collection of food waste "from tourist areas", the waste to be sent to farmers equipped with "a pilot composting plant". Why cannot this waste, likely to be of good quality – though this needs determining by sample testing – be sent to SA? That way, biogas can be produced (the farmers' pilot plant cannot do this) and there will still be good quality compost for the farmers at the end. This course of action can be pursued without deflecting work on the "three-tier" program. There is of course a "demarcation" problem: the LCA falls under Parliamentary Secretary Jose Herrera and not Environment Minister Leo Brincat. Kevin Gatt's "quasi-evangelical zeal" will not serve for much if it is seen that "officialdom" is not contributing its share to "life-style change". Compartmentalised approaches – a major waste treatment area under Minister Konrad Mizzi is not included in the draft policy – will not cut much ice with an already reluctant public. E.A. Mallia, Attard Whither Malta? The discussion on the Individual Investor Programme has not as yet delved into the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship cannot be reduced to a commodity which is bought and sold. It has taken thousands of years for the Maltese people to constitute itself as an independent state and so such an achievement cannot be thrown away at the stroke of a pen. There are many communities and people in the world who have not achieved this status, so the Maltese people should not take this matter lightly. It is a sign of political immaturity on the part of Joseph Muscat who believes that Maltese citizenship can be acquired by a foreign person on the payment of a sum of money without this person having a relation to Malta and the Maltese. It is a greater sign of immaturity on the part of the academic staff at the University and those in the legal profession who for one reason or another have not as yet spoken out to criticise IIP or who have tried to minimise the damage that IIP will do to Malta, if the scheme is enacted into law without amendments. Citizenship is the bond between the individual person and the state and so may be said to be the basis for the constitution of Malta as an independent and sovereign country. There could be no sovereign and independent Malta without citizenship, and so citizenship pertains to those who have acquired specific rights and duties to make up the Maltese state and to no others. It follows from this that citizenship cannot be reduced to a money relation. Maltese citizenship has only existed for 49 years, after hundreds of years of struggle and so we – the Maltese people – should not allow a Johnny-come-lately to give it away. Joseph Muscat has the power to enact IIP into law on the strength of the nine-seat majority acquired in the last election, but the Maltese people have the power to undo this humiliating scheme by annulling it in an abrogative referendum. Coming to the here and now, it is clear that although the granting of citizenship is a competence of the National government and therefore the EU institutions – as such – cannot interfere in our discretion, we as members of the EU and of the Schengen area will – by granting Maltese citizenship to non-EU nationals – be imparting to them freedom of movement in the EU and unhindered access at the internal borders of the Schengen area – with no passport and immigration controls. This is a serious matter. If citizenship is granted on the conditions set by IIP and is bound to cause disparaging and humiliating remarks with respect to Malta and our institutions in the European media. It is also planned that the issue of citizenship will be discussed in the EU Parliament. In this regard, I appeal to the PL and the PN to find a compromise on IIP which respects our national dignity within the course of the next few days, so that Malta will be spared this affront and will not be confronted with another round of humiliating remarks during the forthcoming debate in the EU Parliament. Malta deserves better! Mario Mifsud Hamrun Stark reality to an uncomfortable fact EDITORIAL • NOVEMBER 30 2003 TO argue that the deficit problem is not linked to economic planning is wrong. One should not forget that for the last 17 years the PN has been in government and ruled this country. Then again, the diversity, the democratisation, the opportunities, the economic progress continues to overshadow the dark years before 1987 offered to us by a combination of Mintoffian policies and Mifsud Bonnici follies. No one should forget the ridiculous autarky promulgated by those policies that blocked the fruition of a free market economy and compelled everyone to look to corrupting minor officials and taking on Catania flea markets as a solution to better their purchasing power. The changes of the late eighties and nineties could only have got better had it not been for certain politicians that postponed reform. But then again, there were very few Thatcherite policies in motion. The Nationalist government cannot be accused of bulldozing any social reform policy. On the other hand, it patiently discussed every motion it planned with the unions, first with Anglu Fenech then Jack Calamatta and finally with Tony Zarb, to the detriment of reform and change. In the first years of Nationalist government, the flakes of Labour violence carried on captained by the thuggery of the late Lorry Sant and the militancy of Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici's inward-looking Labour party. The 90s opened new opportunities to bona fide entrepreneurs who challenged the old guard dominated by four big families, the Bertu Mizzis of this world. Not all was above board, but the nouveau riche had every opportunity to move and share the kill with the privileged few. In the cultural scene there was first a void and then an explosion. The dying cinemas were replaced by state of the art cinemas in one, two, three and four localities. The University campus contained 9,000 students and not the few hundreds imposed by the silly antics of numerus clausus. Graduates over-spilled into new jobs, upgrading standards all around. Not all was rosy, but the purchasing power of most Maltese doubled, tripled and in some cases quadrupled from the 1987 norms. Speculators smiled as they raked in hundreds of thousands of pounds and reinvested in lucrative funds or ideas. In the economic boom of the 90s, infrastructure projects brought to the fore a new air terminal and freeport. New private hospitals blossomed and so did private old people's homes. Eateries and entertainment places became more sophisticated and media transformed itself from one English newspaper and two Maltese newspapers to a plethora of newspapers, radios and TV stations. Computers and IT – once the scourge of Labour policies – infiltrated every home and the same occurred for mobile telephony. Japanese and French cars – once banned under Mintoffian rule – were back again, together with the thousands of fancy cars that literally invaded every nook and cranny of Maltese society. But not all was rosy, the economic drive failed to look at the global factor that had an intrinsic impact on the ups and downs of Malta's competitiveness and tourist potential. Even more so, the rush led to serious environmental degradation, even though a planning authority contributed to somewhat limiting the damage. On an institutional level, the PN failed to change the electoral system, the judicial system and the financing of political parties. And worse still, government took five years of our lives to introduce a tax regime, which was then removed, changed and finally returned to us once again. And on the European Union question, Malta had to suffer the unbelievable argumentation of Harvard graduate Alfred Sant who first waged war on accession then chose to suddenly embrace it. In the end, we are all back with another budget. The same accusations of incompetence and mismanagement have been bandied around at the very same feet of the PN government. There is truth in that statement, but the ripostes to the 'fair' accusations, is that in all fairness; the Nationalist monarchy is still the better alternative and if there are any kings in the waiting, we are not seeing them.