Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/741600
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2016 11 JAMES DEBONO WITH a target to recycle 50% of its municipal waste within three years' time, Malta has managed to recycle only 5.68% of this waste in 2014. And the percentage of recycled waste has declined from 8.1% in 2012 to 6.8% in 2013 and to 5.7% in 2014, data given to MaltaToday shows. The "phenomenal" increase in tourism and Malta's economic growth – a spokesperson for the Environment and Resources Au- thority said – were resulting in the creation of new waste streams. "The national challenge now is to implement the best strategies as already defined by the national Waste Management Plan to un- couple these positive driving fac- tors from waste generation," the ERA said. But Mario Schembri, chief ex- ecutive of the GreenPak waste re- covery scheme, laments that there is "too much fragmentation" in the industry. "Knee-jerk actions have plagued the sector for more than a dec- ade… All of this hotchpotch is further muddled by the contrast- ing extremes of having on the one-hand multiple ministries and government agencies, that have unrestricted access on how or where they can operate; and on the other hand a myriad collection of private sector players trying to ex- ist on the remaining scraps. "The fragmentation in the sector has become so widespread that un- less a serious effort is made to curb it, the end results will continue to remain as dismal as they are now – if they do not worsen." Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) consists of four main streams, namely packaging, paper, biode- gradable municipal waste, and other forms of waste discarded in black bags. Although progress was regis- tered in the recovery of packaging waste, which uses companies like GreenPak to collect the packaging it puts on the market, Malta still lags behind EU targets. Printed material and junk mail also constitute a huge portion by weight of municipal solid waste, which is not recycled. Biodegradable organic waste such as food leftovers, is another major source of unrecycled waste. All other waste discarded in black bags – which is not sepa- rated – goes straight to the landfill. And in 2014 79% of all municipal waste was landfilled, down from 82% in 2013. In the same year 41% of all land-filled waste consisted of municipal waste. Packaging: New 75% target looms Malta fares better in recovering packaging waste because produc- ers of this waste are directly re- sponsible for collecting it. But even in this sector Malta lags behind EU targets. Eurostat data shows Malta recovered 41.3% of packaging waster in 2014, but re- cycled 41.1% when it should be recovering 60% and recycling 55%. In 2030, recycling targets will be 75%. "We are not reaching existing targets, let alone higher targets of a few years' time," Mario Schembri said. The net effect of not recycling means Malta has to opt for quick- fix solutions such as incineration. In 2015 GreenPak claims to have recovered 11,300 tonnes of waste, 11,100 tonnes of which was recy- cled – a total of 64% of the waste produced by the companies which have joined the scheme. While GreenPak – a cooperative owned by over 1,400 companies – was forthcoming in providing answers, no replies were forthcoming from GreenMT, the other packaging waste company which is owned by the GRTU, the Chamber of SMEs. According to an annual report presented by GreenMT to the Planning Authority in 2014, its scheme recovered 9,369 tonnes out of 18,563 tonnes produced by its members (51%), compared to GreenPak's 56% recovering rate (10,090 of the 17,885 tonnes pro- duced by its members). Competition or fragmentation? GreenPak CEO Mario Schembri thinks it is high time for setting up one national waste recovery scheme. While acknowledging the ben- efits of an open market, Schembri said that in the waste sector an EPR scheme operated on a not- for-profit basis is a better example of the ideal scenario. As a cooperative society owned by the very companies for whom it provides the service, GreenPak's 'buyer' and 'seller' are the same person. "As owners of the scheme, companies have a direct say on the costs, can influence its business strategy and have total visibility on its operations. There are no other better incentives than these," says Mario Schembri. "A sole national waste recovery scheme run on this basis, would be of benefit to consumers, com- panies and the government since it would be able to offer better ser- vices, cheaper operating costs and a totally transparent system". No carrot, no stick Now that eco-contributions – an environmental tax on packaging waste paid by companies – are be- ing scrapped, Schembri has mis- givings about the change in policy. "It leaves a gap in waste recovery since the dismantling process is not tying the collection and re- cycling of household packaging waste, to producer responsibility." One problem faced by waste re- covery schemes is that they are currently also taking upon them- selves the cost of waste disposed by global companies such as Amazon, which create waste in Malta with- out paying for its recovery. This is because these compa- nies are not held under Maltese law accountable for their waste. "If consumers put such packaging in the green bag or in the bring- in sites, the packaging is recycled too. In this case, the recycling is being done at the expense of local importers who are paying for the service, such as that provided by GreenPak," Schembri said. JAMES DEBONO THE Environment and Resources Authority has exempted a bid to regularise the irregularly developed Arka ta' Noe zoo in Siggiewi, be- cause its impacts "are unlikely to be significant to the point of warrant- ing further studies". Describing the development as "an erratic commitment of rural land without due consideration to other environmental impacts" it added that the development was not to be "recommended." The ERA has also warned that "the commercial aspect of the pro- ject may lend itself to the sprawl of infrastructure in the area." The Arka ta' Noe zoo, which in- cludes a white lion, two Siberian tigers, a black panther, monkeys, zebras, reindeer and emus, was ir- regularly developed over a 10,565 square metre site – the area of two football grounds – in a site known as Ta' Bur ix-Xewk in Siggiewi, which is surrounded by an Area of High landscape value and near to a proposed Area of Ecological Im- portance between Wied il-Kbir and Wied Xkora. The site was previously occupied by arable land. The zoo produces 10 litres a day of carnivore waste which will have to be disposed of either in an official landfill or at the Marsa incinerator. The zoo owners claim their facil- ity has therapeutic properties. "It has been observed that the inclu- sion and interaction of animals with patients has led to improve- ments in the latter's quality of life, ranging from mobility difficulties to mental health related issues," the owners say. Zoo owner Anton Cutajar intends setting up a company specifically to run the facility in a "professional manner". The land on which the zoo is lo- cated is earmarked as agricultural land by the local plan, but a Project Development Statement presented last year argues that what the zoo offers is more valuable than crops, invoking a spiritual justification for sanctioning the illegalities. "One may argue that the proposed therapeutic zoo does not produce anything for human consumption. However this is a case whereby one needs to redefine what is a produce for human consumption? And what bears a higher value? Receiv- ing therapy is consuming a service and in the same way that good qual- ity food heals, so does good quality therapy, food which nourishes both the body and the soul". History of planning irregularities The zoo is located outside the development zones (ODZ) and has a car park, and a 300 square metre farmhouse to house the zookeeper and offer catering for visitors. The site where the zoo is located was originally used as agricultural land, half of which was fallow. After 1988, the site was transformed into a cow farm without any planning permission. In 2009, MEPA issued an enforcement order against the construction of a garage, adjacent rooms and excavation works done without a permit. In 2010 an application to regular- ise horse stables and a pool for hors- es, manure clamp, cages and a girna, was refused by the MEPA. An appeal is pending before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. News Only 6% of municipal waste recycled Irregular Siggiewi zoo exempted from impact assessment Malta lagging behind EU waste recovery targets WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PACKAGING WASTE IN MALTA? Packaging waste disposed of in green bags or bring in sites is sent for recycling either in Malta or abroad. Companies whose trade generates waste are responsible for collecting and recycling this waste. This is called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which allows companies to join schemes like GreenPak and GreenMT to recover the waste on their behalf. Both are contracted out by Malta's 68 local councils. GreenPak currently is responsible for the recovery of waste from 40 councils covering 71% of the population. The five leading companies participating in the scheme include Malta Dairy Products, Lidl, P. Cutajar, VJ Salomone Marketing, Forestals, and part of the Farsons Group, which is a member of both schemes. Mario Schembri Year Percentage of municipal waste that was recycled Percentage which was landfilled 2008 3.1% 96.2% 2009 4.1% 95.2% 2010 7.7% 81.1% 2011 7.8% 82.7% 2012 8.1% 81.7% 2013 6.8% 82.2% 2014 5.7% 79%