Environmental NGOs turn up the pressure on university’s location

Five NGOs collectively ask if location exercise ‘is being taken seriously’ ‘Government should not propose countryside for development’ – Din l-Art Ħelwa

The Ramblers’ Association of Malta, Flimkien Għal Ambjent

Aħjar (FAA), the Malta Organic Agriculture Movement (MOAM), Friends of the Earth Malta (FoE) and the TerraFirma Collective yesterday cried foul over the fact that the government is already in negotiations with the owners of private land in the Zonqor area, where it is proposed to locate the new American University of Malta.

“This,” they said, “contradicts the impression that was given by the government during a lastminute consultation meeting with the environmental NGOs on the eve of signing the agreement with the Sadeen Group.”

During that meeting, the environmental NGOs said, they were given the impression that due consideration would be given to the option of relocating the university away from the 90,000 square metres of ODZ land. This, they added, was further reinforced by statements from prominent members of govern- ment such as Environment Minister Leo Brincat.

The NGOs reiterated their position that yet more development in the countryside is unsustainable and, as such, the current proposed location is “unacceptable”.

“In particular, the twisting of ODZ boundaries to accommodate large commercial developments makes a mockery of the concept of ODZ itself, the purpose of which is to preserve the countryside and thus protect the common good,” they said.

“It is even more disturbing that the country’s resources continue to be wasted in this manner, seeing that one per cent of Malta’s total arable land will be destroyed in the process, while heritage sites lie vacant and falling to pieces.

“Several farmers who work the surrounding land have already been in contact with the NGOs and expressed their concern that this will open the entire area to further development. This is not to mention the fact that the picturesque natural beauty of the Zonqor Point area will be much diminished.”

The NGOs called on the government to clarify its position on whether or not a relocation of the university site is still on the cards, and to explain why it is so essential for this development to be located in the countryside.

They said that they have already expressed their goodwill

to help identify an alternative site in order to prevent more ODZ land succumbing to development.

“If the relocation exercise is not being taken seriously by the government, then it would be grossly unfair to continue to waste the resources of the NGOs in this manner. It is becoming increasingly clear that, so far, the public consultation process on the university in the south has been no more than a cosmetic exercise, with all the eNGOs and local councils called in for nothing more than to legitimise a fait ac

compli.”

Government should not propose countryside for development – Din l-Art Helwa

Environmental and heritage NGO Din l-Art Ħelwa yesterday categorically stated that: “While proposals to encourage educational institutions to open branches in Malta are to be encouraged, the most recent proposal to open a university is suspect, given that it is led by a developer rather than by an educational establishment.”

The NGO said it considers it unacceptable for the government to have proposed the use of virgin land for construction instead of considering disused or ‘brownfield’ sites.

“The land which government has put on the table will become worth millions to certain individ-

uals as a commercial building site, but it is worth far, far more to our future generations,” it observed.

Din l-Art Ħelwa also cited government sources who spoke to

The Times earlier this week, who said that the project will only be viable if ODZ land is used.

“This,” the NGO said, “just shows that the government is disregarding the environmental cost of using up more countryside, when other sites might be available.

“At a stroke, the government would enable a piece of ODZ land to increase in value by some €100 million, gifting such value to the developer at the cost of the Maltese people, both present and future generations. It has been reported that the owners of the site, who now stand to benefit from their land changing in value, include people who were renowned during the era of former controversial public works Labour minister Lorry Sant.

“It would clearly be preferable to rehabilitate a dilapidated site, or to find a use for existing buildings, than to take up more undeveloped land in the countryside or close to the sea. Open spaces should be preserved for the wellbeing of the community, as a respite from the concrete jungle that Mepa is now encouraging. Whether modern or historic buildings are identified, a project of this type should be accommodated close to population centres and not in the countryside.”

The NGO added that, since the Environmental Impact Assess- ment must consider alternative sites, these should include government-owned, under-utilised buildings of which there are plenty, even in the south of Malta.

“The site selection exercise is, however, likely to be a sham, as the site has already been chosen, just as the consultation exercise with environmental NGOs at the eleventh hour was more like a marketing exercise, and also a complete sham.

“The government seems hellbent on developing the coastal area near Zonqor and Xghajra, when the south of Malta is crying out for open spaces. An inadequately thought-out proposal to build three hotels was first encouraged, and now this university which is to be built and managed by building contractors. Clearly, the government sees no value in the countryside except as a source for speculation.

“The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has stated that it carried out a preliminary assessment which, astoundingly, concludes that this ODZ countryside near Zonqor is ‘acceptable’ for development. The full assessment and criteria used must be made available to the public so that it can draw its own conclusions.

“The way that this site was selected raises many questions, including whether any alternatives were seriously considered. If this site is now being opened for development on the flimsiest pretext, what price the rest of the countryside?” asked the environmental and heritage NGO.