The cynicism behind Project Green
The Minister of the Environment launched Project Green, the agency entrusted with a fund of €700 million to provide new open spaces in our localities.
This forms part of the electoral manifesto of the Labor Party and was described as a change from “infrastructure to the environment” in President George Vella’s speech on the opening of Parliament last May.
That speech, traditionally written by the government, gives a kind of false equivalence: the government dedicates €700 million to the construction of open spaces but a substantial amount of this cache will be spent on infrastructure, apart from €500 million allocated by the government. the government for the continuation of the road changes that have appeared in recent years. The difference of €200 million between the two budgets does not really imply a change in direction.
There are quite a few reasons why Project Green has been met with widespread cynicism.
First of all, this is essentially another agency led by another trusted member of the minister’s entourage, supported by the calls for interest that are now familiar from the private sector. This is a formula that has been used and abused since the time of Joseph Muscat, when the authorities gradually changed into entities more eager to facilitate business than to enforce regulations.
The launch of the agency and its the first two projects announced look like little godsends on paper. Let’s face it: the vast majority of people in the country would love to see a government invest in the environment rather than accuse it of being guilty of destroying parts of it.
But time – and the execution of these projects by all entities involved – will tell you if the government is just throwing money at a problem or making it worse.
One wonders if Project Green is another way for private interests to get their hands on chunks of public money, a sort of greenwashed sister of Infrastructure Malta. The new CEO Steve Ellul, a potential candidate for an MEP seat, has to deal with more than public relations in his role, especially considering the wealth of resources available.
It is interesting, however, that the MEP Alex Agius Saliba pointed out the gigantic inconsistency in the promise to provide more open spaces, ironically he did this in a place where he praised the creation of this new entity.
Agius Saliba stated what many others agreed – including NGOs – expressed, by saying that, first, it is necessary to preserve our existing green spaces.
The creation of more open spaces would be a hypocritical attempt to compensate the public if the pressure and speculation around green areas in our cities is allowed to continue and if the loopholes in our planning laws are not sealed once and for all.
Underground traffic ways with overhead gardens are sexy, marketable and very necessary. But they are largely useless if swallowed up by non-stop construction in our cities.
Likewise, cynicism is justified if the launch of the agency is followed by news of thousands of objections to the proposed development of Kemmuna, which, together with the use of the Blue Lagoon by dishonest sellers of deckchairs, essentially leading to the privatization of prime open space.
Hondoq the Pomegranate, meanwhile, remains in private hands, who demand a ransom of €22 million. The general and bipartisan anger at so many proposed ‘projects’ should be the kind of survey that influences Dalli and Ellul’s vision, an indicator of the ills that are eating away at our ‘quality of life’.
To ensure quality, the balance of decisions must change: from business opportunities to public welfare.
Independent journalism costs money. Times of Malta support for price of a coffee.
Support us