This chapter will examine the results obtained through the analysis of the reports and the questionnaire. These results are then discussed in the light of the information gathered through the interviews, identifying common areas of concern.

The general evidence collected from the analysis of the reports is that half of the information requirements in the relevant TOR were ignored in three of the five reports studied. The immediate question which follows is "Why?"

• Is this due to lack of knowledge or experts in the field?
• Was this a time related matter?
• Does PA have the know-how to administer EIAs?
• Is PA adopting the right approach?

To answer these questions one has to analyse what was missing and then look at what is being asked as regards to the TORs.

The Terms of Reference utilized in this study were the old TOR. A closer look at these TOR, shows that they provided sufficient guidelines to produce a good quality report (see appendix I). The only areas which were somewhat vague and could have been improved upon were those entitled Major impact and mitigating measures and Restoration. More detailed guidelines in these areas would have been very helpful.

The results show that, in spite of their detail, these guidelines are not yielding much. None of the one-author reports, included more than 40 % of the items required by the TORs although an improvement was registered for the multi-disciplinary team reports.

The Pa has a say in the consultants writing the reports and it is evident that it was at fault in accepting a single author to write a report. However, one must accept the fact that in due course this could have been realized, because later reports were all utilizing multidisciplinary teams.

The value of using a fixed set of TOR for the quarry industry is debatable. Wager (1993) stressed the fact that TOR "should concentrate the EIA study on the assessment of important impacts and avoid the temptation to throw the net wide and examine all possible impacts" (Wager, 1993, p.21). The present situation vis-à-vis the extractive industry is diagonally opposite to what had been recommended. This has led to a situation where the contents of the EIA reports have become a bargaining game between the developer or consultant and the PA. As Mallia (pers. comm., 1998) stated, in some cases, several draft reports are made before the final one is submitted. In spite of these shortcomings the PA still accepted the reports and recommended the development. The PA could have always refused the development on grounds of insufficient information. This indicates that the PA has accepted EIA reports which were not according to the respective TOR.

The present approach being adopted should be rectified on two counts. The first being that, in spite of what is claimed in the EIA guidelines, that an EPS should be less detailed than an EIS, this message is not being clearly conveyed by the methodology adopted. The same TORs were used for both type of developments. The perceptions of the questionnaire respondents reiterated this position.

The second fact is that, in spite of the site visits and all the elaborate preliminary work carried out by the PA (e.g. reference to its GIS etc.), some items in the TORs being issued are still irrelevant to site. This was also shown from the results obtained in the analysis of the reports. A case in point was where no trees were found on site and still the requirement for a trees and woodland survey was made!

A basic set of TOR could always be used as guidelines, but the authors should be presented with a site specific one which should clearly highlight the significant impacts of the development. This was also stated by Wager (1993) who said that "the TOR should cover those matters which will be important to decisions on the project. In the end, a permit will depend on a balance between the key benefits and disbenefits of a proposal" (Wager, 1993, p.21). The TOR utilised could also be included as an appendix in the respective report. This would help anyone who would like to review the reports.

Wager (1993) proposed that a detailed project description statement (PDS) be presented by a developer prior to issuing the TOR. The PDS would be used to decide if an EIA is required and also if in the affirmative what type of report would be necessary. To date these proposals have not yet been put into practice.

The TOR should be produced by the Environment protection Department, EPD, in consultation with the PA. however due to lack of human resources, in EPD, this role has been taken over by the PA and the TORs are approved by EPD (Mallia, 1998). This is a major setback to the EIA process, because the PA is basically doing the screening, scoping, and reviewing of the whole process. Thus, it cannot view the reports in an objective manner and any litigation between the developer and the PA cannot be easily resolved, because the PA could be accused of being an interested party. Wager (1993) proposed that "there are good reasons for maintaining a separation between the organisation that is responsible to supervise, monitor and ensure quality control during the preparation of EIAs from the authority that evaluates the effects of a proposal on the basis of information contained in a planning application and an EIA study and who is responsible for granting permission to develop" (Wager, 1993, p.7). The PA is the authorising authority, while the EPD was given the role to oversee the production of EIAs.

As an alternative to the present situation, draft reports could be reviewed by an independent body, thus possibly having a more objective view. Italy is one of the countries which has a separate body to review EIA reports (Bond, 1996).

The EPD has an important role, in building up missing baseline studies of various environmental parameters. Unless such information is available, it is very difficult to identify significant impacts. A case in point was found in water quality monitoring in fish farms (Doublet, 1997), whereby due to lack of baseline studies and a proper control site, water quality changes in the environment were not being identified.

The lack of baseline information was also confirmed through the results of the questionnaires sent to NGOs. It highlights the need to set up a national database on important local environmental parameters.

The analysis of the reports has shown a lack of commitment from the authors to the TOR. This was evident in a number of ways, some of which are highlighted below:

• maps of a smaller scale included instead of those requested;
• lack of quantification of resource, wastes, sizes of produce etc.;
• abstaining from mentioning the appropriate methodology and techniques adopted in the analysis;
• no reference to the technical justification of resource, which is extremely important both to the developer and to the consumer;
• absence of considering alternative sites and technologies;
• not mentioning the related applications where the resource is to be used;
• avoiding the impacts and routes created by the transport related to the development;
• completely missing the section dealing with social constraints;
• mitigation measures not given a high priority in the reports.

There is no clear explanation why so many items could have gone missing from the reports. This should be considered in the framework that all these reports were being prepared by professional people, architects in all cases, and at substantial costs ranging between LM5,000 to LM10,000¹⁰ for the developer (Aquilina, pers. comm., 1998). The representative of the quarry owners said that EIAs are a financial burden on the industry. Why is the PA allowing all this to happen and finally endorsing it by approving the development?

The results obtained from the questionnaire revealed that the respondents are not sure what an EIA process is and what it should entail. In spite of the fact that over 50% of the respondents never read the TOR of the quarry industry, they still thought that the approach adopted was correct. The reasons given were various, including those that similar developments have similar problems and the system avoids discrimination. The TOR should be used so that the reports can study the effects of the significant impacts which would have already been identified through the scoping phase. This was even stated in the Wager report (1993). These should be tailor-made for each development and should be the result of a separate scoping procedure for each development. The majority of respondents agreed that each application should be scoped separately.

Public scoping does not form part of the present procedure. The majority of the respondents agreed with public scoping, many stating that it would highlight areas of concern. This contradicts the same respondents who had already claimed that they agreed with the present approach adopted by the PA. Many thought that public scoping would take the form of a public hearing. This was shown from the responses obtained to the reasons for the possibility of a biased report. The view that personal interests would prevail and that the public would not be truly representative were also aired.

No one mentioned the possibility of using questionnaires or surveys in public scoping or utilizing the resources at Local Councils or NGOs. The questionnaire results have, however, shown that they do not seem to have much information available.

From the results obtained from the supplementary questions sent to Local Councils, it has emerged that there are three main areas of concern which were ignored in all the reports, but which were considered important by local people. These were:

1. public nuisance caused by trucks passing through village centres;
2. damage to roads by construction trucks;
3. emission of dust from quarry sites.

Quarries tend to start work as early as 02.00 hr., especially during the hot summer months. This mostly concerns soft stone quarries which are south facing. This is due to the extreme temperatures which build up during the day which makes it humanly impossible to work there. Most of the people connected with the construction industry live in villages, hence the use of trucks passing through the village centres during the hot months is seen in an unfavourable light.

Secondly, the tonnage of road trucks has increased from 3 tons to 38 tons over the last 25 years (Aquilina, pers. comm., 1998). Some respondents stated that the local roads were not built to cater for such heavy vehicles and were subsiding due to the flow of the heavy vehicles.

These are some of the effects which should be addressed under transport impacts in the EIA reports.

Dust emissions are mainly linked to the siting of the stockpiles in the quarry and also to that of the crusher. Both could be solved by better quarry management techniques and also in some cases by washing the aggregate. This is mostly limited to hardstone quarries (Wardell Armstrong, 1991b). There are no baseline measurements of dust next to these quarries, but the dispersion effect of powder fines can be seen from quite a distance, especially during the summer months or on windy days (see photo 5.1).

In the case of soft stone, up to a few years ago, stone dressing took place at the construction site. Nowadays, the use of stone has become limited to the facades of buildings and so less is used. Secondly, stone dressing is taking place prior to loading on trucks in the quarry, so less dust is generated on site (photo 5.2).

The introduction of ready mix concrete and pre-stressed concrete planks has also reduced much of the inconvenience which used to be created in the streets, when truckloads of aggregate were dumped on the days preceding the roofing stage of a building.

The questionnaire has also shown the lack of distinction between the EIS and EPS reports and their contents. This was shown mainly from the results obtained for the impact of greatest importance which should be studied in the EIS and EPS reports.

Ecological, social and health impacts had top priorities in both type of reports whereas the economic impacts were given the lowest rating. Ecological impacts were always high on the priority list of respondents. This contrasts well with the actual contents of the reports whereby ecological desk and field studies were only carried out in 40 % of the cases and appropriate mitigation measures adopted with the same percentage.

One must also note the frequent absence in the EIA reports of the economic impacts. This tallied well with the questionnaire results where the importance of economic impacts was given the lowest rating.

Two different report formats were found to be adopted, one was that of a single author writing down a report and the other of a multidisciplinary team format. The latter format, although, of a higher standard and in accordance with registered public perceptions, had one major drawback in most of the studies. The report was made up of a sequence of non-interrelated studies, so there was a lot of repetition between them. This could have been avoided had the coordinator decided to write down a coordinated report and present it as the actual EIS or EPS. Then under separate cover or as part of the report itself, the original reports would be presented as an appendix. This method has the advantage that the report is:

• shorter and therefore more legible and manageable;
• simplified, but with all the details for the more technically minded to consult;
• informative, by highlighting the significant impacts studied.

This method must also be viewed within the framework that a substantial high percentage of the respondents who answered the question dealing with the content of the reports thought that they were too technical to be considered fully. A smaller proportion who thought that some areas were beyond them. One must consider these results within the setting that most of these respondents were at a decision making level. The same group of respondents also stated that the reports being produced varied between good and very good quality. This could mean that these people were impressed by the content which was beyond their perception and hence the grading given! One must also consider this grading when in most cases the TOR were hardly followed!

There was little support from the respondents that impacts should be quantified rather than qualified. Quantification of impacts is more scientific and gives a clear idea of the size and nature of impacts being studied. The absence of this concept by most respondents continues to highlight the lack of knowledge regarding the subject.

The issue of alternative technologies should be given great importance in the extractive industry. This is due to the fact that this industry is leaving large scars in the land, which in some cases have a high visual impact (photo 5.3) . This is mainly attributed to hardstone quarries (Wardell Armstrong, 1991c). The few respondents who answered the relative question, gave basically two main answers which should be studied. The first is that of mining and the other is that of using a cleaner technology which optimizes on resources. Duca, (pers. comm.,1998) claimed that mining is possible for both type of quarries, but there is no mining legislation in Malta. The few tunnels which have been dug so far did not have any legal backing but most have used routes passing under government roads. Mining and the introduction of cleaner technology were issues which Aquilina (pers. comm., 1998) said would cause financial problems and as a result the product would be much more expensive. This would put mining companies at a disadvantage to the ones who have the old type of quarries and technologies. This shows there is an urgent need to study this issue and derive the economic, ecological and other benefits which can be quantified from the introduction of new technologies.

One must also point out that by means of mining one could access the quality type of stone with less wastage, because one is moving in a horizontal manner, that is, parallel to the layering found in the Islands’ geology (Duca, pers. comm., 1998).

The alternatives sites issue has been included in the new TOR. The public perception was that this is a difficult issue for the extractive industry because the land used is usually connected both to ownership and resource. Both issues could be overcome if mining becomes possible. The ownership of land at different depths would obviously have to be well defined by legislation to clear up any problems with owners of the land above the mining site. The Mineral Resource assessment could also be very useful to identify appropriate sites.

The future of the quarry industry is directly linked to EIAs. This is due to the fact that if EIAs address the following issues:

1. the recycling of stone to produce certain type of aggregate;
2. the importation of aggregate instead of that produced locally;
3. the mining of aggregate or stone,

and the results would show that the impacts would be less, then the industry will have to change. The questionnaire results have been highly favorable to the above three possibilities. However, Aquilina (pers. comm., 1998) stated that importing and mining are not feasible. He said that the price of aggregate would go from LM 3.20 /m³ to approximately LM 90 /m³, if this were imported from nearby countries, such as Libya or Sicily. This would render importers uncompetitive with local producers. He said that there were no price increases in the product over the last 18 years and the industry had to absorb wage, fuel and other increases. He continued that the construction part of any building is the cheapest part because the stone is very cheap. He also said that quarry owners undermine one another by offering cheaper priced products.

Recycling has started lately and quarry owners are offering cheaper prices than the Government for the dumping of stone in their quarries rather than the local Government tip. This is having undesired consequences, because the household and industrial rubbish is emanating bad smells and some is burning, due to the unavailability of construction waste used to bury the organic and flammable material (Xuereb, 1998). Some quarry owners are crushing the stone into aggregate while others are using it to fill void parts of the quarries.

Restoration schemes have been regrettably omitted from the new TOR. In the old TOR, they were limited to converting quarries into orchards. The message was channeled in the TOR itself which asked for a 15 year planting and growing scheme. The results from the questionnaire showed that a number of other possibilities exist, apart from conversion into gardens. Theme parks and storage areas are two which could easily be considered. In most cases where warehouses are constructed, a lot of excavation takes place. Disused quarries can be easily used for such purposes.

It is important that one outlines the restoration use of a site prior to excavating that site. This is due to the fact that after-use could be linked to the management of the site during operation. Secondly, restoration could start during the operational phase and not after this phase is over. This is obviously limited to large quarries, which are not very common.

This chapter tried to answer a number of questions set at its beginning, to find a reason why the EIA reports had so many items included in the TOR, missing. It showed that PA has shown improvement in some areas which were addressed in the new TOR, but missed others. It has shown that the problems to be addressed go beyond the remit of the PA.