Shipyard Owners Talk Up Commitment To Environment, Environment Ministry Goes Silent: Here’s How The Authorities Responded To Our Questions
Following our investigation which showed a significant increase in the number of ships which went in and out of Palumbo Shipyard after the company struck a deal with MSC Cruises in 2020, we sent questions to Palumbo Shipyard and their business partners MSC Cruises. We also sent questions to the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and the environment ministry.
Given the large volume of data and testimonies we gathered, we sent a request for a face-to-face interview with a representative from each of these four entities, along with a written outline of the topics we wished to ask questions about.
None of the entities we reached out to consented to a face-to-face interview.
After weeks of attempting to reach MSC Cruises, we received a generic statement which did not directly address the majority of our questions on their operation in Malta.
What the statement did address was the installation of shore-to-ship technology in Palumbo Shipyard, with MSC Cruises’ spokesperson stating that “low voltage shore power for cargo ships is available and we encourage its use whenever possible”.
“Now, we are proud to say, the cables for high voltage shore power have been laid in place and will be activated shortly for the cruise section, pending approval from the local authorities, eliminating emissions further from cruise vessels, improving local air quality as well as significantly reducing noise,” the spokesperson added. There was no specification as to when this phase is set to be completed.
The statement also alluded to some form of unspecified partnership between MSC Cruises and port authorities in Valletta “to accelerate use of shore power” on the Valletta side of the harbour. The shore power facility is set to be tested “later this year”.
The cruiseliner company also claimed that they are committed to being “a net zero greenhouse gas emissions brand by 2050”, arguing that the “emissions intensity” of its operations has decreased by 33.5% since 2008.
Exhaust from MSC Fantasia while docked in Palumbo Shipyard for repairs.
As for Palumbo Shipyard, a full set of responses to our questions was sent on 10th October.
We asked the company to explain why residents were not consulted when the deal between Palumbo and MSC Cruises was officially announced in July 2020. A spokesperson for the company did not respond to this question directly, stating that “the company has diligently adhered to all relevant procedures and regulations in the execution of this agreement”.
When asked to clarify what kind of shore-to-ship technology is available in their shipyard, the company stated that, while it could not comment on Infrastructure Malta’s ongoing project since it is not a project that is being carried out by the company itself, it “continues to offer and connect all possible vessels that are in the yard for repairs – the same procedure has been going on since the first day of operation and many years before.”
Follow-up questions about the operational capacity of Palumbo Shipyard’s shore-to-ship technology were not answered by the time this story was published. Similarly, a follow-up request to visit the shipyard and take photographs of Palumbo’s shore-to-ship technology were also unanswered.
We also asked Palumbo Shipyard to provide copies of relevant documents which prove that the company is adhering to the conditions stipulated by the concession it was awarded back in 2010.
Specifically, we asked for copies of ground rent receipts, documentation which attests to a €23.5 million investment plan which the company was obliged to carry out over the first five years, condition reports about maintenance of the tenement, and documentation which proves that the company duly paid out its purchase price agreement fee of €18 million, which was meant to be paid up in full by the ninth anniversary of the signing of the agreement.
The company did not provide the requested documentation, stating only that the company has submitted all contributions and documentation and that “the content and details of these documents are with the respective governmental authorities”.
We asked questions about the environmental permit that the company was awarded in 2022 through the ERA (EP/00005/22). The environmental permit outlines the conditions in which Palumbo is allowed to carry out industrial activity within the shipyard, and lists the remedial measures authority can take should there be a breach of those conditions.
Our questions were about a complaints registry which is meant to be compiled by the shipyard, how many complaints were followed up and investigated, whether the shipyard ever asked for variations in the permit conditions, whether the company ever submitted a method statement for the monitoring of air emissions from their combustion plants, and whether the company can provide copies of their Annual Environmental Reports (AERs).
Again, the company stated that they provided all relevant documentation to the authorities as needed but did not provide further details. What the company did say was that more than 250 inspections were carried out in the shipyard to date. No answers were provided to questions about the nature of the complaints received by the shipyard and it did not provide details about what kind of corrective action was taken following those complaints.
The company’s spokesperson did not provide details about what kind of permit condition variations it did apply for. We also did not receive any copies of the air monitoring method statement or the company’s AERs.
We also asked specific questions about the concerns raised by residents who we interviewed in the course of our investigation. We pointed out that whenever residents vocalised their concerns about the health and environmental impact of the shipyard’s operations, Palumbo often publicly dismissed these claims as speculative.
We therefore asked the company the following question: “assuming the shipyard is in a position to counter these claims with facts, why did the shipyard fail to engage with the residents’ concerns directly?”
“We disagree with the premise of this question. We regularly made ourselves available to discuss any issues related to the shipyard. Further to this, we met with certain NGO representatives several times to discuss the shipyard,” the spokesperson said.
When asked about why the shipyard does not invest in its own air monitoring systems, the spokesperson said that the company’s priority is to “invest in technology and equipment that reduces emissions”.
When asked about the accusation that the shipyard’s top brass buys goodwill from the local community by sponsoring key initiatives, the spokesperson declined to disclose the value of the sponsorships dished out by Palumbo but said that the company is “committed to supporting educational, social, cultural, and other activities within the local community”.
An MSC cruiseship berthed in Palumbo shipyard in 2021.
Regarding criticism levelled at the company over a lack of transparency about its operations, the spokesperson reiterated the company’s “commitment to addressing and resolving any communications that might be received”.
Some of the residents we spoke to also voiced fear of retaliation from the company for publicly speaking up about their concerns, with some alleging that there were instances of violent retaliatory action, marked instances of exclusion from community initiatives which are influenced by Palumbo’s sponsorships, and even allegations about ties with the Italian mafia.
While none of these allegations could be independently verified, we nonetheless asked the shipyard for a reaction and an explanation as to why residents would voice such serious concerns.
“These allegations are unfounded both factually and legally. Nonetheless, we are always ready to hear, discuss and address resident’s concerns,” the spokesperson said.
When the company was asked to respond to accusations of operational impunity stemming from close ties with the government, the spokesperson said that the company is subject to “many controls and checks”, reiterating that more than 250 inspections have been carried out without providing more detail.
The company denied the assertion that its planning application (PA/007778/22), through which it seeks to extend Dock 6, indicates a plan to intensify operations in the area. It describes the planned development as “a strategic move to diversify and enter a new market” by accommodating newer vessels fitted out with the latest technology.
When asked to provide a comment about the open-source data we acquired from Vessel Finder, the company dismissed the findings by stating that the data we provided does not represent the actual data associated with shipyard activity. The company also stated that “the interpretation drawn from the data is incorrect because there is no direct correlation between the size of a vessel, the movement, and the intensity of shipyard operations”. The company also vaguely referred to “official European data”, without providing references, to claim that there are no particular correlations between port activities and poor air quality.
The company did not directly address questions about Dr Tonna’s testimony, the consistently high rate of patients that were discharged from Mater Dei Hospital with asthma as a primary / secondary diagnosis from the Southern Harbour district, and the high rate of COPD admissions. We asked the shipyard to confirm or deny whether it believes that air pollution generated by its activities is a significant part of the negative impact on residents’ health.
“It’s important to understand that any air quality readings taken at various locations may not accurately reflect the emissions released solely by an industrial entity but a comprehensive view of the region’s air quality and beyond. These readings are influenced by the complex dynamics of the entire Grand Harbour area and the coastal cities and towns that surround it,” the spokesperson said, citing a Times of Malta report about how traffic and weather conditions are the main drivers of Malta’s air pollution.
“The Grand Harbour is an active maritime hub with various sources and variability of possible emissions, including industrial facilities, transportation networks, and residential areas. Each of these sources contributes to the overall air quality in the region. Therefore, it’s essential to consider the entire region’s dynamics when interpreting air quality data and conducting assessments – rather than attributing such data to one source,” the spokesperson added.
Questions were sent directly to a spokesperson for the ERA on 22nd August. An acknowledgement response was sent back on 24th August and we were informed that one of the spokespersons would get back to us as soon as possible.
We wished to discuss the following topics with the ERA, but received only partial responses to our list of topics rather than our full list of questions. The list of topics is as follows:
– the air quality monitoring station in Senglea,
– previous studies about air quality in the Grand Harbour,
– the National Air Pollution Control Programme,
– EP/00007/22 (Palumbo’s environment permit),
– the concerns flagged by residents throughout the interviews carried out for this investigation, and
– the key findings of our investigation, as outlined in this article.
The ERA stated that “an air quality monitoring station was placed at Gardjola Gardens (Senglea) in 2020” and that “the location was chosen as a site downwind from the Grand Harbour with the scope of quantifying the impact that emissions from shipping activities have on ambient air quality”. Even though we spoke to experts who questioned the selected location, we were not given the opportunity to challenge the veracity of the ERA’s statement on this matter.
“With respect to compliance and enforcement, the operations in the inner harbour area are monitored and routine inspections are carried out on permitted facilities. Compliance monitoring is done in the form of scheduled inspections as well as unannounced visits. Any complaint received is promptly investigated as soon as it is received. Individuals or organisations who wish to report environmental irregularities or other related concerns can make use of the Authority’s online reporting tool,” the spokesperson added.
As of 22nd September, no further responses from the ERA were forthcoming, and no explanation was provided for the failure to answer our full set of questions after they were sent in writing on 11th September.
The environment minister did not reply to our initial request for comment nor our full set of questions, which were sent in writing on 18 September.
This is the second half of the first article in an investigative series titled ‘Particulate Matters’.
Reporting by Julian Delia, Joanna Demarco, Christian Zeier, and Anina Ritscher.
This investigation was funded by journalismfund.eu through its environmental reporting grant.
Further funding was obtained from the Citizens’ Lab Fund as administered through SOS Malta.
All photos by Joanna Demarco
What do you make of these statements?