Constructing a conscience

As Malta grapples with unrelenting development, MONEY examines whether sustainability is more than a buzzword. From planners to activists and architects, we explore who has the power—and the responsibility—to build a future rooted in accountability, not just ambition.

---

'Sustainable' has become a bit of a buzzword recently, making it into every annual report and business plan. But what does it mean? And should the boundaries be left up to self-regulation or imposed?

Numerous recent developments that will significantly impact their surroundings have been reported, affecting the country's heritage, culture, standard of living, and economic reality, from tourism to construction.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, sustainability means two main things: the ability to maintain at a specific rate or level and the avoidance of depleting natural resources to maintain an ecological balance.

According to economics textbooks, the only law in a free market is supply and demand: the theory says that businesses determine whether there will be demand if they supply.

Free competition should mean that everyone is allowed to have a go. The reality is somewhat different since it depends on everything from a level playing field to proper data so companies can make informed and enlightened choices.

It is also clear that not everyone can be appeased simultaneously: what one company does could impact neighbours, rivals, infrastructure… This is why there are regulations and policies.

Have we got it right? Is the current level of development sustainable? Will the get-rich-quick mentality win over prudence? MONEY asked some stakeholders about their approach.

The planners

The Planning Authority (through a spokesperson)

How does the Planning Authority evaluate whether large-scale developments such as Manoel Island align with Malta's long-term sustainability goals beyond mere regulatory compliance?

The Planning Authority is committed to ensuring that Malta's development supports growth, quality of life, environmental responsibility, and long-term national resilience. We recognise the growing public interest in how major projects are evaluated, and we want to be clear about our approach.

The Authority recognises the importance of ensuring that major projects like Manoel Island comply with regulatory requirements and contribute meaningfully to Malta's long-term sustainability objectives. Our evaluation process is, therefore, comprehensive and goes beyond a mere checklist approach.

We consult with other agencies and Authorities during the evaluation process; we assess each project against the strategic frameworks set out in Malta's national plans, including the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) and the National Sustainable Development Strategy. These documents articulate clear long-term goals, such as promoting efficient land use, safeguarding natural and cultural heritage, mitigating climate change, and more.

We often require detailed environmental impact assessments (EIAS) and social impact assessments (SIAS) in consultation with the Environmental Resource Authority for large-scale projects. These allow us and other competent Agencies to weigh the development's potential positive and potential adverse impacts.

It is also fair to say that today, many developers, especially in major projects, are adopting international certifications like ISO 14001, EMAS, or LEED. These bring higher environmental standards, and we are exploring financial support for projects that achieve top-tier certifications because doing the right thing should be recognised and encouraged.

“We want to ensure terms like 'sustainability' aren't just rhetoric but tied to measurable, enforceable outcomes.” — Planning Authority

More and more comments say that the PA's decision-making disproportionately favours developers. How do you address the perception that economic and political interests overshadow environmental and social considerations?

The Planning Authority fully acknowledges the public concern regarding the balance between economic development, environmental protection, and social wellbeing. We take these perceptions seriously and are committed to addressing them through transparency and continuous process improvement.

Our planning process is fully transparent, and our decision-making process is open to scrutiny. Anyone, whether residents, eNGO, or any community group, can access all documents related to a development application, including architectural plans, environmental reports, and feedback from government agencies. Objectors are encouraged to participate, and their comments are formally recorded and addressed during the evaluation.

Terms such as 'regeneration' and 'sustainability' are often employed in permit applications. However, what safeguards are in place to ensure these aren't merely rhetorical tools to obtain approval?

The Authority is concerned that terms like "regeneration" and "sustainability" should not be used superficially to secure approvals without meaningful action. To address this, we have implemented robust safeguards to ensure that concrete plans, commitments, and measurable outcomes substantiate such claims.

Firstly, permit applications that invoke concepts such as regeneration and sustainability are assessed against clear, policy-driven criteria. This means that a proposal must demonstrate, with tangible evidence, how it contributes to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. For example, in regeneration projects, we look for specific interventions that enhance degraded areas, improve public spaces, and preserve cultural heritage.

Valletta and the Grand Harbour illustrate how regeneration can move beyond being a mere concept and become a reality. These areas have undergone significant transformation, where thoughtful planning and collaboration have delivered visible improvements to urban spaces, cultural heritage, and economic vitality. From restored historical landmarks to vibrant public spaces and thriving business hubs, these projects demonstrate how regeneration can bring lasting benefits to both local communities and the broader national landscape. They prove that when effectively implemented, regeneration leads to tangible results rather than remaining just a catchphrase.

Introducing the Development Control Design Policy 2015 (DC 2015) was a significant step forward in this area, raising the bar for design quality and sustainability. We are working on a new Design Guidance document to take this further, focusing on energy efficiency, greener spaces, improved walkability, and inclusive design for future generations.

How does the PA address public objections to controversial projects like Manoel Island, Comino, or Fort Chambray? Could you provide examples where civic input has significantly influenced a project's trajectory? 

Public consultation is integral to the PA's decision-making process, especially in projects that generate significant public interest, such as the Manoel Island, Comino, or Fort Chambray projects. We aim to ensure that community voices are heard, considered, and reflected in final decisions.

Public objections in development applications are carefully reviewed and assessed alongside technical reports, environmental assessments, and other expert advice. A summary of the issues the 'community voice' raises is always included in the Development Management Directorate's report for each application. 

A good example is the recent Comino project, where significant public objections raised concerns about the proposed building footprint. These objections were a key factor in shaping the approved project, which resulted in revised proposals that scaled back the development footprint and addressed other issues, such as unobstructed access to the foreshore.

While not every objection aims to improve a project, public input often leads to modifications that better shape and result in a more balanced outcome.

NGOs have won some critical cases, such as revoking the sheep farm in Bidnija and the highrise at Fort Cambridge. Should these cases, based on policy, etc, have been picked up earlier by the PA at the application level? And has the position taken by the Planning Tribunal impacted the PA's future decision-making?

Planning is a legal process, but it's not only about law. Planners are not lawyers. Our job is to apply national policy thoughtfully and reasonably, aiming for projects that respect place and people.

Yes, there have been high-profile appeal cases, such as the Bidnija and Fort Cambridge cases, and we respect these decisions. We learn from them and continuously improve how we assess projects to ensure we get it right.

The activist

André Callus - Moviment Graffitti

The Gżira Local Council and numerous residents have strongly opposed the Manoel Island development, yet the project is portrayed as a 'regeneration' effort. In your opinion, how is this term being manipulated to benefit corporate and political interests?

Corporate interests' use of "regeneration" is closely aligned with the neoliberal dogma that public spaces are useless unless they can turn a profit. In this narrative, peddled by developers and some politicians, public spaces used by the people signify something dirty or filled with so-called undesirables and their activities. According to this false narrative, the only way to make a place "valuable" is by commercialising it.

This is clearly not an innocent narrative. It satisfies corporate interests and pushes people out of places they collectively own by virtue of belonging to this country.

On Manoel Island, the contrast between the narrative of "regeneration" and the reality on the ground is stark. After being privatised in the 1990s, alongside Tigné Point, the company illegally kept this precious place closed to the public for 16 years. Not only was it not "regenerated," but it was left to rot while people were excluded from it.

Manoel Island today. Photo by Maltatoday

The real regeneration began in 2016 after we—together with many other groups and community members—cut through the fences and forced the company to abide by the law and ensure public access. From then on, regeneration began through people's everyday activities, reclaiming this space in an area saturated by construction and congestion.

Building hundreds of apartments and creating commercial activity on Manoel Island will once again rob this place of the people, turning it into a private profit. How will the public benefit from all this?

“The government's role is to protect us from greed, not enable it.” — André Callus

Proper regeneration means giving people what they need right now: open and green spaces, a beautiful foreshore, the restoration of historical buildings, and centres for community events –not more apartments, hotels, and shopping malls.

The idea of "regeneration" being pushed by corporate interests in Manoel Island – as in other similar cases – flies so far in the face of the reality people experience in their everyday lives that it's not even very compelling or convincing. Everyone can see through it and understand that the bottom line is narrow private interests and greed.

Developers often frame their projects around vague "green" promises – open spaces, landscaping, carbon neutrality – while land use remains fundamentally extractive. What greenwashing tactics do you observe most frequently in Malta, and why do you think they are so effective on both the public and institutional levels?

Land is the most precious and scarce resource on our island. Its careless use to satisfy certain businesses endangers our future on these islands.

In most planning applications, buzzwords like "sustainable mobility," "greening," and "open spaces" are used to justify massive projects such as the DB project on public land in Pembroke.

db Group project in Pembroke (under construction)

It's all, of course, a farce.

No mobility plan can begin to mitigate the thousands of car trips such projects generate – often in areas that already severely lack the necessary infrastructure. A few plants on a rooftop (if they even make it beyond the photomontages into the actual project) won't make much of a difference in the face of the impact that never-ending blocks of apartments have on residents, nature, and our foreshore. And no project ever creates public places – they always take them away.

However, honestly, I don't think these gimmicks are particularly effective in mitigating the public's anger at the current planning and construction mess. They're just tick-boxes in planning applications and empty phrases in the developers' and government's tacky PR exercises.

So far, I believe they have been met with widespread derision and disgust from the public.

Malta's planning process has faced criticism for being structurally biased in favour of developers. How do Moviment Graffitti's experiences with projects like Manoel Island highlight deeper systemic issues within the Planning Authority and its relationship with large-scale investors?

Since its establishment in 1994, Moviment Graffitti has been fighting against environmental, planning, land, and construction authorities that serve big business interests while trampling over the common good. We have repeatedly seen policies designed to accommodate specific business groups, such as those on ODZ structures, building heights, and hotel construction.

A case in point is the current revision of the Villa Rosa Local Plan, carried out by the Planning Authority, which is intended to accommodate the monstrous Tal-Franċiż project in the area. Policies are being changed to suit specific projects – not vice versa.

Moreover, decisions taken by the PA Board and Commissions routinely go beyond what planning laws and policies permit. The PA bends and outright breaches the law to appease specific interests.

We have had to challenge many of these PA decisions in court. In many cases – such as several Joseph Portelli developments in Gozo – the court found the PA's decisions blatantly wrong and in breach of the law.

However, even that is not enough. The PA recently re-issued permits for developments that the courts had struck down, showing it is willing to disregard court rulings to satisfy big developers shamelessly.

It must be said, however, that the root of the problem lies within politics – not the authorities themselves. Authorities in Malta, such as the Planning Authority, are under direct government control. Thus, these decisions are made following instructions from the political class and its close ties to big business in Malta.

Suffice it to say that a promised reform in the planning appeals law has still not been implemented, meaning developers can still begin building even. In contrast, appeals against illegitimate decisions are underway.

It's a reign of developers, where the political class and authorities are heavily influenced, and the courts are deliberately rendered ineffective by a system that denies the public meaningful ways to challenge illegal decisions.

The right to public space is central to the Manoel Island debate. How would you define public interest in today's development climate – and what does it unveil about the changing balance of power between citizens, the state, and capital?

In the case of Manoel Island, it is crystal clear where the public interest lies. Over 29,000 individuals have signed a petition calling the government to return this place to the public following the company's failure to abide by the concession agreement.

After decades of endless and senseless construction, there is a general consensus that our country should prioritise quality public spaces essential for our health and wellbeing.

It's also a matter of social justice. Our country is witnessing a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots regarding land and property. The ultra-rich's hoarding of land and property – a form of oligarchy – including the takeover of public spaces, reflects growing economic inequality that we must fight against.

In recent years, citizens have become increasingly capable of making their voices heard and organising to challenge planning decisions that favour the few at the expense of the many. Sometimes, they succeeded (as in the case of the proposed Marsascala yacht marina or the private university in Żonqor); other times, they did not (such as with the DB project).

The government has repeatedly shown that its priority is to appease the interests of developers and the big business class. For example, it shouldn't take the mobilisation of 29,000 signatories to compel the government to reclaim land granted to a private company that has repeatedly breached its contract. Yet, despite overwhelming public support, the government initially appeared inclined to grant MIDI far more than it deserves. Only after widespread public consensus to transform Manoel Island into a national park became increasingly evident did political discourse shift, and the government acknowledged the concession breaches, signalling its intention to return Manoel Island to the people.

Public pressure can make the government fearful enough of the political consequences to give in to the people's demands.

The forces of neoliberalism and the privatisation of public spaces are powerful – because they are the forces that governments have favoured since the early '90s. It takes significant energy, effort, and collective capacity for the people to resist them. It's often challenging but not impossible.

If you were to challenge the business community – including MONEY's readership – what responsibility do you believe investors, contractors, and developers hold in perpetuating or resisting the destruction of Malta's natural and social fabric under the guise of 'sustainability'?

The veil of sustainability used to justify many harmful developments is very thin. Not many are fooled by it, and people are generally angry at Malta's declining quality of life and environmental destruction.

Society cannot be guided by the axiom of profit maximisation. There is more to life than profits – especially in a context like Malta, where the ongoing construction spree threatens life's social and economic sustainability on these islands.

Ultimately, the government should protect us from greed – not enable and encourage it, as it does now. The government should start taking the side of the people rather than siding with those whose only concern is profit.

The architect

Tara Cassar

The Manoel Island project combines the conservation of the Fort and associated areas with modern development. As an architect, do you think we can—and should—have one without the other?

Every case is unique. In some instances, new development can help support the financial viability of conservation – but it's certainly not a prerequisite.

In the case of Manoel Island, the conservation of such a site of immense heritage value shouldn't depend on reshaping the wider area into a new town that ultimately erases the very fabric that gives the island its cultural identity.

There's a misplaced focus on the residential or commercial aspect as the primary vehicle for profit. The real long-term economic and social value lies in the heritage asset itself.

A computer-generated image of the proposed development

Sustainable heritage management offers broad opportunities for future generations. Too often, conservation is treated as the price for permission to develop—when it should be seen as an investment with lasting return.

You have spoken publicly about the manipulation of planning language. Do terms like "green," "public realm," or "regeneration" still have any meaning within Malta's current building culture?

From experience, using these terms is mostly superficial, with little intention to apply their true meaning.

Take the tall buildings policy; for example, the required open space around towers is meant to be "green" and part of the "public realm." But in practice, it's usually a tiled void with some potted plants, effectively semi-private and offering little or no comfort for public use. These spaces aren't truly public, and they're not designed to be. Yet the language is still used to tick boxes and justify development.

“Profit can't be the only driver of what we build.” — Tara Cassar

The role of architects in some of the applications cannot be overlooked. Are architects compromising on design integrity to satisfy investor-driven priorities, and what could change that? Efforts to introduce aesthetic standards were not successful.

This goes beyond aesthetics. The culture is profit-driven or, at the very least, profit-focused. Yes, developments need to be financially viable, but at what cost?

We consistently undervalue the longevity, liveability, and overall sustainability of what's being built. The short-term return continues to outweigh the long-term responsibility.

Some projects might comply with policy on paper but fall short in terms of long-term sustainability and social impact. In such a case, what is the role of architects as professional providers and expert advisers?

It all comes down to what drives the sector. Of course, profitability matters, but most architects will operate within those narrow margins when that's the only driver.

That's not an excuse for poor proposals, but it reflects the current state of play. We've seen a steady erosion of value placed on heritage, with approvals for demolitions that would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. This is not about technical compliance but a broader cultural shift.

If a National Architecture Policy were introduced tomorrow, what three pillars would you insist it includes to prevent the outcomes we're witnessing today?

First, we need to establish sustainable development densities—clearly defining what level of development a given area can realistically support without compromising its liveability or character while supporting sustainable infrastructure. The current approach, squeezing in as many units as the law technically allows by sticking to the bare minimum standards, has led us to an undesirable situation.

Second, there must be a real commitment to public space. We must prioritise extensive, well-connected, and welcoming public spaces within urban areas while addressing the changes needed to shift toward better public transport - not just leftover patches rebranded as "open space."

Third, we must enforce sustainable building practices at the planning and design stages.

Currently, too many apartments are approved without backyards, cross-ventilation, low ceilings, and rooms reliant on artificial lighting and air conditioning. The policies that allow this are greenlighting poor-quality living conditions with high environmental costs. This must stop.

The chamber

André Pizzuto, president Kamra tal-Periti

From a design and policy perspective, is Malta's development pace compromising sustainability principles?

The issue of sustainable development in Malta is less about the speed of progress and more about its quality and impact on public spaces, residents' wellbeing, the ability to attract high-quality foreign direct investment (FDI), and the resilience of our environment and cultural heritage.

Our planning system remains constrained by outdated policies and processes rooted in obsolete economic and planning paradigms from the Reagan era – approaches that much of Europe avoided but which Malta still grapples with today.

How would a National Architecture Policy influence the quality and integrity of future developments?

A National Architecture Policy would provide an opportunity for a comprehensive strategic review, not just of the planning system, but of our entire approach to the built environment and public spaces. The policy formulation process should examine architectural education, public procurement systems, cultural attitudes that hinder high-quality design, and development approval processes, among other factors.

What role should architects play in pushing back against profit-driven construction that ignores long-term liveability?

Profit itself is not the issue—the problem lies in a system that prioritises speculation over sustainable development, where financial gain is the sole measure of success. Architects should advocate for a more balanced approach that ensures value creation benefits investors and the public rather than enriching developers at the expense of community wellbeing.

“A national policy could finally shift the focus from compliance to quality.” — André Pizzuto

Are there enough incentives or regulatory tools for architects to prioritise green, adaptive design?

Malta still lags in this regard, though progress is being made. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is implementing initiatives to align Malta's construction industry with European energy conservation standards, including funding schemes for building renovations.

Additionally, banks' ESG policies – driven by EU taxonomy requirements – encourage energy-efficient investments through lower interest rates, which is positively influencing industry practices.

Can you name a recent Maltese project that strikes the right balance between commercial viability and environmental responsibility?

One example is the redevelopment of the former Farson's Brewery by architect Ian Ritchie, now known as Trident Park and The Brewery. This project demonstrates how world-class architecture and a climate-conscious corporate vision can elevate Malta's built environment while maintaining commercial viability.

---