Slime, and slime, and slime again…

Remember those old jokes that started: ‘How many ____s does it take to change a lightbulb?’

Well… if not, I’m afraid you’ll just have to take my word for it. Such jokes existed, and we used to tell them. But let’s face it: time has not exactly been kind to some of the ways in which we used to amuse ourselves, in a not-too distant past. So if I were to repeat certain variations of that old joke today – filling in that blank with the same old nationalities/ethnicities/minorities that it was all along intended to mock and ridicule – chances are, I’d probably end up in jail.

But no matter: the format of the joke itself is plain for all to see. All that remains is to ‘tweak’ it a little, so that it: a) assumes a certain relevance to what’s actually going on at the moment, and; b) comes across as somewhat slightly less ‘offensive’ (to the ears of the easily-offended, at any rate).

Ready? Here goes: ‘How many [environment ministries/agencies/authorities/regulatory bodies, etc.] does it take to change a lightbulb [in Malta]?’

Hmmm. Now, as far as far I can see… it can only be one of two options: either the answer is ‘zero’; or ‘infinity’.

‘Zero’, because… well, for reasons that we can all see for ourselves, just by taking a look around. The environmental/infrastructural equivalents of ‘faulty lightbulbs’ never really get ‘changed’ in Malta at all, do they? No, they just carry on flickering away somewhere in the background… safely out of view… until, inevitably, their intermittence starts becoming just too darn irritating, for just too many people, to simply keep ignoring forever….

But it’s also ‘infinity’, because…. How can I put this? It’s not exactly a coincidence that those ‘lightbulbs’ never get ‘changed’, no matter how many people they irritate or outrage (or even, for that matter, ‘electrocute’.)  And what better way to illustrate this, than by simply reading out a few snippets from this weeks’ newspapers?

For the purposes of this experiment, let’s limit ourselves only to stories about – yet again – Malta’s southern beaches and shorelines being inundated by ‘sea-slime’: you know, that noxious, sickly, pukey greyish-white substance, that so many of us have tried – unsuccessfully – to get out of our hair, after swimming in places like Delimara, or Peter’s Pool…

Well, it’s back again – just like last summer, and the summer before, and the one before that (until around 2005 or thereabouts: leaving us in no doubt as to where this ‘fishy’ sludge is all actually coming from) – and… how did Malta’s environmental authorities react? 

By issuing a press release to tell us that: “Following reports of the presence of slime in the Southern area of the Maltese islands over the weekend, the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) launched an investigation into the origins of the slime….”

Huh? Come again? What do you mean, ‘the origins of the slime’? It’s not like we haven’t already been through all this before… ‘slime and slime again’… and, more to the point: it’s not exactly the first time that ‘investigations’ have been not only ‘launched’ – but also conducted, and concluded – into this very same phenomenon.

For instance: in August 2016, “investigations by the Environment Authority and the Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries [..] led to the conclusion that the aquaculture industry is to blame for the slime which is appearing in a number of bays where there are also several fish farm cages.”

According to Dr Joseph Borg, an independent consultant tasked with carrying out the environmental inspection on fish farms, “this oily slime forming on the sea surface is a result of the feed used by the fish farms, including frozen fish like sardines and mackerel.”

Taken together, I would have thought both those statements – dating back at least five years - should have sufficed to settle this matter, once and for all. The ‘slime’ we are talking about is very evidently caused by Malta’s offshore aquaculture industry; and we even have the results of yet another inquiry – this time commissioned by former Environment Minister Jose Herrera– to prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.

This is from a news report from exactly two years ago (almost to the day): “The slime that hit Malta’s eastern coastline over the past few days came from fish farm activity, the Environment Minister has confirmed. Jose Herrera said that experts had informed him that the slime reported in various localities, including Marsaskala and Sliema, had come from fish farms and investigations were underway…”

And yet here we still are, two years later… or should I say 15 years: because that’s how long this scenario has been repeating itself, without fail, every summer - still no closer to officially establishing where this environmental problem even originates from; still less, what can be done to actually put a stop to it. 

So to come back to the original question: if our environmental regulators are to be judged on how effectively they arose to this one particular issue… and then, apply it to how they approach ALL Malta’s environmental and/or infrastructural challenges…

Well, it would have to take an infinite number of them to change a lightbulb, because you would need:

> One, to keep ignoring the lightbulb’s existence for as long as humanly possible (presumably, in the hope that it will somehow eventually just ‘change itself’);

> One, to consistently tweak the entire micro-electronics regulatory framework, to the benefit of Malta’s industry of lightbulb importers/producers/manufacturers/salesmen (for let’s face it: those people have to ‘make a living’, too …)

> One, to organize informational campaigns - complete with photo opportunities and TVM news bulletins - to remind us that (all together now): ‘the lightbulb industry is an important pillar of the local economy; it provides jobs for thousands of workers, it contributes X% to our GDP, etc. etc.’;

> One to eventually – but only after the problem becomes too unwieldy to keep sweeping under that national carpet of ours – admit that… yeah, maybe we could like, um, ‘call an electrician’, or something…

> One, to commission all the reports, studies, surveys and investigations that are suddenly necessary to determine the precise cause of the lightbulb malfunction (even though, quite frankly, we can all see the loose connection with our own two eyes…);

> One, to interpret the results of all those studies as ‘proof’ that the real problem is not, after all, the faulty lightbulb itself… but rather, all the people who are protesting about it;

> One, to post regular Facebook status updates complaining that all these new-fangled ‘lightbulb protests’ – by ‘NGOs’ who are really just paid agents of the Nationalist opposition - are causing irreparable harm to our international reputation;

> One, to remind us all that it was actually the Nationalist government that had introduced the lightbulb industry to begin with, way back when… and let’s face it: nobody had really complained about it at the time, did they? (Except, of course, the… um… Labour opposition… and… um… the same NGOs it once supported, but now discredits….) 

And on the same pattern goes – varying only in such minor details as, say, which party is in government, and which in opposition – until, sooner or later, one of a number of things inevitably happens:

Either the effects of this ‘lightbulb’ problem – whether it’s on national health, environmental degradation, or a downright threat to people’s livelihoods (if not their very lives) - become simply too overbearing to withstand;

Or else, there is just too much in the way of local/international pressure to realistically carry on fending off forever;

Or else… an election comes rolling along (and what do you know? It’s precisely that time of decade again now!)

Whatever the case, however, a time will surely come when the authorities will feel compelled to (very reluctantly) ‘do something about the problem’… and that’s where our never-ending list resumes: 

[…] One, to eventually throw up his hands and say: ‘OK! Fine! You win! I’ll change the f***ing lightbulb! Now, just… LEAVE ME ALONE!”

One, to engage all the foreign consultants - and commission all the new reports, studies, surveys and investigations - that are required (at considerable public expense) to ‘change the f****ing lightbulb’ (even though the exact same studies had all already been carried out, just the previous year);

One to announce the findings, and make grand pre-electoral promises of all the action that will ‘soon be taken’ (and all the independent commissions that will ‘soon be set up’) on the basis of its conclusions or recommendations;

And… erm… one to simply sit back and patiently wait until the whole ‘lightbulb issue’ eventually blows over – and such issues always seem to do, after a while – before quietly shelving all those reports, and going back to what everyone was doing before. 

That is to say, absolutely bugger-all (until, of course, the same issue once again rears its flickering head… and hey presto! The exact same pattern, identical in every detail, starts to unfold all over again…)

Seriously though: isn’t it ‘about slime’ that we face the facts, and finally admit that… this particular ‘lightbulb’ is not, at the end of the day, ‘going to change itself’? And nor, for that matter, are any of the others…?