Construction waste: 'standstill' warning

TL;DR

On 2 June 2021 the Malta Developers Association (MDA) warned that unless an “imminent and enduring” solution was found to the dumping of construction waste, development would come to an “almost complete standstill”. We checked the warning against Eurostat’s construction output and waste data.

1. Disposal space was a real problem. Road works were halted in 2020 for lack of dumping space, government fixed a €12 a tonne gate fee, and in June 2021 contractors said that fee strained their tenders (MaltaToday, BusinessToday).
2. No standstill appears in the data. Malta’s construction output (volume) rose 5.8% in 2021 and 5.5% in 2022, to 162.5 (2015 = 100). It is the latest year Eurostat publishes for Malta.
3. But the warning was conditional, and the condition changed. Government announced a construction and demolition waste strategy of 15 measures in October 2021. We cannot say what would have happened with no solution, so the data neither confirm nor refute the warning.
4. Verdict: not substantiated (moderate confidence). The MDA published no analysis behind “almost complete standstill”, and none exists in the sources we could read. The concern is real; the degree is unshown.

1. Supported
2. Largely supported
3. Not substantiated
4. Misleading
5. Contradicted

IN THIS REPORT

1 The claim and what we could verify

MaltaToday reported the Association’s statement on 2 June 2021 [1]. Only the words inside quotation marks are the Association’s own in that report: the “almost complete standstill” warning, its remark that there “has been a patchwork of attempted solutions along the years”, and its description of the situation as “untenable” (attributed to director-general Deborah Schembri). The conditional framing (“unless a solution is found”) is the outlet’s paraphrase of the statement. We could not reach the Association’s own text; the page was read from an Internet Archive copy, because the live site returns 403. BusinessToday (17 June 2021) repeats the warning and quotes MDA president Sandro Chetcuti on the cost of dumping [2].

2 Method

Question. Is the warning that development would almost completely stop, absent a solution to construction-waste dumping, supported?

Evidence. We located the statement and its context, then downloaded three Eurostat series for Malta (data/cc-063/): production in construction (sts_copr_a, volume index), waste generated by the construction sector (env_wasgen) and treatment of mineral construction and demolition waste (env_wastrt). Calculations are in tools/cc-063-report/calc.py with outputs in data/cc-063/checks.csv.

Limits of the test. A warning of the form “unless X, then Y” can only be tested directly if X did not happen. Here, government acted (a fee in 2020, a strategy in October 2021), so the data can show whether the feared outcome occurred, not whether it would have without action. Grades: Eurostat statistics are grade C; the MDA statement is an assertion (D). Verdicts follow Appendix A.

3 What the data show

Construction output rose from 145.5 in 2020 to 154.0 in 2021 (+5.8%) and 162.5 in 2022 (+5.5%, provisional), 11.7% above 2020. Eurostat has no later year for Malta, so the data say nothing about 2023 onwards. Waste from the construction sector was 3.0 million tonnes in 2020 and 2.1 million in 2022 (−31%), but 4.7% above 2018. It is 78% of all waste generated in Malta in 2022 (84% in 2020). Of the mineral construction and demolition waste treated in 2022, 67% was recycled and 33% used for backfilling, with landfill negligible; Eurostat classes backfilling as recovery, so this does not show how much went to quarries for disposal.

4 Where the evidence points different ways

5 Testing the claim

6 Verdict and requests for evidence

Why. Our scale rates a claim Not substantiated when it is stated more strongly than the evidence available allows. The shortage of disposal capacity is documented; the degree of harm forecast is not. Confidence is moderate because output data stop at 2022 and say little about specific projects.

What this verdict does not say. It does not say the developers were wrong to raise the problem, or that nothing stalled: road works did. It treats a negotiating warning as the kind of statement it is, and asks what evidence backs its strength. A fuller sentence would read: “Without more disposal capacity, construction, and road works in particular, faces delays and higher costs.”

Evidence we are asking for

• From the MDA: the analysis or member survey behind “almost complete standstill”.
• From ERA and the Planning Authority: quarry intake and remaining capacity by year since 2020.
• From Infrastructure Malta: projects suspended for lack of dumping space in 2020–21.

7 Limitations

• We did not reach the MDA’s own statement; wording is from MaltaToday’s report, read from an Internet Archive copy.
• Eurostat output data end in 2022 (provisional) and waste data in 2022; later years are untested.
• Eurostat’s waste data count backfilling as recovery, so they do not separate quarry disposal from recycling.
• National output could hide local stoppages; we have no project-level data.

References

1. [1] Calleja, L. (2 Jun 2021). Developers again call for enduring solution to dumping of construction waste. MaltaToday. https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/110023/developers_again_call_for_enduring_solution_to_dumping_of_construction_waste
2. [2] Cocks, P. (17 Jun 2021). Crippling construction waste dumping costs behind road works standstill, MDA says. BusinessToday. https://www.businesstoday.com.mt/business/business/1503/crippling_construction_waste_dumping_costs_behind_road_works_standstill_mda_says
3. [3] Vella, L. (9 Oct 2021). Construction drive produced unprecedented levels of construction waste, Farrugia says. MaltaToday. https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/112566/construction_drive_produced_unprecedented_levels_of_construction_waste_farrugia_says
4. [4] Eurostat. Production in construction, annual data (sts_copr_a), updated 2 Oct 2026, retrieved 5 Oct 2026. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sts_copr_a/default/table
5. [5] Eurostat. Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity (env_wasgen), updated Sep 2025. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasgen/default/table
6. [6] Eurostat. Treatment of waste by waste category, hazardousness and waste management operations (env_wastrt), updated Sep 2025. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wastrt/default/table
7. [7] MiŻien. Calculation script and outputs: tools/cc-063-report/calc.py; data/cc-063/.

Appendix A: series standards and verdict scale

Every investigation in this series follows the same rules so that verdicts are comparable and challengeable.

Confidence

High: multiple independent lines of evidence agree. Moderate: evidence is relevant but incomplete or indirect. Low: evidence is thin, second-hand or conflicting.

Evidence grades

A experiment · B observational study with a control or gradient · C review, guidance or official statistics · D assertion or anecdote. ◆ marks a source known only second-hand.

Standards

• Quote the speaker, not the headline, with outlet and date, and link the original where possible.
• Separate the claim from the evidence offered for it, and say who made which statement.
• Grade the evidence and show differing views side by side where the evidence is unsettled.
• State what we could not access or verify, and what would change the verdict either way.
• Ask for the missing evidence in specific, answerable requests.
• Offer a right of reply where a check finds a claim Not substantiated, Misleading or Contradicted (or a pledge Not measurable, Off track or Missed), before wider circulation, and append responses.
• Correct errors openly with a version number and change log.
• Whistle-blow only on evidence: a verdict of Misleading or Contradicted requires documents or data that can be shown, not inference.
• Check every side. Government, opposition, NGOs and developers are held to the same standard.

Appendix B: revision log