ADPD: no study of Freeport and airport noise

TL;DR

At a press conference in Birżebbuġa on 26 May 2026 ADPD – The Green Party said: “This country has yet to acknowledge that noise pollution is having an effect on the health of those who live near the Freeport or the airport” and that “there is a need to study the impact of noise from the Freeport operations and the airport on the surrounding residential community”. We looked for the studies and official documents that would confirm or contradict this.

1. Freeport noise is absent from the national noise framework. The word “Freeport” does not appear in any of five Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) noise documents we read in full (round 4 mapping report, two Noise Action Plans, the consultation responses, the airport report). The industrial sites mapped are seven to eight licensed facilities, none of them the Freeport.
2. Airport noise is mapped, but only as exposure. ERA has published modelled aircraft noise maps since 2011. In 2016 about 9,700 people lived in dwellings with modelled aircraft noise of 55 dB Lden or more, and about 830 at 50 dB Lnight or more. No health outcome was studied.
3. Some local noise research exists, which the statement does not mention. A Freeport-commissioned year-long study (2014–2015, reported by TVM; report not seen ◆) and a University of Malta paper (2022, 477 residents, 329 measurements) found noise above the EU reporting thresholds in Birżebbuġa and residents reporting annoyance, sleep problems and stress.
4. Verdict: largely supported (moderate confidence). We found no study of health outcomes (illness, medication, sleep measured objectively) among residents near the Freeport or the airport, and the official framework does not cover the Freeport. But the airport’s noise has been acknowledged and mapped, and Freeport-area noise has been measured, so “yet to acknowledge” is too strong.

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

IN THIS REPORT

1 The claim and what we could verify

ADPD published the statement on its website on 26 May 2026, in Maltese with an English version [1]; Newsbook reported it the same day [2]. It was issued by the party’s deputy chairpersons Carmel Cacopardo and Melissa Bagley during the general election campaign. The party names the Freeport Terminal, Malta International Airport and the entertainment industry as noise sources. It also says: “It is essential that we do not rely on international studies alone.” This check covers the Freeport and the airport; entertainment noise is a separate topic. The check is of the statement, not of anyone’s motives.

2 Method

Question. Is it true that Malta has yet to acknowledge noise effects on people near the Freeport and the airport, and that such effects have not been studied?

Evidence. We read the ERA noise documents named above in full text and searched them for “Freeport”, “Birżebbuġa” and “Kalafrana” (data/cc-105/doc_search.csv). We tabulated the airport exposure figures and the Birżebbuġa monitoring ranges (tools/cc-105-report/calc.py), then searched OpenAlex, Crossref and the web for other local studies. The European Parliament study PE 783.089 (Hjerp & Coffey 2026) [9] gives the legal context. The Birżebbuġa measurements are LAeq averages, not Lden or Lnight, so comparison with the Noise Directive thresholds is only indicative.

Grades. ERA documents: C (official, modelled). Falzon et al.: B (observational, survey plus measurements, no control). TVM report: D, second-hand. Verdicts follow the five-point scale in Appendix A.

3 What the evidence shows

The Freeport. None of the five ERA documents mentions it. ERA’s round 3 mapping covered eight licensed industrial sites in or next to the Malta agglomeration (for example the Marsa power station and the Sant’Antnin waste plant); round 4 covered seven. The Freeport is not among them [3]. The European Parliament study notes that the Noise Directive covers only major roads, railways, airports and large agglomerations [9], so a port can fall outside the mandatory scope. That explains the gap but does not fill it.

Local Freeport-area noise research does exist. A study commissioned by Malta Freeport Terminals at the request of the Birżebbuġa monitoring board (2014–2015, by Adi Associates Environmental Consultants) was reported by TVM as finding day and night noise above WHO levels ◆ [8]. A University of Malta team measured five residential points between December 2020 and August 2021 [7] (Figure 1). Daytime averages were 55 dBA or higher at all five points, and night averages reached above 50 dBA at four of five. The Freeport’s container handling, alarms and engine hum were named among the predominant sources at four points [7]. In the questionnaire, 98% of 477 respondents said noise was a problem, and 61.6% said annoyance was the main effect on health and well-being, followed by sleep disorders, fatigue and stress [7]. These are self-reported effects, not clinical findings.

The airport. The airport is not a “major airport” under the directive (fewer than 50,000 movements a year; 49,214 in 2021), but ERA has modelled its noise in each mapping round because flight paths cross the agglomeration [3,6]. In round 3 (base year 2016), 9,666 people lived in dwellings with modelled aircraft noise of 55 dB Lden or more (8,054 inside the agglomeration, 1,612 outside), almost all in the 55–59 band, and 827 at 50 dB Lnight or more [6]. The Noise Action Plan states WHO’s 2018 levels for aircraft noise (45 dB Lden, 40 dB Lnight) [4]. The published results are not broken down by locality, so we cannot say how many of these people live in Birżebbuġa.

Health outcomes. We found no Maltese study linking measured exposure to illness, medication use, sleep recordings or other outcomes in residents near either site. Falzon et al. themselves write that “minimal research” exists on exposure–effect studies of community noise in Malta [7]. Our search was of public sources only (see Limitations).

4 Where the evidence points different ways

5 Testing the claim

6 Verdict and requests for evidence

Why. The substance, that nobody has studied the health of residents near the Freeport and the airport, is consistent with what we found, and the Freeport is missing from the national noise maps and action plans. The words “yet to acknowledge” overstate the case because airport noise is mapped and published, and Freeport-area noise has been measured twice. Confidence is moderate because absence of a study is hard to prove from public sources. What this verdict does not say. It does not say that residents are or are not harmed; it tests only whether the studies and official acknowledgement exist.

Evidence we are asking for

• From ERA: whether the Freeport and Kalafrana port activity are covered by any noise mapping, permit or monitoring requirement.
• From Malta Freeport Terminals: the 2014–2015 Adi Associates report and any later monitoring.
• From the Superintendence of Public Health: any health assessment of noise near the airport or the Freeport.

7 Limitations

• The 2014–2015 Freeport study is known only through a TVM news report and a citation in Falzon et al. (◆).
• We could not search ERA’s site, the MEPS portal or the Superintendence of Public Health for unpublished studies; absence of a health study means none found in public sources.
• Birżebbuġa measurements are LAeq averages, not Lden or Lnight; comparison with thresholds is indicative. The paper’s monitoring figures were read as printed ranges, not digitised.
• Airport exposure is a model of aircraft noise only, from 2016 data; the round 4 (2021) results were not tabulated.
• ERA documents were read from Internet Archive copies because the live site refuses scripts.

References

1. [1] ADPD – The Green Party (26 May 2026). It-tniġġis qiegħed iħassrilna saħħitna / Pollution is negatively affecting our health. Read 5 Oct 2026. https://adpd.mt/it-tniggis-qieghed-ihassrilna-sahhitna-adpd/
2. [2] Newsbook (26 May 2026). Air and noise pollution are harming our health – ADPD. (Locator.) https://newsbook.com.mt/en/air-and-noise-pollution-are-harming-our-health-adpd/
3. [3] Lemitor for ERA (Nov 2024). Round 4 Final Project Report, Strategic Noise Mapping in Malta (SPD8/2022/011). https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/R4_Noise_Maps_Malta_Final_Report_compressed.pdf
4. [4] ERA (2023). Noise Action Plan, Malta Agglomeration, 2019–2024. https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Noise-Action-Plan-Agglomeration-Interactive.pdf
5. [5] ERA (2023). Noise Action Plan for Major Roads in Malta, 2019–2024. https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Noise-Action-Plan-Major-Roads.pdf
6. [6] Acustica for ERA (March 2019). Malta International Airport Noise Modelling, Final Report 593-14-2/3 (round 3). https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/593-14-2v3-1_Malta-International-Airport-R3-Final-Report.pdf
7. [7] Falzon J., Dalli Gonzi R.E., Camilleri M. & Grima S. (2022). Effects of noise pollution on residents living in Birzebbuga and the introduction of effective mitigation measures. Int. J. Sustainable Development and Planning 17(7): 2309–2318. doi:10.18280/ijsdp.170732. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170732
8. [8] Galea O. (29 Dec 2015). Level of noise disturbance at Birżebbuġa is higher than that established by WHO. TVM news. ◆ https://tvmnews.mt/en/news/level-of-noise-disturbance-at-birzebbuga-is-higher-than-that-established-by-who/
9. [9] Hjerp P. & Coffey (2026). Analysing Malta’s implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC. European Parliament PE 783.089. doi:10.2861/6278624. https://doi.org/10.2861/6278624
10. [10] MiŻien. Data and calculation: data/cc-105/; tools/cc-105-report/calc.py.

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