Like the rest of the Cabinet, Environment Minister George Pullicino now faces a looming day of reckoning.
“It’s up to the people now to decide. Our credo should remain: we did our very best, the people will do the rest,” the Minister says in a laconic tone.
But he also admits that the government made its share of mistakes.
“We could have done more. We could have understood the grass roots more. But at the end of the day, and I speak in the name of all Ministers, I can say that we did an excellent job.”
With electoral billboards already paraded on the main arteries, George Pullicino claims that he is as green as all of us common mortals on the date of the election. “Ministers are only informed on the election date in a Cabinet meeting after the Prime Minister has taken a decision.”
Pullicino is a newcomer in the Cabinet having served as Minister for the first time during this legislature.
In its pre-electoral campaign the PN’s media tried to focus attention away from the Ministers first by hinting at a potential new team and than by solely focusing on the Prime Minister. Have the Ministers become a liability?
“Not in the least, In fact the emphasis of the campaign is that we are all together (‘flimkien’),” replies Pullicino.
Yet the PN billboard shows the Prime Minister together with common mortals rather than with his team of Ministers. Pullicino agrees with this approach going as far as claiming that “change is not made by Ministers.”
“As a government we have introduced bring-in sites. But if the people did not participate by separating their waste we would not have accomplished anything. In just four years we had a sevenfold increase in waste deposited in bring-in sites from just 188 tonnes in 2003 to 1425 tonnes now.”
Pullicino also defends the Presidential style of campaigning adopted by the PN “Ultimately people have to decide on who is to ascend the steps of Castille.”
What about the team behind the Prime Minister?
“We never had problems working as a team. There were moments at Cabinet level when we disagreed and even had our fair share of heated discussions. But we always took decisions, and most of the time by consensus.”
This time round the Prime Minister has felt the need to step in to the ninth district – one of the two districts contested by Pullicino. The district is already contested by four heavyweight Ministers, namely Dolores Cristina, Francis Zammit Dimech, Michael Frendo and Pullicino himself. Are the current Ministers contesting the district not up to this task of galvanizing the disenchanted pale blue vote?
“I would be the last person to complain about the Prime Minister’s decision, after persuading him to re-enter the political fray and supporting him openly in the leadership contest,” Pullicino says.
According to Pullicino, Gonzi’s candidature is simply meant to improve the party’s result in this district.
Still, when singling out his achievements on the waste management front Pullicino implies that the inheritance he found from previous PN Ministers was far from rosy.
“When I was handed the responsibility for waste management by Lawrence Gonzi, I was scared. We had already closed Maghtab without having an alternative in place.”
Pullicino’s first decision was to abandon Ninu Zammit’s plan for a temporary landfill in Qrendi a few kilometres away from the Mnajdra temples.
He claims that at that time Malta was not far from the waste inferno in which Neapolitans are living.
“What happened in Naples did not just happen because of organised crime rackets. It was the fault of incompetent politicians who avoided taking hard decisions. They have ended up having to re-open a rubbish dump similar to our Maghtab”.
Pullicino lists his achievements.
“We have succeeded. We closed Maghtab. We have developed an engineered landfill and we swam against the current by developing a recycling plant in Sant Antnin.”
But the Minister has not yet honoured his commitment to revise Malta’s waste management plan which is well past its expiry date. This means that major decisions like the siting of two new recycling plants similar to the Sant Antnin Plant will be taken by the next government. Neither has the government decided whether to open incinerators which generate energy by burning waste. Is he trying to avoid new controversies before the election?
Pullicino insists that he has already changed the strategy.
“The old strategy stated that the modernised Sant Antnin plant will cater for all of Malta’s waste. This would have meant taking all the waste from Gozo and north of Malta to the south… We have decided to have three recycling plants, one in the south, one in Gozo and one in the north.”
Pullicino insists he does not know where the plants will be sited and denies keeping this information concealed for electoral reasons.
Back in January 2005, the government had appointed a committee entrusted with a report with studying the incineration option. It had to deliver a report by March of the same year. Yet three years later the report has not seen the light of the day. Pullicino points out that since waste-to-energy technologies are still being developed, it was premature to take a decision.
“We also want people to see with their eyes how the Sant Antnin plant is operating. This will help them overcome their fear of the unknown. We have to take decisions in the right time.”
Since January, Malta has been invaded by a new flow of packaging waste after Malta was forced by the European Union to open its market to soft drinks in plastic bottles. The government had known of the impending date since the conclusion of EU negotiations in 2003. How is it possible a recovery system was not in place by the stipulated deadline?
“For the past years we were busy discussing with stakeholders. The idea of a deposit refund on used plastic bottles returned to shops had to be abandoned at a very late stage because the retailers refused to participate. We had to abandon this idea and embark on a new one.”
Finally all stakeholders including the Local Council’s Association have agreed on a system through which cartons, metal and plastic will be collected from each household every Tuesday.
Back in 2005, when he introduced the eco contribution, George Pullicino had vowed to “kill the use of plastic bags before they kill us.” A visit to any supermarket in Malta confirms that people are back to their old habits packing their shopping in plastic bags given for free at the counter.
“I regret that we did not do the same as Ireland. In Ireland, one has to pay for the taxed plastic bag directly upon paying the bill. What happened in Malta is that the cost of the plastic bag has been absorbed in the total bill.”
Pullicino does not exclude introducing similar measures in the future. “We learn from experience, but the eco contribution had many positive aspects.”
For all this, the Malta Environment & Planning Authority remains one Pullicino’s hottest potatoes. Catherine Galea’s resignation from the post of MEPA Deputy Chairman has exposed the perceived conflict of interest faced by practicing architects occupying strategic posts in the planning process.
Pullicino makes it clear that Galea was only asked to resign because she was involved in the unauthorised construction of a ramp, and not because of any conflict between her professional role and her post in MEPA. He insists that a conflict of interest only arises when one does not declare his or her interests. “If one abstains from a decision after declaring a conflict of interest, there is no conflict.”
Still although a board member can declare his conflict of interest and abstain, he constantly takes decisions affecting the fortunes of past and potential future clients.
“If it was so advantageous for a client to hire the services of a board member, how do you explain that only 2.8% of applications are presented by architects sitting on the DCC board?” asks Pullicino.
According to the Minister the issue is being blown out of all proportion. “I have asked a number of architects to serve on the DCC boards. Some even refuse because they fear that their colleagues on the board will be extra careful in scrutinizing their applications to avoid any doubt that they are being lenient.”
Pullicino even cites statistical data to prove that hiring a board member as your architect is far from an advantage for developers.
He refers to the number of cases where the MEPA boards overturns the Environment Directory’s recommendation for refusal.
“MEPA approves 14% of all cases despite a recommendation for refusal by the Directorate. But it only overturns the Directorate’s refusal in 11% of cases presented by MEPA board members.”
Pullicino acknowledges that having a large number of architects sitting on the MEPA board is not ideal adding that since his appointment as parliamentary secretary responsible for MEPA the number of architects on the DCC boards has been reduced from five to three out of seven members.
Would it not make more sense for MEPA to employ a team of full time architects to serve on the board, on condition that they are precluded from private work?
Pullicino does not dismiss the idea but points out that this will not put an end to perceptions of conflict of interests.
“After the expiry of their three-year term they will still have to rebuild their client base from scratch. Therefore one could still suspect that their decisions are meant to appease potential clients.”
Alternattiva Demokratika proposes splitting MEPA into two, arguing that the environmental aspect has become an appendage to MEPA’s primary planning function.
“This is far from the case. Developers constantly complain that people in the Environment Protection Directorate are a pain in the ass.”
He also points out that recently, Jamaica has created a single planning and environment agency. He also points at the logistical problems involved in combining the two functions of the Authority.
“Will people have to apply for two permits, one from each authority? If people are complaining that MEPA is taking too long to approve permits, what people be asked to re-apply to get another permit from the Environment Authority after getting one from the Planning Authority?”
George Pullicino alienated many environmentalists when he extended the building zones enshrined in the new local plans. Yet despite the approval of the local plans, ODZ projects like the Polidano supermarket in Safi have been approved even if they defy local plan policies prohibiting development on agricultural land in rural areas.
Pullicino insists that MEPA was following another policy allowing the redevelopment of farm houses in rural areas for non-agricultural purposes.
But how can any policy override the local plan which came in to force in August 2006?
Pullicino insists that planning issues are very complex.
“It’s impossible to have a system where an application is processed through a computer. The discussion on policies is continuous. Every application is unique. Nothing is clear-cut, and policies can be given different interpretations.”
He also questions whether it’s better to have supermarkets in residential areas rather than in the countryside.
“I ask citizens: where should we locate our supermarkets? I live in a flat and I would not like a supermarket next to me. We have to cater for the needs of the new society.”
But what’s the meaning of having Outside Development Zones, when MEPA itself is always forthcoming in finding loopholes for development in the countryside?
Pullicino refers to the structure plan which allows ODZ development of a non-residential nature if the developer can prove that the development cannot be sited elsewhere.
The Minister also contrasts the supermarket application to a previous application presented by architect Carmel Cacopardo in 1995.
“This case is different from an ODZ application for 87 residential units in the same area. The application for a supermarket was for a commercial and not for a residential development. While residential development can be sited within development boundaries, commercial development could create problems if sited within residential sites.”
But this raises the question: how can MEPA refuse one application on environmental grounds while accepting the other one? Don’t a block of apartments and a supermarket have the same impact on agriculture?
“One has to consider that the land earmarked for the supermarket included a farm house which according to MEPA’s policies could be redeveloped. There was no farm house on the other piece of land,” argues Pullicino.
Flanked by green NGOs, on Monday Pullicino also announced amendments to the law through which developers would be compelled to inform residents in the vicinity about their projects by sending them registered letters.
In addition, notices for building outside development zones would have to be placed on billboards along main roads near the site, so that the public would be informed about such applications.
Is this the last act of redemption before the next election to appease environmentalists before the election?
“Not at all. If we had this in mind we would have included this proposal in our electoral manifesto to get environmentalists to vote for us, rather than changing the law.”
Pullicino contrasts this dose of ‘glasnost’ with Labour’s betrayal of its public commitment to increase transparency in the Planning Authority before the 1996 election.
“When in power they betrayed this promise by presenting infamous regulations restricting access to plans to architects.”
With little respite from the planning front, Pullicino now also faces the European Commission’s decision to take Malta to court over hunting in Spring. The Commission is also calling on the European Court to take interim measures to stop hunting in Spring immediately.
Pullicino makes it clear that the Maltese government does not intend to defy any decision of the European Court and risk any fines.
“Fines will only be imposed on us if we defy the decision of the court. We have already decided that we will not ignore any decision taken by the court.”
The government will not defy the European court if it imposes interim measures which preclude the opening of this years’ spring season.
“Faced with a situation where the European Court imposes interim measures, I cannot defy the court.”
This could be a blessing in disguise for Pullicino, who will be spared having to take any explosive decision before the election. Hunting will only be stopped by order of the European Court, and not the Maltese government. But irrespective of the European court, has he taken a decision on whether to open this year’s Spring season?
“How can I decide if I don’t even have the recommendation of the Ornis committee?” he replies. But why hide behind Ornis, can’t the Minister take a political decision?
Pullicino insists that the government had taken a political decision to keep hunting on turtle dove and quail open in spring.
“We have already taken a political decision. It is expressed in the common position signed with the commission during the negotiations. It was known to everyone before the referendum. We have adhered to what was written in the common position. If there was someone who changed position it was not us: it was the Commission.”