The environment has risen so much in the Prime Minister’s list of priorities (as well as in the polls) that he will be taking personal responsibility over the much reviled Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
Just as restoring the state of public finances was his main task in his five years of government, restoring trust in MEPA will be the PM’s main task in his second term.
Taking upon himself the burden of reforming such an unpopular organisation loathed by developers and environmentalists alike, is bound to be seen as courageous. The Prime Minister justifies the move arguing that sustainable development is such an all encompassing theme, affecting each and every ministry and government department, that it is only natural for the PM to step in to lead.
Yet the discerning voter is also bound to read between the lines, raising uncomfortable questions: is the Prime Minister’s promise to take over responsibility of MEPA an indictment of George Pullicino’s handling of this institution in the past years?

George jettisoned?
Undoubtedly, by drawing a parallel between the financial deficit he redressed in his first term in office and the environmental deficit he wants to redress now, he is inviting comparisons between John Dalli’s handling of public finances and George Pullicino’s handling of MEPA.
Yet in both cases the deficit was the accumulated legacy of the entire Cabinet rather than the personal legacy of one minister.
Surely, Gonzi can well say that George Pullicino himself had made this suggestion himself in his thesis. But in reality over the past three years Pullicino had to take the full brunt of protests from environmentalists, for decisions taken at a Cabinet level only to be dumped in Maghtab, the place he took so much pride in rehabilitating, just a few days before the election, when Gonzi announced his intention to take up MEPA reform.
Ironically the “Vote George get Lorry” epigram was coined in a protest against a collective decision of the Cabinet presided by Gonzi – a decision wholeheartedly defended by the Prime Minister.
Another pertinent question would be whether it is wise to trust MEPA in the hands of a Prime Minister rather than the in the hands of an Environment Minister. Theoretically the Environment Ministry should have a natural bias in favour of environmental protection. One expects him to be an advocate for the environment from the pressures exerted by his ministers.
A case in point was Pullicino’s proposal to stop MEPA from sanctioning ODZ illegalities. It took more than a year for the Cabinet to endorse his proposal. Unlike the Minister for the Environment whose main focus is the environment, the Prime Minister is obliged to look at the wider picture. Surely in modern democracies, sustainable development must be the wider picture.
For example, Resources Minister Ninu Zammit’s failure to enforce energy saving regulations in buildings is a case in point where the wider picture was missed.
But this wider picture could include all sorts of pressures from developers. Citing the national interest to push through environmentally damaging proposals could be easier for a Prime Minister than for a Minister for the Environment.
But one may well argue that the problem with MEPA stems from government interference. Would the Prime Minister now remove political appointees from the MEPA board as a first step? Will he act against conflict of interests of architects serving on the MEPA board? These are the fundamental issues at stake irrespective of whether it’s Gonzi or Pullicino who is in charge of MEPA.
This raises another question: where’s the beef in the PM’s proposal? Will he increase or decrease government intervention in MEPA? We know that the MLP will fast-track certain projects through direct government intervention. But how will Gonzi behave?
Surely a committed “green” Prime Minister will have more strength to push changes and resists pressures from developers. The answer is yes – but how green is Lawrence Gonzi really?

The road to Xaghra l-Hamra
Surely Gonzi showed very little love for greenery during his first two years in government. In July 2006, Gonzi claimed the government wanted to ensure an adequate supply of dwellings for couples to have more affordable homes. “This was a fundamental reason why the boundaries would be extended,” the Prime Minister said about the ‘rationalisation’ of existing building zones.
And he lambasted environmentalists for ignoring the social argument. “Property prices are sky high, and there had been calls for government to tackle this problem for hundreds of young couples who are getting married. It’s a very important point and we have a duty to respond to this issue,” Gonzi said.
In total contrast, Pullicino had already said earlier on that government had not carried out the rationalisation exercise to reduce the property prices, but to redress anomalies and injustices. Excluding a decrease in property prices, the minister claimed the new zones would ensure “the rate of increase of prices would not remain so steep”.
Yet ever since May last year – when Gonzi “discovered” the value of the environment while viewing the orchids in Xaghra l-Hamra, previously earmarked for a golf course – Lawrence Gonzi adopted the environment as his pet theme. The green conversion came after a strategy meeting which saw the comeback of old-timers Peter Serracino Inglott and Richard Cachia Caruana.
Yet the Prime Minister’s latest announcement begs the question: does the Prime Minister trust anyone apart from himself to take on MEPA?
The answer is simple. It is the pale blue voter that can only trust Gonzi but not his Cabinet with this task. The Prime Minister knows that well, with the PN’s campaign becoming increasingly a one-man show.
If he succeeds in luring back those pale blue voters who considered voting for AD, the greens will be left with the consolation of making the environment an electoral issue.

jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt