NEWS | Wednesday, 11 February 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Only 17% of EIA-backed projects rejected by MEPA since 1995

James Debono
Only 19 projects from a total of 103 that required an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) have been turned down by the MEPA board, since 1995.
This emerges from a reply to a parliamentary question by Labour MP Leo Brincat, who claims that the 20% refusal rate solidified the perception that developers ‘always end up having it their way’.
Among the 103 development projects were 18 proposed by the government which required an EIA.
Replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, parliamentary secretary Mario Demarco revealed that 19 projects have been refused, while others have either been suspended or withdrawn by the applicant mid-way.
But Demarco did not give a breakdown of how many EIA-backed government projects had been refused, or how many EIAs were suspended or withdrawn.
Demarco also failed to commit himself as to whether his government intends changing the rules of the game regarding EIAs in the forthcoming MEPA reform for more transparency and accountability.
Currently, EIAs are conducted by a consultant chosen and paid by the developer. In 10 years, MEPA failed to draw up a register of EIA consultants: the first step towards ensuring that the consultants working on EIAs are suitably qualified and can be held accountable for their work.
Although the terms of reference for every EIA are drafted following public consultation, important studies are often omitted.
The 2007 EIA regulations allow the developers and MEPA to negotiate the guidelines or terms of reference behind closed doors, after the general public and NGOs make their recommendations. The latter’s suggestions may then be completely omitted from the terms of reference; however, the public and NGOs will not be informed of these deletions until the EIA is complete and approved by MEPA.
For example, the Smart City EIA, which runs into more than 700 pages, makes no mention of the huge impact that Smart City will have on Enemalta’s carbon emissions and Enemalta’s capacity to provide the necessary power to the same project.
The Fort Cambridge EIA similarly omitted the key issues of traffic management and social impact.
Even government-commissioned EIAs were prone to controversy. Three sites proposed for a new composting plant to replace the Sant’ Antnin facility in Marsaskala – all refused in favour of keeping the location – did not satisfy the minimum land surface area required to accommodate the proposed facility, and so could have never been selected in the first place: a fact which NGOs say renders the entire report farcical.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.