The Prime Minister’s proposal for MEPA reform was met with mixed reactions by environmentalist NGOs. Raphael Vassallo on the diversity of views that forms the Achilles’ Heel of Malta’s environmentalist movement
It is rare indeed for Malta’s construction and environmentalist lobbies to ever agree on anything. And yet, in their otherwise diverse reactions to the proposed reform of the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) – announced by the Prime Minister amid much fanfare last week – both these groups appear to be motivated by the exact same concerns.
Speaking to MaltaToday last week, Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (FOBC) chairman Angelo Xuereb harped on the need for any reform to be applied retroactively to pending applications.
“We hope that MEPA will keep to these timeframes when it comes to evaluating applications,” he said. “However, it is not clear whether this three-month time-limit will also apply to pending applications. There are a number of applications awaiting adjudication by MEPA, and these cannot be ignored in the new reform. Pending applications ought to be given priority.”
Soon after the reform was unveiled, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar chairperson Astrid Vella – traditionally antagonistic towards overdevelopment – found herself echoing Xuereb’s concerns almost to the letter.
“The FAA has reservations regarding certain aspects (of the reform), particularly the appeals process which, in taking a legalistic rather than a planning approach, has served to undermine many of the beneficial provisions established by the MEPA Directorate,” Vella said. “We are also concerned about the outcome of applications which are already being processed. If the new regulations will not apply to these projects, we will be facing the damaging results of the present flawed system for years to come.”
Needless to say, Astrid Vella and Anglu Xuereb are looking at the same reform document through vastly different lenses. For the contractors Anglu Xuereb represents, the issue boils down to facilitating the adjudication process and cutting back on red tape, with a view to speeding up permits for development. And to be fair, this concern is not exactly limited to big contractors alone.
The vast majority of applications (or notifications) currently handled by MEPA in fact take the form of minor modifications to existing developments; and Anglu Xuereb is hardly isolated in his claims that such applications take far too long to be decided.
Astrid Vella, on the other hand, is evidently more concerned with the strict applications of the spirit (if not the letter) of the Planning & Development Act, so that environmental heresies of the kind we have so often witnessed in the past are not endlessly repeated.
Hers is not an isolated viewpoint either; and yet, though the actual demands are based on fundamentally opposing precepts regarding development, they somehow managed to use the exact phraseology. It is as though the MEPA reform document presented last week somehow found a way to bringing together the two polar antagonists in the war for Malta’s urban and rural landscape.
How on earth was this even possible?
Cutting across the divide In a sense it was inevitable that Lawrence Gonzi’s proposal would come across as a compromise between the two extremes. After all, the document itself was compiled after extensive consultation with all stakeholders concerned. So when it came to hammering the whole shebang together, OPM officials were left with no option but to somehow accommodate as many popular requests as possible... resulting in a document tailor-made to placate popular angst at the cumbersome planning bureaucracy, while at the same time reassuring a politically powerful environmentalist lobby that its concerns would no longer be sacrificed on the altar of business interests.
There’s something in it for everybody. Environmental NGOs have been promised more effective enforcement, and – a poisoned chalice if there ever was one – even offered a permanent representation on the MEPA Board.
Developers, on the other hand, have been assured that applications will be decided within acceptable time-frames, and that to compensate for increased enforcement, the appeals process has been simplified.
So far, so good. But has either side taken the bait? And more to the point: have the key elements of Malta’s dysfunctional planning really been addressed by the proposed reform?
Starting with NGO representation, and at a glance not all environmental pundits appear to be convinced.
Alternattiva Demokratika’s spokesman on sustainable development, Carmel Cacopardo, expressed a degree of scepticism on the issue.
“Government is proposing the presence of a representative of Environmental NGOs on the MEPA Board. I do not doubt the good intentions behind such a proposal; however, I think that there are better ways of involving environmentalists in the decision-taking structures of MEPA.”
Cacopardo cites the controversial case of Nature Trust chairman Vince Attard, who was appointed to the board in 2006 and almost immediately found himself caught up in a controversy involving the sanctioning of illegal Dwejra boathouses, and promptly resigned.
“Already in 2006 the Chairman of an eNGO was appointed to the MEPA Board, but he resigned not much later. Even officials of eNGOs can have conflicts of interests between their duties as representatives of the eNGOs they lead on the one hand and as members of decision taking structures on the other hand. The two functions are often in conflict.”
It remains to be seen whether the latest attempt to include civil society representatives on the MEPA board will be as disastrous as its antecedents. But there is another cause for concern in the proposals, to which Cacopardo – quite possibly out of tact – alludes only in passing.
Which of Malta’s environmental lobby groups will be chosen for inclusion on the MEPA board, and on what criteria will it be chosen? No matter the answer, this issue is almost certain to elicit complaints of favouritism.
Cynics might well argue that this was all along the intention – a classic case of ‘divide and conquer’, whereby eNGOs would be pitted against each other instead of uniting against any particular government proposal... as they had in 2006, with the extension of the building zones.
Politics of planning A second concern involves the actual political responsibility for planning policy, which the reform proposes to annex to the office of the Prime Minister.
At first this does not appear too different from the present set-up, as attested by such cases as the 2004 drive for golf to rescue Malta’s ailing tourism sector – and when MEPA was tasked with the job of identifying potential sites for golf courses.
Again, however, the reaction to this proposal has clearly exposed differences in opinion among Maltese environmentalists. The Green Party, for instance, welcomes several aspects of the reform document, but stops short of commenting on the Prime Minister’s revised role in formulating the policy by which MEPA will be guided.
This contrasts somewhat with the response fielded yesterday by Din L-Art Helwa, which expressed serious reservations about “moving planning policy back into the hands of politicians”.
“(DLH) is extremely concerned about the recommendation to move the responsibility for planning policy away from MEPA and to centralise planning in the Office of the Prime Minister,” the organisation said. “While all policies must follow the environmental and development strategy set by the government, the details of planning policies should be drawn up, as well as implemented, at arm’s length from politicians and central government.”
Like AD, Din l-Art Helwa agrees with the proposal to maintain the status quo, whereby the planning and environment directorates continue to reside within the same authority, and to harmonise the environmental and planning laws.
It also welcomes the government’s renewed commitment towards a zero-tolerance approach to building, or sanctioning in ODZ areas. But its subsequent proviso also suggests scepticism regarding government’s real intentions.
Recalling that this commitment was already made over a year ago, with scant results so far, DLH added: “There has been no real progress in protecting our countryside since the last general elections.
“While it is true that MEPA has been subjected to a lot of pressure and many bad decisions have been taken, shifting MEPA’s responsibility for policy back into the hands of ministers and politicians, is a grave mistake. It is a step back into the past, when Din l-Art Helwa and many others campaigned in the 1980s for an independent authority to be entrusted with planning policy.”
And yet, the proposal has its defenders, including the unlikeliest imaginable: left-wing NGO Moviment Graffitti.
“It is considered as a positive measure that the responsibility for environmental and planning policy now will be under the direct remit of Government, since this should clarify more clearly the role of MEPA,” the movement said yesterday. “Furthermore, such remit should help to relate more direct accountability to the decisions that are taken. This will also be applicable to regulations governing construction outside development zones (ODZ). Although the Prime Minister has stated that such regulations will not relate much lacunae for such type of development, nothing much has been stated how this will be ensured in practice.”
Graffitti however does identify a potential danger in the proposed extension of the MEPA board.
“Another proposed measure concerns that present on the board there would also be a representative of civil society. However again no reference has been made on how such person is going to be chosen.”
Moviment Graffitti argues that. “Although the reform of MEPA is highly important for the safeguarding of the environment, the proposed reform is not going to result in any miracle cures. Even if MEPA and its structures are made more efficient and effective, the protection of the environment is still going to depend much on the political will of those in power.”
This latter observation is perceptive, as it throws into sharp focus the other, less far-reaching aspects of the reform.
While tinkering with little details to keep vociferous critics from growling too loudly, and failing to address the chief causes of the authority’s reputation for despotism, the Prime Minister’s reform was likely to have been motivated by an altogether unrelated aim: that of further dividing an already fragmented environmentalist lobby.
Will this strategy work in the long run? Judging by the NGOs’ preliminary reactions – which were all, without exception, cautious in accepting gifts – the answer appears to be: not likely.
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.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
