Technicalities absolve government from infringement procedure
James Debono The Maltese government has managed to evade its legal obligation to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the extension of building boundaries carried out in 2006, because its plans were submitted to parliament and Ministerial approval before 21 July 2006.
The decision was hailed by means of a widely circulated anonymous SMS, proclaiming that “the truth will always prevail” (‘Is-sewwa jirbah zgur’) – an echo of the PN’s most memorable slogan from the 1980s.
But it transpires that the EC’s decision simply confirms that the Maltese government had successfully identified a loophole to exempt itself from the directive.
The European Union’s Strategic Environment Assessment directive requires member states to conduct an EIA on any plan commenced after 21 July 2004, and for any plan commenced before that date but not completed before 21 July 2006.
After a three-year investigation, the European Commission last week concluded that the rationalisation of building boundaries was a continuation of the local plan process commenced before 21 July 2004, and concluded before 21 July 2006.
The European Commission lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that the so-called “rationalisation exercise” was a “stand-alone procedure, independent of the local plan processes” which had commenced well before 21 July 2004, Commission sources told Maltatoday.
The rationalisation exercise which included the addition of building zones by 2.3% was initiated by means of a Cabinet memo issued in May 2006, which made it clear that the government was not satisfied with MEPA’s very slow elaboration of local plans.
Significantly the government also presented the memo proposing the addition of new lands to building boundaries, as the “government’s reaction to Local Plans issued by MEPA for public consultation as well as Local Plans which were approved by MEPA.”
Parliament finally approved the rationalization of boundaries on 27 July 2006, while the local plans were approved by Minister George Pullicino on 3 August 2006.
But the Maltese government still managed to evade the obligation to conduct an EIA by getting the plans submitted for parliamentary and Ministerial approval before the 21 July 2006 cut-off date.
“All the local plans were approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) and were submitted to the legislative procedure for adoption either by the responsible Minister or by the Parliament (with regard to those sections that expanded the development boundaries) before 21 July 2006, i.e. before the cut-off date in the Directive,” a spokesperson for the European Commission told MaltaToday.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the SEA directive did not apply to the local plans which also included the extension of building zones ushered by the May 2006 Cabinet memo.
The EC commenced infringement procedures in 2007, following several complaints by Alternattiva Demokratika and various NGOs. It took the Commission three whole years to determine whether to continue procedures by issuing a reasoned opinion or to drop the infringement procedure.
The Commission spokesperson told MaltaToday that it had several discussions on this issue with the Maltese Government.
Throughout these discussions, “the Maltese government constantly maintained that the rationalisation exercise was an integral part of the local plan processes.”
The government also argued that the local plans, approved in August 2006, included and incorporated all the “rationalisation sites” which were identified as extending the development boundary.
“The Commission has not been provided with conclusive evidence to prove that this is not the case,” the Commission spokesperson told MaltaToday.
According to the commission all complainants were informed well in advance of the EC’s intention to close the case.
“In the absence of additional information which would have caused us to change our opinion, we have proposed that the Commission terminates this case.”
The Commission will be sending letters to all complainants informing them of the closure decision.
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.
