It really is a jungle out there...

In a not so distant future, when the inhabitants of Malta finally start questioning how their pretty little island was allowed to degenerate into such an unregulated environmental mess, people may well start referring to 2016 as the year when the authorities finally decided to give up even the pretence of law enforcement.

Or at least, to enforce Malta’s already insufficient planning regulations so selectively and discriminatorily, that to be brutally honest it would be much fairer not to have any regulations at all.

Consider the following two stories, both of which appeared this week. 

On Thursday, it was reported that the Planning Authority descended upon Delimara en masse to enforce the demolition of a number of illegal structures that had mushroomed along the coast. These include at least 15 unlicensed ‘kmamar’ (rooms), dismantled by the owners themselves – at their own expense – upon PA orders; and an additional three such rooms – one of which was used as a kiosk – demolished by the PA’s own enforcement unit.

Quite a show of force, don’t you think? Makes you wonder why the equally illegal boathouses of Gnejna were not only allowed to stay, but may soon even be connected to the energy grid. Is this what the Labour government meant, when it said it would not ‘neglect the South’? That it is now going to throw the entire planning book at any southern illegalities, while turning a blind eye at identical illegalities committed in the north?

Very fair, I must say. Remind me to choose a northern location, next time I decide to just build something without a permit...

But if you thought those double standards were outrageous... just wait until you digest the contents of a news item published the following day (Friday). 

According to this article, the same PA’s Environmental Resources Authority decided that an equally unlicensed ZOO in Siggiewi would not even need an Environmental Impact Assessment to be retroactively sanctioned. 

Yes, you read right. No, there is no mistake. A small seaside shack without a permit? That has to be torn down by bulldozers, to make sure everyone gets the message that illegalities will not be tolerated. But a large, sprawling and highly specialised development, which – apart from lacking building permits – also involves all manner of serious health and safety concerns, as well as wildlife conservation and animal welfare issues to boot... not only does that get to stay, but the owners are even spared the hassle and expense of carrying out studies that would normally be required to get a permit in the first place.

Let’s allow a few seconds for the broader implications to sink in. In the meantime, here are a couple of minor, ancillary observations. 

One: this is a zoo we are talking about. In other words, the sort of specialised environment that – if it were to be licensed – would have to be built at a safe distance from residential areas, ideally surrounded by a large buffer zone, and operated by trained and fully licensed animal handlers in accordance with European directives. Failure to observe these conditions can and often does result in injury and/or loss of life... either human, or animal. 

It was only two weeks ago that an adult mountain gorilla broke free of its compound in Richmond Park Zoo, London... causing a minor panic until it was tranquillised and recaptured. A few months earlier, another gorilla named Harambe made international headlines, after it was shot dead to protect a child that had fallen into its enclosure.

And we don’t even have to travel that far to find other examples of why zoos should be subject to much more stringent regulations than other commercial activities. Noah’s Ark is not the only illegal zoo to be allowed to operate commercially without a licence in Malta. At the nearby (equally illegal) Montekristo Zoo in Hal Farrug, two children have been injured in the past year alone in separate mauling incidents involving big cats. 

One would think these experiences would have convinced the authorities to be more insistent on applying the letter of the law when considering whether to issue licences for such ventures. But no. It seems that having one unlicensed and hopelessly mismanaged zoo just wasn’t darn dangerous enough. We need another, in order to double the existing risk to the general public. Yup: sure sounds like classic Planning Authority reasoning to me... 

But one thing at a time. Long before even comparing the sheer mismatch between the PA’s approach to these two planning infringements, there is already a massive contradiction staring us all in the face. 

In both Delimara and Siggiewi, the entire issue revolved around the lack of valid planning permits. In the former case, the illegal structures were forcibly removed; in the latter, the owners were given every opportunity to have their illegalities retroactively blessed by the same Planning Authority. 

This is particularly strange, because the existence of the ‘Arka ta’ Noe’ zoo in Siggiewi had been known to the authorities for at least two years.  The application to sanction was filed in February 2015. Yet the ERA returned a partial answer only last Friday – i.e, a full one year eight months later. Admittedly, the zoo has not been sanctioned yet... but nor has the application been turned down.

The Delimara structures, on the other hand, were reported in the press only last July. This means that one illegal development was given almost two years to regularise its position, while another bunch of (much smaller) illegal developments were demolished altogether... just three months after the authorities were notified of their existence. 

How can such an enormous disparity in treatment possibly be justified? I’m not one to stick up for illegal coastal kiosks, or anything... but either we have one set of planning regulations for everybody, or else we may as well just feed the entire Planning Act to the lions.

Speaking of lions... this is from last Friday’s report: “The Arka ta’ Noe zoo, which includes a white lion, two Siberian tigers, a black panther, monkeys, zebras, reindeer and emus, was irregularly developed over a 10,565 square metre site – the area of two football grounds – in a site known as Ta’ Bur ix-Xewk in Siggiewi, which is surrounded by an Area of High Landscape Value and near to a proposed Area of Ecological Importance between Wied il-Kbir and Wied Xkora.

“The site was previously occupied by arable land.”

The last sentence is particularly significant, as it quite simply does not apply at all to the aforementioned 18 illegal structures demolished by the PA last Thursday. So apart from the immediate problem common to all these developments – the lack of proper authorisation – the illegal ‘Arka ta’ Noe’ zoo also breaches an official government policy to protect and preserve arable land for agricultural purposes. 

Not that illegalities should really be computed this way... but technically, the zoo violates far more regulations that the coastal ‘kmamar’ of Delimara. And apart from the land-use itself, there is also the small matter of the importation and housing of exotic (sometimes endangered) animals, to maximise the profits of a commercial enterprise that doesn’t meet even the most basic of legal requirements.

These requirements are specified in a legal notice entitled ‘The  Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos Regulations’, 2003. I quote: ”Every  zoo  shall  have  a  licence within  four  years  after  the entry into force of these regulations [i.e., 2007] or, in the case of new zoos, before they are open to the public.”

Got that, folks? ‘Every zoo’ must have a licence to operate... except, naturally, for all the zoos which don’t have a licence, and never actually bothered applying for one. Those can simply operate without a licence for as long as it takes to get their illegal zoo sanctioned. And if any kids get mauled by tigers in the meantime... well, it would be their parents’ fault, for taking them to an unlicensed, illegal zoo in the first place. Naturally, the authorities which permitted this shocking state of affairs to persist will bear no responsibility whatsoever.

Oh, and in case you think I’m making all this up... here is what the law really says: “If   the   zoo   is   not   licensed   in   accordance   with   these regulations, or the licensing conditions are not met, the zoo or part thereof – (a) shall   be   closed   to   the   public   by   the   Veterinary Services; and/or (b) shall comply with appropriate requirements imposed by the Veterinary Services to ensure that the licensing conditions are met.”

See? They think of everything... including a little clause that gives the authorities full discretion to make exceptions at will. But here is the interesting part: “Should these requirements not be complied with within an appropriate period to be determined within one year, the Veterinary Services shall withdraw or modify the licence and close the zoo or part thereof.”

How long has the deliberation period been going on in the case of the illegal Siggiewi zoo? At least one year eight months. That’s considerably longer than what the law deems appropriate. So why has this zoo not been closed, as required in no uncertain terms by Subsidiary Legislation 439.08? 

Do I even need to answer the question? Because the law is not applied equally to everyone. The Planning Authority simply picks and chooses which of its own rules and regulations to apply, at its own discretion. 

And there you have it. Malta’s entire planning problem, embodied in one simple observation. The larger and more complicated the illegality, the likelier you are to actually get away with it... and, much more beside, to also profit obscenely from the illegal operation. 

It really is a jungle out there...