Fewer EIAs, more screenings: ERA’s new approach under scrutiny

The number of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) requested by the Environment and Resources Authority has declined sharply due to new rules that came into effect in 2018 and an increased focus on screening applications at the initial stages, before deciding whether an EIA is necessary.

While 47 EIA were requested between 2016 and 2019, only 17 such studies were requested between 2020 and 2024. Moreover, only six EIAs have been requested in the past three years, and just one was requested in the first nine months of 2024.

The reduction reflects the changes to the EIA regulations in 2018, abolishing the previous exemption mechanism which in the past could be used to arbitrarily waive the condition for EIAs on controversial projects – like the one for the Ulysses Lodge in Ramla l-Ħamra in 2005, which earned Malta a rebuke from the European Commission.

Under the present system, only Category I projects – which include large-scale projects like motorways, incinerators, and power stations – automatically require an EIA. In contrast, Category II projects, which include any project with a floor area of over 30,000sq.m, require mandatory screening.

It is this screening that determines whether significant environmental impacts are likely and whether an EIA should be carried out or not. This means that the Environment and Resources Authority may conclude that a project will not result in significant effects on the environment warranting an EIA.

Statistics show that no EIA was required for 246 projects screened between 2018 and 2024. In contrast, 32 projects were formally ‘exempted’ from an EIA in 2016 and 2017, when 73 projects were screened.

What is an EIA?

EIAs consist of voluminous studies of hundreds of pages addressing a variety of impacts, including geological, hydrological, visual, landscape, noise, and climate change impacts, among other themes.

A veritable mine of information for planners, they include a report written by a coordinator that assesses the various impacts in a holistic document. Moreover, EIAs also have to consider alternative sites for the proposed development and an assessment of the so-called zero option, which means studies have to assess the environmental impact of not carrying out the project in the first place.

Crucially, the terms of reference for EIAs are issued by ERA following public consultation, during which NGOs, government entities, and the general public are invited to highlight issues that should be investigated in EIAs.

Another public consultation, including a town hall meeting, also has to be held towards the end of the process after a draft EIA is presented.
The drop in EIAs reflects economic cycles, with the number of projects to be screened for EIAs peaking in 2018 and 2019.

Moreover, some policies, like those regulating fuel stations in ODZ areas, resulted in more projects requiring an EIA. But when the policy was changed, ODZ proposals for fuel stations declined.

Under the present system, only Category I projects, which include large-scale projects like power stations, automatically require an EIA

Another factor is that there can be cycles of heavy public investment in new roads and infrastructure, and others where more private sector developments are proposed.
However, the drop also reflects the ERA’s policy of addressing environmental problems at the screening stage. In this sense, instead of relying on studies prepared by independent experts commissioned by project proponents, ERA has taken this task upon itself.

In fact, in a growing number of cases, while a full EIA is not requested, the ERA is asking for specific and targeted studies.
Since 2018, it requested specific studies on issues like noise, air quality, and impact on the seabed for 52 projects that did not require a full EIA. These included major projects like the proposed Ħal Far motorsport complex, the proposed airstrip in Gozo, several developments along the coastline and several residential and mixed-use developments proposed by the private sector.

Since 2018, only one project has been completely exempted from EIA studies: the temporary generator in the Delimara power station, due to the overriding national interest cited by the government as permitted by EU rules.

ERA defends the new system

In a meeting with MaltaToday, ERA officials explained that one major advantage of the new approach is that developers are immediately given guidance through screening on what is acceptable or not, irrespective of whether an EIA is presented.

“This avoids situations where a developer ends up spending lots of money and resources on an EIA for a project that creates insurmountable problems.

“It also avoids situations where studies drag on for months or create uncertainties or late-stage surprises on issues that could have been foreseen from the outset, as well as situations where project proponents are given false hopes or feel a sense of entitlement simply because they have invested in studies.”

This is avoided by identifying problems at the screening stage, and preferably even before. They also insist that the system is not arbitrary because the parameters for identifying significant impacts are legally defined.

When pressed on the absence of public consultation in framing the terms of reference for the studies that are required, the ERA officials acknowledged that this is not a requirement when ERA opts for targeted studies. “But in this case, one should consider that the public can make representations during the normal planning process.”

When asked whether the ‘zero option’ and alternatives, including potential alternative sites and technologies, are considered and assessed when an EIA is not conducted, the ERA officials replied that these are still assessed during the screening of the project. “In cases where there is no need for an EIA, the screening process itself takes this into consideration.”

For example, if the ERA concludes that a project as proposed is objectionable and such issues cannot be addressed effectively through an EIA, the authority, in this case, advocates the “do-nothing option”.

Moreover, the ERA can also suggest alternatives and guide applicants and developers toward them in the process. “For example, a developer can be guided into excluding ODZ areas and limiting development to committed areas during the screening stage.”

In this way, the ERA insists that it is tackling these issues head-on at the earliest possible stage, “rather than pushing the developer into lengthy studies, possibly giving the impression that these problems can be solved simply because an EIA is presented.”

In fact, according to the ERA, the public policy benefit of its approach is to avoid situations where studies drag on for years, as happened in past projects like the proposed development in Ħondoq ir-Rummien, Ta’ Ċenc, and the Verdala golf course.

The ERA officials contend that the “more streamlined procedure” discourages ‘tokenism’ as well as the “dilution of salient issues”, and favours timely consideration wherever such issues are foreseeable, such that these “can be avoided or resolved at the earliest possible stage and preferably at project inception stage” rather than left up to the end of a lengthy process.

Fewer Social Impact Assessments

One casualty of the new system is Social Impact Assessments (SIA), which assess the impact on local communities and were previously included in EIAs but are now requested on a case-by-case basis by the Planning Authority.

The ERA officials acknowledged that SIAs are particularly relevant in the case of urban developments and that these used to be tackled in EIAs.

But they also noted that there were no clear guidelines on how these were carried out and different methodologies were used, while today there are internationally recognised good practice guidelines that are being followed.

But ideally, according to the ERA, SIAs “should not be relegated to a sub-section of an EIA but should be treated on an equal footing with EIAs.”

Another problem raised by critics of the new system is the lack of consideration for cumulative impacts of different projects which are being carried out within the same geographical area, something which in theory has to be assessed when an EIA is required. 

The ERA officials insisted that cumulative impacts regarding impacts like air quality are still assessed when targeted studies are requested instead of an EIA.

“But irrespective of whether an EIA or targeted studies are requested this is not a straightforward thing.  This is because any assessment is based on the situation in the current context of the surrounding area, and which could change from one day to the next due to factors beyond the applicant’s and the authority’s effective control”.

As regards visual impacts of projects where an EIA is not required the ERA officials pointed out that even when a proposal does not require an EIA, photomontages or visual amenity studies, may be required separately. 

One aspect which must be assessed in EIAs is the impact a project has on climate change and associated mitigation measures. But such impacts were not assessed in cases where an EIA was deemed unnecessary, as was the case with the Gozo airstrip.

While recognising that this is an important issue which must be covered in EIA reports, ERA officials pointed out that the climate change impact of individual projects is often negligible. “What is more important is to consider is the cumulative impacts related to climate change which are more difficult to assess”.

Critics’ concerns

MaltaToday also reached out to planners and experts familiar with the EIA procedures including authors of past studies included in EIAs.

Some welcomed the introduction of a robust screening process, especially in nipping problems in the bud, thus avoiding the need of pointless studies further down the line. 

They positively noted ERA’s presumption against projects located outside committed areas but expressed concern that some of these projects like an old people’s home in the ODZ in a strategic open gap in Naxxar, are still approved by the Planning Authority despite ERA’s objections.

But several experts expressed misgivings on the lack of public consultation and narrowed focus on certain issues, inherent in the ERA’s approach to EIA.   

Critics of the new approach argue that screening is narrowly focused on a limited range of issues, typically related to traffic, air quality, noise studies, visual amenity assessments, and, occasionally, waste management studies at the exclusion of other aspects  such as ecology, cultural heritage and archaeology, geology, hydrology, agriculture, biodiversity and climate change. For example, EIA studies have had an important role in identifying previously ignored and neglected buildings or archaeological remains, which are worthy of inclusion in the list of scheduled buildings.

They note a worrying trend in ERA’s approach of not requesting an EIA for Category II projects located within Development Zones, thus ignoring the environmental and social impacts on urban areas and populations.

Moreover, one major shortcoming in cases where an EIA is not carried out is the absence of studies which assess the synergies between different impacts of a project. This is because the studies being requested focus solely on one specific issue.

Projects where an EIA was not required

ERA also provided MaltaToday with a list of projects where an EIA was not required but where it requested targeted studies on impacts like noise, air quality, and impact on the seabed.

These included the Gozo rural airfield, the proposed Ħal Far race track, a high-rise in Ta’ Giorni, an office and retail development proposed instead of the Toyota site in Ħaż-Żebbuġ, the development of 116 units in Mellieħa, a proposed shooting range in Siggiewi, a proposed shopping mall along Triq tal-Barrani in Ħal-Għaxaq, the construction of a regional health centre in St Paul’s Bay, and recently the development of 155 new apartments at Fort Chambray in Gozo.