Former MEPA auditor has mixed feelings on ODZ policy

Former MEPA Auditor Joe Falzon, known for his incisive reports on illegal permits issued by MEPA under the previous administration, has mixed feelings on the new document seeking to regulate ODZ development.

He welcomes the various provisions contained in the document aimed at avoiding abuse.

"In this regard the document is a definite improvement on previous similar documents which I had described as a recipe for abuse".

But the proof of the effectiveness of these safeguards lies in  the enforcement of its  provisions - "irrespective of the political allegiances of the developer".

But Falzon raises concerns on the discretionary powers the new policy gives to both government and the MEPA boards.

He describes the new clause exempting the national government from the new rules as symptomatic of a style of government "reminiscent of a monarchy and not of a democracy".

The second article of the new policy states "any project of national interest arising from national government policies which departs from the policies formulated in the document shall be assessed on its own merits."

According to Falzon, this effectively allows the state to carry out any development, provided it is required in the national interest.

Falzon also questioned the introductory paragraph of the new policy, which gives discretionary powers to the Environment Planning Commission and MEPA Board.

This paragraph states that the "the spirit of the document" is to "allow" developments proposed by anyone who "genuinely needs to upgrade or redevelop an existing building or to construct a new one outside the development zone".  

"My experience with the MEPA was that these powers are generally and frequently abused. Unfortunately we live in a small place where everybody knows everybody else, where politicians have excessive powers, which they generally abuse, and as a result members of deciding bodies are always looking behind their backs to ensure that they please the Minister. The experiences of the Mistra case, the Luqa supermarket, the Kirkop supermarket and several other cases are a good indication of what can happen."

In all three cases mentioned by Falzon, permits were approved which were clearly against policies.

According to Falzon, the document's raison d'etre is "the need to develop" and not the need to "manage the unbuilt environment".

"The first and most important criteria should not have been the needs of developers but the need to manage the countryside properly".

But Falzon also expresses concern traffic developments like agritourism, visitor attractions and farm shops will bring about.

This impact could be even greater in a ...  "country which believes that the car is a sacred form of transport."

Falzon expresses agreement with many of the proposals aimed at promoting rural development if the associated provisions are rigidly enforced.

"These can be useful to enhance the use of the countryside and encourage agricultural activities and even tourism."

Falzon also expressed strong doubts about the potential of agro-tourism in Malta since this is generally a family-oriented enterprise which in Malta would be limited to the winter months - a time when children normally attend school.

Falzon fails to understand why the document does not give importance to trekking, which is increasingly popular in Europe.

"In other countries country paths and nature trails abound, carefully managed to encourage people to practice this form of activity."

He also notes that participants tend to be rather elderly and are not tied down by the dates of school holidays and work shutdowns. "So they are an ideal target for winter tourism locally. While in most of Europe the activity cannot be carried out in winter due to inclement weather, this is not the case in Malta."

Falzon believes that taking care of footpaths and improving accessibility to the countryside makes more economic and environmental sense than policies promoting agritourism, which often requires building on pristine land.