Church: environment will ‘be victim of MEPA demerger’

Having itself proposed the idea of demerging the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in 2009, before it actually turned into Labour’s electoral promise, the Church’s Interdiocesan Commission for the Environment (KA) shot down the Bills proposing changes, describing the government’s new laws as “a step backwards in proper development planning”.

Labour will be creating separate planning and environment authorities, and overhauling the Structure Plan into the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), much to the consternation of the environment lobby which claims the laws will facilitate more development outside urban zones.

In its position paper, the KA said there were a number of articles about which it had reservations, some of them very serious. “MPs serving their country is not equivalent to serving an interest group, which seeks only to reap fast profits by exploiting the natural environment or intensifying construction in urban environments which undermines rather than improves the quality of life of citizens,” the KA argued.

In a statement addressed to political parties before the 2013 general elections, the KA had already expressed itself in favour of splitting the environment from the planning arm, the idea being to give the environment greater protection because MEPA was not being effective enough.

“There would not have been a need for the demerger had MEPA functioned as it was supposed to function, i.e. actively and effectively protect our limited land resources,” the commission said.

Ministerial interference, weak bills

“The KA sadly notes that beyond the rhetoric and the marketing efforts currently being made to portray positively the splitting of the environment and the planning functions, and the setting up of two new authorities, the proposed Bills will make the environment a big loser due to the weakening of the development planning function that was introduced after years of environmental pillaging due to direct ministerial involvement in regulating development in the country.”

The KA appealed to MPs not to shirk their responsibility and “keep their conscience at rest by resorting to the reasoning that separating the planning from the environment functions was an electoral pledge.”

“The KA sees the current proposals simply as the collapse of governance in the Planning Authority coupled with direct legally-sanctioned ministerial involvement.”

It said the weaknesses of the bills had been aggravated by the fact that the SPED was in itself “a very weak document”. Moreover, the changes to policies carried out will render development in Outside Development Zones much easier.

It also said it was seriously worried that the executive council of the Planning Authority will have an executive chairperson who, apart from the powers granted specifically to the holder of this post – instead of granting such powers to the Authority – will also be the minister’s puppet. In fact the executive chairperson, who is to be appointed by the minister, may also be dismissed by the minister at any time if his targets set by the minister are not achieved.

The KA said this control by the executive on directors would demote the PA from an authority to a private secretariat of the minister where appointments of key, and less key, people are concerned.

“In fact minor appointments such as secretaries of advisory bodies to the Planning Board are also to be appointed by the minister. The KA will continue to oppose such interferences as it has done in the past.”

Toothless Environment Protection Authority

The KA also said the new Environment Protection Authority would have “no teeth, or even a jaw, for such an authority that was supposed to provide greater protection to the land and sea environment than we have witnessed so far.”

“The land environment is held in trust by the government for the needs of the current generations without compromising those of future generations. The government has to act as a steward of such a national treasure and not introduce lax procedures that undermine the protection of the land and sea environment.”

It warned that with the proposed competencies of members on the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, the planning system would move further towards a legalistic approach to planning which risks dispensing with a holistic approach to sustainable development.

This situation encourages those who want to ‘play the system’ to discover ways of circumventing the law and continue unabated with their unsustainable plans.