The ERA’s credibility is at stake: it must appeal Townsquare or shut up shop

Environment and Resources Authority chairman Prof. Victor Axiak’s integrity is beyond reproach, and has had a consistent track record on environmental issues since the time he chaired the Church’s environmental commission. In planning board meetings he stands out as one of the few members who contribute to the discussion by asking pertinent questions to developers.

So it was unfortunate that Axiak was indisposed after a surgery and could not attend the meeting where two applications for high rise towers in Sliema and Mriehel were discussed and approved.

But the way Axiak reacted at the dismay of NGOs at the absence of the ERA from such an important meeting, was nothing but messy and an exercise in self-immolation.

The crux of the matter was the absence of Malta’s environmental authority from one most important board meetings in recent planning history. Both government and the PA board had been informed of Axiak’s justified absence two days before the meeting. They should have simply postponed the meeting. Axiak himself should have been the first to ask for an adjournment. Such a request was more than justified for the simple reason that the government failed to nominate a substitute to represent ERA whenever Axiak is indisposed.

In the final instance, the 38-storey tower in Sliema was only approved because Axiak was absent from the meeting. There is no escaping this simple mathematical truth. Had Axiak attended and voted against, PA Chairman Vince Cassar – who was against the project – would have had the decisive casting vote.

Instead of asking for an adjournment Axiak chose to send a memo not to Cassar himself, who carries the weight of institutional responsibility; but to Timmy Gambin, a board member who for the past months has distinguished himself by questioning the motives of objectors and NGOs. And in this particular meeting Gambin did not ask one single question to the developers but dedicated all his time to attack ENGOs and the Sliema local council whom he reproached for not replying to a complaint he had made on an unrelated issue.

Gambin might have been personally offended by the judicial protest asking to hold PA board members accountable for any breach of law, but his role in the board is to scrutinise development projects – not the actions and motives of objectors.

Axiak’s memo

Gambin did report Axiak’s damning comments on the Mriehel tower applications (which was approved with 10 votes against 2 despite Axiak’s accusation that photomontages presented to the board did not reflect the truth) but failed to read Axiak’s comments on the proposed 38-storey tower in Sliema (which was approved by 7 votes against 6).

Gambin may well have experienced a moment of amnesia, but Axiak has no one else to blame but Gambin for not reporting his views to the board. With the vote being so close, Axiak’s authoritative and respected opinion may well have swayed the vote.

Axiak’s present justification for not publishing the memo is that he would have prejudiced the pending decision on whether ERA would appeal against the two applications. Axiak’s logic does not hold water for the simple reason that his damning views on Mriehel have already been relayed by Gambin.

Moreover had Gambin read Axiak’s views on the Sliema tower (as Axiak wanted him to do), the ERA’s deliberations on the pending appeal would also have been prejudiced. Even if Axiak had been present and expressed his views, the ERA would still have had the right to appeal any decision taken by the PA board.

Conflicts of interest

Another issue raised in the media is whether the position of Gambin and Axiak has been compromised by their role as consultants for the power station EIA which is being constructed by the ElectroGas group, partly owned by Gasan and Tumas. In reality there is no direct conflict of interest because neither Gambin nor Axiak had participated in the EIA for the two high-rise projects proposed by the two business groups.

But prudence dictates that members on the Planning board should refrain from conducting any work related to EIAs. For in this way they can find themselves deciding on projects proposed by both past and potential clients. A similar case involving former board member Louis Cassar had been flagged by MaltaToday before 2008. The best option is for board members not to accept any work related to planning applications including EIAs. Unfortunately conflict of interests in the planning sector have become the order of the day.

Even more problematic was the appointment of ElectroGas shareholder Paul Apap Bologna in the PA board immediately after the 2013 general election and his participation in board meetings discussing the policy on high-rise buildings. He even voted for the policy after it was amended by government to include Mriehel.

Apap Bologna was not reappointed in 2016 but his participation in board meetings where decisions with a direct impact on his partners were discussed casts a dark shadow on the planning authority. Also problematic is the appointment of architect Ray Demicoli (the architect of the Mriehel application) in the PA’s Design Advisory Committee where he also finds himself assessing projects proposed by past and potential clients. Demicoli did not participate in deliberations on the Mriehel application proposed by Tumas and Gasan groups but he did participate in a meeting in which the DAC gave its blessing to the Sliema application presented by Gasan.

The whole planning process is presently riddled by conflicts of interests!

Ironically the Appeals Tribunal, which may well take the final decision on these two applications is replete with conflict of interests. It includes Robert Sarsero, a practicing architect and chairman of the Freeport and a number of practicing lawyers including Simon Micallef Stafrace, a former PL candidate and once vocal critic of overdevelopment in Sliema… when the PN was in office.

In this context, the ERA has no other way to redeem its damaged credibility but to appeal the two decisions taken by the PA board to approve high-rise developments in Sliema and Mriehel.

When MEPA was split, former Environment Minister Leo Brincat always referred to ERA’s power to appeal decisions taken by the Planning board as an example of its new power. “Giving a public authority the power to appeal against a decision taken by another authority may be politically embarrassing for any government. But we are taking that risk,” Brincat told MaltaToday in 2015.

In reality the ERA risks becoming a glorified NGO which is powerless to stop any development. It is already systematically ignored by the Planning Authority on scores of minor ODZ applications where its opinion carries absolutely no weight. If the ERA renounces the only power it has been granted by the demerger law, it may well close its offices and reduce its staff complement to a secretary with the task of rubber-stamping government decisions.