On the seduction of ‘fast-tracking’

Fast-tracking development and energy projects is the new buzzword. But the risk is that the war on bureaucracy could end up eroding standards and safeguards for residents.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is proposing a simplified planning process to fast-track the approval of 5-star hotels in Gozo. Gonzi's declaration came in the wake of various declarations by Opposition leader Joseph Muscat that he wants to decrease "bureaucracy" for developers. 

This raises the question: are we assisting to a race between the two major parties on who is going to satisfy the glut of developers most? 

Surely there is one clear way to simplify the process, i.e. saying a clear 'no' to developers when they propose developments like that proposed at Ta' Cenc and Hondoq, which are in breach of the Structure Plan. This can be done at screening stage. If the developers persist on presenting their applications, they do so at their own peril and should not lament delays. In cases where developments conform to the Structure Plan one expects the planning process to take a reasonable time, but one should never sacrifice transparency and safeguards for residents.

What is needed is not to invent new fast track procedures but to ensure that MEPA carries out its work more efficiently by first ensuring that time is not lost on non-starters and than to ensure that the authority carries out its works rigorously and transparently.

Labour is also proposing its fast-track recipe to the development of the new privately-owned power station and gas terminal, developments which would improve air quality but which must adhere to the SEVESO directive to ensure maximum safety to residents. While it is irrational to describe gas terminals as time bombs, the issue of where to locate the gas tanks is a pertinent one and one expects MEPA to conduct extensive studies to determine whether these should be located next to the power station or further away.

Labour's plan to seek MEPA approval for such a massive development in six months seems to underscore the complexity of these issues. One may well ask: should we postpone the switch to cleaner gas simply because of the need of studies to assess safety impacts? The answer is no. Because we can immediately switch to gas-oil diesel and then switch to gas at a later stage after all studies are made to ensure that things are done properly.

What is sure is that while bureaucratic delays are unbearable when unjustified, a transparent and stringent planning process is a prerequisite to safeguard society from commercial and speculative interests. What counts is the people who are appointed to lead these institutions.

Just imagine if the next government appoints someone of the caliber of former MEPA auditor Joe Falzon as chairman. The other problem with MEPA today is that the environmental arm is too subservient to the planning arm. What we need is to redress the balance by giving priority to the environmental role of this authority.

This would ensure less time wasted on unsustainable projects. For if MEPA wastes less time on such projects it would surely have more time to dedicate for its ordinary business. One of the positive things about MEPA is that it unites the planning with the environmental aspects. What we need now is to establish the order of priority.