Proposed MEPA restructure ‘relegating’ environment - PN

Nationalist Party MPs Ryan Callus and Charlo Bonnici have slammed at the government’s proposal to give the minister responsible the power to regularise illegal developments, branding the move as the epitome of ‘old-style politics’.

Echoing the criticism levelled by environmental lobbyist Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar, Bonnici, argued that through this proposal, the government would be “relegating” the environment due to the minister’s role in the granting of permits which are not conforming to the law.

“By affording the minister the power to sanction illegal permits, the government would not influence the environment on a long term basis. The proposals envisaging the division of MEPA is starved of detail and characterised of various shortcomings,” Bonnici said.

The PN spokesmen also took exception at the proposed restructuring of the Malta Environmental and Planning Authority (MEPA). Originally earmarked for the end of March, the separation of MEPA’s dual environmental and planning functions – which invariably work at loggerheads with the authority – had been put back by the end of 2014 by former-parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Farrugia.

In reaction to the proposed revisions and the government’s electoral plan to divide MEPA, Ryan Callus, the Opposition’s member on the MEPA board, argued that greater emphasis should be placed on the “balance” between MEPA’s functions, as opposed to a complete revision.

Callus argued that following MEPA’s division, the environment would be “relegated” while environmental protection would get the short end of the stick.

He also argued that the constant revision of strategic and local plans was unsustainable.

In addition, the appeals’ tribunals, Callus said, should fall under the Administrative Justice Act as this would make the tribunals independent.

“Tribunal members should not be appointed by the prime minister directly either. Is this the government’s way of delivering on its pledge of transparency and meritocracy?” Callus said while explaining that the appointed members could possibly have a conflict of interest.

While welcoming the fast-track procedures, Callus explained that not one case officer should decide the fate of these permits, but conversely, before being rubberstamped by the MEPA chairman, permits should be discussed by more than one person.

Callus also welcomed the proposal affording anyone the ability to request MEPA to revoke a permit on the basis of illegalities.

Likening the “demise” of the environmental arm to the relegation of a football team, Bonnici argued that MEPA’s restructure would “relegate” the environment, not safeguard it.

“The authority responsible to taking planning decisions would only be represented by one vote out of 16,” he argued.

Moreover, he said environmental NGOs were not being afforded the necessary platform to voice their claims, insisting that rather than having a right to appeal after a decision is made, environmental lobbyists should contribute to the decision-making.  

“When the Opposition attended meetings with the government, we were given the impression that the environment would be afforded greater protection, but the government’s measures will set the environment back.” He said.

Bonnici also said that the proposed restructure envisages “nothing” on enforcement. He said that there would be no enforcement on waste collection, clean energy, climate change, the water bed or buildings.

According to the PN, the proposal through which the scheduling of listed buildings can be reviewed after 10 years is not encouraging people to take over their property.