Planners concerned about recent PA, Environment Department merger

The Malta Chamber of Planners has been following the recent developments which have led to the formation of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA). This agency is envisaged to take over the responsibilities of what used to be the Planning Authority, as well a part of those which fell under the Environ-ment Protection Department.

Prima facie this move may appear to be one of the many changes that take place in the normal affairs of the public service. The Chamber is however concerned with the developments connected with this amalgamation of responsibilities, and the way in which these changes have been brought about.

The merger between the land use planning and environmental protection functions was decided within a few months of the coming into force of the Environment Protection Act 2001 and Development Planning (Amendment) Act 2001 and after the planned restructuring of the PA was concluded.

It should be noted that both acts were intended to provide new frameworks for environmental management and land use planning, respectively.

The Chamber observed these developments closely, but at no point in the processes leading to these milestones was the merger contemplated or mentioned - at least within earshot of the Chamber. Indeed, the announcement that the MEPA was to be the environment protection authority provided for in the Environment Protection Act 2001 took many by surprise. What prompted the sudden change in the original course of action?

The Chamber is aware that in some quarters this declaration was interpreted as being a knee-jerk reaction to the negative comments, which were made in a report prepared for the Commission of the European Community, concerning the need for sweeping changes in the ways in which the Environment Protection Department was managed, and in which this department participated in the making and realisation of public policy.

Such opinions did not come as a surprise to the Chamber and many environmental NGOs, as it had for long been known that the more valid elements of this department were not given the space to carry out their duties competently. There were many external and internal forces which precluded the department from maturing into the effective organisation that it had been expected by many, and had substantial potential to be.

According to the PA Website (www.pa-malta.org), the MEPA will be made up of two directorates, one responsible for land use planning, and the other for environmental protection. The Website states that this move would lead to a reduction in the overlapping of resources and increase law enforcement.

It is evident that this statement seeks to conceal the reality that the amalgamation was unplanned - it was clear to the Chamber that this was simply another example of avoidable crisis management.

The Chamber has reservations about the Website claims, as the need for the merger, as perceived by its promoters, suggests a confirmation that both land use planning and environmental protection are still not considered by public authorities to be viable policy fields at par with economic and social policy.

Such a view may be based on the impression that votes are normally lost and elected officials deposed when land use planning and environmental protection are taken seriously. In a nutshell, therefore, the merger seems to be the outcome of a history of mismanagement rather than serious public administration.

The MEPA is to be overseen by the Ministry for Home Affairs and the Environment. The ex-Ministry for the Environment is now known as the Ministry for Resources and Infra-structure.

The Chamber is in full agreement with environmental NGOs which state that environment management has since 1986 been considered to be among the less important of responsibilities of a variety of specific ministerial portfolios, i.e., education, public works, and foreign affairs. Unfortunately it now appears to have been relegated to being a junior partner to home affairs.

The Chamber however would also like to point out that it is perplexed by the reasoning underlying the retaining by the ex-Minister for the Environ-ment (i.e. the current Minister for Resources and Infrastructure), the responsibilities for waste management and resource conservation - both of which are important branches of the environmental management function. It should be noted that the ex-PA has taken substantial and costly initiatives in these two fields.

For example, the PA has approved a Waste Management Subject Plan (December 2001) and issued a public consultation draft of a Minerals Subject Study (August 2000). It appears that in these very important policy fields, the statement in the PA Website is not so concerned with problem of overlapping resources.

While the public consultation draft of this Waste Management Subject Plan was in circulation, the Chamber issued a press statement criticising the inability of public authorities to produce comprehensive development plans or policies, in which the economic, social, environmental, infrastructural, and land-use aspects are integrated in one regulatory or policy document.

In the same period the Ministry for the Environment had issued its own draft for a waste management strategy.

The view of the Chamber, first expressed publicly in 1999, has been that public authorities should seriously consider the formulation of integrated plans or policy positions, which should involve inter-agency collaboration under the leadership of qualified planners employed or hired by each of the departments, agencies, authorities, corporations, or foundations participating in specific tasks. The Chamber also made detailed suggestions on how such goals could be attained.

The Chamber believes that land use planning has, if practised competently, the potential to provide the framework within which considerations concerning the economic, social, environmental, and infrastructural dimensions of specific policy fields can be integrated.

In the final analysis, all these dimensions normally have land use implications - this enables land use planners to act as bridge-builders between different policy fields.

These principles were originally established in the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands in 1990. However, it appears that the commitment to attain the objectives of this plan was not sufficient. What is needed is an effort to diffuse a culture of collaborative planning in different ministries, departments, authorities, corporations, and foundations.

Land use planning should be equidistant from other policy fields, and not amalgamated to any one of them - or, as in the case of the MEPA, an arbitrary selection of components of a policy field.

Furthermore, the merging of land use planning with a selection of environmental management functions is not a guarantee - as some would have it - that environmental concerns shall be given increased importance in the making of public policy. Indeed, as has been the case with land use planning, the MEPA could serve to project a pseudo-autonomous façade in the form of a body of objective technical experts in charge of environmental protection.

The sensitising of public policy to environmental concerns should be attained through the setting up of a well-managed environmental agency which employs highly skilled and motivated professionals who can communicate with the public and interact effectively with their colleagues in other sectors.

Such personnel should be provided with legal and administrative frameworks which enable them to carry out their duties professionally and effectively. In other words, it is not mergers but the will of elected officials and senior public servants that counts.

In relation to employment conditions, the Chamber cannot but ask a number of questions which highlight the foregoing.

¤ When compared to Planning Authority personnel, what openings were offered in the past years to up-and-coming members of the Environment Protection Department staff to develop their skills?

¤ What resources were made available to these persons to enable them to carry out their duties competently?

¤ In what manner did the Depart-ment participate in the making of public policy in fields like economic development?

¤ And if their opinions were requested, how seriously were they subsequently taken?

Such considerations tend to reinforce the view that the formation of the MEPA has more to do with the projection of an image, as opposed to the undertaking of an effective reform which can bring about tangible and credible results.

The Chamber also questions the view, which has been expressed in the media, that the MEPA shall be a regulator. To date the PA has not acted totally as a regulator should. Regu-lators do not formulate, interpret, or bypass policy as they go along. And they should not compete with private sector firms for commercial gain.

Over two years ago the PA was advised to make a clear distinction between policy formulation and development control (i.e., regulation). Despite the recent restructuring, the much heralded firewall between the two functions does not appear to have been constructed properly.

The recent amendments to the Development Planning Act 1992 were ostensibly meant to render the Maltese planning system more `plan-led`. Under the new provisions the requirements of plans have to be applied, and not simply `given regard to`. The Chamber feels that land use plans have to be unambiguous and site-specific, and should be regularly up-dated and synchronised with developments in different policy fields.

Unfortunately, forward planning has been a slow-moving process, although it is in the hands of very competent professionals. And there is little doubt that in a number of instances, plans and policies have actually been disregarded in the determination of development-permission applications - even after the amendments to the Development Planning Act came into force.

Evidently, such decision-making is unlawful under the current version of the Act. The Chamber expects serious corrective measures and more individual accountability so that this undesirable situation is rectified, rendered more credible for planning to gain the public respect it should have.

The Malta Chamber of Planners is an autonomous society of practitioners of physical planning in Malta. It was established to promote quality and ethical conduct in the practice of planning in the Maltese Islands. It has encouraged and is advocating the diffusion of a culture of collaborative and transparent planning within the different sectors of the public service, and in private sector organisations.