MEPA and dissemination of information

It is indeed encouraging to read in Ms Sylvana DeBono's reply to me that case officers' reports are now available at the MEPA counter.

This is a tangible improvement in service, as when I turned up some weeks ago, I was categorically told that I would not be allowed to see them. It was only on my insistence that I had a right to do so under the Aarhus Convention, that the case officer withdrew to consult with his director, returning a good while later with special authorisation to show me the report. Viewing of such reports at MEPA was therefore by no means a normal procedure.

As for other reports, MEPA is regulated by EU Directive 2003/4/EC which states: "It is also necessary that public authorities make available and disseminate environmental information to the general public to the widest extent possible on factors, measures or activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it (including) information on cultural sites and built structures."

This dissemination of information is clearly not being done, in spite of the same law continuing: "The right to information means that the disclosure of information should be the general rule and that public authorities should be permitted to refuse a request for environmental information in specific and clearly defined cases. Grounds for refusal should be interpreted in a restrictive way, whereby the public interest served by disclosure should be weighed against the interest served by the refusal."

What reason is there to refuse the public access to Heritage Advisory Board and all the other board reports paid for out of our taxes? Presuming they are carried out as they should be, MEPA has nothing to fear in making them public. The only 'interest served by the refusal' to show these reports is the developers' interest, as they would reveal that many projects should not take place. So is MEPA actively serving developers with its policies? So it would seem.

In practice, however, MEPA has conveniently divided its information into sections; that appertaining to Environment with a capital 'E', (i.e., relating to matters such as air and atmosphere, water and soil, etc.), while the other section concerns matters relating to the environment as in development of 'our surroundings'. These are conveniently categorised as 'Planning' matters, and therefore deemed exempt from this law requiring transparency, even though the law specifically includes information on the state of built structures.

Since matters concerning our built environment are safely shielded from public inspection, one would imagine that extra attention would be given to information on matters related to land, air and noise pollution, right? Think again.

The Qui-si-sana car park project, a prime example of threatened environmental degradation through over-development of the landscape, air and noise pollution, has been refused an Environmental Impact Assessment. Interestingly the Maltese law magically drops Aarhus's specific mention of coastal and marine areas as a priority for protection (could that have anything to do with the fact that they are also prime development sites?). By some mind-boggling feat of logic known only to itself, MEPA claims that the Qui-si-sana case would only merit an Environment Impact Assessment "if it affected land-sea interactions". And what about traffic congestion, air and noise pollution? Yet again, any measure that might imaginably threaten a commercial development is buried in obscure and illogical excuses.

Even the amount of information available on the much-vaunted MEPA Website is being eroded. Photos which accompany each MEPA application to show the MEPA notice up on the site, also serve to make the site more identifiable. However, far from assisting identification, MEPA's contracted photographer was all too often focusing on just the application and its surrounding few feet of blank wall - hardly a means of identification. Worse still, applications submitted since March carry no photo at all! Intentionally or unintentionally, MEPA is helping developers to hide their projects from public knowledge, as this means they can get away with not posting MEPA notices which makes it that much more difficult for the public to recognise sites.

Not only is the photo being omitted, but also other important details like the 'Case Category' which would alert the public to developments being planned Out of Development Zone or on scheduled property.

The name of the case officer is yet another item which has disappeared from recent Website applications; this dangerous anonymity permits case officers greater freedom, confident that the public will not be able to point fingers. Other shortcomings are vague and shadowy descriptions of works like "To build residences" which can describe anything from two maisonettes to a 15-storey tower block.

These glaring omissions fly in the face of EU directives which Malta has signed on dissemination of information to the public. The truth of the matter is that, far from increasing the availability of electronic information as pledged, MEPA is quietly and progressively reducing the amount of information available to the public.

Our group Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar (www.ambjentahjar.org) is not alone in calling for more information. Michael Falzon, Dr Joe Brincat and no less than the very MEPA Auditor have made such calls, urging MEPA to start handling such requests "fairly and expeditiously". However it seems Ms Debono was right in saying that MEPA does not need an international convention to get it to disseminate information, as it seems that not even an international convention will succeed in making it honour its commitments to disclose its well-kept secrets.