Stroppy MEPA, a 'comatose' facilitator

Putting the boot in is not something I relish, but MEPA really has a lot to answer for. There are a number of problems; one is that it does not stand up to political interference, which incidentally did not feature in any of the letters published in The Times on Thursday.

I know it must be very difficult to be sandwiched between politicians, developers and environmentalists. However, MEPA's attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

Kowtowing to Government and putting everyone else's back up is just not on.

Frankly, the impression sometimes given is that its officials do not know their buttocks, to put it less crudely, from their elbows.

But it is not that simple. MEPA officials have so many interests to see to, most of the time pulling in different directions - keeping their pay masters happy, reining in developers and keeping the environmentalists at bay - that they often miss the wood for the trees. Then, rather than admit their mistakes, they get all stroppy and throw a wobbly, letting nanny Sylvana attempt to clear the mess.

I know I have said this before, but I cannot find a better description then "jelly babies with attitude" for the MEPA boys. They are incredibly arrogant - including, although not a boy, the MEPA PRO - with the general public, NGOs, the media and anyone else they do not see the need to be obsequious to, then are as soft as putty with the ones they fear.

If any minister pressures the chairman, or any other person holding responsibility, the latter should stick to their guns or resign. For example, did MEPA really need a "facilitator", Leonard Callus, from the OPM to "clarify" what MEPA required from the Ramla l-Hamra developers?

Is that not government interference? Is undermining it the right way to go about things if the government has no confidence in MEPA?

I have noticed this kind of tactic elsewhere. An individual, or an authority, is said to have the full confidence of whoever 'the boss' is while being undermined at the same time!

Incidentally, the facilitator's role at the meeting was quoted as being a "passive" one. Hardly, he was there representing the OPM to check on the Authority, on which board he sits! He was of course expected to report back to his boss at the OPM.

MEPA's auditor's report, on the development project at Ramla l-Hamra, which was released to The Times on Tuesday after an official request, said that Mr Callus "did not participate" as a board member, but as an OPM representative.

So of course he did take part in the proceedings. One has to participate to facilitate, so the passive claim is hogwash.

The report states "the participation of the MEPA board member, Leonard Callus, in the meeting between the developer and MEPA officials to discuss the Environmental Planning Statement (EPS) raises issues of conflict of interest and ethical behaviour of MEPA board members... the point at issue here is whether it is ethical for a MEPA board member... to involve himself through accompanying the developer at a meeting with the Planning Directorate".

MEPA responded by saying that Mr Callus had made it clear "that he did not accompany the developers but only facilitated the meeting". To further confuse the issue the statement goes on "his passive presence was confirmed by those present and acknowledged by you (Joseph Falzon, the auditor)".

Do any of them know the meaning of the word "passive"? Was Mr Callus comatose at the time?

The auditor's report also highlighted the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) waiver "a detailed justification as to why a limited environment impact assessment was not required shall be provided and be made public. It does not result that such a 'detailed justification' was prepared. Hence, no justification of the recommendation to exempt was available to be made public."

The report elaborated: "The EIA Regulations 2001 have not been revised since the absorption of the Environment Protection Department into MEPA as the Environment Protection Directorate.

"The legislator had clearly intended that the decision to exempt a developer from carrying out a 'limited environment planning statement' should be taken by 'the Director of Planning (DP) in agreement with the Director of the Department' - meaning the Director of the Environment Protection Department (DEPD) and any person acting on his behalf or under his authority.

"This served the purpose of having the DP subject to the scrutiny of the DEPD. The absorption of the EPD within MEPA has led to a complete turnabout, as there is no effective check outside MEPA on the decision to exempt...

"The consideration by the MEPA board should in the opinion of the Audit Office be made in a session open to the public. This in view of the fact that the granting of an exemption does away with the whole process of public consultation."

The report recommended: "The reasons justifying the granting of the exemption... in respect of the development... should be provided and made public in terms of Regulations 3(8) of the EIA Regulations 2001."

A statement by the government, following the call for an enquiry stated it would not interfere at this stage. It said: "MEPA had published its decision in the Government Gazette of June 17, 2005, and no one had objected."

It is not surprising that publishing something once in a publication read by a small minority of the public did not elicit a response.

Besides, said the statement, it is "indicated clearly in the auditor's report that MEPA accepted the auditor's advice".

No, actually he did not. In a rejoinder the auditor said: "I have no difficulty in accepting the above explanation (MEPA's reaction) with one exception. MEPA did not publish a justification of its exemption from carrying out an EIA. It just published a notification without adequate reasons being brought forward."

Another important factor is that the four archaeologists who drew up a report submitted with the controversial development application issued a statement claiming that their study did not deal with either the impacts of any development in the area, nor any mitigation measures that may be carried out to ensure the preservation of the cultural heritage of the area.

It was only a general preliminary report about cultural heritage and could not be used to consider the impacts of any proposed development on cultural heritage.

Marlene Borg, Joseph Calleja, Ernest Vella and Katya Stroud said: "We were never informed that this report would be attached to a development permit application."

The aims of their study, they said, were different from those of an EIA, or any impact study on cultural heritage. The four archaeologists said they were not present for the public consultation meeting because the developer's architect only told them about it the day before.

This whole saga revolves around whether Government and its poodle really believe in the whole process of public consultation, or whether they provide the minimum information and hope they get away with it.

It sounds like an inquiry is really called for. But the public must use their legs as well as their writing arm and really show the government that they will not be fed poppycock by being in Valletta tomorrow at 6 p.m.

One appliance at a time

The people are rising. They are beginning to show bottle and will not tolerate pillage of our environment, or cuts in our utilities service. Almost as many letters about the unreliable Enemalta service as MEPA and Ramla filled the letters pages of The Times on Thursday.

Most of the concerns are that it is not just the cuts, but also the changes in electricity power and water pressure. Besides the damage the fluctuations in power cause to domestic appliances, there is also the fear that things will get worse once the hundreds of high-rise residences in progress start to be inhabited.

For example, I already have to switch off my air-conditioners while defrosting food in the microwave, and currently the water pressure is so low that it is not reaching my kitchen taps in a top floor flat. It is all very well that a new remote monitoring system is to be operational in a couple of years, which will reduce the time of a power cut, but what are we meant to do in the meantime? Grin and bear it?

Despite the Enemalta chairman's assurance that the corporation could handle the growth in demand up to 2009, many do not share his optimism. It cannot cope now if we have to switch off one appliance for another to work efficiently.

It seems to me that infrastructure planning, despite the rhetoric, is falling badly behind. Hardly one of the most successful small island states in the world!