Editorial

The European Commission is expected to issue a formal notice to Malta insisting on the need for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be conducted on the proposed development at Fort Cambridge - the former location of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, in Sliema.

The College of Commissioners has been recommended to start enforcement procedures against Malta. The Malta Environment and Planning Authority, which is once again in the dock, will have two months to respond to the Commission. If the Commission is still not satisfied with the reply it may take the issue to the European Court of Justice for resolution.

The government needs to explain unequivocally where the country stands and if necessary to put its own house in order.

The EIA process is a planning tool that is now regarded as an integral component of sound decision making in planning development. An EIA provides an assessment of the effects a project is likely to have on the environment. It is the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the social, environmental and other relevant influences of development proposals before major decisions are made. Its prime purpose is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts of all major developments before deciding whether to proceed.

The European Union's directive on EIAs, which was first introduced in 1985, and to which Malta is now subject, lays down that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. Article 2(3) of the directive, however, lays down that member states may "in exceptional circumstances" exempt specific projects from the provisions of the directive. No indication is given in the directive of how the term "exceptional circumstances" should be interpreted.

Is the government, therefore, within its rights to have waived the need for an EIA in the case of the Crowne Plaza project?

It is a basic principle of the directive that an EIA must be carried out before a major project receives development consent. Thus, the term "exceptional" is to be interpreted very narrowly. The guidance which has been offered by the Commission on this matter indicates that the grounds for exemption might cover such matters as an urgent and substantial need for the project to be implemented because, for example, there is a serious threat to life, health or human welfare, a serious threat to the environment for instance from flooding or a civil emergency, or a threat to political or economic stability if the project does not proceed urgently. Over-riding security reasons might also justify an exception to the general presumption that an EIA shall be conducted.

Prima facie, none of these factors seem to apply in the case of Fort Cambridge. It may be that Mepa thought that, due to its limited size, the project would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment, or that it was similar to other projects that had already been the subject of an EIA. It is unlikely that the people of Qui-Si-Sana would agree with either of these contentions. In any case, the government is obliged to have given the reasons for exempting this project from an EIA to the Commission prior to granting consent. Did it do so? And, if so, do the reasons stand up to close examination?

It is incumbent on the government that Malta abides by the letter of the EU's directives.