'Less vociferous' NGOs

I am surprised that Martin Galea, executive president of Din l-Art Ħelwa (Nature Trust, FAA and Dwejra, February 25) construed my letter of February 22 as a personal attack on Vince Attard, president of Nature Trust. My contention, of which I am still firmly convinced, was that is it a cardinal mistake for any environmental NGO to succumb to the temptation of allowing any of its officials to be appointed to government boards - and least of all to the board of Mepa. Once it does that, it becomes part of the establishment, compromises its independence, freedom of action and credibility and bears corporate responsibility for the decisions taken - even though - as in the case of the Mepa board - its voice would be just one amongst about 15 hand-picked government appointees.

And I maintain that I have been proved right by the shocking decision to sanction about 15 illegal boathouses built right by the Dwejra Inland Sea. Though, to be frank, I never expected that the president of Nature Trust would be absorbed by the system to the extent that he would actually vote in favour of the sanctioning.

I mentioned Mr pAttard simply because Nature Trust was the NGO which accepted this appointment and Mr Attard was the official chosen to occupy the post. Other than that, I fully endorse Mr Galea's praise for Nature Trust's work over the years.

What worried me in Mr Galea's letter was when he said: "If we have been less vociferous in the run-up to the election - a five-week period - it is precisely because we do not want to endorse one party or another." But surely, if the environmental NGOs did not want to "endorse one party or another" they should have carried on as they normally would.

They should have been vociferous - or not - according to environmental imperatives, not electioneering ones. The Dwejra decision clearly called for action and, effectively, their reticence did favour one side over the other.

I had been rather puzzled as to why Mepa felt it could go ahead with such a controversial decision at such a sensitive time. Now I am starting to believe that it may have had some assurances that no "undue vociferousness" would be forthcoming. If that is so, it is nothing less than a betrayal of the Maltese environment by those who have made it their mission to defend it.