Give environment a chance!

One of the issues often raised in relation to Mepa's reform is whether or not its two major directorates - planning and environment - should be split up into two separate authorities. The debate is not one to be had lightly and, indeed, it is one which was subject to considerable thought and deliberation before the then Environment Protection Directorate was merged prior to EU accession with what was at the time the Planning Authority to create the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa).

The key argument then was that the planning system has a major role in contributing to environmental protection given that any environmental factor could be seen as a material consideration in the planning process. It was considered that there is a great deal of overlap in a number of functions. In Malta's specific context, it is also recognised that land use is one of the main pressures on the environment and there should therefore be a close synergy between policies in both areas. The fact that the debate has heated up over time indicates that the outcome of the merger was not what some may have hoped for. Why did this happen? What can we do to improve it? Would it be better to split Mepa? Or worse?

The first thing that must be acknowledged is that the merger did not quite go as well as expected. Four major factors contributed to this.

The first is that the Environment Protection Directorate was and remains substantially under-resourced, despite the fact that numerous consultants made strong recommendations to the government that the directorate needed a massive injection in staff to cope with the new demands made by EU membership.

The latter has brought with it several new opportunities but also an increase in administrative burden, mostly in relation to the collection of data and reporting. This requirement, while necessary, needs to be adequately resourced if it is not to enter into competition with other important tasks such as enforcement and policy development.

An under-resourced environmental agency would have resulted in a relatively weak status for the environment whether it forms part of Mepa or not. Indeed, one could well argue that a separate environmental agency would need even greater levels of resourcing, particularly in areas such as administrative support, finance and IT.

The second factor is that, working from within, it is also clear the EPD is in a better position to influence the process at its every stage, to sit round the same table as planners, from policy development onwards, rather than simply reacting or objecting. This has started to happen at different levels of the organisation and should continue to be strengthened.

The third factor was that the merger itself was not adequately project-managed. More effort needed to be made to ensure adequate change management at the legal, institutional and even cultural level. It is a moot point whether a fresh agency set up outside of Mepa would have performed better in terms of the change in culture required.

The fourth factor was that there were no fundamental changes in board structure and decision committees to have a wider representation of environmental expertise.

There is also some room for the better involvement of NGOs, business organisations and local councils within the process. These should be considered as important stakeholders not just as potential objectors. A change in ethics and culture from these bodies would go a long way in helping to bring forward this change.

Having called a spade a spade, perhaps we can move on to consider what we can do to improve matters for the environment and, particularly, whether it is worth throwing in the towel and splitting up the authority. I would suggest that what needs to be done before that is to give the Environment Protection Directorate in Mepa a chance to deliver by providing it with adequate staffing and with the adequate legislative strength to matter as part of the reform taking place on board issues. The challenge then would be to properly integrate the functions in a well thought out plan which avoids duplication of roles but builds on the current strengths and addresses the weaknesses of the current structures.

Setting up an environmental authority on its own two legs will still require us to jump over the above hurdles but will add a few more to boot. We would have to deal with increased fragmentation and compartmentalisation, problems related to sharing of information and integration in policy making, not to mention more resources to duplicate common corporate functions. A split could also send the wrong message by implying that the environmental aspect of land use is an externality rather than an integral part of sustainable development. In this regard, it is worth noting that there is a common trend among European countries towards recognising the need for a more comprehensive view of planning which integrates environmental concerns in the process.

Beyond this, of course, whether or not the environment protection directorate stays within or outside Mepa there is a clear need for a greater lead to be provided at government level, from Cabinet, for the attainment of sustainable spatial planning and, indeed, for more recognition of the principles of sustainable development and their translation into concrete action.

Dr Cassar is director general of Mepa.