'Mepa deviating from mission statement'

Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat has accused Mepa of deviating substantially from its original mission statement, possibly to follow political directives even at the expense of causing environmental damage.

Even in past years, he told Parliament on Tuesday, it had often interpreted long-established policies in a distorted manner and stretched them like chewing gum.

He said reading Mepa's annual report transposed one into a world of surrealism, as if trying to read "Alice in Wonderland" upside down while doing yoga.

Mepa remained planning-driven despite all the government's pro-environment hype.

Mr Brincat said that although Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco had long asked the opposition to join up in formulating a new environmental policy, there was complete silence on his part when the PL asked him for specific terms of reference regarding its remit.

In the Mepa 2009 annual report, chairman Austin Walker declared that the authority was committed to a culture of dialogue and transparency. But in the same annual report the auditor suggested the contrary, saying he had been harassed and marginalised. Mr Brincat mentioned specific cases to emphasise this.

He said Mepa's internal inquiries on the basis of the auditor's recommendations lacked transparency and led nowhere.

While the PL agreed with Pippo Psaila's call for a whistleblower in football, the country needed a fully-operative Freedom of Information Act and Whistleblower Act which would cover all government agencies nationwide, including Mepa.

What were the timeframes for strengthening the environment directorate? he asked. Since the Mepa chairman was pledging the establishment of a customer care unit, one hoped it would not be headed by the same customer care official who had had a pivotal role in exercising the power of incumbency during the last election campaign as direct liaison between the office of Resource Minister George Pullicino and the authority.

Mr Brincat said the responsibility for Mepa's misdeeds stopped with the Prime Minister because Dr Gonzi was directly responsible to the House for the authority.

It was useless discussing whether the Development Planning Act and the Environmental Protection Act should be merged or not because, according to the Mepa chairman's statement in the report, the Cabinet had already taken a decision on the issue last December.

Mepa had never carried out a SWOT analysis before pushing the so-called reform forward.

In his report, the chairman not only adopted a paternalistic approach towards NGOs and the media but implied that if the reform succeeded, it would be thanks to the government; if it failed, it would be due to having been let down by such stakeholders.

Mr Brincat noted that although the government tried to justify retaining Mepa as one organisation rather than two agencies, as suggested by the PL, the caseload would be much lower and less bureaucratic if Mepa existed as two separate arms.

Many approved penalty fees had never been introduced, thus further weakening Mepa's Achilles heel - enforcement. The same could be said for what Mr Brincat called the "atrocious" waiving of substantial chunks of hefty fines for dumping of construction waste by promoters of mega-projects.

The human resource composition of Mepa showed how lopsided it was. A third of the personnel in the environment protection arm were working in the chairman's office. Almost the same number of people were in corporate services, while in planning there were 74 more individuals than in environment.

The staff at the chairman's office and the corporate services division represented 50 per cent of the total personnel on planning and environment.

Mepa had accumulated losses of almost €12 million. The recurrent expenditure was €5 million more than revenue. The authority's wage bill was some €10 million, and yet the government said it wanted it to be self-sufficient.

Some €100,000 had been spent on PCs in one year. Why had the expenditure on Mepa's infrastructural workshop shot up from €9.6 million to €17.6 million in a year?

Mr Brincat quoted former Nationalist Infrastructure Minister Michael Falzon saying that as implied by the White Rocks project, Mepa was destined to remain an organisation where policies were made to fit new projects rather than projects being approved in line with existing policies.

Philip Mifsud (PN) said Mepa users felt they were being denied decent services.

According to law, the DCC had to be constituted of seven members. But this was not the norm because applicants often faced only four - the quorum needed for the commission to take a decision. Lack of members' attendance on a regular basis made applicants feel they were not being given the importance they deserved.

Referring to applications by the agricultural sector, Mr Mifsud said that while he totally agreed with zero tolerance on permits in ODZs, such permits needed to be allowed in the agricultural sector. Some 65 applications for animal farms and 51 for greenhouses had been pending before the DCC for up to four years. He felt these applications should be given priority.

Mr Mifsud also referred to bank guarantees, needed by Mepa to tie down an applicant to the conditions imposed. The procedure to release that bank guarantee was long-winded and a quicker and more efficient system must be found.

Opposition spokesman on planning Roderick Galdes said Mepa was in a crucial state of its existence and should change its attitude.

The authority had amassed a €10 million deficit. It had dues with the Inland Revenue Department and dues with the police. The situation was handled on a management-by-crisis system.

When asking where the authority would find the funds to pay its employees, Mr Galdes was told that funds would come from the Commuted Parking Permit Scheme. These funds were never intended to finance Mepa's workings and they should be used for their real purposes of constructing car parks, as the fund's name implied. This was nothing but misappropriation of public funds. The government would not find the opposition's support for an amalgamation of the CPPS fund and Urban Improvement funds.

He said building permit application fees would increase by nearly three times as much - an excessive expenditure for applicants and, in turn, higher property prices for the consumer.

While Mepa expanded, it still increased its inefficiency. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Mepa had to take certain decisions to rectify the situation, but Mr Galdes retorted that these decisions had not been taken before the general election.

Mepa should carry out an evaluation of its operations if it wanted to win the people's trust. Instead of a forward-planning authority, even the Mepa board served as a board on building permits. Moreover, Mepa had become a rubber stamp.

During the Mepa reform, the authority's employees had not been informed on how the reform would affect them. Mr Galdes said there was uncertainty: even case officers did not know on how the screening process would work and whether it would be a small part of the project.

He asked whether the government still believed that Mepa should be autonomous, and referred to the Valletta and Freeport projects where there were several government interventions in the decision-making process.

Mr Galdes said that Mepa employees in Hexagon House, which was bought at market value after it had been given to HSBC for peanuts, had been sent home on several occasions because they could not stand disagreeable smells. Even the Mepa Board of Appeal was objecting to operate from these premises.

There was also uncertainty in planning. He argued that where a revocation was granted due to abuse or fraud, it should be revoked. But if a permit was granted due to an administrative fault, one should not revoke such a permit. If it was revoked, the individual should be compensated.

Mr Galdes said that the Mepa auditor was there to act as a watchdog on the authority. But if Mepa kept looking at him as an obstacle, what would be the point of his employment?

Concluding, Mr Galdes said that while approving building permits, Mepa was undermining the environment, contradicting what the government had said on it.

Franco Debono (PN) said it was Mepa's function to ensure that space was fully utilised. During the year Mepa had set itself six main objectives which, he said, safeguarded the environment while fulfilling its regulatory function.

Regular public surveys commissioned by Mepa showed that 45 per cent of respondents had a positive perception of Mepa. On the negative side, the public wanted Mepa to reduce its bureaucracy, which was being addressed through the reform.

In 2009 Mepa had received over 3,000 complaints from the public, of which 2,800 had been solved.

Winding up the debate, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that the first draft of the Bill on environment national policy was ready and the terms of reference requested by the opposition would be given in two weeks' time. A consultation process with stakeholders would ensue.

Dr de Marco said that the pending caseload, which amounted to 5,030 in February, had decreased to 4,690, of which 2,900 were under consideration for action. He agreed with the opposition that enforcement was crucial to Mepa and resources were to be given to the directorate while fines were to be increased substantially.

The tender had been awarded and noise abatement plans would be ready by the beginning of next year.

Mepa had also addressed the imbalance in the human resources mix.

The recurrent expenditure had not increased over last year, and the deficit for 2009 stood at €5 million. The accumulated deficit stood at €10 million.

Dr de Marco said that Transport Malta could make better use of funds allotted for projects involving transport-related activities. Transport Malta was the principal consultant to Mepa and the authority should be represented on the Transport Malta board.