‘Convenience, not conviction, brought Bill up for debate’

It was ironic that Parliament had started discussing the Sustainable Development Bill at a time when the government itself was not sustainable because it had lost its majority in Parliament.

Opposition spokesman on the Environment Leo Brincat told the House on Wednesday that it was political convenience, rather than conviction, which led to this Bill being put on top of the agenda. The government was buying time to extend its life instead of going for an important money Bill and risking another casting vote by the Speaker.

The environmental sector could no longer be used as a political yo-yo when elections were approaching, because the situation of sustainable development was pitiful. Results were scarce and timelines were never respected, he said.

It was only in 2002 that beneficial improvements had started occurring through the National Commission for Sustainable Development (NCSD), which had been created as a result of the 2001 amendments.

Mr Brincat said the NCSD had introduced a taskforce to create a strategic plan covering 2004-09, which was later extended to cover up to 2016. Since then, time had been wasted on creating strategies and plans without following up on actual implementation. The work carried out by the NCSD was discarded.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister had said in 2006 that this strategic plan needed to be implemented, the government had been inactive.

Mr Brincat said it did not make sense that the NCSD was dissolved even if it had not reached its goals. It was pointless for the government to claim to have put sustainable development on the highest level when in actual fact the commission had been dissolved in 2008.

Likewise, nothing had been done with regard to the policy on spatial planning, which should have been introduced by the end of 2010 but which goal was also not reached. Moreover, there was no policy on sustainable development in existence.

Turning to the Bill, Mr Brincat said it lacked clarifications on how the proposed structures were to reach sustainable deve-lopment in practice. No definition of the strategic plan on sustainable development was included in the Bill, which also lacked timeframes and clear definitions of the rights and duties of the competent authority.

Without these definitions there was nothing stopping this authority from encroaching on other agencies and ministries.

He asked whether the competent authority would be an appendix to the Prime Minister’s Office or if it was intended to become another full-blown authority, like Mepa.

Mr Brincat said that the competent authority would have a consultative role more than anything else, because its main task was to put forward policies and recommendations.

It seemed the competent authority would not be able to stop a project which was against sustainable development.

Was there a need to have such an entity established by law? Its members should not be chosen on the government’s prerogative but from candidates proposed by the opposition and the MCESD.

The Bill did not say who would be responsible and accountable for the various structures, showing that the government was renouncing the independence which was originally held by the NCSD.

Mr Brincat said the fact that the competent authority’s financial and budgetary aspect was not even mentioned did not help. The international dimension was hardly being acknow-ledged, even though the Earth Summit was to be held in Rio in June, just four months away.

Although it was being projected as innovative, the current emphasis on the promotion and mainstreaming of policies on sustainable development was simply a repetition of what the national commission had already provided for before it had been disbanded by the government in 2008.

If the government wanted ser-ious legislation, it should set targets rather than make recommendations. The fact that public administration was being obliged to heed the requests of the competent authority could only cause confusion.

The Bill’s cosmetic aspect became obvious because several provisos concerning both the private sector and civil society were all on a voluntary basis. Targets set should be both doable and measurable.

Mr Brincat said that for the legislation to be a success there should be a strong awareness campaign. Once the private sector became more conscious of its obligations, most areas of it would become self-starters.

He asked if the government would be considering the concept of sustainability impact assessments. There was not even a reference to people of scientific background. Why was the MCESD being involved but not the Malta Council for Science and Technology? The authority’s remit was weak.

There should also be clearer definition of projected relations with local councils. Had the university’s Institute on Sustainable Development been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and would it have any specific role once the legislation would be brought into force?

The Bill seemed to have nothing on accountability.

Mr Brincat is still in possession of the House.