Environmental planning: How not to do it

The way in which the nomination of the new environmental commissioner and the departure of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s auditor, Joe Falzon, have been handled leaves much to be desired.

In the case of the Mepa auditor, although he had known for some time that his appointment was due to end with the incorporation of the role of auditor into the Office of the Ombudsman, the manner of his departure appeared to be somewhat shabby and has left a bad taste in the mouths of the public.

The way things have been handled transmits a message that there has been little acknowledgment by the government of the pivotal role played personally by Mr Falzon over an intense and eventful eight-year period in exposing malpractice in Mepa and in his role in protecting the ordinary man in the street from the maladministration of officials and the power of construction magnates. He must have been a thorn in the flesh of the government and could have even been over-enthusiastic at times. However, his integrity and courage in exposing wrongful decisions and bringing to public attention matters that might otherwise have been covered up by the bureaucracy or even ministers cannot go unnoticed. He has been an outstanding public servant, one that others should emulate.

The new commissioner for the environment has a hard act to follow. It remains to be seen whether his position, bedded into the Ombudsman’s Office, will lead to his being able to exercise more or less control over maladministration within the environmental and planning fields. On David Pace will fall the unenviable onus of proving whether or not the Ombudsman has real teeth or whether the end of the auditor post has rendered public scrutiny of Mepa toothless.

Perhaps the new environmental commissioner’s first test should be to initiate a study to determine the future of the illegal boathouses at St Thomas Bay in Marsascala and the whole sorry saga of the illegal acquisition of public land by individuals in the face of government inaction, if not encouragement.

Asked about the hundreds of illegally built boathouses there, the director of enforcement at Mepa said that they were “a problem bigger than Mepa”, by which one presumes he meant that it was a problem for government ministers to resolve, not a mere official in the planning authority. The precedent of the political decision at Armier, which, in effect, rewarded those who usurped public land, does not augur well.

The south Malta local plan, which would include an approved action plan for the St Thomas Bay area, is still in the process of being drawn up one year after the court ordered Mepa to decide “within six months” on a request to “sanction” (that is, make legal) an illegal boathouse there. It is heartening to note, therefore, that hundreds of people have signed a new online petition aimed at the two political parties inviting them to take a joint stand against the illegal boathouses.

Given the justifiable concern about the building of boathouses on, in effect, sequestrated public land to which the boathouse owners are not entitled, it will be a test of both political parties’ commitment to the protection of the environment and their respect for adherence to the rule of law, to see how they react.

A comprehensive judgement by the environmental commissioner on the issue would provide the necessary confidence on which the future of these illegal sites can be determined.