The government admitted that consultation on Żonqor for the construction of a private project could have been handled better. I would argue that there was no public consultation at all. Caving in to public pressure and designing a way to defuse opposition, is a political manoeuvre, not public consultation.

Żonqor was chosen as the project site without consulting anyone, not even Mepa’s environmental arm. Despite 3,000 people rallying in the streets against this decision, the Prime Minister is still insisting on the same place. The difference is that a historic building in Cospicua has now been included, heralded as a ‘gift’ to the people in the area. Actually the true recipients of this gift are elsewhere. Christmas has arrived early in Jordan.

Public participation in environmental decisions is a pillar of the Aarhus Convention, which is enshrined in EU legislation. A second pillar is for people to have access to information. It is has been widely shown that well-informed citizens and government accountability leads to better decisions.

If Joseph Muscat genuinely believes in listening and consulting, and that this gave better results in the Żonqor project, then why is the government taking steps to decrease public participation and access to information in the new planning authority?

The new law, to be passed once Parliament reopens after summer, limits access to planning documents and reduces consultation on legislation. The new authority structure will take more decisions away from public scrutiny, controlled by a chairman accountable to the minister alone. This is potentially much worse than Żonqor.

The government is already ignoring its obligations to consult the public on environmental regulations. Amendments were passed recently that eliminate consultation on major projects on hospital sites. The amendments themselves also bypassed the public.

A legal expert commented to this newspaper that this appears to fall foul of both the EIA regulations and the Aarhus Convention, and he is right. But does the government care? Not even 3,000 people in the streets were enough for Żonqor, let alone this, which will not stir up public emotions in the same way.

In Malta, holding back information by citing ‘the national interest’ has surfaced regularly over the past two years

Sculptor Noel Galea Bason wrote in this newspaper about the monument of ex- prime minister Dom Mintoff intended for Castille square. He noted that by voicing his opinion he was disqualifying himself from the competition, as participants “shall not dispute nor make any oral or written complaints, public announcements or statements… whether during or after the call for proposals.” For him this rule recalled a “latent Soviet nostalgia”.

I recently read an article by Zaharchenko & Goldenman that described how Eastern European countries with former Soviet-style governments found it problematic to implement the Aarhus Convention. The requirements of transparency and providing information go against the secrecy inherent in the countries’ former style of governance.

Major cultural shifts of behaviour and mentality take time. These regimes found it hard to absorb the concept of being accountable to the public and of holding consultations. Public officers tended to view themselves as serving the State, not the public. Transparency and accountability are fundamental building blocks of democracy, but are anathema to a dictatorial mentality.

In Malta, holding back information by citing ‘the national interest’ has surfaced regularly over the past two years. The desire to shroud government decisions in secrecy seems to be embedded in the political psyche of some people, like a fossil from the 1970s and 1980s when we still had posts like ‘propaganda secretary’ in our midst. The lingering residue of this mentality should be wiped out, once and for all. It leads to a dark place.

The official reply that disclosing information is ‘not in the national interest’ assumes that the State knows what is good for us, but we don’t. The government assumes the exclusive wisdom and power to decide what information is important, and what we should be allowed to know. Controlling information in this way is entirely paternalistic. The government takes ownership of knowledge, and denies the rights of citizens to have it.

It is not surprising that the government’s approach to the environment is retrograde. Achieving a high level of environmental protection requires transparency and accountability. These fundamental rules are being disregarded in other areas, so the pattern is reflected in the environmental sphere too.

The government is manifesting the same trait for secrecy in its refusal to publish or discuss major contracts with national and long-term implications. The principle behind the Aarhus Convention is that people are entitled to be involved in decisions, and to have timely information on matters affecting their daily lives and environment. I think that this principle should extend to the power station pro­ject, including the terms of the contract, which is of major national importance with long-term implications on the lives of all of us.

While ‘empowerment’ of citizens is en­trenched in international politico-speak, here, when it comes to environmental decisions – including planning decisions – citizens are being disempowered, with an increasingly top-down, less transparent approach.

petracdingli@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.