The Ombudsman’s Environment and Planning Commissioner has joined the growing chorus of criticism of the government’s plans to demerge Mepa’s environment and planning functions.
In a strong letter to the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader, the commissioner described the proposed amendments as a significant step backwards with regard to transparency, accountability and access to public scrutiny.
While recognising that the government has an electoral mandate to carry out the demerger, the commissioner said the process should lead to more efficiency, less bureaucracy and an improved quality of life for people.
He noted that, since its inception, the planning authority had always striven to increase the level of public participation and to improve access to public scrutiny. The proposed amendments would reverse all these efforts, he warned. He also expressed concern at the way the new structures would concentrate power in the hands of few people and at the fact that the minister responsible would enjoy wide powers on the executive council that is to take over the planning authority. In fact, he suggests that this council or, at least, its chairman, should be appointed by the President after consulting the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition.
The main focus of the commissioner’s proposals is autonomy and independence, a status enjoyed by the Ombudsman with very successful results. It is clear that it is only by ensuring a similar level of autonomy to the new authorities, which will be responsible for planning and the environment, that the quality leap desired by everyone can be achieved.
When the commissioner referred to the role being assigned to the new Environment Authority, he echoed the concerns of the Church’s Interdiocesan Commission for the Environment that, only a few weeks ago, issued a very scathing reaction to the proposed changes. It described the environment as the big loser in the amendments proposed, which, it pointed out, were also a “step backwards in proper development planning”.
Before the summer recess, there was a controversy over whether Parliament should start debating the demerger before the public consultation was completed. Protests by environmental NGOs fell on deaf ears. Since then, severe criticism has come from practically all quarters as more and more details of the planned changes emerge.
Kevin Aquilina, dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University, listed 20 reasons against the Mepa demerger and described the authority today as a glorified government department when compared to the independent status it enjoyed in 1992. Former Mepa chairman Chris Falzon said the land use reforms being proposed were “not even fit for the most retrograde of banana republics”.
The government prides itself on “listening to the people”. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat stressed that point when he radically decreased the amount of ODZ that is to be allocated for a foreign university at Żonqor Point in Marsascala.
The immensely negative public reaction to that ODZ development proposal in Marsascala has demonstrated that public sensitivity to environment matters is today very high.
This country cannot afford any more mistakes in land use planning and environment protection. The common good must always come first and autonomous, transparent and accountable bodies are the means to achieve that common good.
The Mepa demerger will impact this country for years to come. As Opposition planning spokesman Ryan Callus succinctly put it: “If we get this wrong, we will get it wrong for a very long time.”
The writing on the wall is clear. The government should stop and listen.