For the past few decades our governments have treated the environment as a Cinderella prop figure; always nice to look at romantically, enchanting when dressed up for an occasion, but pushed to the side lines and abused whenever development, like the Stepmother, made an appearance.
While the Environment and Protection Act (1991) and the Development Planning Act (1992) were steps in theright direction, 10 years later the environment was demoted when two legislations were merged into one, resulting in the setting up of MEPA which became responsible for both environmental and planning matters.
In theory, under this new authority, environment and planning seemed to be on equal standing. In reality, however, the environment ended up playing second-fiddle to development. When issuing permits, environmental concerns were easily ignored when it was convenient by the MEPA board to do so, and permits being granted despite a recommendation for refusal were a common occurrence which, after a short while, ceased to surprise.
I would much rather have a minister drafting regulations openly and which will apply equally to everyone, than someone barking orders backstage
MEPA’s environmental arm was powerless to overturn, or at the very least, challenge the board’s decision when its recommendations were ignored. Environmental NGOs, on the other hand, were not only denied teeth, as we say in Maltese, but sometimes also a voice. NGOs werenot kept informed of controversial applications and decisions, and had to keep a constant vigilant watch themselves, with no representation whatsoever within the MEPA structure.
The 2010 MEPA reform, brought about through the Environmental and Planning Act, did not address these deficiencies satisfactorily, and it was evident that the authority required an overhaul. The MEPA demerger was in fact an integral part of the Labour Party’s electoral manifesto, aware as it was of the need for a completely separate environmental arm. Cinderella needed to move out of her Stepmother’s house in order to become royalty.
In order to fulfil this promise, the present government has reverted to the previous framework, with a separate legislation for the environment and planning; the Environmental Protection Act and the Development Planning Act. The two arms will only be joined through the review tribunal, which will be set up through the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act. This tribunal will be tasked with deciding appeals, both from the environment and planning sides.
The environmental arm will now become a body in its own right, no longer submissive to one board tasked with issuing planning permits. It will have the right to appeal, a right previously enjoyed only by the applicant as the developer. Objectors will now also be able to file an appeal after a decision has been taken, contrary to the previous system where objections could only be made within a set 20-day timeframe after an application was submitted; a timeframe which has been extended by 10 days.
Moreover, E-NGOs will have a representative on the planning board, and will therefore not only be privy to all development applications, but will be able to voice their opinion as well.
The system might not be perfect. Nothing ever is. I am convinced that there will always be room for improvement, and every government should take on the responsibility of amending and updating along the years. We can only learn by experience. It must be said, however, that the harsh backlash this demerger has received is by far and without question biased and unjust.
For instance, the so-called ‘new powers’ to which the minister responsible for planning will be privy to have been blown out of proportion. It has been incorrectly stated, numerous times I might add, that the minister will have the authority to ‘sanction illegal developments’. This ludicrous idea apparently stemmed from the clause allowing for the minister or parliamentary secretary to draft new regulations.
Listening to the Opposition describe this clause as some sort of catastrophe, you would be forgiven for thinking that no permits were issued under questionable circumstances during past legislatures, and that there was absolutely no political interference in certain well-known cases. I would much rather have a minister drafting regulations openly and which will apply equally to everyone, than someone barking orders backstage in order to accommodate a select few, while hiding behind an ‘independent’ board chosen by himself.
Let us be honest and call a spade a spade. The MEPA demerger is a crucial step forward, more from an environmental perspective than a planning one. Suggestions for improvement should always be welcome and discussed properly, but partisan propaganda will not work, especially when the speakers are leaden with an appalling environmental record.
Etienne Grech is a Labour MP.