Ruben Abela has come full circle. He was working at the Planning Authority when it absorbed the remit for the environment to become Mepa – and now that planning has hived off, he has been given the helm of the newly formed Environment and Resources Authority. He spoke to Vanessa Macdonald about the challenges of this fledgling agency.

There was a very clear justification for splitting the regulation of planning from that of the environment – but will it work?

Only time will tell. I have always supported the concept of the demerger as I could see how the environment directorate was working within Mepa – until 2006, I was the enforcement manager. Coordination of the planning and environment sides was lacking even then, four years after the merger.

There was always the criticism that planning was given more importance than the environment – and there is an element of truth to that.

Having an authority dedicated to the environment clearly means it has a stronger voice but the public must remember that we are a regulator and not an environmental NGO: we cannot criticise unless our reasoning is backed by policies and by law – including EU directives. E-NGOs, on the other hand,  can base their case on different reasons.

The easiest way to avoid criticism would be to say ‘no’ to every development but doing so would freeze progress. Clearly, we must find a balance, if at all possible. Had we taken a rigid stance 30 or 40 years ago, there would be no port facilities, no Freeport, for example. This is a small island with restricted space…

You brought up the Freeport; it needs more space to cope with economic activity but this was turned down on environmental grounds.

Yes, but my understanding is that the expansion refusal will not hold back its growth as there are other ways in which it can cope. We do not want to say no to everything but to seek solutions which have the least environment impact – not only to land but also to people. In most cases, there are alternatives.

ERA is no longer in the same building as the PA but surely some coordination is required…

Development and land use policies such as local plans and structure plans will be the sole remit of the PA. However, ERA has two members on the executive council of the PA – which is where all policy documents are considered.

ERA has a national affairs unit, which – even if not consulted directly – is on the lookout for any legal notices, white papers etc. which may have an environmental cost, so we can prepare our position on it in anticipation of the public consultation. We give feedback on a continuous basis.

Do you have the power to be proactive? For example, could you push for a review of a local plan or structure plan? How can you ensure that the PA does not drag its feet?

We can say that we disagree with a policy and we can make our concerns known at the executive council but it is up to them whether to go ahead or not.

So you have no teeth…

So far, we managed to have our voice heard.

Legislation is not meant to be there for when there is goodwill and cooperation but for when there is not. You are supposed to be the PA’s watchdog…

We did not have any teeth before either. If anything, it was worse as the Environmental Protection Directorate was part of Mepa and could not make its opinions public; there were cases when the EPD was against Mepa policies. At least now, the ERA can make its voice heard as an independent authority.

There were never enough enforcement resources at Mepa. Are you any better off?

The EPD was always concerned that there were so many resources for the planning and development side – while the environmental side could always have done with more. And the former could depend on fees generated by the application process, but the environment had no way of financing itself, and used to get a percentage from the Mepa income. Now we have our own approved government budget. However, we have a much smaller staff complement: there were 110-120 at the EPD.

We started off here with around 85 people and are up to 130 – but the full complement should be above 200. There is a full recruitment process underway…

We also had to set up our own corporate services, including things like IT which we used to get through Mepa before. People have to remember that this is a completely new set up and that, like a new baby, it must crawl before it can walk.

The Environment Ombudsman David Pace has already attacked the authority as being “toothless”…

That is his opinion and one he is entitled to. We have replied to him outlining why we disagree with him. There was a protest by eNGOs underway outside our offices at that very time. We are only ‘toothless’ because we are building up our resources.

If you were at full complement, would you have handled the highrise issue differently?

That was a different case. It was unfortunate that things happened the way they did.

Why wasn’t the PA hearing on Townsquare and Mrieħel postponed since the ERA chairman Victor Axiak could not attend?

It could have been changed at the discretion of the PA board’s chairman.

Did the ERA ask for it to be postponed?

Our chairman did notify the board that he could not attend. It was up to the PA board chairman to change the date.

Going back to the Ombudsman, I think he appreciated that ERA is still building up its resources. We need tools to work. Only then can you see what needs to be done and prioritise.

Let us just take one aspect: development notifications. We are consulted by the PA on 1,000 applications a month (since the demerger they skyrocketed), of which some 400 a month have an environmental impact and require our feedback. And this is not only from one aspect as we cover all the thematic units, like waste management and biodiversity. In some cases, we even have to go on site!

And all this has to be done within 30 days. So far, we have managed to meet the deadlines, more or less, using a simple Excel spreadsheet.

We would dearly like to improve the way in which we give feedback. We need a culture change internally, too, as our people should understand that they can give a much more robust point of view than when they were part of Mepa. At this stage of transition, there are also enforcement delegation rights on environmental issues which are still in the hands of the PA, which will come to us in due course.

But things will change. Once a development permit has been issued, it will have environmental conditions imposed – based on our feedback during the consultion phase – which we will look after.

Take fishfarms. Until now the conditions were all under Mepa control. Any that are issued henceforth will have planning obligations – location, size and quantity of cages etc – while we would impose the operational conditions, like environmental monitoring, waste treatment, and so on. These would be on a separate permit – which did not exist before – and we will have the right to enforce then. There will also be a permit from the Fisheries Department on regulatory aspects.

This is where the demerger makes most sense as there are different enforcement regimes. Things will improve.

What will happen to the Malta Resources Authority?

The new environmental legislation will mean that some of the MRA’s remit will fall under ERA but we are not there yet. We need to find our feet first. But talks are underway on the transfer, which should take place in the coming months.

The assessments carried out for Townsquare were very heavily criticised. Will the system change?

It is important to point out that environmental impact assessments – which are a legal obligation and part of the EU directive when projects reach a certain threshold – are not an equation into which you plug replies, and get a positive or negative answer. The assessment is there to help decision-makers. The EIA process identifies issues that could cause a problem, and it could recommend mitigation methods – but it cannot give a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

When a project requires an EIA, there is first a public consultation which determines what the EIA should include. There is a basic template but the comments from the public, NGOs, stakeholders and so on are also used to draw up its terms of reference.

Once the EIA has been done, it is once again submitted to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, while a handful of eNGOs give detailed feedback at consultation phase, the feedback from the public is very poor. By the time of the actual hearing, it is too late!  We are discussing revisions to the legal notice covering EIAs, which will also reflect changes to the EU directive. But even now, we would encourage people to get involved at the earlier stages.

One of the major points made about Townsquare was that it could not take into account applications for sites nearby whose permit process had not yet been kicked off. Who should be taking a holistic and comprehensive view?

There is no crystal ball. Say a new application comes in for another building a few hundred metres away? Then you amend the EIA. But if the application for that same building comes in once the hearing has been concluded, it is too late as the decision had to be based on the facts at hand.

This is why the idea of a masterplan for Paceville is so praiseworthy. It was prompted by the PA because of numerous applications for large developments there, including highrises, and precisely because of the need for a comprehensive regeneration.

We are a stakeholder in that masterplan as we need to assess environmental issues – and although we will not look at parking provisions, we will look at traffic-related pollution, for example.

So why approve a highrise in Sliema and in Mrieħel before those areas have a masterplan?

We cannot answer that.

It seems as though you were thrown in at the deep end. Would it be fair to say that you have already lost the public relations battle? How can you win back public confidence? What are your priorities for the year ahead?

Clearly we need to boost our resources – human and management tools. We need to strengthen our consultation process with the PA and give our feedback in a timely manner on applications and policy documents. We also want to emphasize habitat protection and in the few weeks will launch a few campaigns, including Natura 2000 sites, complementing marine areas which were recently scheduled for the first time as Natura 2000 sites, along with their management plans. And we are setting up our public relations office.