The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) is one of the most sensitive and important entities in the public sector. It is sensitive because the protection of the physical environment and the issuing of all types of building permits depend upon it. It is important because the two functions have a considerable impact on economic activity.

Hundreds of applications for relatively small works are held up

Unless the environment is protected overall, including by allowing only sustainable development, the economy is harmed. And unless building permits are issued – as carefully as can be, but also efficiently – the building industry is hampered.

Diversified though the economy may be nowadays, and notwithstanding the overhang of unsold residential and commercial property, a healthy and serious construction industry is required to make a significant contribution to economic growth. That has always been the case in Malta, so much so that wise old men advise investment in “stone” – say bricks and mortar – to safeguard one’s money. Combining protection of the environment and building planning seems to be a contradiction. Yet there has to be a link between the two activities. The Nationalist government felt interest is best served by combining the oversight of the two activities in one entity.

That is how Mepa came about, even if through its lifetime is has focused more on building planning – or the lack of it – than on meaningful protection of the environment.

The new Labour government sees things differently. In its electoral programme it undertook to make protection of the environment and planning two separate functions. That should come about in a couple of years’ time.

Meanwhile Mepa continues to take centre stage in the country’s focus on the future. It even became a political factor in the result of the general election of March 9. Many Nationalists believe that their party lost a substantial number of votes because, according to them, Mepa was not functioning properly.

The political face of Mepa was recognised and nodded to five years ago. After the 2008 general election, the then prime minister, Lawrence Gonzi, made Mepa part of his portfolio, though he gave it its own minister – sharing responsibility with tourism and culture – in due course. The present prime minister – Joseph Muscat – also retained Mepa as part of his portfolio, though traditional parts of the PM portfolio were lodged elsewhere in the Home Ministry. A Parliamentary Secretary – Michael Farrugia – was appointed to oversee Mepa. But there can be no doubt that the Authority will be far away from the prime minister’s direct attention.

The indicated line of action is that the bureaucracy at Mepa will not be allowed to hinder private and public sector projects from taking off. The exact implications of this line of thinking have not yet been spelt out. Some critics hold that stringent planning control might be loosened to the detriment of the environment.

Others take a contrary line and will welcome less bureaucracy and faster processing of building permits. There can be little doubt that, despite the good intentions of the previous minister responsible for Mepa – Mario De Marco – the implementation of reform was not as effective as he and the Government, not to mention applicants, desired.

It remains to be seen how this government will bring about greater efficiency and shorter processing time.

So far there seems to be in the making an exercise of shifting some operational personnel, in addition to the radical change in the Mepa board, starting with the chairmanship. The Authority has also lost its CEO, who will need to be replaced soon, especially given that the new chairman was not appointed in an executive capacity.

One hopes that the picture will soon become clearer and that any personnel changes will only be carried out for the sake of better efficiency. Meanwhile, there is near unanimous agreement that the Authority has to function much more effectively and at higher speed, though without potentially harmful haste.

At present, applications for the smallest of changes take months to process, let alone applications for large projects, though some lucky ones seem to have beaten the notorious creep.

Economic activity dictates that where permits can be issued without unacceptable disturbance of the environment, they should not be held up in perennially jammed Mepa works. I should think that the new government has this very much in mind as it seeks to stimulate the economy with new public-private-partnership projects, as well as by unblocking permits for substantial private projects which are unduly held up in the processing stage.

To my mind there is another, simpler area where the Government can explore what needs to be done to start clearing the backlog. This concerns hundreds of applications for relatively small works which are in line with planning parameters but are nevertheless held up in the unending bureaucracy.

If such applications manage to get by unnecessary blockage, work will be provided for a considerable number of small builders, probably without harming the environment, and with a knock-on effect. Small will be beautiful in terms of economic activity.

Not so much as big projects, granted. These too need to be speeded up. But Mepa has to be made efficient in all its aspects. Possibly – I would say probably – it can start at a brisker pace with small works, without ignoring what needs to be done regarding the bigger ones.