The proposed laws to split Mepa’s environment and planning functions into two separate authorities will lead to less transparency, accountability and public scrutiny, according to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Environment and Planning Commissioner David Pace said the laws were “a big step backwards”, further weakening the role of the environment authority.
In damning feedback he sent to the Prime Minister, the Opposition leader and the Permanent Commission for the Environment, Mr Pace was critical of the fact that what was being proposed was a structure that concentrated power in the hands of a few while giving the minister broad powers.
Last July, the government published three Bills on the Mepa demerger that would split the authority into two distinct entities – the planning authority and the environment authority. An “independent” environment and planning tribunal will also be set up to decide on appeals.
The Bills raised controversy as the complex legislation proposed was published just before Parliament’s summer recess, followed by an immediate parliamentary debate before NGOs and stakeholders had the time to provide concrete feedback.
On the insistence of the Opposition, a time period for such feedback was then set.
Mr Pace pointed out that, since Mepa was set up, there had been a continuous effort to improve public participation and for the watchdog to be more open to public scrutiny. Yet, the proposed laws would drastically reduce these two elements, Mr Pace said while calling for changes to address the problem.
He acknowledged the Mepa demerger was part of the government's electoral programme and had to be implemented but he stressed that the process should be aimed at creating more efficiency, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that operations led to an improvement in the quality of life.
“The two authorities have to be more transparent and allow public scrutiny and participation at every level, while allowing the necessary checks and balances in the administrative processes and procedures adopted. This must be ensured,” Mr Pace said.
He proposed that the members of the executive council, or at least the executive chairman, should be appointed by the President following consultation with the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader. The Bill proposes they are appointed by the minister.
The environment authority should have the right to be present in all the executive council’s discussions rather than being invited to attend particular debates, as the Bills proposed, Mr Pace said.
“This is not right. If anything, the opposite should apply. The environment authority should have the right to be present and participate in discussions held by the executive council,” he added.
He stressed that environmental considerations should not stop at the level of plans and conservation orders but be integrated in strategic development and resource allocation.
“The role of the environment authority should go much further than that being proposed, which is being seen as a step backwards compared to its present role,” Mr Pace said.
Referring to a clause in the proposed laws dealing with the transfer of public officials to the authorities, Mr Pace said this should be limited because the authorities should be in a position to choose their own staff.
Mr Pace proposed that it would be the Ombudsman's office, rather than the Environment Authority, which prepared the State of the Environment report to ensure it was completely autonomous and independent.
On the environment and planning tribunal to be set up under the new laws, Mr Pace said its members should be full-time so they would not have to continue working in the private sector.
Highlights from the Environment Commissioner’s feedback
Criticism:
• New structures reduce transparency, accountability and public participation.
• Too much power rests in the hands of the minister.
• Executive council members should be appointed by the President.
• Environment Authority should have the right to participate in discussions of the executive council of the planning authority.
Recommendations:
• Process should result in more efficiency, less bureaucracy and an improvement in the quality of life.
• Allow public scrutiny and participation at every level; ensure checks and balances.
• Limit transfer of public officials to the new authorities.
• The Ombudsman's office, rather than the Environment Authority, should prepare the State of the Environment report to ensure independence.