The Church's Environment Commission has generally welcomed the Mepa reform proposals while also voicing disagreement with some key points.

In particular, the commission stressed in a long statement that Planning and Environmental Protection should be separated and the development of planning policies should not be transferred from Mepa to the government.

The commission said it welcomed the fact that the reform was based on consistency, efficiency, accountability and enforcement.

It said the merger of planning and environmental responsibilities within MEPA in 2001 had not worked.

"Good intentions will only be translated into a functional reality, if and when there is a genuine commitment to do so. Why should a legal merger of the two relevant Acts (the Development Planning Act and the Environmental Protection Act) be more successful?" the commission asked.

"Trying to learn from past experiences, the KA (the commission) would have preferred if the planning and environmental regulators would have resided in two separate, well-resourced entities. This would not, by default, necessary lead to less cohesion between the two entities or an undermining of a holistic approach towards sustainable development. It would at least enable the environmental regulator, to mature and come of age, to attract more resources on its own merit and to achieve a comparable profile to that of the planning regulator."

Policy direction

The commission noted that according to the reform document, the government would assume the leadership of planning and environmental policy, allowing MEPA to act as the regulator and the implementer of such policies.

This, it said, was politically correct since it was ultimately the government which was politically responsible towards the electorate and which had to translate its electorate programme through policy making. But it was crucially important to face the often painful reality of the past decades characterised by the strong political and commercial lobbies.

According to Jeremy Boissevain, Malta's environmental resources had, over these past 50 years or so, been and still are being raped ... for private gain. In his opinion, the resolution of these problems required "... serious integrated long-term planning, not just ad-hoc sectoral solutions, often made to appease strong political and commercial lobbies."

Consequently, the commission said, it fully supportedDin l-Art Helwa's objection to this shift and felt that while the government should provide general direction to the Authority in the light of national priorities and cross-ministerial initiatives, as well as, its commitment to the electorate, the actual development of planning policies and their implementation should not be entrusted to government/political entities.

Major policy revisions

Turning to measures to stop development on Outside Development Zones, the commission said it backed the proposals only if they served to limit the rampant development frenzy in ODZs.

"If these proposed guidelines will loosely define ‘urban compatible' developments giving space for ad-hoc interpretations based on the discretion of political policy makers, then God help us!" the commission said.

MEPA Board composition and DCCs

The commission said it agreed with the proposal to include a representative of civil society and an expert on cultural heritage as this would help strengthen and broaden the base of the Board's expertise - although one might argue that one representative for civil society might be considered as tokenism rather than true empowerment.

However, beyond the issue of composition, there was an equally important issue of how such members were appointed in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. One sensible suggestion made during the discussion phase was for all members of the Board, as well as of the DCCs, to be subjected to scrutiny and endorsement by a Parliamentary Committee. The commission said it supported this idea and proposes its inclusion in the final reform document.

Improving the proposed development application process, participation of third parties and appeals process

The commission said it agreed with most of the proposals made for the streamlining of the development application process, the participation by third parties and in the appeal process.

However, the improved streamlining of the assessment of a development proposal should not be made at the expense of safeguarding the environment resources which are often at stake, nor at limiting the role of third parties in the process. As such, the assessment process should also provide for the outright rejection of the development proposal if it manifestly goes against the stated and clearly defined planning and environment policies. Such rejection should be possible at the earliest possible stage in the application process, in order to limit the financial hardship on the developer, ensure better utilization of MEPA's internal resources, and facilitate the meaningful role of the third parties objectors.

CONCLUSION

The commission said that since it was set up,MEPA's role had been crucial in limiting the unsustainable use of limited resources. Nevertheless, with time, the regulatory practices had become familiar and had encouraged people who profited from environmental degradation to discover ways of circumventing the law and continue unabated with their plans ... as long as they could get away with it.

It favourably acknowledged the current MEPA reform process and saw in it the potential to rectify such wrongs and safeguard the sustainable development of the Maltese islands ... provided the commitment from the Government and the citizens was maintained.