ERA chairman Victor Axiak says had he known his Townsquare vote could affect the outcome of the Planning Authority hearing, he would have gone – following a heart operation and against his doctor’s advice. Caroline Muscat asks if the authority is doing its job.

Last week you published the memo you had sent to Planning Authority (PA) board member Timothy Gambin with your views on the Townsquare and Mrieħel high-rise buildings. This is more than a month after the hearing. Your silence has been criticised.

I think that had I published that memo before the board of the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) had a chance to vote on whether to appeal [the PA’s decision to grant the permit], it would have elicited a substantial amount of public pressure on my colleagues on how to vote. That would have been unethical. So I took the flak… because I feel that people should decide without undue pressure.

This memo was created because you couldn’t be present at the hearing. It was sent to Prof. Gambin. Why only him?

This memo was thought of about 24 hours before the PA board meeting. It’s now an open secret that I was in hospital and operated upon on the Sunday before the meeting, which was held on Thursday [August 4]. When I realised I couldn’t attend, I thought I should write down my thoughts. I sent them to a member of the PA [board]. I had phoned and discussed it with him, but then again I didn’t want to place undue pressure on anyone. But I thought I should have my opinion spelled out.

I did not send this memo to the chairman or secretary. Now, with hindsight, I realise I should have done that. It wouldn’t have been out of place. But everyone is wiser with hindsight.

I wouldn’t have imagined, for example, that the voting on Townsquare would be seven [in favour] and six [against]. Had I known that my vote would have made such a big difference, I would have crawled to the place, despite my cardiologist’s advice.

Isn’t it standard practice to send your views to the chairman and secretary?

I don’t think it’s standard practice because it never happened to me. I was in the [former] Malta Environment and Planning Authority board for more than three years. Whenever I couldn’t attend, I never felt the need to express my opinion. But this was something special, and I don’t think you can apply some standard practice. But with hindsight, I think I should have sent my memo [to the chairman and secretary], at least because it would have made a much bigger difference than I thought.

Frankly, I wouldn’t have sent the memo, I would have gone.

If you didn’t expect it to be such a close vote…

No. I didn’t.

Then what did you expect? That it would be approved more easily?

I expected it to be more along the lines of the Mrieħel vote, which wasn’t so close [11 votes in favour and three against].

No one should go to such a meeting with pre-determined opinions. You have to hear other people’s and if need be, modify your own. Having said that, I wouldn’t have changed my opinion after having read the minutes of the meeting.

I think that in spite of everything, we have done many things many people wouldn’t have expected

Your views in the memo on Mrieħel were read out by Prof. Gambin, but your views on Townsquare were not. Were you let down?

It wouldn’t be proper for me to say that, because my agreement with the member I sent it to was that this member would make use of this memo in any way this member thought. But yes, I was surprised. I was. But not let down, perhaps.

I was surprised… as you know the memo was two pages long. One page was specifically on these two high-rise developments. The opinion on Mrieħel was read word for word. But the opinion on Townsquare wasn’t. I can’t say why that happened.

With hindsight – I insist on this – I would have attended the meeting, not have my opinion read by anyone.

In your memo, you say you would have voted against both projects, yet the ERA has decided to appeal Townsquare and not Mrieħel. Why?

We thought we were [in a] much stronger [position] for Townsquare than the other. In the same press release, we said we have concerns about Mrieħel. These concerns can be tackled and addressed, but not through an appeal. An appeal is always a last resort, which has never been granted to an authority and must be used very wisely.

As an authority, the ERA cannot act as an eNGO.  I take into consideration all criticism, even if it’s completely destructive. Criticism is always beneficial. But the ERA has to act and not react to criticism. This was absolutely essential for the ERA board members. We didn’t want this appeal to be a reaction, which explains why it took us two weeks and two sittings to decide.

So you’re appealing Townsquare rather than Mrieħel because you’re stronger on that?

Yes, we believe so. I do think there are some concerns [on Mrieħel], which I won’t explain here, that have not yet been discussed.

So why don’t we discuss them here?

Because it will, I believe, lessen the punch I want. Our concerns will be put forward to the right fora.

If you have concerns, the people should hear them.

The people will hear our concerns at the right moment. What I want to say is that while the people, while the eNGOs, the locals, have a certain authority and a certain right to their opinion, and we need to be open to these opinions and we need to take them into consideration, sometimes there are issues which no one is looking at and we pick them up… What’s important is that these concerns will be addressed at the right moment and not to score any points, even PR points.

You are the only voice for the environment authority on the PA board. After the Townsquare vote, you said you had asked the authorities to allow a substitute if you couldn’t make it…

Well before that vote…

Do you have a reply?

We know the Environment Minister is supporting the request.

The legal advice we have is that the current law doesn’t allow for a substitute member either on the PA board or for the two members we have on the executive council of the PA.

Some have contested that advice, but I have to rely on the advice of the Attorney General…

So there must be an ad hoc change in the legislation. And it can happen…

But it hasn’t happened yet.

No.

And how many months since you first wrote to them?

About a month and a half.

So if we have a repeat of the situation we had with the hearing on the high-rise buildings, the environment authority will again not have a say in the PA’s hearing.

Of course. I don’t think the change required is a lengthy process. But the substitutes have to be named. Then these names have to be published in the government gazette. So once these names are approved and published, then they can attend instead.

Are these names coming from the ERA board?

They are suggested by the ERA board, and the minister has to approve them…

Do you think the authorities are addressing this problem with the speed necessary?

No. Hopefully, this will never happen again.

Since the ERA voice could not be heard, do you think the PA hearing for the permits constituted a fair hearing?

It’s important that the ERA representative is present.

Environment Commissioner David Pace was very critical of this situation, saying “denying the ERA the chance to air its views breaks all fundamental principles concerning the right to a fair hearing”.

I would definitely prefer [a situation] where my substitute was present.

We have to find our ways and means of trying to establish power

So you don’t think there should be another hearing rather than an appeal?

That’s something that needs to be decided upon based on the legal framework at the time, which didn’t allow a substitute.

Do you think there should be other amendments to the law to strengthen the ERA’s voice?

I believe no one gives you power. You have to get this power yourself through your actions. So it’s not really about how many votes you have on a particular board but how we use that vote and how we voice our concerns… The ERA’s voice is well heard at both the PA board and the executive council.

Media attention is rarely focused on the executive council, but great things are happening there, like policies.

But don’t you think you’re outnumbered? You’re supposed to be the watchdog of the PA in terms of protecting environmental legislation.

Yes, that’s true, but on the other hand, the environmental side is just one aspect of development. Very important, of course, but it’s very difficult to argue for a veto on, for example, a development permit. I would have liked it of course, but look, the ERA is not an eNGO. The ERA is an authority. It’s an independent one, I assure you. We have to find our ways and means of trying to establish power, to establish our voice even when we are outnumbered in a vote. I think we’re managing to establish this standing, despite all odds.

The ERA is five months old. It’s going through a dramatic transition from a directorate within a greater structure to an authority. This also entails a change in mindset, even by the staff. It’s not easy, but the staff are doing excellent work. Our full complement is [supposed to be] about 220 people. We are less than 110. Our CEO was appointed only two months ago. Our legal officer, one month. Our human resources manager, one week…

So you’re still setting yourselves up.

We’re still setting ourselves up. I think that in spite of everything, we have done many things many people wouldn’t have expected. You don’t expect the media to be continuously interested in these things, but it’s great that you are giving me this opportunity.

I don’t want to get into the politics of the demerger. If we turn the very existence of the ERA into a ball in a political game, the ERA will be hurt, never mind if the demerger was correct or not. I think that under the circumstances, the demerger might not have happened.

The experience was, further proving my opinion on this, that when the environment is part of a bigger system, the development usually takes precedence, and it has done so for years.

Over the past five months, I’ve asked myself, how come we’re being dumped with so many problems all of a sudden? The problems should have been dealt with before, but they weren’t. We talk about permitting, fish farming, but for a long period of time, so many issues haven’t been properly tackled.

I don’t think they weren’t tackled purposely, but I think the environment directorate wasn’t strong enough to push them to their conclusion. Now, we’re doing this and, anyone who doubts it, including the Environment Commissioner, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I’ve met him two or three times. He’s a gentleman, and I trust the way he looks at things, but I don’t trust his judgment when he says the demerger proved to be wrong. You can’t judge whether it’s correct or not at this critical stage, when the authority is still being built.

The Commissioner may have been reflecting public sentiment. Following a change in government, there were three years during which the answer to environmental problems was ‘wait for the demerger’. How much longer before the function is fulfilled?

Our function has already been fulfilled, but only partly so. For example, let’s take enforcement. Enforcement is currently managed by two team managers and contains fewer than five people when it should have 30. When we have 30 people, even before, we will be able to start fulfilling our remit to the full.

With hindsight, I think I should have sent my memo to the chairman and secretary

You still have the full remit but you don’t have the resources to perform?

Not yet, but we’ll get there.

Are the delays due to process, or you don’t have the budget?

It’s not a question of budget, it’s a question of process. When we tried things like getting some persons in key positions through temping, we were criticised that it’s not the proper way.

I’m an academic. I don’t come from administration and management, but now I realise that you don’t do whatever you want. There are structures, unions and administrative rules that must be obeyed. This applies to the recruitment process… it takes months. For instance, we urgently required a CEO – it took us at least two months to get one.

‘We all have a role to play’

Prof. Axiak highlighted the ERA’s achievements in its first five months of operation, including the designation of marine protected areas nine times the surface of Malta and Gozo, but he also said the authority faces monumental challenges.

“How will we be able to manage these protected areas? We need to be careful that we achieve our objectives. I chose marine protected areas simply to illustrate that there are issues which can be equally important as high-rises,” he said.

The chairman referred to issues such as environmental permits, dust, noise, blasting, waste management and biodiversity as examples. All these fall within the ERA’s remit.

“From an environmental point of view, these are crucial. Things do need to improve. We’re trying our best. When we have a more substantial amount of human resources, we’d like to elicit the support of the media, NGOs and the public, to see that these things are important. We all have a role to play,” he said.

Fish farms: ‘The slime is the tip of the iceberg’

The main environmental topic of the summer was fish farms. Is the impact we’re suffering justified?

There’s no question that the industry is very important, and there’s no question that the environmental impact is too high.

I believe that the slime problem is the tip of the iceberg. There are other environmental issues, which will not be successfully tackled unless these tuna farms are relocated further offshore. But do you really believe that the issue erupted now?

No, we highlight it every year. We hear the same talk but see very little action.

There was never a concerted effort between the two new authorities – the PA and the ERA – along with the fisheries department to tackle this problem.

But environment and planning were under one authority before. Under the previous administration, there was an area allocated, but there was huge resistance from the operators to move out.

Why?

You may have that information.

Because we’re using the stick. It’s a question of… if you’ve committed illegalities and you don’t relocate, I’ll revoke the permits… This time, all three entities have come to learn how to work together…

I believe that this problem won’t disappear, because there are other environmental problems, but these will be successfully mitigated and managed by July next year. We believe that things will be different.

What other environmental impacts?

On the sea bottom, uneaten feed that passes through the net and is left to degrade on the bottom. It turns into what we call high organic loading, in Maltese ħama [sludge]…

There’s also the issue of water quality. We see, feel and touch the slime and we don’t like it, but there might also be other problems. These problems arise from a high loading of tuna farming close to shore, where the diffusive properties of the waters are less; and it’s obvious the way to go is not to lose the industry but for the industry to relocate outside to a more reasonable depth and distance away from the shore.

There will still be permits and regulations that have to be abided by. If not…