The Malta Environment and Planning Authority reform document, which took so long to see the light, certainly looks promising - at least on paper. Together, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco, as well as the hundreds (possibly thousands) of those who contributed to its preparation, ought to be congratulated - really!
This all-important policy document will serve as Mepa's raison d'être, to be used with one aim in mind: to ensure that it functions effectively, transparently and - the all-important "and" - for the good of our small islands.
It is fervently hoped that this rather exhaustive document will serve to put a stop to the scandalous goings-on that have raped Malta's environment, negatively affected tourism, caused financial harm and personal worry (especially to third parties) and generated dispute (sometimes sheer pique and hatred) within society. Indeed the public should be thankful that this much-needed reform document has finally been produced.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, the destruction in Baħrija valley continues unchecked - despite the fact that practically everybody (at least privately) admits that this is indeed a great environmental sin which is making us Maltese (or rather Mepa DCC members and one or two other people directly involved in this sordid sacrilege) look distinctly barbarian! Meanwhile, also, the planning appeals board has, as far as I know, not met for several weeks - without any objectors being informed as to the reason why!
The Prime Minister is very right when he states that the Mepa regulations need to be clear and not open to interpretation and abuse. I admire him for saying that. He might add, however, that Mepa regulations and civil laws need to conform - which they certainly do not completely do at present! Herein lies the big challenge: Unless there is conformity (or at least not resounding differences) between Mepa planning regulations and civil laws, we might just toss the new policy away because it risks remaining nice to read but totally inefficient in practice.
This does not mean of course that civil laws are always perfect and it is acknowledged that some of these laws may sometimes go counter to good planning practice. An example will suffice: the civil law which declares it is alright to grant permits on the grounds of precedent is an ass. And it requires rectifying - the sooner the better!
What is crucially important anyway is that Mepa regulations be given the weight of updated, modern laws, instead of remaining just policy guidelines to be warped or ignored at will.
There are so many pros in this document (well done to that!) that there really is no need to list them here. But some cons and doubts remain: Should Mepa provide a "pre-screening" service to applicants to ensure their project is in line with the necessary policies? Surely applicants can, indeed should, do that themselves! But they don't. They take a gamble to see if they are lucky and can get away with it! Such applicants need to be weeded out by vetting before they have the chance to be accepted.
Readers need to know that "a system of great service to applicants" (the chosen few, that is) has in fact been going on, unobtrusively perhaps but in any case, actually supplied, at Mepa for many years now. Not upfront but following the initial application. Was it right that Mepa's own case officers examining the application (the public's watchdogs) sometimes took it upon themselves to explain/suggest to the applicant what s/he needed to do to have the application accepted? I personally believe that this state of affairs might have actually resulted in abuse... if such pre-screening service to applicants will become institutionalised and indeed increase, it is important to ensure that there will be checks implemented to ensure no abuse and dry rot will be possible any longer. Another point: Taxpayers might justly inquire if it will be the applicant - or they themselves - who will have to foot the bill for this service?
Come on, let's admit it: Auditor Joseph Falzon has been instrumental in exposing Mepa blunders and possible abuse. Will his sterling work continue in the Ombudsman's office? Or will he be moved there to spare this and future administrations any future blushes? If Mr Falzon will indeed carry on with Mepa auditing, then why create a new internal auditor? Finally, will the auditing office (and enforcement) be strengthened?
One final point: If the Prime Minister really wants to prove once and for all that he's really committed to stamping out environmental and planning abuse, he should immediately reinstate Carmel Cacopardo as the auditor's investigator. If not, then I believe those producing this new document do not really have the good of Malta's environment at heart.