The Mepa reform has been on the political agenda for quite some time, at least since the last election in March 2008. Irrespective of affiliation, our politicians have long sensed the considerable element of public disgruntlement, justified or not, about the on-goings of this crucial autonomous entity in the running of the country.
The contribution by Victor Axiak, chairman of the Church Environment Commission (January 1) speaks volumes about the radical change that is urgently needed to strike the right balance between the development planning and environmental protection domains.
Some would argue that the Mepa experiment has failed miserably. Time has proven that, for various reasons, development planning considerations have often over-ridden environment protection issues and this at a time when the competent authority entrusted with managing our environment has loaded itself with the responsibility of implementing EU directives on practically everything dealing with environmental matters. The reasoning that Mepa should be scrapped altogether leaving development planning and environmental management issues in a vacuum is simply ridiculous.
Back in April 2008, the Today Public Policy Institute, spearheaded by Martin Scicluna, published its report The Environmental Deficit: The Reform Of Mepa And Other Environmental Authorities. This commendable report provides the most detailed analysis so far on the relationship development planning and environment protection in Malta taking into account the role of all institutions that matter in the governance of this relationship.
The well-meaning and genuine intentions of the TPPI and Mr Scicluna himself go beyond doubt. The point to ponder however remains, given Malta's particular circumstances: Should development planning and environment protection continue to be housed under one roof, as the Scicluna report proposes, but having the entire set-up revamped or should we opt for something more radical, in the face of it divorcing the two sectors with the aim of creating something big on environmental protection, a MEA perhaps?
In its conclusions and recommendations on the Mepa structure, the Scicluna report clearly states: "It has been concluded that, on balance, the current organisation carries significant advantages. To separate the two functions would undermine the need for close communications and coordination between the two halves of the same problem on matters of common concern. The two need to be able to coordinate their planning together. This is best done under the one roof (ideally collocated in the same building) led and overseen by the same management hierarchy."
Delving into the technical details that eventually lead to this assertion and which, for many, including myself, may sound a bit over-cautious if not a straightaway conservative view of things, would take more than a Talking Point article. My frank opinion is that, given the state of Malta's environment, coupled with the ever-increasing demands under the rapidly-evolving EU law, requires that we adopt a more radical progressive stance towards managing Malta's natural environment. And that is where Prof. Axiak's MEA concept or proposal comes in. Not to mention the seemingly ambiguous role played by the Malta Resources Authority, responsible for energy and water matters, among others, and which acts, or appears to act, as a distinct body from the environment Protection arm of Mepa itself.
The setting up of MEA should be no joyride. First of all, we have to agree that in addressing Malta's environmental deficit we have to think outside the box. We have to engage as many entities as possible, not least local and foreign academia in tandem with foreign hands-on expertise from within the EU and beyond.
Evidently, despite the increasing trend of graduates from various disciplines that emerge each year from our alma mater, only a rather small number eventually end up working in the environmental field. The number of graduands who actually contribute to the islands' environmental knowledge portfolio through private practice by engaging with consultancy firms remains unclear.
To be fair, efforts by the University of Malta to adopt a higher degree of environment content in the development of its courses and curricula should not be downplayed albeit there remains a very long way to go in this respect. Beyond its response to the IT revolution, the University needs to sensitize itself to the fact that Malta's future also lies in diversifying into a green job economy and the same applies to Mcast.
Prof. Axiak is right in depicting a hypothetical Malta Environment Authority as a "watchdog" on the development planning domain. But, in my view, we need to go further still. MEA should represent the real balancing act placing environmental matters at par with development issues. Strengthening Malta's links with the US with a view to create a joint productive collaborative relationship with the US Environment Protection Agency, for example, may prove to be a vital key to the success of MEA.
The public expects much more than a half-baked reform at Mepa. More likely than not, a fully-fledged autonomous environment authority is needed. A superficial rebranding of existing structures is not enough!
The author specialises in environmental management.
sapulis@gmail.com