It has been reported that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority has formally informed the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation that it has agreed to prepare the terms of reference for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the foundation's proposals to extend its museum at St John's Co-Cathedral.

What may seem strange is that the foundation actually "welcomed the news". Why should the foundation (the developer) "welcome" news that will set it back a few hundred thousand euros and its planned project by at least 18 months? Especially when a truly impartial EIA could reveal that the foundation's project cannot be given a permit on heritage, environmental and scheduling grounds?

The reason for the foundation's reaction is really very simple to understand. Experience has shown that the "independent and thorough EIA" will be neither independent nor thorough.

An EIA is meant to examine all aspects of a project in order to recommend the best possible options for all, including the residents, environment, heritage, etc., while suggesting mitigation measures to diminish any negative impacts which cannot be eliminated altogether. However, instead of being the positive tool they are intended to be, EIAs in Malta have been used as part of the developers' armoury to win approval for projects that would not otherwise be allowed, which again explains the foundation's enthusiasm for the EIA.

Maltese EIAs are invariably biased in favour of the development and again this is easy to understand - EIA consultants are paid by the developer and moreover there is no deterrent for unprincipled consultants to ensure they are impartial in their assessment.

Mepa has consistently failed to address this problem, even though the EIA process was introduced in Malta over 10 years ago. Why? Possibly because the unregulated sector suits certain parties.

In 10 years, Mepa has failed to draw up a register of EIA consultants, the first step to ensure that consultants working on EIAs are suitably qualified and can be held accountable for their work. In the (very few) instances where EIA studies were deemed to be so biased by Mepa that they had to be rejected, no action was taken against the consultants. These consultants still churn out one EIA after another for private and public developers alike, sometimes without even being qualified in the fields they are assessing.

I have seen very few 'thorough' EIAs. A thorough EIA addresses the real issues at stake and need not necessarily be voluminous. We have been presented with several of these voluminous, glossy EIAs which seem to be designed to overwhelm the reader and distract from the main issues which would help the Mepa board determine whether a development is acceptable or not.

How can one explain the fact that while the study on the derelict Ricasoli industrial estate runs to over 700 pages, there is no mention of the huge impact that Smart City will have on Enemalta's carbon emissions and Enemalta's capacity to provide Smart City with the necessary power? The Fort Cambridge EIA omitted the key issues of traffic management and social impact. Can these be considered meaningful, thorough assessments?

Moreover, how can we expect the EIA to come up with realistic alternatives for the proposed development, when it is evident that the developers are dead set against any alternatives other than the site they have set their sights on? Will the EIA give as much coverage and importance to the alternatives being put forward by citizens and NGOs? Can we expect the developers to enthusiastically spend thousands of euros in studying an alternative that will ultimately show they were wrong in assuming that no viable alternatives exist in the first place?

I cannot recall a single EIA that has resulted in an alternative site (and here I do not refer to a shift of a few metres) or an alternative method being taken on board by the development.

I have no reason to believe that the EIA for the St John's Co-Cathedral museum will be any different.

I appeal to Mepa's new chairman to address the very serious shortcomings in the EIA regulations with urgency.