In his Talking Point ‘What about the environment?’ (August 6), Robert Musumeci, consultant to the government on planning matters, seeks to argue that, under the current environment and planning legislation, the environment directorate “serves as a technical arm” and is “strictly consultative”, inferring that its current status is not as strong as it would be once the demerger occurs.

He also adds that decisions are taken by the Mepa board “whose voting members are not necessarily versed in environment legislation and technical matters” and when referring to the environment and planning commission he states that “there is nothing in the law to suggest that the members of the commissions are required to have special expertise in environmental matters”.

A more careful and unbiased look at the current legislation, however, indicates otherwise.

Part II of the current Environment and Planning Act, entitled ‘Duty to protect the environment’, gives each individual and the government (including all its entities) the duty to protect the environment and “to manage the environment in a sustainable way”.

It is wrong to say that the current legislation does not give due importance to the environment

So it is wrong to say that the current legislation does not give due importance to the environment and equally incorrect to state that “as the law always has stood, both the Mepa board and the commission may choose to overrule any recommendation or objection which the environment directorate may have lodged earlier during the application process’”.

On the contrary, the current legislation gives them the duty to protect the environment and to give environmental concerns their due importance in taking decisions.

Article 6 of the Environment and Planning Act refers to the composition of the Mepa board and states that members should have qualifications or experience in various matters with environment being one of them as well as planning. Should some of the members appointed by the government to sit on the Mepa board do not have sufficient knowledge, experience and qualifications in environmental and planning matters, as the law itself requires, then no wonder the current state of affairs at Mepa.

Musumeci tries to justify that the demerger will give more strength to the environment than the current legislation did. In fact, the current legislation gave a lot of importance to the environment.

If decision-makers chose to put environmental considerations aside and did not heed to recommendations by the environment directorate, it was their choice only for whatever reason they thought fit. However, they had the responsibility and the duty to protect the environment and one cannot justify their decisions by stating that “voting members are not necessarily versed in environment legislation and technical matters”.

Part II of the proposed legislation with regard to planning is entitled ‘Duty to promote a comprehensive, sustainable, land use planning system’.

As current legislation gave board members the duty to protect the environment, the proposed legislation is giving them a greater responsibility, which, one hopes, members would be ably qualified to fulfill considering that the knowledge and experience of the Planning Board members in article 63 of the proposed legislation is almost similar to the current legislation, except that the Malta Environment Authority representative will be a voting member.

Protecting the environment (including its social aspects), as well as proper planning, is only achieved by a strong will and belief that any development proposed should not diminish or degrade the environment and one’s quality of life.

We can keep on speaking of the advantages and disadvantages of the demerger, however, at the end of the day it all boils down to the quality and integrity of the persons taking decisions and their clear understanding of their responsibilities as stated in the relevant legislation.

Anthony Ellul is a land use planner and general secretary of the Malta Chamber of Planners.