The construction of illegal structures to house imported wild animals has created an uncomfortable situation for the authorities to handle, as there are no facilities to house such animals if the illegalities are removed.
And as it stands, there is nothing preventing people from importing large animals - such as tigers - even if they may not have the appropriate, legal, facilities to house them in.
The problem this creates is that if illegal structures are created to house such animals, a dilemma is created for MEPA.
It either allows the illegalities to remain in place, or it would possibly be an accomplice to the inhumane treatment of animals, which could end up in inadequate structures. In the case of potentially dangerous animals, the risk of escape would also have to be factored in.
Tigers in ODZ land
The importation of wild animals perhaps first gained national prominence in 2009, when a Bengal tiger cub, Lentilka, was spotted in a Mosta warehouse.
The importation of the tiger was carried out legally - while tigers are endangered species, the importation of captive-bred specimens, such as Lentilka, is not prohibited by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
But the warehouse was only suitable for a tiger cub, and when the case broke out, Mr Borg had confirmed that he intended to move it to a bigger place when it grew up, stating that he was just waiting for a green light from MEPA to proceed.
As it turned out, not only did the tiger grow, but so did Mr Borg's collection of wild animals. But the appropriate permits for the bigger place, in the limits of Rabat, had not yet arrived.
But the most blatant case of illegalities surrounding a collection of exotic animals has occurred at the Montekristo Estates in the limits of Siġġiewi, owned by brothers and construction magnates Charles 'iċ-Ċaqnu' and Paul Polidano.
Over the years, the brothers acquired a considerable menagerie, including tigers, zebras, camels and numerous other species. But acquiring the necessary permits to house them appears to have been too much of a bother.
Build first, get permit later
In November 2009, Mr Borg applied "to sanction roofing of existing reservoir and erection of wind breaker around boundary wall and setting up of cages and ancillaries for the keeping of animals," at his property in Wied il-Busbies, close to Mtaħleb.
MEPA's own aerial photos show that in 2008, only two structures were present on site - permit history indicates that these were an agricultural reservoir and a pump room. But substantial works were carried out - illegally - in the following year.
Illegal development continued even after the application for sanctioning was made, leading MEPA to issue an enforcement notice in February 2010 for the "erection of animal cages, wooden and brick rooms, paving and landscaping, pond, roofing of existing reservoir and windbreaker fence around boundary wall."
An inspection which took place in January 2012 revealed fresh illegalities, consisting of a gazebo, aquariums and a wooden canopy.
In May 2013, a MEPA Environment and Planning Commission voted against issuing a permit, citing a recently-introduced provision in the Environment and Planning Act which prevented the sanctioning development outside the development zone where illegal works were carried out after 1, January 2011.
The decision was appealed, and the appeals tribunal ultimately decided that the case should be re-decided as there was no proof that any work took place after January 2011.
Ultimately, the case went up in front of the MEPA board, but the recommendation to refuse a permit remained as there were other grounds for objection. Among others, the Heritage Advisory Committee (Natural Panel) had advised that the development constituted an inappropriate use of agricultural land, and that it could not recommend sanctioning.
But last February, the MEPA board decided to approve the sanctioning by nine votes to two, justifying its decision by stating that "the proposed development was not considered urban development and therefore satisfied the requirements of Structure Plan Policies SET 11 and SET 12, whilst the site was not previously used for agricultural purposes."
SET 11 precludes urban development in non-urban areas, but SET 12 permits applications which ostensibly violate SET 11 to be considered provided the applicant can justify why the proposed development cannot be located in development zones.
The permit paved the way for a zoo licence, which was granted in April 2014 and allowed for the site to be open to the public as "Wildlife Park Malta."
On the other hand, the Polidanos' own set-up remains highly illegal: the site is subject to numerous enforcement notices, although many are not related to the keeping of animals, and no zoo licence has been issued.
This has not stopped them from opening the "Montekristo Animal Park" to the public. The illegal zoo's Facebook page - which is regularly updated - states that it opened on October 2011 and that it is open every day.
A show of force was made on November 2013, when MEPA went on site with some 150 policemen and soldiers in tow to demolish illegal works, only to be stopped on the strength of a temporary warrant of prohibitory injunction.
The court case is ongoing, but in the meantime, it appears that illegal works have continued, and the animal collection has only grown in size.
Closing down illegal zoos not really an option
The Malta Independent had looked into the case last summer, when the multiple illegalities on site did not prevent Montekristo Estates from obtaining a trading licence for a trade fair, in which the zoo was promoted as one of the main attractions.
When contacted, MEPA CEO Johann Buttigieg had confirmed that the zoo was illegal and not supposed to be operating, but while he emphasised that a court case was pending, he also pointed out that MEPA effectively lacked the authority to force its closure, and that this would create another problem.
"Where would we put the animals if we were to close down the zoo? We do not have a place for them. We do not intend to close down an illegal zoo and open another," Mr Buttigieg had told The Malta Independent.
This state of affairs, ultimately, highlights a lacuna in Maltese legislation concerning the importation of exotic animals which would generally require purpose-built facilities: no proof that adequate facilities are available is required when it comes to importing them.
And if these facilities are built illegally, there is little MEPA can do whilst ensuring that the animals involved do not suffer.
More people are known to have acquired large exotic animals - a private collection which includes a few tigers is known to be held in the outskirts of Siġġiewi - and while financial constraints will obviously limit the number of people interested in following suit, it is clear that regulations should change to ensure that they would not "need" to build illegal structures in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Rights was asked whether such a law change would be considered, but no reply or acknowledgement arrived at the time of going to print.