Four non-governmental organisations gathered in front of the gates of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) yesterday to express their concern over recent government proposals which, they argue, would amount to a fast-tracking of development projects by allowing developers an additional means of avoiding Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

The new proposals, they argue, will also see sensitive development issues being taken out of Mepa’s autonomous hands and placed in the political realm.

Gathering before a banner reading Keep Politics out of Mepa, the organisations argued that the proposed changes to Mepa’s development application process effectively amount to an overhaul of the Mepa decision-making process in favour of development.

Their main concern is a proposal that would allow development applicants to appeal against Mepa decisions recommending EIAs by going over Mepa’s head.

The appeal, according to the proposals, would not be decided by Mepa itself but rather by the Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry’s Environment Policy and Initiatives Directorate, meaning the ministry would effectively be able to override Mepa decisions on whether or not a project should be subject to an EIA.

The directorate, the NGOs contend, simply does not have the expertise of Mepa’s EIA team, adding that “there are no competent people on the ministry team” and that such decisions run the risk of being politicised.

“As matters currently stand,” commented Marco Cremona of Friends of the Earth Malta, “the process is already skewed in favour of development. Just imagine what would happen if developers were able to appeal against a Mepa decision on the need to carry out an EIA.”

The organisations contend that the current system already provides a number of loopholes that can be used to avoid the EIA requirement. One such example listed yesterday was the recent permission to develop a cemetery in Nadur, Gozo without an EIA being carried out and despite the fact that Mepa had already deemed the site an area of scenic beauty. Other cases in point were Wied Babu and the Fort Cambridge developments.

Objecting to the proposed overhaul of the Mepa decision-making process, the coalition of NGOs – made up of Friends of the Earth, Moviment Graffitti, Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar and the Ramblers Association – are also objecting to the fact that the proposals do not envisage granting the same rights to objectors as those given to applicants for permits.

The new proposals, they argue, have inbuilt measures in favour of developers.

“We are not against development, we are in favour of sustainable development,” Mr Cremona stressed.

The NGOs also charge the government with neglecting the rights of public participation on development issues, stressing the need for more public consultation on such matters.

“A notice on the Mepa website is simply not enough,” remarked Astrid Vella of Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar, adding that the Aarhus Convention, which Malta has both signed and ratified, must be respected. The international convention grants the public rights regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice, and focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities.

The government’s justifications for the proposed amendments, which in a nutshell are intended to grease the wheels of the economy by no longer subjecting would-be developers to the onerous and costly constraints of an EIA, were discounted by the organisations yesterday.

“If it is a question of staff levels at Mepa, then the government has to do something about it,” said Mr Cremona, adding that Mepa assessments should also be given a longer time frame so that applications could be assessed properly.

The NGOs have proposed that the current process could be improved and made more efficient without tampering with the basic steps in the EIA process. One fundamental change they propose is that applications for projects “outside the development zones” (ODZ) should be refused immediately with only very few exceptions made for essential infrastructure benefiting the environment. At present, time wasted assessing such applications amounts to a strain on Mepa’s tight resources. They contend that, as in the case of the golf course in Rabat, such projects should be rejected outright.

“By saving time and resources wasted on these “non-starter” project proposals, Mepa officials could dedicate more time to training its case officers and to making the present system more workable,” they argue.

Public submissions to the proposals will be received by Mepa until 9 March and the NGOs urged concerned citizens to submit their feedback either through the Mepa website or, preferably, by post to the director general of Mepa.