I write in reply to the article written by Minister George Pullicino (More democracy at Mepa TMID, 12 January). I am only limiting myself to the paragraph entitled Progress at Sant’ Antnin.

It is a well known fact that the Sant’ Antnin controversy has been characterised by the twisting of facts, personal insinuations and a great number of lies intentionally orchestrated by those who, by hook or by crook, decided to demolish the unwanted existing recycling plant and instead to build a four in one unique obnoxious plant. A new full development project with two new facilities including a digestion plant capable of generating biogas on a stretch of land, listed as a natural protected valley known as Wied ta’ Sant’ Antnin measuring not less than 47,500 square metres, just a stone throw away from residential areas.

Minister Pullicino was absolutely incorrect in writing in his article that the “European Commission made it absolutely clear that the application process for the project was totally regular”. The Commission in fact said that no EU Directives were breached as regards to the EU Community Law for the Commission made it clear it does not intervene in member states’ local matters or in the site selection of such projects.

To be more explicit with your readers I quote exactly from the letters the Committee against the Sant’ Antnin plant received from the Commission dated 26 October 2007. “On the basis of the points raised and in the light of my previous correspondence, we conclude that it is not possible to identify a breach of EU Environmental legislation in relation to the proposed waste recycling facility at Sant’ Antnin ...”

In another letter dated 4 July 2007 the Commission commented that, “In relation to the decision to choose the specific site, the Commission notes that the choice of location of individual projects in member states is an issue under the exclusive competence of the competent national authorities”. Other remarks on this subject will be superfluous and insulting the intelligence of your readers.

For the time being it is not my Committee’s intention to delve further into this matter for the minister knows quite well that the question with the EU Commission is still pending. The committee, the main objectors and stakeholders in this case as yet have not been informed officially that the Sant’ Antnin case has been concluded. If Minister Pullicino and the Mepa Board are so confident that the process was clean and according to the rules and regulations as established by the same authority and in conformity with the Development Planning Act, why all this strong opposition not to make the Mepa Auditor’s report public?

Why has Mepa, for the first time in its history since its inception in 1992, submitted a complaint in front of the Ombudsman requesting that the investigation report not to be published, “as its publication will be prejudicial to the authority”? If everything was so absolutely above board and the process was regular and not vitiated and manipulated, why is Mepa doing its utmost to hide the contents of the auditor’s investigating report? Has the minister seen the 21-page report and is he fully aware of its contents? Does the Environment Minister really believe that transparency is fundamental in the authority’s proceedings? Eventually will the minister take responsibility for the outcome of such an important crucial report?

The committee and the thousands of people it represents categorically challenge the minister to have the report made public. If the minister really believes in transparency as he declared in the House of Representatives and elsewhere, he should put his words into practice.

After all, the Mepa’s auditor is an independent authority, set up by law to act as a shield for the common citizen. His findings are based on official documents and not on allegations. Why all these obstacles denying the general public and the residents involved from knowing the truth? Is it possible for the minister not to realise that by the submission of a complaint with the Ombudsman to stop the publication of the auditor’s investigation report Mepa is diametrically acting against the very basic principles for which the same authority was established? Does the minister really believe that Mepa was set up in 1992 specifically to defend and safeguard the citizens’ rights? If he really does he should publish the report as the stakeholders and the general public have the right to know its contents. My committee is once again challenging the minister to should publish the Auditor’s Investigation report.

The battle is far from over. In the coming weeks the Committee will be demanding Minister Pullicino and Mepa to be transparent and to adhere to the Aahrus Convention and the breaching of EU Directive 2003/4/EC denying the residents and the general public access to information on matters relating to environmental aspects. After all the findings of this blocked report are of national interest. And the general public has the right to know its contents. More than that, it s publication will be in the interest of all concerned, including Mepa itself.

Joe Sant

Secretary

Committee Against the Sant’ Antnin Recycling Plant as Proposed