Former Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) audit office investigative officer Carmel Cacopardo yesterday made good on his threat to publish a preliminary audit report he had drawn up on the controversial Sant’ Antnin waste recycling plant in Marsascala.
On Wednesday, Mr Cacopardo gave Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi a 48-hour ultimatum in which make the 21-page report public, failing which he would publish it himself.
Following the report’s publication yesterday afternoon, Mepa, in turn, issued a 20-page rebuttal to the report which, it stressed repeatedly, had been “unofficial” when drafted.
At a press conference convened outside the controversial plant, which saw the Alternattiva Demokratika hierarchy joining forces with Malta Labour Party mayors from nearby localities who had resisted the plant, Mr Cacopardo outlined the main arguments presented in the report, which had been drafted in February of last year.
Firstly, he contended in the report, the process of identifying alternative sites had been merely a case of Mepa going through the motions, with the verdict that the plant was to be sited at the existing plant being a foregone conclusion.
Mr Cacopardo also contended that necessary studies on the impact of the plant on air quality and odour control had not been carried out, and that there had also been political interference in the permit approval process from the outset.
Responding to the comments this week by the Ombudsman and Mepa’s auditor, Mr Cacopardo insisted he had shown moral responsibility in publishing the report.
He commented yesterday: “There is a duty to the public interest that supersedes all other duties.”
The investigation had been concluded, he said, the report was in its final draft and, as such, not much would have changed had it been seen through to its final version.
Replying to the contents of the report made public yesterday, Mepa discredited it and its author, claiming that in drafting the report, Mr Cacopardo was, “selective as to what information is included in the report so as to justify its conclusions. It seems that information which does not support the conclusions has been ignored”.
“The unofficial PAR depicts a skewed picture of the whole process and outcomes related to the proposed recycling plant at Sant’ Antnin,” Mepa said in an official statement yesterday. “Thus, in doing so the author, both directly and indirectly, substitutes his discretion on planning issues which are Mepa’s remit.
“Analysing these conclusions one realises that there were conjectures which portray a false picture of what actually happened during the development control process related to the proposed Waste Treatment Plant at Sant’ Antnin. For instance it is unacceptable and irresponsible to be selective in quotes while leaving out information which would have otherwise provided a fair judgement of this case.”
Mepa also disputed Mr Cacopardo’s statement, published suggest included in the report that: “It is clear that the odour impacts were not dealt with at the EIA stage but were shifted towards the environmental permitting stage” saying this was “completely incorrect”.
Mepa added that the health impacts had been addressed in the environmental impact statement published in June 2005.
In reference to the site identification exercise, Mr Cacopardo noted in his report: “It is, in my view, very clear to this Office that everybody at Mepa was very careful in avoiding the possible identification of a site which could really be considered as an alternative to the Sant’ Antnin site.”
He added that the Mepa board was well aware of the fact that the alternative sites investigated – the Kalkara Industrial Zone, l-Ghallis and l-Mara Birzebbuga – were all at least 50 per cent smaller than what was required.
An additional site at Hal Far, he said, had not been studied adequately, and had been quickly brushed aside because it was owned by Malta Industrial Parks and was being operated by a third party.
But, Mepa argued, the projected consisted of an upgrading of the existing facilities and, according to the project description statement, “It is envisaged that a number of the elements of the existing Composting Plant can be retained and utilised as part of the upgraded facility.”
Moreover, Mepa added, the Environment Protection Directorate was itself uncertain as to whether it should insist on an alternative site assessment, observing in 2003: “Considering that development refers to upgrading of the Sant Antnin Composing Plant, I feel that we can hardly insist on developer to consider alternative sites. This is also consistent with the normal practice”.
The aim, Mepa said, was also to “expedite matters in view of the fact that the whole project was eligible for EU funding. At that time there were tight deadlines that determined whether this project should benefit from EU funding.
Seventy per cent of the €R27 million (Lm11.59 million) spent on upgrading the plant had been supplied by the EU.
Mepa also quoted correspondence from WasteServ CEO Vince Magri referring to the fact that “Any changes at this late stage will jeopardise EU funding.”
Mepa added: “However, the way ‘facts’ are presented in the unofficial PAR gives the impression that at that time there was some hidden agenda or ‘strategy’ by WasteServ to mislead Mepa and/or the public.”
Mr Cacopardo also contended in his report that “The Mepa Vetting Section, in view of the fact that the application, dated 16 May 2003 was submitted by a Government-controlled entity (WasteServ) gave the application preferential treatment.”
Mepa, however, observed: “Before presenting such comments as facts the unofficial PAR author should first and foremost have examined the work practices at the vetting section by considering a sample of applications which were processed during the same period in which the application in question was vetted.”
Citing a lack of faith in the Nationalist Party in the leadership of Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Mr Cacopardo resigned from the Nationalist Party on 16 January and threw in his lot with Alternattiva Demokratika, with which he was appointed sustainable development spokesman and with which he is contesting the upcoming general election.
His resignation came after 30 years of service to the PN, with which he was a candidate in the 1987, 1992 and 1996 general elections. He also served on the PN executive committee for 12 years in various posts, including information secretary, assistant general secretary and president of the administrative council.
Asked yesterday if he saw a conflict of interest in publishing the report in the face of advice to the contrary from both Mepa’s auditor and the Ombudsman, Mr Cacopardo commented: “If anyone has a conflict of interest, it is Environment Minister George Pullicino, who unnecessarily involved himself in the case.”
In a statement issued yesterday evening, the Environment Ministry noted comments made by the Ombudsman and by the Mepa audit officer earlier, labelling Mr Cacopardo’s actions a violation of ethics and saying his actions were motivated by political reasons. Mr Cacopardo, it said, had had the report in his possession for over a year but had only chosen to publish it now during the election campaign in which he himself was participating.
Mr Cacopardo noted in his report: “During the processing of the application, it was noted that various meetings were held with the Hon. Minister for the Environment. Although no minutes of these meetings are available, the files record meetings held on the following dates: 15 July 2003, 17 June 2004 and 18 January 2005.”
He added, “It is my opinion that holders of political office have no role in the adjudication of planning applications and Mepa should, in my view, resist any attempts at their involvement. Any information/clarifications required by the Hon. Minister should be handled directly by the Office of the Mepa Chairman thereby avoiding any impression that political pressure is being applied to adjudicators.”