Carmel Cacopardo, former investigative officer in the audit office of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, and today an election candidate for Alternattiva Demokratika, yesterday replied to comments made about the Mepa report he made public on Saturday, and which Mepa had kept under wraps.

The report was about the Marsascala waste recycling plant. Instead of discussing its message, Mr Cacopardo said in his statement, those who did not like it were attacking him.

It was claimed that because he himself had drawn up the report, it was worthless. But though it was he who had carried out the investigation, the report had been approved by the auditor of the authority and sent to the authority after the auditor signed it.

He had published the report now, not to take personal advantage but because the government had ignored the fact that there were a number of pending appeals and cases about the waste treatment plant. Although the Mepa felt the cases should be concluded before the report could be published, no one had waited for this conclusion before starting to operate the waste treatment plant.

It had been claimed that AD did not want the plant but this was not true. AD was aware of the obligations Malta had to reduce the generation of waste, but it was against the treatment plant as proposed, and against the manner in which the authorities had ridden roughshod over the residents.

Mr Cacopardo said it was claimed the report concluded that the site decision was correct. In fact the report stated otherwise: that not enough had been done to find an alternative, and the site which could have served this purpose was set aside without a good reason being given.

Neither was it true that the minister was obliged to take part in meetings. The Mepa had been set up to eliminate the need for politicians interfering with the issue of permits, he said.

Replying to his statement, Mepa said Mr Cacopardo’s report was a report of the office of the auditor, who, on the advice of the Ombudsman, had withheld it because the process according to law had not been concluded. By publishing the report – which the auditor felt had not been concluded – Mr Cacopardo felt he could ignore all the advice he was given by the country’s institutions, including the court, and had done so at the time he felt suited him.

It was obvious from the information Mr Cacopardo had, WasteServ’s application was for the re-development of the Sant’Antnin site. That Mepa had sought alternative sites was an initiative for the environment, Mepa said. Mr Cacopardo himself admitted it was not only difficult to identify another site, but that the chances were that the decision about the waste treatment plant would not be different.

In his rush to find proof against the MEPA, Mr Cacopardo had drawn up a report in which he quoted selectively, ambiguously, and even contradictorily, the MEPA said