The environment commission of the archdiocese yesterday waded heavily into the raging controversy about the various cases of apparent abuses by bodies of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, and called for sanctions against everyone who may have abused their position.

It also called for the introduction, without delay, of a Whistleblower Act, a legislative measure which was a major plank in the Labour Party’s electoral campaign.

In a lengthy statement from the Archbishop’s Curia, the Church commission dwelt on the principles of sustainable development and said it was raising its voice because of the duty it felt that it had to be an active voice in society, in favour of the environment.

It was well known that, where material wealth was concerned, an individual could give way to temptation and promote his own personal wealth, and that of friends, to the detriment of the common good, the commission said. This was why the Planning Authority had been set up in 1992, eventually to evolve in 2002 into the Malta Environment and Planning authority.

The commission went on to express concern about the various cases which have been mentioned recently, in which MEPA’s auditor had to investigate the operations of MEPA’s board and MEPA’s development control commission.

These cases, the Church commission pointed out, included the Sant’Antnin waste recycling plant, the development of a supermarket at Safi, and the highly controversial proposal – involving a government MP – to build a night-spot on ecologically sensitive land at Mistra.

MEPA’s auditor, after investigating the cases, had concluded that either MEPA’s board or its DCC had not acted as they should have, and had come to decisions which were neither justified nor based on clear reasoning. It also often resulted that the planning and environment departmental officials had acted correctly. It was those who had to make the decisions who had failed in their duty, the commission said.

These conclusions of the auditor, it added, should cause concern to all those who treasured the country’s environmental heritage, irrespective of their political beliefs.

It was clear that there was a need for change in the way in which the MEPA operated, and they had to be careful to make sure that the changes were not cosmetic. The Church commission said that while it would wish that anyone found to have taken the wrong decisions should express regret and repair the damage done, and that the MEPA needed radically to reinforce its mechanisms which ensured the protection and implementation of the values for which it was set up – justice, commitment, professionalism and integrity.

What this meant, the commission said, was that everyone (and the commission laid emphasis on the word everyone) who was found to have been involved in abusing his position in the decision making process – whatever that position was – should be held responsible for his action, and not simply be moved from one position to another as if nothing had happened. The abuse, it pointed out, could have been committed by not objecting to what was being done, or by consenting to the abuses.

Those who had the political responsibility to ensure that the authority acted as it should, needed to be aware and take corrective action immediately. It was apparent that the auditor’s reports were part of this investigative process, and up to here the process had worked. But the matter should not end there, and in the name of transparency the whistleblower legislation should be enacted without delay, after a serious study to ensure that the law truly achieved the intended aim.

On another aspect, the Church commission said the MEPA auditor’s reports showed that in certain cases, technical reports by consultants commissioned by developers were nothing but a technical apology for the development, rather than an objective analysis of the proposal.

That did not necessarily apply to all cases but the fact remained that once consultants were selected and paid by the developer, there was the possibility that some would not be as objective as expected. It should be the MEPA itself which should select these consultants. This could complicate the administration, but the anomaly should be dealt with in all seriousness.

The Church commission said another disquieting point emerged from the statement – made by the former consultant of the Malta Tourism Authority, George Micallef – about the Mistra land proposal. This was that the MTA, in evaluating a tourism development proposal, considered only the economic impact. Other impacts, such as environmental, were given no consideration.

If this was true, the commission said, this meant that the tourism sector had not yet understood that for sustainable development in tourism, development had first to respect the natural and social environment which tourists would want to visit.