The Environment Commission of the Maltese archdiocese has waded into the ongoing controversy associated with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. It called for sanctions against abuse
The Commission was specific when it expressed concern about the various cases where the Mepa auditor had to investigate the operations of the Mepa board and Mepa’s development control commission. In this regard it mentioned 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 nightclub on ecologically sensitive land at Mistra.
Mepa’s auditor, after investigating a number of cases, had concluded that either Mepa’s board or its DCC had come to decisions that were neither justified nor based on clear reasoning.
The Commission spoke of the need for change in the way Mepa operated, and stressed that such changes should not be cosmetic in nature. It held that while it wished anyone found to have taken the wrong decisions should express regret and repair the damage, Mepa needed to radically reinforce its mechanisms which are meant to ensure the protection and the implementation of values for which it was set up – justice, commitment, professionalism and integrity.
Accountability
The Commission may have been slow in pronouncing itself on the matter. But, when it spoke, it wasn’t mealy mouthed. It declared that everyone involved, and found to have abused his position in the decision making process, should be held responsible for his action, and not simply moved from one position to another, as if nothing had happened. This abuse, it pointed out, could have been committed by not objecting to what was being done, or by consenting to the abuses.
Moreover, those who had the political responsibility to ensure that Mepa acted as it should, needed to be aware and to take corrective action immediately. To ensure that the law truly achieved its intended aim, and in the name of transparency, it called for whistleblower legislation.
This straightforward language is like a gust of fresh air.
Erratic record
Mepa’s inadequacies and its erratic record has been the subject of consistent public controversy. Civil society has been provoked by some of Mepa’s arbitrary decisions, and there have been street protests. The clamorous Mistra episode had been described as “a can of worms” and a “case mired in outstanding questions”. A leading opinion maker described Mepa as “the elephant in the room”.
In short, Mepa has turned out to be a monster at large, sometimes trampling over citizens’ sensibilities, and ignoring, on various occasions, the principle of public consultation.
Its unedifying performance has provoked the ire of civil society who accused it of being strong with the weak and weak with the strong.
The charge that Mepa has demonstrated a predisposition in favour of the construction industry has been repeated in the media with monotonous frequency. Worse still, Mepa’s high-handedness has been the subject of repeated strictures by its very own auditor.
Mepa has also been accused of making light of its duties relative to public consultation and the recent extension of the development zone, in the face of widespread opposition, was portrayed by the media as epitomising “an authority out of touch with public opinion and beholden to political imperatives”.
Festering sore
Criticism of Mepa has been as voluminous as it has been consistent. The sore festered. There has been no meaningful attempt to lance the boil.
Prime Minister Gonzi has now assumed direct responsibility for Mepa and the possibility of reform has been raised.
It is not the government, but Parliament, that should take an urgent view of the matter and intervene to safeguard citizens’ right. A sensible approach to the problem would be by appointing a commission of inquiry to re-examine Mepa’s structure and decision-making process. Such a commission would consist of persons with the necessary know-how, and without personal interest in the construction or property business.
[email protected]