The former Planning Authority and Environmental Protection Department operated as separate government entities between 1991 and 2003.
A single organisation called MEPA subsequently emerged absorbing both entities as a result of converging responsibilities, limited availability of academically trained and skilled human resources and financial cost-cutting pressures emerging as a result of an increasingly sluggish economy.
Since 1992 at least five major reforms (1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2003) were carried out to improve the land use planning function of the former Planning Authority however, results obtained have not produced the anticipated outcome. MEPA’s image remains perceived as a huge bureaucratic red-tape entity.
Despite improvements made, the local community, businesses and individuals are not getting the level of service that they have a right to expect. A substantial number of failed tasks, and more importantly, a good number of confused priorities have hampered progress in the so-called core areas of the Authority.
No organisation can improve all aspects of its operation at once. The implementation of best practices can best be viewed as a journey (continuing process improvement) rather than a destination. Priorities need to be developed for implementing the best practices of development services and control.
MEPA organisation must start by understanding what practices should be adopted and how to reach its strategic goal. What are our strengths and weaknesses as an organisation? Our development process is faithfully aligned with our strategic objectives, and what improvements need to be made? By focusing on the “gap” between where it is now and where it needs to be, priorities can then be set in full view of the resources that are available for achieving improvements.
The core administration of MEPA needs to focus upon addressing the real and perceived credibility deficit challenge that exists while substantially improve on the way local planning vis-à-vis economic development is currently being addressed. For instance, it is no use designating areas “outside scheme” while DCC board continue to disregard relevant policies and approve applications unorthodoxly and without justifying its actions.
In the past DCC often failed to abide by the Development Planning Act provisions whereby overturning the recommendation made by the Planning Directorate. The JPO/Mistra and Caqnu/Safi debacle are just some of many others that went through the permitting stage at a stroke of the pen while others have escaped publicity altogether. In his report the MEPA’s auditor himself substantiates that in such cases “accusations of corruption are inevitable and difficult to refute.”
The Prime Minister took over Mepa specifically to spear-head its new reform supposedly to be linked with the government’s vision on sustainable development, by finding the right balance between development and the environment that our quality of life depends on.
Perhaps it’s about time that we should proceed, for starters, to establish coherent and rigid polices aimed at giving the much deserved protection to outside development zones. We need to define such areas using straight forward planning terminology that is understood by everyone, eliminating the possibility of misinterpretation brought about when using suggestive terms such as “could” or “may”. This could go a long way in avoiding subjectivity and unorthodox manipulation that in practice runs contrary to the objectivity of the policy itself.