I refer to the article Foundation replies to PN MP (TMID, 15 November), wherein it was said that the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation will be carrying out “an extensive independent environment impact assessment”.

The so-called independent assessment is not independent at all. St John Co-Cathedral is government owned, it is the government who will be commissioning the EIA. It will be the government who will fork out the bill. The experts nominated by the government will eventually be accepted by Mepa. It will be Mepa which will grant or refuse the application. Mepa is government appointed. Eventually these experts will conduct and make an EIA report. The public will be invited to participate in formulating the terms of reference for the EIA but Mepa will have the final say as to the TOR instructions and conditions.

The main funding for this project is from European Union Funds. There will be a time limit on the project after which the funds may be lost. These are EU regulations. Therefore the time for an independent and extensive EIA will be limited because of the time factor to research such a grand project.

My point is that all EIAs are carried out by independent experts but, from past experience in following numerous so-called independent EIAs, the experts never takes risks. When one reads the risk assessment, these so-called experts imply that further studies may be recommended. Or the experts may say, due to the time factor there was no time to give extensive views. The above were reasons given in recent EIA risk assessments. In recent years no EIA has recommended against any project under study. Conducting an EIA is a sure way for a developer to obtain planning permission. It may be costly but beneficiary to the developer. NGOs have a better understanding of environment and their views must be considered and consulted.

My recommendations are that; when a project is government owned, government proposed or government funded it will be the Constitutional Court that accepts and appoints the experts to carry out EIA. The Constitutional Court will also formulate the terms of reference for the EIA. The public and Mepa will also be invited to make recommendations for the TOR. It will be the Constitutional Court that decides which recommendations may be valid.

The Constitutional Court must be aided by persons without any interest in the project; experts in such fields but with no connections with the government or Mepa. The next stage of the process, that which seeks further information and when clarifications are requested, will also be conducted by the Constitutional Court. Remarks made by the public and Mepa will also be considered by the Constitutional Court. The Court must make sure that the answers given by the EIA experts are satisfactory and convincing. It is the Constitutional Court that should make the final recommendations to Mepa for or against the project. It is my strong belief that the Constitutional Court will consider the environmental aspects of major projects to a better end result.

John Grech

Birzebbuga