Last Friday’s National Conference on the so called MEPA Reform was meant to draw the line before government got down to business to start formulating the necessary legislative changes.

But after various sharp and focused statements by numerous stakeholders that government was getting some of its priorities wrong, rehashing ideas put forward by the institute of architects some 12 years back and most importantly, continuing to relegate MEPA’s environmental arm to a Cinderella role, the PM was constrained to change tack and admit that most probably changes would continue to be needed and made right through the final stages of the committee stage of the would-be legislation. So much so that even a leading correspondent of this newspaper described it as still a work in progress although he seemed quite upbeat about the eventual outcome.

All this is the result of two main fault lines:

a) government’s failure to address MEPA Reform from a holistic, strategic perspective with a long term vision rather than from a purely administrative and organisational level

b) the fact that government’s proposals so far have failed to kick up any enthusiasm in either the developers’ or environmentalists’ camp.

It was good of Lawrence Gonzi to be present for the conference right from the very beginning but it would have been more comforting had he offered a listening ear to the public in general in both the run-up to the general elections as well as since he assumed full responsibility for this delicate portfolio alongside the environment and sustainable development.

It is interesting to note that although the PM tried to reply vaguely in outline to a few of the points raised he carefully avoided any references at all to whether:

a) any due consideration was given to separating the environmental arm from the development planning arm as is done in most EU countries and if not why. I understand RCC was one of the strongest supporters of the merger so change might not come about easily, even if so desired.

b) he intended to beef up his rather watered down proposals on the enforcement aspect.

Although the PM admitted that the report had somehow ‘innocently’ failed to focus sufficiently on the environment, it was unfair to put the blame for this on the technocrats from the MEU who must definitely had some form of governmental brief and direction in the parameters of the reform proposed.

I am sure that had it not been for PL suggestions and a strong recommendation by the Ombdusman, the Obudsman for Planning would have remained just that, rather than becoming as proposed, an Ombudsman for Planning & the Environment.

Until the PL spoke up about the need for EU best practice in these areas, there was not a mention of them until Friday’s presentation although we evidently still have a long way to go before such acceptable norms are achieved.

The most telling intervention was that by sidelined Nationalist MP and ex Cabinet Minister J. Mugliett who stated that some aspects of the report came across as deliberately vague, claiming that government was almost fearful of addressing core issues – ‘Donnha qiesna qed nibzaw insemmghuhom.’

One would have expected that the low profile afforded to the environment was solely highlighted by the NGOs.

On the contrary the PL has been making this clear from day one, the moment the government report saw the light of day.

But it was even more worrying to note, that even the said ex Nationalist Minister felt compelled to remark publicly when appraising the MEPA Reform document – What is in it for the environment?

In my opinion this was an oversight by design and not by default.

I was pleased to note that even architects and non environmentalists made it clear that it is high time that we should have a holistic strategic plan on the environment drawn on the basis of the findings of the state of the environment report as well as on the basis of reports published so far – but allegedly not yet endorsed by Cabinet – on sustainable development.

I have always argued that in Malta the implementation process has always been our missing link.

This unfortunately could also be the undoing of this ‘reform’ whatever shape it might finally take.

In my brief intro I deliberately steered clear of any partisan comments, but I sincerely believe what I said at the opening of my intervention that given the wide spread public perception that MEPA lacks good governance, that it is not credible, that it is not transparent, and that once even the archbishop (a former one) felt compelled to remark that the general feeling is that at various strata of the Authority money changes hands by way of graft, the real litmus test that will determine whether the MEPA Reform will have succeeded or not will be whether the envisaged or modified changes will manage to swing these perceptions in a positive direction.

I sincerely hope so and augur that they will – if anything, in the national interest and as a committed believer in the importance of the environment and sustainable development.

[email protected]

www.leo.brincat.com

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesperson for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change.