I refer to Noel Grima’s article “Way forward not easy for Victor Scerri” (TMIS, 16 August), which dealt with the Mepa Board’s decision to revoke the last permit for the construction of a country house by Dr Victor Scerri on the Bahrija valley floor.

NGOs were banking on Mr Grima’s support in this worthy cause, not on his jibe that none of the hundreds who protested at Bahrija in June were present for that session. If he could not bring himself to express appreciation of the NGOs voluntary and selfless efforts to save what’s left of the countryside, he could at least have been more understanding of the limitations of NGOs. Our members still have their lives to live, their duties to their employers and their families to attend to, and their well-deserved holidays to enjoy. They are not paid to attend meetings.

Indeed many NGO activists did not turn up for that particular session for none of the above reasons: they made it a point not to turn up as a sign of lack of faith in Mepa. Much more so for a session where, normally, they would not be allowed to speak.

But Mr Grima took exception to their absence from that session. Why? Did he expect them to boo the proceedings and justify the ‘mob rule’ tag that interested parties are trying to put on anybody who dares protest? They had done enough with their protest march to raise the necessary awareness without which the scandalous permit would have gone ahead unnoticed and the valley irreparably ravaged.

By the same token, we could ask Mr Grima why he did not take part in the protest march. But we don’t ask it. We are sure he too had a good reason for staying away.

I did attend the Mepa sitting hoping against hope that what I wrote in my article “Set for a foregone conclusion” (ToM, 26 June) would be proved wrong. Unfortunately it was not. To my surprise, this time round even non-objectors were allowed to speak; but I preferred not take the option, disillusioned as I was to learn that the Board was dealing only with the last permit. Could anyone really believe that my word would have mattered in that forum?

Mr Grima writes that “even now it is still not easy” (my italics) for Dr Scerri to revert to his previous permits. If that “still not easy” satisfies Mr Grima, in no way does it satisfy the NGOs. We want it to be “impossible” and will oppose illegalities with all legal means at our disposal to preserve our common natural heritage. We will go the whole hog.

We hold that Mepa should have revoked all four permits. Mepa auditor architect Joe Falzon has demonstrated very clearly that irregularities prevailed in both the original permit (PA 2835/00) and the subsequent permit, which, it is presumed, now comes into force (PA 6321/02). All three development applications were issued contrary to approved policy and, as established by the Mepa Auditor, illegally.

Yes, Mr Grima, the NGOs based “their reasoning more on what the Auditor said about the whole process.” And I ask: whom else can we trust? The Case Officers cited a long list of reasons why the first application should have been refused. They did the same again for the second application. To what avail? The DCCs still issued the permits. At the meeting, Martin Seychell, Head of the Environment Directorate, confirmed the validity of the Case Officers’ arguments. Yet Mr Grima seems satisfied that, should the latest application go through the process again, this time round there will be an EIA, “if an appropriate assessment is required”(my italics)”. Is he so confident that the EIA will be done, and done objectively? Experience of many previous EIAs has shattered the NGOs’ confidence in the EIA process and leaves them much less optimistic.

The NGOs have made it clear that they will only accept full conformity with the law. They call on the Mepa Chairman to stop beating around the bush and to call a spade by its proper name. His statement at the meeting, “The impact of the preceding assessments has to be either mitigated or reversed, and that includes the integrity of the site” is, at best, contradictory and at worst, incomprehensible.

Mr Walker needs no reminding that there is no room for ambiguity and contradictions: all policies are crystal-clear. In their finality they emphatically rule that the benefit of the doubt, where this exists, should be given to the environment. They certainly go the whole hog and any excuses are amiss.

The NGOs express their satisfaction that in the said session, Mr Seychell, Head of the Environment Directorate, made it amply clear that the Bahrija valley floor is protected by the EU’s Habitats Directive against any development that will not enhance the ecological system there, and that any new development in a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) needs full permission from the Environmental Protection Directorate (EPD). It was for this reason that they called on Mepa to do its duty and rule that the site is restored to its former state without further delay.

Alex Vella

Hon. Secretary

Ramblers’ Association

of Malta