A recent press report indicated that the Environment Protection Department at Mepa, led by former Din l-Art Helwa president Petra Bianchi, concluded that there are “no over-riding ecological reasons” to continue to protect an ecological zone at Portomaso.

The original permit applications for Portomaso in 1996 identified the need to protect this zone, and all Portomaso permits included conditions requiring fencing off and protection of the zone throughout the construction period and after.

It will be a sad day when developers are allowed to destroy protected species in other ecological zones as a pretext to obtain development permits in view of the ensuing absence of “over-riding ecological reasons”. So why set a precedent?

Instead, in view of developer’s failures at Portomaso to comply with permit conditions and protect important species, they should be obliged to transfer seeds of the same species to the site from other surviving zones in Malta.

Ms Bianchi is on public record with her articles to the press, following her appointment as director of environment at Mepa, proclaiming that she will do her utmost to ensure the protection of all important natural habitats and public spaces.

Why such a sudden change of heart now with regard to the Portomaso south ecological zone? After all, even the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee within Mepa recommends refusal of the lagoon applications to protect the natural species, and even if one of the two protected has mysteriously disappeared from the site, why should the surviving one be destroyed?

One final question to Ms Bianchi: The original permits contained conditions that no further developments will be allowed at Portomaso, so why should Mepa’s Environment Department not leave well alone, and continue to defend the protected and rare ecological species, instead of joining the developer’s bandwagon, as she is doing by backing the EPD report?

Peter Richards

ENGLAND