Good governance is very catchy in political talk and it sure attracts the attention of most voters. So maybe no wonder snippets of it were abused of only a year ago in the run up to the election. It is all about the way decisions are made and the process by which decisions are implemented, ie, it is about what people mean to its government.
People want to participate in decision making and expect to be consulted. They are no longer too willing to give the government a carte blanche on deciding what to do and how to do it when the government’s decision directly affects their interest. Furthermore, when decisions affect their interest they also need that which is most valuable to them to be guaranteed from risk.
Yet for the people to participate the government must provide them with effective mediums through which they can express their position as well as the relevant information on which they can form their own opinion. More so, the government must be willing to recognise that the public or identified groups have a right to participate, be consulted, be listened to and considered.
True the government has the role of implementing what is good for the national interest, but this does not mean that it can crush or shush the concerns and interests of those who will be directly hit by the government’s decision. On the contrary, accountability demands of the government assurances that these individual or community interests have been taken into consideration and only interfered with as little as possible. It certainly does not go down too well with anyone to realise that the interests they represent are not priorities in the government’s consideration. When these interests are risks on security, health and generation of income, it becomes even more crucial that they make the top of that priority list.
It is in fact pitiful that a national project such as Enemalta’s gas-fired power station has received the limelight more for the bad process in which this decision is being implemented rather than for the decision itself. It is evident that there is agreement on the use of a gas-fired power station. But it is equally evident that the process of implementing this decision is tarnished with half-baked considerations and in some instances also complete disregard of the people.
Reports presented for public consultation are preliminary ones and call for the carrying out of further reports, which it seems will not be carried out before obtaining the green light for the project. This in itself is the opposite of what good governance is all about. To be honest it is opposite to what common sense dictates.
The process of consultation thus far seems to be based on reports the author’s of which have indicated them to be of a preliminary nature, such as the Quantitative Risk Assessment authored by Mr Roberto Vaccari and the Preliminary Study for the Development of Consultation Zones in Delimara Peninsula authored by Dr George Pappadakis. It also seems that MEPA is asked to determine the application on the basis of these preliminary reports.
These preliminary reports indicate that other studies are needed, such as a marine study. But it seems these too will not be on the table for consideration by MEPA, least of all for public consultation, when MEPA meets on the 24th March.
The ‘preliminariness’ upon which Enemalta expects MEPA to rely and upon which the government expects people to interpret as guarantee is to say the least a shoddy way of implementing good governance. But what is even more worrying is that the party that promised and boasted of bringing to Malta good governance is now ignoring and shushing 91% of those who are directly affected by the project as proposed.
Even more weird is that the government has opted to ignore the most profound of concerns of those 91%, that is their worries on safety and health. When 91% of the residents of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbugia spoke out and said they want the lng vessel to be moored outside the bay around which they live, they sent out a very distinct and clear message. They do not want a risk, as small or big as it might be, to be placed at their doorstep. These did not speak in a politically partisan manner but rightly so in a sincere and heartfelt way. They truly believe that the lng vessel moored within the bay is too close to home for them to be reassured of their safety and for them to be asked to take this risk calmly.
When they spoke to the Enemalta engaged expert and indicated their concern which he calculated as being at 91%, they said exactly what they thought and the government ought to have listened to the message that this percentage resonates. They wanted the government to put their safety as the first priority. Unfortunately they were literally taken for a ride. The reports presented by Enemalta to MEPA show that there is a risk to security, albeit a low probability one but of high consequence.
A government adhering to good governance would want to adhere to high standards without doing so out of an obligation. Yet, it seems the government is not willing to abide by high standards in public consultation and public’s participation in decision-making. If it were, it would not ignore 91% of the residents of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbugia. Neither would it be seeking to bypass or let’s be fair try to make a show of satisfying the SEVESO III requirements in this regard. Once again it seems to want to show that it hears, but is not willing to listen.
Good governance demands that other interests are also safeguarded. The interests of fishermen for whose family the bay represents the place which allows them to earn their income, the effect that the project will have on the value of one’s property, the effect on marine traffic within these waters, and the effect on the businesses within these localities all remain unknown. Despite this, rather than being upfront on these issues with those concerned, it seems the process will continue despite many questions that remain unanswered.
Therese Comodini Cachia is a PN MEP election cadidate