When the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) was split into two separate entities – the Planning Authority (PA) and the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) – we were told that the environment was being given a stronger voice.

We were told that this was beneficial to the environment because this sector was now represented by a dedicated authority, that it had been given the same importance as planning.

But it seems that this was nothing but empty talk. It seems that, at the end of the day, the ERA is acting only as another backer for big developers.

There were three instances in recent days where the ERA took highly questionable positions.

 

Number one

ERA consented to the destruction of two 70-year-old ficus trees in Attard, which fell victim to Infrastructure Minister Ian Borg’s proverbial axe.

It said on Friday that it had given its go-ahead for the trees to be chopped down after it was told by Infrastructure Malta that there was no alternative.

Originally, the Central Link project did not include the removal of the two mature trees, but IM recently altered the plans, with the excuse that the move was necessary to build an exit lane.

It added that it would have been impossible to transplant the trees, and that IM could absolutely not go around them.

So of course, it consented.

Whereas other, less advanced countries always seem to find a way to incorporate trees in their projects, or at least go around them, in Malta this is never the case, it seems.

The only solution is to chop them down, we are always told.

 

Number two

Moviment Graffitti has accused ERA of “secretly” changing the permit given to Fortina, allowing the company to continue building a highly controversial pontoon in Balluta Bay during swimming season.

The original permit conditions stated that no works involving marine machinery could take place starting from the third week of May to the third week of October.

The group said that, after Fortina started working on the pontoon “illegally” last Saturday, ERA has now stealthily changed the permit, allowing the works to continue during the summer months.

The authority, it said, also failed to notify it of any changes, which would have allowed it to lodge an appeal.

So, in this case, not only has the Planning Authority approved a controversial project despite staunch opposition (the decision is currently under appeal), but ERA is now acting as its sidekick and has allowed the works to continue in the summer months.

It is worth mentioning that one of the main points of contention is that the pontoon, and the ferries it will service, will create a danger for swimmers in the area.

 

Number three

Eight environmental organisations and several Pembroke residents have filed an appeal against ERA’s decision to approve the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the db Group's project on the ex-ITS site.

They said the EIA was approved despite the fact that the massive project, which lies in a predominantly residential area and adjacent to two Natura 2000 sites, had attracted a record 17,000 objections.

The authority, they said, had “rubber stamped” a deeply flawed, unsubstantiated and incomplete assessment.

Once more, the ERA seems to be on the side of the Planning Authority, whose case officer has recommended the project for approval. The PA board will decide on the application on 10 June.

These are, of course, just three out of a long list of blunders committed by the ERA.

With such lousy decisions being taken on a regular basis, it is no wonder that several environmental NGOs have called for the resignation of ERA chairman Victor Axiak.

Their call was based on other recent, controversial decisions taken by ERA, such as those to allow carob trees to be removed in Dingli and for roadworks to take place on Comino. Under Axiak’s stewardship, they said, ERA has become an authority that always bows down to the wishes of other authorities such as Transport Malta and Infrastructure Malta.

The authority has of late received a lot of bad press. It keeps making headlines for the wrong reasons and it is quite clear that it does not enjoy the trust of Malta’s environmental NGOs – the true defenders of the environment.

There may be unknown or technical reasons behind some of ERA’s decisions, but the fact remains that it has remained a toothless entity that, in the eye of the public at least, consistently fails to protect the environment and always conforms with the wishes of the big developers and infrastructure agencies.

To say that the environment has been placed at par with planning is a complete and utter lie. The environment always comes out as the loser, and ERA is many times complicit in that outcome.

So much for giving the environment a stronger voice.