L-inkompetenza, ħsara biss tagħmel

L-impjant f’Ħal-Far għall-ipproċessar tal-fdalijiet tat-tonn kellu l-potenzjal li jagħti kontribut sostanzjali għall-iżvilupp tal-ekonomija ċirkulari f’Malta. Bħal ħafna affarijiet oħra l-inkompetenza qerditu.

Fuq il-karta kien proġett tal-ogħla kwalità. Fil-prattika, s’issa, qed jiżviluppa f’diżastru ieħor.  Biċċiet ta’ informazzjoni li qed tasal għandi qed tindika li probabbilment ser jirriżulta li x-xeħħa fil-fondi allokati biex ikun ikkummissjonat l-apparat istallat fl-impjant, hi l-kawża ewlenija tad-diżastru li qed jiżviluppa.

Bħala riżultat ta’ dan kollu irnexxielhom jittrasformaw pass pożittiv f’esperjenza negattiva għal kulħadd. L-impatt ta’ dan kollu ser jibqa’ magħna għal żmien mhux żgħir għax riżultat ta’ dak li ġara qed tissaħħaħ l-isfiduċja fl-awtoritajiet li għal darb’oħra ġie ippruvat li mhumiex kapaċi li jwasslu proġett tajjeb biex jagħti r-riżultat mixtieq.

Għal darb’oħra l-inkonvenjent hu fuq Birżebbuġa, kif ilu jiġri s-snin riżultat ta’ attività industrijali oħra fiż-żona. L-assalt fuq Birżebbuġa tul is-snin ħalla impatt fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tar-residenti.  Fuq quddiem nett f’dan ir-rigward hemm it-Terminal tal-Port Ħieles, li hu ta’ inkonvenjent 24 siegħa kull jum. Huwa biss dan l-aħħar li dan l-inkonvenjent beda jiġi indirizzat.

Qiesu dan mhux biżżejjed, fiż-żona industrijali ta’ Ħal-Far, f’data mhux il-bogħod ser ikollna ukoll trakka tal-karozzi li ser tkun iffinanzjata mill-fondi li nġabru mill-bejgħ tal-passaporti! Iktar impatt fuq ir-residenti ta’ Birżebbuġa!

L-aktar attakk riċenti fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja f’Birżebbuġa qed isir mill-attività ta’ Aquaculture Resources Ltd f’dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat. Dan riżultat tal-irwejjaħ ta’ ħut u drenaġġ ifur fiż-żoni residenzjali.  It-tmexxija tal-kumpanija Aquaculture Resources Ltd kontinwament irrifjutat li terfa’ r-responsabbiltà għall-irwejjaħ tal-ħut u d-drenaġġ ifur għax, qalet, li qed tieħu l-passi kollha meħtieġa fl-impjant tagħha f’Ħal-Far.  

Il-binja li fiha illum hemm l-impjant għall-iproċessar ta’ prodotti tat-tonn kien approvat permezz ta’ applikazzjoni li ma tieħux ħin u dan riżultat ta’ emendi għar-regolamenti tal-ippjanar magħrufa bħala proċeduri tad-DNO (Development Notification Order). Fil-prattika dan elimina l-konsultazzjoni pubblika fil-kaz ta’ xogħolijiet ta’ kostruzzjoni f’żoni industrijali. Riżultat ta’ hekk ħadd ma kien jaf li nhar is-16 ta’ Marzu 2021, l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ħarġet il-permess ta’ żvilupp bir-referenza DN01359/20 għall-binja tal-impjant fuq il-Plot 36B fiż-żona Industrijali ta’ Ħal-Far. Il-permess ħareġ f’isem Dr Charlon Gouder, CEO ta’ Aquaculture Resources Limited.

Il-konsultazzjoni pubblika bdiet biss f’Ġunju 2022, ftit wara l-elezzjoni ġenerali. Dan seħħ permezz ta’ dokumentazzjoni dwar il-proċess li jwassal għal permess ambjentali magħruf bħala applikazzjioni IPPC. L-ittri IPPC jfissru Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control u l-proċess hu regolat b’direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewropeja li ġġib dan l-isem u li ilha parti mill-liġi Maltija sa minn meta Malta issieħbet fl-Unjoni fl-2004.

Id-Direttiva IPPC hi intenzjonata biex ikun assigurat li l-impatti ambjentali ta’ numru ta’ proċessi industrijali jkunu indirizzati b’mod integrat. L-impjant tal-prodotti tat-tonn hu soġġett għal din id-Direttiva.

Riżultat ta’ hekk hu meħtieġ il-presentazzjoni ta’ dokumentazzjoni dettaljata teknika li permezz tagħha jkun ċar dwar kif ser issir il-ħidma industrijali, dwar l-impatti ambjentali riżultanti kif ukoll dwar kif inhu ippjanat li dawn ikunu indirizzati.

Din id-dokumentazzjoni ġiet ippreżentata u wara li kienet eżaminata mill-ERA ħareġ il-permess għall-impjant biex jipproċessa l-fdalijiet tat-tonn.

Il-problemi bdew kif beda jopera l-impjant hekk kif beda l-proċess biex l-apparat istallat ikun ikkummissjonat. Jiena infurmat li d-ditta li mingħandha inxtara l-apparat ma ntalbitx biex tieħu ħsieb ukoll li dan ikun ikkummissjonat. Mid-dehra dawk li ġew inkarigati ma tantx kellhom esperjenza f’dan ix-xogħol, kif jidher, wara kollox mir-riżultati miksuba.  

Forsi l-ERA tiftaħ investigazzjoni biex ikun stabilit mhux biss x’ġara imma ukoll min kien responsabbli. Għax hu essenzjali li jkun assigurat li kull min kien involut, inkluż l-ERA, jitgħallem minn din l-esperjenza. Din hi froġa li nħolqot mis-settur privat minkejja li kien qed jaħdem taħt is-superviżjoni tal-ERA! Anke proġett tajjeb irnexxielhom b’inkompetenza kbira jeqirduh!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: 18 ta’ Diċembru 2022

The art of messing up

The processing plant for Tuna By-Products at Ħal-Far had the potential to be a significant project contributing to the development of the circular economy in Malta. Like many other things it has been messed up.

On paper it was a first-class project. In practice, so far, it is developing into another disaster. Titbits of information which have come my way indicate that eventually it will most probably result that cost-cutting relative to commissioning of the equipment installed in the processing plant is the primary cause of the developing mess.

The end result of this mess-up is that of transforming a potential positive into an absolute negative. The effects of this will be felt for quite some time as it has reinforced the existing mistrust of the authorities who have proven once more that they are incapable of guiding a beneficial project to fruition!

Birżebbuġa is once more shouldering all the resulting inconvenience as it has been doing for many years relative to other industrial operations in the area.  The assault on Birżebbuġa over the years has negatively impacted the quality of life of its residents. The Freeport Terminal tops the list with its round-the-clock inconvenience. It is only relatively recently that this inconvenience has started being addressed.

To add insult to injury the Ħal-Far Industrial Estate will shortly also host a racetrack, the funds for which have already been allocated through the monies collected from the sale of golden passports!  

The latest affront on Birżebbuġa has been the operations of Aquaculture Resources Ltd which commenced earlier this year, and specifically the result of fishy effluent ending up in residential areas in Birżebbuġa.  The management of Aquaculture Resources Ltd has refused to take responsibility for the unbearable fish odours and sewage leaks that have affected the area, stating that the  company has taken measures to contain smells within the tuna by-product processing  plant. 

The building envelope of the tuna byproduct processing plant was approved through a fast-track procedure made possible some years back through amendments to the Development Notification Order. This, in practice, eliminated public consultation for construction works in industrial estates.  As a result, no-one was aware that on 16 March 2021 the Planning Authority issued a development permit bearing reference DN 01359/20 for the Construction of a Tuna Rending Factory on Plot 36B of Ħal-Far Industrial Estate. The permit was issued to Dr Charlon Gouder, the CEO of Aquaculture Resources Limited.

The public consultation only commenced in June 2022, after the general elections, through the publication of the documentation for the environmental permitting process known as the IPPC application. IPPC referring to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control as regulated by the EU Directive bearing that name and forming part of Maltese law since EU accession in 2004.

The IPPC Directive seeks to ensure that there is one integrated process addressing the environmental impacts resulting from a number of industrial processes. The tuna byproduct processing plant is subject to this regulatory process.

The IPPC regulatory process requires the presentation of detailed technical documentation relative to the proposed industrial process, the resulting environmental impacts and the manner in which it is proposed to address these same impacts.

This documentation was compiled and after being examined by ERA an operating permit for the Tuna byproduct processing plant was issued.

The problems started with the commencement of operations which were initiated in order to carry out the commissioning of the supplied equipment. I am informed that the suppliers of the equipment were not entrusted to carry out the commissioning. Apparently, those entrusted with the commissioning did not have sufficient experience: the results achieved so far are indicative enough of this fact.

Someday maybe ERA will commission an investigation into what went wrong and who was responsible for the resulting mess.  This is essential in order to ensure that lessons are learnt by all those involved. This is a mess created by the private sector subject to supervision by ERA! They have managed to mess up a good project.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 18 December 2022

A stinking amnesty

 

The planning amnesty which Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri launched last week to regularise development illegalities that cannot be addressed through a proper application of planning policies is a throwback to the Stone Age of land use planning in Malta.

While land use planning in Malta has been and  always will be the most controversial of activities of public bodies, it has to be stated that, since 1992, the Planning Authority (warts and all) has developed into the most transparent government authority. It could be much more transparent but no one in his right senses doubts that, to date, it still surpasses all the other government departments and authorities in issues of transparency.

Applications for the issuance of a development permit are publicised through a site notice and on the Planning Authority website, as well as in the Malta Government Gazette. On the Planning Authority website one can also examine the exact proposal, as all the drawings submitted can be viewed online. On the basis of this available  information, it is possible to submit to the Planning Authority observations about – and objections to – the development proposal , which observations and objections have to be addressed when the final report on the particular application is drawn up recommending approval or refusal of the development proposal.

To date there is one exception, commonly referred to as the DNO  (Development Notification Order) application which is a fast-track application process. Generally, this type of application is non-controversial and involves minor or straightforward applications. However, recently the Planning Authority considered that it was advisable to reduce the number of cases to which the DNO process applies, thereby widening the number of proposals for development which are subject to public consultation.

Legal Notice 285 of 2016, published under the authority of Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri, stands in stark contrast to all this and stinks. Entitled Regularisation of Existing Development Regulations 2016, these regulations establish the procedures to be followed in order to regularise existing development illegalities. We have to thank Dr Schembri for small mercies, as she excluded illegal ODZ developments from the regularisation process. However, she did not consider it appropriate to similarly exclude illegal developments in UCAs (Urban Conservation Areas) or illegalities concerning scheduled or protected properties.

Nor is there a distinction between minor illegalities and major illegalities. Had the proposed regularisation process sought to sanction minor illegalities, matters would have been substantially different and most probably the proposal would have been acceptable. This would be so even though most of the minor illegalities would most probably not require an amnesty. Most can easily be dealt with within the parameters of existing policies and regulations. These cases of minor illegalities are, in fact, the perfect camouflage for the major illegalities.

To ensure that this camouflage works as planned, Legal Notice 285 of 2016 makes short shrift of the transparency process by ensuring that it is not applicable to applications for the regularisation of illegal developments. The legal notice, in its regulation 5, emphasises only one exception, which is those cases where an illegal development was subject to an enforcement order. In such cases where an enforcement order would have been issued “following the submission of a formal complaint by third parties” the said third parties will be informed that an application has been submitted for the regularisation of the illegalities and they will be given the opportunity to be considered “interested parties”.

In all other cases, contrary to the provisions of the Development Planning Act of 2016, no one has the right to be considered an interested party. This can be stated with certainty as being a specific objective in view of the fact the regulation 3 of Legal Notice clearly spells out its objectives, which are: “to lay down procedures by which any person may request the regularisation of an existing irregular development.”

The legal notice makes no provision either for access to information about the proposals submitted or on the timeframe for submissions of observations and/or objections by interested third parties other than by the solitary exception referred to previously.

This is the state of affairs which led four environmental NGOs – Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Friends of the Earth (Malta) and Ramblers Association – to submit in Court a judicial protest in which they insisted that the government cannot ignore the transparency provisions of the Development Planning Act 2016 when considering whether to regularise illegal development. These applications have to be publicised and the public has a right to scrutinise them as well as submit comments and objections when they consider these to be appropriate.

There is only one simple question to ask: why this stink?

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 4 September 2016

L-isfiduċja fil-MEPA tkompli tissaħħaħ

 

Barra mill-Imdina, f’Howard Gardens, dal-għodu flimkien ma’ Astrid Vella mill-FAA u l-ambjentalista Alfred Baldacchino indirizzajt konferenza stampa dwar xogħol li qed isir mill-Kunsill Lokali tal-Imdina.

Ix-xogħol jinvolvi tħaffir u tneħħija ta’ ħamrija jidher li ġie approvat mill-MEPA bil-proċedura tad-DNO. Jiġifieri mingħajr il-ħtieġa ta’ applikazzjoni. In-notifika ġġib in-numru DN 2085/15 u jidher li ħarġet nhar l-4 ta’ Novembru li għadda.

Dan imur kontra dak li jgħidu ir-regolamenti għax dan it-tip ta’ approvazzjoni l-MEPA ma tistax taghtiha f’żoni skedati jew protetti.

Normalment dan it-tip ta’ permessi jsiru b’applikazjoni li dwarha jkun hemm perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni. Fl-aħħar, jekk u meta tapprova, l-MEPA taħtar lil xi ħadd biex jissorvejla u dan minħabba li mhux ħaga rari li meta jsir it-tħaffir fir-Rabat/Mdina li jinstabu fdalijiet storiċi.

Dan kollu ma sarx.

Biex tkompli tgħaqqadha, għal ħin twil ma kien hemm l-ebda informazzjoni elettronika fuq il-website tal-MEPA. Kien biss reċentment li din l-informazzjoni tfaċċat.

Dawn huma affarijiet li jkomplu jsaħħu l-isfiduċja fil-MEPA.

 

Meta ħadd ma jkun qed jagħti każ

 

 

Meta kważi ħadd ma jkun qed jagħti każ, nhar il-Ġimgħa 14 t’Awwissu 2015, waranofsinnhar, il-Gvern ippubblika żewġ emendi għar-regolamenti li jikkonċernaw il-bini.

Jidher li l-iskop ta’ dawn l-emendi hi li żvilupp li jsir fil-konfini tal-isptarijiet ta’ Għawdex, Mater Dei, Monte Carmeli, St Luke’s u San Vinċenż, ma jkunux jirrikjedu permess sakemm dan l-iżvilupp ikollu x’jaqsam ma kura medika.

Ir-regolamenti li ġew emendati huma tnejn: dawk imsejħa DNO, jiġifieri L-Ordni dwar in-Notifikazzjoni dwar Żvilupp, u r-regolamenti tal-EIA.

L-ewwel emendi, dawk għad-DNO jistabilixxu li żvilupp li għandu x’jaqsam ma sptarijiet hu permess mingħajr ħtieġa la ta’ applikazzjoni u l-anqas ta’ notifika.

It-tieni sett ta’ emendi għar-regolamenti tal-EIA jeżenta żvilupp fl-isptarijiet li semmejt iktar il-fuq minn EIA.

 

Dawn l-emendi saru mingħajr diskussjoni u mingħajr l-ebda konsultazzjoni nhar l-14 t’Awwissu 2015 meta bosta jkunu bil-vakanzi.

Ifissru li dak li jagħmel il-Gvern fl-isptarijiet, issa, l-MEPA m’għandha l-ebda kontroll fuqu. Il-Gvern qed jagħti lilu innifsu l-awtorita li jagħmel li jrid u b’hekk qed idawwar l-arloġġ lura għal qabel l-1992 meta għall-ewwel darba l-Gvern beda hu ukoll japplika għall-permessi tal-bini.

Mela fejn jidħlu l-isptarijiet il-Gvern qed ipoġġi lilu innifsu il-fuq mil-liġi. Għalfejn? It-tweġiba għalija hi ovvja: għandu żewġ proġetti għall-isptar t’Għawdex u St Luke’s li dwarhom wasal f’xi forma ta’ ftehim ma’ żviluppaturi barranin u dak li ftiehem irid iwettqu mingħajr ma jindaħallu ħadd.

 

 

My watch at the Audit Office

My watch at the Audit Office of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority came to an abrupt end some five years ago in circumstances which were then described as being a direct threat from Mepa to the independence of its Audit Officer.

The resulting public controversy saw the Ombudsman’s intervention in the summer of 2007 with his well-articulated solution to develop his office as the base for functions such as those of the Mepa Audit Office. As a result of their being based at the Ombudsman’s Office, these functions would be guaranteed the protection of that office: the best way of ensuring the office holder’s independence.

It was a bold step which unfortunately took five years to implement. It is only now that the first steps leading to the migration of the Mepa Audit Office functions to the Ombudsman’s Office have been initiated.

At this point it is pertinent to highlight some of the achievements of the Mepa Audit Office, which notwithstanding its independence being constantly threatened in its first four years of existence, still managed to deliver.

I state that the Audit Office’s independence was threatened during the first four years of its existence purposely, as when Minister George Pullicino and his sidekick, then Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja, relinquished their hold on Mepa in 2008, in this respect matters slowly drifted back to normality.

The Mepa Audit Office faced an uphill battle. During the period 2004-8, Mepa opposed the basic rules of decent governance. It continuously objected to informing complainants of the conclusions of investigations, which conclusions were based on facts unearthed generally from the authority’s files but at times also as a result of interviewing Mepa staff.

The Audit Officer considered that communicating the conclusions of investigations to complainants was essential in order that they would be in a position to understand the reasons justifying or otherwise the complaints submitted.

On my watch the Mepa Audit Office carried out a large number of investigations. Some concerned hot topics of the day and made it to the front pages of various newspapers and at times headline news on local TV stations.

I single out one very important investigation which illustrates the manner of operation of Mepa.

The investigation took a cue from a report in The Times entitled Tensioned Structure Raises Winemaker’s Ire, published on January 27, 2006. This investigation was in effect an inquiry focusing on the chairman, Mr Calleja, and his method of operation.

It resulted that on a specific site a number of notifications in terms of the Development Notification Order were refused for reasons which were detailed in the respective files. Subsequently other notifications were submitted on the same site, these being approved!

The investigation revealed that the case officer had been given specific instructions on how to deal with the notifications under consideration after the prospective developer had a meeting with the Mepa chairman accompanied by other Mepa officials (report 2006-031 dated March 13, 2006). Mr Calleja lost his cool and considered the report of the Audit Office as an “unwarranted intrusion in administrative measures adopted by Mepa”.

In addition, 25 days after the report was issued, on April 7, 2006, the Environment Minister had a meeting with the Audit Officer. During this meeting the minister informed the Audit Officer that he had instructed Mepa that my contract of employment, which was to expire later in the month, was not to be renewed.

In a letter dated April 11, 2006, the Audit Officer explained to the minister in writing how his action was a direct threat to the independence of the Audit Office:

“Your action would seriously undermine the independence of the Audit Office… Unfortunately since its inception the Audit Office has met with, at best, lukewarm support from the chairman and in certain cases outright hostility. If the post of audit officer was to depend on the goodwill of the chairman or the minister, than its role would be superfluous and its work can effectively be carried out by the personal staff of the minister.”

The audit officer concluded his letter by tendering his resignation.

The minister’s instructions were later withdrawn, as late in April 2006 my contract of employment was renewed for one year.

Twelve months later more drastic action was taken.

In 2007 the renewal of the Audit Officer’s appointment, which required approval by Parliament’s Select Committee, was delayed until such time that my contract had expired.

As no audit officer was then in office no request could be submitted for my contract’s renewal. He could only request my reinstatement when his appointment was renewed.But this was ignored.

This is the sequence of events which led to the migration of the Audit Office function from Mepa to the Ombudsman’s Office.

It was essential to ensure the independence of the office-holder at all times.

Published in The Times of Malta Saturday August 18, 2012