Ir-riforma tal-MEPA: pass lura

(cartoon ta’ Steve Bonello : http://www.stevebonellocartoons.com)

Wara li teżamina d-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni ippubblikat mill-Gvern dwar ir-riforma tal-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art intitolat For an Efficient Planning System ma tista’ tasal għall-ebda konkluzjoni ħlief li dan hu pass lura. Iċ-ċokon tal-pajjiż għandu jwassal għal konsolidazzjoni  mhux għal frammentazzjoni tal-funzjonijiet ta’ governanza ambjentali.

Kien ikun iktar għaqli li kieku l-ambjent u l-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art baqgħu t-tnejn fl-istess Awtorita’. Il-konsolidazzjoni f’awtorita’ waħda li seħħet tnax-il sena ilu kienet pass il-quddiem li iżda ma kenitx segwita bl-allokazzjoni ta’ iktar riżorsi għad-Direttorat tal-Ambjent. Il-membri tal-Bord tal-MEPA li nħatru tul is-snin ma kienux kapaċi jagħrfu l-importanza ta’ iktar emfasi fuq ir-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tal-MEPA. Id-Direttorat tal-Ambjent inħonoq u ma tħalliex jiżviluppa leħnu.

Id-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni jiffoka fuq l-effiċjenza tal-proċess tal-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art. Taħt dan l-iskop ġeneriku jnaqqas il-protezzjoni għaż-żona barra l-iżvilupp, għall-bini protett  u għaż-żoni protetti.

Sal-lum, bl-emendi tal-2010, zvilupp  bla permess barra miż-żona ta’ żvilupp, jew bdil f’bini protett inkella żvilupp f’zona protetta, ma setax ikun sanzjonat. Dan kien wieħed mill-ftit passi l-quddiem li seħħew fil-passat mhux mertu tal-Gvern ta’ dakinnhar iżda riżultat tal-pressjoni tal-opinjoni pubblika, tas-soċjeta’ ċivili u anke, għax le, mertu ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika. Dawn l-irregolaritajiet issa, f’isem l-effiċjenza,ser ikun possibbli li jkunu regolarizzati. Dan hu pass lura u ser jippremja lil min abbuża u li bl-emendi tal-2010 inqabad fuq sieq waħda.

Id-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni dwar l-ippjanar jipproponi ukoll li l-iskedar ikun ikkunsidrat mill-ġdid wara 10 snin. Din il-proposta ukoll hi pass lura għax ser isservi biex tinkoraġgixxi n-nuqqas ta’ ħarsien tal-patrimionju tagħna u dan billi taghti tama li min ihares lejn l-iskedar bħala xkiel. Tagħtih tama li b’xi mod ikun jista’ jirranġa hu ukoll.

Id-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni ftit li xejn jitkellem dwar il-kompozizzjoni tal-Bordijiet tal-Ippjanar. Alternattiva Demokratika, kif anke saħqet fil-manifest elettorali għall-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013, jidhrilha li wasal iż-żmien li ma jibqax ikun hemm involviment dirett tal-Membri Parlamentari fit-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet tal-ippjanar tal-uzu tal-art. Ir-rwol tal-Parlament permezz tal-kumitati tiegħu għandu jiffoka fuq is-sorveljanza tal-awtorita’, inkluż li jgħarbel il-ħatriet li jagħmel il-Gvern.

Id-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni dwar l-ippjanar konsistentement ifittex li jħares l-interessi ta’ min irid jiżviluppa l-art iżda fl-ebda parti tiegħu ma jfittex li jħares l-interessi tal-komunita. F’ħafna każi t-tħaffif u l-għaġġla tal-proċess tal-ħruġ tal-permessi ta’ żvilupp ser ifisser inqas ħarsien  għad-drittijiet ta’ terzi u għall-ħarsien tal-ispazji pubbliċi, ta’ bini skedat u żoni protetti.

Għaldaqstant, meta wieħed iħares b’mod komplessiv lejn id-dokument ta’ konsultazzjoni huwa ċar li l-proposta tal-Gvern hi pass lura.

Snippets from AD’s electoral manifesto: (9) Against Fragmentation (of Environmental Governance)

The following extract is taken verbatim from Chapter 14 of AD’s Electoral Manifesto

Against Fragmentation.

MEPA which was established in 2002 through the amalgamation of the Planning Authority and the Department for the Environment has been generally ineffective in carrying out its duty of protecting the environment. This has come about because as a result of the structures created, even after the so-called 2010 reforms, the environmental function of MEPA has been entrusted in the hands of those who consistently indicated that their interest was in encouraging unbridled development. The Directorate for the Protection of the Environment is suffocated and can hardly act except in some exceptional case where it would be to the political benefit of Government.

In addition to this there is a serious problem resulting from the spreading of various environmental responsibilities under different Ministries and Authorities. Fragmentation reduces the effectiveness of any action taken.

In the past AD focused on the need to separate the environmental function from the land use planning function. This emphasis was made as the basic problem then was that the environment protection function was continuously over-ruled by those bent on development at all costs.

AD is today proposing a different solution. This solution is intended to address environment protection and identify it as a central function whilst simultaneously addressing the existing fragmentation: this can be carried out by consolidating all the environmental functions in one authority. We thus propose that MEPA and the Malta Resources Authority (MRA) are brought together in one authority. In a consolidated authority the environmental function should be central and should lead the Planning Directorate to take a secondary role.

The consolidated authority will eliminate existing duplication and will thus lead to a better utilisation of resources as well as trained staff currently on the books at MEPA and MRA .

L-Estratt segwenti hu mehud kelma b’kelma mill-Kapitlu 14 tal-Manifest Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

Kontra l-Frammentazzjoni.

Il-MEPA li inħolqot fl-2002 bl-amalgamazzjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u d-Dipartiment tal-Ambjent kienet ħafna drabi ineffettiva fil-qadi ta’ dmirha li tħares l-ambjent. Dan minħabba li bl-istruttura li nħolqot, anke wara l-hekk imsejħa riforma tal-2010 il-ħidma ambjentali tal-MEPA hi fdata f’idejn min konsistentement wera li l-interess tiegħu hu li jinkoraġġixxi l-iżvilupp bla rażan. Id-Direttorat għall-Ħarsien tal-Ambjent fil-MEPA hu maħnuq u ftit li xejn jista’ jaġixxi għajr f’xi eċċezzjoni fejn ikun jaqbel politikament għall-Gvern.

B’żieda ma’ dan hemm problema kbira kkawżata minn responsabbiltajiet ambjentali mifruxa fuq diversi Ministeri u awtoritajiet. Il-frammentazzjoni tnaqqas l-effettività tal-ħidma li ssir.

Fil-passat Alternattiva Demokratika iffokat fuq il-ħtiega tas-separazzjoni tal-funzjoni ambjentali mill-funzjoni tal-ippjanar dwar l-użu tal-art. Din l-enfażi kienet saret minħabba li l-problema prinċipali dakinnhar kienet li l-ħarsien tal-ambjent kien maħnuq minn dawk li riedu jmexxu ’l quddiem l-iżvilupp bla rażan tal-art.

Alternattiva Demokratika illum qed tipproponi soluzzjoni differenti. Din is-soluzzjoni hi intiża biex tindirizza l-importanza li l-ħarsien tal-ambjent ikun il-mutur li jmexxi, iżda ukoll li tkun indirizzat l-frammentazzjoni u dan billi jkunu kkonsolidati l-funzjonijiet ambjentali f’awtorità waħda. Nipproponu għalhekk li jingħaqdu f’awtorità waħda l-MEPA u l-Awtorità dwar ir-Riżorsi (MRA). Fl-awtorità kkonsolidata, il-funzjoni ambjentali għandha tkun dik ċentrali u għandha sservi biex id-Direttorat tal-Ippjanar jieħu funzjoni sekondarja.

L-awtorità kkonsolidata telimina d-duplikazzjoni eżistenti u b’hekk isservi biex ikunu utilizzati aħjar il-faċilitajiet u l-istaff imħarreġ li hemm illum fil-MEPA u l-MRA.

Parties in cahoots with squatters

Earlier this month, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s environment and planning commission, which deals with applications outside the development zone, turned down an application by Enemalta Corporation for the construction of a substation at L-Aħrax in the limits of Mellieħa. The planning directorate itself had recommended the refusal of this application.

This substation aimed at reinforcing the supply of electricity in L-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa with Enemalta effectively posting the message that the crime of taking over public property does pay.

While Alternattiva Demokratika and seven environmental NGOs opposed this application, both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party have not uttered one single word on Enemalta’s attempt at ensuring that the squatters are adequately supplied with electricity. Clearly, the PN and the PL think that being silent is essential in view of their commitments to purchase votes through squatters taking over public property.

The PL and the PN have not taken up the challenge spelt out by the greens to go public on their position relative to the illegal development of boathouses at L-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa, that is at Armier, Little Armier and It-Torri l-Abjad.

During the Mepa reform exercise, the Prime Minister repeatedly emphasised that “ODZ is ODZ”, meaning that no development will be authorised or permitted outside the development zone unless really necessary.

Dr Gonzi tried to convey the message that his safe pair of hands would ensure that abusive development would now grind to a halt. Yet, on the eve of the 2008 general election, Dr Gonzi participated in secret meetings with the illegal boathouse lobby which considers that its members have some god-given right over the public land that they have taken hold of. The result of those meetings was a PN commitment to protect illegal development carried out before 1992 on public land.

At stake are 230 tumoli of land (26 hectares), which, since way back in 2003, on the eve of another election, the PN-led government had agreed to transfer to the squatters’ holding company, Armier Developments Limited. The agreement between the government and the squatters’ holding company indicates a lease for 65 years against payment of €366,000 per annum. To date, this agreement has not been submitted for Parliament’s approval in terms of the Disposal of Government Land Act.

The squatters also expected the PL to protect their illegal constructions, which agreement was forthcoming. The newsletter Il-Bajja, published by the squatters, in October 2007 had referred to a meeting with the then Leader of the Opposition, Alfred Sant. It said that he had promised to honour an earlier agreement with the squatters, which was entered into way back in 2002.

As far as is known, Joseph Muscat has not repudiated Labour’s agreement with the squatters.

During this legislature, Minister Jason Azzopardi has embarked on a crusade of evicting squatters from public property including clearing squares and pavements of encroachments by restaurants and open air cafés. His staff members were meticulous in ensuring that an extra chair or table not covered by a permit was removed forthwith.

While noting and acting on the odd chair or table, Dr Azzopardi has turned the Nelson’s eye to the large-scale use of public land by the squatters at L-Aħrax tal-Mellieha. In so doing, he has applied the policy of being strong with the weak and weak with the strong.

Former Minister Michael Falzon wrote in an article entitled They Never Heard Of Jason Azzopardi (Malta Today, February 15, 2009) that he (Mr Falzon) was not supported by his Cabinet colleagues when, as the minister responsible for land use planning, he tried to clean up the Mellieħa boathouse mess. He was left “to burn my fingers alone, nay, my palms, arms and body. The lack of support from my then Cabinet colleagues – let alone the then backbench – was overwhelming. I could almost hear them chant: ‘Burn, Michael, burn!’”

It is clear that the PN is committed to supporting the illegal development on public land. By being silent on the issue, Labour too supports the PN’s stand without any reservations.

This is the new politics of Labour and the PN: being in cahoots with the squatters in order to exchange votes for public land, which they have occupied illegally for years. It is an issue on which PL and PN policies converge!

The environmental NGOs campaigning for a resolution of the illegal development at L-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa undoubtedly understand that there is only one way through which the land used by the squatters is restored and returned to public ownership and use. This can only be achieved through the election of green members of Parliament. The others are committed to supporting the squatters as they have been doing throughout the years.

There is no other way. If you seek real change, voting green is the only option. The others are compromised.

published in The Times on Saturday January 21, 2012

Il-MEPA u r-residenti ta’ Birżebbuġa : inkompetenti jew kompliċi ?

Fil-permess dwar id-dredging fil-Freeport il-MEPA imponiet kundizzjoni li ma jistax isir xogħol ta’ dredging waqt l-istaġun tal-għawm.

Minkejja dan il-Freeport ser jagħmel ix-xogħol xorta, waqt l-istaġun tal-għawm .

Il-Freeport minkejja l-kundizzjonijiet tal-permess jidher li “irranġa”.  Il-kundizzjonijiet tal-permess tal-MEPA ġew ma  jiswew xejn !

Il-MEPA għal darba oħra uriet li hi b’saħħitha ma min hu dgħajjef (ir-residenti ta’ Birżebbuġa) u dgħajfa ma’ min u b’saħħtu (mal-Freeport).

Ir-riforma tal-MEPA jidher li ma swiet għal xejn. Għax min hu b‘saħħtu baqa’ jagħmel li jrid. Il-MEPA jew hi inkompetenti inkella kompliċi.

Past mistakes, present-day decisions

by Carmel Cacopardo

published on Saturday June 12, 2010

___________________________________________________________________________________

“Our environment is too small to afford to suffer any more mistakes than we have already committed in the past, sometimes even in the name of tourism and progress.” This was not stated by AD chairman Michael Briguglio but by Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco with reference to the pending Ħondoq ir-Rummien Mepa application (The Sunday Times, May 30).

In considering large projects for development permission, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is not considering environmental and social impacts adequately, opting instead to focus on perceived short-term economic gains. Unfortunately, the paths leading to decisions are guided by experts who should know better.

Some time ago, Mepa approved the extension of the Malta Freeport. In the process, it ignored that such an extension gobbled up the existing buffer zone established way back in 1995. The end result will be a Freeport operating area that is much closer to the Birżebbuġa residential area. The Freeport as it is operating already severely impacts the daily lives of the Birżebbuġa residents. Making things worse will only raise tensions and the loss of at least part of the accumulated social capital of the locality. No amount of mitigation will ever restore what is being lost with Mepa’s blessings.

In deciding on the matter, Mepa has been misguided by an EIA process, which, being financed by the developer, had an interest to shift attention on the over-emphasised perceived economic gains, simultaneously downplaying social and environmental impacts.

The Ħondoq ir-Rummien project seems to be the next issue which further highlights the developing tensions between the residential community and those interested in making a fast buck. The proposal, which involves substantial rock excavation, aims to develop a 170-room hotel, 25 villas, 60 self-catering apartments, 200 residences, parking space and a 150-berth yacht marina.

This proposed development will squeeze out the current uses at Ħondoq ir-Rummien. It will conflict with the public recreational uses the Gozitans and Maltese alike make of the area.

Jeremy Boissevain, in a report commissioned by the Qala local council, has highlighted that the massive scale of the project will practically double the Qala population. The local community has not accepted the proposed intrusion into their lives, which the proposed project suggests. As evidenced by the local referendum held in Qala some years back, the community does not consider the economic aspect on its own. Rather, it should be weighed and compared to the environmental and social impacts it will necessarily generate.

The social and environmental externalities of the project are being repeatedly downplayed by those who want to cash in on the economic benefits such a project will undoubtedly generate for the few. After having cashed in the benefits of property speculation aimed at a 70 per cent foreigner occupancy target, they will then leave the community to carry the burdens and pay the costs, deprived of basic facilities which, to date, have been much used by the public.

Mepa has yet to decide on this project and there is no way of knowing the direction such a decision would take. It is however logical to assume that the line of reasoning the current Mepa board has applied in other cases is of relevance. Hence, the validity of Dr de Marco’s warning on the need to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, not even on behalf of  “tourism and progress”.

The government is aware that, to date, it has given conflicting signals. Very late in the day, it is realising that it cannot run with the proverbial hares while simultaneously hunting with the hounds. The current state of affairs is the direct result of the ambivalent attitude to environmental issues by politicians from the major parties which have developed the skill of quickly switching mode depending on their audience.

The causes are various.

AD is on record as pointing to two immediate solutions: firstly regulating the funding of political parties and, secondly, for the government to share with the community the process of appointing the Mepa decision-makers, by having the appointees subjected to a public hearing prior to their being appointed.

The major political parties are hostage to the construction industry. This is also evident by the reluctance of Parliament to legislate on party political funding. The parliamentary select committee appointed two years ago has, to date, been ineffective in this respect. Likewise, the Mepa reform process will result in a wasted opportunity, as while it will tinker with a number of issues, it will retain the most essential matters requiring reform untouched.

It is one thing to speak on past mistakes and quite another to move up the learning curve. Past mistakes will most probably be reflected in present-day decisions. At least for the time being.

I hope that I will be proven wrong.

original at Times of Malta website

Il-Parlament u l-MEPA

24 ta’ Frar 2010

________________________________________________________

Matul il-ġranet li ġejjin fil-Parlament se tibda d-diskus­sjoni dwar ir-riforma tal-MEPA.

Meta teżamina l-proposti li l-Gvern qiegħed jippreżenta biex jemenda l-liġi biex jagħti bidu għar-riforma tal-MEPA ssib li l-iktar affarijiet essenzjali huma neqsin. Dan ta’ bilfors iwassal għal mistoqsija, allura din x’riforma se tkun?

Jien dejjem sostnejt li għalkemm dejjem se jkun hemm x’tirranġa fil-MEPA, il-problema fundamentali mhumiex il-‘policies’ iżda min jinterpretahom. Jiġifieri kemm ikunu kapaċi jaqdu dmirhom il-membri li jinħatru fuq il-Bord u l-Kummissjonijiet tal-MEPA.

Għaġina

Mhux waħdi li smajt l-istejjer dwar x’ġara fil-passat, kemm riċenti kif ukoll imbiegħed. Ħafna minnhom huma pubbliċi. Uħud minnhom huma pruvabbli, oħrajn diffiċli ħafna li ssib il-provi dwarhom għax il-kobba mħabbla sew.

Il-punt dejjem hu jekk min jinħatar huwiex ta’ fibra. Sfortunatament dan mhux dejjem kien il-każ u għalhekk il-MEPA hi fl-istat li hi llum. Għax filwaqt li min inħatar mhux dejjem għaraf jirreżisti għall-pressjoni, sfortunatament kien hemm min inħatar apposta biex iservi ta’ ‘remote control’ għal ħaddieħor. F’dan il-każ il-kwalifika prinċipali tiegħu kienet li kien kapaċi jkun għaġina f’idejn ħadd­ieħor.

Il-funzjoni

X’inhi l-funzjoni tal-MEPA? Fil-fehma tiegħi l-MEPA għandha tkun il-garanti tal-komunità kollha li l-oqsma li għalihom hi responsabbli jitmexxew sew. Sfortunatament bosta drabi l-MEPA dehret kompliċi biex ikun hemm min tgħaddi tiegħu minkejja kollox. Il-messaġġ li ħareġ kien wieħed ċar ħafna, li minkejja l-formalitajiet u r-regoli kollha, id-deċiżjonijiet il-kbar u l-iktar iebsin, diversi drabi kellhom tiċpisa partiġ­ġjana. Jiġifieri iktar minn deċiżjonijiet li dwarhom kien hemm ġustifikazzjoni teknika ambjentali u ta’ ppjanar fl-użu tal-art, fejn kien hemm ġbid lejn il-politika tal-Gvern tal-ġurnata.

Hu dan li r-riforma teħtieġ li tindirizza u dan fil-fatt qiegħed jiġi injorat apposta, bi ħsieb.

Rieda tajba

Il-ħatra tal-membri tal-Bord tal-MEPA hi ta’ importanza fundamentali fl-eżerċizzju kollu li qiegħed isir.

Għax anke jekk nikkonċedi rieda tajba fil-proċess kollu tar-riforma, jekk din ir-rieda tajba tissarrafx jew le, se jiddependi minn bnedmin tad-demm u l-laħam li ma jkunux lesti li jitgħawġu. Kif se jsir dan?

Il-Parlament

Il-Bord tal-MEPA ma jistax jaħtar lilu nnifsu! Alternattiva Demokratika sa minn qabel l-elezzjoni tal-2008, kienet ipproponiet li l-Parlament għandu jkollu rwol ikbar fil-mod kif jintgħażlu n-nies li jmexxu l-MEPA. Il-Parlament għandu jiżviluppa rwol bħal dak tas-Senat Amerikan li jagħrbel u japprova ħatriet ta’ importanza nazzjonali, anke jekk in-nomini jibqgħu jsiru mill-Gvern tal-ġurnata. Naħsbu li l-Gvern m’għandux jaħtar bħala membri tal-Bord tal-MEPA persuni li dwarhom, il-Kumitat Magħżul tal-Parlament dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar ikollu diffikultà.

Id-diffikultà tista’ tkun kemm dwar kompetenza kif ukoll dwar sebgħa dritt.

Għandu jkun possibli li l-Parlament permezz tal-Kumitat Magħżul dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar jgħarbel fil-pubbliku lil dawk li jkunu se jinħatru. Hekk pereżempju jintgħażlu l-Ambax­xaturi kollha li taħtar l-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika, jinnominahom kollha l-President u jikkonfermahom is-Senat permezz ta’ wieħed mill-Kumitati tiegħu. Fl-Istati Uniti dan isir għall-ambaxxaturi kollha, anke għall-membri tal-Kabinett u għal uħud mill-organizzazzjonijiet tal-Istat Federali.

Jekk għandna nikkopjaw għandna nibdew nikkopjaw sistemi li ġew imfasslin apposta biex l-eżerċizzju tal-poter tal-ħatriet ikun imrażżan. Jekk min jaħtar jagħraf li ħatra importanti trid qabel ma sseħħ tgħaddi mill-passatur tal-opinjoni pubblika, jaħsibha darbtejn dwar min iressaq ’il quddiem. B’hekk forsi jkollna nies fit-tmexxija li jkunu aċċettabbli għal firxa iktar wiesa’ mill-popolazzjoni.

Dan hu rwol importanti li fil-fehma tal-Alternattiva Demokratika għandu jkollu l-Parlament ta’ Malta. Hu aktar importanti milli jibqa’ jaħtar żewġ membri minn tiegħu (kif jagħmel sal-lum) bħala membri tal-Bord tal-MEPA.

Naħseb li l-Membru Parlamentari m’għandux jinvolvi ruħu f’deċiżjoni dwar liema permess għandu joħroġ u liema għandu jinżamm. Iktar importanti li l-Membru Parlamentari jara li dawk li jinħatru jkunu kapaċi jimxu sew. Sfortunatament dan s’issa la sar u lanqas m’hemm il-ħsieb li jsir.

Iżda jekk dan isir, ir-riforma tkun tista’ tagħti l-frott. Jekk le, naħseb li se nibqgħu fejn aħna.

More Voodoo Planning

The proposed Mepa legislation fails to address basic issues bedevilling land use planning and environment protection. It is basically a consolidation of current legislation with some amendments. Important provisions in the Environment Protection Act, such as reference to the National Commission for Sustainable Development, are being repealed. While acknowledging that they may crop up in other legislation, the government has not to date publicly indicated its intentions.

After almost two years of consultations I expected something quite different. There has been no attempt at ensuring that appointees to the Mepa board are at least conversant with planning and environmental issues. If past appointments are any indication of what to expect we will have more voodoo planners. Appointing one Mepa board member from an environmental NGO area of influence will not solve anything. We have been there before with the appointee resigning after a few weeks.

Appointment of architects to boards and commissions is no guarantee that Mepa will function within current policy and legislation. Censurable decisions have been taken by DCCs chaired by architects. Some resigned their posts as a result.

There will always be those who err. In addition to human error, some will err as a result of incompetence and others as a result of pressures applied. In the past, some members of the DCC and the Mepa board have taken up the practice of voodoo planning: discarding their role of applying policy, opting instead to create it.

This is the result of not being aware of their role and not being familiar with planning and environmental policy.

Voodoo planning is also a reaction to pressures applied or perceived in the so-called closed-door meetings. Mepa’s executive committee, for example, has developed the role of advising DCCs as to the manner of deciding particular applications. This unacceptable intrusion into the DCCs competence does not feature in the proposed legislation. It is to date left unregulated.

Through its Select Committee, Parliament should develop the role of a permanent monitor: a spotlight focused on Mepa. It should also have a role in screening the government’s nominees to the Mepa board and DCCs, which screening can be carried out through subjecting such nominees to public hearings. Such hearings can weed out most undesirable appointees. Those with a glaring conflict of interest and those whose only qualification is their political allegiance would be the first casualties. A system through which Parliament’s Select Committee screens potential appointees can also nudge the government into discarding the tradition as a result of which competent individuals not close to the government of the day are not considered for appointment.

MPs should not be able to decide specific planning or environmental applications. Hence, I query whether Parliament should continue appointing two of its members to sit as voting members of the Mepa board. MPs would fulfil their role as representatives of the community much better if they develop Parliament’s monitoring role. Parliaments in other jurisdictions function very effectively in this manner.

Up till 2002, the government was still considering the setting up of a separate authority dealing exclusively with the environment and had, in fact, commissioned and received draft legislation on the subject.

The issue of having two separate authorities, one dealing with land use planning and the other with environmental protection, is not one of principle. It is rather one of ensuring that the environment protection function is not stifled as has been done to date. The environment protection voice has been continuously suffocated, available resources withheld or diverted, with appointments to sensitive environment posts being dished out to persons whose competence and experience was in other fields, primarily land use planning. Coupled with the appointment of boards and commissions insensitive to environmental issues, these attitudes have led to the current state of affairs.

If the government persists in its policy of retaining the environment protection function within Mepa, the least it can do is to embark on recruiting qualified personnel at all levels, thereby reversing the accumulated negative legacy. This includes the need to appoint more members of the Mepa board equipped with a suitable knowledge of environmental protection issues.

A positive aspect of the proposed reform is that the government has re-dimensioned its role in forward planning. While rightly affirming that policy decisions are the role of the politician, Mepa’s role in policy formulation has been retained. In addition, the Ombudsman’s comments on fine-tuning of the consultation process as explained in his report dated April 2007, titled The Duty To Consult And The Right To Be Consulted, have been taken on board.

Land use planning and environmental protection will always be controversial. These are surely not the paths to popularity. Parliament needs to take a more active role as an overseer. While the government has a role in leading the way, Parliament has the duty to ensure that the country’s resources are used in a sustainable manner, holding the government to account in the process.

The Reform of MEPA

Having seen the MEPA reform document as proposed by government I think that it is a positive effort which can generate a fruitful discussion. A number of positive proposals are being put forward. Other proposals should possibly be reconsidered as a result of the public discussion on the proposals which will now commence.

Whilst it has to be stated that MEPA was never a policy maker (it always drafted  policies for the consideration of government) I consider that the detachment of MEPA from policy formulation/drafting is a positive proposal. Likewise the shedding by MEPA of responsibilities which can now be shouldered by other bodies set up since 1992 (the year the Planning Authority was set up)  is a positive development.

I applaude the insistence of the reform document on the need to channel negotiations on proposals for development at Directorate level and away from the Development Control Commission.

However limiting the DCC to a Chairman and two members could be too small in size especially in respect of the DCC dealing with UCAs, ODZ and major projects. The latter DCC would require expertise in more areas that could reasonably be covered by three persons.

The proposal to appoint a full-time DCC has its merits in addressing conflicts of interest of current part-time DCC members who are practising their profession or other calling. The basic issue of the manner of selecting of DCC/Board members has however not been addressed by the reform document.

AD had proposed in the run-up to the 2008 General Elections that whilst government should retain the power to appoint the MEPA Board and DCC members these should be subject to a public hearing by a Parliamentary Committee to ascertain their suitability, a procedure similar to that adopted by the US Senate to vet high level appointments by the US President. All the appointments to the DCC and the MEPA Board are appointments of considerable importance which in my view merit such a procedure.

Government is proposing the presence of a representative of Environmental NGOs  on the MEPA Board. I do not doubt the good intentions behind such a proposal however I think that there are better ways of involving environmentalists in the decision taking  structures of MEPA.  Already in 2006 the Chairman of an eNGO was appointed to the MEPA Board, but he resigned not much later. Even officials of eNGOs  can have conflicts of interests between their duties as representatives of the eNGOs they lead on the one hand and as members of decision taking structures on the other hand. The two functions are oftenly in conflict.

Government is insisting on retaining the environment and land use planning as part of the same authority. AD has expressed reservations in the past on such an administrative solution. These  reservations have been based on the limited resources which in the past have placed the Environment Directorate of MEPA in a position of severe weakness in the MEPA structures, in particular in a position subservient to Land Use Planning.

These are my first reactions.  There are other areas in the document which merit an in-depth discussion but it is considered that the above highlights the major areas of concern.