“L-iskandlu” ta’ Marsaxlokk : il-proposta oriġinali

Diġa inkiteb ħafna dwar dan l-hekk imsejjaħ “skandlu” ta’ Marsaxlokk.

Fuq il-blog tagħha  Daphne Caruana Galizia nhar il-Ħamis 13 ta’ Settembru 2012 ippubblikat il-pjanta finali li kienet tiddetermina ż-żona ta’ żvilupp f’Marsaxlokk. Il-pjanta ippubblikata hi dik bin-numru 73 u turi l-art ta’ ulied il-Perit Mintoff b’faċċata fuq Triq iż-Żejtun bil-kulur maroon li jindika “terraced development” u quddiemu linja safra li juri li hemmhekk hi proġettata triq. Qed nirriproduċi din il-pjanta hawn fuq. L-art fiċ-ċirku aħmar hi dik tal-aħwa Mintoff.

Din il-pjanta li ġiet ippubblikata kif għidt kienet id-deċiżjoni finali li ttieħdet fl-1989.

Pero, żmien qabel, il-Gvern kien ippubblika proposta ta’ pjanta għal konsultazzjoni pubblika. F’din il-konsultazzjoni l-Gvern permezz tal-Ministru li dak iż-żmien kien responsabbli għall-ippjanar : Il-Perit Michael Falzon, kif ukoll it-Taqsima tal-Ippjanar tad-Dipartiment tax-Xogħolijiet (Public Works) stieden kummenti, osservazzjonijiet u sottomissjonijiet. Niftakar li kien possibli li jkun propost permezz ta’ formola apposta u siteplan annessa magħha li xi art li ma kienitx inkluża fil-proposti li saru ikunu ikkunsidrati.

Issa araw din il-pjanta ta’ hawn taħt. Din hi l-pjanta oriġinali dwar l-iżvilupp permissibli f’Marsaxlokk. L-art fic-cirku immarkat bl-aħmar  turi l-art propjeta ta’ ulied il-Perit Mintoff. F’din il-pjanta hu ċar li meta l-Gvern fl-1988 ippreżenta l-pjanta li turi l-iżvilupp permissibli f’Marsaxlokk l-art ta’ ulied il-Perit Mintoff kienet eskluża. Kienet eskluża għax it-tekniċi fit-Taqsima tal-Ippjanar kienu tal-fehma li din l-art ma kelliex tkun żviluppata.

Mela dan hu l-punt reali tat-tluq tad-diskussjoni. Xi ħadd wara li ħarġet din il-pjanta iddeċieda li l-art ta’ ulied il-Perit Mintoff kellha tkun żviluppata. M’huwiex xi sigriet li din id-deċiżjoni ttieħdet mill-Kumitat Magħzul tal-Parlament immexxi mill-Ministru ta’ dak iż-żmien il-Perit Michael Falzon.

X’kienu ir-raġunijiet għal din id-deċiżjoni? S’issa ħadd ma jaf.

Nistennew.

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 

Is-7 ta’ Ġunju : biex insarfu r-rieda popolari

Illum is-7 ta’ Ġunju infakkru ġrajja meta l-poplu Malti qam. Għolla rasu u l-irvell li irriżulta wassal għal l-ewwel Parlament Malti.

L-Ispeaker Michael Frendo din is-sena għamel diskors meqjus dwar il-ħtieġa li l-Parlament jiffunzjona dejjem aħjar.  Michael, kif ilni nafu għal iktar minn 50 sena, ħa bosta inizzjattivi kemm ilu Speaker. Bħala riżultat tagħhom il-Parlament mexa aħjar. Kien hemm xi okkazjonijiet fejn iffaċċa diffikultajiet bħal meta kien hemm min sema’ lil Justyn Caruana d-Deputata Għawdxija tivvota mod u mhux ieħor. Inċident li wassal biex ġie mwaqqaf il-proċess tal-Kumitat Magħżul tal-Kamra li kien qed jiddiskuti bosta materji ta’ importanza. Materji li ilhom jiġu diskussi imma jidher li qajla hemm rieda li jiċċaqalqu. Għalhekk, naħseb jien, ma l-iċken opportunita ikun hemm min iħoss l-utilita’ li jwaqqaf il-proċess.

Is-7 ta’ Ġunju 1919 wassal lil missierietna biex fl-1921 eleġġew l-ewwel Parlament Malti. Kien Parlament b’ħafna kuluri:  4  partiti fl-Assemblea Leġislattiva u 3 minnhom fis-Senat.

Iż-żminijiet inbidlu u l-Partiti tal-lum li qegħdin fil-Parlament għad għandhom ħeġġa kbira għar-rappresentanza  proporzjonali, imma din il-ħeġġa qegħda hemm biss sakemm teffettwa lilhom. Għalhekk bagħbsu l-Kostituzzjoni diversi drabi biex jassiguraw li bejniethom jaqsmu. Imma qagħdu attenti li jieqfu hemm.

Infakkar għal darba oħra li Alternattiva Demokratika ippreżentat proposta quddiem il-Kumitat Magħżul tal-Kamra biex dak li ġie mbagħbas fil-Kostituzzjoni mill-PN u l-PL flimkien, jissewwa’ . Biex ir-rappresentanza proporzjonali tkun tapplika għal kulħadd. Mhux għalihom biss.

F’Malta għandna sistema elettorali li f’Marzu 2008 ippremjat lill-PN b’siġġu parlamentari extra għall-1580 vot li l-PN kellu iktar mill-PL fl-aħħar elezzjoni ġenerali. Imma l-istess sistema elettorali tagħmilha possibli li t-3810 vot li ġiebet Alternattiva Demokratika ma jkunux rappreżentati.

Dan il-PN u l-PL ma jridux jibdluh.

Il-proporzjonalita’ m’għandhiex tibqa’ privileġġ tal-PN u l-PL iżda strument biex tissarraf ir-rieda popolari.

Fuq dan il-blog tista’ tara ukoll is-segwenti :

17/09/2008 : Electoral reform

21/06/2010 :  AD protests in Court on discriminatory electoral legislation

23/06/2010 : AD discusses electoral reform with Speaker Michael Frendo

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.