Why bother to consult?
Editorial of Malta Independent 4th September, 2006
The Coalition of Environment NGOs has submitted to Mepa its comments on the major development being planned at Hondoq ir-Rummien, Gozo. Three months ago, NGOs were invited to listen to the fine words and promises at the Sustainability Conference organised by the Environment Ministry.
Just two weeks later, all that was said there was swept away by the Rationalisation Schemes. Only two weeks after the approval of these plans said to “seal, once and for all, the development boundaries”, we are asked to comment on proposals to build a whole village Out of Development Zone. This project, coincidentally, happened to re-surface at the same time as the issuing of the new Local Plans. Also coincidentally, the policy of the Qala (Hondoq) Local Plan seems to echo the developers’ proposals and is diametrically opposite to what was set out in the previous Local Plan.
This begs the question: what is the point of requesting public consultation and reports on the environment prepared by local councils, environmental NGOs and Commissions for Sustainable Development when these are routinely ignored? Why sign and ratify all sorts of international environmental conventions and agreements focusing on planning, conservation of natural resources, species and habitats when these are conveniently sidestepped when called into the case?
Why be citizens of a democracy if we are stepped upon by the greed of a few businessmen who are echoed by politicians speaking of developments as the latest brilliant economic boost and favour to our country? Haven’t we already been there and were left with the bitter taste of undisputed loss? The loss of crystal clear and uncontaminated seas; coasts that one could go to for some relief from the hassle of our already crowded and stressful life; marine life that children and adults could learn about and admire while swimming or snorkelling; underwater biodiversity we could all rely on when scuba-diving or fishing. Equally, we are fast losing our typical village cores, our country walks where we could appreciate typical Mediterranean habitats, as well as some peace and quiet enjoying the clarity of stars at night.
Can the Maltese Islands afford to give away more chunks of its coasts, land and sea to development excluding Maltese access and impoverishing further our quality of life? Can we overlook the fact that eleven major tourism projects in Malta and Gozo have failed and lie abandoned, while countless hotels have closed, are struggling or are up for sale? Still, we continue to build new tourist projects on virgin countryside, causing more unemployment by putting off the very tourists we wish to attract. Why persist on a policy which has led us to a record ten-year decline in tourism?
NGOs are asked to comment on the process of preparation of each Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) that Mepa requests from developers. Yet, as in the case of Hondoq ir-Rummien development application PA 03798/02, Mepa has accepted the developers’ choice of their site without demanding that a serious site selection exercise is carried out, which is the essential stage before commissioning the EIA! Terms of reference (issues to be addressed in an EIA) are frequently ignored. There may be a dangerous tendency to use EIAs as a sop to silence the public, with very little attention being given by Mepa to the far-reaching and long-lasting impact each development has on local human, plant and animal life. There may also be the tendency to adopt a verdict of “No significant impact” after costly but often limited EIAs. These assessments are routinely written by the same experts who were commissioned by the developers to prepare their own project reports, a blatant case of conflict of interest. This is habitually followed by equally costly but non-effective monitoring and enforcement, not to mention plans for rehabilitation and conservation without funds available for management. So why more EIAs? Why have a Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa)? Why is there money for destruction and none for protection?
The Coalition of NGOs feels it is its duty to comment on this plague of environmental deterioration. However, the official reaction is that its members are asked to “be reasonable' (ie, tone down their outcry). Their courageous stand is rewarded by comments trying to diminish their integrity as well as all sorts of problems placed in their way by government departments and officials, Mepa and ministers.
Why are local and global obligations to sustainable development and nature conservation being flagrantly contravened? Is all this just a smoke-screen to preserve our image at the international level while selling our soul, land and heritage at home?
The Coalition of Environment NGOs
The Coalition of Environment NGOs has submitted to Mepa its comments on the major development being planned at Hondoq ir-Rummien, Gozo. Three months ago, NGOs were invited to listen to the fine words and promises at the Sustainability Conference organised by the Environment Ministry.
Just two weeks later, all that was said there was swept away by the Rationalisation Schemes. Only two weeks after the approval of these plans said to “seal, once and for all, the development boundaries”, we are asked to comment on proposals to build a whole village Out of Development Zone. This project, coincidentally, happened to re-surface at the same time as the issuing of the new Local Plans. Also coincidentally, the policy of the Qala (Hondoq) Local Plan seems to echo the developers’ proposals and is diametrically opposite to what was set out in the previous Local Plan.
This begs the question: what is the point of requesting public consultation and reports on the environment prepared by local councils, environmental NGOs and Commissions for Sustainable Development when these are routinely ignored? Why sign and ratify all sorts of international environmental conventions and agreements focusing on planning, conservation of natural resources, species and habitats when these are conveniently sidestepped when called into the case?
Why be citizens of a democracy if we are stepped upon by the greed of a few businessmen who are echoed by politicians speaking of developments as the latest brilliant economic boost and favour to our country? Haven’t we already been there and were left with the bitter taste of undisputed loss? The loss of crystal clear and uncontaminated seas; coasts that one could go to for some relief from the hassle of our already crowded and stressful life; marine life that children and adults could learn about and admire while swimming or snorkelling; underwater biodiversity we could all rely on when scuba-diving or fishing. Equally, we are fast losing our typical village cores, our country walks where we could appreciate typical Mediterranean habitats, as well as some peace and quiet enjoying the clarity of stars at night.
Can the Maltese Islands afford to give away more chunks of its coasts, land and sea to development excluding Maltese access and impoverishing further our quality of life? Can we overlook the fact that eleven major tourism projects in Malta and Gozo have failed and lie abandoned, while countless hotels have closed, are struggling or are up for sale? Still, we continue to build new tourist projects on virgin countryside, causing more unemployment by putting off the very tourists we wish to attract. Why persist on a policy which has led us to a record ten-year decline in tourism?
NGOs are asked to comment on the process of preparation of each Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) that Mepa requests from developers. Yet, as in the case of Hondoq ir-Rummien development application PA 03798/02, Mepa has accepted the developers’ choice of their site without demanding that a serious site selection exercise is carried out, which is the essential stage before commissioning the EIA! Terms of reference (issues to be addressed in an EIA) are frequently ignored. There may be a dangerous tendency to use EIAs as a sop to silence the public, with very little attention being given by Mepa to the far-reaching and long-lasting impact each development has on local human, plant and animal life. There may also be the tendency to adopt a verdict of “No significant impact” after costly but often limited EIAs. These assessments are routinely written by the same experts who were commissioned by the developers to prepare their own project reports, a blatant case of conflict of interest. This is habitually followed by equally costly but non-effective monitoring and enforcement, not to mention plans for rehabilitation and conservation without funds available for management. So why more EIAs? Why have a Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa)? Why is there money for destruction and none for protection?
The Coalition of NGOs feels it is its duty to comment on this plague of environmental deterioration. However, the official reaction is that its members are asked to “be reasonable' (ie, tone down their outcry). Their courageous stand is rewarded by comments trying to diminish their integrity as well as all sorts of problems placed in their way by government departments and officials, Mepa and ministers.
Why are local and global obligations to sustainable development and nature conservation being flagrantly contravened? Is all this just a smoke-screen to preserve our image at the international level while selling our soul, land and heritage at home?
The Coalition of Environment NGOs
posted by Hondoq at
6:12 PM
