Editorial: Aarhus, accountability and Abela

The Aarhus Convention empowers the role of citizens and civil society organisations in environmental matters. It is founded on the principles of participative democracy.

Though Malta ratified it 23 years ago, the government appears to be unfamiliar with both the letter and the spirit.

It was only because of public pressure that the prime minister raised the issue of public consultation after two highly controversial draft laws affecting planning and development were moved in parliament.

It was again another avoidable U-turn by Robert Abela. His track record shows that accountability and transparency are not his forte.

The Aarhus Convention lays down that citizens have a right to receive environmental information held by public authorities. They are also entitled to participate in preparing plans, programmes, policies and legislation that may affect the environment.

The latest planning law changes controversy proves such demands are observed in their breach. Friends of the Earth Malta said earlier this year that the rights extended to citizens by the convention “are not fully upheld and many obstacles remain”. It has made a number of recommendations aimed to address some of the concerns “in order to strengthen transparency, accountability and environmental democracy”.

It noted, among other things, that requests made under the Freedom of Information Act are frequently delayed or rejected, despite the fact that the requested data should be readily available.

Which does not bode well for an initiative just taken by Momentum seeking information on the extent of the involvement by major developers and their lobbyists in the formulation of the two contentious bills.

The new political party wants access to the minutes and records of consultations the government had with representatives of the Malta Development Association and prominent developers. It also would like to know the identity of all consultants and advisers who contributed to the bills, their terms of reference and what they were paid through public funds. This is all relevant information to determine what really lies behind the ‘aims and objects’ of the bills and certainly in line with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

Consultations with the public should have preceded the presentation of the bills in parliament, especially if the government had no problem speaking to the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers and the Malta Development Association when the two draft laws were being prepared.

Now that NGOs and the public have successfully brought pressure to bear on the government – even if whether the bills are modified or pushed through parliament as they are as yet to be seen – action ought to be ratcheted up, perhaps widened too. For access to government-held information is vital to ensure transparency, accountability and public trust not just on environmental matters but also on issues like health, public safety and security.

Beyond lip-service and rhetoric, the government should commit itself, through legislation, that details such as those being demanded by Momentum would be readily and automatically available for public viewing even without any formal request needing to be made and, much less, proving any specific interest.

Armed with such information, NGOs and individuals would be better placed to effectively participate in decision-making where such issues of evident public interest are involved.

That, after all, is what democracy is all about. What government of the people, by the people, for the people really means.

Full respect of instruments like the Aarhus Convention, the Freedom of Information Act and other laws and regulations meant to empower citizens is what distinguishes a government that truly puts the people first.