The Dwejra decision

In November of 2007 I wrote that a leading pro-environment NGO had made a very bad mistake in accepting that its pesident be appointed to the board of Mepa. I argued that his voice "will be just one amongst about 15, all hand-picked government appointees" and "Mepa (for Mepa read the government), on the other hand, will be able to deflect or attempt to deflect any criticism of anti-environment decisions by loudly pointing out that a member of a prominent NGO participated in the discussion and even voted on it".

I also said that "the doctrine of confidentiality and collective responsibility will mean that the NGO representative will not be able to criticise, in public, any board decision he disagrees with, but will be expected to assume responsibility for it".

It gives me no pleasure to realise that I have been proved right so quickly. Only a couple of weeks before the election, Mepa has sanctioned no less than 13 illegal boathouses built right next to the inland sea at Dwejra - one of Malta and Gozo's most beautiful spots, and Nature Trust, whose president, Vince Attard accepted a seat on the board of Mepa, meekly "accepts" this decision. Not only that, but it was reported that Mr Attard actually voted in favour of this rape despite the fact that his organisation and other environmental NGOs had been fighting for years to have them removed!

The "reasons'"given for this incredible decision, if they can be dignified by that term, is that the use of trucks would have caused greater damage. I'm sure it would. But one doesn't have to be an engineer to realise that these boathouses could have been dismantled by hand, brick by brick and the debris carted out. Sure, it would have been expensive and time-consuming - but isn't Dwejra worth it?

Another "reason" given was that the removal would have disturbed an endemic plant growing on the "rubble" next to the boathouses. Again, surely, with the assistance of trained horticulturalists, this plant could have been temporarily transplanted and replaced on completion of the work. I'm afraid that these "reasons" are nothing more than lame excuses - the best that could be found to justify this shocking decision.

The burning question, of course, is what the other environmental NGOs, like the FAA, are going to do about it. They had a brilliant success opposing the ruination of Ramla l-Ħamra - one would have thought this would have filled them with courage to fight this new battle.

Instead all we get is a deafening silence. Are we to understand they are condoning this new assault on the Maltese environment? If so why?

One would not like to think that they have drawn in their horns because the election is close. They garnered strong support because they gave the impression that they are apolitical and all they care about is the environment. If, now, they show that they are ready to abandon their mission because of political leanings, they will lose all respect and credibility.

They will become a joke, like so many other jokes on this blessed island of ours.