Governance is one of the nine demands made by local environmental NGOs and this requires reforms at two levels.
At one level, we need constitutional reform, so that article 9 in chapter II ‒ that imposes the obligation on the state to “safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the nation” and to “preserve and conserve the environment and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations... and to promote, nurture and support the right of action in favour of the environment” ‒ does not remain a toothless statement of principles.
Article 21 says: “The provisions of this chapter shall not be enforceable in any court but the principles therein contained are nevertheless fundamental to the governance of the country...”
While the principles of protection of our natural and built heritage are well declared, the mechanisms of oversight of government and its agencies, meant to enact laws and regulations keeping in mind these principles, are not clear.
There is divergent legal opinion on whether the provisions in the constitution are sufficient to enable citizens to take legal action if these principles are violated as a result of any legislation or regulation.
The matter of actionability should not be resolved in court; we demand the clarity that action can be taken against any public entity that ignores the principles enshrined in chapter II.
One of the first pleas raised, whenever eNGOs take action in court on environmental matters, is whether eNGOs have a juridical interest in taking such action. Some recent court decisions have affirmed this right in certain contexts, however, the legal position remains uncertain, so eNGOs demand the right to take action in court on these matters.
The constitution should be amended to make it possible for any person to request the Constitutional Court to review any legislation or regulation which is considered to be in violation of article 9, whether it is a review of legislation on the environment and conservation thereof or of planning policies.
At a second level, it is necessary that the entities responsible for our natural and built heritage, and urban quality, particularly the Planning Authority, be really independent of the government. This would allow them to adopt positions that place the environment as top priority, even when evaluating proposals which, at face value, appear to favour economic growth.
The intrinsic economic value of the natural and built heritage should be recognised. Instead of judging proposals for development against the question “why not?”, proposals should be judged against: “why?”, “what is the community gaining?” and “what are the risks and who will pay for the impacts?”
Good governance requires that development policies are prepared with the full, informed, participation of the public. The so-called scrutiny by the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment should be completely revised because it currently ends up “approving” proposals made by the same politicians; it has become a pointless ritual where the conclusion is foregone.
Good governance requires that planning be purged of political lobbying- Alex Torpiano
Good governance requires that planning be purged of political lobbying and of members of decision-taking committees appointed for their political allegiances; and that behind-the-scene discussions, which result in development briefs tailored to the requirements of a specific developer, be abolished.
Good governance requires that the quality of development planning reports be improved and scrutinised to ensure that all the relevant facts are included, in an unbiased manner. And that planning decisions are audited to ensure that a bad decision does not become a precedent, impacting everywhere else.
Good governance requires the Planning Authority to regularly assess the impact of the policies it has itself proposed and approved and not allow clearly inappropriate development, simply because “it is according to policy”. It also requires that the Planning Authority proposes solutions to the application of bad policies and not hide behind the mistaken notion of “legitimate expectation”. Planning is a community right and nobody has the right to ‘expect’ permission to develop.
Good governance should make the life of eNGOs easier and costs incurred by them lower – eNGOs that carry the burden of drawing attention to inappropriate development – and not hampered by small print regulations limiting access to information, limiting opportunity to submit objections or discouraging objections by hefty fees.
Indeed, good governance would imply that there is no need for eNGOs to take on this role had the relevant authorities done their work properly.
Good governance requires that policies that are clearly wreaking havoc in small villages, particularly in Gozo, should be immediately repealed.
Reference is here made to the blanket, and blind, application of P35 and Annex 2 of DC15; to the lack of effective transition zones between urban conservation areas and development areas or between development zones and rural areas; to the fact that the rural areas should be protected against pseudo-agricultural activities.
Good governance requires changes in attitude and eNGOs are demanding precisely this.
Alex Torpiano, executive president, Din l-Art Ħelwa