Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1139344
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 JULY 2019 INTERVIEW Coming back to the Dwejra permit issue. The PA has a national obligation to take such issues into consideration: even more so in the case of a World Heritage Site. It doesn't seem to be fulfilling this obligation. How do you account for this? There are various opinions about this. I think it is partly due to the fact that the envi- ronmental responsibility was removed from MEPA, when it was split into the PA and the ERA. Though the intentions might have been good – they wanted a stronger, independent au- thority which is focused on the environment – in reality, they weakened the environ- mental protection sector. Because where, previously, there were people within the PA who were environmen- tally conscious… that was re- moved. Keep in mind also that ERA only has one vote on the Planning Authority Board. I would suggest that, if we want to keep ERA as an independ- ent authority… at least, give it a right of veto. So that when ERA says 'No'... it really is a 'No'. And ERA won't say 'No', unless it's real- ly detrimental. So, if we really want to achieve the famous 'balance' everyone keeps talk- ing about, between the envi- ronment and the economy… let's look back at the last 20 years, and balance things out so that we are really sensitive about the environment now. Because we never were be- fore; so the balance would have to involve much, much greater sensitivity to these is- sues today… to make up for the past 20 years of imbalance. Today, the only way to achieve that sort of balance in the planning infrastructure, is to give ERA a veto on the board. Dwejra is itself a good example of this: the applica- tion was rejected by the board where ERA was present; but then, there was an appeal… and the case was decided by people who might not have understood the environmen- tal implications… Is there nobody in the Appeals Tribunal representing the environment? Does ERA not have a representative on that board, too? I'm not 100% sure of that; but whoever the individuals were, it is clear that there was no proper understanding of the effects of this development – especially the increased light pollution – on Dwejra. There also doesn't seem to be an understanding of the history of this case. How did this restaurant pop up there, in the past 20 years? Wasn't there supposed to have been a Visitor's Centre? Was it engulfed by this restaurant? I'm asking these questions because I understand that a Visitor's Centre would have a cafeteria. But a two-storey restaurant… now wanting to extend the number of chairs, and adding more table space? How was that allowed to even happen? This is why I believe there should be a basic princi- ple involved here. Dwejra has to be treated as a 'hands-off' area. This is why this permit is so unacceptable. Given the recent experience of the DB Group's Pembroke project – which was overturned by the law- courts – is any action planned against the Dwejra permit, too? Well, I can give you some news on that front. We called on the people to help us out with funding so that we can fight the case in court. We needed €2,000… and we col- lected that amount, and more, in just two days. So yes, there is a possible way out. We are going to appeal against the decision. As with the civil society action against the DB project… if there is a way we can safeguard Dwejra, we will take it. And the law-courts allow us to take the same route… That sounds hopeful, but just this morning the DB Group announced it would be resubmitting its Pembroke application… pointing out the court decided only on the basis of 'conflict of interest'. Technically then, the project could still go ahead. Are you concerned that you may have won a battle, but lost the war? Even if the war hasn't been won… what civil society wanted was recognition of the principle that a permit, if given, has to be given for the right reasons. And it must be given by the right people to take that decision…. not by people who bring 'added val- ue' to that project. So this was an important judgment; not just for civil so- ciety and Pembroke residents, but also for the health and safety of our decision-making structures themselves; and for the people to understand that civil society will be there. The civil society movement is getting stronger. Nobody is going to trample over it now. We shouldn't be complacent, naturally; but the old mentali- ty of 'u iva, mhux xorta' might be losing its grip. No, it's not 'all the same'. In Dwejra, it is certainly not a case of 'any- thing goes'. This is the case we will be making in court… Coming back to the wider threats to biodiversity: Dwejra and Pembroke are just isolated examples. There is also a construction overdrive which is eating ever further into ODZ areas. Doesn't this also directly threaten the habitat of local fauna? And… why do you think the PA just doesn't seem to have a strategy on how to safeguard the environment at all? I think that the overdevel- opment drive is the single largest environmental issue we are witnessing today; and there is no better example to illustrate why than the fuel stations issue. We are in 2019. We are waiting for the Prime Minister, at any moment, to announce a cut-off date for the importation of fossil-fuel cars. And yet there are appli- cations for new petrol stations to open in ODZ areas. The PA is still giving out permits, even though we all know that soon, those petrol stations will be obsolete. But then, thanks to other changes to the planning laws, they might also be redevel- oped into small 'farmhouses', and put up for rent. Or super- markets, carparks, boutique hotels, etc. And the permit will probably be given, be- cause the footprint is there already. So… you asked me if there is a strategy to safe- guard the environment. I say, there is a strategy on how to make money. In this case, it is to make money out of public land, which the people have a right to enjoy. I can understand private investors having that sort of strategy. But you're implying that it's the strategy of the national planning regulator itself. Is that the case? It is definitely the case that the regulations are be- ing weakened. And if it's not happening deliberately, it is definitely being done to fa- cilitate people who want to make money. Of course, I understand that you need to have people making money, and providing employment opportunities, and so on. But surely, we can do it intelli- gently enough not to also de- stroy our environment in the process...