Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1436880
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 DECEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW shout louder mental grounds. However, I don't see that as a solution at all. For one thing, it depends entirely on the ERA itself being 'up to scratch', so to speak. But as past experience also illustrates: the ERA cannot always be trusted to take the right decision. One recent example was the application to redevelop a dis- used explosives factory – the Pulvich factory in Dingli – as a tourism complex. Despite the fact that there was effectively going to be a small village, in a Natura 2000 site… ERA found nothing wrong with that. And let's face it: ERA often finds nothing wrong, with the take- up of vast swathes of agricul- tural land for – among other things – increased roadworks. And it hasn't been a shining example of environmental pro- tection in other areas, too… for instance, the uprooting of trees. So I would be very cautious about granting the same au- thority the 'power of veto', in such cases. However, it is also true that the expert opinion of the Su- perintendence of Cultural Heritage is often completely ignored; the same goes even for those cases where the ERA does object; and where the Ag- ricultural Advisory Committee issues a negative opinion. This is, in fact, how the sys- tem tends to work in practice: we have all these 'expert con- sultees', who have to 'give their opinion' on any given applica- tion… but when their opinion is adverse, the Planning Com- mission, or Planning Board, simply steamrolls ahead, and grants the permit regardless…. Clearly, there is something very, very wrong with that sys- tem. It is not intended to be a 'contemplative' system; it is not a 'careful' system; and it is very evidently not concerned with environmental or heritage pro- tection, or anything like that. It's basically just a 'per- mit-factory': nothing more, nothing less. Coming back to that 'good news' I mentioned earlier: so far, it seems to be limited on- ly to Malta. Gozo, on the other hand, has witnessed a veritable explosion of highly question- able development permits… to the extent that all its local councils have now combined to resist the further 'destruction' (in their own words) of that is- land. Why do you think is the situation is so different in Gozo? Why does public pressure not yield the same results? I think the answer to that question, boils down to the is- sue of who is actually applying for all these mega-projects. It is all very clear: there have even been outspoken statements, to the effect that 'meetings' and 'discussions' take place be- tween certain developers – or, to be more precise: a certain developer – and politicians, the Planning Authority, etc. Another issue, however – which may not be specific to Gozo; but it does happen a lot there – is that certain practices by developers make it very dif- ficult to keep an eye on what's actually going on. For instance: what looks like a single huge project, would actually be frag- mented into several different applications, for different (on paper) plots of land. This al- lows developers to evade scru- tiny; sometimes, to the extent of avoiding having to under- take an Environmental Impact Assessment… In these cases, there might be objections by ERA, or the SHC; but the Planning Au- thority usually just steamrolls ahead… without finding any tenuous excuse to approve those projects. Even then: there might be an appeal – always depending on whether objec- tors (including local councils) were vigilant enough to keep track of all those applications; and able to fight them legally, at an expense which runs into thousands and thousands of euros - but then, the Appeals Tribunal does not suspend the development, while the appeal is ongoing. So what often happens is that the developer simply extends, and delays, the appeals process for as long as it takes to actu- ally complete the construction. At which point: there is no way that the resulting development will ever be demolished… In a nutshell, then: the en- tire system is geared against objectors; and to facilitate the regularization of illegal de- velopment. And this has been pointed out to the Environ- ment Minister many, many times. So we're either going to face the facts; accept that this sys- tem is grossly unfair; and amend the law accordingly… or else, we can simply prance about, and have talks about 'prettifying buildings', and tinkering with 'aesthetic pol- icies': and all sorts of other 'greenwash' initiatives that do not actually have any effect on the landscape, or the environ- ment, at all. Because if there is one issue that needs to be addressed, be- fore any other: it is our policy regarding the take-up of land… urbanization, and the loss of agricultural, or ODZ, land. Once again, Gozo is a prime example of this. Just today, in fact, there was a newspaper ar- ticle claiming that Gozo is be- coming 'Malta's Benidorm'. I agree with that assessment. Unless something is done, with urgency, to stop the Planning Commission from authorizing this myriad of patchwork ap- plications for development in ODZ… then yes: I am afraid that Gozo really will be turned into 'Malta's Benidorm'… Nonetheless, the fact that so many people are now object- ing, does suggest that there has been a groundswell change in public attitudes (if not, admit- tedly, in government policy). Are you optimistic, then, that this popular movement might usher in the changes you are fighting for? I cannot predict the future, if that's what you're asking; what I can say, however, is that I meet people on a regular basis; and from my own experience, it seems to me that people are finally realizing that this is an all-pervasive problem. In other words, a problem that doesn't affect only the 'touristy areas' – Sliema, St Julians, Bugibba, etc. – which, in any case, have already been 'ruined'. That was the sensation, until a few years ago: that yes, overde- velopment was a massive prob- lem… but a problem which was confined, so to speak, only to certain areas. The underly- ing assumption, however, was that certain other areas would not be affected at all… that there would always be corners of Malta and Gozo that would be safeguarded; that would re- main untouched forever. But that is no longer the case today. Now, everyone can see that it is happening every- where. It is happening all over Gozo; it is happening in places like Naxxar… and Rabat… and Dingli… there is, in fact, no part of the Maltese islands that can be considered 'safe' from development anymore. And this, ultimately, is the re- alization that is now dawning on people – especially in the last two years. That 'no place is safe': which also means that the people's peace of mind is not 'safe', either… But to answer you more di- rectly, regarding whether I am optimistic or not: I would certainly advise against any 'defeatist', or 'fatalistic', at- titudes... along the lines that 'money talks'; that there are al- ways going to be 'brown enve- lopes' changing hands behind the scenes; and that therefore, we should simply all resign ourselves to the situation, without a fight. Don't get me wrong; I am very concerned about 'brown enve- lopes changing hands'… and I have no doubt whatsoever that money really does 'talk', in the end. But however loudly 'money talks'… the fact remains that we can shout louder.