Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/341807
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 6 JULY 2014 Opinion 20 T he recent call that I should not have accepted that the draft strategic plan be issued for consultation since it allegedly can in no way be described as an adequate Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) is preposterous to say the least. The same goes for the insistence that should have come from my side that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) should go back to the drawing board and publish a proper holistic strategy to regulate the sustainable development of land and sea resources. MEPA are free to issue any consultation documents as they might deem fit. While it is very positive that NGOs and other stakeholders have already expressed their views on the SPED I also do hope that they have also done this in relation to the Environment Report resulting from the SEA process, and I would like to put the record straight on various aspects of this issue. Upon conclusion of this stage of public consultation, MEPA, in terms of standard procedures, is to review the comments received and shall again consult with my ministry as well as with the others, before the final document is adopted. As minister responsible for the environment I have taken a keen interest in the SPED process and will make sure that that the environment will remain at the forefront of considerations. But as minister also responsible for climate change and sustainable development, policy areas that have a strategic and over-arching character, I am compelled and committed to continue following SPED beyond adoption and into its implementation. The SPED document 2014 is largely identical to that published in 2012 with the following main and significant differences: It includes the possibility for review of the development boundaries It calls for additional land for warehousing, particularly in committed areas It promotes social and community facilities in the rural area However it is to be noted that the general principle that the government is to lead by example and where possible first re-use existing buildings, then guide development in already developed sites before considering virgin land, still remains. One must also acknowledge that in the area which we call ODZ (Outside Development Zone) there are today a number of sites that have been developed with showrooms, storage and warehousing, industrial operations etc. These are referred to as Areas of Containment and in the 2012 document no reference to them was made. One must remember that SPED is about planning for development and that there this is a plan primarily aimed to guide the spatial allocation of development for socio- economic growth. The EDP Act of 2010 calls for the SPED to be a guide for sustainable use of land and sea resources. Invariably development brings environmental impacts. The SPED has nevertheless inbuilt in it environmental objectives to direct how this development is to take place with a view to reducing these impacts as much as possible. Very importantly, one must also remember that the SPED was subjected to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) that highlighted the main areas of concerns. It indicated that the key mitigation measures to reduce these impacts already exist in the SPED environment objectives themselves and it also suggested that measures need to be taken further, primarily at government level in the respective policy making and in the actual undertaking of projects. One must also recall that under the EDP Act there will be Local Plans prepared which may also be subjected to SEA. Also, most projects that will arise will also undertake an EIA. The environmental safeguards already exist through the respective environmental regulations. The only bone of contention that remains is whether the SPED will be any longer subjected for approval by the House of Representatives, relegating this plan for approval at a ministry level. This is obviously for the government to decide as a government. Comparisons with the 1990 Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands are out of place since this was meant as a bible on which we processed development applications until local plans and specific policy guidance documents were prepared. It had come at a time when it was the first policy document for planning and was issued in the context of a complete policy vacuum. Today with so many detailed planning policies and a plethora of environment regulations, together with established administrative procedures within different ministries for policy co-ordination, there is no need for a high level document, such as the SPED, to have detailed planning policies. Similar to the way we are approaching the review of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, a document at this level should set the main thrust and direction to then be taken up in the subsidiary plans and actions. That is why the nature of the SPED today is different from the 1990 Structure Plan. Very importantly, the SPED is not an environmental plan. There is the NEP as well as the numerous thematic environmental plans to deal with that. Therefore any analysis as to how the SPED addressed the environment are not correct. For the record, the claim related to SPED approval by the responsible minister – as opposed to parliament – does not even come out of the SPED document itself but rather from another consultation document. That prepared by planning in relation to the MEPA demerger. Contrary to what some have implied, and or alleged, as a strategic plan SPED already incorporates environmental objectives within it and this is a very strong confirmation that the development policy is, as a matter of fact, being guided by environmental considerations. I reiterate that SPED is not only not an environmental plan but a strategic planning document aimed at guiding spatial allocation for development required for socio economic growth through sustainable use of land and sea resources. Once approved, the SPED will not be a stand alone document to be implemented in isolation but rather its implementation is regulated through an extensive regulatory framework governing environment protection that is already in place. It is indeed a gross misconception to even think or conclude that SPED is not a holistic plan or that it ignores the environment. My ministry was consulted both during the preparation of SPED as well as during the SEA process. There were two strategic documents that were published for consultation, not one. The draft SPED and the draft environment report. The latter has identified the need for a stronger implementation of existing mechanisms, particularly through co-ordination at government level of the policy development and the policy implementation process. My government is committed to this. Leo Brincat is Minister for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change SPED and sustainable development Leo Brincat It is to be noted that the general principle that the government is to lead by example, and where possible first re-use existing buildings, remains