Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/540322
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 JULY 2015 News 19 ura 2000 sites irrespective of when these took place. Moreover the existing law for- bids MEPA from legalising any ODZ development carried out af- ter May 2008, including any illegal extension to a legal building. This reversal not only means that all the illegalities made in the past are now eligible for sanctioning. It also means that developers may be tempted to develop illegally in the hope of getting a permit some time in the future. Even public consultation is be- ing contaminated by the allow- ance made for "anonymous" sub- missions, something that opens a window for developers to propose changes in policies and plans with- out showing their hands. Since MEPA is by law obliged to con- sider and provide a response to every submission, this measure may be meant as a way through which developers can influence the local plans which are yet to be approved. Overall this sounds like a coun- ter reform. For after being party to the extension of building bounda- ries and the increase in building heights, in 2008 the PN govern- ment did close a number of loop- holes after being re-elected. But the greatest impact of the proposed reform is that of turning the glorified Environment Au- thority into an external consultee whose remit in normal planning applications will be the same as that of the Malta Tourism Au- thority. The bill is sugar-coated by claus- es envisioning board participation for the Environment Authority in both the Planning Board and the Planning Authority's executive council. But this is no substitute for the role of the Environment Protection Directorate in assess- ing planning applications on a daily basis, and not only when consulted. By having an authority dedicated to environmental protection the government may have also found a way to co-opt environmentalists who may be appointed to serve on its boards in a bid to give legiti- macy to the new set-up. The creation of the authority also finally gives the well-mean- ing Leo Brincat the chance to prove his worth by being actu- ally responsible for an entity with executive powers. But divorced from the planning process, the new authority may have limited influence. Brincat prides himself on the fact that the law empowers the authority to appeal against plan- ning decisions. But what's the use of appealing to another govern- ment appointed body when the current set up could have been reformed to enable the Environ- ment Protection Directorate to stop environmentally damaging proposals in their infancy? Muscat's calculation But why is Muscat so keen on alienating environmentalists and showing so little tact in their re- gard? Muscat's calculation may be that most environmentalists do not vote for his party anyway and that switchers include irate business- men angry at MEPA's perceived bias against developers, which may be partly correct. But this analysis ignores the fact that the switchers also include part of mainstream voters who are becoming more aware of environ- mental issues. Moreover younger and educated Labour voters tend to share the same values of other voters in the same educational and age cohorts. This may explain why in the same week that he was pushing retrograde environmen- tal laws, the Muscat administra- tion presented very progressive legislation, which effectively bans censorship. Muscat may also use confron- tation against middle-class envi- ronmentalists to rally the party's grassroots, even if his eagerness to sell public land to private in- terests irks both influential left- wingers and also environmentally conscious middle-class voters. Still Muscat has been careful not to off-balance himself. Ditching a pro-Zonqor development pro- test backed by Marsaskala mayor Mario Calleja and supported by Labourites on the social net- works, Muscat has strayed away from direct confrontation with environmentalists. Playing the class card to depict environmen- talists as bourgeois enemies of progress will backfire on Muscat, as it would alienate a section of the electorate strategically located across the political spectrum. Muscat's other calculation may be that this is the only time in which he can take a couple of unpopular decisions simply be- cause the election is three years away. Neither can Muscat afford to alienate the developers' lobby, which forms part of Labour's he- gemonic block. Moreover Mus- cat's economic model hinges on economic growth boosted by investments in the property sec- tor. He can't afford to alienate the people who may well make his economic miracle possible. Muscat may also be banking on the fact that while people tend to show anger when a piece of countryside like Zonqor is pro- posed for construction, changes in policies which pave the way for such developments rarely have an impact on people. Through policy changes he is merely pav- ing the way for projects, which will probably take place during the second Labour legislature. It is not a surprise that Muscat has counter-balanced controversy on the new laws by backtracking on the shooting range proposal in Mosta. One sure way for Muscat to outmanoeuvre everyone would be to dish plans to develop a part of Zonqor point, an act which would compensate for any nega- tive fall-out from the proposed legal changes. But this may well be a step too far, considering the po- litical capital spent on defending this choice. Once again Muscat has proven his worth in the art of managing public opinion, even if he knows that he is losing his sheen whenev- er groups with no self-interest or partisan agenda confront him. MEPA cannot legalise ODZ development carried out after May 2008, but now these illegalities are eligible for sanctioning Playing the class card to depict environmentalists as bourgeois enemies of progress will backfire on Muscat Joseph Muscat ponders a point he is making in a political speech. Right, below and page 18: The well-attended launch of the environmental group 'Front Harsien ODZ', aiming to protect 'outside development zones' from development