Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/691413
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 JUNE 2016 10 News How watertight is Busuttil's Is the PN's two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement for projects of 'national importance' an additional safeguard for ODZ zones, or does it put too much power in the hands of elected politicians? JAMES DEBONO asks IN a nutshell, the Nationalist Par- ty's proposal is for "major projects of national importance" to have to pass through the full planning process, before parliament is con- vened to vote on their approval. The Planning Authority will make a "recommendation" to parlia- ment on whether such a project should be approved or not. But the final decision will be taken by parliament through a two-thirds majority. The snag is that as, declared by Simon Busuttil, to avoid a dead- lock by a potentially disruptive op- position, a simple majority would still be enough for approval of a project after two consecutive fail- ures to secure a two-thirds major- ity. The proposal is still not cast in stone and the PN is currently test- ing the waters before announcing its policies in an environmental policy to be presented by the end of this year. Presently the final decision on projects outside development zones (ODZ) is taken by the Plan- ning Authority board – whose majority is directly appointed by the government of the day – fol- lowing a recommendation by the PA's planning directorate, which includes the planning experts. Busuttil says he wants to shift the final decision on ODZ projects from "government to parliament", suggesting an additional safeguard for ODZ land by complementing the planning process with an ad- ditional layer of scrutiny by demo- cratically elected representatives. But the proposal has been criti- cised for taking the power away from "experts" and putting the final say in the hands of elected politicians. Environmental groups have largely welcomed the procedure, seeing it as an additional safe- guard, but they have expressed reservations on aspects of the pro- cedure proposed. Decisions by technocrats, appointees or elected MPs? Prime Minister Joseph Muscat shot down the proposal, arguing that "he didn't want politicians to decide on such projects, as this should be left in the hands of ex- perts". He also described the system as a "recipe for corruption". In reality decisions are presently not taken by experts, but by a board composed mostly of govern- ment appointees. Similar criticism was made by Green Party Alternattiva Demokratika deputy chairperson Carmel Cacopardo, who in his blog insisted that experts should take decisions and that parliament is not "competent" to take a final decision related to ODZ develop- ment or technical issues such as the relocation of petrol stations or extensions to firework factories. This view contrasted with that of AD's former chairperson and Sliema local councillor Michael Briguglio, who views parliamen- tary approval of projects by a two- thirds majority as an "additional safeguard" if the vote in parliament is taken after the conclusion of the full planning process and limited to those projects al- ready approved by the PA. Curiously it was AD in its 2013 manifesto which had first proposed a "political" mechanism through which citizens would have a say on projects affecting their com- munities through local referenda, following the conclusion of the planning process. But AD went on to say that in cases involving "infrastructural projects of national importance", parliament, which represents the "community on a national level" should have the final say after ad- dressing the concerns of the local community expressed in these "local referenda". If the PN's proposal is imple- mented, environmental impact assessments, consultations with various authorities and bodies and recommendations by experts and directorates will still take place. In this sense parliament will not replace the role of experts in the planning process. The two-thirds majority proposal would reinforce the idea of the ODZ as a common good, which will only be ceded for development after the achieve- ment of a wide consensus in the country's democratically elected institution. But the final decision would not be taken by the PA Board, which apart from government represent- atives includes one representative of NGOs and the local council af- fected by nay particular develop- ment. A question of definition So the PN's proposal raises two main issues, one of definition and one of procedure. The PN has not specified – other than 'major pro- jects of national importance' – what type of application would require the two-thirds majority. In this sense the PN's proposal is still half-baked. Defining which projects have national importance or not may prove tricky and surely deserve a clear definition. One possible yardstick suggested by Front Harsien ODZ is that pro- jects deemed to require an EIA should require a two-thirds major- ity in parliament after being ap- proved by the PA. People may ask 'why not ban all ODZ development' instead of cre- ating a new procedure for having proposals approved? The snag is that some developments, say pet- rol stations or fireworks factories, are by their nature preferably lo- cated away from residential areas, while other developments like ho- tels already exist ODZ. Surely one cannot expect all ODZ applications to be discussed in par- liament as these include hundreds of minor applications related to agriculture or minor developments in rural hamlets. They also include private developments, hotel exten- sions, relocated petrol pumps away from urban areas, fireworks factory extensions and even solar farms. What surely would count as projects of national importance are those related to the national infrastructure, such as roads, sew- age treatment plants, landfills, and energy infrastructure. Even the Malta Developers As- sociation agrees that the proposal is vague. "While we understand the motivations behind the pro- posal… we suggest that a study be conducted of the PN proposal fol- lowing wide consultation with all those who are interested." But how would such a definition apply to private projects dubbed "national" by the present govern- ment, such as the educational in- stitution proposed at Zonqor by Sadeen group? NGO Din l-Art Helwa seems the keenest on parliamentary scrutiny of all planning applications and not just large projects, because all ODZ permits involve a violation or a change of a development bound- ary. "In principle these should be approved by Parliament," the NGO says. Din l-Art Helwa has proposed that all prospective ODZ permits should be sent to the Parliamen- tary Committee for Planning and the Environment for final endorse- ment, as this would add a level of scrutiny to ODZ development. A question of procedure The PN says that such projects would be forwarded, after the plan- ning process, to the parliamentary committee for planning. But vari- ous pertinent questions on proce- dural issues were raised on Twitter by architect and government con- sultant Robert Musumeci. These include whether a case of- ficer's report would be concluded before the parliamentary vote, whether there will be the option People may ask 'why not ban all ODZ development' instead of creating a new procedure for having proposals approved? PN leader Simon Busuttil