Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/777084
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 25 JANUARY 2017 News 6 PN green proposals: the firm, the The Nationalist Party's new environmental policy contains a number of binding commitments, some vague ones which leave leeway for interpretation and a few remarkable omissions. How far has the PN gone in courting the green vote, asks JAMES DEBONO THE PN's newly launched environ- mental policy is not the usual run of the mill declaration of vague princi- ples normally found in pre-electoral policy documents. Rather than leav- ing room for post electoral interpre- tation, some proposals included in the document – such as that exclud- ing land reclamation for real estate purposes and the requirement of a two-thirds parliamentary majority for any major ODZ development – do clip the wings of a future Nation- alist government. On these issues civil society has been given enough rope to hang a future PN govern- ment should it renege on these clear pledges. This indicates that the PN is as committed to environmental issues in the same way that Labour was to civil liberties before the 2013 elec- tion, albeit in this case the PN risks alienating traditional backers in the construction lobby. But as often happens the devil is in the detail and some of the proposed policies, even those which are ap- parently cast in stone, give a future PN government some room for ma- noeuvre. Moreover some hot potato topics such as hunting and trapping and the Armier and other boat- houses are completely avoided. Yet on balance the document, if reiter- ated in the final electoral manifesto, goes a long way in strengthening the party's green credentials. Cast in stone proposals Cast in stone is the PN's proposal to require a two-thirds majority in parliament for major projects of national importance, whether pro- posed by the public or private sector. The PN has also heeded criti- cism made by NGOs in June when the proposal was first mooted. For while welcoming an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny, NGOs were wary of parliament overruling plan- ning experts. The PN has now clarified that any such proposals would have first to go through the normal planning procedures in the Planning Author- ity. This means that parliament will not be substituting planning experts but will serve as an additional level of scrutiny. Only in the case of a positive rec- ommendation by the PA would a project be submitted to parliament for approval and in such cases such a project would require a two-thirds majority. This means that parliament would not be in a position to approve pro- jects which were heading for a re- fusal by the PA as suggested by the first draft. Moreover the policy suggests that the two-thirds vote in parliament will be final. Back in June the PN had proposed that after two consec- utive failures in efforts to garner a two-thirds majority, a simple major- ity in a final third vote would suffice. The policy as proposed now makes no reference to approval by a simple majority. One of the risks of such a policy is that of a gridlock over a national project, such as a sewage treatment plant, with the opposition using this clause to obstruct the government. In concrete terms the PN is limit- ing its own power in government by giving the opposition a veto on ODZ projects which have already been approved by the PA. But the proposal is still leaving a window open for projects backed by influential lobbies, such as that of motorsports, who may command support across the political divide. The safeguard in this case is that such projects would still have to be approved by the PA before being ratified by parliament. The only vague aspect of this policy is how a future government will be defining what constitutes a "major project" which requires par- liamentary approval. In the absence of a clear definition, one may end up with arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a major project. Also cast in stone is the exclusion of land reclamation projects for "speculative purposes", and that any other land reclamation projects will only be permitted within a frame- work for the spatial planning of the coastal zone and the marine area. This means that under a PN gov- ernment no land will be reclaimed to make way for real estate. But this still leaves an open win- dow for economic activities deemed to be non-speculative, such as stor- age space for warehousing or tour- ism development. One risk would be that developers would propose mixed use develop- ments which keep the residential development on the coast and ad- ditional tourism development on reclaimed land. The PN is also firmly committing itself to amend the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Develop- ment (SPED) to remove the ambi- guity created by a clause which al- lows development on vacant ODZ land whenever this is deemed not feasible within development zones. This will eliminate one of the major loopholes in current planning poli- cies. Another concrete commitment is to scrap the Paceville masterplan which envisioned 18 high-rise de- velopments in this area and to for- mulate a skyline policy for the whole country, in line with the PN's belief that "the skyline is part of our com- mon heritage." Such a policy will ensure that the visual impact of high-rises is as- sessed on a national level rather than a local level, thus ensuring that views on strategic locations such as Mdina, Valletta and the countryside are not broken by such buildings. Still, the policy gives some leeway to a party which has never pro- nounced itself to be against high- rise development. Much depends on the way the promised skyline policy is formulated but the sheer existence of such a policy strength- ens the position of environmental- ists. For the impact of high-rises on long distance views and the Maltese landscape as a holistic entity has never been assessed. The document also enshrines the concept of solar rights, going as far as proposing government compen- sation for cases when rooftops are over-shadowed by new building heights. But this in itself raises the issue of whether planning policies should be changed to protect exist- ing sky lines – and access to solar energy in urban areas. The docu- ment also refers to innovative ideas such as the development of solar roads, which would be less taxing on land use than solar farms on va- cant land. On fish farms the PN goes as far as saying that this industry should only be allowed to continue to oper- ate as long as it fulfills the expected environmental standards and is "re- located well off the coast", thus dis- pelling the perception that the party is close to the fish farm lobby. But the document omits any mention of the impact of tuna penning on fish stocks and biodiversity. Vague proposals The policy document aims to "ensure a zero-tolerance approach to illegal development, particularly that which is carried out in ODZ ar- eas", but falls short of any concrete proposals to address what has been repeatedly denounced by the Envi- ronment and Resources Authority as the "malpractice of first carrying out development outside develop- ment zones without the required permits and subsequently expecting the regulatory authorities to retro- actively sanction a fait accompli." One way to address this issue is to reintroduce a clause in the 2010 planning law, removed from the law approved in 2015, which bans the PA from legalising ODZ illegali- ties carried out after 2008 and any development in protected areas ir- respective of when this was carried out. Understandably the policy does not seek to upset the recent demerg- Firm proposals No land reclamation for real estate 2/3 majority for major projects in ODZ Removal of feasibility exception for ODZ in SPED Re-location of fish farms further offshore Scrap Paceville masterplan and enact skyline policy Vague proposals Zero tolerance for illegalities in ODZ Curb unspecified "abuses" in water management Give economic value to government-owned ODZ land Not Mentioned Boreholes Hunting and trapping Armier and other boathouses The PN shied away from taking a clear stand on illegal boathouses PN leader Simon Busuttil's commitment on environmental issues has echoes of Labour's focus on civil liberties before the 2013 election