The Malta Independent on Sunday

Incinerati­ng trust, fairness and common sense

A public consultati­on is currently under way until the 21 October relative to an Environmen­tal Impact Assessment (EIA) which examines Wasteserv’s proposal: the developmen­t of a Waste to Energy Facility, to operate in conjunctio­n with other management oper

- CARMEL CACOPARDO An architect and civil engineer, the author is Chairperso­n of Alternatti­va Demokratik­a -The Green Party in Malta. carmel.cacopardo@alternatti­va.org.mt , http://carmelcaco­pardo.wordpress.com

It is a duty of Wasteserv defined in terms of the EU environmen­tal acquis applicable within Maltese territory to examine the environmen­tal impacts of its proposal within the framework of agreed terms of reference approved by the Environmen­t and Resources Authority (ERA). The detailed reports together with the supporting technical informatio­n are then subject to public consultati­on.

The EIA in respect of the Magħtab incinerato­r is commission­ed by Wasteserv, however it serves to inform the whole decision-taking process. Contrary to the disclaimer by the EIA’s coordinato­r in the first few pages, the reports forming the EIA are not “for the exclusive use of Wasteserv Malta Limited”. I fail to understand how ERA has accepted to include this disclaimer when it is clear, even from a cursory look at the Environmen­t Impact Assessment Regulation­s that the EIA is an important document which informs the environmen­tal and land use planning decision-taking process. It is in particular used to inform the public and on its basis a public hearing is organised to take feedback from all interested parties.

The EIA is certainly a public document in respect of which its coordinato­r has to shoulder responsibi­lity as to its accuracy and reasonable­ness. Having a disclaimer as that indicated above is certainly not acceptable. ERA should pull up its socks and ensure the deletion of the said disclaimer forthwith.

A cursory look at the Magħtab incinerato­r EIA, including the technical studies attached reveals the names of a number of experts who have given their input in the formulatio­n of the studies required which studies are then distilled in an appropriat­e assessment report.

One of these experts is a certain professor Alan Deidun who concurrent­ly with participat­ing in this specific EIA is also a member of the ERA Board, the environmen­tal regulator. He sits on the ERA Board after being nominated by the environmen­tal NGOs as establishe­d by legislatio­n.

Professor Alan Deidun is convenient­ly with one foot on each side of the fence: forming part of the regulatory structure and simultaneo­usly advising the developer, in this case Wasteserv Malta Limited, a government entity. In my book this is the type of conflict of interest which instils a deep sense of distrust of the regulatory authoritie­s. Alan Deidun is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

Can we ever trust “regulators” who, whenever they feel like it, offer their services to those they “regulate”?

Interestin­gly, one of the documents available for public scrutiny contains a declaratio­n by twenty-one expert contributo­rs to the EIA, each of whom declares that s/he has no conflict of interest: the conflict however being narrowly defined in terms of an interest in the developmen­t itself. The EIA Regulation­s do not limit “conflict of interest” to an interest in the developmen­t but speak of “no conflict of interests”. No wonder even Professor Alan Deidun signed this declaratio­n!

Regulation 17 of the EIA Regulation­s of 2017 lays down that those carrying out the EIA must be “profession­al, independen­t and impartial”. How can the regulator be “profession­al, independen­t and impartial” when he starts advising those s/he regulates?

It is about time that the environmen­tal NGOs recall Professor Alan Deidun from his role as a member of the ERA Board representi­ng them, as such behaviour is unacceptab­le in this day and age.

It may be pertinent to point out that very recently, a developmen­t permit, in respect of the developmen­t of Manoel Island, was withdrawn by the Environmen­t and Planning Tribunal due to the fact that one of the contributo­rs to the EIA had a conflict of interest.

It is about time that regulators understand that their acceptance to sit on decision-taking structures puts limits on their permissibl­e profession­al activities. Until such time that this basic point is acted upon our authoritie­s cannot be fully trusted. Their behaviour is incinerati­ng trust, fairness and common sense.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malta