This threat of a boycott against Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) does not surprise us and nor will it silence us. Besides being illegal, undemocratic and therefore very unwise to implement, this threat is simply in line with MEPA’s present policy to silence its critics. This has already been done with the Valletta,
Floriana, Mdina and Cottonera Rehabilitation Committees, where access to files is now being limited to two people instead of all the Committee members, leaving Valletta and Floriana, Mdina and Cottonera Committee members without direct access to the MEPA files.
The authority has similarly made sure that the MEPA Auditor’s office has been effectively silenced by removing staff – the secretary and the investigator – who make it possible for the Auditor to function and issue reports. All these moves which incidentally have taken place under the same MEPA Chairman, are extremely undemocratic attempts against the interests of civil society to gag any voice that dares challenge MEPA.
As for Mr Andrew Calleja's demand that we explain ourselves, we have stated our claims publicly and will continue to do so. We would be happy to substantiate our claims once we are given access to the Mepa file on Ramla l- Ħamra as we are empowered to have by the EU Directive on Access to Environmental Information and the Aarhus Convention.
Pending that, if the Mepa chairman is so sure that the Authority is in the right, FAA invites him to publish the plan of the footprint of the original structure which we have seen for ourselves at MEPA. Contrary to what has been claimed, this shows that the development approved in the Outline permit covers much more land than the existing structures.
We equally invite him to make public the developer’s Project Description Statement including the report which the archaeologists themselves said was a preliminary heritage report, not prepared nor was it meant to be adequate for environment assessment purposes but which was presented by the developers as an in-depth study and strangely enough accepted as such by the Mepa Case Officer and the Board.
Because of this and the developers' erroneous claims that all the site indicated is disturbed land; we hereby invoke Article 39A, calling for the annulment of the permit due to fraudulent and incorrect information being supplied, intentionally or unintentionally.
FAA additionally ask Mr Andrew Calleja why, when others are made to comply with regulations and rectify infringements on their sites before applying for fresh permits, was this not done with the Ramla l-Hamra developer? MEPA departed from normal regulations by which the developer should have been obliged to remove or apply to sanction the Ramla l-Hamra parking areas which were not covered by permits. Contrary to normal practice, MEPA did not insist on this regulation in this case.
We further invite the chairman to make public the auditor’s report on the processing of the Ramla l-Ħamra permit mentioned in the Mepa annual report 2006 as we are sure that this will reveal further irregularities in the handling of the case.
We would also bring to the attention of Mr. Calleja that according to regulations, an Environment Impact Assessment can only be waived subject to a detailed justification being first given to the public and the EU. This was never done therefore we contend that the waiving of the EIA was illegal.
While maintaining that MEPA is in the right at the press conference, the MEPA Chairman commented about the amount of opposition to the Ramla project. He may wish to consider whether this is not a reflection on the fact that perhaps it is the public, and not MEPA that is in the right. FAA also maintains that MEPA officials’ readiness to defend speculative development projects at public hearings is highly questionable. It has often been commented that it is very difficult to find individuals who are prepared to sit on MEPA Boards. This could be the reason why.