FAA refutes MEPA Chairman’s allegations.

In the press release issued by MEPA on 13 June it was stated by MEPA Chairman Andrew Calleja that "the facts on the Ramla l-Ħamra development have been freely available since 2005. This has no bearing on the case. Just because an application is freely available, doesnt necessarily mean that the public, or a non-governmental organization, will automatically know about a project report unless alerted to it in some way or another.

Moreover facts can emerge at the last moment, often after the application has been approved or when a public consultation takes place at very short notice so that only few people can attend. That an application had been made for the tourist complex at Ramla

l- Ħamra was not widely known until a late stage in the proceedings.

This is why the waiving of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is so serious. Not only does an EIA ensure a professional study of the effects that a development is going to have on the heritage, ecology and human community, but it also ensures that the project reports reach the public through consultation, which does not necessarily happen if an EIA is waived.

According to the terms of the Aarhus Convention on public freedom of access to environmental information, it is MEPA’s duty to disseminate such information; however we have often observed that a great deal of the information is not available for consultation, as is the case with the Auditor’s reports.  Indeed  if, as asserted by Mr Calleja, information is so readily available from MEPA, the first step in the right direction for Mepa to make would be to make the Auditor’s report available or does this report cast further doubts on the processing of this application?

FAA would also like to set the record straight about MEPA’s claim that “no interest was shown at the time by FAA to view the PDS”. The moment we became aware of the serious issues at stake we spoke to the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Environment and a meeting with MEPA Major Projects was kindly set for late afternoon to allow the Gozitan parties to participate. When we asked to examine the papers in the file, we were informed that we could only see the Case Officer’s report. Had we been allowed to see the Project Description Statement (PDS) would it not have been listed together with that of the Case Officer’s report? This may have been a genuine oversight on the Official’s part, but it was certainly not due to lack of interest on our part. We did however see the plans which did not conform to MEPA regulations which stipulate that the developer is obliged to submit originals, not photocopies of plans in a different scale to the ones previously submitted. The MEPA Chairman’s claim is therefore not correct.

It is also to be noted that while FAA did its best to avoid confrontation on this issue through ‘consultation with stakeholders’ as is purported to be MEPA’s policy, the reasonable requests of FAA and other NGOs as well as that of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage to simply postpone the decision pending further investigation was totally ignored by the MEPA Board. This is yet another proof that where developers’ interests are at stake, public consultation is reduced to a sham.

As to FAA assertion that the archaeologists' report was not prepared as, nor was it meant to be a study for environment assessment purposes, the archaeologists who submitted the report were in fact not aware of the use to which the report would be put.

Their report focused on a totally different issue i.e. that of creating a heritage trail – very far removed indeed from what was claimed at the hearing. One could regard these facts as grounds for saying that the archaeologists’ report was obtained under false pretences, since they were not aware of the purpose of the report or the use to which it would be put. In this context it is in place to emphasise the following points from the comments made by Archaeology Services Co-operative Ltd (ASC) and Katya Stroud:

1) Its purpose was a Preliminary Study aimed at compiling information on archaeological remains in the vicinity of Ulysses Lodge, which may be enhanced in the future.

2) The study did not address impacts of any development in the area or any mitigation measures which might have to be carried out to ensure the preservation of the cultural heritage.

3) The ASC group was not informed that this report would be attached to a development permit application.

4) ASC was not present during the Public Consultation. ASC was informed about the meeting only one day before it took place.

5) ASC expressed the opinion that a general preliminary report about cultural heritage cannot be used to consider the impacts of any proposed development on cultural heritage.

MEPA’s mission statement specifies that its main concern is to strike a balance between development and the conservation of both heritage and the environment. Is Mr. Calleja implying that if objectors are unaware of a project which could have massive negative effects on the environment and heritage, MEPA will go ahead and approve such a project, simply because there are no objectors?