While a number of groups have become more vocal, public participation in events against the PA is still quite low. Is there enough public involvement with the PA? Can it be improved and if so, how?
There isn’t enough public involvement. The amount of approvals we read about in the papers has grown so large that many may feel disillusioned or resigned. However, it is absolutely vital that the public finds some sense of empowerment in order to fight these decisions. Pressure needs to be ongoing, constant, and very often, direct. The Planning Authority board meets every Thursday to vote in favour or against a number of developments. The agenda for these meetings can be found on the calendar on the Planning Authority website. These meetings are open to the public and it is important for people to attend and voice their anger. It is obviously impossible to attend every meeting, but one can choose to start by attending meetings that discuss issues which hit close to home. These are decisions that we may have grown used to, but we should not be tempted to think that this makes their impact any less tragic. It is also important to be organised. These approvals and the onslaught on our environment cannot be fought individualistically. A sense of cohesiveness is required among individuals who really want to fight for their environment and quality of life. I encourage people to get on board with Kamp Emergenza Ambjent’s and Moviment Graffiti’s environmental campaigns, but also to create their own pressure groups among communities sharing common goals regarding a particular issue or other. Malta also really needs environmental lawyers to get on board. We need laws and policies which protect our environment and the people and it is therefore vital to have legal tools at hand.
Do you believe that there should be more reform at the PA? If so, what should take place?
We have a planning board that has approved around 90 per cent applications in 2017. Of course reform is required. But the real reform, the one which could possibly give us more than some imaginary light at the end of the tunnel, is constitutional and institutional reform, which both major parties have been talking about for years. For as long as the Planning Authority and other institutions remain under the politically appointed leadership, we cannot have real reform. Unless the structure with which these appointments are made changes, the Planning Authority will keep prioritising the interests of the few developers puppeteering our politicians. Are there any large-scale projects (either developed or under development) that should be supported? Regarding large-scale projects that are dominated by private interests, it is unlikely that they will benefit more than a few lucky individuals. The privatisation process of Manoel Island, Zonqor and the ITS site are a few examples of this. Who benefits from a hotel in the Lazzaretto hospital and a few luxury villas? And when you have large-scale projects without a master plan, it is even harder to gauge the real impact of the developments taking place, especially when the interrelation between them and their cumulative effects are ignored. As recent international statistics show, the world’s richest individuals continue to increase their wealth, with the world’s five richest people holding around a sixth of the UK’s GDP. Unfortunately, it is no coincidence that millions of people living in poverty have grown poorer. When the fabric that policies are made of is warped by the power of the lucky or the smart, inequality cannot be escaped. When the very nature of finance dictates that the early bird catches all the worms, inequality cannot be escaped.
More citizen groups, including local councils, have become more vocal over certain developments. Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the public’s and the developers’ wants and interests. Is there any way for the two opposing sides to meet in the middle?
It is very difficult for the public’s and the developers’ wants and interests to converge when we live in a society which, more often than not, grants wealth by exploiting the vulnerabilities of those who are not wealthy.
