Carmel Cacopardo, AD’s spokesperson on Sustainable Development and Local Government has replied to MEPA’s statement issued in response to AD’s press conference at Mistra yesterday.

In their statement MEPA said that is wrong to state that these are the only activities that may be carried out in such areas, pointing out that the Habitats Directive states that the authorities must not permit activities or development that could threaten the integrity of the sites and, in particular, the species or habitats for which they are designated. All other activities are permitted, MEPA said.

Mr Cacopardo said that reference is made to article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive (reproduced hereunder) wherein it is clear that activities within sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation shall be compatible with the site’s conservation objectives. The MEPA Board on the 26th of June 2008 made use of these parameters to declare an incompatibility between the outline permit approved by the Development Control Commission for a Disco on the same site and withdrew the said permit. MEPA has the duty to explain why it changed its mind within 11 months.

Furthermore Mr Cacopardo said, it is to be pointed out that in terms of article 4 (4) of the Habitats Directive (reproduced hereunder) MEPA has as soon as possible but within 6 years of the designation of a site as an SAC to establish priorities for the sites “maintenance and restoration … in the light of the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed.” Such priorities are to be established within the context of a management plan for the individual SACs which are to be the result of scientific studies of the designated areas. Until such studies are concluded MEPA should adopt a precautionary principle approach and not permit activities such as the one at Mistra. This was the attitude adopted 11 months ago but unfortunately it has been discarded on the eve of the EU Parliamentary elections.

Arnold Cassola AD Chairperson said that MEPA’s attitude at postponing the drawing up of management studies in order to have an apparent free hand at deciding on whether to give the go-ahead to individual activities is compromising the integrity of SACs. He concluded that in view of the fact that MEPA is mishandling the management of SACs AD considers that it is now more opportune that the EU Environment Commissioner is informed about their current status in order that the Republic of Malta lives up to its commitments when it joined the EU.

Extracts from Directive

Article 1 …special area of conservation means a site of Community importance designated by the Member States through a statutory, administrative and/or contractual act where the necessary conservation measures are applied for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of the natural habitats and/or the populations of the species for which the site is designated

Article 4 4. Once a site of Community importance has been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2, the Member State concerned shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing priorities in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of a natural habitat type in Annex I or a species in Annex II and for the coherence of Natura 2000, and in the light of the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed.

5. As soon as a site is placed on the list referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 it shall be subject to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4).

Article 6 1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.

2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.

3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.