In her letter of the 1 st November (Uprooting of Trees), Ms Sylvana Debono, MEPA Spokesperson, agreed that Aleppo Pines are protected but still insists that “Flimkien ghal Ambjent ahjar” (FAA) was incorrect in implying that the uprooting of Aleppo pines in Mdina Road was illegal.
Aleppo pines are protected under Schedule IB of LN 12/01, the Trees and Woodlands (Protection) Regulations. A permit is therefore required for their uprooting. Regulation 8 (2) of the same Legal Notice states that the permit should be kept affixed on site for at least three weeks before the uprooting of the tree in question can be undertaken.
The trees were uprooted immediately after the permit was issued. This act was illegal by virtue of non-observation of Regulation 8 (2) of the Legal Notice. When queried, MEPA informed the public that its Enforcement Officers had looked into the felling of these trees and were satisfied that everything was done by the book. Ms Debono also insisted in her letter that uprooting of the trees was not illegal.
The FAA requests answers to the following questions:
* Was a copy of the permit displayed on site as required by law? If such a notice was not displayed, the law was broken.
* Who is responsible for ensuring that a copy of the permit is displayed on site for three weeks before protected trees are uprooted?
* The illegal uprooting of the trees took place immediately after the permit was issued. Who authorised bypassing the statutory three week period before uprooting can proceed?
* By whom were the trees uprooted, government employees or a contractor?
* Why did MEPA inform the public that everything was proceeding according to regulations when this was obviously not the case?
* Why did MEPA issue a permit so quickly when the petrol station application is still in the appeal process? Or is the official who took the decision already sure that the appeal will be in favour of the development?
* If public display of permits on site for at least three weeks before the uprooting of trees serves “only for information to the public” and not “to allow objections (or suggestions) from the public”, what purpose is served by displaying a permit on site?
* There are petrol stations nearby, one close to the Corinthia Hotel and others at Saqqajja. There is therefore no need for another petrol station on the Mdina road.
Furthermore, the site of the proposed petrol and car wash station is outside the development zone. On what grounds was this development given a permit?
* In spite of Ms. Debono’s initially giving the impression that the road works were independent of the petrol station, the timing of this road work, and presence of a newly constructed slip-road to allow vehicles entry into the (yet to be built) petrol station confirm that the pines were uprooted and recently-laid road re-aligned, simply been made to facilitate entry of vehicles from Attard into to the petrol station. And this while the petrol station permit is still under appeal.
* Aleppo pines are a protected species. Why was no attempt made to adjust the road re-alignment so as to avoid destroying the trees?
These Aleppo pines had been there for over 80 years; ironically, the permit to destroy them was issued by MEPA within three working days of application – which must be a record for MEPA especially given that this included clearance from the Department of Agriculture which we are informed, usually takes up to 30 days.
FAA still maintains that the destruction of these trees was illegal for the reasons outlined above. Under the circumstances an investigation should be conducted to determine who acted illegally. Weaknesses in the system of law enforcement should also be identified and put right so that this does not happen again. The public also deserve a true answer as to why five of the magnificent pine trees, which are a cherished landmark on the Mdina Road, came to be destroyed in such an arbitrary and unjustified manner.
Astrid Vella
