1 / 9

SF / CF Institutional Set-Up in Malta

This article provides an overview of the institutional set-up in Malta, focusing on the role of the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) in managing environmental and planning matters. It discusses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats faced by MEPA in implementing EU-funded projects and highlights the importance of effective communication, strategic planning, and capacity-building for successful project implementation.

xavierv
Download Presentation

SF / CF Institutional Set-Up in Malta

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SF / CF Institutional Set-Up in Malta a perspective of the Malta Environment & Planning Authority Sergei Golovkin, Projects Coordinator Krista Falzon, Environment Protection Officer

  2. EU Commission SMSC Agri-Fish SMSC Environment SMSC Transport SMSC Tourism SMSC Employment ENEA GRDP PSC MA MC State Aid Paying Agency RPC NCSD Equality Contracts Social Partners Ministry MEPA

  3. Publicity Requirements Managing Authority Procurement rules Co-financing Permits Consultations Selection Criteria Programme Timeframes State of the Environment National Priorities Projects Viability Institutional Capacity Payment rules Monitoring Indicators Environmental Authority Appraisal methods Applicants Financial Rules N+2 = ?? Intermediary Bodies Written Guidance Impact Assessments Red tape Project Stakeholders

  4. Strengths • Proximity: all key players are near – easy communication • Knowledge: strong skills base within MEPA • History: good track record on EIAs & well-developed land use policy • Information: sound IT base • Awareness: strong public expectations from the Funds

  5. Weaknesses • Economies of scale: is it worth the trouble? • Finance: limited allocation of funds • Resources: limited HR & institutional capacity • Culture: lack of sensitivity for environmental concerns • Direction: lack of strategy on environment • Perception: environmental concerns are seen as an added cost, not an asset

  6. Opportunities • Improve / capitalize on communication • Apply SEAs • Promote the use of ICT for integration • Still in time to influence EU guidelines & regulations • Use of technical assistance for capacity-building • Share experience with other MS

  7. Threats • Money spent on bad projects • Lack of time & “parallel programming” • Weak evaluations • Lack of coordination amongst different Funds • Narrow recognition of the roles of EAs within the proposed regulations

  8. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

  9. grdp@mepa.org.mt

More Related