Greening the Constitution

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party –  is in agreement that 50 years after its adoption Malta’s Constitution needs to be updated.  However such an exercise, as emphasised in AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto, should be carried out with the direct involvement of civil society. The Constitution belongs to all of us.

There are a number of issues which require careful consideration. In AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto at least fourteen such issues are identified. They vary in scope from electoral reform to widening the issues in respect of which discrimination is prohibited, by including protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. AD also proposes the introduction of a Constitutional provision in favour of a balanced budget, thereby ensuring that government is forced to discard budget deficits and consequently to control the spiralling public debt.

One very important issue is the need to entrench environmental rights and duties in the Constitution. The proposed Constitutional Convention, supported by AD, should aim at Greening the Constitution. That is, it should aim at addressing environmental rights and duties such that they are spelled out in unequivocal terms.  Environmental rights and duties should as a minimum be spelled out as clearly as property rights in the Constitution. They are worthy of protection just as the rights of individual persons.

Article 9 of the Constitution very briefly states that “The State shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the nation.”  Further, in article 21 of the Constitution we are informed that this (and other safeguards) “shall not be enforceable in a Court” but that this (safeguard) shall be “fundamental to the governance of the country” and that it shall be the aim of the State to apply it in making laws.

It is not conducive to good governance to first declare adherence to specifc safeguards, but then specifically excluding the Courts from ensuring that such safeguards are being observed.

The strategy of announcing principles but then not providing the legislative framework for their implementation was also taken up in environmental legislation. In fact articles 3 and 4 of the 2010 Environment and Development Planning Act  announce a whole list of sound environmental principles. However  in article 5 of the same Act it is then stated that these cannot be enforced in a Court of Law!

When I had the opportunity of discussing the Environment and Development Planning Bill with Mario de Marco (then Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism and the Environment) I had proposed on behalf of the Greens that the declarations  in articles 3 and 4 of the Bill should not be just guiding principles. They ought to be made enforceable by our Courts subject to the introduction of  a suitable transition. Unfortunately Dr de Marco did not take up the Greens proposal.

As things stand today, article 3 of the Environment and Development Planning Act announces very pompously that the government,  as well as every person in Malta, has the duty to protect the environment. Furthermore it is announced that we are duty bound to assist in the taking of preventive and remedial measures to protect the environment and manage resources in a sustainable manner.

Article 4 goes further:  it  states that government is responsible towards present and future generations.  It then goes on to list ten principles which should guide government in its endeavours.  Integrating environmental concerns in decisions on socio-economic and other policies is first on the list. Addressing pollution and environmental degradation through the implementation of the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle follows immediately after.  Cooperation with other governments and entities enshrines the maxim of “think global, act local” as Malta both affects and is affected by environmental impacts wherever they occur.  The fourth guiding principle is the need to disseminate environmental information whilst the fifth one underlines the need of research as a basic requirement of sound environment policy.  The waste management hierarchy is referred to in the sixth principle followed immediately by underlining the requirement to safeguard biological diversity and combatting all forms of pollution.  Article 4 ends by emphasising that the environment is the common heritage and common concern of mankind and underlines the need to provide incentives leading to a higher level of environmental protection.

Proclaiming guiding principles in our Constitution and environmental legislation is not enough. Our Courts should be empowered in order that they are able to ensure that these principles are actually translated into concrete action.   Government should be compelled to act on the basis of Maltese legislation as otherwise it will only act on environmental issues when and if forced to by the European Union as was evidenced in the past nine years.

Greening the Constitution by extending existing environmental provisions and ensuring that they can be implemented will certainly be one of the objectives of the Greens in the forthcoming Constitutional Convention.

published in the Times of Malta 18 May 2013

Increasing environmental awareness

 

 

 

The publication of the draft National Environment Policy (NEP) is a useful exercise irrespective of Government’s intentions, which, to put it mildly, are not always clear.

Government’s intense rhetoric coupled with action motivated primarily by the need to overcome threats of EU infringement proceedings is not the best way to move forward in environmental issues. Labour would certainly be no better. Past experience indicates that Labour are on the same wavelength as the PN even though their policies on a number of issues are not yet spelt out, in public at least.

In April 2010 Ernst & Young had concluded a Public Attitudes Survey on environmental issues commissioned by MEPA. The analysis of the results, available on the MEPA website makes interesting reading.

Of central importance are the conclusions relative to the inter-relationship between the environment and the economy: 69% of respondents held that the environment was as important as the economy, 23% held that the environment was more important than the economy whilst only 8% held that the economy is of over-riding importance.   

Air quality, waste management and land use top the list of the environmental concerns of the Maltese. In fact these are the most worrying issues, though certainly not the only ones.

The draft NEP collects in one document a detailed list of government’s environmental responsibilities, primarily resulting from the EU environmental acquis. There are also some areas covered by the draft NEP in respect of which the EU has no role. Government has erroneously described these as an indication of its determination to go beyond EU requirements.

A logical and down to earth reaction to the draft NEP is that we have been there before. A National Sustainable Development Strategy approved by Cabinet in late 2007 had approved practically a similar (although less detailed) document. It even had some specific targets all of which have been ignored by the Cabinet Minister who was responsible for their implementation: the Honourable Lawrence Gonzi whose portfolio of political responsibilities included and still includes Sustainable Development .

Is it ethical, I ask, for the Prime Minister to approve a strategy (through Cabinet)  with specific targets, ignore them, abolish the Commission which drew up the strategy and then re-present substantially the same strategy and proposals in a different form? Would you believe him if he now says that he is serious about implementation of strategies and proposals originally proposed in 2007 but ignored  by the government which he has led uninterruptedly since 2004?  Speaking for myself I don’t believe one word of what he says on the subject.       

The National Sustainable Development Strategy identified various targets. Most were undated, but some basic ones had a specific timeframe by which they had to be delivered.

Among the specific targets which Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister first approved but subsequently ignored are the following :

1. By 2008 draw up a strategy to enhance the use of economic instruments (eco-taxation strategy),
2. By 2008 put in place a permanent structure appropriately staffed and funded to monitor and review the implementation of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development,
3. Within 18 months of the adoption of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (that is by mid-2009) Ministries had to prepare their action plans on the implementation of the strategy in their portfolio of responsibilities,
4. By 2010 draw up an integrated Spatial Development Plan to take forward the Sustainable Development Strategy, with the participation of major stakeholders.

None of the above targets have been met.

 Among the general targets approved in 2007 (4 years ago), before the re-election of Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister he had promised : 

1. the drawing up and implementation of a policy addressing the issue of light pollution,
2. the drawing up and implementation of a dust-control policy,
3. a nationwide public footpath policy which delineates paths that the public can use,
4. promotion of a culture of Corporate Social Responsibility by major firms,
5. enhancing enforcement and monitoring to reduce the destabilising  effects on society of construction and quarrying activities.

  None of the above targets have been addressed.

 All the above nine proposals and many others originally forming part of the National Sustainable Development Strategy have re-surfaced in the draft NEP after being ignored for a number of years. Dr Gonzi’s proposals have a habit of hopping from one policy document to the other.

This is not a serious way of doing politics. Those who like Dr Gonzi proposed strategies and failed to implement them should have the decency of explaining why they failed in their mission. Instead of doing so Dr Gonzi organised a media circus at Xrobb l-Għaġin to explain to the media the “greening of his government”. Unfortunately no record is available of any of the journalists present taking him to task for trying to hide his failures.

 Notwithstanding the above some benefit will surely arise out of the debate on the draft NEP: even if we have been there before and discussed it not once, not twice but many times over without any tangible result to date. The public’s sensitivity to environmental issues is on the rise. Its environmental awareness is increasing rapidly.  Just 18 months before a general election I do not think that anyone can be deceived anymore on green issues.

Like the PL before it the PN in government has had its chance to deliver and failed.

 

 Published in the Independent n Sunday – Environment Supplement

October 2, 2011 

The circus has come to town

  

Saturday, September 10, 2011

 

When considering the draft National En­vironment Policy some patience is required. On one hand it is a detailed document covering a substantial number of environmental issues. However, its exposition of the issues to be tackled contrasts starkly with the government’s environmental performance throughout its long term in office.

The draft policy says more about the government than about the environment. It collates together the accumulated environmental responsibilities the government should have been addressing throughout the past years. The draft policy tells us: this is what the government ought to have done. It further tells us that in the next 10 years, the government will try its best to remedy its past failures by doing what it should do.

The government’s words and action are in sharp contrast, as I have been repeatedly pointing out in these columns. In late 2007, Cabinet approved the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, which, although being less detailed than today’s draft National Environment Policy, says practically the same things. It also covers a 10-year period (2007-2016), half of which has elapsed without the set targets having been addressed. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is the Cabinet member politically responsible for this failure. Having failed repeatedly, I find it difficult to think how he could be trusted to deliver on environmental or sustainability issues.

On the basis of this experience, it is reasonable to dismiss the government’s media circus at Xrobb l-Għaġin where the draft National Environment Policy was launched as just another exercise in rhetoric.

It is definitely not a sudden conversion in favour of environmental issues that moved the government to act. The present exercise is the result of society’s metamorphosis, which came about as a direct consequence of years of environmental activism in Malta. Civil society has pushed a reluctant Nationalist-led government to this point.

No one in his right senses can quarrel with the proposed National Environment Policy in principle. Yet, it is a fact that the environment has always been the Cinderella of government business. All talk and little walk. A clear example is the adjudication process of the Delimara power station extension. When the submitted tenders were adjudicated, it resulted that the submissions that were technically and environmentally superior were considered less favourably than the tender that was perceived as being economically more advantageous. When push comes to shove, environmental issues are not given priority, the adjudication criteria being skewed in favour of perceived economic gain.

All this contrasts with the declarations in favour of green procurement in the draft National Environment Policy. In defending the decision on the use of heavy fuel oil in the power station extension, government spokesmen are in fact stating that while the environment is the government’s political priority it still retains the right to have second thoughts whenever it takes an important decision.

When the government plays around with its declared environmental convictions with the ease of a juggler, it sows serious doubts on its intentions. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment is doing his best to convince that, under his watch, the environment carries weight it is clear to all that he has not succeeded in wiping the slate clean. He is still conditioned by the attitudes and the decisions taken by his boss and colleagues in the recent past. Their attitudes have not changed at all. Old habits die hard.

On a positive note, I have to state that the process leading to the draft National Environment Policy submitted for public consultation was one which involved civil society. A number of proposals submitted by civil society, including those in an AD document submitted to Mario de Marco, were taken on board. I also had the opportunity to discuss the draft policy and AD’s views with Dr de Marco on more than one occasion. The discussions were, in my opinion, beneficial.

The problem the government has so far failed to overcome is that it preaches one thing and continually does the opposite. The only times when it carries out positive environment action is when it is forced on this course by EU legislation or by threats of EU infringement proceedings. Within this context, declarations that Malta aims to go beyond the requirement of the EU’s acquis are, to say the least, hilarious. It would have been much better if the basics of the EU environmental acquis are first put in place.

The environmental initiatives taken during the past seven years have been mostly funded by the EU.

They would not have been possible without such funding.

By spelling it out, the draft National Environment Policy defines the government’s past failures. Hopefully, it also lays the groundwork for the required remedial action. The environmental destruction the government has facilitated and encouraged will take a long time to remedy. In some cases, the damage done is beyond repair.

Beyond the entertainment value of the media circus at Xrobb l-Għaġin, these first steps are just the beginning of a long journey. For the sake of Malta’s future generations I hope that the government does not go astray once more.

Linking energy and democracy

 

Saturday, June 18, 2011 ,

by

Carmel Cacopardo

 

Last weekend, Italian voters said no to nuclear energy for the second time since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 25 years ago.

Italy is not alone in refusing to handle nuclear energy. The Fukushima incidents have driven home the point that, even in a country that is very strict on safety standards, nuclear energy is not safe. Fukushima has proven that no amount of safeguards can render nuclear energy 100 per cent safe. Though accidents are bound to happen irrespective of the technology used, the risks associated with nuclear technology are such that they can easily wipe out life from the affected area in a very short time.

Last weekend’s no has a particular significance for Malta as this means an end to plans for the construction of a nuclear power plant at Palma di Montechiaro on Sicily’s southern coast, less than 100 kilometres from the Maltese islands.

Germany’s Christian Democrat/Liberal coalition government, faced with the resounding victory of the Greens in the Länd of Baden-Württemberg, has made a policy U-turn. As a direct effect of the Greens-led opposition to Germany’s nuclear programme, Germany will be nuclear-energy free as from 2022, by which date all existing nuclear power installations will be phased out. In doing so, the Merkel government has, once and for all, accepted the Green-Red coalition agreement on a complete nuclear phaseout.

Even Switzerland is planning not to make use of its existing nuclear plants beyond their scheduled projected life. The Swiss government will be submitting to Parliament a proposal not to replace existing nuclear plants. The process is scheduled to commence in 2019 and will conclude with the closure of the last Swiss nuclear reactor in 2034.

After the Tunisian revolution, Abdelkader Zitouni, the leader of Tunisie Verte, the Tunisian Green party, has called on Tunisia’s transitional government to repudiate the Franco-Tunisian agreement for the provision of nuclear technology by France. Hopefully, the same will happen when the Administration of Libya is back to normal.

There are other Mediterranean neighbours that are interested in the construction of nuclear plants. Libya and Tunisia were joined by Algeria, Morocco and Egypt in reacting positively to Nicolas Sarkozy, the peripatetic nuclear salesman during the past four years.

Malta could do without nuclear energy installations on its doorstep. Italy’s decision and the policy being advocated by Mr Zitouni are a welcome start. It would be wishful thinking to imagine Foreign Minister Tonio Borg taking the initiative in campaigning for a Mediterranean free of nuclear energy even though this is in Malta’s interest.

It is a very healthy sign that Malta’s neighbours together with Germany and Switzerland are repudiating the use of nuclear energy. Their no to nuclear energy is simultaneously a yes to renewable energy. This will necessarily lead to more efforts, research and investment in renewable energy generation as it is the only reasonable way to make up for the shortfall between energy supply and demand.

A case in point is the Desertec project, which is still in its infancy. The Desertec initiative is based on the basic fact that six hours of solar energy incident on the world’s deserts exceeds the amount of energy used all over the globe in one whole year. Given that more than 90 per cent of the world’s population lives within 3,000 kilometres of a desert, the Desertec initiative considers that most of the world’s energy needs can be economically met through tapping the solar energy that can be captured from the surface of the deserts.

The technology is available and has been extensively tested in the Mojave Desert, California, in Alvarado (Badajoz), Spain and in the Negev Desert in Israel where new plants generating solar energy on a large scale have been in operation for some time. The Desertec project envisages that Europe’s energy needs can be met through tapping the solar energy incident on the Sahara desert. The problems that have to be surmounted are of a technical and of a geopolitical nature.

On the technical front, solutions are being developed to address more efficient storage and the efficient transmission of the electricity generated.

The Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt and, hopefully, the successful conclusion of the Libyan revolution will address the other major concern: that of energy security. The movement towards democracy in North Africa can contribute towards the early success of the Desertec project in tapping solar energy in the Sahara desert for use in both Northern Africa and in Europe.

While Malta stands to gain economically and environmentally through the realisation of such a project, I have yet to hear the government’s enthusiasm and commitment even if the project is still in its initial stages.

Malta is committed in favour of the pro-democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Benghazi. Being surrounded by democratic neighbours is a definitely positive geopolitical development. If properly nurtured, this would enhance Malta’s economic development, energy security and environmental protection concerns.

Budget with positive, vague and missing measures – AD

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party said the budget had a mix of measures, some of which were positive, whilst others being rather vague. The budget also missed out from taking concrete action in certain social and environmental matters.
 
Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson, said: ‘It is positive that in a context of global economic difficulties, Government is aiming to reduce the deficit. Hopefully, Government’s expenditure programme will be more sustainable’.
 
‘We also agree that Government shall pay workers on minimum wage who undergo training programmes, and that Government will make life easier for people on social assistance who choose to work. On the other hand, AD strongly believes in an increase in the national and hourly minimum wage, including that for part-timers and contractual workers on a pro-rata basis. AD also augurs that Government’s enforcement against employers who exploit foreign workers is effective’.
‘As regards cost of living and social benefits, we agree with the increase in supplementary benefits and in expenditure aimed at vulnerable groups such as fostered children. We would however have expected more expenditure on disabled persons and the inclusion of vulnerable groups such as those with ME and FB for entitlement of disability benefits’.

‘As regards health, it is also positive that Government shall investment in the Cancer Centre at Mater Dei Hospital. In this regard, it is important to note that cancer should also be confronted through better environmental policy which is currently lacking. Government should also do much more to tackle costly medicinal prices, including considering importing them itself alongside importers from the private sector’.

‘Alternattiva Demokratika believes that it would have been better if Government put even more investment in public education and childcare centres rather than incentivising private education’.
.
Ralph Cassar, AD Secretary General, said: ‘As regards environmental policy, we strongly believe that Government should do much more for sustainable development, for example by reactivating the national commission for sustainable development. Government’s expenditure on renewable energy is simply not enough, especially when one keeps in mind the dirty fuel which shall be used in the power station extension. Government should also elaborate on the assistance schemes for sustainable energy’.
‘Government should also have introduced fiscal measures on property speculation, from the third vacant property onwards, particularly when one considers that Malta is a perpetual building site where a quarter of properties are vacant. Fiscal mechanisms should encourage the renting and selling of properties which are kept vacant for speculation purposes and the use of existing buildings rather than building more areas’.

‘AD also supports the investment in farmers’ markets and in animal welfare centre. It is also positive that Government shall introduce incentives encouraging cleaner transport. Till now details are too vague to comment in detail.’
 
 
Baġit b’taħlita ta’ miżuri pożittivi, vagi u nieqsa – AD

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party qal li l-baġit kellu taħlita ta ‘miżuri, li wħud minnhom kienu pożittivi, filwaqt li oħrajn huma pjuttost vagi. Il-baġit ukoll ma ħax azzjoni konkreta fuq ċerti materji soċjali u ambjentali.

Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson qal: “Huwa pożittiv li f’kuntest ta’ diffikultajiet ekonomiċi globali, l-Gvern qed jimmira li jnaqqas id-defiċit. Nawguraw li l-programm ta’ infiq tal-Gvern ikun aktar sostenibbli “.

“Aħna wkoll naqblu li l-Gvern iħallas ħaddiema bil-paga minima li jagħmlu programmi ta’ taħriġ, u li l-Gvern se jagħmel il-ħajja eħfef għall-persuni fuq assistenza soċjali li jagħżlu li jaħdmu. Min-naħa l-oħra, AD temmen li għandu jkun hemm żieda fil-paga minima nazzjonali u bis-siegħa, inkluż dak għall-part-timers u ħaddiema kuntrattwali fuq bażi pro-rata. AD tawgura ukoll li l-infurzar tal-Gvern kontra min iħaddem li jisfruttaw ħaddiema barranin ikun effettiv “.

“Fir-rigward ta’ l-għoli tal-ħajja u l-benefiċċji soċjali, aħna naqblu maż-żieda fl-assistenza supplimentari u fin-nefqa għall-gruppi vulnerabbli bħal tfal fostered. Iżda konna nistennew ukoll nefqa ikbar għal nies b’diżabilita’ u  li l-Gvern jinkludi gruppi bħal dawk li jbatu bl-ME u l-FM ma dawk intitolati għall-benefiċċji ta’ nies b’diżabilita’”.

“Fir-rigward tas-saħħa, huwa wkoll pożittiv li l-Gvern qed jinvesti fiċ-Ċentru tal-Kanċer fl-Isptar Mater Dei. F’dan ir-rigward, huwa importanti li wieħed jinnota li l-kanċer għandu ukoll ikun kkonfrontat permezz ta’ politika ambjentali aħjar li bħalissa hija nieqsa. Il-Gvern għandu wkoll jagħmel ħafna aktar biex jiġu indirizzati prezzijiet mediċinali għaljin, inkluż li jiġi kkunsidrat l-importazzjoni tagħhom flimkien ma’ importaturi mis-settur privat’.

“Alternattiva Demokratika temmen li kien ikun aħjar jekk il-Gvern jinvesti aktar fl-edukazzjoni pubblika u childcare centres minflok fl-edukazzjoni privata”.
.
Ralph Cassar, Segretarju Ġenerali ta’ AD, qal: “Fir-rigward tal-politika ambjentali, aħna nemmnu bil-qawwa li l-Gvern għandu jagħmel ħafna aktar għall-iżvilupp sostenibbli, per eżempju li jerga’ jattiva l-Kummissjoni Nazzjonali għall-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli. In-nefqa tal-Gvern dwar l-enerġija rinnovabbli hija sempliċement mhux biżżejjed, speċjalment meta wieħed iżomm f’moħħu l-fjuwil maħmuġ li se jintuża fl-estenzjoni tal-power station. Il-Gvern għandu jelabora wkoll dwar l-iskemi ta ‘assistenza għall-enerġija sostenibbli’.

‘Il-Gvern naqas milli jintroduċi miżuri fiskali fuq l-ispekulazzjoni tal-propjetà, mit- tielet propjeta vojta ‘l fuq, partikolarment meta Malta u Ghawdex huma sit tal-bini perpetwu u meta kwart tal-propjetajiet huma vojta. Mekkaniżmi fiskali għandhom jinkoraġġixxu l-kiri u l-bejgħ ta’ propjetajiet li huma miżmuma vakanti għal għanijiet ta’ spekulazzjoni u uzu ta’ bini ezistenti milli l-bini ta’ aktar postijiet’.

‘AD tappoġġja wkoll l-investiment fis-swieq tal-bdiewa u fiċ-ċentru għall-ħarsien ta’ l-annimali. Huwa wkoll pożittiv li l-Gvern jintroduċi inċentivi li jħeġġu trasport aktar nadif. S’issa d-dettalji huma vagi wisq biex nikkummentaw f’aktar dettall’.

Reflections on an Environment Policy

The current debate on what should form part of a National Environment Policy is a healthy exercise. It is focusing not only on the different aspirations of each citizen but also on the role of each one of the towns and villages which together constitute this country.

The environmental issues we face are the result of the manner we organise our lives both individually and as a community. In fact it can be safely stated that the manner in which economic activity has been organised throughout time has created different environmental and social impacts.

The exercise at this point in time is hence the clear identification of these impacts and subsequently seeking the best manner in which they can be tackled. This is done on two fronts: firstly through the formulation of an environment policy and secondly by integrating this environment policy with economic and social policy within the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD).

The NSSD has already been formulated and approved by Cabinet almost three years ago after a long process of consultation. It established targets and objectives which have unfortunately been ignored by the same Government which has approved them. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that these exercises can be a waste of time as their only purpose seems to be an exercise to prove that the new hands on deck can do things in a better way than those they have replaced. 

The National Environment Policy Issues Paper identifies a number of areas which are to be tackled but excludes a number of important ones. What is in my view objectionable and bordering on the insulting is the ignoring by the Issues Paper of the NSSD. It also ignores matters which have been tackled by the NSSD as well as the specific targets identified. This the NSSD did after extensive consultation with civil society, which the Issues Paper promises to go through again.

 

Eco-taxation

One such case refers to the use of economic instruments to attain environmental objectives. The Issues Paper queries whether and to what extent there is agreement  with the use of such instruments to further environmental objectives. Simultaneously with the publication of the Issues Paper, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech through the pre-budget document was lauding the idea of introducing a carbon tax and the possible utilisation of the proceeds to affect a tax shift. This is in the spirit of the former EU Commission President  (French Socialist) Jacques Delors’ 1993 EU White Paper entitled “On growth, competitiveness and employment. The challenges and ways forward into the 21^st century”.

So whilst the Environment Ministry is requesting our opinion on the use of eco-taxation (and other instruments) it seems that the Finance Ministry is dead-set to proceed.  Do these two Ministries form part of the same government? 

Both the Environment Ministry and the Finance Ministry would do well to go back in time to the debate on the introduction of the eco-contribution (2003-05) where they could identify a number of issues raised by civil society.

Should fiscal objectives be the purpose of environmental taxation or would it rather be environmental improvement? All over the globe governments declare that their aim in applying eco-taxation is environmental improvement. Yet they resist transferring political responsibility for environmental taxation from the Finance Ministry to the Environment Ministry. Such a move would lend credence to statements on the environmental objectives of eco-taxation and would ensure that the design of specific measures is more in line with encouraging changes in behaviour. Retaining political responsibility for environmental taxation at the Finance Ministry on the other hand signifies that the objective is to tax behaviour but not  to change it. This reluctance is generally reflected in the manner  in which eco-taxes are designed. Fiscal policy makers pay attention to the fact that changing behaviour would mean drying up a source of revenue. Hence eco-taxes designed for fiscal objectives are intended not to affect the elasticity of demand. This is done by selecting items in respect of which there are no alternatives and thus irrespective of tax added to the price there is no alternative to purchasing the product or service. The eco-contribution exercise clearly illustrates this argument.

 

Environmental nuisance 

The Issues Paper has failed to project an understanding that environmental issues can be most effectively tackled at a micro-level. In fact the Issues Paper adopts an exclusively macro approach and does not give any weight to the real life issues. Issues of environmental nuisance are the ones which the man in the street feels strongly about. These include primarily noise, air quality and odour nuisance caused by neighbours in residential areas. They could range from an air conditioner fixed below your bedroom window to a neighbour’s fireplace chimney spewing smoke right into your living room or a bakery belching black smoke onto your washing line. Or the newly opened restaurant or snack bar in a transformed ground floor flat whose operator wouldn’t care less about where the odours from his kitchen end up.    

Information

Access to environmental information is an important aspect of environment policy. Yet the drafters of the Issues Paper ignored it. The environmental information aspects of the Åarhus Convention have been incorporated into Maltese legislation as a direct result of Malta’s EU accession. This legislation provides a mechanism through which the citizen requests the release of information which up till then would be withheld by the authorities. This is a very primitive form of governance. The state should release information without having its hand forced to do it. This is the minimum required in an age of transparency and accountability. 

Policy proposals and other initiatives must be buttressed by studies which not only justify the proposal or initiative but which also identify the resulting impacts and the manner in which these can be addressed. Studies must be published at an early stage and not in the final stages of a discussion. Otherwise the public debate cannot be fruitful.

Transparency and accountability

Transparency and accountability are not only duties of the state. They are also a responsibility of private enterprise.  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is one way in which private enterprise informs the public on its activities. It is a function as important as financial reporting. Financial reporting having been accepted by society for quite a long time as a reporting requirement.

In Malta currently two companies publish a CSR report. Vodafone (Malta) and Bank of Valletta (BOV) have already published two editions of their CSR report. There has been considerable improvement in the information made available by Vodafone (Malta) in its second report, but BOV’s reporting  can be substantially improved.

The environment policy should identify the type of organisations that should have the duty to report publicly and on a regular basis on their environmental and other impacts. By organisations I understand not just industry and business but also public corporations, government departments and local authorities. A reasonable first step would be for companies quoted on the stock exchange to take the lead followed by public bodies such as Enemalta, Water Services Corporation, Heritage Malta and Air Malta.

CSR reporting should be guided by international standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative G3 guidelines and should be subject to auditing in order to verify that the statements made reflect what the organisation is really up to. 

Alternattiva Demokratika, AD, the Green Party in Malta has earlier this month published a document in reply to the National Environment Policy Issues Paper which lists and discusses the areas missed out by the said Issues Paper.  In addition to focusing on the urgent need to implement the NSSD, environment information, environmental nuisance and environment information it also points out the need to tackle the uptake of environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) Regulations of the European Union, light pollution, contaminated land, environmental and sustainability planning at a locality level better known as Local Agenda 21,  the role of civil society and environmental NGOs in environment policy and environment  research.  

We hope that when the environment policy is drafted it will include the widest possible list of issues and will tackle them in an holistic manner keeping in mind the parameters established in the National Sustainable Development Strategy.                 

Alternattiva Demokratika considers that environment policy is one of several instruments through which improvement in the quality of life can be attained. Protecting the environment signifies that we better our quality of life. It also signifies that each one of us acts in a responsible manner. However primarily it must be government which leading the way should act in an appropriate manner in order that it leads by example.

 published in

The Independent on Sunday, October 17, 2010, Environment Supplement

Lejn politika tal-ambjent

 

Dalgħodu ħadt sehem fil-Workshop dwar il-Pjan Nazzjonali għall-Ambjent. Dawn huma uħud r-riflessjonijiet tiegħi.

Li nitkellmu dwar il-politika ambjentali hu pass tajjeb. Id-diskussjoni iżda biex tkun ta’ kontribut posittiv trid tkun waħda onesta. Trid tirrispetta lil kull min ta’ ħinu u saħħtu fis-snin passati f’ħidma favur l-ambjent.

Tajjeb li neżaminaw l–analiżi dwar il-Public Attitudes Survey 2008 li d-ditta Ernest & Young (2010) ħejjiet fuq inkarigu tal-MEPA. Minn dan jirriżulta illi  69% ta’ dawk li wieġbu huma tal-fehma li l-ambjent huwa importanti daqs l-ekonomija filwaqt li 23% jidhrilhom illi l-ambjent huwa iktar imporanti mill-ekonomija.  8% biss għadhom tal-fehma tas-supremazija tal-ekonomija fuq l-ambjent.

Huwa b’sodisazzjoni li nosserva din l-attitudni ġdida. Attitudni li ilha tinħass tiżviluppa bil-mod il-mod. Hi riżultat tal-ħidma ta’ dawk kollha illi għal snin sħaħ ħadmu kontra l-kurrent b’bosta minnhom ikunu deskritti bħala eko-fundamentalisti.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan huwa iktar importanti li d-diskussjoni tal-lum tkun ċara u onesta. L-Issues Paper li għandna quddiemna tistaqsi ħafna mistoqsijiet. Imma sfortunatament għażlet illi tinjora l-fatt li ħafna mit-tweġibiet diġa ngħataw. Dawn qegħdin fl-Istrateġija Nazzjonali dwar l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli approvata mill-Kabinett tal-Ministri lejn tmiem l-2007 wara proċess twil ta’ diskussjoni mas-soċjeta’ ċivili.

Mhux ser nidħol fid-dettal għax il-ħin ma jippermettix.  Ser nillimita ruħi għal eżempju wieħed: dwar it-tassazzjoni ambjentali.

L-Issues Paper  f’paġna 12 tistaqsina dwar x’naħsbu fuq sistema li tintaxxa t-tniġġiz flok ix-xogħol. Kumbinazzjoni fid-dokument ta’ qabel il-budget imniedi mill-Ministru tal-Finanzi  fl-istess jum tal-Issues Paper qed jiġi propost (f’paġna 136) ezerċizzju ta’ “tax shifting”. Jgħid li qed jikkonsidra d-dħul ta’ “carbon tax” u li hi l-intenzjoni li din tissostitwixxi taxxi oħra konnessi max-xogħol.

La l-Issues Paper u l-anqas id-dokument dwar il-budget ma jagħmlu l-iċken referenza għall-istrateġija nazzjonali dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li diġa bil-kunsens tas-soċjeta’ ċivili u tal-Kabinett stabiliet fil-proposta 17 tagħha illi sal-2008 kellha titfassal strateġija dettaljata dwar l-użu ta’ strumenti ekonomiċi biex jippromwovu l-iżvilupp sostenibli f’Malta. L-2008 ilu li ġie u mar u flok strateġija dettaljata għandna iktar mistoqijiet. Din mhux serjeta’. Flok iktar mistoqsijiet kellu jkollna analiżi tat-taxxi ambjentali li ġja għandna fil-pajjiż u jekk dawn laħqux l-iskop li għalih saru. X’tgħallimna mill-eżerċizzju tal-eko-kontribuzzjoni?    Tgħallimna li  :

l-ewwel :          li taxxi ambjentali għandhom jintużaw għal skopijiet ambjentali u mhux għal skopijiet fiskali,

it-tieni :             ir-responsabbilta’ politika għal sistema ta’  tassazzjoni   ambjentali għandha tkun fdata f’idejn il-Ministeru għall-Ambjent u mhux f’idejn dak tal-Finanzi, biex b’hekk ikun iktar possibli li  t-titjib fil-qasam ambjentali jkun l-oġġettiv ewlieni tagħhom,

it-tielet :            li filwaqt li hemm bosta setturi li jistgħu jkunu soġġetti għal tassazzjoni ambjentali l-għażla tagħhom għandha issir bir-reqqa u wara studju tal-impatti kemm ambjentali kif ukoll soċjali.

F’dan il-kuntest irrid ngħid li mhux aċċettabbli li l-Gvern iħabbar illi qed jikkonsidra “carbon tax” mingħajr ma jinfurma lill-pubbliku dwar xi studji għamel mhux biss fuq kemm jista’ jdaħħal iżda ukoll dwar kif din ser teffettwa kemm il-kwalita’ tal-ħajja kif ukoll il-livell tal-għajxien tal-faxex differenti tas-soċjeta. Dan l-istudju, jekk sar, s’issa għadu ma rax id-dawl tax-xemx. Fil-fatt dalghodu jiena għamilt talba formali taħt il-provedimenti tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Åarhus biex jekk jeżistu jiġu rilaxxjati l-istudji relattivi. Dawn huma l-affarijiet li jmissna niddiskutu.

M’huwiex iktar żmien li nlabalbu. Huwa żmien li dak li ġie imfassal jitwettaq. Wara li l-proċess ta’ diskussjoni li beda madwar 5 snin ilu kien wassal għal konkluzjoni fl-forma ta’ strateġija li tintegra l-ħidma ekonomika ma dik soċjali u ambjentali dan il-proċess ta’ diskussjoni tal-lum ser iwassal għal duplikazzjoni. F’pajjiż li kontinwament ġustament nilmentaw li la għandna riżorsi u l-anqas biżżejjed nies imħarrġa, l-inqas li konna nistennew huwa li naħlu l-ħin u riżorsi billi flok jitwettaq dak li ġie deċiz nerġgħu niftħu d-diskussjoni.

Nikkonkludi billi nħeġġiġkom biex tifhmu li l-aħjar triq il-quddiem hi illi nkunu kapaċi nintegraw l-isforzi tagħna. Dan hu dak li ppruvat tagħmel l-istrateġija nazzjonali dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli. Għandna nfittxu li nimxu f’dik it-triq billi nimplimentaw ir-rakkomandazzjonjiet tagħha. Forsi l-ewwel pass ikun li kif tistabilixxi l-istess Strateġija kull Ministeru jfassal pjan t’Azzjoni (avolja sentejn tard) biex iqiegħed fil-prattika dak li tipproponi l-istrateġja. B’hekk forsi tieqaf darba għal dejjem id-drawwa li żviluppat f’dan il-pajjiż illi r-rapporti u l-istrateġji iservu biss biex jitnisslu  rapporti oħra. Nittama biss li mid-diskussjoni tal-lum nagħrfu nibnu fuq dak li sar mhux biss b’rispett lejn min iddedika ħinu għall-pajjiż iżda fuq kollox biex nużaw il-ftit riżorsi li għandna l-aħjar mod.

Imma l-Kummissjoni Nazzjonali dwar l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli jeħtieġ li tibda tiltaqa’ : ilha tlett snin wieqfa. Xhieda tal-impenn tal-Gvern favur l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli.

L-editorjal tat-Times jaqbel ma’ AD

Fl-editorjal tagħha illum 21 t’Awissu 2010 it-Times titkellem dwar il-politika nazzjonali ambjentali.

Hu ta’ sodisfazzjoni għalina f’AD li ninnotaw li t-Times qed issostni l-argument ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika u qed tgħid lil Gvern : għalfejn ser toqogħod tistenna 18-il xahar biex tfassal din il-politika ambjentali? Ma tafx sur Gvern li fl-2007 wara konsultazzjoni estensiva kienet konkluża l-Istrateġija Nazzjonali dwar l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli liema strateġija tagħtik fuq platt l-informazzjoni kollha li għandek bżonn?

Dan huwa dak li qalet Alternattiva nhar it-2 t’Awwissu 2010, tlett ġimgħat ilu bħala l-ewwel reazzjoni tagħha għal publikazzjoni tad-dokument tal-Gvern dwar il-politika Ambjentali.

Huwa veru każ li l-id il-leminija tal-Gvern ma tafx x’għamlet l-id ix-xellugija!   

ara ukoll fuq dan il-blog : Thoughts for an Environmental Policy

Thoughts for an Environmental Policy

The government has published a number of policy documents for public consultation. Two deal with different aspects of water policy while a third deals with issues for a National Environment Policy.

Also of relevance is an Ernst & Young Report commissioned by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority on a 2008 Public Attitudes Survey. It is dated April 2010. Although recently published I do not recollect reading anything in the press about this survey. One of the conclusions of this survey should be an eye opener to policy makers as to the central importance which the Maltese public attaches to the environment.

In the 2008 Public Attitudes Survey it was concluded that 69 per cent of respondents held the view that the environment was as important as the economy. On the other hand 23 per cent of respondents considered that the environment was more important than the economy while only eight per cent considered the economy as being of overriding importance.

To my mind these are significant conclusions contrasting with current national policy which considers that the economy has an ­overriding priority over the environment. The Maltese public thinks otherwise: 92 per cent of respondents of the Mepa Public Attitudes Survey have understood that the economy should not be an overriding consideration in environmental policy formulation. Now this is what sustainable development is all about.

Contrary to what green-washers imply, being committed to sustainable development does not mean that one seeks to balance or mitigate environmental, social and cultural impacts of economic development. Sustainable development speaks another language altogether for which unfortunately there is still a lack of translators. Real commitment to sustainable development conveys the message that humankind does not own the earth. It shares the earth with other species together with which it forms part of one eco-system.

The way in which our society has evolved and is organised is such that it considers human activity as meriting overriding importance. In fact it is often stated that policies are anthropocentric. Both PN and PL environmental policies can be grouped in this category. AD together with other Green parties around the globe differs as it follows a eco-centric path. But then the ecology has no vote!

Sustainable development properly construed considers the need of an eco-centric environmental policy. This signifies that a holistic approach is applied through which impacts on the whole eco-system are considered.

Now this is completely different from the manner in which our society is accustomed to look at itself. An eco-centric approach leads us to take a long term view in contrast to the short-sighted view of our immediate interests. This does not only impact land use but also waste management, agriculture and fishing, light pollution, acoustic pollution, air quality, water resources, mineral deposits, transport policy, the protection of our ecological heritage and many other areas.

When one considers the above I cannot understand why the authors of the National Environment Policy Issues Paper ignored the National Sustainable Development Strategy when formulating the Issues Paper for public consultation. They considered the 2008 State of the Environment Report and the Parliamentary debate which ensued together with the Ernst & Young report above quoted as the basis for a discussion.

In so doing they ignored completely a consultation process spanning a number of years which answered most of the questions which the Issues Paper poses.

This is surely not a new way of doing politics. It is a way with which most of us are familiar as it does away with past achievements and seeks to start a fresh page, ignoring everything and everyone. Knowing that at least one of the drafters of the National Environment Policy Issues Paper was actively involved in the process leading to the National Sustainability Strategy, I must ask the obvious question: Is the Issues Paper the first step towards the scrapping of the National Sustainability Strategy?

The current Bill before Parliament which seeks to consolidate existing legislation on land use planning and the environment removes all references to the National Sustainable Development Commission. It was stated repeatedly that a separate legislative measure will be proposed dealing with issues of sustainable development. Yet to date this is nowhere in sight. Does this confirm that there have been second thoughts on the National Sustainability Strategy?

The Strategy should currently be in the process of implementation. Section 5 of the Strategy entitled “The Way Ahead” provides that ministers have to produce action plans for the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy in their portfolio within 18 months from the adoption of the strategy.

The strategy was adopted by Cabinet more than 18 moons ago yet the action plans are nowhere in sight.

I have never had any doubt that this government is being consistent with its beliefs: it says one thing, but when push comes to shove it proceeds with doing something else.

published in The Times : August 14, 2010

What it takes to Green Cinderella

_______________________________________________________

published on Saturday March 20, 2010

__________________________________________________________

Malta’s environmental policy has to date been EU driven for the simple reason that the political establishment in Malta has resisted its development. Dumping environmental responsibilities with land use planning has, in my view, been an integral part of this strategy.

Notwithstanding its past performance, the government’s declaration that it will now embark on consultations leading to the formulation of an environmental policy, which is locally driven, is welcome news. Only time will tell whether this is another exercise in green-washing.

The government’s commitment to safeguard the environment is not to be gauged through its declarations but through its actions or lack of them. Its lack of environmental credentials has been manifested many times. The latest being by Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco who, when introducing the Environment and Development Planning Bill in Parliament, stated that the environment will “no longer be the Cinderella of development”.

This has not come about accidentally. It was a deliberate exercise as a result of which the expertise, which the former Department for the Environment was slowly accumulating, was wiped out. Those who plotted the merger needed to ensure that environmental decisions were subject to development considerations at all times.

Cabinet responsibility for the environment made its first appearance immediately after the 1972 Stockholm Human Environment Conference. In 1976, Malta had a Minister for Health and the Environment. His environmental remit focused on landfills. During his watch, the Luqa and Wied Fulija landfills were closed and a new landfill at Magħtab was opened!

The first real minister for the environment in Malta was Daniel Micallef. He was appointed in 1986 during Labour’s last months in government by then Prime Minster Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, who was seeking to counterbalance the widespread corruption in the Lorry Sant-led Ministry of Works. This corruption was subsequently documented.

Between 1986 and 2002 much was achieved. It would suffice to state that when, in 2002, the Department for the Environment was disbanded it had more credibility and was much more effective than Mepa’s Environment Directorate is today.

A local company that bottles water and soft drinks was recently awarded the 2009 Environment Award for Industry by the Cleaner Technology Centre. The company had relocated to a new site, upgrading its facilities to function eco-efficiently. But it still makes use of substantial amounts of water extracted from the water table through boreholes and sells this as bottled water and soft drinks. Extraction is to the tune of 51 million litres annually. The director of the Cleaner Technology Centre, when prodded in other sections of the press, admitted that the award adjudicating board was not aware that the company extracts ground water through boreholes. Seen within the context of Malta’s depleted water table this award is environmentally blasphemous.

Some persons entrusted with environmental matters have a proven capability of justifying the unjustifiable. This partly explains why Malta’s environmental administration is in shambles.

Within this context I believe there are more pressing issues than the drafting of an environmental policy. Applying all the EU environmental acquis would be a good first step.

A point I have harped on in these pages (1) (2) is the non-implementation of the waste from electric and electronic equipment directive. This directive applies “the producer responsibility principle” as a result of which producers and their representatives have to take back electrical and electronic waste from consumers. Most importers are aware that they are in breach of the directive’s provisions. They feel, however, that they cannot honour their obligations unless the government reviews the eco-contribution regime as, otherwise, they will end up paying twice for the same responsibilities: a payment through eco-contribution and another one through financing the take-back.

There is also a need for legislation regulating noise pollution. EU legislation on the matter (the environmental noise directive) deals only with traffic/transport-generated noise and substantial parts of it are not applicable to Malta. As the EU does not deal sufficiently with the matter, Malta has to date considered it safe to conveniently ignore the need for noise pollution legislation completely. In a densely populated community this issue is of the utmost importance, yet, successive governments have not been bothered.

These examples (water, waste, noise) just scratch the surface of the deficiencies of the environmental set-up, an area which has been continuously muzzled, sidelined, ignored and deprived of resources. It is this attitude which has to change.

The environmental policy this country needs is one which enables its government to be clear and consistent. Declarations on their own are not sufficient as commitment has been continuously absent. If the government really wants to translate its declarations into action it will take much more than an environmental policy to Green Cinderella.