X’ser inħallu warajna?

Jekk irridu nirreġistraw progress, il-legat li ser inħallu warajna lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jeħtieġ li jkun bosta aħjar minn dak li ħallewlna dawk li ġew qabilna. It-triq meħtieġa biex nirreġistraw dan il-progress għandha tkun il-mira tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li sa nhar il-Ħamis li għadda kienet soġġetta għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika.

Roman Krznaric, fil-ktieb riċenti tiegħu The Good Ancestor jistaqsina mistoqsija diretta: “X’legat ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri? Ser ikunilhom ta’ għajnuna, jew ser ikissirhom?”  Hi mistoqsija li neħtieġu nwieġbu għaliha aħna ukoll, kuljum.

Il-politika dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tagħti tweġiba sura għal din il-mistoqsija. Jekk titmexxa sewwa, din il-poltika tista’ tagħti libsa xierqa lill-futur u dan bħala riżultat ta’ ħidma responsabbli li issir illum.  Dan isir billi nassiguraw li l-ħtiġijiet tagħna illum nissodisfawhom mingħajr ma nikkompromettu l-possibiltà li anke l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jkun possibli għalihom li huma ukoll ikunu f’posizzjoni li jissodifaw il-ħtiġijiet tagħhom.

Dan, fi ftit kliem, jiddependi fuq kemm aħna kapaċi nħarsu fit-tul, il-bogħod, f’dinja li kontinwament tikkostrinġina naħsbu u naġixxu f’termini ta’ mil-lum għal għada. Anzi, jgħidulna “għada min raħ?”

Il-Gvernijiet, minkejja l-ħafna paroli tagħhom, ftit li xejn jagħtu importanza lill-iżvilupp sostenibbli propju minħabba li din mhiex dwar illum, iżda iktar dwar għada u lil hinn minnu.  Hi dwar kif il-ħidma tal-lum ma tkunx ta’ preġudizzju għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Il-politiku ma jagħtix biżżejjed kaz ta’ dan għax l-interess tiegħu ħafna drabi ma jwassalx iktar minn ħames snin: jiġifieri kemm hemm żmien bejn elezzjoni u oħra.  Jeħtieġ li nippjanaw ħafna iktar fit-tul, fl-interess tal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.

Dan il-punt ġie sottolinejat minn Gro Harlem Brundtland li kienet fi żmien Prim Ministru soċjal-demokratiku tan-Norveġja. Dan għamlitu fir-rapport influwenti li ħejjiet fl-1987 għall-Ġnus Magħquda bit-titlu: Our Common Future. F’dan ir-rapport, fost oħrajn, hi emfasizzat li “Naġixxu b’dan il-mod għax naħsbu li nistgħu neħilsuha ħafif: il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri ma jivvutawx; la għandhom poter politiku u l-anqas poter finanzjarju; mhumiex f’posizzjoni li jikkontestaw id-deċiżjonijiet tagħna.” (We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.)

Dan kollu joħroġ ċar mill-kuntrast bejn dak li jipproponi (jew li jħalli barra) l-abbozz ta’ strateġija għall-iżvilupp sostenibbli u l-politika attwali u l-ħidma fil-prattika tal-Gvern.

Ħarsu per eżempju lejn il-politika dwar it-trasport.

L-istrateġija proposta titkellem fit-tul dwar viżjoni u oġġettivi biex jiżdied l-użu tat-trasport pubbliku. Tidentifika mira għall-2030 biex jonqos in-numru ta’ dawk li jsuqu l-karozzi b’41 fil-mija meta dan ikun imqabbel maċ-ċifri tal-1990.

Kliem dan li ħadd ma’ jista’ jemmnu, iktar u iktar meta wieħed iqabblu mal-ħidma f’direzzjoni kompletament opposta li fis-snin passati.

Il-politika tal-Gvern illum tinkoraġixxi l-użu tal-karozzi privati: hi politika li kontinwament tibgħat sinjali konfliġġenti.  Hu sew li l-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tkun indirizzata id-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. F’kuntrast ma’ dan l-oġġettiv il-politika tal-Gvern permezz ta’ investiment massiċċ fl-infrastruttura tat-toroq kif ukoll permezz tas-sussidju tal-petrol/diesel qed twassal messagg kompletament differenti. Messaġġ li ma jħalli l-ebda dubju li l-użu tal-karozzi hu inkoraġġit.

Il-konġestjoni tat-traffiku fit-toroq tagħna mhiex il-kawża tal-problemi tagħna. Fil-fatt din hi l-effett tad-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi. F’dan il-kuntest hu ġustifikat li l-istrateġija timmira lejn tnaqqis sostanzjali fid-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. Fil-fatt m’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ daqshekk karozzi biex nivvjaġġjaw daqstant distanzi qosra. Anke l-istrateġija l-oħra, dik dwar it-Trasport tfakkarna li nofs il-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati huma għal distanzi li jieħdu inqas minn ħmistax-il minuta.

Insibu iktar sinjali kunfliġġenti fl-abbozz tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli.

Numru ta’ miri huma spjegati b’mod ċar, bħall-klima, skart, xiri bi kritierji ambjentali, kwalità tal-arja, bijodiversità, tagħlim għall-ħajja, diġitalizzazzzjoni u l-ħtieġa ta’ għajnuna edukattiva lil studenti emigranti, fost oħrajn. Min-naħa l-oħra, per eżempju, ħlief għal xi kummenti ġenerali ftit li xejn hemm direzzjoni dwar materji li jikkonċernaw l-użu tal-art. Riżorsa għalina skarsa u f’diversi ċirkustanzi użata ħażin kontra l-interess pubbliku.

Fid-dawl tal-gimmicks politiċi kurrenti dwar l-ispazji miftuħa jistona n-nuqqas ta’ referenza għall-ħtieġa li nipproteġu l-ispazju miftuħ diġà eżistenti fiż-żoni urbani u l-irħula tagħna. Dan jinkludi ġonna privati, uħud kbar, li huma taħt assedju mill-ispekulaturi li huma daqstant u kontinwament aġevolati.

Ftit li xejn ukoll hemm referenza għall-importanza li tinħadem l-art agrikola u li din tkun difiża mill-assedju li għaddej mill-forzi spekulattivi. X’utilità hemm li tinvesti  €700 million fi spazji miftuħa meta fl-istess nifs qed jintilfu spazji miftuħa kbar kontinwament u dan riżultat tal-falliment tal-ippjanar fl-użu tal-art?

B’din ir-rata il-legat li ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri huwa wieħed negattiv ħafna.  Inħarsu sal-ponta ta’ mneħirna, mhemmx viżjoni fit-tul.  Dan mhux legat li ser jagħmel il-ġid: ser ikun ta’ ħsara kbira għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Kif qalet Brundtland: dan isir għax il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri m’għandhomx vot!

B’dawn in-nuqqasijiet is-siwi tal-istrateġija proposta dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli hu wieħed limitat. Ikun iktar utli li titfassal mill-ġdid.

ippibblikat fuq Ilum: 12 ta’ Frar 2023

Being Good Ancestors

If we are to register any significant progress, our legacy to future generations should be a substantial improvement of what we ourselves have inherited from our predecessors. The roadmap to achieving this improvement should be the objective of the sustainable development strategy which was subject to public consultation until last Thursday.

Roman Krznaric, in his recent book The Good Ancestor asks a very pointed question: “Will our legacy to future generations be one that benefits them or will be it one that cripples them?” It is the question to which we must provide an answer, day in day out.

The politics of sustainable development seeks to mould such an answer. Properly managed it can shape the future as a result of acting in a responsible manner today. It does so by ensuring that our present-day needs are achieved without compromising the ability of future generations in meeting their own needs. It all boils down to how we can think (and plan) long-term in a short-term world.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, governments do not give sufficient importance to sustainable development as this is not just about today. It is rather about how today’s activity should not prejudice tomorrow and future generations. This is not sufficiently on the radar of today’s politicians. Their interest, generally, does not span more than five years: that is until the next general election. We need to think and plan far more into the future.

This is a point underlined by former Norwegian social democrat Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in her seminal UN Report Our Common Future published in 1987. She emphasised that “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

This is most evident in the contrast between what the draft sustainable development strategy proposes (or omits) and the actual policy and practice of government.

Consider for example, the issue of transport policy.

The proposed sustainable development strategy speaks at length on vision and objectives relative to an increased use of public transport. It even identifies as a 2030 target the reduction of car drivers through the use of the following words: reduce the modal share of car drivers to 41% compared to 1990.

No one in his right senses can believe a single word of this statement in view of the fact that there has been a considerable effort in the past years in a completely opposite direction!

Current government policy encourages the use of private cars and continuously sends conflicting signals. The sustainable development strategy rightly seeks to address car dependency. In contrast to this objective government policy, through investing heavily in new road infrastructure and through the subsidisation of fuels sends a completely different signal: one which without a shadow of doubt encourages car dependency.

The congestion of our roads is not the cause of our problems: it is the effect of our malady which is car dependency. Hence it is right that the strategy aims to address and reduce car dependency. We do not need so many cars to travel the short distances so prevalent in this country! As our Transport Master Plan reminds us, 50 per cent of private car trips are for distances taking less than 15 minutes.

We find other conflicting signals in the draft strategy on sustainable development.

While there are a number of specific objectives spelled out in clear language (for example: climate change, waste, green purchasing, air quality, biodiversity, lifelong learning, digitalisation, migrant induction learning …….) beyond some general comments and observations, I fail to see any emphasis on land use issues. This is not right in view of the limited availability of land and its rampant misuse, contrary to the public interest.

In view of the current political gimmicks relative to open spaces one cannot but note the omission from the strategy on any reference to the urgent need to protect existing open space in our urban areas and in our villages. This includes large private gardens continuously targeted by speculative forces on the good books of this administration. 

There is also scant reference to the need to safeguard agricultural land. What is the purpose in investing €700 million in open spaces if we are losing existing ones at an exponential rate as a result of the current practise of land use planning?

At this rate the legacy to future generations is generally negative. The short-term view is completely obliterating any possible long-term view. This is not a beneficial legacy; it is rather a very crippling one. As Brundtland pointed out: this is done as future generations have no vote!

We need to go back to the drawing board and have the strategy redrafted.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 February 2023

The war on nature is suicidal

If we are to register any significant progress in addressing our quality of life we must once and for all end the war on nature. This has been emphasised by Inger Anderson, the Executive Director of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) when she was addressing the Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, currently in session at Montreal.

This has been also emphasised by a multitude of speakers within other fora, notably those related to climate, most recently in Sharm El Sheikh during the latest Climate Summit.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity are just two of the many efforts and initiatives of the international community in order to end the continuous human war on nature.

Small steps forward have been made but they are nowhere near being enough in order to have any significant impact in halting the damage done to date as well as reversing its consequences.

It has been an uphill struggle for more than fifty years. It was in Stockholm fifty years ago, in June 1972, that the international community agreed for the first time ever, to recognise the environment as an important issue to be delt with by the global political agenda.

The UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 laid the foundations for international environmental governance. The Stockholm Conference is in fact credited with introducing the environment in the contemporary political lexicon.

Opening the United Nations Montreal Biodiversity Conference, this week, Antonio Guterres-UN Secretary General, said that humans are treating nature “as a toilet”. Nature, said Guterres, is humanity’s best friend: without nature, we have nothing, without nature we are nothing!

We threaten nature in many ways: urbanisation, deforestation, agricultural intensification, all forms of pollution, climate change as well as the spread of invasive species. Possibly these are the primary vehicles used in the intensive war waged by humanity against nature.

It is about time that we seek ways to make peace. With nature, however, there is no room for negotiation! We must seek to make peace before nature strikes back with full force. It is already retaliating, and this will definitely get much worse.

There is no possibility to negotiate with nature, her demands are clear and simple: unconditional surrender. We need to change our ways and habits. Nature can be a reliable friend but if transformed into an enemy, it is ruthless, as climate change shows continuously and unequivocally.

Nature is what sustains everything on earth, yet it is declining on a global level. The rate of extinction of species is increasing exponentially.

Expanding protected areas is not enough to arrest nature’s decline. We need to change our behaviour through seriously addressing the various environmental threats. We must limit the spread of invasive species, and halt deforestation. We need to protect agricultural land. It is imperative that we drive some sense into land use planning. We also need to eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies. We need to protect what’s left of the natural resources which we have been provided with!

It is only when our actions match our nice words that we can start achieving the required results. Until then, we inch closer to a collective suicide.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 11 December 2022

Wanted: a transport policy which makes sense

Everywhere is within reach in the Maltese islands: distances are relatively small. It is, in addition, an established fact, documented in the Transport Masterplan, that 50 per cent of private car trips on our roads take less than fifteen minutes. Do we need to be dependent on private cars for such short distances?

Over the years public transport was neglected. In the absence of suitable public transport, and as a reaction thereto, a pattern of car dependency has inevitably developed. The resulting congested roads are a symptom of this fact rather than being, as suggested in Parliament earlier this week by a government backbencher, the direct consequence of an increase in the country’s standard of living.

There have been improvements in public transport in the last years: these are however insufficient. Having free public transport is a good but pre-mature initiative as public transport has yet to be efficient and reliable. The decision announced last week by Transport Minister to invest in cycle lanes, is welcome, even if it comes a little late in the day.

The heavy investment in road infrastructure over the years has been misdirected as it has focused on the effects instead of on the causes of traffic congestion. The financial resources utilised in the Marsa Road network, the Central Link and elsewhere, will, at the end of the day, prove to be monies down the drain as traffic congestion will build up once more. This is already evident even in these early days. Others have been there before us as is revealed by countless studies carried out all over the world on the link between traffic congestion and improvement of the road infrastructure.

It is only through the provision of alternative means of sustainable mobility that the problematic behavioural pattern we have developed over the years can be addressed. Moving away from car dependency will however be a very slow process if policy makers keep continuously sending conflicting signals.

Making it easier for the car user through more or better roads is no help in solving the problem. It will make matters worse. Likewise, the subsidisation of petrol and diesel is sending a clear message to all that car dependency is not even considered to be a problem.

Three specific factors are currently in play: traffic congestion, fuel cost and the transition to transport electrification. If properly managed, together they can help us move towards a state of sustainable mobility. The transition period is however necessarily painful unless it is properly managed.

Postponement in tackling traffic congestion properly will only make matters worse.

Improvement of road infrastructure has postponed the issue of tackling traffic congestion into the future. Fuel subsidies have added to the problem as they blatantly ignore it. Electrification, unless coupled with a reduction of cars on the road will add acute electricity dependency on foreign sources to our current problems. Energy sovereignty has been problematic for quite some time: it will get worse.

The second electricity interconnector with the Sicilian mainland will worsen our car dependency as a result of linking it with a dependency on electricity generated outside our shores. We know quite well what that signifies whenever the interconnector is out of service, whatever the cause!

We need to go beyond the rhetoric and act before it is too late. It is also possible to ensure that the vulnerable are adequately protected. This would mean that instead of having across-the-board subsidises, these would be focused on those who really need them. All those who have mobility problems should receive focused assistance to help them overcome the difficulties which could result from a modal shift in transport. We cannot however go on with subsidies for all: it is not sustainable, neither economically, nor environmentally or socially

Land use planning can also be of considerable help if it is focused on the actual needs of the whole community instead of being at the service of the developers. We need to ensure that each community is self-sufficient in respect of its basic needs. This will, on its own, decrease traffic generated by the search for such needs.

The climate change debate is a unique opportunity to rethink the way we plan our cities as one way in which to combat the climate crisis. The idea crystallised as ‘the 15-minute city’ by Carlos Moreno, an architect advising the Paris mayor, entails turning current urban planning on its head to ensure that all our basic needs are available within easy reach, not more than 15 minutes away.

Carlos Moreno speaks of a social circularity for living in our urban spaces based on six essential functions: to live in good housing, to work close by, to reach supplies and services easily, to access education, healthcare and cultural entitlement locally by low-carbon means. Can we reassess the nature and quality of our urban lifestyles within these parameters?

All we do is essentially linked. At the end of the day traffic congestion and the related car dependency are a product of our mode of behaviour.  Thinking outside the box, we can tackle it successfully, as a result unchaining ourselves from our car dependency, consequently adjusting to a better sustainable lifestyle.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 20 November 2022

Tourism: reflections on the Deloitte report

The Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) has just published a report entitled Carrying Capacity Study for Tourism in the Maltese Islands which report has been drawn up by its consultants Deloitte and financed primarily by EU funds.

A point which made the headlines, resulting from the said report, is relative to the availability of tourism accommodation, including touristic development which is still in the pipeline. Over the next five years, the report says, there is a significant risk of an over-supply in the expected accommodation growth. Various media reports have emphasised that as a result of the projected supply of touristic accommodation, close to 5 million tourists would be required (at an average 80 per cent occupancy throughout the year) to ensure the sector’s long-term profitability. Such an influx of tourists, definitely, cannot be handled by the country.

This is definitely the result of an lack of adequate land use planning. Unfortunately, the Planning Authority has continuously encouraged a free-for-all, particularly through the relaxation of various planning policies applicable to touristic accommodation. In fact, Tony Zahra, MHRA President, has been quoted as saying that we do not have a “Planning Authority” but a “Permitting Authority”.  For once, he is quite obviously right.

Unfortunately, this attitude of the Planning Authority is not limited to the touristic sector: it is spread throughout the islands relative to all types of development. It is an attitude which has contributed considerably towards “overcrowding, overdevelopment and uglification” which the Deloitte report groups together as being the contributors to the poor urban environment which impacts both residents and tourists indiscriminately!

An interesting point made by the Deloitte report is that the tourist sector is continuously decreasing in importance as the provider of employment opportunities for Maltese residents. In fact, the report states that, in 2009, 82 per cent of those employed in the tourism sector were Maltese. By 2019 this had decreased to 40.6 per cent. A staggering decrease in excess of 50 per cent!  The report does not offer any specific explanation for this. Reliance on poor remuneration of seasonal and part-time labour is a most obvious contributor to the situation. Its correction would inevitably cut the tourism sector down in size and consequently increase the problem of over-supply! The Deloitte report is generally silent about this basic flaw.

The quality of the touristic product is impacted considerably not only by the poor urban environment, which is getting progressively worse. It is also negatively impacted by the exponential increase in traffic and litter. Deloitte also identify the lack of product authenticity as a contributor to the decreasing quality of the touristic product. This is the result of the lack of Maltese working in the sector!

The report also hints at turismophobia. It records the preoccupation of those residing in touristic areas. They are less enthusiastic about tourism when compared to those living in other areas which are not in continuous contact with the tourist.

This ties in with a study carried out by academics at the University of Malta, Lino Briguglio and Marie Avellino, who, in a paper published in 2020 and entitled Has over-tourism reached the Maltese Islands? had pointed out the need for a tourism policy which focuses on mitigating its negative impacts. 

Tourism is not an activity that happens in a vacuum. It takes place in a community of persons, who should be assured that their quality of life is not impacted negatively as a result of the experience.

Tourism is not just about the numbers of tourists who visit, or the millions of euro spent or its contribution to the Gross National Product: it is also about our quality of life.

The profitability to be addressed should not be limited to financial parameters. As tourism is not just about the tourist: it is about each one of us.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 October 2022

Overdevelopment is eating up open space

The problems being caused by the continuous overdevelopment around us is a direct consequence of the local plans approved in 2006. The rationalisation exercise which was approved practically simultaneously, and as a result of which around two million square metres of ODZ land was given up for development made matters considerably worse .

The latest example is the planning application relative to a stretch of land measuring 1273 square metres in Santa Luċija. This land is, until now, an open space within the locality of Santa Luċija.

The late architect Joseph M.Spiteri, who in the late 1950s designed the locality of Santa Luċija from scratch took great care in planning for the needs of a community when he was preparing giving birth to the Santa Luċija locality. As emphasised by his son Dr Stephen C. Spiteri in the publication entitled Joseph M. Spiteri: A Maltese Architect and his work, when designing Santa Luċija, Joe Spiteri ensured that there was plenty of open space and trees. In his ideas Spiteri was undoubtedly influenced by the then prevalent housing design in the United Kingdom: Spiteri placed great emphasis on pedestrianisation and vehicular segregation together with the availability of plenty of open spaces. Environmentalists are still emphasising these points as an essential prerequisite for sustainable living.

The ideas pioneered by Architect Joseph Spiteri in Santa Luċija as a result of which open space around residential areas was considered as an essential contributor to enhancing the quality of life of all were unfortunately discarded over the years in housing design in the Maltese islands. Instead, we were offered intensive development of land aimed at maximising profits along the whole building development chain. Our quality of life was exchanged with healthy bank accounts.

The creation of an environment conducive to the creation of a sustainable living space has unfortunately been abandoned. The objective to be in harmony with our surroundings was abandoned.

Architect Joe Spiteri and his colleagues at the then Public Works Department invested substantial energies in trying to create from scratch a land use planning system during the mid-1960s. With the assistance of advisors sent by the United Nations a forward-looking town and country planning Act was approved by Parliament in the late 60s only for it to be ignored by those who were entrusted with its implementation.

This is the root cause of the present malaise in local land use planning. All efforts made by dedicated professionals over the years were meticulously undermined.

The current proposed project in Santa Luċija subject to planning application PA5152/22 has to be seen within this context. It gobbles up land which the original design for Santa Luċija had earmarked as open space.  The open space is not wasteland but part of the essential lungs which the local community requires to breathe. Without it the community is deprived of an essential element of its community infrastructure.

The Ministry for the Environment is currently advocating the need for open public spaces. This rhetoric has however not been translated into tangible action as the Planning Authority is still encouraging a free-for-all building spree transforming existing open spaces into euro machines.

One of the major lessons of Covid-19 was the mental health impact on many in our urban areas who were constrained indoors. The lack of adequate public open spaces made matters worse during the Covid months.

Our urban areas have been left to develop on their own for quite too long. As a result, they have been guided by business-friendly or market-friendly authorities, producing the mess of an urban jungle we have to face every day. This is a mess resulting from political decisions which have ensured that profits repeatedly have a priority over people and their quality of life.

The Santa Luċija planning application PA5152/22 is the latest example of all this. The creation of a sustainable living space has once more been sacrificed on the altar dedicated to the euro-machine!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 25 September 2022

Planning is for people

Land use planning should, and can, be developed into an effective tool to combat the impacts of climate change. This can be done by effectively encouraging development which contributes to reducing climate change impacts.

Apparently, it is too much to expect from our authority responsible for land use planning.

The development of large commercial centres may make economic sense, but do they make environmental and social sense?

This is what sustainable development is all about: that economic development must continuously factor in environment impacts as well as social considerations. The term sustainable development is on everyone’s lips, but it is definitely and continuously ignored when push comes to shove. When decisions are taken, unfortunately it is the euros which take a priority over sustainability.

It is not just about the actual land to be developed, or the buildings to be redeveloped. Much more has to be taken into consideration in each and every decision taken.

Consider for example the Lidl network or another multiple supermarket competitor chain currently planning an alternative network in Malta. Their impacts are multiple. There is definitely an impact on the existing commercial community which can be gauged by a retail impact assessment. There are however also widespread social and environmental impacts which are generally minimised or ignored by all the decision takers.

The social impact definitely needs a meticulous assessment. The changing nature of our residential neighbourhoods through the squeezing out of the small outlets, both commercial and artisanal, and consequently forcing all residents to look far beyond the community and its neighbourhoods for their needs, at times even their basic daily needs, is a major impact. This has and is still transforming our localities and consequently our communities such that at times you need to travel from one locality to another to satisfy your basic needs. This is not a positive development, yet it has been continuously ignored.

A direct impact of all this is that the expense to satisfy our needs is now increased to include the environmental impact of travel with the consequential contribution to climate change. Expenses are not only those which are paid in euro. These specific expenses are a charge debited to our ecological account.

Sustainable land use planning can put an end to all this. Unfortunately, it is not, as climate change impact has not been embedded as an essential element to be addressed by local land use planning!

Current land use planning practice needs to be turned on its head in order to prioritise community needs and impacts on the ecology over the requirements of the economy.

This is what the 15-minute city concept is all about! In reality it is nothing new as it signifies having our basic necessities close by, as in times gone by, when our localities were smaller and alive with vibrant communities. Small is beautiful we were told some years back by Erst Schumacher. The full title of his opus is more revealing: “Small is Beautiful. Economics as if people mattered.” People should be the focus of all our activity. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I still vividly remember the phrase “planning is for people” in one of the André Zammit’s first urban planning lectures I attended at university. It was a phrase lifted from the UK Skeffington report drawn up in 1969 and examining the participation of the public in land use planning!

Where are the people and their needs in our land use planning? Following the various land use planning cases as they develop, it is clear that as practised locally, land use planning is more a compendium of rights relative to property development than a process regulating the use of land for the ultimate benefit of the whole community. Planning is for people, not for profit!

Land use planning: as if people really mattered!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 8 May 2022

Urban open spaces and climate change

After a free-for-all building spree during which the development of multiple private gardens in our towns and villages were targeted, mostly successfully, our towns and villages have been promised open spaces. This, it is being stated, will bring nature closer to people! A shining sun which will hopefully produce less hay!

The implementation of the first such proposal for an open space is nearing conclusion. An open space in the Tar-Rabbat Housing Estate in Ħamrun has been partially built-up to produce an artificial garden on concrete stilts! The area below the concrete stilts is being reserved for parking of cars! This is definitely not an open space.

The open spaces which we need should not add to the concrete jungle which has developed unabated around us over the years. The open spaces should be free from any form of construction and should be the opportunity to squeeze out cars from the urban environment, preferably relegating them to the periphery of our towns and villages. The open spaces are meant to re-introduce nature into our lives, even if in a very limited way.

Our urban areas have been left to develop on their own for quite too long. As a result, they have been guided by business-friendly or market-friendly authorities, producing the mess of an urban jungle we have to face every day. This is a mess resulting from political decisions which have ensured that profits repeatedly have a priority over people and their quality of life.

The availability of funds to introduce open spaces in our urban areas is a unique opportunity to redesign the urban environment such that it becomes people-friendly. It is also an opportunity to bring urban planning in line with the requirements of climate change mitigation policy.

Earlier this month the latest report on climate change was published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The document, almost 3000 pages long, emphasises that without profound changes to our lifestyle the Paris 2015 Climate Summit objectives will not be attained.

As islands, Malta and Gozo should be at the forefront in the international climate change debate. Climate change is already here. Extremes of temperature, long periods of drought or sudden floods are no longer a rare occurrence in the Maltese islands. We have experienced this repeatedly over the past years.

A sea-level rise will impact our coastal areas. Large stretches of our coastline are developed and used for residential purposes or else they are utilised for the maritime and tourism industries. A sea level rise, dependent on its extent, would severely impact all this activity. It is in our interest that any sea level rise resulting from climate change would be minimal, if at all. This can only happen if the climate mitigation targets agreed to at the Paris Summit are adhered to the soonest.

One of the ideas doing the rounds in the climate change debate is to rethink our urban design strategy as one of the basic tools with which to combat the climate crisis. The idea crystallised as “the 15-minute city” by Carlos Moreno, an architect advising the Paris Mayor, entails turning current urban planning on its head to ensure that all our needs are available not more than 15 minutes away on foot or by bike! Consequently, our dependency on the car would be done away with, as a result even claiming back our streets. The open spaces initiative could fit in perfectly within the parameters of the “15-minute city”.

Can we reassess the nature and quality of our urban lifestyle within this framework?

The Covid-19 pandemic has given most of us a taste of working from home. If this could become a permanent feature of our urban lifestyle, some of us would not need not travel to work every day. This would address and potentially reduce our addiction to the car. Over a period of time this would impact our carbon emissions.

Our contribution to climate change mitigation as a result of which we can accelerate our path to carbon neutrality could be achieved without impacting our mobility. Through a judicious use of public transport, and the facilitation of other sustainable mobility options our mobility can in fact be substantially improved as a result.

Come October all public transport will be free of charge. Hopefully it will also be reliable and efficient. If adequately planned this could be a turning point in climate change mitigation measures as over a period of time it can lead to a reduction of cars from our roads. Initially such a reduction would necessarily be of a temporary nature. Eventually we can move towards a permanent change.

Within this context open spaces adequately planned have a pivotal role. They improve our quality of life by bringing it closer to nature in our 15-minute cities.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 April 2022

Il-President George Vella stenbaħ

Iva stenbaħ issa!

Qalilna li fiż-Żejtun, fit-triq fejn trabba u qed jgħix ser isir żvilupp (ta’ blokk appartamenti). Jinsab maħsud, qal, u diżappuntat b’dan in-nuqqas ta’ sensittività u rispett lejn it-tessut urban f’din il-parti taż-Żejtun.

Appella biex il-permess jerġa’ jkun ikkunsidrat mill-ġdid. Il-belt tagħna, qalilna, jixirqilha iktar rispett!

L-eċċellenza tiegħu mid-dehra għadu ma ndunax li partijiet kbar ta’ Malta diġa laqqtuha. In-nuqqas ta’ rispett u sensittività lejn it-tessut urban ta’ kull rokna ta’ Malta ilu magħna.

Mhux iż-Żejtun biss jixraqlu ir-rispett. Kull parti ta’ Malta jixirqilha tkun rispettata.

L-eċċellenza tiegħu issa stenbaħ, għax il-herba waslet wara l-bieb.

Il-pandemija u l-kummerċ tal-Milied

Bħala riżultat tal-pandemija Covid-19, dan il-Milied ser ikun wieħed differenti minn dawk li ġew qablu.  Normalment il-Milied  huwa ż-żmien meta  nissoċjaliżżaw iktar mill-bqija tas-sena. Żmien li fih niltaqgħu iktar mal-ħbieb u mal-familjari. Huwa ż-żmien li fih hu normali li niltaqgħu fi gruppi għal attivitajiet differenti.  

Dan hu kompletament bil-maqlub tal-mod kif issa jeħtieġ li naġixxu biex nikkumbattu kontra l-coronavirus. Li nnaqqsu drastikament u possibilment nevitaw il-kuntatti tagħna hu l-minimu meħtieġ f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi biex tonqos l-imxija tal-coronavirus.  Bosta minna hekk jagħmlu, minkejja li l-Gvern kontinwament jagħtina sinjali konfliġġenti.   

Wieħed minn dawn is-sinjali konfliġġenti ngħata waqt il-konferenza stampa biex ikun imniedi  Christmas in the City iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa. Il-Ministri  Josè Herrera u Julia Farrugia-Portelli, imwieżna miċ-Chairman tas-Super One Jason Micallef, u oħrajn, tkellmu dwar il-ħinijiet tax-xiri u dwar kemm ser ikun faċli l-parking għal min jitħajjar imur il-Belt biex jixtri r-rigali tal-Milied. L-ispirtu tal-Milied xejn ma jiddependi mis-siegħat ta’ xiri fil-ħwienet. L-anqas ma jiddependi minn kemm ikollna aċċess faċli għall-parking.  

Is-sinifikat propju tal-Milied hu tal-istaġun tas-solidarjetà li fiċ-ċirkustanzi preżenti, maħluqa mill-pandemija, hu importanti iktar minn qatt qabel.

Fl-istess ħin li l-Ministri Herrera u Farrugia-Portelli kienu kienu qed jitkellmu dwar Christmas in the City, epidemologisti kienu qed iwissuna li matul ix-xahar ta’ Diċembru r-rata tal-imwiet f’Malta mill-Covid-19 mistenni li tiżdied bi tlett darbiet: minn żewgt imwiet kuljum għal sitta kuljum. In-numru tal-imwiet mill-Covid-19 diġa żdied b’mod konsiderevoli sa minn meta tnaqqsu r-restrizzjonijiet f’Lulju li għadda. Fil-ħin li qed nikteb in-numru ta’ mwiet ħtija tal-Covid-19 laħaq il-108, u sa x’ħin dan l-artiklu jinqara n-numru sfortunatament ikompli jikber.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan ma jagħmilx sens li tistieden lin-nies biex jinżlu l-Belt għax-xiri tar-rigali tal-Milied. Huwa l-waqt li nagħmlu eżatt bil-maqlub:  innaqqsu l-moviment tan-nies bit-tama li dan jgħin fit-trażżin tal-pandemija.  Huwa dan li messu qed iħeġġeġ il-Gvern.

Ikoll nirrikonoxxu li l-pandemija kellha impatt qawwi u negattiv fuq l-għixien ta’ bosta.  Is-setturi tal-ikel u tal-ospitalità  kellhom sfida qawwija matul ix-xhur tas-sajf. Iż-żmien meta normalment imorru tajjeb, kien iż-żmien meta qalgħu l-ikbar daqqa.  Iktar ma noqorbu lejn il-Milied mhux talli l-pandemija ma naqqsitx, talli donna iktar irrankat. L-irkupru ekonomiku jidher li għad baqalu.

In-numru ta’ dawk li qed ikunu infettati qiegħed jikber.  Fl-istess ħin lkoll nifhmu li l-iskop wara x-xewqa li jkunu mħajra n-nies lejn il-Belt u ċ-ċentri kummerċjali hi motivata mill-ħtieġa tad-dinja tal-kummerċ biex ittaffi d-daqqa li qalgħet billi tipprova issarraf ftit mill-kummerċ li normalment jiġġenera l-Milied. Il-konsiderazzjonijiet ta’ saħħa, imma, għandhom dejjem jibqgħu l-prijorità: issa mhux iż-żmien li jkunu nkoraġġiti l-ebda tip ta’ celebrazzjonijiet.  Flok ma ninkoraġixxu lin-nies biex tersaq lejn ic-ċentri kummerċjali l-Gvern għandu jkun fuq quddiem biex iħeġġeġ l-attenzjoni u prudenza. Mhux Ministru wieħed, imma l-Gvern kollu! Il-vouchers, l-għotjiet, l-għajnuniet u s-supplimenti għall-pagi li l-Gvern qed iqassam f’isimna lkoll, wara kollox, għandhom l-iskop li jtaffu dan il-piz li nħoloq bħala riżultat tal-pandemija.

Għalfejn f’dan il-mument kritiku narmu l-kisbiet li ġibna bis-sagrifiċċji ta’ bosta? Għax huwa dan li nkunu qed nagħmlu kull meta jingħata ħjiel li wara kollox tajjeb li ninġabru u niċċelebraw. Issa mhux il-waqt għal dan.

Il-Covid-19 mhux ser joqtol il-Milied jekk inqas nies jixtru ir-rigali! L-ispirtu tal-Milied ma jitkejjilx  mill-volum ta’ rigali li jinxtraw imma minn kemm aħna kapaċi nkun solidali mal-vulnerabbli tal-lum.

U issa?

L-ikbar att ta’ solidarjetà, bħalissa, hu li harsu lill-vulnerabbli fostna billi nimxu mad-direttivi tal-awtoritajiet tas-saħħa intenzjonati biex iżommu lill-pandemija milli tkompli tixtered.  Il-vaċċin jidher li hu fil-qrib. Dan inissel tama li possibilment matul l-ewwel nofs tas-sena l-ġdida nibdew l-ewwel passi fil-mixja bil-mod lejn in-normalità.  

Imma sadakinnhar hu obbligu tagħna li nħarsu kemm lilna nfusna kif ukoll lil ħaddieħor b’imġieba prudenti. Din hi s-solidarjetà prattika li dan l-istaġun tal-Milied jistenna minn għandna.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 22 ta’ Novembru 2020