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

Lil hinn mir-rapport tal-KPMG dwar l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni

Kif mistenni, ir-rapport tal-KPMG dwar l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni jpinġi stampa sabiħa tal-industrija. Dan minkejja li l-awturi tar-rapport jikkonċedu li l-informazzjoni fir-rapport faċli li tintuża biex biha tasal għal konklużjonijiet ferm differenti minn tagħhom.

Jiena eżaminajt ir-rapport biex nara kemm dan jitkellem dwar numru ta’ affarijiet importanti bħall-iżvilupp esaġerat (over-development), ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni, l-ambjent u l-klima. Kien ikun importanti kieku konna infurmati dwar il-veduti tal-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni dwar dawn il-materji u oħrajn. Imma ftit li xejn hemm kummenti dwarhom, skond l-awturi tar-rapport.

Ma jiena bl-ebda mod sorpriż li l-KPMG ma qalulna xejn fir-rapport dwar l-iżvilupp esaġerat jew ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni. Dan ovvjament juri, għal min għadu ma ndunax, li l-industrija la jidhrilha li hemm żvilupp esaġerat u l-anqas ma għandha ebda interess fir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni. Kif diġa spjegat f’artiklu riċenti tiegħi (Illum 22 ta’ Settembru 2019: Sħab ma min iħammeġ), l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ma għandha l-ebda interess li tirriċikla l-iskart li tiġġenera hi stess, meta dan ikun possibli: interessata biss li jkollha fejn tarmi l-iskart tagħha b’mod issussidjat.

Hi tħammeġ u int tħallas. KPMG jaqblu ma dan?

Fir-rapport tal-KPMG hemm żewġ referenzi ghall-ambjent. L-ewwel referenza hi dwar in-nuqqas ta’ użu ta’ materjal sensittiv ambjentalment fil-bini u jenfasizza li dan ma jsirx ħtija tal-konsumaturi li ma jinteressawhomx! It-tieni referenza hi dwar l-għaqdiet ambjentali u tisfidhom biex il-proposti li jagħmlu jkunu realistiċi!

L-awturi tar-rapport jinsistu li dawn is-suġġerimenti mhux biss għandhom ikunu realistiċi imma għandhom jirrikonoxxu li mhuwiex realistiku li twaqqaf il-kostruzzjoni u l-iżvilupp.

KPMG qed jgħixu fis-sħab għax kieku forsi kienu jirrealizzaw li l-ambjentalisti ilhom żmien twil iressqu proposti li l-gvernijiet kontinwament jinjoraw għax il-gvernijiet moħħhom biss f’kif jinkoraġixxu iktar bini a spejjes tal-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna. Ikkunsidraw pereżempju l-eżerċizzju tar-razzjonalizzazzjoni, approvat fl-2006 imma li l-impatti tiegħu għadna inħossuhom kuljum f’kull rokna ta’ dawn il-gżejjer. Il-ħsara li saret, u li għadha qed issir, mill-Gvern id f’id mal-iżviluppaturi, hi waħda enormi. Imma, dwar dan, skiet komplet mingħand KPMG.

It-tibdil fil-klima, skont ir-rapport ta’ KPMG, qiesha ma teżistix, għax fir-rapport ma hemm l-ebda referenza għaliha. Dan ovvjament ifisser li l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni mhiex interessata fil-materja.

M’aħniex qed nistennew lill-awturi tar-rapport ta’ KPMG jispjegawlna kif l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ħarbtet pajjiż bi żvilupp esaġerat u l-pretensjoni tagħhom li aħna, l-bqija, nħallsu d-djun ambjentali tagħhom. Il-ġungla tal-konkos li qed tiżviluppa madwarna qed tifgana. L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni kontinwament trid iktar art għal żvilupp li donnu ma jintemm qatt.

L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni hemm bżonn li tiġi f’sensiha. Ilkoll jeħtieġilna nifhmu, qabel ma jkun tard wisq, li dan il-bini li għaddej kullimkien mhux sostenibbli u li l-progress ma jitkejjilx bil-bini, bit-toroq jew bin-numru ta’ karozzi li ma jispiċċaw qatt.

Il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna għandha titkejjel bl-ispazji miftuħin li jipperpettulna li niskopru mill-ġdid l-egħruq naturali tagħna fil-ħajja naturali li l-urbanizzazzjoni bla limitu qed teqred ftit ftit.

L-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni hi determinata li tisfrutta dan il-mument fejn qed titħalla tagħmel prattikament dak li trid: tibqa’ għaddejja b’bini bla limitu sakemm timla kull ċentimetru possibli, inkluż il-baħar, fuq skala li jħabbatha ma Dubaj! Dik hi l-viżjoni.

Imma għada jasal għal kulħadd, mhux biss għal dawk li jridu jisfruttaw is-sitwazzjoni illum li tippermettilhom iħaxxnu bwiethom bi ħsara għall-komunità kollha. Nittama li meta jasal jibqalna l-enerġija u l-kapaċità li nsewwu l-ħsara enormi li qed issir lil kulħadd.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 6 t’Ottubru 2019

 

Beyond the KPMG construction industry report

As expected, KPMG’s report on the construction industry paints a very rosy picture of it, although its authors concede that “others may arrive at a different conclusion” on the basis of the information contained therein.

I have searched through the report to identify the incidence of a number of important expressions like “over-development”, “re-cycling” (of construction waste), “the environment”, and “the climate”. The views of the construction industry on these terms (and others) would have been quite interesting, had they been expressed. According to the authors of the report, however, practically none of them were.

I am not surprised that the terms “over-development” and “recycling” do not feature in the report. This obviously indicates that the industry does not consider there is any “over-development” and, in addition, that the industry is not bothered about recycling its construction waste. As explained in a recent article of mine (TMIS, 22 September 2019 entitled In cahoots with the polluter), the construction industry is not interested in recycling its waste, when this is possible; it is only interested in subsidised dumping sites. They pollute, you pay. Does KPMG endorse this?

There are two references to the environment in the KPMG report. The first points fingers at consumers and emphasises that there is a lack of environmentally-friendly materials in properties because there is no demand for them! The second focuses on environmental lobby groups and challenges them to come forward with realistic suggestions! The authors of the report, however, point out that “such suggestions should be grounded in reality, and recognise that halting all construction and development is not a realistic option.”

KPMG is apparently reporting from the moon as it would have otherwise realised long ago that the environmental lobby has brought forward a multitude of proposals which have been generally ignored by governments, which have continuously sought to ensure that development is facilitated at the expense of our quality of life. It would suffice for a moment if they were to consider, for example, the rationalisation exercise introduced way back in 2006 but the impacts of which are still being felt still being felt up to this very day all around our islands. The damage done by government in cahoots with the developers is enormous but KPMG is, however, completely silent on the matter.

Climate change does not feature at all in the report, meaning that the construction industry is generally not bothered.

We do not expect the authors of the KPMG report to explain how the construction industry has been a major force in ruining this country through over-development and through expecting us to foot their environmental bills.

The concrete jungle developing all around us is suffocating. It is fuelled by a construction industry which has no idea of where to stop and that continuously wants more land for development.

It is about time that the construction industry is cut down to size. We should all realise, before it is too late, that the ongoing building spree is unsustainable and that progress is not measured in terms of buildings, roads or the enormous number of cars on our roads.
Our quality of life is actually measured through the open spaces we can enjoy and through rediscovering our natural roots, which have been obliterated as a result of the ever-expanding urban boundaries.

The construction industry is bent on making even more hay while the sun shines: on building more and more for as long as their Dubaification vision remains in place.

The sun rises for everyone, not just for those seeking to make hay while it shines. When it sets, we rest – preparing for tomorrow and hoping that, when it comes, there will still be time to repair the extensive damage being done to us all.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 6 October 2019