Tourism: the industry does not care

Notwithstanding the increasing numbers of incoming tourists, the tourism industry is currently in a self-destructive mode.  After the carrying capacity study published by the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) in July 2022, one would have expected the Ministry of Tourism or the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) to take the lead in initiating a public debate on the matter.

The Deloitte report published by the MHRA, in July 2022, entitled Carrying Capacity Study for Tourism in the Maltese Islands has pointed out that the total of existing and planned hotel accommodation would require approximately 5 million tourists per annum to ensure an 80 percent occupancy. This does not take into consideration non-hotel accommodation. If non-hotel accommodation is also taken into account, the problem would be much worse.

This is anything but sustainable. Yet, except for the public discussion on the skills required by foreign workers in the industry, no one is (apparently) bothered by the considerable negative impacts of tourism: impacts on both tourism itself as well as on the residential community. No wonder that studies have identified a developing tourismophobia. Tourismophobia has been described by Catalan anthropologist Manoel Delgado as a mixture of repudiation, mistrust, and contempt for tourists.

The total number of inbound tourists to Malta in 2023 was around 3 million. This accounted for 20.2 million bed nights and an estimated expenditure of €2.7 billion. The employment that this generates is considered by many as a positive contribution to the industry, and sustaining around 50,000 jobs.

The Deloitte report published by MHRA in 2022, however, explains that in 2009, 82 percent of those employed in the tourism sector were Maltese. By 2019 this statistic had decreased to 40.6 percent. The Deloitte report does not explain the reasons behind this trend. It only emphasises that this trend is not unique to the Maltese islands.

However, the Deloitte report goes on to argue that the reliance of the tourism industry on an ever-increasing cosmopolitan labour force is an important contributor to an increasing lack of authenticity of the touristic product.  Who cares?

The ever-increasing volume of incoming tourists has an impact on both the tourist experience as well as on the quality of life of the residential community.

Many years ago a substantial portion of the residential community of Paceville was squeezed out of the locality as a direct result of the impacts of the tourist industry. It seems that no lessons were learned from this experience as various residential communities around the islands are still continuously at the receiving end. No one cares.

Tables and chairs have taken over substantial public areas around our residences, in many instances obstructing access to our homes. Consider, for example, The Strand from Gżira to Sliema: from Manoel Island right to The Ferries, and beyond. Has anyone ever considered the impact of the continuous stretch of chairs and tables on the residential community along the same stretch of road?

This experience is not limited to Sliema but also exists in Marsaskala, St Paul’s Bay, St Julians, and many other areas, including Valletta. Who cares?

The tourism industry is aware of all this. Yet the issues raised are not being addressed. The situation gets worse by the minute.

The residential communities in various localities are voicing their concerns. One of the latest to so do was the Valletta residential community.

The local council elections next June are an opportunity to elect local councilors who are sensitized to the concerns of the residents. We need Local Councils that can take up the fight directly at an institutional level as it is only in this manner that the real issues faced by our communities can be addressed.

We have a tourism industry that only cares about what goes into its bank account: nothing else is of significance. We can compensate for this by having local councils that not only care about our communities but most importantly act swiftly to right the accumulated wrongs.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 21 April 2024

The courage to change

Good governance is central to the proper nurturing of this 50-year-old Republic. Good governance is founded on transparency and accountability. Secrecy and the withholding of information from the public domain, in contrast, generate bad governance.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance. This inevitably leads to the shielding of unethical behaviour, as well as the propagation of a culture of greed and corruption.

Transparency and accountability are inseparable twins. Accountability is, in fact, non-existent or severely diluted in the absence of transparency.

Good governance is much more than a concept. It is the essential foundation for any democratic Republic.  In the absence of good governance, greed flourishes, and national institutions are slowly transformed into personal fiefdoms. Corruption and rampant clientelism are the inevitable results of a lack of good governance.

In her inaugural speech on Thursday, President of the Republic Myriam Spiteri Debono spoke of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne’s assassination was described by Her Excellency as a wound that, as a nation, we must heal the soonest.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was actively involved in journalism, investigating corruption. Notwithstanding the continuous vitriol she faced, Daphne identified many a scandal associated with the governance model championed by the Labour Party in government.

This, in reality, is the wound to be healed. We need to finalise that begun by Daphne by ensuring, as a nation, that the corrupt face the music the soonest. Then the festering wounds of corruption, made worse as a result of a culture of impunity, will start the healing process. The rule of law must prevail without any exception.

The assassination of Daphne is also a heavy blow against good governance.  The public inquiry into the circumstances that led to Daphne’s assassination concluded with identifying the Maltese state as being ultimately responsible for all that happened.

A culture of greed has been reinforced with a culture of impunity.

The change necessary to heal this wound requires considerable courage and goodwill. I am not at present convinced that the political leadership currently in government is acting in good faith. It is a leadership under siege, continuously defending those who have driven this country to the dogs.

Land use planning and our environment are regulated by greed. Agricultural land is slowly disappearing as a result of the planning policies of the PN in government way back in 2006 through the so-called rationalisation exercise. The Labour Party opposed these plans when in Opposition but it is currently in the process of milking them dry to ensure that the greedy are fully satisfied.  Some have already licked their lips! Others are awaiting their turn.

It takes courage to act against greed, when both Parliamentary parties are fully committed to entrenching it as a way of life. They ensure the quality of life of the greedy, but in the process are ruining that of all the rest of us: both the present as well as the future generations.

The current set-up of our Parliament is part of the problem. It is no wonder, that, in this scenario, we are lumped with an electoral system that ensures that the voice of change is silenced by making it as difficult as possible for it to be heard.

Change is hindered as the national institutions are rigged against those who dare to speak up for the representation of a variety of minority views in the country.

As a result of this lack of political goodwill, ADPD-The Green Party is currently in Court contesting the discriminatory nature of this rigged electoral system. It is a constitutional court case that is hopefully approaching its conclusion.

At ADPD-The Green Party, we have long been speaking about the urgent need for electoral reform, focused on the need to ensure that every vote is valued. Until such time, no change can ensure that everybody is on board. One person, one vote, one value.

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 2024

Rainwater down the drain

(file photo by author dated 4 October 2018: overflowing sewer at Archbishop Gonzi Square Kalkara)

We have just experienced the driest October in living memory. This is not a new experience. In the past few years, the climate has changed substantially. We are experiencing longer periods of drought and then suddenly we are faced with a storm and floods which wreak havoc all along their path.

After heavy rainfall most of our streets are flooded. The question which seeks a reasonable answer is: why is it that when it rains, so much water is flowing in our streets?

It has been 143 years since our laws imposed the duty to have water cisterns in our buildings.

How come that our regulatory authorities keep ignoring this blatant waste of a natural resource, provided by nature free of charge?

These same authorities which continuously speak about sustainability have proven themselves incapable of managing a natural resource. As a result, a substantial part of it goes to waste into the sea, either directly or else as a result of being filtered through the urban wastewater treatment plants, also referred to as sewage purification plants. Then, after having disposed of the purified wastewater into the sea we recover the same water through desalination plants for our use. In the process we incur substantial costs which are mostly avoidable. This is anything but sustainable!

Unfortunately, a substantial amount of rainwater incident on our roofs, in many instances, ends up in our streets or else in the public sewers instead of being collected in mandatory rainwater cisterns. In a number of cases these rainwater cisterns are either too small or else inexistent!

It is no wonder that our streets are flooded whenever it rains!

In addition, the rainwater ends up overloading our urban wastewater treatment plants which use a considerable amount of energy to produce treated water (called new water) or else to be dumped into the sea. 

Two authorities are responsible for this mess.

The main culprit is the Planning Authority (and its predecessors) which in many cases failed to identify and halt development which did not have provision for rainwater harvesting.

An additional culprit is the Water Services Corporation (WSC). Over the years, the Water Services Corporation (WSC) has taken over responsibility for the management of the public sewers from the former Drainage Department. This responsibility includes authorising the owners of newly- constructed properties to connect the drains of these properties with the public sewer. Is the WSC verifying that it is only the drains that are connected and, in particular, that rainwater pipes are not connected to the public sewer too? The obvious answer is provided by our streets on a rainy day. Clearly, no one is bothering to check what is connected to the public sewer.

Last year, government had embarked on a consultation on stormwater management. In the consultation document entitled Green Stormwater Infrastructure Guidance Manual we were informed that only 36 per cent of dwellings have a water cistern. Compliance with rainwater harvesting regulations, we were then informed, varied from 80 per cent in the case of villas to 4 per cent in the case of apartment blocks. On a geographic basic, Gozo had a 25 per cent compliance!

Millions of euros of public funds, local and EU funds, have been utilised in useless projects. The incompetent authorities have employed many to manage the resource. We have many “managers” but no results. If you seek a proof take a look at our streets during a rainwater storm. You will have all the answers you require.

Our forefathers had no authorities to monitor rainwater harvesting. They had no managers to enforce compliance! They had common sense which led them to understand nature and to use natural resources respectfully.

If we are to solve the problems that we have created over the years we need to rediscover our forefathers’ skills. Making peace with nature and appreciating its free gifts would be a good start.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 26 November 2023

Small is always beautiful

The Gozo Regional Development Strategy document, published for public consultation last week, is different from the crap which is usually fed into the consultation process.

It makes sense to speak of Gozo as an island of villages, reminiscent of German-born British econpmist E.F.Schumacher’s opus Small is beautiful. This is precisely the reason why Greens in Malta have continuously opposed the monstrous underwater tunnel between Malta and Gozo.

The tunnel would, among other things, discard Gozo’s unique characteristics. As a result of the projected tunnel, Gozo would no longer be an island of villages: it would be transformed into one village, one of many in the Maltese archipelago.

It is heartening, after so many years, for Labour in government, to realise this basic fact and start speaking some sense on regional planning and development.  It is definitely never too late to learn from past mistakes!

This is, however, just the beginning. Only time will tell whether this is just another exercise in greenwashing.

Many years ago, the Greens in Malta had proposed a specific target for Gozo’s Regional Development Strategy: Gozo as an eco-island. Government’s proposals are possibly slowly inching in that direction. It could do much better if it specifies this objective clearly and, in more detail, instead of going round in circles. This would necessarily mean having long-term behavioural change as a strategic objective, embedded in the Gozo document.

The proposed strategy speaks on the objective of a sustainable urban environment. Yet, the 2021 census report on residential property, just published, indicates that Gozo is the region with the highest proportion of vacant/under-used residential property in the Maltese islands. It is currently quantified at 45 per cent of the Gozitan housing stock. By no stretch of the imagination can this be classified as “sustainable”. 

It is a tough nut to crack overdevelopment which has been left to its own jungle rules for so long. A moratorium on large-scale development is an essential prerequisite as a first step to bring our house in order. This is an objective which I have been speaking on for ages. Its applicability should not be restricted to the Gozitan mainland.

The strategy rightly speaks on carbon neutrality and suggests that this could be achieved in Gozo much earlier than its attainment on the Maltese mainland. The generation of more renewable energy is one of the contributing elements to achieving this goal.

Another important measure is that of addressing the use of private cars. Applying a sustainable transport policy is crucial in this respect.

The strategy indicates that second thoughts on the undersea tunnel are possibly in the pipeline. This would potentially reduce a substantial number of cars from Gozitan roads.

It is pertinent to remember that the Gordon Cordina’s “feasibility study” on the Gozo tunnel had opined that car movements between the islands had to treble from 3,000 to 9,000 daily in order to ensure economic feasibility of the projected tunnel. 

If this issue is settled by shelfing the tunnel project, the number of cars on the road would still need to be addressed forcefully to inch our way towards carbon neutrality.

Small distances between localities in Gozo would be an encouragement to use public transport if this were more efficient: both punctual and frequent. The benefits resulting through such a transport modal shift would be substantial.

Transport electrification will not do much to achieve carbon neutrality. While contributing to a better air quality in our streets it would however add substantially to the daily consumption of electricity and make it much more difficult to achieve carbon neutrality. Hence the need for a modal shift.

There is also the issue of restricting car movements between the islands which the strategy ignores. Applying the polluter pays principle, an integral part of Maltese environmental law, one could consider the introduction of a congestion charge for private cars crossing over from Malta to Gozo.

This could work wonders to achieving a better air quality. It would also free Gozitan streets from a continuous vehicular invasion.

Small is really beautiful. Let us translate this reality into a better quality of life for all. The draft Gozo Regional Development strategy document is an opportunity which, if properly managed, can lead in this direction.

Published in The Times of Malta : 19 September 2023

The Climate Emergency: beyond the MCESD circus

On the 22 October 2019 Parliament unanimously accepted what has been obvious to most of us for quite some time: we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

Taking stock of the situation, now, four years down the line, reveals that not much has been done to translate the 2019 Parliamentary consensus into tangible action. It was only as a result of the current dramatic failure of the power distribution network that Robert Abela’s government has woken up from its climatic slumber. With a straight face he stated that the failure of the distribution network is a result of a worsening climate change!

Undoubtedly climate change was one of the contributors to the power distribution network’s failure. Climate change is however not the only culprit. Gross incompetence and lack of long-term planning are the major contributors to the current state of affairs. After ten years in office his party must shoulder the blame.

ADPD-The Green Party has written to the Auditor General specifically to investigate Enemalta’s long-term plans (or the lack of them) and to examine the investments made into the energy distribution network over the last ten years. Those responsible have to be held accountable.

Robert Abela’s MCESD circus, last week, was another exercise in greenwashing. His government had various opportunities since 2019 in order to lay the foundations for a realistic forward looking plan addressing climate change but it has completely opted to turn a Nelson eye.

During July, for example, at the EU Environment Council of Ministers, Malta was one of the countries voting in favour of the EU Commission proposal to restore nature as part of the Green Deal package. A proposal that was substantially watered down from the original Timmermans proposal. If Robert Abela’s government really believes in what he has supported at an EU level he ought to start reflecting this in the decisions he takes at a local level.

How is it possible to be credible in your commitment to restore the depleted natural capital across the EU when you have not been capable of protecting the uptake of agricultural land for development at the peripheries of our towns and villages as a result of the rationalisation exercise? (Robert Abela, you can ask your own Żurrieq constituents on the rape of in-Nigret, currently in hand.)

Or how can you be taken seriously that you have undertaken to protect the urban canopy in the existing green spaces (including large private gardens) in our towns and villages when many of these have been or are still being developed on the altar of greed? Investing €700 million in green open spaces is not enough: it does not even compensate for the damage inflicted by the rationalisation exercise on our countryside. Remember we are speaking of two million square metres.

We need a holistic climate policy that comes to grips with the reality that we are facing year in year out. The heat-wave we have just experienced has the potential of shifting the tourist market northwards during the summer months, away from the Mediterranean shores. We are witnessing the first clear indicators of the tropicalisation of the Mediterranean climate, yet the tourism industry is ecstatic at the current tourism numbers which are fast approaching the 2019 record year.

The Malta International Airport (MIA), Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) and the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) need to wake up and smell the coffee.  Climate change needs to be anchored in tourism policy before it is too late.

The Maltese islands will be severely impacted by the next stages of climate change: the rise in sea level. The coastal areas will be hard hit. Depending on the extent of the sea level rise, they will be wiped out or substantially reduced. This will impact coastal communities as well as all the coastal infrastructure, which includes practically all our tourism facilities. Yet the tourism industry is silent, busy counting today’s euros.

Beyond last week’s MCESD circus the government has a duty to act and make up for lost time. It is a duty towards future generations. Unfortunately, future generations have been consistently written off as they have no vote. Gro Harlem Bundtland had warned us in her seminal 1987 UN Report Our Common Future: “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.”

Once upon a time we also had a Guardian for Future Generations. His silence on climate change is deafening.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 6 August 2023

A ticking time bomb

The proposal to set up an authority to deal with climate change regulation, mitigation and adaptation, announced by Prime Minister Robert Abela during an MCESD meeting last week, though well-intentioned, is uncalled for. It essentially means more fragmentation in matters related to environmental governance.

We have been there before during the debate on land use planning and the environment with the resulting merger and subsequent demerger.

The actual results achieved as a consequence of the planned fragmentation have increased the existing environmental mess exponentially.

Environmental governance requires consolidation and not fragmentation in order to be effective.

The effective coordination of policy formulation, regulation and implementation in all environmental issues can be achieved. However, for this to happen we ought to realise that the smallness of our country is an asset which is currently ignored but which we can put to good use.

Rather than have a separate authority dealing with climate change it would be more appropriate to beef up the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and ensure that it is run appropriately.

Climate change is a ticking time bomb that is confirmed as being progressively worse with every scientific report that is published. The current heat-wave and the flooding that we have witnessed in the past winter are clear indications of what lies in store for all of us in the immediate future.

We are no exceptions. Nature does not discriminate; it treats us all equally. It just rolls over all of us as it did elsewhere with floods, fires and other extremes of weather.

In these circumstances the realistic way forward is not to set up more authorities but, rather, to seek the way in which we can maximise our existing efforts through proper coordination and, where possible, the consolidation of existing official bodies and authorities. This could lead to the optimisation of results and better value reflecting the resources put to use. We cannot, as a nation, afford to do otherwise.

It must be a carefully studied political decision but not a partisan one. Ideally, the government should try and rope in the best local minds to carefully plot the way forward. It should search beyond the political divide. This is possible if there is the political will.

There is so much we can do. It can, however, be painful, as it would require unavoidable changes to our lifestyle. We must continuously remember that there is no gain without pain. With appropriate and timely action, the pain can, however, be minimised.

The longer we take to get our house in order, the greater the pain inflicted on all: it will be self-inflicted pain as we can avoid or reduce part of it if we act in good time. Even though time is running out, it is still possible to take meaningful action. All of us will be impacted, but the vulnerable will be impacted most of all.

The action required encompasses practically all that we do. It impacts land use and urban planning, agriculture, tourism, transport, energy consumption and generation, air quality, water management, nature protection and restoration – practically everything around us. Consequently, it will also have a considerable impact on our economic activity.

The month of July that just ended has been the hottest on record. We are still reeling from its impacts on the energy distribution network. There are other impacts that we will have to address, shortly. We have to (and can) anticipate all this through foresight and appropriate planning.

All the required information to help us plan a better future that factors in climate change is already available. This information has been available for a considerable number of years but it has been conveniently ignored as the political establishment has always sought to paint a future landscape which is out of tune with reality.

This is the real challenge we face: to plan our future realistically. The longer we take to get our feet on the ground the more difficult it will be to achieve the required results. We owe it to future generations to ensure that when we pass on the baton, these islands are still liveable. So far, this is most clearly not achievable.

published in Times of Malta: 3 August 2023

Opposizzjoni għar-restawr tan-natura

Il-Parlament Ewropew presentement qiegħed jiddiksuti l-qagħda tal-bijodiversità fl-Unjoni Ewropeja u l-ħtieġa urgenti li din tkun restawrata. Dan qed isir f’kuntest tad-dibattitu li għaddej dwar il-proposta tal-Kummissjoni Ewropeja fuq regolamenti dwar restawr tan-natura, element essenzjali tal-Pjan l-Aħdar (Green Deal) tal-Unjoni Ewropeja.

Il-ħsara akkumulata kkawżata mill-bniedem lin-natura u lill-proċessi naturali hi waħda sostanzjali. Tħares kif tħares lejha, din il-ħsara għandha impatt fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll. Hu impatt fuq dak li hu essenzjali għall-eżistenza tal-ħajja innifisha: fuq il-klima, fuq il-kwalità tal-arja, kif ukoll fuq il-biedja u fuq il-kapaċità li nipproduċu l-ikel.   

Meta in-natura ġġarrab il-ħsara, dan hu rifless ukoll f’impatti ekonomiċi kif jidher ċar fl-istudju dwar l-ekonomija tal-bijodiversità kkordinat mill- Professur Sir Parta Dasgupta mill-Università ta’ Cambridge fl-2021. Il-ħarsien u r-restawr tan-natura hu diġà l-iskop ta’ diversi inizjattivi, mhux biss fuq livell Ewropew. Fuq livell globali hemm il-ħidma li qed issir bħala parti minn xogħol il-Konvenzjoni dwar il-Bijodiversità, iffirmata fl-1992 f’Rio waqt is-Summit ambjentali.

Fis-summit dwar il-bijodiversità li sar f’ Montreal iktar kmieni din is-sena, l-komunità internazzjonali għamlet pass kbir il-quddiem meta ftehmet dwar trattat  fuq il-ħarsien tas-saħħa tal-ibħra, ftehim li dwaru diġa ktibt f’dawn il-paġni (Illum 12 ta’ Marzu 2023: Il-legat ta’ Arvid Pardo: niskopru mill-ġdid il-vokazzjoni marittima.)

F’livell ta’ Unjoni Ewropeja hemm diversi regoli li jservu ta’ gwida għall-istati membri dwar tmexxija sostenibbli f’diversi oqsma. Minkejja dan, il-qagħda tal-bijodiversità qatt ma kienet daqshekk ħażina.

Il-ħarsien tal-bijodiversità hu xogħol kontinwu, li sfortunatament jimxi bil-mod wisq.

L-iskop ta’ dawn ir-regoli għar-restawr tan-natura huwa biex ikunu ndirizzati l-ekosistemi fi stat ta’ degradazzjoni u dan billi jkun hemm koordinazzjoni effettiva ħalli tkun implimentata aħjar legislazzjoni eżistenti. Dan ikun ta’ kontribut biex possibilment ikunu ndirizzati b’mod adegwat il-miri tal-Unjoni Ewropeja dwar it-tibdil fil-klima.

ir-regolamenti proposti jfasslu miri dwar ir-restawr tal-ekosistemi fuq l-art, mal-kosta, fl-ilma ħelu u fl-ibħra. Jimmiraw ukoll dwar il-ħtieġa li ma jintilfux spazji miftuħa ħodor fiż-żona urbana, inkluż li ż-żoni imħaddra fl-ibliet u l-irħula tagħna ma jonqsux.  Il-proposta tindirizza ukoll il-ħarsien tar-riżorsi tal-ilma kif ukoll ir-restawr tal-ekosistemi agrikoli u tad-dakkara (pollinators), bħalissa taħt theddida iktar minn qatt qabel.

Ikun meħtieġ li l-istati membri jħejju pjan nazzjonali li jidentifka l-miżuri meħtieġa għar-restawr ta’ dan kollu b’identifikazzjoni ta’ miri ċari. L-Unjoni Ewropeja qed tippjana li talloka €100 biljun għal dan kollu.

L-abbozz ta’ regolamenti dwar ir-restawr tan-natura li dwaru kien hemm vot fil-Kumitat Parlamentari Ambjentali tal-Parlament Ewropew nhar il-Ħamis bil-kemm ġie approvat. Irnexxielu, għalissa, jsalva kemm kemm minn attakk feroċi ikkoordinat mill-Partit Popolari Ewropew (EPP) appoġġat mill-allejati parlamentari tiegħu fuq il-lemin.  

Il-futur ta’ dawn ir-regolamenti dwar ir-restawr tan-natura, f’dan il-punt, huwa xi ftit inċert. Qegħdin viċin wisq tal-elezzjonijiet għall-Parlament Ewropew u forsi mhux l-aħjar żmien għal diskussjoni ta’ din ix-xorta. Il-Corporate Europe Observatory, li jsegwi il-lobbying fuq livell Ewropew, iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa irrapporta li l-forzi tal-lemin fil-Parlament Ewropew huma determinati li joqtul kull inizjattiva li baqa’ mill-Ftehim l-Aħdar (Green Deal) fi pjan biex jirbħu l-voti tan-negozji u tal-bdiewa fl-elezzjonijiet li ġejjin.

Fl-elezzjonijiet riċenti ġewwa l-Olanda, il-partit ġdid BBB (partit agrarju, lemini u populist) li sar l-ikbar partit fil-pajjiż jidher li kien il-kawża biex il-Partit Popolari Ewropew jintensifika l-opposizzjoni tiegħu għall-miżuri li jirriżultaw mill-Ftehim l-Aħdar (Green Deal).

F’dan il-qasam, il-futur hu mċajpar. Iktar ma ndumu ma niddeċiedu u naġixxu inqas ser ikun hemm ċans li l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jirtu dinja li fiha jistgħu jgħixu.  Jeħtieġ li naġixxu biex nirrestawraw u nħarsu l-ftit li baqa’ qabel ma jkun tard wisq.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 18 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Obstructing the restoration of nature

The European Parliament is currently discussing the state of biodiversity within the European Union and the urgent need for its restoration. This is being done with reference to the proposal by the EU Commission for a regulation on nature restoration, an essential element of the Green Deal framework.

The accumulated damage inflicted by man on nature and natural processes is substantial. Irrespective of the way you look at it, at the end of the day this reflects itself on our quality of life. It is an impact on ecology and on the services which nature provides as an essential prerequisite for the existence of life itself. It is an impact on climate, on air quality and well as on agriculture and food production.

A dilapidated nature also substantially impacts the economy as has been most clearly shown by the independent review of the economics of biodiversity drawn up in February 2021 and led by Professor Sir Parta Dasgupta from the University of Cambridge. The protection and restoration of nature is an objective of various initiatives, not just on a European level, but more so on a global level as is evidenced by the workings of the Convention on Biodiversity signed as part of the agreed Rio  Earth Summit way back in 1992. In a Biodiversity Summit held at Montreal earlier this year, in March, the international community made a breakthrough on a treaty dealing with the health of the oceans in respect of which I have already written in these columns (TMIS 12 March 2023: Arvid Pardo’s legacy: rediscovering a maritime vocation.)

At an EU level there are various policies and regulations which guide member states on the sustainable way forward. Notwithstanding all this regulatory activity, biodiversity is in a worse state than ever.

Protection of biodiversity is works in progress. Unfortunately, it moves at a snail’s pace as it has to combat the resistance of those who do not have a long-term view: those who plot their actions on the basis of electoral polls, and not on what is right and proper.

The specific objective of the EU regulation on nature restoration is to restore degraded ecosystems across the EU through an effective coordination of existing legislation. This will contribute towards a timelier achievement of the climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation objectives of the EU.

The proposed nature restoration legislation sets targets for the restoration of terrestrial, coastal, freshwater and marine ecosystems. It also points to the requirement that there is no net loss of urban green space and of urban tree canopy cover. It addresses issues of water resources as well as the restoration of pollinator populations and agricultural ecosystems.

Member States shall prepare national restoration plans to identify the restoration measures that are necessary to meet these targets and obligations. €100 billion will be allocated by the EU for this measure.

The draft nature restoration regulation, voted upon in the EU Parliament’s Environment Committee on Thursday barely survived an onslaught coordinated by the European People’s Party (EPP) and its right-wing allies in the European Parliament.

The future of the nature restoration regulation is, at this point, uncertain. Being so close to the European Parliament elections, maybe, it is not the right time to debate. Corporate Europe Observatory, the European lobbying monitor, earlier this week reported that right-wing European political parties are determined to kill the remains of the Green Deal in a bid to gain business and farmers’ support in the forthcoming elections.

The recent Dutch election results, which made the brand-new BBB (‘Farmer-Citizen Movement’, an agrarian and right-wing populist party) the biggest political party in the Netherlands has electrified the EPP into opposing with increased intensity the implementation of the proposed Green Deal measures.

The future is definitely very murky. The longer we take to decide and act the less likely that future generations inherit a planet in which they can live. We have to act to restore and protect the little we have left, before it is too late.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 18 June 2023

Inħarsu l-ambjent, bil-Kostituzzjoni

Fi żmien għaxar xhur, tkun intemmet il-Presidenza ta’ George Vella. L-entużjażmu tiegħu għall-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, s’issa, ma wassal għall-ebda riżultat konkret magħruf. Bla dubju, l-Covid-19 ma kienx ta’ għajnuna.

Id-dibattitu dwar il-ħarsien ambjentali permezz tal-kostituzzjoni hu tajjeb. Dan jista’ jwassal biex inaqqas jew saħansitra jelimina d-diskrezzjoni tal-Gvern dwar meta jaġixxi f’dan il-qasam. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien li m’għandniex fiduċja li l-eżekuttiv jista’ jeżerċità diskrezzjoni b’mod raġjonevoli, u dan għax sal-lum, ftit li xejn aġixxa b’mod raġjonevoli fir-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tiegħu.

Il-Kostituzzjoni tagħna, fit-tieni kapitlu tagħha fiha diversi dikjarazzjonijiet li permezz tagħhom huma stabiliti diversi miri bażiċi tal-Gvern fosthom dawk ambjentali. Il-miri ambjentali kienu msaħħa riċentement permezz ta’ emenda kostituzzjonali ppreżentata minn José Herrera, dakinnhar Ministru għall-Ambjent. Huma fundamentali għat-tmexxija tal-pajjiż, iżda ma tistax tmur il-Qorti, jekk il-Gvern jonqos milli jimplimenthom. Fil-prattika dan ifisser li dak li tgħid il-Kostituzzjoni dwar l-ambjent ma jiswa’ xejn.  Hu meħtieġ li l-iktar kmieni possibli, s-sitwazzjoni tinbidel kif repetutament emfasizza ADPD kemm fid-diversi manifesti elettorali kif ukoll fis-sottomissjonijiet li ippreżentajna quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali li tidher li hi ġġammjata.

Il-PN issa qed jipproponi li l-ambjent għandu jkun meqjus bħala dritt uman fil-kostituzzjoni. Ma nafx x’iridu jgħidu biha din. Naħseb li qed jużaw il-kliem żbaljat għax l-ambjent ma jistax ikun dritt uman. Li probabbilment iridu jgħidu hu li l-aċċess għal ambjent protett għandu jkun garantit bħala dritt uman.  Din hi mira diffiċli għax tfisser, fost oħrajn, li l-PN ikunlu meħtieġ li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu fuq diversi materji biex ikun kredibbli: fuq quddiem nett nistenna li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu dwar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-2006, anke għall-konsistenza. Ikollna nistennew biex naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw l-argument.

Il-ħarsien ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni fil-fehma tiegħi ghandu jfisser li l-bniedem jirrispetta l-eko-sistema, li tagħha, aħna niffurmaw parti, flimkien mal-pjanti u l-annimali l-oħra.  Għandu jfisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-bijodiversita, kemm tal-fawna kif ukoll tal-flora, fil-kuntest naturali tagħhom. Ifisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-ilma tal-pjan li m’għandux jitqies bħala propjetà privata. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien ikbar tal-valur nazzjonali tal-wirt storiku.

Sfortunatament, il-Kostituzzjoni, filwaqt li tagħraf b’mod dettaljat il-ħtieġa tal-ħarsien tal-propjetà privata tonqos milli tirrikonoxxi s-sinifikat u l-valur intrinsiku tal-eko-sistema, li niffurmaw parti minnha u li hi tagħna lkoll.

Referenza għall-ambjent naturali fil-Kostituzzjoni għandha tkun waħda ekoċentrika u mhux antropoċentrika. Dan ifisser li meta tikkonsidra l-ambjent naturali l-Kostituzzjoni jeħtieġ li tqis il-ħarsien u d-drittijiet tan-natura u l-wirt naturali u mhux drittijiet umani. Huwa essenzjali li nibdew naħsbu bis-serjetà dwar id-drittijiet tan-natura u kif dawn jintrabtu mal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri li ukoll għandhom dritt li jkollhom arja nadifa biex jieħdu n-nifs, ilma mhux imniġġes u l-possibilità li jgawdu n-natura fl-aspetti kollha tagħha.  Dan hu l-wirt komuni tagħna lkoll u għandna nieħdu ħsiebu.

Ir-referenzi ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni tagħna għandhom jassiguraw li wara snin ta’ prietki dwar is-sostenibilità, nistgħu, forsi, nittraduċu dak li nemmnu fih f’għodda legali biex il-Gvernijiet ikunu obbligati li jimplimentaw politika sostenibbli.

Kif inhuma l-affarijiet, illum, il-Kostituzzjoni tipprovdi linji gwida meta titħadded dwar materji ambjentali. Dan, iżda, irriżulta li mhux biżżejjed għax l-ebda wieħed mill-Gvernijiet Maltin mill-1964 sal-lum ma mexa ma’ din il-gwida kostituzzjonali.

Jekk għandna nitgħallmu xi ħaġa mit-taħwd li aħna mdawwri bih hi li t-triq il-quddiem hi li jkollna l-miri ambjentali miktubin b’mod ċar u li dawn jorbtu jdejn il-Gvernijiet.

Li nħaddru l-kostituzzjoni għandu jkun l-ewwel pass fit-triq tal-kisba tal-ordni ambjentali. Fl-aħħar, imma, għandhom ikunu l-Qrati li għandhom ikollhom is-setgħa li jiġbdu widnejn il-Gvern meta dan jonqos milli jagħmel dmiru.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Greening the Constitution

Within another ten months, the presidency of George Vella will have come to and end. His enthusiasm for a Constitutional Convention, so far, did not lead to any known tangible results. Covid-19, definitely did not help.

The debate of entrenching environmental protection in the Constitution, thereby reducing or completely removing governmental discretion as to when it can act, is healthy. It signifies recognition that we cannot trust the executive with exercising reasonable discretion, as it has not to date been reasonable in the way it has acted on environmental stewardship.

Let us start at the very beginning. Our Constitution, in its second chapter, contains declaratory provisions which establish a number of basic objectives of government, amongst which the environmental objectives to be attained. The environmental objectives, which were amplified in a recent amendment to the Constitution, moved by then Environment Minister José Herrera, are, in terms of the Constitution itself, fundamental to the governance of the country. They cannot, however, be enforced in a Court of Law. This means that in practice these environmental provisions of the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a dead letter. They need to be enforceable, the soonest, as my party has repeatedly emphasised both in its electoral manifesto in various elections as well as in its submissions to the now stalled Constitutional Convention.

It is now being suggested by the PN that the environment should be a human right entrenched in the Constitution. What does this mean? I think that what has been stated so far is a wrong choice of words. The environment cannot be and is not a human right. What they most probably mean is that access to a protected environment should be a guaranteed human right.  This is a tall order and it signifies that the PN has to reverse a substantial number of its policies in order to be credible: first on the list it needs to reverse its commitment to the 2006 rationalisation plan for consistency. We will wait and see what they really have in mind.

Environmental protection in the Constitution should, in my view, mean ensuring that humans respect the eco-system of which, together with plants and other animals we all form part. It should mean protection of biodiversity, both fauna and flora as well as their habitats. It should also signify the protection of the aquifer as this is not and should not be considered as private property. It also signifies a recognition of the national value of historical heritage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution emphasises in the minutest of details the need to protect private property but then it ignores the significance and the intrinsic value of the eco-system of which we form part and which belongs to all of us.

Reference to the natural environment in the Constitution should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric. This means that when considering the environment, the Constitution should deal with the protection of the rights of nature and not human rights. It is about time that we should start thinking about the rights of nature and link this with the rights of future generations who have a right to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpolluted water and enjoy nature in all its aspects. This is our common heritage and we should handle it with care.

Environmental references in our Constitution should ensure that after years of preaching sustainability we can, maybe, translate our beliefs into legal tools in order that governments are bound to implement sustainable policies.

As things stand the Constitution provides guiding principles when dealing with environmental issues. This has proven to be insufficient as none of the Maltese governments since 1964 has acted in accordance with this constitutional guidance.

If we are to learn anything from the current mess it is that the way forward is to spell out clear environmental objectives which tie the hands of governments.

Greening the Constitution could be a first step in bring our house in order. At the end of the day, however, the Courts must be in a position to be able to instruct government to carry out its duty when it has failed to do so.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 June 2023