Il-karba tal-art, il-weġgħat tan-Natura

Il-faqar u l-ħsara ambjentali huma relatati. Qishom tewmin, inkella ż-żewġ naħat tal-istess munita. Il-faqar jiġġenera ħsara ambjentali filwaqt li l-ħsara ambjentali inevitabilment twassal għall-faqar.

Dan kien emfasizzat minn Indira Gandhi, dak iż-żmien Prim Ministru tal-Indja, meta fl-1972, fi Stokkolma, indirizzat konferenza tal-Ġnus Magħquda dwar l-Ambjent Uman. Din hi wkoll it-tema ewlenija tal-eko-enċiklika Laudato Si tal-Papa Franġisku, kif ukoll l-argument bażiku tas-Sinodu tal-Isfqijiet tar-Reġjun tal-Amazonja li presentment għaddej f’Ruma. Il-konferenza ta’ Stokkolma kienet l-ewwel waħda tax-xorta tagħha dwar materji ambjentali internazzjonali. Kienet ix-xrara li kebbset l-iżvilupp tal-politika ambjentali internazzjonali.

Fi ftit kliem, il-politika soċjali u dik ambjentali huma interrelatati: huma dak li l-egħruq Latino Amerikani tat-tejoloġija tal-liberazzjoni jiddeskrivu bħala “ekoloġija integrali”.

Maurice Strong, Segretarju Ġenerali tal-konferenza tal-Ġnus Magħquda dwar l-Ambjent Uman fi Stokkolma kiteb, fil-memorji tiegħu, dwar kemm u kif id-diskors ta’ Indira Gandhi fil-konferenza mhux biss baqa’ miftakar imma fuq kollox kemm kien influwenti. It-tema li Gandhi żviluppata b’komunikattiva kbira kienet dwar kif “il-faqar hu l-ikbar sors ta’ tniġġiż”. Kienet emfasizzat b’qawwa : “ kif qatt nistgħu nikkonvinċu lin-nies fl-irħula u fil-griebeġ biex iżommu l-ibħra, ix-xmajjar u l-arja ndaf u ħielsa mit-tniġġiż, meta ħajjithom hi kollha kemm hi tniġġisa waħda?”

Il-ħajja hi katina. Aħna l-bnedmin niffurmaw parti ntegrali min-natura. Saħhitna hi rifless tas-saħħa tan-natura. Id-dmugħ tagħna huma d-dmugħ tal-istess natura.

Leonardo Boff, il-Franġiskan Brażiljan, esponent ewlieni tat-tejoloġija tal-liberazzjoni, jitkellem ċar ħafna biex jiddeskrivi dan, saħansitra fit-titlu tal-ktieb influwenti tiegħu tal-1995 : “Il-karba tal-art, il-karba tal-fqir” (Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres.) L-argumenti f’dan il-ktieb kienu influwenti kemm fl-eko-enċiklika ta’ Jorge Bergoglio kif ukoll fis-Sinodu tal-Isfqijiet tal-Amazonja li għaddej bħalissa.

Il-ħsara ambjentali għandha impatt enormi fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll. Fuq il-ħajja ta’ kulħadd ħlief ta’ dawk il-ftit li jaħtfu għalihom u għal ta’ madwarhom vantaġġi ekonomiċi jew ta’ xorta oħra u fl-istess ħin jitfgħu l-pizijiet fuq ħaddieħor.

Il-ħsara ambjentali hi strument għall-inġustizzja soċjali. Il-ħarsien ambjentali hu, għaldaqstant essenzjali biex tissaħħaħ il-ġustizzja soċjali.

Id-dinja li qed ngħixu fiha hi d-dar komuni tagħna: flimkien magħha għanda futur komuni. Kull ħsara li nagħmlu fin-natura jispiċċa lura fuqna. Bħal min jobżoq lejn is-sema, u tgħallem li dak li jagħmel dejjem jiġi lura f’wiċċu!

Hemm l-impatti diretti bħal meta l-arja tant meħtieġa għan-nifs tkun imniġġsa, inkella meta l-ilma jkun ikkontaminat, jew ħaxix inkella ħut li jkun imniġġeż minħabba diversi fatturi ambjentali.

Imbagħad hemm l-impatti ndiretti li jieħdu ż-żmien biex jimmaterjalizzaw. Bħat-tibdil fil-klima. L-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju ilhom jakkumulaw għal mijiet ta’ snin b’mod li jidher, minn diversi studji, li qed noqorbu lejn xi waħda kbira. Bħala riżultat tat-tibdil fil-klima qed nisograw impatti katastrofiċi: żieda fit-temperatura u silġ li jdub b’mod aċċelerat fil-poli u fil-Grenlandja b’mod partikolari: dawn iwasslu għal żieda sostanzjali fil-livell tal-baħar.

Il-vulnerabbli u l-foqra ikunu dawk li l-iżjed ilaqqtuha. L-istati gżejjer żgħar fil-Paċifiku diġa qed jgħaddu minn din l-esperjenza. Għandna speċi ġdida ta’ immigranti: ir-refuġjati tal-klima li qed jaħarbu minn impatti ambjentali li jridu jissaportu mingħajr ma kkontribwew għalihom.

In-natura, kif nafu, tirritalja b’qawwa kontinwament biex tirrestawra bilanċ. M’għandhiex għażla. Lanqas ma tiddiskrimina.

Dan hu kollu frott tar-rgħiba. Hi frott ta’ viżjoni li ma tħarisx fit-tul. Viżjoni li ma titlifx opportunità waħda biex issarraf vantaġġi li jistgħu jinkisbu malajr bla ma jkun hemm l-iċken idea tal-impatti fit-tul.

In-natura hi kapaċi tipprovdi għall-ħtiġijiet ta’ kulħadd. Imma ma tistax tissodisfa r-rgħiba fit-tul. F’din il-komunità ekoloġika jeħtieg li mhux biss ningwalawha man-natura, mal-ambjent immedjat tagħna, imma iktar mal-ambjent fit-totalità tiegħu, mal-ambjent integrat. Dan jista’ jsir biss jekk jirnexxielna nifhmu u nagħtu kaz tal-weġgħat tan-natura.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 13 t’Ottubru 2019

Advertisements

The tears of the Earth

Poverty and environmental degradation are inter-related. They are, in fact, twins or possibly the two sides of the same coin. Poverty generates environmental degradation while environmental degradation inevitably results in poverty.

This was emphasised by Indira Gandhi, then Indian Prime Minister, way back in 1972 during her intervention at the United Nations Stockholm conference on the Human Environment. It is also the underlying theme of Laudato Si, the eco-encyclical of Pope Francis, and a basic theme of the Bishops Synod for the Pan-Amazonian Region currently proceeding in Rome.

The Stockholm Conference was the United Nations first major conference on international environmental issues and marked the definite turning point in the development of international environmental politics.

Put simply, social and environmental policy are interlinked: it is what the Latin American roots of liberation theology describe as “the integral ecology”.

In his memoirs, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment described Indira Gandhi’s Stockholm speech as being the most memorable and influential speech of the entire conference. The theme – which she forcefully developed and communicated – was that “poverty is the greatest polluter”. She eloquently emphasised: “…… how can we speak to those who live in villages and in slums about keeping the oceans, the rivers and the air clean, when their own lives are contaminated at the source?”

Everything is related. We humans are an integral part of the natural order:our health is the earth’s health; our tears are the earth’s tears.

Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian Franciscan Liberation Theologist, uses crystal clear language to describe this, even encapsulating it in the title of his 1995 seminal publication: “Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor” (Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres) which is the essential backdrop for both Jorge Bergoglio’s eco-encyclical as well as for the Amazonian Bishop’s Synod currently under way.

Environmental degradation has a considerable impact on the quality of life of all of us except, that is, for the quality of life of the select few who pocket profits by appropriating for themselves advantages (economic or otherwise) and lumping the negative impacts on the rest.

Environmental degradation is an instrument of social injustice. Consequently, enhancing the protection of the environment is also essential to restore social justice. The Earth is our common home: together with the earth we have a common future and all the damage we cause comes back to us.

There are the direct impacts, such as having to breathe contaminated air, drink polluted water, or eat fish and/or vegetables which contain various contaminants.

There are also the indirect impacts which take time to materialise. Climate change is a case in point. A slow build-up of carbon emissions over the centuries is currently close to a tipping point. We risk a catastrophic impact as a result of climate change: an increase in temperature and an accelerated melting of ice at the poles, and in Greenland in particular, which would lead to a substantial increase in sea level rise.

The poor and the vulnerable will be those most affected. The vulnerable small island states in the Pacific are already experiencing these impacts. “Climate Refugees” are a new breed of immigrants, fleeing from the environmental impacts which they have to shoulder but to which they did not contribute.

The Earth continuously retaliates to restore a natural balance. It has no choice: it does not discriminate.

This is the result of greed – a myopic vision which takes every opportunity to cash on short-terms gains but is unable to understand the long-term impacts.

Nature is able to provide for the needs of everyone. It is, however, unable to sustain long-term greed. In our ecological community we need to interact not just with nature, our immediate environment, but more with the total environment. This can only be achieved if we take heed of the tears of the Earth.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 13 October 2019

Green talk but no more

four_pillar-sustainable  development

 

When push comes to shove it is always the rights of future generations which are ignored and thrown overboard. This is done repeatedly as governments tend to give greater value to the rights of present generations, in the process discounting the rights of the future.

It is a recurring theme in all areas of environmental concern. Whether land use planning, water management, resource management, waste management, climate change, biodiversity or air quality,  procrastination is the name of the game. With 101 excuses governments postpone to tomorrow decisions which should have been implemented yesterday.

Future generations have a right to take their own decisions. It is pretty obvious that they will not be able to take adequate decisions as their options will be severely curtailed as a result of the implementation of present and past decisions.

The politics of sustainable development aims to address this deficiency.

On a global level it all started in Stockholm in 1972 as a result of the sensitivities of the Nordic countries which set in motion the UN Human Environment Conference. After the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, the Rio Summits (1992 and 2012), as well as the Johannesburg Summit (2002), we can speak of charters, international conventions, declarations and strategies all of which plot out in detail as to what is to be done. However as pointed out by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the UN Rio+20 Summit (2012) in his report entitled “Objectives and Themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development” institution building has lagged behind. This signifies that the integration of policymaking and its implementation is nowhere on target, Malta not being an exception.

The Sustainable Development Annual Report 2013 presented in Parliament by Minister Leo Brincat on the 27 May 2014 indicates that not much progress has been made to date on the matter, notwithstanding the number of meetings as well as the appointment of coordinating officers and focal points in each of the Ministries.

Way back in 2008 Malta had a National Sustainable Development Commission which through the inputs of civil society, in coordination with government involvement, had produced a National Sustainable Development Strategy. This was approved by Cabinet at that time but never implemented. So much that to try and justify its inertia the then government tried to divert attention in 2012 by proposing a Sustainable Development Act. This essentially transferred (with changes) some of the proposed structures and institutions identified in the National Sustainable Development Strategy to the legislation and used the process as a justification for not doing anything except talk and talk. The changes piloted through Parliament by then Environment Minister Mario de Marco included the effective dissolution of the National Commission for Sustainable Development (which had been dormant for 5 years). The justification which  the responsible Permanent Secretary uttered as an excuse was that the Commission was too large and hence of no practical use.

It has to be borne in mind that sustainable development is also an exercise in practical democracy whereby policy is formed through capillarity, rising from the roots of society, and not through filtration by dripping from the top downwards. For sustainable development to take root the strategy leading to sustainability must be owned by civil society which must be in the driving seat of the process.

Readers may remember that the President’s address to Parliament  way back on 10 May 2008 had emphasised that : “The government’s plans and actions are to be underpinned by the notion of sustainable development of the economy, of society and of the environment. When making decisions today, serious consideration will be given to the generations of tomorrow.”

This was not manifested in the government’s actions throughout its 5 year term. Not just in its approach to sustainable development but also in its dealing with the individual issues of environmental concern: be it land use planning, water management, resource management, waste management, climate change, biodiversity or air quality.The politics of sustainable development is an uphill struggle. It signifies a long term view in decision making, that is, considering carefully the impacts of today’s decisions on tomorrow. It requires much more than chatter.

As the report tabled by Minister Leo Brincat states in its conclusion, we are in for more chatter as the emphasis in the coming year seems to be the revision of a strategy which has never been implemented. The strategy is worded in such general terms that it is difficult to understand what this means, except that there is no practical interest in getting things done. It would have been much better if some effort was invested in the Action Plans which the different Ministries have to draw up in order to implement the strategy in the various departments/authorities under their political responsibility.

This, it seems, is unfortunately the Maltese long term view.

Published in The Times of Malta, Monday June 30, 2014

The risk of failure stares us in the face

The United Nations Environment Programme is one of the success stories of the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Through its Mediterranean Action Programme, UNEP successfully brought together the states bordering the Mediterranean. In 1976, they signed the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution.

Malta signed the convention and a number of protocols, among which a 1980 protocol against pollution from land-based sources and activities, known as the LBS Protocol. One of the commitments that Malta entered into in the 1980s was to ensure that sewage should be treated before being discharged into the sea.

Malta was not in a position to honour its LBS Protocol commitments as the finance required to carry out the infrastructural development was not available. It was only as a result of EU accession that such funds were made available for the Xgħajra and the Gozo plants. (Funds through the Italian protocol were used to construct the Mellieħa plant.) This has come about because, in 1991, the EU adopted its Urban Wastewater Directive, which Malta had to implement on EU accession.

Notwithstanding the availability of EU finance, it was only in 2011, when the third sewage purification plant at Ta’ Barkat Xgħajra was commissioned, that Malta finally came in line with the EU Urban Wastewater Directive. This is clearly evidenced by the latest positive results on the quality of bathing waters along Malta’s coast. The waters off Wied Għammieq/Xgħajra, site of the sewage outfall for over 75 per cent of Malta’s sewage, have registered the most notable quality improvement.

While recognising that Malta has honoured long-standing commitments, it is unfortunate that the long wait was not utilised to identify possible uses of recycled sewage on the basis of which the available EU finance would have yielded long-term benefits. Lessons learnt from the Sant’Antnin sewage purification plant at Marsascala seem to have been ignored.

The sewage purification plants have been designed as an end-of-pipe solution. Situated at the point of discharge into the sea, the whole infrastructure is based on the wrong assumption that sewage is waste. Its potential as a resource was ignored at the drawing board. In fact, I remember quite clearly the statement issued by the Water Services Corporation in the summer of 2008 in reply to prodding by Alternattiva Demokratika. WSC had then derided AD and stated that the treated sewage effluent had no economic value.

Since then we have witnessed a policy metamorphosis. Water policy has slowly changed to accept the obvious and unavoidable fact that sewage is a resource that should be fully utilised. During the inauguration ceremony of the sewage purification plant at Il-Qammiegħ Mellieħa, Minister Austin Gatt had indicated that the possible use of recycled sewage would be studied.

The decision to study the matter had been taken when the design of the infrastructure was long determined. At that point, provision for the transfer of the recycled sewage from the point of treatment to the point of potential use was not factored in. Substantial additional expenditure would be required for this purpose. This is a clear case of gross mismanagement of public funds, including EU funds.

It has been recently announced that a pilot project is in hand to examine the impacts of recharging the aquifer with treated sewage effluent. This pilot project was listed in the First Water Catchment Management Plan for the Maltese Islands as one of three measures submitted to the EU in 2011 in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The other two measures are the efficient use of water in the domestic sector and using treated sewage effluent as a source of second class water.

AD agrees that a successful pilot project on recharging the aquifer could lead to a long-term sustainable solution of the management of water resources in Malta. This is, however, dependent on the nature of the liquid waste discharged into the public sewer. I am informed that tests which have been going on for some time at the WSC pilot plant at Bulebel industrial estate have revealed specific chemicals that are being discharged into the public sewer and which are proving difficult to remove from the treated sewage effluent.

The successful use of treated sewage effluent for a multitude of uses, including recharging the aquifer, is ultimately dependent on a tough enforcement policy ensuring that only permissible liquid waste is discharged into the public sewers. Recharging the aquifer with treated sewage effluent while technically possible is very risky. On the basis of past performance, enforcement is an aspect where the risk of failure stares us in the face!

The technical possibilities to address the water problem are available. What’s lacking is the capability of the authorities to enforce the law. I look forward to the time when they will develop their teeth and muscles. Only then will the risk be manageable.

 

Published in The Times of Malta, June 16, 2012 : Risk of failure staring at us

Just lip service and cold feet

                                             published Saturday August 13, 2011

The year 2012 marks the 20th anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit held in June 1992. The Rio Earth Summit itself was held on the 20th anniversary of the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, which is credited with introducing the environment in the contemporary political lexicon.

In fact, it was as a result of the Stockholm conference that various countries started appointing an environment minister. In 1976, in Malta, Dom Mintoff appointed Vincent Moran as Minister for Health and the Environment. The emphasis at that stage was environmental health. His primary environmental responsibilities being street cleaning, refuse collection and the management of landfills in addition to minor responsibilities on air quality. The serious stuff came later when Daniel Micallef was appointed Minister for Education and the Environment in 1986.

In 1992, the international community met in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the conflicts between development and the environment. This was brought to the fore by the 1987 UN report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report, entitled Our Common Future, referred to as the Brundtland report, is generally remembered for its definition of sustainable development. Development was defined as sustainable if, in ensuring that the needs of present generations are met, it did not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit produced the Rio Declaration on the Environment, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Framework Convention on Biodiversity, the Statement of Forest Principles and Agenda 21. Each one of these assumed a life of its own, addressing various issues.

I think it is essential to focus on the relevance of Agenda 21, which was, way back in 1992, drafted to serve as a global action plan for the 21st century.

Agenda 21 emphasises that sustainable development is not spearheaded by economics. It does not seek to balance profits with other considerations. Based on respect for people and the planet in the carrying out of our activities, it links the environment with social and economic policy.

It is indeed regrettable that some countries, Malta included, loudly proclaim adherence to the objectives of Rio 1992 yet fail miserably in translating them into the requirements of everyday life.

It is necessary to reiterate that Malta, through its present government, has paid lip service to issues of sustainable development. The Environment Protection Act of 2001, now in the process of being superseded, had established a National Commission for Sustainable Development headed by the Prime Minister. This was tasked with the preparation of a National Strategy for Sustainable Development, which was finalised and approved by the commission in December 2006. It was presented to Cabinet, which approved it in the weeks prior to the March 2008 election.

Soon after the 2008 election, during Parliament’s first session on May 10, 2008, Malta’s President proclaimed on behalf of the government that its policies will be underpinned by adherence to the principles of sustainable development. We were then told that when formulating decisions today serious consideration would be given to their impact on the generations of tomorrow.

I doubt whether there was ever any intention to implement such a declaration. I am informed that the National Commission for Sustainable Development, which, in terms of the Environment Protection Act, is still entrusted with the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy, has not met since December 2006. Consequently, the procedures laid down in section 5 of the strategy as a result of which the different ministries had 18 months to prepare and commence the implementation of an action plan based on the strategy in their areas of competence were transformed into a dead letter.

The government has now gone one step further. It is formulating a National Environment Policy. This initiative has been undertaken by the same ministry responsible for issues of sustainable development – the Office of the Prime Minister.

From what is known on the contents of this policy it substantially duplicates the areas addressed by the National Sustainability Strategy. Consequently, it is discharging down the drains four years of discussions with civil society that had given the strategy its shape and content. It is clear that on the issue of sustainable development this government is very rich in rhetoric but when it comes to implementation it gets cold feet. It’s all talk, meetings, documents and consultations. And when a document is finally produced it is back to the drawing board to start the process for another one! This is lip service at its worst.

While the international community meeting in Rio in 2012 will take stock of its modest achievements in implementing the conclusions of Rio 1992 and its follow-up meetings, including those of Johannesburg in 2002, in Malta we are still awaiting a lethargic government to take the first steps.

_____________

Other posts on sustainable development during the past 12 months

2011, July 23                Living on Ecological Credit.

2011, June 5                 Government’s Environment Policy is Beyond Repair.

2011, March 5              Small is Beautiful in Water Policy.

2011, January 22        Beyond the  Rhetorical declarations.

2010, October 23        Time to realign actions with words.

2010, October 17        Reflections on an Environment Policy.

2010, October 3          AD on Government’s Environment policy.

2010, September 17  Lejn Politika tal-Ambjent.

2010, September 4     Environment Policy and the Budget.

2010, August 14          Thoughts for an Environmet Policy.

2010, August 2            Bis-serjeta ? Il-Politika Nazzjonali dwar l-Ambjent.