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

Jgħadduna biż-żmien

L-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) għadha kif ippubblikat abbozz ta’ Strateġija Nazzjonali dwar l-Ambjent għal konsultazzjoni pubblika. Dan l-abbozz ippubblikatu bl-Ingliż biss. Qiesu t-tmexxija tal-ERA ma tafx bil-Malti.

Minn awtorità pubblika nistennew ferm aħjar minn hekk. Kemm ser iddumu tinsulentawna? L-iskuża li l-Malti mhux addattat għal dokument tekniku mhiex waħda aċċettabbli. In-nuqqas ta’ dokument bil-Malti hi opportunutà mitlufa biex l-ERA tikkomunika iktar man-nies.

Iżda lil hinn mil-lingwa, l-istrateġija ambjentali li qed tkun proposta hi waħda ġenerika. Fiha tmien għanijiet li hu propost li jintlaħqu sal-2050. Il-lista tal-għanijiet li l-ERA trid tindirizza mhiex il-problema, għax il-problema hija li dawn l-għanijiet huma affarijiet li ilna niddiskutu żmien: ġew ippubblikati biżibilju rapporti, strateġiji u regoli jew policies li jkunu saru b’intenzjonijiet tajba tul is-snin!  Il-problemi jinqalgħu dejjem meta nfittxu li nimplimentaw il-miżuri meħtieġa biex jitwettqu dawn l-għanijiet. F’dak il-mument jinqagħu elf skuża, għax fir-realtà ma hemmx il-volontà politika li jittieħdu passi bis-serjetà.

Dan hu bil-bosta differenti milli jipprova jgħid ic-Chairman tal-ERA fid-daħla bl-Ingliż li kiteb għad-dokument konsultattiv! Din hi storja li għaddejna minnha diversi drabi!

Il-ħsara ambjentali li saret tul is-snin mhiex xi ħaġa li ser tkun irranġata mil-lum għall-għada.  Ħadd m’għandu jistenna riżultati malajr fil-mixja biex insewwu l-ħsara ambjentali li tħalliet takkumula tul is-snin.

Il-ħarsien tal-ambjent jinvolvi li jinbidlu deċiżjonijiet politiċi diversi li ittieħdu tul is-snin li kienu parti mill-kawża ta’ ħsara konsiderevoli. Ifisser ukoll li nibdlu attitudnijiet, drawwiet u l-mod kif inġibu ruħna.

Fid-daħla għad-dokument konsultattiv iċ-Chairman tal-ERA Chairman, Victor Axiak, jistqarr li jista’ jkun hemm ħtieġa ta’ sagrifiċċji żgħar fl-immedjat biex niksbu benefiċċji ambjentali fit-tul li jitgawdew minn ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Din hi dikjarazzjoni li prattikament kulħadd jaqbel magħha. Imma dikjarazzjoni bħal din teħtieġ ukoll li tkun segwita minn lista ta’ miżuri meħtieġa biex tittieħed azzjoni dwarhom,  lista li tvarja minn miżuri li jistgħu jittieħdu immedjatament għal oħrajn li jħarsu iktar fit-tul.

Ma baqax iktar żmien biex noqgħodu niffilosifizzaw dwar l-ambjent.  Il-problemi nafu x’inhuma u  nafu ukoll min fejn ġejjin u min hu l-kawża tagħhom! Tħejjew kwantità ta’ rapporti, strateġiji, pjani t’azzjoni u x’naf jien tul is-snin. Kull Ministru ġdid ipprova jagħti l-impressjoni li hu jew hi sabet is-soluzzjoni b’nisġa ta’ kliem sabiħ li jipprova jimpressjona. Sfortunatament ir-rapporti tekniċi li saru kif ukoll dak li qalu in-nies waqt konsultazzjonijiet pubbliċi, bosta drabi ġie injorat.  Anzi xi drabi l-gvernijiet saħansitra aġixxew bil-maqlub ta’ dak propost jew maqbul!

L-istrateġija proposta illum, per eżempju,  tiffilosofizza dwar il-ħtieġa li innaqqsu id-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi u tinsisti li għandhom jonqsu l-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna.  Jekk wieħed imur lura u jerġa’ jaqra ftit l-istrateġija nazzjonali dwar it-trasport, li kienet iffinalizzat sitt snin ilu, jsib eżattament l-istess argumenti. Imma minflok ma ħa l-passi meħtieġa, l-Gvern – kemm direttament kif ukoll permezz tal-agenziji u l-awtoritajiet tiegħu – għamel bil-maqlub!

Kull studju li sar, kemm f’Malta kif ukoll barra minn xtutna, repetutament ikkonkluda li żvilupp massiċċ tal-infrastruttura tat-toroq twassal biex awtomatikament jiżdiedu l-karozzi fit-toroq. Kif mistenni, anke f’Malta, hekk ġara. Il-konġestjoni u l-problemi tat-traffiku żdiedu mhux naqsu riżultat tal-proġetti diversi tat-toroq. Dan seħħ għax kuntrarju tal-pariri li kellu, l-Gvern ma indirizzax il-kawza tal-problemi, imma indirizza l-effett.  Il-problema mhiex il-wisa’ jew it-tul tat-toroq, imma n-numru ta’ karozzi fit-toroq. Is-sitwazzjoni illum – f’ħafna każi  – hi agħar milli kienet qabel ma saru dawn il-proġetti.  

Minnbarra dan, daqslikieku mhux biżżejjed, l-awtoritajiet għamlu is-snin jinkoraġixxu l-iżvilupp ta’ petrol stations kbar, qieshom supermarkets. Dawn ħarbtu ammont mhux żgħir ta’ raba’. Biex issa jiġu jgħidulna kemm iridu jipproteġu l-agrikultura!

Kif nistgħu ntejbu l-kwalità tal-arja jekk nibqgħu nżidu l-karozzi fit-toroq tagħna?  Uħud forsi jargumentaw li s-soluzzjoni qegħda wara l-bieb bl-introduzzjoni tal-karozzi tal-elettriku inkella bl-użu tal-idroġenu jew xi fuel ieħor alternattiv. Dan ikun biss soluzzjoni parzjali għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar irridu naraw kif ikun ġġenerat l-elettriku meħtieġ inkella kif ikun prodott l-idroġenu jew fuel alternattiv.

M’għandiex ammont suffiċjenti ta’ enerġija rinovabbli iġġenerata lokalment għax l-għorrief li ħadu id-deċiżjonijiet ftaħru fil-passat kemm kien irnexxielhom jinnegozjaw deroga tajba biex il-mira nazzjonali ta’ ġenerazzjoni ta’ enerġija rinovabbli ma tkunx 20% imma 10% tal-elettriku ikkunsmat. Ħtija ta’ hekk, illum m’għandniex ammont suffiċjenti ta’ enerġija rinovabbli.  Meta għandna l-ħtieġa ta’ enerġija elettrika bi prezz raġjonevoli  għandna nuqqas f’dan il-qasam li għalih qed inħallsu bizzalza.

Id-dipendenza li għandna bħala pajjiż fuq il-karozzi privati hi riżultat ta’ traskuraġni politika tat-trasport pubbliku tul is-snin. Li t-trasport pubbliku jkun b’xejn minn dan ix-xahar kienet deċiżjoni prematura. L-ewwel pass messu kien li tkun indirizzata l-effiċjenza u l-puntwalità tas-servizz. Il-prezz qatt ma kien problema.

Hu meħtieġ li l-effiċjenza u l-puntwalità tas-servizz ikunu indirizzati b’urġenza. Meta dan isir jagħmel ġid ambjentali ferm iktar mill-argumenti tekniċi kollha dwar kemm hemm ħtieġa li nħarsu l-ambjent. Trasport pubbliku effiċjenti flimkien ma investiment f’modi alternattivi ta’ transport hu ta’ benefiċċju ambjentali enormi.

Din hi uġiegħ ta’ ras kbira. Pariri ċari kien hemm. Iżda meta kien possibli li l-problema tkun indirizzata, l-Gvern, direttament kif ukoll permezz tal-awtoritajiet u aġenziji diversi tiegħu, ġie jaqa’ u jqum minn dan u għamel bil-maqlub!

Argumenti simili jistgħu jsiru dwar numru kbir ta’ materji ta’ importanza ambjentali: mill-ilma sal-pestiċidi, mill-użu tal-art sal-bijodiversità, mill-isforzi favur ekonomija ċirkulari għal taxxi ambjentali iddiżinjati sewwa.

Il-mod kif il-politika dwar it-trasport tħalliet għan-niżla hu biss eżempju wieħed żgħir minn fost bosta li jwassal għall-konklużjoni inevitabbli li ma teżistix rieda politika biex il-ħsara ambjentali tkun indirizzata bis-serjetà.

Il-konsultazzjoni pubblika tal-ERA sfortunatament hi fażi oħra fi proċess li permezz tiegħu qed jippruvaw jgħadduna biż-żmien.

ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Hadd 23 t’Ottubru 2022

aqra ukoll dokument sottomessmill-ADPD lill-ERA hawn

Mina : rovina

Il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex, għal darba oħra qegħda fl-aħbarijiet.

Waqt konferenza stampa, iktar kmieni matul il-ġimgħa, kelliema tal-PN fissru kif jaħsbuha dwar il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex. Bħas-soltu jippruvaw jogħġbu liż-żewġ naħat (favur u kontra l-mina), din id-darba bil-proposta ta’ referendum dwar jekk il-mina għandhiex issir jew le.

Kieku kellu jseħħ referendum ta’ din ix-xorta, dan għandu jinvolvi lil kulħadd, u mhux biss lill-Għawdxin. Dan billi l-impatti negattivi tal-mina, jekk isseħħ, ser jolqtu liż-żewġ naħat tal-fliegu: kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex.  

Mid-dettalji li nafu s’issa dwar il-mina, hu magħruf li f’Malta din ser tibda minn ħdejn l-Għerien, villaġġ ċkejken, villaġġ trogloditiku fil-limiti tal-Mellieħa. Kif jixhed ismu dan il-villaġġ hu parzjalment fl-għerien, fejn kienu jgħixu uħud mill-ewwel abitanti f’dawn il-gżejjer. Riżultat tat-tħaffir għall-mina dan il-villaġġ ser jinqered kompletament. F’Għawdex, min-naħa l-oħra, l-mina tibda fl-inħawi Ta’ Kenuna, fil-limiti tan-Nadur b’impatt qawwi u negattiv fuq il-biedja lokali.  

Tajjeb li neżaminaw mill-ġdid uħud mill-argumenti għala mhemmx ħtieġa ta’ mina li kull ma ser iġġib hu rovina.  

Il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex ser tkun tiddependi mill-karozzi w inġenji oħra li għax jagħmlu użu minnha jħallsu. Biex il-mina tagħmel sens ekonomiku n-numru ta’ karozzi u inġenji li jagħmlu użu mill-mina jrid ikun wieħed sostanzjali.  F’wieħed mill-istudji li saru u li hu pubbliku kien hemm estimu li l-moviment ta’ karozzi u inġenji oħra bejn Malta u Għawdex jiżdied bi tlett darbiet, minn tlett elef kuljum għal disat elef kuljum. L-istudju hu intitolat Establishing a Permanent Link between the Island of Gozo and Mainland Malta: An Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Available Strategic Options u kien ikkummissjunat mill-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija flimkien ma’ Transport Malta.

Jagħmel sens li l-karozzi li kull jum jiżdiedu fit-toroq Għawdxin jiżiedu bi tlett darbiet? It-toroq Għawdxin jifilħu għal dan? Għandna nissagrifikaw il-kwalità tal-arja f’Għawdex ukoll?  Jagħmel sens li nesportaw il-problemi tat-traffiku minn Malta għal Għawdex?  it-tweġiba ovvja għal kull waħda minn dawn il-mistoqsijiet hi: le, dan ma jagħmilx sens. Bosta minna huma konxji li anke illum, it-toroq Għawdxin diġa ma jifilħux għat-traffiku li jiġi minn Malta kuljum.

Is-servizz tal-katamaran (fast-ferry service) li riċentement beda jitħaddem għandu l-potenzjal għal soluzzjoni fit-tul biex tkun indirizzata b’mod raġjonevoli l-mobilità sostenibbli bejn il-gżejjer.  Imma dan is-servizz, waħdu, mhux biżżejjed, jeħtieġ li jkun rinfurzat mis-servizz tat-trasport pubbliku kif ukoll minn faċilitajiet aħjar fil-port tal-Imġarr Għawdex.

Mid-dibattitu tul ix-xhur qed tissaħħaħ l-idea li minbarra r-rotta diretta bejn l-Imġarr u l-Port il-Kbir jista’ jkun utli li jkun hemm xi waqfiet. Din hi proposta li tajjeb li tkun ikkunsidrata, imma irridu noqgħodu attenti li din ma tkunx skuża li warajha tinħeba strateġija biex jiżdied l-iżvilupp mal-kosta, b’mod partikolari dawk il-partijiet tal-kosta li għadhom mhux mittiefsa. Ikun tajjeb li nillimitaw ruħna għall-infrastruttura kostali eżistenti.

L-iżvilupp tas-servizz tal-katamaran, b’dan il-mod, mhux biss iwassal għal ħolqa effiċjenti u permanenti bejn il-gżejjer. Iwassal ukoll għal tnaqqis ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna, kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex.  

Il-mina proposta mhiex soluzzjoni, hi problema, iġġib rovina. Nistgħu nsolvu l-problemi ta’ mobilità bis-sens komun. Is-servizz tal-katamaran hi waħda minn dawn is-soluzzjonijiet: issolvi problema illum mingħajr ma tgħabbi l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.  

ippubblikata fuq Illum : 8 t’Awwissu 2021

The Gozo tunnel white elephant

The Gozo tunnel issue is once more on the agenda. It forms part of the Father Christmas politics of the Nationalist and the Labour Party.

At a press conference earlier during the week, spokespersons on behalf of the PN put forward their arguments on the Gozo tunnel, as usual trying to straddle both sides of the debate through a proposal for a referendum as to whether the tunnel should proceed or not!

If such a referendum were to take place it should involve everyone and not just Gozitans, as the proposed tunnel will have considerable (negative) impacts on both sides of the Channel.

The details of the proposed tunnel, as known to date, signify that the tunnel will have a Malta starting point close to the troglodytic hamlet at l-Għerien in the limits of Mellieħa which hamlet would, as a result, be completely obliterated. At Gozo the tunnel will start at Ta’ Kenuna, within the limits of Nadur impacting considerably the agricultural community in the area.

It would be pertinent however to reiterate some of the arguments as to why we do not need another white elephant.

The proposed Gozo tunnel is dependent on cars and other vehicles making use of it, consequently paying the relevant tolls. Maximising such vehicular use is crucial for the proposed tunnel to make any economic sense. One of the studies carried out, which is in the public domain, had estimated that the current daily movements of vehicles between Malta and Gozo should be trebled from 3000 daily movements to 9000 daily movements. The study entitled Establishing a Permanent Link between the Island of Gozo and Mainland Malta: An Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Available Strategic Options was commissioned by the Gozo Business Chamber together with Transport Malta.

Does it make sense to treble the daily vehicle movements on Gozitan roads? Do Gozitan roads have that capacity? Should we sacrifice air quality in Gozo too? Does it make sense to export traffic problems from Malta to Gozo? The obvious answer to all these questions is a clear no. Most of us are aware that Gozitan roads are already bursting at the seams as a result of the vehicles crossing over at this point in time.

The fast-ferry service, recently commencing operation is the potential long-term solution to having a reasonable and sustainable mobility between the islands. It has however to be buttressed by a more focused public transport service and better port facilities at Mġarr Gozo.

The debate over the months has suggested that in addition to a direct Mġarr-Valletta-Mġarr route one could consider intermediate stops on the coast along the route. This is an option worth considering in some depth. Care should however be taken that this would not increase development along the coast, particularly in those stretches of the coast which are still in an almost natural state. The preference for establishing intermediate stops should go for existing coastal infrastructure which could be improved.

The further development of the fast-ferry service would thus not only lead to a permanent efficient link between the islands, but also to a considerable reduction of cars from our roads on both sides of the Channel.

The proposed tunnel is not a solution, it is a problem. We can solve our mobility problems by opting for common sense solutions. The fast-ferry service is one such solution: it solves today’s problem without burdening future generations.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 August 2021

Another fake consultation

Reading through the Green Paper entitled “Towards Cleaner Vehicles on Our Roads” it is evident that this consultation process is flawed. After being 4 years in the making, instead of proposing solutions it just asks questions which should have been answered by the Green Paper itself as part of the consultation process.

This is symptomatic of a government which has been continuously emitting conflicting signals on transport issues. The Green Paper recognises the obvious when it states that transport combustion emissions increased by 86 per cent over the period 1990-2018. The massive investment in unnecessary road infrastructure has been a major contributor in this respect, a point which is conveniently ignored by the Green Paper.

The proposed shift to cleaner vehicles on our roads is welcome, but on its own it is not sufficient. This measure will definitely reduce combustion emissions. It will however also shift the said emissions from our roads to the sources of the electrical energy used to electrify our roads. Knowing that government is planning to install a second interconnector to the Sicilian mainland for the supply of electricity it is clear that part of the emissions will be shifted 80 kilometres to the north, the rest to Delimara. It is still unclear how this will be reflected in the price we pay for electricity, as information on the matter is conveniently absent from the Green Paper.

The Green Paper rightly discusses the need to upgrade the skills of the technical personnel required in servicing and maintaining electric and hybrid vehicles. It also points towards the need for substantial investments in the infrastructure required particularly for charging points. However, it fails to address a number of points of controversy which require urgent resolution and should have been addressed through this consultation process.

The consumption of petrol and diesel is bound to decrease as a result of the drive towards the electrification of our roads. The rate of decrease of fuel consumption will depend on the manner in which the electrification exercise will proceed throughout the transition period. Why then has no moratorium been announced on the development and construction of new fuel stations? A number of controversial applications for fuel stations are still burdening the land use planning process when it should be crystal clear to all that in view of the electrification process, they will no longer be required. The consultation process is conveniently silent on the matter thereby encouraging unnecessary pressures on the planning process.

Simultaneously it is pertinent to point out that the sale of fuel contributes a substantial income to the exchequer which income will now slowly taper to near zero through the transition period. The Green Paper fails to volunteer information in this respect. How will this substantial income be substituted? Will the electrification process itself provide the substitute financial resources or will other areas of activity be tapped to make good? The amounts involved are substantial. In fact, the budgetary estimates for 2021 indicate a projected income of €154 million from excise duties on petroleum products. What are government plans for the substitution of this income? The Green Paper is once more completely silent on the matter.

The Green Paper refers to Low Emission Zones but it does not have the courage to make specific proposals. It is imperative that the transition period from now until the full electrification of our roads gradually adopts the identification of Low Emission Zones within which internal combustion engine vehicles will have a prohibited access. The Green Paper fails in this respect too.

The Green Paper refers to two studies which have been commissioned by the Cleaner Vehicles Commission on the electrification of our roads. These studies are not however available to inform this public consultation.

Notwithstanding having been announced four years ago, with ample time for preparation, this consultation process is deficient. It fails to address the basics: it fails to inform. It is a fake consultation.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 20 June 2021

Drittijiet Ambjentali bir-riforma kostituzzjonali

Il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, meta tiġi, tkun opportunità unika biex ikunu ntrodotti drittijiet ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni. Dan jista’ u għandu jseħħ billi dawn id-drittijiet jinkitbu b’mod ċar u li ma jħallux lok għal miżinterpretazzjoni f’riforma li ilna nistennew żmien kbir.

Id-drittijiet ambjentali, għandhom ikunu ċari daqs id-drittijiet dwar il-propjetà. Għax il-Kostituzzjoni, b’mod pervers, filwaqt li tipproteġi drittijiet dwar il-propjetà, illum ma toffri l-ebda protezzjoni għal drittijiet ambjentali bħad-dritt għal arja nadifa inkella għal aċċess għal ilma nadif. L-anqas ma tipproteġi l-bijodiversità jew il-pajsaġġ jew kwalunkwe dritt ambjentali ieħor bħall-ħarsien tar-riżorsi naturali. Id-drittijiet tal-individwi huma b’xi mod protetti imma d-drittijiet tal-komunità l-anqas biss jissemmew.

Meta wieħed iqis li d-drittijiet tal-ġenerazzjonijiet preżenti huma kemm kemm protetti, xejn ma hemm biex niskantaw jekk il-liġi bażika tagħna tinjora lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri għal kollox.

Waqt li dan kollu kien għaddej, Malta, fuq livell internazzjonali nsistiet dwar il-ħarsien ta’ qiegħ il-baħar (1967), dwar il-klima (1988) u dwar il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri (1992). Imma minkejja dawn l-isforzi fuq livell internazzjonali, ma sar l-ebda sforz lokali biex dak li nippriedkaw barra minn xtutna nipprattikawh f’artna.  

Il-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta, fil-Kapitlu 2 tagħha, għanda sett ta’ linji gwida biex dawn ikunu ta’ għajnuna lill-Gvern billi b’mod ġenerali jindikaw it-triq li jeħtieġ li jimxi fuqha.  Wieħed minn dawn il-prinċipji gwida huwa dwar il-ħarsien ambjentali. Dan tfassal oriġinalment fl-1964 u ġie emendat riċentement.  

Wara din il-lista ta’ linji gwida, fl-aħħar tagħhom, il-Kostituzzjoni tgħidilna li ma tistax tmur il-Qorti biex tinfurzhom!

Dan il-kapitlu tal-Kostituzzjoni huwa mfassal fuq dak li hemm fil-Kostituzzjoni tal-Irlanda u tal-Indja. Kif jispjega Tonio Borg fil-kummentarju tiegħu dwar il-kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta, l-Qorti Suprema Indjana minkejja kollox, imma, interpretat il-linji gwida fil-Kostituzzjoni Indjana bħala l-kuxjenza tal-kostituzzjoni : linja gwida tabilħaqq.  Għax x’jiswa’ li toqgħod tipprietka u tħambaq dwar il-prinċipji bażiċi u l-linji gwida jekk imbagħad iżżomhom milli jkunu infurzati?

Sfortunatament, din l-istess attitudni kienet addottata meta tfasslet leġislazzjoni dwar l-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art u dwar l-ambjent. Anke hawn wara ħafna dikjarazzjonijiet ta’ prinċipji nsibu li dwar dawn ukoll ma tistax tmur il-Qorti biex tinfurzhom.

Fis-sottomissjonijiet tagħha lill Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, Alternattiva Demokratika,  ipproponiet li dan il-kapitlu fil-kostituzzjoni għandu jkun revedut b’mod li jkun assigurat li l-Gvern dejjem jimxi mal-linji gwida kostituzzjonali.   

F’pajjiżi oħra, s-soċjetà ċivili, meta meħtieġ, tieħu azzjoni legali kontra l-Gvern biex tassigura li dan jerfa’ r-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tiegħu f’kull ħin.

Għandi f’moħħi żewġ eżempji partikolari.

L-ewwel wieħed hu dwar azzjoni legali fir-Renju Unit mill-għaqda ambjentali  Client Earth dwar il-mod kajman li bih il-Gvern Ingliż mexa fil-konfront ta’ strateġija nazzjonali dwar il-kwalità tal-arja. Il-materja spiċċat quddiem il-Qorti Suprema li f’deċiżjoni ta’ struzzjonijiet lill-Gvern dwar iż-żmien sa meta għandha tkun lesta din l-istrateġija.   

It-tieni eżempju qiegħed l-Olanda u jikkonċerna t-tibdil fil-klima u l-grupp ambjentali  Urgenda li mar il-Qorti biex iġiegħel lil Gvern jistabilixxi miri raġjonevoli dwar emissjonijiet li għandhom impatt fuq il-bidla fil-klima.

F’dawn l-eżempji, u probabbilment f’bosta oħrajn, l-azzjoni tal-Gvern kienet ferm inferjuri għall-aspettattivi tas-soċjetà ċivili. Ikun tajjeb li l-kostituzzjoni tipprovdina bl-għodda biex kull meta l-Gvern jonqos milli jimxi mal-miri kostituzzjonali ikun possibli li nippruvaw inġibuh f’sensieh.

Sal-lum niddependu mill-Kummissjoni Ewropeja bit-tama li meta jkun meħtieġ din tieħu passi. Nistqarr li f’materji ambjentali, bosta drabi tiddisappuntana u ma tagħmilx dak li nistennew minn għandha.

Il-konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali sal-lum, tista’ tkun l-unika forum fejn dan id-difett kostituzzjonali jkun possibli li nikkoreġuh. Għax hu l-waqt li d-drittijiet ambjentali jsiru parti integrali mill-kostituzzjoni.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 6 ta’ Settembru 2020

Green rights through Constitutional reform

The forthcoming Constitutional Convention, whenever it happens, is an opportunity to entrench green rights in the Constitution. This can be carried out through spelling out such rights unequivocally during the long overdue constitution reform process.

Environmental rights should be spelled out just as clearly as property rights. Our Constitution perversely protects property rights but then does not protect our right to clean air or the access to clean water. Nor does it protect our biodiversity or our landscape or any other environmental right. Individual rights are somehow protected but then the rights of the community are not even given a mention.

When one considers that the rights of the present generations are very poorly protected no one should be surprised that future generations are completely ignored in our basic law.

While this has been going on, Malta has on an international level been insisting on protecting the seabed (1967), the climate (1988) and future generations (1992). Notwithstanding the efforts made on an international level, however, there was no corresponding local effort to put in practice what we preached in international fora.

Malta’s Constitution contains a set of guiding principles in its Chapter 2 which are intended to guide government in its workings. One of these guiding principles relates to environmental protection. Originally enacted in 1964 it was amended recently.

Yet there is a catch. Towards the end of this list of guiding principles our Constitution announces that these principles cannot be enforced in a Court of Law.

This Chapter of our Constitution is modelled on similar provisions in the Irish and the Indian Constitutions. As explained in Tonio Borg’s A Commentary on the Constitution of Malta, however, the Indian Supreme Court has over the years interpreted similar constitutional provisions as the conscience of the Constitution, a real guiding light. It does not make sense to proclaim basic and guiding principles, declare that they should guide the state but then stop short of having them enforceable in a Court of Law.    

Unfortunately, the same attitude was adopted when drafting land use planning and environmental legislation. This legislation contains similar provisions: the announcement of basic guiding principles which are not enforceable in a Court of Law.

In its submissions to the Constitutional Convention, Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party has proposed revisiting this Chapter of the Constitution in order that it would be possible to ensure that government follows the guiding principles at all times instead of selectively.  

In other countries it is possible for civil society to take legal action to ensure that government carries out its environmental responsibilities adequately and at all times.

Two particular examples come to mind.

The first is legal action in the United Kingdom by environmental NGO Client Earth relative to the UK government’s lack of action on the formulation of an air quality masterplan. The matter ended up in a Supreme Court decision which instructed the UK government to act and established the parameters for such action including the relative timeframe.  

The second example comes from Holland and concerns climate change and the environmental action group Urgenda Foundation which went to Court to force government’s hand on the establishment of reasonable climate change emission targets.

In both the above examples, and probably in many others, government action was far below the expectations of civil society. It is right that the Constitution should provide us with the necessary tools such that whenever government fails to live up to the Constitutional benchmarks, (be these environmental or any other) then, civil society may call government to order.

To date we depend on the EU Commission as a fallback position, but the EU Commission, unfortunately, does not always live up to what we expect of it. It has let us down many times. The Constitutional Convention is the only forum possible, so far, through which this constitutional deficiency can be corrected. It is about time that our green rights are entrenched in the Constitution.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 6 September 2020

In-natura dejjem tiddeċiedi

Bħala riżultat tal-coronavirus il-pajjiż kważi wieqaf. Ġie kkonfermat għal darba oħra li m’aħniex iżolati min-natura u l-forzi naturali ta’ madwarna. Ma għandna l-ebda immunità la mill-virus u l-anqas mill-forzi tan-natura.

Illum hawn il-pandemija tal-coronavirus li għaddejja tkaxkar minn quddiema lil min ma jkunx moħħu hemm. Għada, mhux ‘il-bogħod, irridu niffaċċjaw il-qilla tat-tibdil fil-klima.

In-natura ma tiddiskriminax u tibqa’ għaddejja minn fuq kulħadd.

Il-pandemija tal-coronavirus hu maħsub li oriġinat f’Wuhan iċ-Ċina, fis-suq tal-annimali maqbuda mis-selvaġġ, permezz tal-bejgħ ta’ laħam tagħhom, ewlieni fosthom laħam tal-friefet il-lejl.

Din ġrat drabi oħra. Il-marda respiratorja magħrufa bħala SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), li tfaċċat madwar għoxrin sena ilu imma li kellha firxa limitata, ukoll oriġinat minn virus ġej mill-istess familja tal-coronavirus. Ġie identifikat li anke is-SARS toriġina minn annimali fis-selvaġġ. Jidher li fiż-żewġ każi l-virus joriġina prinċipalment mill-friefet il-lejl.

Fi żmien ieħor, kien skopert li l-HIV (Human Immune-deficiency Virus) li jattakka u jeqred id-difiża interna ta’ ġisimna toriġina minn l-ikel ta’ laħam tax-xadini infettat. Anke l-virus Ebola, kawża ta’ infezzjonijiet fatali, hi trasmessa minn annimali infettati bħall-friefet il-lejl u x-xadini, ġeneralment permezz tal-ikel ta’ laħam infettat.
In-natura għandha l-ħabta li meta jidhrilha tiddeċiedi. Il-virus jibqa’ għaddej b’mod naturali u sakemm jitwaqqaf b’imġiebitna xejn ma jżommu.

It-tbagħbis tan-natura dejjem iwassal għal konsegwenzi serji. Hemm prezz x’jitħallas għal imġiebitna. Kull meta ninjoraw dan il-fatt bażiku, jiddispjaċina.

Nimmaġina li ħadd minna ma kiel laħam infettat ġej mill-friefet il-lejl inkella mix-xadini. Aħna iżda nbagħbsu man-natura mod ieħor li fuq tul ta’ żmien jagħmel ħsara daqs il-virus li jaqbeż mill-farfett il-lejl għal ġol-bniedem.

Il-kwalità tal-arja tagħna ħafna drabi hi deskritta mill-agenzija Ewropea tal-Ambjent bħala waħda fqira.

Imma wara li daħlu fis-seħħ il-miżuri biex nikkumbattu l-imxija tal-coronavirus, fl-Imsida, fejn l-Awtorità tal-Ambjent għandha stazzjon li jkejjel il-kwalità tal-arja, ġie osservat tnaqqis fit-tniġġiż tal-arja. L-informazzjoni li nġabret mill-kampjuni tal-kwalità tal-arja tindika tnaqqis sostanzjali fit-tniġġiż li hu assoċjat mal-użu tal-karozzi. Dan seħħ tul dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat bħala riżultat tal-fatt li iktar nies qed jaħdmu mid-dar kif ukoll minħabba li l-istituzzjonijiet edukattivi għalqu l-bibien tagħhom. L-użu tal-karozzi naqas sostanzjalment u dan wassal għal tnaqqis fit-tniġġiż li joriġina mit-traffiku.

Kellha tkun il-coronavirus li twassal għall-implimentazzjoni tal-istrateġija nazzjonali tat-trasport li identifikat id-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi bħala l-problema ewlenija li dawk li jfasslu l-miżuri dwar it-trasport kontinwament jinjoraw. Nofs il-vjaġġi bil-karozzi privati f’Malta idumu inqas minn 15-il minuta. Dan ifisser li l-mobilità meħtieġa hi prinċipalment ta’ natura lokali jew reġjonali u għal distanzi qosra. Xi ħtieġa hemm ta’ karozzi privati għal dan? F’pajjiż fejn kważi kullimkien huwa tefa’ ta’ ġebla ‘l-bogħod għandna iktar minn biżżejjed mezzi alternattivi ta’ transport.

L-impatt tal-Covid-19 fuq il-ġenerazzjoni tat-traffiku u allura fuq il-kwalità tal-arja jindika li m’għandniex ħtieġa li nibqgħu għaddejjin bil-ħela ta’ fondi pubbliċi fuq proġetti massivi mhux meħtieġa in konnessjoni mal-infrastruttura tat-toroq. Ilkoll jeħtieġ li nifhmu li hu possibli illi nnaqqsu sostanzjalment l-impatti fuq il-kwalità tal-arja jekk nindirizzaw bis-serjetà d-dipendenza tagħna lkoll fuq il-karozzi privati. Jagħmlu tajjeb dawk li huma nkarigati mill-ippjanar tat-trasport jekk jagħtu każ tal-impatti tal-coronavirus fuq it-traffiku: tibdil fl-imġieba tagħna lkoll u tnaqqis tat-traffiku ġġenerat.

L-impatt tat-traffiku fuq il-kwalità tal-arja hu kontribut sinifikanti ta’ Malta għat-tibdil fi-klima. It-tibdil fil-klima hi r-reazzjoni tan-natura għat-tniġġis tal-arja ikkawżat fid-dinja, prinċipalment mill-bniedem. Din diġa qed timmanifesta ruħha permezz ta’ tibdil, kultant sostanzjali, fit-temperaturi, perjodi twal ta’ nixfa u varjazzjonijiet dwar meta u kemm tagħmel xita. Kultant l-istaġuni donnu jaslu barra minn żmienhom.

L-impatti tal-coronavirus qed jagħtu ftit nifs lin-natura u dan mhux biss f’Malta! Hemm bosta lezzjonijiet x’nitgħallmu biex forsi nibdlu l-imġieba tagħna u l-istil ta’ ħajjitna. Meta l-impatti tat-tibdil il-klima jiżdiedu u jilħqu l-milja tagħhom, dak li għaddej bħalissa riżultat tal-coronavirus inqiesuh bħala insinifikanti. Hemm bżonn niftħu ftit widnejna u nagħtu każ dak li qed tgħidilna n-natura.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 29 ta’ Marzu 2020

 

Nature calls the shots

COVID-19 has brought the country to a standstill. We are not isolated from nature and its forces at work around us. We are not immune, not just from viruses, but from the forces of nature.

Today it’s the pandemic COVID-19 that’s ploughing through. Tomorrow it will be climate change.

Nature acts in a non-discriminatory manner.

The coronavirus pandemic is thought to have had its origins at the Wuhan wild animal market in China through the sale of meat derived from various wild animals, primarily bats.

This is not the first time for such an occurrence. SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), is another respiratory disease which was detected some 20 years ago, when it had a limited spread. It was traced to a virus belonging to the same family of viruses as the Coronavirus, also traced to viruses originating in wild animals. Incidentally, bats seem to be the point of origin in both cases.

At other times HIV (Human immune-deficiency Virus) which destroys the human immune defences, was traced to the eating of meat of infected chimpanzees. Likewise, the Ebola virus, causing outbreaks of fatal infections, is transmitted from infected animals such as fruit bats, chimpanzees, and monkeys, to humans, generally through the consumption of infected meat.

Nature has a habit of calling the shots whenever it deems fit. Viruses follow natural paths and until brought in check by proper behaviour on our part, they will reign supreme.

Tinkering with nature and natural processes always backfires. There is then a price to pay and we ignore this at our peril.

None of us, most probably, has consumed infected meat from bats or chimpanzees. However, we tinker with nature in other ways, which, in the longer term are just as lethal as viruses which jump from bats to man.

The quality of our air is poor. The European Environment Agency in fact, at times, describes it as very poor.

Yet after the Coronavirus mitigation measures came into force there was a substantial decrease in air pollution registered at the air-monitoring station in Msida operated by the Environment and Resources Authority. Data available indicates a significant decrease in pollutants associated with a decrease in car use during the past weeks as more work from home and the educational institutions closed their doors. Car use has decreased substantially, as a result leading to an all-round decrease in traffic generated pollutants.

It had to be the Coronavirus to commence seriously “implementing” Malta’s National Transport Master Plan which identified car-dependency as a major issue ignored continuously by our transport planners. A basic statistic which stares at us in the face is that 50 per cent of car trips in Malta have a duration shorter than 15 minutes. It follows that mobility is primarily local and regional in nature and on very short routes. Do we need private cars for this? Are the available alternative means of transport not sufficient for this need in a country where practically everywhere is a stone’s throw away?

The impact of COVID-19 on the generation of traffic and consequently on air quality should be an eye opener indicating that we do not need to waste public funds on unnecessary infrastructural road works. We need to understand that it is possible to substantially reduce our impacts on air quality if we address car-dependency head-on. The traffic impacts of Coronavirus could be of help to transport planners to do their job properly.

The impact of traffic on air quality is a significant contribution from Malta towards climate change.

Climate change is nature’s reaction to man-made pollution of the atmosphere. This is already manifesting itself through changes in temperatures, extended periods of drought and changes to rainfall patterns. The seasons at times seem to be inversed. It could get worse, much worse in fact.

The Coronavirus impact has introduced some much-needed breathing space for nature and natural forces, not only in Malta. There are significant lessons to be learnt in order to adjust our behaviour. When the full force of nature releases additional impacts of climate change, the coronavirus impacts would pale to insignificance. Is it not about time that we start listening to nature and act accordingly?

Published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 29 March 2020

It-tnaqqis tal-iskart iġġenerat, jipproteġi l-art agrikola

Ir-residenti ta’ Birżebbuġa jilmentaw dwar it-tniġġiż mill-ħsejjes iġġenerati mill-Port Ħieles. Ir-residenti tal-Furjana jilmentaw dwar l-impatti tal-cruise liners fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom, kemm minħabba t-tniġġiż tal-arja kif ukoll minħabba t-tniġġiż akustiku. Ir-residenti tal-Gudja, Ħal-Luqa, Ħal-Kirkop u tal-irħula tal-madwar huma effettwati mill-operat tal-uniku ajruport li għandna. L-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin għat-Trattament tal-iskart qatt ma tqies ġar eżemplari mir-residenti ta’ Wied il-Għajn.

Ħadd ma jixtieq miżbla wara biebu. Miżbla jew faċilità għall-immaniġjar tal-iskart wara l-bieb, tfisser iktar minn impatti negattivi jekk teħodlok ukoll l-għodda ewliena tal-għixien tiegħek inkella teqridlek darek. Dan hu l-każ tal–bdiewa u r-residenti tal-Magħtab.

Il-miżbla tal-Magħtab ilha topera mill-1977, meta l-miżbla f’Wied Fulija (Iż-Żurrieq) kienet qed toqrob li timtela.

Il-bdiewa tal-Magħtab ilhom jaqilgħu fuq rashom żmien. Wieħed mill-bdiewa li ltqajt miegħu l-ġimgħa l-oħra spjegali li lill-familja tiegħu, fl-1975 kienu ħadulhom 75 tomna raba’ li kienet tinħadem, ftit iktar minn 84,000 metru kwadru, biex jiffurmaw parti mill-miżbla li nħolqot dakinnhar. Illum ser jeħdulhom 25 tomna oħra biex ikabbru madwar 28,000 metru kwadru.

Kif nistgħu nevitaw li l-kumpless tal-iskart fil-Magħtab ikompli jikber billi jibla’ 254,144 metru kwadru ta’ art, primarjament raba’ li tinħadem, kif qed tipproponi l-Wasteserv?

X’ġustizzja hi li sezzjoni waħda tal-popolazzjoni tkun mistennija li ġġorr waħedha l-piż tal-impatti li lkoll kemm aħna nikkontribwixxu għalihom? Ma jkunx iktar ġust li l-piż jinqasam? Fejn ser niġbdu linja?

Jekk nillimita ruħi għall-materja presentment taħt il-lenti, dik tal-immaniġjar tal-iskart, neħtieġu ppjanar sew u dan fil-kuntest tal-għodda ta’ politika kurrenti li tikkonċerna l-iskart. Imma jeħtieġilna li nimxu mal-miri ta’ ħidma stabiliti, għax inkella ma naslu qatt.
It-tnaqqis tal-ħolqien tal-iskart, li dan jintagħżel (is-separazzjoni) u li jkun riċiklat huma tlett għodod bażiċi fil-ħidma li ssir biex l-iskart ikun immaniġjat. Jekk dan isir sewwa l-ammont ta’ skart li jispiċċa fil-miżbla għandu jonqos b’mod sostanzjali. B’riżultat ta’ hekk jkun hemm inqas ħtieġa ta’ art biex tkun kkonvertita f’miżbla. Dan hu l-iskop tal-leġislazzjoni ambjentali tal-Unjoni Ewropeja li suppost li ilna nsegwu sa minn meta fl-2004 isseħibna fl-Unjoni Ewropea.

Il-politika dwar it-tnaqqis tal-ħolqien tal-iskart tfisser tnaqqis ippjanat tal-iskart iġġenerat. Inizjattivi dwar amminsitrazzjoni elettronika huma passi posittivi f’din id-direzzjoni. L-amministrazzoni elettronika hi waħda bla karti, avolja xi kultant din twassal sempliċiment biex tnaqqas l-użu tal-karta minn uffiċċju u żżidu f’ieħor. Anke it-tnaqqis fl-iskart li joriġina mill-ippakkeġġjar ukoll jikkontribwixxi b’mod sostanzjali għall-iskart iġġenerat. Fi djarna hu possibli ukoll li nnaqqsu l-iskart li nipproduċu. F’dan il-kuntest kampanji ta’ informazzjoni u edukazzjoni għandhom rwol importanti.

Imma hemm kontradizzjoni fil-politika tal-Gvern f’dan ir-rigward. Id-deċiżjoni li jkollna inċineratur tirrikjedi ammont kontinwu ta’ skart biex jitma lill-inċineratur. Filwaqt li suppost li qed ninkoraġixxu t-tnaqqis tal-ġenerazzjoni tal-iskart, l-inċineratur jirrikjedi l-oppost: il-ġenerazzjoni kontinwa ta’ ammont sostanzjali ta’ skart. Mingħajru l-inċineratur ikollu jagħmel id-dieta.

Is-separazzjoni tal-iskart tinvolvi l-għażla ta’ tipi differenti ta’ skart. Dan jiffaċilita li l-iskart li jkun intagħżel ikun użat u mhux mormi. Is-separazzjoni tal-iskart organiku, per eżempju, jiffaċilita it-trattament ta’ dan l-iskart biex minnu jkun prodott kemm l-elettriku kif ukoll il-kompost. L-iskart organiku jammonta għal madwar 50% tal-iskart iġġenerat fid-djar. Imma fl-industrija tal-catering l-iskart organiku jammonta għal porzjon ferm ikbar mill-iskart iġġenerat f’dik l-industrija.

Skond il-Wastserv, 27,000 tunellata ta’ skart organiku inġabru mid-djar matul l-2019. Dan jista’ jiżdied għal 70,000 tunellata fis-sena jekk f’kull dar nagħmlu sforz ikbar biex l-iskart organiku jkun separat. Il-Wasteserv ma tipprovdix informazzjoni dwar l-iskart miġbur mill-istabilimenti tal-ikel. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan in-nuqqas ta’ informazzjoni l-Wasteserve qed tindika li ma tafx x’qed jiġri f’dan il-qasam. Lanqas ma hu ċar jekk l-iskart organiku mhux ipproċessat li dan l-aħħar deher imħallat ma skart ieħor f’ritratti u filmati dwar l-operat tal-miżbla tal-Magħtab hux inkluż fl-informazzjoni ippubblikata mill-Wasteserv.

Li niġbru l-iskart organiku b’mod separt u li nipproċessawh ma jfissirx biss li jkun hemm inqas skart li jmur fil-miżbla: ifisser tnaqqis mhux żgħir fil-gassijiet serra (greenhouse gases) attribwibbli lil Malta u allura tnaqqis tal-impatt Malti fuq it-tibdil fil-klima.

Ir-riċiklaġġ tal-iskart f’Malta għadu lura meta mqabbel ma dak mistenni minna. L-unika qasam li qabad huwa dak li jirrigwarda l-iskart tal-ippakkeġġjar. Iż-żieda meħtieġa fir-riċiklar ukoll tnaqqas l-iskart li jinġabar fil-miżbla u għaldaqstant meta naslu biex inżidu r-rata tar-riċiklar il-Wasteserv ikollha inqas ħtieġa li tuża’ art agrikola biex testendi l-miżbla tal-Magħtab.

L-għajnuna li nistgħu nagħtu lill-bdiewa tal-Magħtab biex ikunu jistgħu jibqgħu jaħdmu ir-raba’ tista’ timmaterjalizza biss jekk inkunu kapaċi innaqqsu bil-kbir l-iskart li nibgħatu fil-miżbla. Għandna niftakru li l-istrateġija kurrenti għall-immaniġjar tal-iskart fil-gżejjer Maltin għandha l-mira ta’ skart zero sas-sena 2050. Għadna lura biex naslu!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 1 ta’ Marzu 2020