Pelting with eggs

The debate on defense policy requires to be dealt with much more seriously than through pelting Prime Minister Robert Abela with eggs, as happened last Tuesday during a political activity at Vittoriosa.     

Whether we like it or not, 23 out of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO. Malta, Ireland, Austria and Cyprus are the exceptions. (Cyprus had its NATO membership application vetoed by Turkey.) It is a politically difficult situation which requires a tightrope walking skill. It is never going to be easy with the European defense industry leaders breathing down the neck of the EU leadership.

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively on a continuous basis. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

It is inevitable that in view of the Russian aggression in Ukraine the defense debate intensifies during the current EU Parliament electoral campaign.

One of the points raised by the outgoing President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen is on whether it is appropriate to have an EU Commissioner entrusted exclusively with defense policy in the next Commission later this year. The European People’s Party (EPP) wants to substitute the top EU diplomatic job with a defense Commissioner post.

Defense, in all its aspects, is a matter reserved for the individual European Member states in terms of the EU treaties. I would have expected government spokespersons to be clear on this point. Unfortunately, they have been completely silent, at least on a public level. This is not on. It is not acceptable. The sooner it is rectified the better.

This is not a matter which can be relegated to the diplomatic level. It has to be taken up forcefully: positions taken must be clear publicly.  The warmongering on a European level must be brought to order the soonest.

On a local level, the debate on defense policy is completely absent, except for the partisan bickering from time to time. This has intensified in the past weeks.

Unfortunately, we have already had proposals by the Bavarian Christan Democrat leader of EPP, Manfred Weber, that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence.  Last January, Politico reported that this Bavarian political outburst was delivered in the context of the perceived consequences of Donald Trump’s threats on the weakening of NATO, if he is re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America later this year. Irrespective of the motivation it should be clear even at this stage that such proposals are unacceptable. A neutral Malta should have made her voice heard ages ago! Yet silence prevails.

Notwithstanding all the bickering on the EU Council’s final statement last week, this matter has been ignored. The Prime Minister then felt the need to seek the advice of the State Advocate in order to ensure that Malta’s neutral status is respected in the commitments made in the final statement. Yet we are not yet aware as to whether the proposal to create a standalone defense portfolio in the next Commission has yet been sent to the State Advocate for his advice.

The silence of the Opposition PN on the matter is also deafening, considering that the defense proposals on EU defense Commissioner as well as the proposal on an EU nuclear deterrence are being made by the European People’s Party of which it forms part.

Pelting with eggs is no substitute for the national political debate on defense matters. It is in our interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 March 2024

The climate risks we face

The first ever European climate risk assessment carried out by the European Environment Agency (EEA) has concluded that Europe is unprepared for what lies in store.

The year 2023 was the warmest year ever. The global average temperature during 2023 has surpassed the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius set in the Paris agreement at the 2015 Climate Summit.

Europe is the fastest warming continent. The situation in Southern Europe is even worse. It will face considerably reduced rainfall and more severe droughts.

At this point, none of this is however news. It is already the present. The future may, however, be even worse than that.

In a 425-page report we are told that climate change is a multiplier of risks: existing risks will be aggravated. Climate risks are growing much faster than our preparedness. We are being extremely slow in developing and implementing climate change adaptation strategies.

36 major climate risks for Europe have been identified. They are grouped in five clusters, namely, ecosystems, food, health, infrastructure, and the economy/finance.  

The key findings of this first European climate risk assessment, which I quote verbatim from the EEA report, are:

“Ecosystems: climate change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in Europe. Among climate risks related to ecosystems, risks to coastal and marine ecosystems have the highest severity in the current period as well as the greatest urgency to act.

Food: Europe faces multiple challenges to food production and food security, including reducing its environmental impact. Crop production is already facing substantial climate risks in Europe as a whole, and critical risk levels in Southern Europe.

Health: climate change poses major risks to human health systems. Risks related to heat are already at critical levels in southern Europe.

Infrastructure: extreme weather events are posing increasing risks to the built environment and infrastructure in Europe, and the services they provide. Such events can disrupt essential services, including energy supply, water supply and transport networks.

Economy and finance: the European financial system faces critical risks from the impacts of climate change, both within Europe and abroad. Serious sector- and region-specific risks to Europe could catalyse a systemic financial shock.” (page 264: para 18.6 of the report)

This is a wakeup call of the highest order. The European continent is unprepared for the growing extremes of climate. Yet senior politicians at an EU level are more interested in sabotaging specific initiatives which seek to bridge the gap in climate change preparedness. The recent debate (and voting patterns) on the regulatory framework for the restoration of nature is a case in point.

The recent Dutch farmers’ revolt which has shaken the Netherlands’ body politic has its origin in the difficulties encountered in implementing the Nitrates Directive. It has however spread to other regions, motivated by the industrial agricultural lobby’s determination to sabotage the EU Green Deal.

In Germany the centre-right CDU-CSU have just launched their joint EU Parliament electoral manifesto with a pledge to reverse the controversial phase-out of the internal combustion engine. A definite commitment to water-down the EU Green Deal. The CDU-CSU leading candidate is the same person piloting the EU Green Deal, Ursula von der Leyen.

With these attitudes it is inevitable that our preparedness for the climate risks we face will get even worse. This is the future we face. It keeps getting worse until those that matter come to their senses.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 March 2024

Malta and the defense policy of the European Union

The issue of the development of an adequate defense policy has been on the EU agenda for some time. This is not only the inevitable result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it also necessarily follows from the Trump threats relative to NATO not only during his Presidential term but also in the current US electoral campaign.

This week, EU Parliament President, Roberta Metsola, emphasized that the EU would need to spend more of its funds on defense after the latest Trump threats. Earlier, Manfred Weber, the Bavarian leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), had spoken at length on the need for Europe to increase its defense spending and on the EPP’s proposal that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence. Do we need this? France already has 300 nuclear warheads!

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

Some years back Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reported that the decision-making process for the EU Preparatory Action on Defense Research was heavily dominated by corporate interests. Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) is a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.

A leaked draft of the EPP EU Parliamentary elections electoral manifesto indicates the proposal for the creation of a standalone defense portfolio in the next EU Commission.

Two EU Member states, Sweden and Finland, faced with the realty of Russian aggression against its neighbor Ukraine have abandoned their neutrality and sought NATO membership. Finland has already joined. When Sweden eventually joins NATO, 24 EU member states out of 28 will be NATO members, the exceptions being Malta, Austria, Ireland and Cyprus. Cyprus has in the past sought NATO membership but its application has been blocked by Türkiye.

In this context what is the significance of Malta’s neutrality? This is an essential debate, long overdue,  which should not be avoided, especially in view of the prevalent discourse in the EU at this point in time and particularly in view of developments on EU defense policy which are now inevitable.

Malta’s foreign policy has always been dependent on third countries guaranteeing its security. In the past it was an agreement with four countries, namely Italy, France, Libya and Algeria, which after the 1979 closure of the military base in Malta served this purpose. Nowadays this vacuum is filled by the provisions of the EU treaties as a result of which solidarity between EU member states signifies in practice that, in time of need, all the 28 states are there to help out each other. Even in matters of defense.

However, we know through experience that this does not necessarily work out. At the end of the day states do not have friends but interests which limit or enhance their actions or policy options. Within the European Union this is no different. The difficulties faced in addressing migration issues is a case in point: solidarity between EU member states has proven to be difficult to attain in practice notwithstanding the provisions of the EU treaties.

Security and defense issues are undoubtedly continuously on the diplomatic agenda. What results does not necessarily spill over in the public political debate.

Occasionally it is different: this happened in the recent past through discussions on the possibilities for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Malta and the United States of America around four years ago.

Particularly since the closure of the British military base, multilateral engagement has always been Malta’s preferred defense policy option.  It is hence in Malta’s interests that the European Union is in a position to adequately take care of its own defense. However, we need to participate actively in the EU defense debate, even if, as a direct consequence it may be necessary to re-visit and tweak our neutrality.

Protecting our interests signifies an active participation in the EU defense debate and applying the breaks, when necessary, to a rising militarism within the EU. At the end of the day, it is in our interest to speak up clearly.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 18 February 2024

Planning for climate change

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission has recently published a study entitled “Regional Impact of Climate Change on European tourism demand”. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the EU policymaking process.

This JRC technical study examines the potential impact of climate change on tourism demand within the context of the debate shaping the 2030 EU Agenda for Tourism. The development of touristic destinations must essentially consider the impact of climate change.

This is a debate which is unfortunately absent locally. In Malta, both the tourism industry as well as the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) are only interested in numbers, more than anything else.  This is evidenced by the Deloitte report on the industry’s capacity, published some months ago. It is pertinent to remember that the Deloitte report points out that a projected supply of touristic accommodation, close to 5 million tourists annually would be required to ensure the sector’s long-term profitability (at an average 80 per cent occupancy throughout the year).  Tourism planning at its worst possible. Pure madness!

Land use planning concessions, left right and centre, have been dished out to attain this massive over-development. The tourism industry with government’s complicity has planned for this massive over-capacity, in the process ignoring the reality on the ground.

The JRC study emphasises that “the last three decades of research have failed to prepare the (tourism) sector for the net-zero transition and the climate disruption that will transform tourism in the 2050-time horizon.”

The study finds a clear north-south pattern in tourism demand changes: “northern regions benefitting from climate change and southern regions facing significant reductions in tourism demand.”

Southern coastal regions are projected to lose a significant amount of summer tourists, around 10 per cent, in the warmer climate scenarios considered by the study. This compares to a projected significant increase of approximately 5 per cent in the Northern European coastal regions.

The projected shift in tourism is not only regional: it would also be seasonal.

Such studies are indicative. However, they should be taken note of and have a bearing on the essential planning which is required if we are to be as prepared as can be for the climate changes which are on our doorstep. Matters may possibly even turn out to be far worse than what is being projected! Hence the need for more focused studies on what lies in store.

Both the industry and the Tourism Ministry are oblivious to all this. They are still euphoric on the “post-Covid record number of tourists”, ignoring the changes on the horizon.

Climate change is impacting everything, not just tourism. It is already impacting water resources, the infrastructure, coastal protection, energy, biodiversity, agriculture as well as health.

Only recently we read in the media that at a recent informal meeting of EU Health Ministers held at the Canary Islands, Health Minister Chris Fearne raised the impact of climate change on health. He was reported as having emphasised the need to consider, in depth, the impacts which climate change is having on our health systems. Fearne is obviously planning ahead, not just on the impacts of the climate on health planning. His radar is most obviously focused on the composition of the EU Commission which this time next year will be in the process of being screened by the EU Parliament and its various committees.

Whatever the motivation on the importance of climate change, it is imperative that we plan ahead, definitely beyond the immediate future.

Unfortunately, the Ministry responsible for climate change hasn’t got an inkling of all this. It should be leading the way in discussing and planning how best to adapt to climate change and to mitigate its impacts. Instead, it is focused on the unofficial electoral campaign for the EU Parliament.

Adapting to climate change will require substantial behavioural change which successive governments have been reluctant to encourage through adequate policy initiatives. Climate change will not go away. We can only adapt to the change and seek to implement the required mitigation measures. Without behavioural change we are doomed.

It is about time that we act, before it is too late.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 3 September 2023

Summer blackouts: with Ira Losco, in open spaces

At the time of writing multiple localities are trying to cope with night-long power cuts. In some cases, Enemalta Corporation maintenance personnel have been successful in carrying out repairs immediately, in other cases repairs took much longer. It will only get worse with these faults which have been euphemistically described by the Enemalta Press office as “network difficulties” caused by high temperatures. It will get worse as temperatures will be much higher.

The power demand has been well below the generation capacity of 830MW. The outages, we were informed, were caused by damage to the cables forming part of the distribution network as a result of the high temperatures generated. Why wasn’t this anticipated and acted upon? It is not rocket science! The upgrading of the electricity distribution network should have been a priority. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

The impacts on our families and businesses of these power cuts is substantial. They have a considerable bearing on our quality of life as they render the anticipated extremes of climate change unbearable. Facing an ambient temperature hovering around 40 degrees Celsius and higher, without the possibility to mitigate its impacts raises the inevitable questions as to whether government has its priorities right. It will get worse.  Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, in Sardinia and Sicily, temperatures of 48 degrees Celsius and higher are already a reality. Inevitably it will soon be our turn to face the music and it is already clear that we are not in any way prepared for what lies in store.

All this has a direct impact on our pockets too as whenever the blackout lasts for long hours, the contents of our refrigerators and freezers are no longer edible. They are rendered unsuitable. This is not only applicable to domestic households. It also impacts considerably the catering industry which has yet to fully recover from the Covid19 debacle.

In addition, whenever the power cut takes place during daylight hours this has an impact on the quantity of solar energy fed into the electricity grid. During a power cut, for security purposes, no energy is fed into the grid from solar panels.

Is preventive maintenance being carried out on the electricity grid? Is the promised upgrading of the electricity distribution system being seen through?

The repeated power cuts indicate that preventive maintenance is not being carried out adequately, if at all. The ever-increasing ambient temperatures are no surprise and consequently its impact on the distribution network could have been easily anticipated and planned for.

There is an additional issue. The massive development of residential units under way during the past years has not been accompanied with the corresponding upgrade in the electrical power infrastructure. The resulting simultaneous multiple power failures of the electricity grid at various points is indicative of this failure across the board.

Whatever maintenance has been done has not been adequate for the distribution system to function adequately in high temperatures. Where are the planners?

In all this there is a political responsibility to be shouldered by Energy Minister Miriam Dalli. Unfortunately, her office has been more focused on buttressing the MEP Labour candidature of Steve Ellul through multiple media events paid out of public funds than in ensuring that the real problems we face are being addressed.

There is a possible silver lining in all this. Possibly Miriam Dalli’s Ministry would celebrate her foresight and sponsor an Ira Losco online promotional campaign on the use and enjoyment of open spaces during the power blackouts! The use of open spaces during these summer blackouts could possibly make our life slightly more bearable. This would be an additional practical use for open spaces during the hot summer nights when we cannot make use of air-conditioners. Another opportunity for Losco to tap more into Dalli’s promotional budget during the summer months.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 23 July 2023

The accumulating environmental deficit

The environmental deficit is increasing at a fast rate. We are approaching the point of environmental bankruptcy, from which there is no turning back. This is the whole point of the nature restoration debate currently in hand at the European Parliament. We must act before it is too late.

It is not sufficient to just protect nature. We must also restore it. We must make good the accumulated damage caused to date, primarily by human action. Notwithstanding all the good intentions since the first EU Environmental Action Programme in the early 70s was gradually translated into a developing EU environmental acquis, 81 per cent of protected habitats are in bad state and over 1500 species are threatened with extinction.

It is well known that the European Parliament is split right down the middle with about half of it being in favour of the constructive restoration of nature. The other half can be described as being supportive of the accumulated destruction as they couldn’t be bothered with supporting the required action. Next week, a definite decision could be taken as the EU Parliament is due to decide in plenary on the legislative proposal for nature restoration.

The legislative action being proposed by the EU Commission is not a very strong law. It is however a necessary first step in the long road ahead. It could be improved in the years ahead.

There is quite a lot to do. The havoc we see developing around us can still be reversed, even if it is getting more difficult by the hour.

We need to act within nature’s laws. The universal laws of nature are never amended: they have been consistent throughout the ages. They are not changed on the eve of elections. Nor do they offer a reprieve or probation for first time offenders. The punishment which nature unleashes, is non-discriminatory. In fact, nature rides roughshod over offenders and non-offenders alike!  We have seen this in floods and fires all over the globe. Occasionally, we have local examples too.

There are countless examples which we could list as being among the contributors to the present state of affairs. We read about them on an almost daily basis or watch reference to them on the different news channels.

We would do well if we start acting seriously on a local level about addressing Malta’s own contribution to the accumulating environmental deficit.

The current emphasis on green urban open spaces is good politics: all €700 million projected expenditure could be a positive step. It is however lost in the ocean of government indifference when agricultural land on the periphery of our urban areas keeps being taken up for development. Nor does the siege on Comino’s conservation status tolerated by the Planning Authority and the Environment and Resources Authority lead to any credibility to the open space initiative. Seen together, the green washing is too evident to pass unnoticed.

Unbridled development in our towns and villages, over the years has taken up a substantial chunk of urban green open spaces. Large gardens forming part of the essential urban ecology have been taken up and developed into residential blocks, encouraged by the continuous subsidies dished out to the construction industry as well as by a rationalisation exercise supported by the PLPN.

The conservative European People’s Party (EPP) has aligned itself with the climate-sceptic far-right in opposing nature restoration initiative forming an essential building block of the EU Green Deal. At the time of writing, it is not clear whether the campaign to derail the initiative will be successful. It is essentially down to the wire.

In the meantime, the environmental deficit keeps increasing, making matters worse.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 9 July 2023

L-importanza tan-natura f’ħajjitna

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, l-Kunsill tal-Ministri tal-Ambjent tal-Unjoni Ewropeja, approva posizzjoni komuni dwar regolamenti tal-Unjoni biex tkun irrestawrata n-natura. Seba’ pajjiżi membri, għal raġunijiet differenti, ma qablux ma’ dan. Il-Polonja, l-Olanda, l-Italja, l-Finlandja u l-iSvezja ivvutaw kontra fil-waqt li l-Belġju u l-Awstrija astjenew. Malta appoġġat dan il-pass: inizjattiva legali bażika biex ikun implimentat il-Ftehim l-Aħdar (Green Deal) li jonora l-obbligi li dħalna għalihom fis-Summit Klimatiku ta’ Pariġi tal-2015.  

Għad ma napprezzaw biżżejjed l-importanza tan-natura fil-ħajja tagħna.  Sfortunatament, generalment ma nagħtux kaz. L-importanza tan-natura f’ħajjtna ma tfissirx biss li nipprovdu spazji miftuħin u ħodor bħala spazju rikrejattiv fiz-zoni urbani u madwarhom. Fl-aħħar, in-natura hi dik li tagħmel il-ħajja possibli. Mingħajr in-natura u s-servizzi li din toffri, il-ħajja mhiex possibli.  

Bħala eżempju, ħafna drabi jkun emfasizzat illi li kieku kellha tisparixxi n-naħla, il-bniedem ma jgħix iktar minn erba’ snin minn dak il-waqt. Bla naħla ifisser li ma jkunx hemm id-dakra, li tfisser li m’hemmx pjanti. L-ikel ftit ftit jispiċċa. Il-ħajja kollha tiġi fit-tmiem.

Il-ħolqien ta’ spazji miftuħin u ħodor, inkella iż-żamma ta’ dawk li għandna diġa f’kundizzjoni tajba, mhiex politika ħażina. Din il-politika, imma, bl-ebda mod ma tista’ tkun sostitut għall-ħtieġa li nħarsu l-bijodiversità fil-kuntest naturali tagħha. L-anqas ma tista’ tkun sostitut għal politika li tħares l-art agrikola mill-iżvilupp, irrispettivament mill-kwalità ta’ din ir-raba’ li uħud, li jħarsu sal-pont ta’ mneħirhom iqiesu bħala żviluppabbli.

Li żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art li kienet parti mill-ODZ ngħataw għall-iżvilupp kienet u għadha dagħwa kbira. L-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni li fl-2006 għamel dan possibli għandu jitħassar minnufih jekk il-kliem sabiħ kollu li jgħidu dwar l-ambjent għandu jkollu xi tifsira tajba.

Għalfejn noħolqu riżervi jew żoni protetti fl-art jew fil-baħar?  It-tikketta ta’ status protett irid ikun segwit minn azzjoni serja li teħtieġ li tassigura li z-zoni protetti mhux biss nieħdu ħsiebhom imma fuq kollox li nibdew il-proċess ta’ restawr tagħhom biex nagħmlu tajjeb għall-ħsara akkumulata li dawn sofrew tul is-snin.

Dan hu l-iskop tad-dibattitu kurrenti fl-Unjoni Ewropeja dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ restawr tan-natura.

Id-dokumentazzjoni li tipprovdi l-Kummissjoni Ewropeja biex tfisser u tissustanzja l-proposta tagħha u l-urgenza tal-azzjoni meħtieġa biex in-natura tkun riabilitata fl-Unjoni kollha temfasizza li 81 fil-mija taz-zoni protetti huma fi stat ħażin ħafna.

L-analiżi tal-impatti tal-proposta, mifruxa fi tnax-il parti u ippubblikata mill-Kummissjoni Ewropeja tispjega li investiment fir-restawr tan-natura huwa pass effettiv. Kull euro minfuq joħloq bejn €8 u €38 f’valur ekonomiku miżjud u dan riżultat tat-tisħiħ tas-servizzi ekoloġiċi li jagħtu appoġġ lis-sigurtà fil-produzzjoni tal-ikel, fil-ħarsien tal-klima, tal-ekosistema innifisha u tas-saħħa umana.

U issa? Malta illum tifforma parti minn maġġoranza żgħira fil-Kunsill tal-Ministri tal-Ambjent li appoġġat lill-Kummissjoni Ewropeja fl-isforzi tagħha biex toħloq dan il-qafas regolatorju ħalli tkun irrestawrata n-natura.  Cyrus Engerer, l-uniku Membru Parlamentari Ewropew Malti fil-kumitat ambjentali tal-Parlament Ewropew ukoll appoġġa l-proposta tal-Kummissjoni Ewropeja meta din ġiet għall-vot. B’hekk ta’ kontribut biex tingħeleb l-isfida tal-Partit Popolari Ewropew (PPE) li ried jimmina din l-inizjattiva.

Il-passi li jmiss huma kruċjali. Jeħtieġ li nimxu l-quddiem u mill-paroli favur l-ambjent ngħaddu għall-ħarsien effettiv li jrażżan id-deficit ambjentali li qiegħed dejjem jiżdied. Hu biss f’dak il-waqt li nkunu nistgħu b’mod rejalistiku ngħaddu għar-rijabilitazzjoni u r-restawr tal-ambjenti naturali protetti u tal-eko-sistema in ġenerali.

Jeħtieġ li napprezzaw iktar in-natura. Qabel ma jkun tard wisq.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 25 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Re-Connecting with nature

The EU Council of Ministers of the Environment, earlier this week, approved a common position on the proposed EU regulations relative to the restoration of nature. Seven EU countries did not support the measure, for a variety of reasons. Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland and Sweden voted against while Belgium and Austria abstained. Malta has supported the measure, a basic legislative initiative in implementation of the Green Deal, honouring commitments undertaken at the 2015 Paris COP 21, the Climate Summit.  

The importance of nature in our life is grossly underestimated. It is unfortunately, generally, taken for granted. Being conscious of the role of nature in our life is not just about the provision of green open spaces for recreational purposes in and around our urban areas. At the end of the day, nature is what makes life itself possible. Without nature and the services that it provides, life on earth would not be possible.

By way of illustration, it is generally emphasised that if the bee were to disappear, the human being would not live more than four years. No bees would mean an end to pollination, no more plants, no more animals and hence little left to eat. Life itself would be practically impossible.

The creation of green open spaces or the maintenance of existing ones is not bad policy. It is however not in any way a substitute to the need to protect biodiversity in its natural setting or, as it is normally described, in its natural habitat. Nor can green open spaces substitute or make good the take-up of agricultural land for development, notwithstanding the quality of the agricultural land earmarked for this development.

The two-million square metre incursion of the development zone into ODZ territory was, and still is, blasphemous. The rationalisation exercise which made this possible in 2006 should be reversed the soonest if environmental sweet talk is to have any significance.

What is the purpose of creating reserves or protected areas, terrestrial or marine? The designation of a status of protection must be followed up with meaningful action to ensure that the protected areas are not only taken care of but also that the accumulated damage is reversed the soonest through restoration.

This is the purpose of the current debate at an EU level on the restoration of nature.

The documentation made available by the European Commission to substantiate the urgency of the required action leading to the rehabilitation of nature throughout EU territory emphasises that 81 per cent of protected habitats are currently in a very poor state.

The twelve-part impact assessment published by the EU Commission emphasises that investing in nature restoration pays back considerable dividends. Each euro spend in nature restoration adds between €8 and €38 in economic value due to the resulting enhancement of ecosystem services which support food security, climate, the ecosystem and human health.

Where do we go from here? Malta has joined and is part of the slim majority in the Council of Ministers of the Environment supporting the EU Commission in its endeavours to create a regulatory framework for nature restoration. Cyrus Engerer, the only Maltese MEP forming part of the EU Parliament Environment Committee, supported the EU Commission initiative when it came to a vote in the said Committee thereby contributing to defeating the European People’s Party (EPP) attempted sabotage of the said initiative.

The next steps could be crucial. We need to move forward as a country from verbose declarations in favour of environmental protection to effective measures which stop the accumulating environmental deficit. Only then can we realistically start the rehabilitation and restoration of natural habitats and the eco-system.

We need to reconnect with nature the soonest. No wifi is required.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 25 June 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