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

Precarious working conditions and digital platform work

It’s been more than two years since the death of Ajay Shrestha, Nepalese digital platform food courier, at Marsa in a traffic accident. After his death, writing in these columns about digital platform food couriers I have discussed whether their work conditions could be more described as digital slave labour (TMIS: Platform work: digital slave labour? 7 August 2022).

They have now been joined by digital platform cab-drivers.

Towards the end of February, Y-plate drivers took part in a public demonstration to effectively emphasise that digital platform work does not pay adequately. Their clear message was that the income that they have left after taking into consideration expenses and commissions retained by the digital platform management is peanuts, not sufficient for living.

The problem of precarious working conditions of digital platform workers is not limited to Malta. In fact, the European Union is currently debating a directive on the working conditions of digital platform workers. The impact assessment on the proposed EU Directive published by the EU Commission three years ago had identified that a number of those working through digital platforms faced poor working conditions and in particular inadequate access to social protection.

From what has been publicly stated by local digital platform workers it is clear that they are continuously facing precarious working conditions. Precarious meaning uncertainty and consequently socially unsafe.

In the past months it was the turn of the food couriers. It is now the turn of the cab drivers to publicly explain their plight.

On food couriers we had learnt that the food courier platform operators, in addition to the delivery charges, they are also paid substantial commissions from the food outlets which they serve. Commissions which do not end up in the pockets of the food couriers but in the bank accounts of the digital platform operators!

Digital platform cab drivers have informed us that the rate charged to consumers does not reflect their substantial expenses, ranging from car insurance to social insurance. To which one must add the recent introduction of various Transport Malta conditions in order to renew their Y-plate licences.

Why should we keep tolerating this modern digital slave labour? Some form of basic social regulation of the sector is long overdue. These working men and women are providing us with a service through which we should ensure they should be earning a decent living.

Digital platform workers are falsely classified as self-employed persons. As a result of this misclassification of their employment status they tend to lose various social rights and protections. These include rights relative to working time, minimum wage (including the statutory bonus payable in June and December), paid annual leave, paid sick leave, parental leave and occupational health and safety protection.

The “attractive” low rates which digital platforms charge for their services are generally reflective of all this. In the 21^st century this is not acceptable. The way forward requires a regulatory intervention of the state to ensure that digital platform operators act decently and move away from precarious working conditions.

We owe it to the digital platform workers providing us with a service.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 10 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

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Malta Freeport

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has been in place for the past 20 years, since 2003. It deals with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the use of market-based instruments. Initially maritime emissions were excluded from its operation.

The debate at an EU level as to when greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime industry would no longer be excluded from this regulatory process has been ongoing for quite some time. Extending the applicability of the EU ETS to maritime transport was a crucial next step, no longer avoidable after the 2015 Paris Climate Summit.

At Paris there was unanimous agreement between the participating states that urgent action needed to be taken in order to contain the increase in global temperature to possibly no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial global temperature. Achieving that aim would be of considerable help in reducing climate change impacts, including the potential rise in sea level, a serious threat to islands and coastal areas.

As an island state with a substantially developed coast, Malta has an interest in arresting the projected sea level rise, the soonest possible. At least an interest in reducing it to the minimum possible. Depending on its extent, a sea level rise will be extremely damaging to Malta’s infrastructure.

Everybody is aware that as of the 1 January 2024 cargo and passenger ships having a gross tonnage of 5000 tonnes or over will be subject to the EU ETS scheme as a result of which they will pay for their carbon emissions. Initially such payments will cover 40 per cent of their emissions. This will rise to 70 per cent in 2025 and then to 100 per cent from 2026 onwards. This is an application of the polluter pays principle. A basic principle in international environmental law enshrined in the EU treaties and incorporated as well in the Maltese statute book.

The scheme will be operating within the European Union and consequently there will be shipping lines which will try to better organise themselves in order to avoid payment for their carbon emissions. This fact was highlighted some weeks ago by Alex Montebello, the CEO of the Freeport Terminal, who argued, in an article published in the local press, that the North African ports, to which the EU ETS does not apply, as they are not part of an EU member state, will be placed at a competitive advantage. Consequently, most probably, the Malta Freeport Terminal will lose substantially its transhipment role. The Malta Freeport’s loss, he argued, will be the gain of other ports along the southern Mediterranean shores, such as Damietta, Tangier Med or East Port Said.

Now this is an interesting argument which most probably was considered by the negotiators on behalf of the Maltese Government when they handled the matter in Brussels.

In fact, a substantial number of islands within the EU territory are exempted from the provisions of ETS if they satisfy the applicable criteria. Having a population which is less than 200,000 and no road or rail links with the European mainland are the criteria to be met. As a result, the port of Imġarr in Gozo is the only exempted Maltese port which is included in the relative EU implementation decision published in the Official Journal of the EU on the 19 December 2023.

No explanation has been forthcoming from Government, and I would not dare speculate as to the reason why the Maltese negotiators failed to ensure that the transhipment role of the Freeport Terminal at Marsaxlokk Bay was defended appropriately.  The locality of Birżebbuġa, possibly, stands to gain, inadvertently, as a result of this failure.

Obviously, Malta cannot possibly be exempted as this would defeat the whole purpose of the EU ETS which is that of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Possibly, for a change, as a country we have started taking our responsibilities seriously. Maybe we can now start the long process of aligning our economy with our environmental responsibilities.

Well, it is never too late.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 January 2024

The island of villages is under threat

Regional development policy seeks to improve the well-being of regions. Within the European Union it is commonly referred to as the cohesion policy. Through regional policy one seeks to eliminate disparities between regions: it encourages, assists, and finances initiatives to bring this about.

A draft Gozo Regional Development Strategy was published for public consultation very recently. It identifies the basic characteristics of Gozo and seeks to present a blueprint for the future of the island.

The draft strategy makes interesting reading. It contrasts with, and, at times, it is even in conflict with current policy and practice. There is nothing wrong with this, as it denotes a willingness for change from within. Whether this will eventually translate into concrete action is still to be seen. It is however a positive first step and must be recognised as such.

The basic philosophy of the strategy is encapsulated in the term “an island of villages”, used to describe Gozo.  The smallness of the village is used in contrast to the relatively larger urban areas. The term conveys a sense of calmness resulting from being one with nature, which is easily accessible in the village. Fields surrounding the villages link them directly to nature, radiating vitality. Most importantly, nature is respected in the village. It provides us with food and basic ecological services. It is our constant partner which, if we handle with care, will never let us down.

The smallness of the village is beautiful, economist Ernst Schumacher would have emphasised. Schumacher’s work grew out of his study of village-based economics. The full title of his work is: “Small is beautiful. A study of economics as if people mattered.” Economics is not just about numbers and so-called growth. At the end of the day, it is about people. Unfortunately, people are not always taken into consideration when policies are formulated.

The “island of villages” has been under siege for quite some time. It is a victim of overdevelopment. The 2021 Census report on residential property, just published, quantifies the extent of the problem: 45 per cent of residential property in Gozo is either vacant or under-used, in view of its use for seasonal or secondary accommodation. This statistic for the Gozo Region stands out in contrast to that for other regions. At a national level 27.5 per cent of residential property is vacant or under-utilised. The numbers for the Western region, at 22.1 per cent, are practically half the Gozo statistic.

This identifies a major threat to the “island of villages”. Why build so much if the resulting development remains vacant or else is hardly used. Can we, as a country, afford to keep churning out flats which remain vacant or unutilised for a long time and destroy our agricultural land in the process? This does not contribute to a positive quality of life. The island of villages is slowly being transformed into a ghost island.

The draft strategy apparently wants to end all this and dwells at length on the need to nurture a sustainable urban environment. Speaking on a point of principle, the authors of the strategy are right. It is however essential that they move on from words to concrete targets and action.

The point of departure for this strategy of “the island of villages” is that 45 per cent of its built-up area is vacant. At Marsalforn the relative percentage is even higher: a staggering 66.8 per cent of residential units were vacant on Census Day! This is not justifiable, not even on the grounds that Marsalforn is a seaside resort.

This has not happened overnight. It has developed one block at a time. It has accelerated with the decisions taken to extend the development zone in 2006 through the rationalisation exercise. Then, as a result, one million square metres of ODZ land became suitable for development. The practical results are here for all to see. It keeps getting worse by the minute.

The “island of villages”, as a result, is developing into a ghost island. Practically half of its residential property is vacant.

The Gozo Regional Development Authority is right to emphasise all this. However, I have to point out that it has no authority to take action to remedy the situation. That rests with the “Planning Authority” which has meticulously planned and implemented this whole mess.

Where do we go from here?

As a minimum we need a moratorium on large scale development, not just in the “island of villages”, but all over the Maltese islands.  The rationalisation exercise must be scrapped the soonest. It must necessarily follow that the building construction industry must be cut down to size. It has caused too much damage to the country. The threat to the island of villages must be forcefully addressed.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 September 2023

The Climate Emergency: beyond the MCESD circus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond last week’s MCESD circus the government has a duty to act and make up for lost time. It is a duty towards future generations. Unfortunately, future generations have been consistently written off as they have no vote. Gro Harlem Bundtland had warned us in her seminal 1987 UN Report Our Common Future: “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

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

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 6 August 2023

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

Lil hin minn Anton Refalo u Louis Grech

Illum f’Tas-Sliema ġie emfasizzat minn Sandra li l-użu ta’ fondi Ewropej biex ġew aġevolati qraba ta’ politiċi jwassal għas-suspett inevitabbli li dawn il-fondi mhux jintużaw sewwa. Hemm dubju jekk il-politika partiġjana hiex kriterju fl-użu ta’ dawn il-fondi.

Għalhekk intalbet investigazzjoni.

Imma l-problema hi iktar kbira minn hekk.

Illum ukoll The Shift News ħarġu l-aħbar, li tinkludi lista tan-nies involuti, li l-fondi Ewropej qed jintuzaw biex ikunu iffinanzjati Boutique Hotels. L-industrija tat-turiżmu fiha ħafna sodod żejda kif anke jirriżulta minn studju li ippubblikat l-MHRA (Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association) xi xhur ilu.

L-istudju tal-MHRA, li ukoll kien iffinanzjat minn fondi Ewropej, kien żvela li hawn biżżejjed sodod (inkluż permessi li diġa ħarġu) għal kważi 5 miljun turist fis-sena, meta bil-kemm naslu sa nofs dan in-numru kull sena.

Jiġifieri x’sens jagħmel li nkomplu nżidu is-sodod meta nofs dawk li għandna probabbilment jibqgħu vojta u żejda? Kemm ser idumu jħawdu? Chris Bonnet, is-Segretarju Parlamentari għall-fondi Ewropej, m’għandux idea x’inhu jagħmel!

Dwar l-istudji tal-MHRA tista’ taqra hawn.

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