The courage to change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 2024

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

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

Il-legat ta’ Arvid Pardo: niskopru mill-ġdid il-vokazzjoni marittima

“Aħna għandna interess naturali u vitali fil-baħar ta’ madwarna li permezz tiegħu ngħixu u nieħdu n-nifs.” Dan hu kliem Arvid Pardo, dakinnhar ambaxxatur ta’ Malta għall-Ġnus Magħquda, kliem li qal meta kien qed jindirizza  l-Assemblea Ġenerali fuq il-proposta ta’ Malta dwar qiegħ il-baħar u r-rizorsi tiegħu bħala l-wirt komuni tal-umanità.

Il-baħar hu ħajjitna, iżda ftit li xejn jingħata prominenza fil-prijoritajiet politiċi tal-pajjiż. Bħala gżira stat,   il-baħar u dak kollu marbut miegħu, għandu jkun fuq nett fl-aġenda politika tal-pajjiż.  Hu ghalhekk ta’ tħassib li lokalment ma ntqal prattikament xejn mill-Gvern dwar trattat fuq l-ibħra internazzjonali konkluż iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa fil-qafas tal-istrutturi tal-Ġuns Magħquda. Ftehim li hu ta’ importanza storika u riżultat ta’ negozjati li ilhom sejrin sa mill-2004.  Dan hu ftehim li hu mibni fuq il-legat tal-Konvenzjoni tal-Ġnus Magħquda dwar il-Baħar li dwarha, permezz ta’ Arvid Pardo, Malta tat sehem kruċjali.

Malta teħtieġ li tiskopri mill-ġdid il-vokazzjoni marittima tagħha u li tkun fuq quddiem nett f’dawn l-inizjattivi fid-dibattitu marittimu internazzjonali. Biex inkunu proattivi jeħtieġilna li jkollna Ministeru iffukat fuq il-politika Marittima li jiġbor taħt saqaf wieħed il-politika marittima kollha ta’ relevanza għall-gżejjer Maltin: mill-ekonomija l-blu, is-sajd u l-akwakultura għall-ħarsien ta’ zoni marittimi estensivi anke fl-ibħra internazzjinali, il-ħarsien aħjar tal-kosta kif ukoll li nimplimentaw sewwa l-liġi dwar id-Dimanju Pubbliku bla dewmien u dan biex ikun assigurat l-aċċess pubbliku għall-kosta, u b’hekk, fuq perjodu ta’ żmien tkun ikkontrollata l-kummerċjalizzazzjoni tal-kosta li ilha sejra s-snin.

Darba kellna Segretarjat Parlamentari għall-Affarijiet Marittimi. Illum il-ġurnata l-politika marittima hi linja waħda fil-lista ta’ responsabbiltajiet tal-Kabinett taħt il-Ministeru tat-Trasport. Fir-realtà, imma, l-politika marittima hi frammentata  u dwarha hemm responsabbiltajiet f’diversi Ministeri.  Fil-prattika dan ifisser li ma hemm ħadd li għandu responsabbiltà politika diretta u konsegwenza ta’ hekk il-koordinazzjoni politika f’dan il-qasam hi waħda limitat ħafna.  Din hi ħasra għax dan hu qasam li għandu ħafna potenzjal li jkun ta’ ġid għall-pajjiż.

It-trattat il-ġdid ser ifittex li jindirizza l-ħarsien tas-saħħa tal-oċejani mhux biss fil-present, imma iktar importanti fuq medda ta’ żmien: dan hu il-wirt li ser inħallu warajna lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.   Kif ġie emfasizzat mill-kelliemi għas-Segretarju Ġenerali tal-Ġnus Magħquda Antonio Guterres, dan it-trattat il-ġdid ser ifittex li jindirizza il-kriżi li qed tiffaċċja id-dinja fuq tlett fronti: it-tibdil fil-klima, it-telfien tal-bijodiversità u t-tniġġiż.

In-negozjati dwar it-trattat intemmu fil-lejl bejn l-4 u l-5 ta’ Marzu. Ser iservi biex titwettaq il-wegħda miftehma fil-konklużjonijiet  tal-Konferenza dwar il-Bijodiversità li saret f’Montreal f’Diċembru li għadda u li hi magħrufa bħala  30×30.   Din hi wegħda bl-iskop li tistabilixi fuq sisien legal sodi il-mira ta’ protezzjoni ta’ terz tal-bijodiversità fuq l-art u l-baħar u dan sas-sena 2030. In-negozjati dwar it-trattat fasslu l-qafas legali meħtieġ biex tkun tista’ tibda t-triq twila ħalli jkunu implimentati l-wegħdiet, il-konklużjonijiet u inizjattivi ta’ Montreal.

L-ibħra internazzjonali jibdew fejn jispiċċaw iż-żoni ekonomiċi esklussivi tal-pajjiżi differenti, ġeneralment madwar 200 mil nawtiku (390 km) mill-kosta. Dawn l-ibħra jammontaw għal 60 fil-mija tal-oċejani globali u ma huma tal-ebda pajjiż, u allura huma ta’ kulħadd! Dawn l-ibħra huma taħt theddida kontinwa ta’ ħsara mill-ħidma akkumulata tal-bniedem tul is-snin. Għalhekk il-ħtieġa li l-komunità internazzjonali taġixxi illum qabel għada.

Meta it-trattat jidħol fis-seħħ, forsi, inkunu pass eqreb lejn il-ħolqien ta’ zoni ta’ protezzjoni marittima fl-ibħra internazzjonali. Din, meta isseħħ tkun kisba storika kbira.

Arvid Pardo jkun kburi li wasalna sa hawn. L-aħjar mod kif nikkommemorawh ikun kull darba li nkunu kapaċi nidħlu għar-responsabbiltajiet internazzjonali tagħna dwar l-ibħra. Jeħtieġilna li niftakru kontinwament li bħala gżira, il-baħar hu ħajjitna: il-baħar hu dak li għamilna dak li aħna illum.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 13 ta’ Marzu 2023

Arvid Pardo’s legacy: rediscovering a maritime vocation

“We are naturally vitally interested in the sea which surrounds us and through which we live and breathe.” This was stated by Arvid Pardo then Malta’s UN Ambassador when addressing the United Nations General Assembly in November 1967 on Malta’s seminal proposal on the seabed and its resources as the common heritage of mankind.

The sea is our lifeline, yet it does not feature prominently in our policy priorities. As an island state, all issues relative to the sea should be at the very top of the country’s political agenda. It is with regret therefore that very little was said locally by government on the High Seas Treaty concluded within the UN framework earlier this week. This agreement, of crucial importance, is the culmination of negotiations which started in 2004 and builds on the legacy of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in respect of which Malta had a pivotal role through Ambassador Arvid Pardo.

Malta needs to rediscover its maritime vocation and be at the forefront of such international maritime initiatives and debate. In order to be proactive, we need a focused Ministry for Maritime Affairs which groups under one political head all maritime politics of relevance to the Maltese islands: ranging from the blue economy, fisheries and aquaculture to marine protected areas, the protection of coastal areas as well as ensuring that the Public Domain Act is implemented the soonest to ensure public access all along the coast and over time to reverse the commercialisation of the coast which has been going on for ages.

Once upon a time we had a Parliamentary Secretariat for Maritime Affairs. Nowadays maritime policy is a footnote to the list of Cabinet responsibilities, listed under the Ministry for Transport,  but in reality, it is fragmented over a multitude of Ministries. In practice this means that direct political responsibility and policy coordination in maritime policy is rather limited. This is a pity as it is a policy area which has so much potential!

The new treaty seeks to counter the destructive trends which is faced by the health of the oceans, not just at present, but also, more importantly, for generations to come. As emphasised by the spokesperson for United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the new treaty seeks to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

The treaty, concluded during the night between the 4 and 5 March, is crucial for implementing what is known as the 30×30 pledge of the Montreal Biodiversity Conference held last December. This is intended to protect a third of the biodiversity on land and at sea by the year 2030. This treaty establishes the legal framework required to start the long road towards implementation of the Montreal pledges, conclusions and initiatives.

The high seas begin where the exclusive economic zone of the different countries end, generally some 200 nautical miles (390 km) from the coastline. Comprising more than 60 percent of the world’s oceans they belong to no particular country. They are however under continuous threat from anthropogenic activity.

When the treaty enters into force, maybe, we will be a step closer to creating marine protected areas in international waters. That would be a historic achievement.

Arvid Pardo would be proud of such a moment. The best way of honouring his memory would be if we shoulder our international responsibilities, continuously protecting the marine environment which has contributed so much to what we are.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 March 2023

Corruption: the institutions are not working

Reading through the media court reports on the Qormi murder earlier this week confirms that the Police in Malta can carry out crime investigations assiduously and bring them to their logical conclusions when they are left to carry out their work free from any pressures whatsoever.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said on Police investigations relative to corruption.

Last week, in my article (Phone call from the Ministry: TMIS 4 September 2022) I referred to the cryptic language used in the evidence delivered in Court by the Police Inspector in the car licence corruption case. This, I argued, is conveying the unmistakable message that holders of political office and their hangers-on are dealt with kids gloves by the police investigators, thereby facilitating the development of clientelism into corruption.

During the public protest held last Tuesday against corruption organised by the NGO Repubblika it was once more explained as to how the authorities (that is the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General’s office) have failed to act on the conclusions of the report of the magisterial inquiry into the operations of Pilatus Bank.

Repubblika President, Robert Aquilina, quoting chapter and verse from the magisterial inquiry report, explained how the Courts have instructed the said authorities to take criminal action against various former officials of Pilatus Bank. However only one former official was arraigned. All the others whom the inquiring magistrate pointed out have not been arraigned to account for their actions.

This has led to the unprecedented step of NGO Repubblika challenging the police authorities and the Attorney General in Court for failing to carrying out their duties. The authorities, are not functioning, Robert Aquilina rightfully claimed!

To substantiate his claim, he presented the relevant extracts from the report of the magisterial inquiry on the operations of Pilatus Bank.

To add insult to injury, the magistrate examining the challenge in Court, instead of requesting the police and the Attorney General to explain their “ifs” and “whys” turned on the NGO leadership in order to identify how the magisterial inquiry report came into their possession. Instead of shielding citizens seeking justice, unfortunately, the magistrate is shielding those who are sending out the clear message that, after all, crime pays, if you have friends located in the right places.

Instead of acting against the corrupt the courts are acting against those who are vigilant enough to note that the institutions are failing to carry out their basic duties.

This is the basic message being conveyed. The institutions are not working as they are not taking the necessary action to ensure that justice is done and that our society is defended against corruption. In addition to this blatant breach of trust, the institutions are also obstructing those who, notwithstanding the odds stacked against them are seeking to remedy the situation.

If this was not enough, we have just learnt of a secret agreement between the Azeri company SOCAR and the Maltese government, then represented by Konrad Mizzi. Irrespective of whether this agreement was implemented or not, it is another case of abusive use of Ministerial powers and should be properly investigated.

Faced with all this, nobody can remain passive. This is the tip of the corruption iceberg that has stifled our country and has been doing so for quite some time.

It is no wonder that Malta’s reputation has gone to the dogs!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 11 September 2022

It-tibdil fil-klima: it-turiżmu mhux ser jeħlisha

Żmien il-biljetti tal-ajru bid-€10 spiċċa, qalilna Michael O’Leary, tar-Ryanair. Dan wara li sirna nafu matul dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat li fl-Unjoni Ewropeja, biex tkun implimentata l-inizjattiva l-ħadra (Green Deal), anke l-avjazzjoni teħtieġ li tagħti s-sehem tagħha billi tibda tinternalizza l-impatti ambjentali. Dan ifisser li l-ispiża riżultat tal-impatti ambjentali tal-avjazzjoni għandha tibda tkun inkluża fil-prezz tal-vjaġġ. Dan hu applikazzjoni diretta u prattika tal-prinċipju ambjentali li min iħammeg jeħtieġ li jħallas (polluter pays principle).

L-avjazzjoni ilha teħlisha billi kienet eżentata għal żmien twil milli terfa’ l-piż tal-impatti tal-emissjonijiet li tiġġenera. Issa dan ma jistax jibqa’ hekk. Din l-industrija ukoll trid tibda tagħti kont ta’ egħmilha. Bħas-setturi ekonomiċi l-oħra trid terfa’ l-piz tal-impatti ambjentali tagħha.  

Li min iħammeġ iħallas hu prinċipju ambjentali bażiku li jifforma parti integrali mill-liġi Ewropeja. Riżultat ta’ hekk dan iservi ta’ gwida għall-formolazzjoni tal-politika tal-Unjoni Ewropeja.  Sa mill-2004 dan il-prinċipju hu ukoll parti integrali mil-leġislazzjoni ambjentali Maltija. Anke fil-kaz tagħna dan il-prinċipju għandu jagħti direzzjoni ċara fil-formolazzjoni tal-politika Maltija.

Sfortunatament, minkejja li l-Parliament f’Malta approva mozzjoni li biha għaraf l-emerġenza klimatika, din id-dikjarazzjoni baqgħet fuq il-karta.  Ftit li xejn sar biex id-deċiżjonijiet meħtieġa riżultat tal-għarfien ta’ l-eżistenza ta’ din l-emerġenza jittieħdu. Hu diżappuntanti li wieħed minn dawk responsabbli biex mexxa l-quddiem din il-mozzjoni issa qed jgħid li l-azzjoni biex ikunu indirizzati l-impatti klimatiċi tal-avjazzjoni huma kontra l-interess nazzjonali. M’għandux idea x’inhu jgħid.

Ejja nkunu ċari:  bħala arċipelagu f’nofs il- Mediterran, il-gżejjer Maltin inevitabilment ikunu effettwati mill-istadji li jmiss tal-impatti tat-tibdil tal-klima, ċjoe l-għoli fil-livell tal-baħar.  Iz-zoni mal-kosta ilaqqtuha waħda sewwa, possibilment jispiċċaw taħt l-ilma, kollha jew kważi, skond kemm jogħla l-livell tal-baħar.  Dan japplika ukoll għall-infrastruttura kostali li tinkludi l-parti l-kbira tal-faċilitajiet turistiċi.

Hu fl-interess nazzjonali ta’ Malta li l-miri klimatiċi tal-2015 ta’ Pariġi jkun osservati u li jiġu  implimentati l-iktar kmieni possibli. Ma jagħmilx sens li nfittxu li nkunu eżentati. Bla dubju jkun hemm impatti konsiderevoli. Imma l-impatti  jekk naġixxu  biex nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima huma ferm inqas mill-impatti li jkollna nħabbtu wiċċna magħhom jekk nibqgħu nippruvaw nevitaw ir-responsabbiltajiet  tagħna.

Tul is-snin, bla dubju, it-teknologija tkompli titjieb, u probabbilment li din tgħin biex jonqos il-piz tal-impatti.  It-tieni rapport ambjentali dwar l-avjazzjoni Ewropeja ippubblikat fl-2019 jiġbed l-attenzjoni li fiz-zona Ewropeja l-konsum medju tal-fuel fuq it-titjiriet kummerċjali naqas b’ 24 fil-mija bejn l-2005 u l-2017. Imma fl-istess żmien kien hemm żieda ta’ 60 fil-mija fil-kilometraġġ tat-titjiriet kummerċjali!

Din l-istatistika tiġbor fiha l-problema kollha: it-teknoloġija qed tnaqqas l-emissjonijiet għal kull kilometru tat-titjiriet, imma n-numru ta’ kilometri tal-vjaġġi qed jiżdied bil-kbir għax ħafna iktar nies qed jivvjaġġaw bl-ajru.  

Bħalissa għaddej dibattitu dwar taxxa fuq il-fjuwil tal-avjazzjoni. Din hi waħda mill-miżuri essenzjali u meħtieġa biex ikun possibli li sal-2030 u lil hinn il-gassijiet serra jonqsu b’55 fil-mija.  

Din l-inizjattiva għandha twassal biex il-prezz tal-biljett tal-ajru jkun jirrifletti l-ispiza reali, inkluż dik ambjentali ikkawżata mill-emissjonijiet.  Dan jista’ jseħħ jew b’żieda ta’ taxxa mal-prezz tal-biljett tal-ajru inkella billi dak li jkun jagħmel użu minn mezzi alternattivi ta’ transport.

Jekk wieħed jagħmel użu ta’ mezzi alternattivi ta’ transport it-taxxa tkun evitata u dan bil-konsegwenza li jkunu evitati ukoll l-impatti ambjentali tal-ivvjaġġar bl-ajru. Fl-Ewropa kontinentali dan jista’ jseħħ bl-użu tal-ferrovija li bosta drabi  hi alternattiva kemm effiċjenti kif ukoll iktar nadifa. Imma fil-kaz ta’ Malta u gżejjer oħra dan l-użu tal-alternattivi potenzjali hu limitat ħafna.  Dan iwassal għal żieda inevitabbli fl-ispiża biex dak li jkun jivvjaġġa bl-ajru u riżultat ta’ hekk jonqos in-numru kemm ta’ Maltin li jivvjaġġaw kif ukoll ta’ barranin (turisti) li jiġu Malta.

Għalkemm eventwalment jista’ jkun hemm xi konċessjonijiet raġjonevoli għal dawk li jgħixu fil-periferiji/gżejjer, it-turiżmu ma jistax jibqa’ jevita li jerfa’ l-piz tal-impatti tiegħu: dan hu meħtieġ biex isseħħ ġustizzja, kemm soċjali kif ukoll ambjentali!  Hu fl-interess ta’ Malta li l-impatt ambjentali tat-turiżmu, b’mod partikolari dak tal-massa, jkun indirizzat u ikkontrollat qabel ma jkun tard wisq. L-industrija tal-avjazzjoni teħtieġ li tkun imċaqalqa bi strumenti ekonomiċi bħat-taxxa ambjentali biex tirristruttura ruħha. Ejja niftakru li bħall-gżejjer kollha, Malta, flimkien mal-komunitajiet kostali, tkun minn tal-ewwel li ssofri l-agħar konsegwenzi tat-tibdil tal-klima: l-għoli fil-livell tal-baħar. It-turiżmu ma jeħlisiex. Il-klima mhux ser tikkunsidra l-posizzjoni partikolari ta’ Malta jew l-impatt fuq l-ekonomija: in-natura ma tiddiskriminax, tibqa’ għaddejja minn fuqna bħalma għamlet bnadi l-oħra fejn kaxkret kull ma sabet fin-nofs!

It-turiżmu qiegħed f’salib it-toroq. Jeħtieġ li b’mod urġenti jaddatta ruħu u jaddatta għall-impatti tat-tibdil fil-klima. Dan hu l-futur reali tat-turiżmu, mhux l-eżenzjoni mit-taxxi.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 14 t’Awwissu 2022

Climate change: tourism will not be spared

The era of €10 air fares is over, warned Michael O’Leary, Ryanair boss. This follows the news in the past weeks that within the European Union, in order to implement the Green Deal, aviation must do its part by internalising its environmental costs. That is, environmental costs must be incorporated in the price of air fares. This is a direct and practical application of the polluter pays principle.

Aviation has been a free rider for quite some time, being exempted from shouldering the impacts of the emissions which it generates. The holiday is now over and as a direct result the tourism industry must take stock of the situation. Like all other economic sectors, it must factor in its costings the environmental impacts which it generates.

The polluter pays principle is a basic environmental principle which forms an integral part of the EU acquis: it guides EU policy. Since 2004 it also forms an integral part of Malta’s environmental legislation and consequently it should also guide the formulation of Maltese policy.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the approval by Parliament of a motion declaring recognition of the climate emergency, this declaration is still a paper declaration. The necessary policies required to face this emergency have never been discussed, approved and acted upon. It is disappointing that a prime mover behind the climate emergency motion is now equating the required action to address aviation’s climate change impacts as being contrary to the national interest. He has no idea on the matter!

Let us be clear:  as an archipelago in the centre of the Mediterranean, the Maltese islands will be severely impacted by the next stages of climate change impacts, that is the rise in sea level. The coastal areas will be hard hit, possibly they will be wiped out or substantially reduced, depending on the extent of the sea level rise. This is also applicable for all the coastal infrastructure, which includes practically all tourism facilities.

It is in Malta’s national interest that the 2015 Paris climate goals are adhered to and implemented the soonest. Seeking exemptions is not on.  Obviously there will be considerable impacts. The impacts of acting to address climate change will however be substantially less if we act than if we continue avoiding our responsibilities. 

Over the years technology will undoubtedly improve, possibly reducing the burden. The second European Aviation Environment Report drawn up in 2019 by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the European Environment Agency (EEA) and Eurocontrol points out that within the European area, the average fuel consumption of commercial flights has decreased by 24 per cent over the period 2005-2017. However, over the same time frame there has been a 60 per cent increase in the kilometres flown by commercial flights!

This statistic frames the issue: technology is driving down the emissions per passenger kilometre, however the number of passenger kilometres has been on an exponential increase as more people are travelling by air.

Currently there is an ongoing debate regarding a tax on aviation fuel. This is one of the essential measures needed to enable the reduction of 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and beyond.

This initiative is aimed to ensure that the price of an air flight includes all costs, including the environmental costs caused by the resulting emissions. This can be carried out either by a tax on air travel or else through the use of alternative means of transport, as a result of which the tax can be avoided legally, with the resultant decrease of the environmental impacts. In mainland Europe the use of trains is many a time a good alternative for air travel not just due to its efficiency but also in generating less environmental impacts. In the case of Malta and other islands the potential use of alternatives is very limited. This leads to an inevitable increase in the cost of air travel and the consequential decrease in air travelling, both incoming and outgoing.

Although there may eventually be some reasonable concessions for those who live on isolated islands, tourism cannot keep avoiding its own environmental impacts: this is what social and environmental justice demands! It is in Malta’s interest that the environmental impacts of tourism, particularly mass tourism, is contained before it is too late. The aviation industry must be prodded through economic means, such as environmental taxation, to restructure itself. Let us all remember that like all islands, Malta, together with coastal communities, will be the first to suffer some of the worsts repercussions of climate change: the increase in sea level. Tourism will not be spared. The climate will not consider our special situation or our economic considerations – nature does not discriminate: it will roll over us as it did elsewhere!

Tourism is at a crossroad. It needs to urgently adapt to the impacts of climate change. This is tourism’s future, not tax exemptions.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 August 2022

Chernobyl revisited

Chernobyl in Ukraine on 26 April 1986, 36 years ago, was the site of a major nuclear disaster. All that came to mind once more when the Russian and Byelorussian forces invaded Ukrainian territory over two months ago.

The invading forces took over the Chernobyl nuclear power station site. Troops were observed excavating trenches around the site where the nuclear accident happened 36 years ago. It was only this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the radiation levels at Chernobyl, after being tested, have been certified as being within safe limits; but it is definitely not safe for a picnic!

The nuclear clean-up at Chernobyl is ongoing. Starting immediately in 1986, it is scheduled to last at least until the year 2065. Possibly much beyond that!

36 years on, Chernobyl is still of concern not just to those living in its vicinity, but to all of Europe.

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster had brought many to their senses as to the dangers of nuclear energy, notwithstanding the sophisticated technology utilised in the industry. This was further reinforced by the Fukushima disaster, much closer in time on 11 March 2011. In the aftermath of Fukushima various countries opted for a phase-out of their dependence on nuclear energy. Germany led the way, our Italian neighbours to the North opting for a nuclear free future through a referendum in June 2011.

All this had a particular significance for Malta as it meant that plans for the construction of a nuclear power station at Palma di Montechiaro along the southern Sicilian coast, less than 100 kilometres to the North of Gozo, were mothballed. Southern Sicily as we know is an earthquake prone zone.

Occasionally there are rumblings of a renewed interest in the use of nuclear energy. The French government has for years been acting as a nuclear salesman all around the Mediterranean. It is known that agreements to set-up and operate various nuclear plants exist relative to various North African countries. Nicholas Sarkozy had even arrived at an agreement with Gaddafi just weeks before he was ousted.

Within the EU the debate is ongoing, at times spearheaded by the fact that the generation of nuclear energy emits relatively little carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. Nuclear energy does however cause significant environmental negative impacts through the waste streams which it generates, namely spent nuclear fuel, rock waste at uranium mines and mills and the release of large amounts of uncontrolled radioactive emissions whenever accidents occur. The Chernobyl, Fukushima and the Three-Mile Island nuclear accidents are irrefutable testimony that the environmental damage resulting from nuclear accidents is not just enormous but also at times difficult to control.

The IAEA reports that as of 2022 there are 493 nuclear power reactors in operation in 32 different countries.  We tend to be aware of the major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011), and possibly that at Three-Mile Island in the US (1979). Countless other “minor” accidents have however occurred over the years. In some cases, the accidents were under control just in time, avoiding their development into a major accident.

Our neighbours rejected nuclear energy twice in two different referenda, one in 1987 after Chernobyl, the other in 2011 after Fukushima. In 2011 the Italian government was planning to construct 10 nuclear reactors. These plans were only thwarted as a result of the 2011 referendum.

It is a responsibility of the Maltese government to be on the alert as these plans could be reactivated in the near future.  This would be a danger developing on our doorstep.

published on the Malta Independent on Sunday : 1st May 2022

Climate Change and the 15-minute city

The latest report on climate change was published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month. The full document is almost 3,000 pages long!

The current international debate on climate change is focusing on whether the objectives of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit are achievable. It is clear to all that, without profound and imminent changes in our lifestyles, these objectives will not be achieved.

The clear objective agreed to in Paris is to reduce carbon emissions in order to achieve carbon neutrality soonest. This would ensure that the global mean temperature does not surpass the pre-industrial temperature by more than 1.5ºC. This would in turn tame the climate over time.

As an island, Malta should be at the forefront in the international climate change debate. We will be severely impacted like all other countries. In fact, we are already at the receiving end of the impact of extreme weather conditions at an increased frequency. Long periods of drought are more frequent. Likewise, we have experienced more than a fair share of floods, which have caused considerable damage all over the islands.

As islands, sea-level rise will add to our problems in Malta and Gozo in a manner which is dependent on the rate at which this will take place. A substantial part of our essential infrastructure lies along our coast. This will potentially be severely impacted as a result of a sea-level rise. Just think about the impacts on the tourism infrastructure, for example.

One of the ideas doing the rounds in the climate change debate is to rethink the way we plan our cities as one way in which to combat the climate crisis. The idea crystallised as ‘the 15-minute city’ by Carlos Moreno, an architect advising the Paris mayor, entails turning current urban planning on its head to ensure that all our needs are available not more than 15 minutes away.

Moreno speaks of a social circularity for living in our urban spaces based on six essential functions: to live in good housing, to work close by, to reach supplies and services easily, to access education, healthcare and cultural entitlement locally by low-carbon means.

Can we reassess the nature and quality of our urban lifestyles within these parameters?

COVID-19 has given most of us a taste of remote working. In a limited way, this could become a permanent feature of our urban lifestyles. Some of us need not travel to work every day. With proper planning, remote working could reduce a substantial number of cars from our roads permanently and, consequently, the associated carbon emissions.

In the Maltese islands, distance should not be an issue: almost everywhere is within easy reach. Our National Transport Master Plan, in fact, advises us that 50 per cent of trips carried out by our private vehicles are for short distances, having a duration of less than 15 minutes. Achieving 15-minute cities should not be that difficult if we put our heads together to address it.

Our contribution to climate change mitigation, as a result of which we can accelerate our path to carbon neutrality, could be achieved through a substantial reduction of cars from our roads. We can achieve this without impacting our mobility. Through a judicious use of public transport and the facilitation of other sustainable mobility options, our mobility can be substantially improved as a result.

Come October, all public transport will be free. Hopefully, it will also be reliable and efficient. If adequately planned, this could be a turning point in climate change mitigation measures as, over a period of time, it can lead to a reduction of cars from our roads. Initially, such a reduction would necessarily be of a temporary nature. Eventually, we can move towards a permanent change.

Real change takes time to achieve.

Giving shape and form to 15-minute cities could be the next realistic challenge in our climate mitigation road map. All that is required is the political will.

published in The Times of Malta: 21 April 2022