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

A ticking time bomb

The proposal to set up an authority to deal with climate change regulation, mitigation and adaptation, announced by Prime Minister Robert Abela during an MCESD meeting last week, though well-intentioned, is uncalled for. It essentially means more fragmentation in matters related to environmental governance.

We have been there before during the debate on land use planning and the environment with the resulting merger and subsequent demerger.

The actual results achieved as a consequence of the planned fragmentation have increased the existing environmental mess exponentially.

Environmental governance requires consolidation and not fragmentation in order to be effective.

The effective coordination of policy formulation, regulation and implementation in all environmental issues can be achieved. However, for this to happen we ought to realise that the smallness of our country is an asset which is currently ignored but which we can put to good use.

Rather than have a separate authority dealing with climate change it would be more appropriate to beef up the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and ensure that it is run appropriately.

Climate change is a ticking time bomb that is confirmed as being progressively worse with every scientific report that is published. The current heat-wave and the flooding that we have witnessed in the past winter are clear indications of what lies in store for all of us in the immediate future.

We are no exceptions. Nature does not discriminate; it treats us all equally. It just rolls over all of us as it did elsewhere with floods, fires and other extremes of weather.

In these circumstances the realistic way forward is not to set up more authorities but, rather, to seek the way in which we can maximise our existing efforts through proper coordination and, where possible, the consolidation of existing official bodies and authorities. This could lead to the optimisation of results and better value reflecting the resources put to use. We cannot, as a nation, afford to do otherwise.

It must be a carefully studied political decision but not a partisan one. Ideally, the government should try and rope in the best local minds to carefully plot the way forward. It should search beyond the political divide. This is possible if there is the political will.

There is so much we can do. It can, however, be painful, as it would require unavoidable changes to our lifestyle. We must continuously remember that there is no gain without pain. With appropriate and timely action, the pain can, however, be minimised.

The longer we take to get our house in order, the greater the pain inflicted on all: it will be self-inflicted pain as we can avoid or reduce part of it if we act in good time. Even though time is running out, it is still possible to take meaningful action. All of us will be impacted, but the vulnerable will be impacted most of all.

The action required encompasses practically all that we do. It impacts land use and urban planning, agriculture, tourism, transport, energy consumption and generation, air quality, water management, nature protection and restoration – practically everything around us. Consequently, it will also have a considerable impact on our economic activity.

The month of July that just ended has been the hottest on record. We are still reeling from its impacts on the energy distribution network. There are other impacts that we will have to address, shortly. We have to (and can) anticipate all this through foresight and appropriate planning.

All the required information to help us plan a better future that factors in climate change is already available. This information has been available for a considerable number of years but it has been conveniently ignored as the political establishment has always sought to paint a future landscape which is out of tune with reality.

This is the real challenge we face: to plan our future realistically. The longer we take to get our feet on the ground the more difficult it will be to achieve the required results. We owe it to future generations to ensure that when we pass on the baton, these islands are still liveable. So far, this is most clearly not achievable.

published in Times of Malta: 3 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

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