From ‘Words to Action’?: Living Up to Environmental Promises – Alex Torpiano

” W RDS FROM TO ACTI N

LIVING UP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROMISES by Alex Torpiano

During his recent visit, Pope Francis invited us to consider the issues of the protection of the environment, overdevelopment, and ‘rapacious greed, … avarice, … and construction speculation which compromise(d) not only the landscape but the very future’.

€700 million are promised as investment in the ‘environment’ over the next seven years, eerily mirroring the same amount invested over the past seven years on road infrastructure.

These comments by Pope Francis, although largely ignored by the official media, were interpreted by others as a ‘blessing for activism’. Irrespective of the question whether the Pope’s intentions were to express support for eNGOs, the implicit acknowledgement that eNGOs are right to be worried about these issues, was a form of justification.

The recent election campaign was, to a certain extent, also an acknowledgement that the protection of our urban and environmental heritage is now a mainstream political issue. In the run-up to the elections, Din l-Art Ħelwa joined up with a number of environmental NGOs to draft, and present to the competing political parties, nine key environmental demands, which invited politicians to move from ‘Words to Action’.

In addition to Din l-Art Ħelwa, the eNGOs comprised Friends of the Earth Malta, Birdlife Malta, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, Nature Trust Malta, and Ramblers; and the demands were also endorsed by Moviment Graffiti, the Grow 10 Trees Project, Rota, Wirt Għawdex, Għawdix, Żminijietna Voice of the Left, and Extinction Rebellion Malta.

The themes proposed that political parties commit to address Governance, Climate Change, Sustainable Mobility, Urban Development, Rural Policy, Habitat and Biodiversity, Marine Areas, Agriculture and Food Systems, and Waste Management. Each of the contributing eNGOs prepared a concise presentation on one of the above themes, and after discussion and unanimous adoption of a final document, a series of meetings with the main political parties were held. We were cordially heard.

Din l-Art Ħelwa focused on the theme of proper Governance in matters related to the natural and urban environment and to built heritage. The outline proposals are reiterated hereunder. Changes in the Constitution are considered as necessary, so that the protection of our heritage and the environment did not remain a sterile statement of principle, but something which concerned citizens could take legal action on.

Chapter II of the Constitution of Malta deals with the Declaration of important principles, amongst which, in Article 9, impose the obligation on the State to ‘safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the Nation’. A recent amendment to the Constitution has gone further: ‘The State shall preserve and conserve the environment and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations and shall take measures to address any form of environmental degradation in Malta, including that of air, water and land, and any sort of pollution problem and to promote, nurture and support the right of action in favour of the environment’. However, Article 21 of the same Chapter says: ‘The provisions of this Chapter shall not be enforceable in any court, but the principles therein contained are nevertheless fundamental to the governance of the country and it shall be the aim of the State to apply these principles in making laws’.

The problem, therefore, was that whilst the principles underpinning the protection of our natural and built heritage were correctly stated in the Constitution, the mechanisms of oversight of Government and its agencies, which were meant to enact laws and regulations keeping in mind these principles, was not clear. There is divergent legal opinion on whether the provisions in the Constitution are sufficient tools to enable citizens to take legal action if the principles inscribed in the Constitution are violated as a result of any legislation or regulation, or as a result of the bad application of any legislation or regulation. The eNGOs did not want the matter of actionability to be resolved in a court debate; clarity in the Constitution was required so that action could be taken if any public entity ignored the principles enshrined in Chapter II.

It is also important that the authorities responsible for the safeguarding of our natural and built heritage, and the quality of urban spaces, particularly the Planning Authority, really place the environment as their top priority, when evaluating proposals which, at face value, appear to favour economic growth. It was important that such agencies recognised the economic value of the natural and built heritage. It was important that the Planning Authority take serious heed of the objections raised by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage and by the Environment and Resources Authority. The current approach was that proposals for development are judged against the question ‘why not?’, whereas proposals should be judged against the questions: ‘why?’, ‘what is the community gaining?’, ‘what are the risks, and who will pay for the impacts?’

The winning Electoral Programme, to a certain extent, reflects the growing concern for the environment. €700 million are promised as investment in the ‘environment’ over the next seven years, eerily mirroring the same amount invested over the past seven years on road infrastructure. Out of 20 sections in the Programme, No. 5 deals with the Environment, No. 6 with Climate Neutrality, and No. 13 with Gozo – within which eight proposals deal directly with environmental issues.

The proposals are wide-ranging; the more notable proposals are the first maritime park in Ċirkewwa, a geological park in Lapsi and Wied iż-Żurrieq, a nature park in Bahar ic-Ċagħaq, the relocation of the Sant’Antnin recycling plant to enlarge the Marsascala family park, the transformation of the Schreiber Ground into an open space with trees, parks in Mqabba and Birgu, a major afforestation project for L-Imwadar (now including Zonqor, of AUM fame), a family park in Bengħajsa, and an afforestation project in Comino. These all sound like laudable projects. It is however important that nature parks really become oases of biodiversity, real nature reserves; and not follow the same route as the ‘National Park’ in Ta’ Qali,, where the much-touted ‘environmental project’ morphed into a large hill of fake rubble walling, enclosing a massive open-air concert venue.

The Programme makes an interesting reference to the creation of urban green areas by the reclamation of public buildings. or of private buildings acquired by the state, or by the negotiated acquisition of private gardens in urban areas. It proposed the creation of ‘green’ walking/hiking networks, from Mellieħa to Xgħajra, and along Gozo’s coast and valleys. One could add that it would be relatively easy, and cost-effective, to also add (or retain existing) trees to our existing arterial roads – instead of systematically removing them.

The Electoral Programme does not suggest that this ‘greening’ endeavour will include shaking off the national dependence on the private vehicle, not even for the enjoyment of nature. Many of the urban (and rural) greening proposals, in Bormla, Ħamrun, San Ġwann, and Marsascala, comprise underground carparking complexes, covered with ‘green’ (will we really have trees in these ‘green’ areas?). In other sections, the idea of roofing over, and ‘greening’, busy traffic arteries has taken root – excuse the pun – (this is re-proposed for the approaches to the Santa Venera tunnels, but also over Triq 13 ta’ Dicembru in Marsa).

These proposals, and that of taking traffic underground, below newly created open green areas (as in St Anne Street, Floriana) suggests that private vehicular traffic will not in any way be discouraged. Although some of these proposals have the merit of repairing urban entities that have been split apart by traffic arteries, it is important that they do not end up as major, and expensive, infrastructural and structural engineering projects, consuming ever more concrete (and hence contributing to increasing the construction industry’s carbon footprint rather than reducing it). Natural green areas have an important role in reducing flooding, and in recharging our underground water resources, whereas impermeable areas, such as elevated concrete platforms, effectively exacerbate these problems, unless combined with carefully detailed water-harvesting facilities.

The eNGO proposal to strengthen Governance, in matters related to the natural and urban environment and to built heritage, does not really feature much in the Electoral Programme. There is some reference to ‘Ippjanar bi ħsieb’, or intelligent planning. The proposals in this regard are not very uplifting, since they seem limited to actions which should be considered as obviously necessary, such as the revision of SPED, or the promise not to reduce Urban Conservation Areas(!), or to improve the protection of Grade 2 scheduled heritage buildings. A proposal which could have a far-reaching impact is the promise of a skyline policy, especially for Gozo, so as to minimise the impact of high development on traditional localities and long-distance views. Long-distance views are, in fact, an important aspect of landscape, and it is necessary that we start to schedule such assets, just as we schedule heritage buildings.

On the other hand, the words used in proposal 336, with an emphasis on the interests and rights of property owners, and the promise to ‘start’ discussions to limit development proposals for Outside Development Zones, does not represent a commitment to prioritise the interests of the community over the individual, and does not augur well.

The speech of the President of the Republic, inaugurating the 14th legislature since independence, promises the use of EU funds to ‘decarbonise’ our economy, and to

A proposal which could have a farreaching impact is the promise of a skyline policy, especially for Gozo, so as to minimise the impact of high development on traditional localities and long-distance views.

Changing from petrol/diesel engines to electricity (or hydrogen) will make for less air pollution; however, the congestion on our roads is destined to remain, increasing traffic leading to more roads.

make Gozo ‘climate neutral’. Unfortunately, the use of these slogans can be a distraction from the objective of creating a better quality of urban and natural environment for all of us.

The President also stated that it was not ‘enough to protect the natural environment’ of Malta and Gozo, since that was merely an obligation on all public entities (very true!). The President went on to propose that Malta needed ‘to be innovative’ when it came to new public and open spaces in urban areas. It is not clear what this ‘innovation’ is envisaged to be. Maybe, it could be a programme to promote community gardens for the growing of vegetables and fruit and flowers, instead of the ubiquitous concrete paving, potted plants, and playing field furniture?

The speech also referred to the electrification of our vehicular fleet, the development of alternative transport modes, and the transformation of waste into energy. This reflects the declared objectives of the €316 million that will be granted to Mata under the ‘Recovery and Resilience Facility’ of the European Union. Six main themes were identified in Malta’s relative Plan – two of the themes relevant to this discussion are: (1) climate neutrality through energy efficiency, clean energy and a circular economy, and (2) carbon neutrality by decarbonising transport. This translates to a number of interesting initiatives, but decarbonising transport will absorb 35% of this grant – and the investments envisaged focus on grant schemes for the electrification of private and commercial vehicles, of the public service fleet and of new buses.

One curious investment proposal is to create a new ferry landing facility in St Paul’s Bay ‘to promote alternative modes of transport’ – one wonders whether this ferry landing facility is not part of another mass tourism scheme, rather than a real contribution to a multi-modal change in transport patterns. The reforms envisaged under this heading include more free access to public buses, the promotion of remote working, and the implementation of a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan for the Valletta Region (do we need a mobility plan for Valletta and Floriana – cannot we just walk to everywhere in this area?). It also includes the regeneration of public squares and community spaces in village and town cores, and the creation of ‘more open and car free spaces’.

Unfortunately, if this is considered together with the urban greening-cum-underground car-parking proposals in the Electoral Programme, it could mean that car-free simply means cars hidden underground, without any real impact on the volume of vehicular traffic. The massive investment in the electrification of the private vehicular fleet, promises to be a bonanza to car manufacturers and importers all over Europe, rather than contributing to a better quality of life for us.

Changing from petrol/diesel engines to electricity (or hydrogen) will make for less air pollution; however, the congestion on our roads is destined to remain, increasing traffic leading to more roads, and, as also promised in the Electoral Programme, to more underground car-parking, hence more excavation, and more excavation waste. How are we going to handle this – by a massive programme of production of reconstituted stone to service 100 years of further building? It does feel as if the fixation with the private vehicle is not going to be challenged by an equally massive investment in public mass transport.

The concern with the environment has clearly reached an unprecedented level of importance in politics and government. This is good news. However, there seems to be no clear, holistic, vision of a really sustainable, environmentally-conscious Malta and Gozo, which translates to a more beautiful country, with a better quality of life for us and future generations. We will have to wait and see. But as eNGOs we will also continue to voice our concerns, and to ensure that the authorities live up to the promises. n

Alex Torpiano is an architect, and Dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment at the University of Malta. He is Executive President of Din l-Art Ħelwa.