An eye-catching protest greeted people in Luqa on Sunday, as makeshift tombstones in remembrance of trees which were felled as part of the upgrading of Garibaldi Road and Council of Europe Road were set up by NGO Moviment Graffitti.

Graffitti appears to be opposed to the removal of these trees in the first place, but to some extent, the trees were victims of past mistakes, or lack of foresight. The Council of Europe Road has become one of Malta’s most important roads – so much so, that it forms part of the EU’s TEN-T road network which the ongoing project falls under – but its previous incarnation was far from adequate.

The road was barely wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic, but wide enough to encourage their formation. With the trees lining the sides, overtaking could be a tempting but dangerous possibility, especially if speed was added to the mix: Many serious accidents involved cars crashing into a tree at some point.

Making the road safer required widening the road, which in itself required, inevitably, the removal of at least some of the trees. So it is difficult to argue against the removal of trees.

That said, the destruction of mature trees remains a sensitive issue, however legitimate the reason behind it. Graffitti had pointed out that it was ironic for the government to encourage tree-planting on one hand and implementing policies leading to the destruction of trees elsewhere.

Addressing the removal of trees would actually be quite simple. At the very least, trees which can be feasibly relocated, should be – some Luqa trees have ended up in Ħal Far, for instance. As for trees which will have to be inevitably destroyed, measures could include the compensatory funding of tree-planting efforts – not necessarily just in cases of roadworks.

But the issue can also be considered in a wider context. The project and the protest show just how hard achieving a balance between development and environmental concerns is. Dilemmas over where the line should be drawn are unavoidable: What is important is to make clear that the environment is not treated with contempt.

The decisions taken in this regard are far from convincing sometimes. For instance, the recent scheduling of Balluta Valley may be welcome news, but it appears to be a token gesture after years of intensive development.

And trees in built-up areas frequently end up in the news when they end up pruned excessively, suggesting that they are perceived to be a nuisance – and arguably a source of firewood.

The list goes on, so when all is taken into consideration, Graffitti’s protest may be a knee-jerk reaction to a sight – the destruction of trees – its members found to be distressing. But then again, it could also reflect concerns that efforts to safeguard the natural environment are cynical attempts to stave off protest, rather than driven by conviction.