Much is said daily about striking a balance between development and the environment, but it is by now more than clear that neither of the two main political parties have come even close.
Despite all the talk of afforestation and urban greening projects, the pledges of cleaner air and sea, the promises of more open spaces for families, there is, in reality, a huge imbalance in favour of development.
Our entire political system relies on a culture of ‘scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours’ – donations from big business which, in turn, expects to be paid back.
Construction companies are much higher up in the political parties’ food chain because they have money to dish out. The real champions of the environment – the eNGOs – have no money to give, so their voices are rarely heard.
The latest stark warning on this imbalance came from the Church’s environment commission (KA), which said this week that “we have sacrificed the environment for an outdated model of development that while filling the pockets of a few, reduces the quality of life of many.”
Referring to Malta as “one construction site,” the KA said it is astonished that politicians from both sides of Parliament are still speaking in terms of finding a “balance” between development and the environment.
We believe that, to restore some semblance of balance, the scales must quickly be tipped in favour of the environment. There must be an imbalance in favour of the environment if we are to bring the two sectors any closer together.
How can balance be reached if the few trees being planted are counteracted by bigger roads and flyovers, high rise buildings and yacht marinas?
Instead of caring for the little green spaces we have, we always try to find excuses to build more and more. We live in a country where we value concrete and asphalt more than we value trees.
The PN said this week that it will not rectify its biggest ever environmental blunder – the 2006 rationalisation exercise that saw large tracts of ODZ land become part of the development zone.
No Labour government will reverse this either, despite their constant criticism of the move.
Yet our politicians keep speaking about finding a balance between development and the environment.
It is positive to note that, in its economic vision for the next ten years, the government lists the environment and open spaces as a priority, but will this turn out to be just another castle in the sky? History would suggest so. Only time will tell.
The Church’s environment commission has made a number of valid recommendations. These include giving more powers to local councils on decisions related to their community. The councils, it said, have proven that they are far more capable than the ERA and the PA of putting the residents’ interests before those of partisan politics and unscrupulous developers.
The stance taken by the Marsascala local coucil on the proposed yacht marina is a case in point.
The KA has also proposed a system to combat clientelism and puts and end to the culture of donations in return for obligations.
To this, we would add that all ministries should immediately introduce transparency registers to log their meetings with lobbyists. This is a concept which the environment ministry had pledged to introduce over two years ago but which has so far not seen the light of day.
Lastly, the KA suggested the compilation of a Sustainable Development Plan to replace the Strategic Plan on Environment and Development (SPED). For far too long have governments and authorities quoted flawed policies to justify ugly developments. If the policies are crap, then we need to rewrite them.
SPED is currently being reviewed, which is a very positive thing indeed, but one hopes that this time we will get it right, and that the environment gets the priority it deserves.
This time it’s not only about putting the environment and development on par. This time it should be about creating a temporary imbalance in favour of the environment to make up for all the years of neglect. This is the only way of restoring some form of balance.