Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1540142
I don't hold a high opinion of the en- vironmental credentials of either major political party, and in my view they are both jointly responsible for the current mess we are in. The mess is a direct con- sequence of the leverage certain lobbies such as developers have over both of parties. I, for one will never forgive the PN for creating the right conditions for the current seige on the environment by the agents of greed through the extension of the development zones in 2006. Furthermore, I must declare that I have no intention of voting for the PN, Alex Borg and Darren Carabott in the forthcoming general election for a num- ber of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article. However, as a lecturer in environmental sciences and as an envi- ronmentalist, I can not but support the motion presented by Carabott to amend the Constitution and introduce the right to a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment". Not supporting it would have been counter to my principles. In reality, the motion is extremely simple; so basic, that one would think it hard to oppose! Who, in their right mind, wouldn't want such a right en- shrined? The only logical reason to oppose it is if one has a vested interest in creating an unhealthy, dirty environ- ment. It is equally illogical to oppose the right to the enjoyment of the environ- ment. And yet, the Labour Party and the environment minister came out in full force against the bill, claiming it had "serious shortcomings". This is the same government that did not hesitate to try to introduce by stealth amendments to the Development and Planning Act and to the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal Act that could have serious repercussions on the environment and on third party rights. But when it came to this simple amend- ment, they were suddenly "concerned". Another ridiculous argument raised by Dalli and Justice Minister Jonathan At- tard was that Article 9(2) of the Consti- tution already mentions environmental protection in the declaration of prin- ciples of the Republic of Malta. What they failed to say (perhaps deliberately) was that this part of the Constitution is non-enforcable. In other words, accord- ing to these two ministers, environmen- tal protection should remain nothing more than a declaration—the public should have no right to demand it be enforced. Existing obligations The Opposition's amendment was not introducing anything Malta is not already obliged to do. The UN International Cov- enant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed by Malta in 1968 and ratified in 1990 includes an obbliga- tion on Malta to recognise every person's right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health through inter alia the improvement of all aspects of environmental hygene (Articles 12(1) and 12(2b) of the Covenant). Can this be achieved without a clean and health envi- ronment? The answer is clearly no. Nu- merous WHO publications unequivocally highlight the link between air, water, soil, and noise pollution and ill health, both physical and mental. It is absurd to oppose the explicit men- tion of the right to a clean and healthy environment in the Constitution, while at the same time claiming to uphold the right to the highest standard of health. It is the equivalent of someone being deeply concerned about lung cancer while at the same time chain smoking cigarettes. One would have expected Malta's ratification of the covenant would have prompted the inclusion of the right to a clean and healthy environment in the Constitution. One would also have expected some rea- soning behind the PL's and Dalli's oppo- sition but instead we got fear mongering. We were told that this change will en- danger our habits, traditions and certain economic activities. But no details were provided as to how this could happen. Compromising public health for private habits If Dalli is correct, then she is effec- tively saying that public health, a public good, can be compromised for the sake of private habits, traditions, and eco- nomic activities. Take one practical example. In Malta, the summer months are characterised by the festa season, which includes the letting of fireworks. Fireworks include perchlorate salts as an oxidiser, which has been shown, by research carried out by the Chemistry Department at the University of Malta, to contaminate soils and water resources. My own re- search has shown that fireworks con- tribute to the atmospheric load of PM 2.5, very fine dust, that penetrates deep into the alveoli of the human lungs. Other colleagues have determined the presence of fine dust from fireworks in indoor dust too. It is known that the perchlorate ion interferes with hormone production in the thyroid therefore po- tentially exposing a large proportion of the population to health effects. Should a large part of the population be ex- posed to thyroid malfunction—to put it mildly—just to safeguard an activity deemed traditional? Does the label "tra- ditional" absolve us of responsibility for public health? The same applies to economic activ- ities. Socialising costs (ill health is in itself a cost) for the sake of private prof- its, is an anthema for me. I would have thought that Dalli, who is supposedly a socialist, holds the same opinion on this. Some might argue that health could be protected through specific legislation. But here, too, the devil is in the detail. I spent 16 years of my life working in environmental regulation and I know too well that the vast majority of the laws in Malta's environmental statute are derived from EU Environmental Law. EU Environmental Law targets is- sues that are important at the EU level. It is understood that issues of national importance are targetted by nation- The right to a healthy environment Mark M. Scerri Lecturer in environmental sciences 10 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 8 OCTOBER 2025 OPINION In reality, the motion is extremely simple; so basic, that one would think it hard to oppose! Who, in their right mind, wouldn't want such a right enshrined? PN MPs Rebekah Borg and Darren Carabott presenting the bill to introduce the right to a healthy environment in the Constitution, which was eventually voted down by the government