Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1540302
IN recent years government has taken some important steps to strengthen envi- ronmental protection. In 2018, environ- mental protection was recognised in our Constitution for the first time. Since then, legislation such as the Environment Pro- tection Act, the Climate Action Act, and stricter environmental permitting rules were introduced. However, the work is far from complete. Pressures on our natural environment continue to grow, and laws that were for- ward-looking a few years ago must keep evolving. To this end we launched a green paper; an open consultation inviting every- one to share their views on how we can im- prove our legal framework to better protect the environment for the future. The green paper process is about listen- ing. It is about encouraging broad partici- pation from citizens, civil society, business- es, environmental organisations, cultural associations, and experts. Only by gather- ing the widest range of perspectives can we ensure that any constitutional or legislative changes reflect the common good. When legislating, responsibility demands a careful, structured approach. Proposals must be studied; undergo legal and tech- nical analysis. They must be tested against economic and social realities, and their po- tential environmental impact. That is the process we have followed in this legislature whenever new laws, regulations, or com- munity initiatives were advanced. It is precisely for this reason that the green paper is being launched. It creates a structured, transparent and inclusive con- sultation before any decision is made. The Opposition has recently presented its own proposal for a constitutional amend- ment to include the environment as a fun- damental human right under Chapter 4 of the Constitution. It is clear this proposal generated concern among various stake- holders. Social partners, sports associa- tions, voluntary organisations, and cultural groups voiced fears that the amendment, in its current form, is open to multiple in- terpretations and risks creating legal un- certainty. Ombudsman Joseph Zammit McKeon voiced his opinion that we should be open to protecting the environment through our legal framework however he warned that inserting environmental rights into Chapter IV of the Constitution with- out clear parameters risks opening Pando- ra's Box. These concerns should not be dismissed as they highlight why broad consultation and rigorous impact assessments are nec- essary. Legislation must strengthen rights without inadvertently weakening other legitimate activities, whether they be in sport, culture, or industry. We cannot af- ford to pass laws that invite confusion, di- vision, or endless litigation. We must approach any constitutional change seriously. It is not enough to pub- lish a proposal on social media and seek quick approval. A constitutional amend- ment is not, and should never be, about political expediency. It should be about shaping the foundations of our society for generations to come. We are committed to ensuring that any change is the result of analysis and consen- sus-building. The green paper is an oppor- tunity for the Opposition, and indeed for every citizen, to contribute constructively to the process. Our record shows that we are capable of delivering meaningful reforms. In the past decade, Malta has achieved some of the cleanest coastal waters in Europe, thanks to major investments in wastewater. Re- newable energy capacity has expanded significantly. The protection of sites such as Ħondoq ir-Rummien from overdevel- opment demonstrates our determination to protect natural landscapes. Agricultural land in Bulebel has been preserved, and re- forms in land tenure are helping secure the livelihoods of farmers. We have also taken steps on air quality. Moving away from heavy fuel oil and in- vesting in shore-to-ship power has already improved living conditions in port com- munities, and we will continue expanding these initiatives. Climate action, too, has been strengthened, with the establishment of a dedicated climate authority; the first of its kind in Europe. These are tangible actions that improve the daily lives of families, workers, and communities. They also show that pro- gress is possible when policy is based on dialogue and investment. Of course, no government can claim the work is done. Environmental challenges are ever evolving. Pressures from devel- opment, waste management, and climate change require us to remain vigilant, am- bitious, and open to new ideas. That is why the green paper is such a crucial step. It will not be simply a government doc- ument. It will be the people's document— shaped by consultation and refined by the collective wisdom of society. I encourage NGOs, social partners, professional bodies, youth organisations, and individual citi- zens to take part. Our commitment remains to strengthen the protection of the environment in our laws. But any change must be studied, le- gally sound, and socially fair. That is what responsible leadership demands. The debate should not be about who gets the credit for raising the issue, but about how we, as a nation, can move forward together. Only then will constitutional re- form truly deliver lasting benefits for all. 6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 OCTOBER 2025 OPINION Miriam Dalli A national conversation on the environment Minister for the environment, energy and Grand Harbour regeneration Luke Said Bills 143 and 144: Cutting people out of the conversation PN candidate LATELY, reading the news has felt like stumbling into a soap opera written by Kaf- ka and directed by Machiavelli. Between Bills 143 and 144, the push to amend the Constitution, and the latest arithmetic in the Fortina valuation saga, it's a wonder any journalist in this country has slept. Hats off to them; the fourth estate remains our only dependable watchdog, even if it must bark through exhaustion. But let us turn to the week's legislative protagonists: Bills 143 and 144. Their offi- cial titles are draped in words like "efficien- cy" and "streamlining". In modern political grammar, efficiency often means less scrutiny, and streamlining means cutting the public out of the process. Planning law is, admittedly, not the sort of thing that quickens the pulse. Yet these bills profoundly matter because they decide whether our streets remain a liveable com- munity or become a canyon of concrete. The government loves to repeat that Gozo is an island of villages. Yet every legislative act seems to be drafted as if the goal were to ensure those villages exist only in paintings and postcards. Our right to object We, the people, have the right to voice our opinion. Whether it's labelled as NIMBY- ism or civic concern doesn't really matter. If a development can negatively impact our quality of life, our community, or our shared environment, we all have the right, and the duty, to object to it. This isn't about being anti-progress or anti-development. It's about ensuring the progress we make doesn't come at the cost of liveability, heritage, or sanity. Citizens shouldn't be treated as obstacles in the plan- ning process; they are, and must remain, an essential part of it. But there are a couple re- ality checks that need to be unpacked. Reality check 1: The myth of the petty neighbour One of the more colourful justifications for these bills is the claim that vindictive neighbours are weaponising appeals to stall projects. It is a persuasive tale, but it belongs to fiction. Anyone who has ever at- tempted to file an appeal knows it demands time, money, and resilience; commodities that most citizens would rather invest else- where. Baseless objections are dismissed swiftly; the idea that the system is choked by petty spite is, at best, an imaginative flourish. The prime minister's anecdotes about "innocent applicants" tormented by "jeal- ousneighbours" may make for good thea- tre, but if those permits were truly sound, why would there be a worry that a tribunal would overturn the board's decision? Either the system is broken, or it is being used as a convenient villain to silence the public's voice. Instead of repairing the cracks in the planning process, these bills punish those who expose them. It is, in essence, the leg- islative equivalent of blaming the fire alarm for the smoke. Reality check 2: When authority outgrows accountability Bill 144 would elevate the Planning Au- thority to a status that rivals the courts, and perhaps even surpasses them. We have already seen instances where a court invalidated a permit only for the authority to re-sanction the same project under a new pretext. Un- der this bill, that troubling habit would no longer be an aberration; it would be institutionalised. The courts, instead of overturning a bad decision outright, would be reduced to sending it back to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal rather than forcing appli- cants to kick off the planning process anew. The watchdog would be muzzled and told to fetch. Reality check 3: The Constitution, consultation and convenient timing If there's one proposal that deserves gen- uine applause, is the PN's motion to make environmental protection a fundamental human right in the Constitution. I remember two years back when MPs Darren Carabott and Stanley Zammit reached out to NGOs for consultation, the way proper policymaking is supposed to happen. Contrast this with the stealthy ar- rival of Bills 143 and 144. It was only after public outrage that government announced that a consultation exercise would take place. Consultation, apparently, has be- come a synonym for damage control. The bigger picture These bills tilt the balance further towards those who already have the ear of power— developers, insiders, the well-connected– while pushing citizens and NGOs further to the margins. For years, Malta's planning system has teetered between dysfunction and despair. Instead of righting the bal- ance, these bills would saw it off entire- ly. Appeals will become harder, scrutiny rarer, and accountability optional. The government insists it is cutting red tape; in truth, it is cutting the public out of the conversation.