When good intentions are not enough

The late Michael Falzon, a former Nationalist minister, had questioned in an opinion piece published in MaltaToday (6 June 2023), the judiciousness of the Nationalist Party’s proposal to make the protection of the environment a human right. 

At the time the PN had launched a public consultation on its proposal before drafting a private member’s bill to amend the Constitution and include the right to “live in a clean, healthy and sustainable” environment alongside other fundamental human rights. 

The parliamentary debate on the PN’s proposal was eventually held last Thursday, two years later, and the amendment was rejected after the government side voted against. 

In retrospect, Michael Falzon’s commentary was a cautionary message that the PN seems to have overlooked at its expense. Falzon had said: “I do not doubt the PN’s good intentions behind its proposal but one must be careful to avoid launching a process that could generate even many more complicated problems. The PN should be careful not to propose the opening of the proverbial Pandora’s Box.” 

Falzon had posed several questions back then to highlight the complications he was referring to. We quote from Falzon’s opinion piece: “Will the ‘right to the environment’ of citizen A be considered more important than ‘the right to enjoy one’s property’ of citizen B? The problem is that there are many actions that are subjectively considered to be harmful to the environment while they are not illegal. Should the Constitution protect subjective opinions, rather than the right for citizens to have a subjective opinion? Can one breach the Constitution for an act because of a subjective opinion about the effects of one’s actions?” 

Falzon may have appeared to be nit-picking at the time. Using the Constitution to protect the environment has a noble ring to it. But the truth is when the PN bill eventually made it to parliament last Thursday for a debate and vote, Pandora’s Box did open up. 

Opposition to the PN’s proposal started pouring in from several unlikely quarters—the Motorsport Federation, the Malta Football Association, the Federation of Arms Collectors and Target Shooters (FACTS), the hunting lobby and others involved in festas. These organisations all expressed concern over the bill’s broad wording, which they interpreted as a possible threat to their sport or hobby. 

FACTS warned that the broad wording could expose legitimate sporting and recreational organisations to “frivolous or politically motivated litigation”. 

Whether these organisations were pressured to take a public stand against the bill by the government is up to them to say. But although it did appear too coincidental that all of a sudden, they woke up on the morning of the debate to express their concern, the points raised, just as the questions put by Falzon two years ago, do have a legitimate basis and need to be addressed. No one from the PN, it seems, anticipated this type of opposition from these groups, which makes you wonder what type of consultation process had taken place two years ago. 

In the face of these developments the PN should have taken a step back, withdrawn the bill and gone back to the drawing board to determine how the concerns raised could be addressed within the constitutional framework. 

We have no doubt the PN’s proposal was well-intentioned. It proposed a fix to the ongoing frustration in several localities with rampant construction that denatures communities and the development of virgin land most of which was ironically added to the development zones by a Nationalist government in 2006. However, it appears that the fix was not thought out well, giving rise to a backlash that in pure numbers is possibly stronger than the support to the bill given by environmental groups. 

The whole episode should serve as a learning curve for the PN. While environmental protection is important, the social implications of certain decisions can never be underestimated, or ignored. On the contrary, they need to be addressed. 

As for the Labour government, it should be wary of trying to claim any victory of sorts. The truth is, we still have two bills tabled in parliament by the government that risk undermining the little checks and balances that exist today in the planning process, and legal notices intended to regularise illegal structures that make very little distinction between venial and mortal sins. 

At this juncture and within current circumstances, we would rather see existing laws on environmental protection being enforced and the planning process reformed to ensure the highest protection for the environment and communities through a transparent, clear and just decision-making system rather than lose time on a constitutional amendment with significant complications.