NGOs, Momentum back PN's environment bill, FKNK, developers are against

Updated with MDA reaction below.

Nine NGOs and Momentum on Wednesday backed the PN's bill to introduce the 'right to the environment' as an enforceable human right in the Constitution. 

The hunters' federation, however, said the bill, proposed by MP Darren Carabott, was "totally unacceptable".

Ahead of the first reading on Monday, PN's leader Alex Borg said Malta was facing a harsh reality – unplanned development, polluted air, threats to the sea and a lack of open spaces where people could relax and enjoy fresh air.

The solution lay in giving the environment the highest level of protection under the supreme law of the land, he added.

On Wednesday, nine environmental NGOs said they supported the Opposition's bill.

The proposed right, they said in a statement, would help put a stop to the "continued and malicious undermining" of environmental protection, which has been the trend of the last few decades.

The NGOs are: Ramblers' Association of Malta, Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Friends of the Earth Malta, Moviment Graffitti, Birdlife Malta, Nature Trust Malta, Wirt Għawdex and Għawdix.

"Land, water, air, ecosystems and the aesthetic coherence of our environment will be protected. Using this right, every person will have the right to challenge laws and policies which have the intention of destroying Malta and Gozo for the continued benefit of the few."

They urged government MPs to support the PN's bill, which, they added, would benefit the vast majority of their constituents.

"[We] strongly believe that this bill is a historic opportunity which should not be squandered and which could be a transformative moment towards a better future for our country," they added.

Similarly, Momentum backed the bill, saying it was lending its full support.

"This proposed constitutional change is of paramount importance and would require a two-thirds majority in parliament. This would make environmental safeguards far more difficult to reverse or weaken in the future."

Urging Labour MPs to also back it, Momentum said, regardless of political affiliation, every representative must recognise the urgent need to protect the nation's natural heritage.

"Our land, sea, and air have been deteriorating for years due to uncontrolled and often illegal development," Momentum’s General Secretary, Mark Camilleri Gambin, added.

"The environment is the very lifeline of our country, and its protection is a matter of conscience for every person who holds public office. We believe this constitutional change is an essential step toward preserving Malta for present and future generations.”

The party will, on Saturday, join a protest, organised by some 50 NGOs at 10am in Valletta to press the authorities to withdraw controversial bills changing the development planning process. 

'Totally unacceptable': FKNK

Also on Wednesday morning, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation – Malta (FKNK) - which described hunters and trappers as "the main defenders of the Maltese islands' natural environment" - came out against the bill.

The draft, it claimed, was "draconian" and could only be welcomed by "extremists".

While it welcomed "any adequate, just and fair legislation that safeguards the conservation of this environment", Carabott's proposal was "totally unacceptable".

It said in a statement that article 45A defined 'environment' very broadly to include air, water, land, ecosystems, biodiversity, natural resources and also social and cultural conditions.  The same article allowed any person in Malta, regardless of personal interest, to take legal action if the right to a healthy environment is threatened or violated.  

"Such legal challenges could be used to introduce stricter regulations and enforcement, or even to abolish various hobbies, traditions, social customs, sports, recreations and other Maltese practices.  

"Apart from hunting and trapping, examples include fireworks, recreational fishing, off-roading and feasts, besides many others."

FKNK fears the proposed amendment would empower the Civil or Constitutional Court to order urgent measures if it deems a breach of environmental law to be serious.

This, it warned, could mean that the courts could suspend activities such as hunting and trapping in certain areas or seasons if they were considered to cause significant environmental damage.  

"These urgent measures are the infamous 'interim measures' ordered by the European Court in 2009, 2010 and 2011, which resulted in the closure of the spring hunting season until the European Commission concluded its case against Malta regarding traditional and socio-cultural spring hunting.

"In the FKNK's humble opinion, therefore, this draft is draconian and has no place in a civil democracy - it can only be welcomed by extremist groups and individuals seeking to achieve their aims through means other than those available legally and democratically."

Another hunters' association, Kaċċaturi San Ubertu (KSU) said that constitutional reform must be balanced and inclusive, reflecting not only the duty to protect nature but also the rights of those who live closest to the land and its traditions.  

It said that if environmental rights are to be recognised in the Constitution, then equal consideration must be given to enshrining the right to practise traditional and regulated hunting and trapping. "Constitutional protection should not be used as a weapon to curtail traditions but as a framework for coexistence, fairness, and responsibility." 

Malta Developers' Association 'concerned'

The Malta Development Association (MDA) said it was 'concerned' by the Opposition's proposed amendment.

"First of all, from a Nationalist Party that regularly criticises the government for a lack of consultation, one would have expected a process of consultation with all interested parties. This absence undermines both the content and the process through which the Opposition presented this amendment," the association said.

It said that through.the way this amendment had been presented, it was concerned that the Opposition wishes for planning to no longer form part of the mandate of the Planning Authority—regardless of which government is in office—but instead to become a matter for the courts. This would increase bureaucracy and uncertainty, while discouraging both investors and families, who would face large and unexpected court expenses even for small-scale projects.

"The direct effect of what the Opposition is proposing would be a further artificial increase in property prices, adding even more pressure on young people."

The MDA urged the Opposition to follow through on its own criticism of the government: withdraw this proposal, carry out an impact assessment, and embark on a broad consultation process.

The rule of law NGO Repubblika said it welcomed the opposition's bill, but added that it remained of the view that the Constitution should not be amended piecemeal.

It pointed out that the government had promised a constitutional convention to revise the document, but this had never come about.