Rights for ramblers - November 18, 2005

The letter by Theodore Sammut about rights for ramblers (November 12) correctly highlights the odious comparison of the sad plight of ramblers in Malta with the plethora of rambling rights now enjoyed in England and Wales.

From the aspect of this sacred birthright, it is safe to say that ramblers in Malta were far better off during the British rule than they are today. Suffice it to say that a map of the Maltese islands of the late 19th century, that is to be seen hanging in the corridor of the National Archives building of Santu Spirtu in Rabat, defines, under General References, both the "Foreshore open to the general public subject to be reoccupied by the War Department for purposes of imperial defence" and the "Privilege of way in certain localities reserved for the civil population or ways to be kept public" and these are colour marked on the map. Respect of the sacred birthright was considered sacrosanct.

Today, over 100 years later, including 40 years of statehood, this small nation cannot manage a definitive map and legislation to assert and protect the rights of its citizens to the use and enjoyment of the foreshore and the countryside. Even though large tracts of land were taken or cordoned off for imperial defence purposes, the Maltese rambler of bygone days still enjoyed larger tracts of countryside than remain today and with freedom that is nowadays enviable. Today, everywhere and a mile is rendered out of bounds by unbridled illegalities, contraptions of all sorts, harassment in all forms and dispossession by mean schemes. Such Third World practices in an EU state is truly unbelievable.

Let me, as secretary of the Ramblers Association of Malta, assure Mr Sammut that the association considers that it has no laurels to sit on since there are no achievements to its credit save for the increased awareness among the educated Maltese of the sustained environmental negligence government inaction is fostering.

To be fair, the association did have some positive reactions in its initial contacts with the authorities and its expectations were running high. Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, in particular, seemed to take a "hands on" attitude to the concern about the state of things out there, with the deputy Attorney General being asked, in the presence of the association's president and myself, to see to the process of legislating to open certain pathways for the public forthwith, as a start. Why the process was halted abruptly is unexplainable. The new committee is following up the issue with the parliamentary secretary.

That Environment Minister George Pullicino has now acknowledged the need to urgently move against the unacceptable situation is positive but he also needs to adopt a "hands on" attitude lest his effort proves too little too late. He must rope in his fellow ministers, indeed all the administration, to achieve "a lot more enforcement in the area" rather than disown responsibility by stating that "this does not fall under Mepa's responsibility". Or is it implied that the present Cabinet is unable to insist on law enforcement in the countryside?

The impression is given that every government authority is trying to pass the buck on some other authority. Responsibility of the countryside seems so disoriented and fragmented among different government departments that it reflects like a mirror image the fragmented authority found in the countryside among hunter, tiller or speculator, dog or bulldozer. Certainly not the best example of good governance!

The Ramblers' Association of Malta is aware that the work for the new committee will be frustrating. However, it needs to be done, in cooperation with other environmental NGOs, to enlighten the authorities in question that sustaining the status quo is tantamount to sustaining environmental negligence.