On April 17, writing in this newspaper, ERA’s CEO, Michelle Piccinino, regaled us with a plethora of legal actions devised to afford protection to trees, from increased species lists to additional zones declared as Tree Protection Area (TPA) and then proceeded with a multitude of legalistic arguments to justify why ERA did not protect, but permitted, the cutting of hundreds-of-years-old trees at Dingli.

But the legislation is neither a tool limited to declaring species and sites as protected nor just a tool to dish out permits. The legislation is also a tool for enforcing the protection afforded on paper and, for completeness' sake, it was expected of ERA’s CEO to also inform us about the measures being taken in this regard by the institution she heads.

She seems to suggest that several trees are being saved the chop by the provision of behind-the-scenes advice on mitigation measures and redesign aspects that can be implemented on projects as part of the environment impact assessment for development applications.

But what about those aspects in the legislation that directly empower ERA to conserve trees? A cursory examination of ERA's website reveals a multitude of permits being dished out to cut trees. As a reassurance to the public, can ERA inform us on how many occasions they utilised the same legislation empowering it to grant permits to refuse to grant permits instead, on grounds that the trees' conservation value was deemed to be much more important than the reasons put forward by the applicant for their destruction or mutilation?

Also, there is no information, published with the same zeal, as that detailing the permits granted that makes reference to any enforcement action against those who offend the Trees and Woodlands Protection Regulations. Is this perhaps because permitting tree destruction is the order of the day while taking legal action against perpetrators is such a rare occurrence that ERA's CEO conveniently decided to leave out this aspect in her contribution, lest the failures of the institution that she leads become increasingly apparent?

Just a day later, we get Infrastructure Malta's CEO,  Frederick Azzopardi boasting about his agency's achievements, this time in Malta Today, publishing statistic after statistic on the stretches of surfaced roads, the number of bridges and quays constructed, tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions saved from being pumped into the atmosphere due to better traffic flow, travel time saved by motorists and millions spent.

An examination of ERA's website reveals a multitude of permits being dished out to cut trees- Robert Cutajar

If the two articles were a competition between both CEOs at who is the best at conveniently omitting their institutions' failures at protecting what's left of Malta's environment, Azzopardi beat ERA's CEO by far. The former even had the cheek to claim that sustainability was one of the core values that guide his agency in its work

But the public needs reassurance that goes beyond the fanfare. So, can Infrastructure Malta's CEO kindly enlighten the public with the statistics that matter to be able to gauge how truly he sticks to sustainability as a core value?

What the public needs to know is how many times his environmentally damaging works were stopped by ERA after they were found being carried out without an ERA permit. What about informing the public on how many occasions Infrastructure Malta was found by ERA  breaching the Trees and Woodlands Protection Regulations to construct his much-beloved Central Link Project? How about telling the public how many trees were illegally cut down on these occasions?

What about informing the public on how much less carbon dioxide will be absorbed from the atmosphere because of the number of trees chopped down? How many times did Infrastructure Malta carry out environmentally damaging interventions in Special Areas of Conservation without an ERA permit? How many projects were started by Infrastructure Malta without a Planning Authority permit? How many projects were conducted ignoring Malta's cultural heritage protection legislation, resulting in damage to features of cultural interest?

How many times were orders issued so that works that were illegally carried be reversed? How much did the sites' rehabilitation, ordered by regulatory institutions after Infrastructure Malta’s lack of adherence to the laws, cost the taxpayer? How many kilometres of protected rubble walls adjacent to country lanes have been flooded by concrete used in insensitive road surfacing? How much agricultural land and natural habitat was lost to Infrastructure Malta's projects?

But it is not only issues directly related to sustainability that need to be clarified. Sustainability can never be achieved unless coupled with good governance. Which brings me to another set of questions whose answers may potentially reveal statistics that Azzopardi would rather have unadvertised.

How many times did Infrastructure Malta send its contractors to bulldoze private land without expropriating it beforehand in a legitimate manner? How much land area was bulldozed in this way?   How many projects were carried out as ‘emergency’ works to avoid applying for a PA permit which would expose it to public scrutiny?

Undoubtedly, both institutions’ actions or inactions are resulting in an accelerated degeneration of Malta’s natural and historical heritage. Make no mistake, the Nationalist Party shall be holding both institutions to account on behalf of the Maltese public that is increasingly suffering from this legislature's lack of governance.

I will continue to commit myself to making the PN credible and a worthy alternative, with respect for the environment of our country, with respect for the common good.

Robert Cutajar, PN spokesperson on environment and climate change