The Mosta trees massacre shows, once again, that the environment is certainly not a priority for those in office.

The mismanagement of 12 ficus trees started with an idea from the Mosta mayor. According to press reports, this idea was discussed at a council meeting where it was approved. However, what the mayor failed to do next was to discuss this idea with all stakeholders, namely Mosta residents, NGOs and individuals who have an interest.

According to the media, early in November, the mayor approached ERA’s CEO for a permit to uproot the 12 ficus trees. And ERA obliged.

Press reports also said that the ficus trees would be transplanted elsewhere and replaced by Judas trees (siġra ta’ Ġuda) and holm oaks (ballut).

The public was consequently greeted by naked trees that once graced Mosta square, all butchered during the cover of darkness. Stakeholders were up in arms. The NGO Graffitti led protests against such mismanagement.

The architects involved in the design and landscaping of the area distanced themselves from this ‘landscaping’ idea, saying that they always try to take in consideration the trees on site.

ERA has officials who are qualified in biodiversity and its conservation. They are all aware of the social and ecological negative impacts that the uprooting of these 12 ficus trees would have.

These include the disappearance of the aesthetic contribution the trees were giving to the square, less clean air, the loss of protection from the sun, wind and rain, the loss of open green space and the loss of biodiversity, such as the destruction of the roosting habitat for migratory birds, mainly the white wagtail (zakak), which is protected both locally and also by European Union legislation.

The people at ERA know all this and also know that the recommended holm oak trees are not adequate for replacing the ficus trees. The holm oak is much stronger and grows very slowly but there is nothing to prevent it from reaching any cistern in the vicinity. ERA would never suggest that ficus trees would be replaced with holm oaks in such an urban area.

Considering the above, one wonders why ERA issued the permit for the destruction of trees.

In fact, ERA has never taken a stand for the protection of any tree. Permits were issued for the destruction of trees at the Attard Central Link, Mġarr, Naxxar, Santa Luċija, Qormi, Rabat and Ta’ Qali, just to mention a few. Could it be because of the imprinted mentality which those responsible for ERA brought with them from the Planning Authority?

The depth of the lack of appreciation, lack of knowledge on biodiversity and its professional management knows no bounds. On Campus FM recently, an architect said that the removal of the trees was a good aesthetic decision because the trees were obstructing the vision of the church in its entirety.

This reminds one when trees were destroyed because somebody could not see the statue of the village patron being carried outside and back into the parish church. And because somebody could not see fireworks from the balcony.

Permits were issued for the destruction of trees in Attard, Mġarr, Naxxar, Santa Luċija, Qormi, Rabat and Ta’ Qali- Alfred Baldacchino

Furthermore, the architect added that this is just a storm in a tea cup and he was surprised how this could create such a public uproar, adding that the trees would be replaced by Judas trees and holm oaks. The architect is a former environment minister.

Stakeholders involved in efforts to save the trees have not only proved him completely wrong but they have contributed to a decision which ERA’s top brass should have taken in the first place. 

Alfred Baldacchino

The reversal of the Mosta council decision to uproot the trees and the efforts ERA is making to patch up its blunder show that the ERA permit was just a permit of convenience. 

Alfred Baldacchino is a former MEPA assistant director.