Nature has no time for divisive politics; nature giveth, nature taketh!

Last week, if you followed the media as I did, you might have noticed that suddenly everyone became a conservationist and an environmentalist. You’d think all sitting parliamentarians had morphed into gardeners, farmers, biodiversity experts, and perhaps even climatologists. Indeed, the recent attempt to enshrine the right to the environment in Malta’s Constitution – through a private members’ bill presented by the Nationalist Party – was misguided, and perhaps a missed opportunity for Malta to have a proper discussion. The proposal, while containing commendable elements, was ultimately half-baked and politically charged, seemingly a reaction to recent negative political optics. It lacked the necessary consultation with stakeholders, including industry, civil society, and legal experts. True, it could have been refined through the committee stage. However, the government rejected the bill, citing that its overly broad definition and potential legal ambiguity might impinge on the country’s cultural traditions. And rightly so, constitutional reform demands precision, especially when today the EU is highly advanced on regulatory matters covering not just climate, but also environment and nature. A glance at the Climate Delegated Act, biodiversity strategies, and nature restoration regulations says it all.

Certainly, the environment is not an outer issue. It is central to our economic resilience, public health, and social justice. Malta has made progress through legislation such as the Environment Protection Act and the Sustainable Development Act, and the establishment of a Climate Change Authority, but the absence of consistent implementation at times places us behind many of our European peers. Recognising the right to the environment in our Constitution would not solve our organisational disorder in planning. Instead, it could fuel further chaos within the system, because the majority of people do not know how to exercise their rights. Only a very few understand the processes, and many are lawyers. The debate, instead of fostering consensus, became a partisan exercise. And that is regrettable, because it was rushed from the outset and a missed opportunity for all.

Let’s consider some of the countries that have implemented this right in their constitutions. Across the European Union, the landscape is mixed. Some member states have taken the bold step of constitutionalising the right to a healthy environment, and this is what I was expecting, not a vague, broad term. Portugal led the way in 1976. France followed with its Environmental Charter in 2004. Finland, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and others have embedded this right in their supreme law. These countries have recognised that environmental protection is not just a policy choice but a fundamental right. Other EU states, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden, have opted for legislative recognition. Germany’s Basic Law, while not explicit, has been interpreted to support environmental rights through its Federal Environmental Protection Act. Italy amended its Constitution in 2022 to include environmental protection, but many others still rely on statutory frameworks. Malta remains among those without constitutional recognition, and the rejection of the recent bill perhaps might reflect a cautious approach. That caution is not unwarranted. A poorly defined constitutional right could lead to legal confusion, conflicting interpretations, and unintended consequences. The questions that arose were varied, from enforceability against private entities to the potential override of planning laws. Even more, there was concern that it could open the door to litigation without clear parameters, especially for pyrotechnic enthusiasts. These questions might be true. However, constitutional law must be coherent, actionable, and aligned with existing frameworks. And it is good to undergo a process to align all relevant applicable laws. But that does not mean we should abandon the idea. It means we must study it properly, consult widely, and build bipartisan consensus. The environment should not be a political football. It should be a shared commitment of safeguarding common heritage of mankind to protect future generations.

Globally, the momentum is clear. In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Though non-binding, it carries moral and political weight. It urges states to incorporate this right into law and policy, and to ensure its implementation through access to justice, public participation, and education. This resolution matters. In remote regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, communities suffer daily from environmental degradation caused by multinational corporations and extractive industries. Toxic waste, deforestation, polluted water, and contaminated air are not theoretical topics, but lived, shocking realities. These communities look to the European Union as a model. The EU’s Green Deal, climate targets, and the environmental regulatory architecture – including the Taxonomy Regulation and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation for the industry – are benchmarks. The fact that we have a European Commissioner for the Environment speaks volumes. Environmental protection is an EU competence, and Malta, as a member state, must align its domestic framework accordingly.

From my position in the financial industry, I see how environmental considerations are shaping credit decisions and investment flows. Through climate and environmental risk frameworks and prudential banking, we screen clients for undue environmental impact, thereby setting targets, limits, and sector exclusions. Sustainable finance packages are tied to measurable outcomes. The European Central Bank has issued guidance on climate and environmental risks, urging institutions to integrate nature-related risks into their portfolios. This is not just compliance but a conscience modus operandi. These are policies to protect the environment. The industry is aligning with the broader societal goal of environmental stewardship. But for this alignment to be effective, it must be matched by political will, legal clarity, and effective implementation.

Recognising the right to a healthy environment in Malta’s Constitution must not become a political skirmish. The Opposition introduced a bill without fully engaging stakeholders. The government dismissed it, citing valid concerns. And then, we – the public – were left with a debate that felt more like disengagement than engagement. We need to do better. We need to mature as a country and move beyond divisive politics. Environmental protection requires more than lofty declarations and rushed private members’ bills. It demands implementation and coherent discussions. That means enforcement, regulatory capacity, and public engagement. And in turn, public engagement provides environmental justice. It means holding polluters accountable and empowering communities. It means ensuring that environmental rights are not just recognised but realised.

I believe what we must agree on is a common bipartisan framework around the Polluter Pays Principle, so that the electorate knows what to expect regardless of which party they vote for. Malta has the tools. What we need is maturity. Recognising the right to a healthy environment – whether constitutionally or legislatively – is not just a legal exercise; it is a moral commitment. And it must be bipartisan. We all agree that the environment matters. We all want cleaner air, safer water, and resilient ecosystems. And we all understand that economic growth must be balanced with ecological integrity. The government, Opposition, and industry may differ in their methods of communication and commitment, but the destination is shared, and we are all ultimately agreeing to arrive at these ambitious political targets and to the same destination.

As Malta continues to navigate its environmental future, let us ensure that our laws reflect our values, our policies reflect our priorities, and our actions reflect our aspirations. Whether through constitutional reform, legislative precision or industry leadership, the path to a sustainable Malta is one we must walk together. And I fully concur to protect the environment because nature giveth and nature taketh.