Carmel Cacopardo

Earlier this week, the Opposition, in Parliament, presented an amendment to the Constitution in order to embed environmental rights. This is definitely a good step even though it is quite late and downright opportunistic at this point in time.

It is pertinent to point out that the Constitution already, in article 9, establishes the environment as one of the principles which governments should address and protect. This article 9 forms part of the list of principles enshrined in the Constitution since 1964. The said article 9 has been tweaked some 7 years ago through a Constitutional amendment presented by then Environment Minister José Herrera.

As amended, article 9 states as follows: The state shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the nation. The state shall protect and conserve the environment and its resources for the benefit of the present and future generations and shall take measures to address any form of environmental degradation in Malta, including that of air, water and land and any sort of pollution problem and to promote, nurture and support the right of action in favour of the environment.

This article is one of a set of principles which our Constitution considers to be of fundamental importance.

It is unfortunate that this list of principles enshrined in the Constitution is then followed by article 21 which declares that these principles shall not be enforced in a Court of Law but that they shall be “fundamental to the governance of the country” and that it shall be the aim of the State to apply them.

Over the years this same strategy of declaring adherence to a set of principles and then ensuring that you cannot go to a Court of Law to enforce them has also been followed up in legislation on both Development Planning as well as the Environment.

Rather than introducing new articles in the Constitution, it would be more appropriate to reinforce the existing Constitution by removing completely article 21, that is the article which prevents the right to enforcement of the declared Constitutional principles, including the environmental ones. Substituting article 21 with a new article establishing the right of the citizen to act when governance of the state is not up to the accepted standard would be more appropriate in this day and age.

This is specifically one of the proposals which ADPD-The Green Party has submitted for the consideration of the now stalled Constitutional Convention. It is also a proposal which we have repeatedly submitted in our electoral manifestos.

I have followed the Parliamentary Debate on Thursday. During the debate it was clear that the Opposition was primarily after introducing an accountability mechanism to ensure that environmental rights are not dependent on the whims of government. The objective was laudable but the means chosen to legislate was, in my view, strategically flawed.

The point of departure in the discussion to hold government accountable to implement its environmental duties should have been the agreed text of article 9 of the Constitution. This was agreed to unanimously in 2018 and consequently it could have been a suitable reference point for the debate.

As a result of following this alternative path, the PN could have avoided the considerable political fallout which it had to face. Whether it would have succeeded in its endeavors to entrench accountability on environmental matters in the Constitution is another matter altogether. Unfortunately, not everybody is at ease with accountability. This is the only logical conclusion from Thursday’s parliamentary debate.

It is essential that we have to act in full respect of nature and natural forces, otherwise we will have to face the consequences, many of which are already underway and leaving visible detrimental impacts. There is no bailout from an eco-system collapse: havoc inevitably follows. This is clearly manifested in nature’s response in the form of natural disasters, in particular through the impacts of climate change.

Greening our Constitution is definitely a positive step forward. Entrenching a respect for nature and natural forces in our Constitution could avoid future problems and help guide us in solving the ones accumulated to date: the whole list of them.

The debate leading to the rejection of the Opposition amendment clearly identified an almost unanimous agreement on the objective. Unfortunately, the selected tool was inappropriate. There were however a number of positives resulting from the debate: we now have a large number of environmental converts!

Carmel Cacopardo is ADPD-The Green Party Deputy Chairperson

First published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 5 October 2025