Malta ratifies Europe landscape treaty after 25 years

On May 26, 2025, the Republic of Malta formally completed the ratification of the Council of Europe Landscape Convention, marking a full quarter-century since the country initially endorsed the agreement in 2000. With this action, Malta becomes the 41st State Party to the Convention, which was adopted in Florence in October 2000.

Although the ratification marks a significant milestone in Malta’s environmental policy on paper, it has also raised serious questions about the sincerity of the government’s intentions, particularly in light of the country’s track record on land use and development over the past two decades.

Background of the Landscape Convention

The Council of Europe Landscape Convention, often referred to as the Florence Convention, was the first international treaty to recognize the importance of landscapes as part of people’s quality of life, cultural heritage, and environmental well-being. The Convention seeks to encourage public authorities to implement policies that protect, manage, and plan landscapes across all settings—not merely those considered natural or scenic, but also urban, industrial, and everyday spaces.

In addition to preservation efforts, the Convention calls for the integration of landscape policy into national planning, agriculture, and infrastructure strategies. It also fosters international cooperation and public involvement in landscape decision-making.

Malta's late ratification and current political context

Malta’s ratification comes at a politically symbolic moment: the country is currently serving as president of the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe—the organization’s chief decision-making body. This position carries an expectation that member states will promote the Council’s core values, including democracy, human rights, and environmental stewardship.

However, despite the announcement, there remains public skepticism about Malta’s commitment to environmental governance. The decades-long delay in ratifying a treaty that most other European countries implemented within a few years of signing raises significant doubts. Environmental observers note that the government’s sudden commitment to the Convention coincides with its temporary high-profile position at the Council, prompting criticism that the move may be more performative than substantive.

Malta’s evolving landscape: A tale of transformation

In the 25 years since signing the Convention, Malta has experienced a profound transformation of its physical environment. Once characterized by terraced agricultural fields, stone farmhouses, and sweeping vistas of the Mediterranean, Malta is now increasingly defined by its rapid urbanization, construction sites, and loss of open space.

A building boom, driven by both local and foreign investment, has led to an explosion of high-rise developments, particularly in urban centers like Sliema, St. Julian’s, and Gżira. Cranes and tower blocks dominate skylines where church steeples and traditional limestone homes once stood.

The impacts of this unchecked development have been deeply felt across the country. Rural and coastal areas, once protected or considered off-limits, have seen controversial rezoning and land-use changes. The Planning Authority, the entity responsible for development permissions, has been accused of enabling this transformation through lax enforcement and policies that favor commercial interests over environmental preservation.

Environmental concerns and public criticism

For years, Maltese environmental NGOs, local councils, and academic experts have voiced concerns about the degradation of the island’s natural and cultural landscapes. Organizations such as Din l-Art Ħelwa, Moviment Graffitti, and Friends of the Earth Malta have repeatedly highlighted the environmental costs of unregulated construction, including habitat destruction, increased pollution, and loss of public access to natural sites.

A recurrent criticism centers on the Planning Authority’s interpretation of policies and its apparent leniency toward developers, even when projects encroach upon sensitive zones or face public opposition. Numerous development permits have been granted despite objections from residents, heritage bodies, and environmental consultants.

In many cases, strategic plans have been overridden or ignored in favor of ad hoc approvals. Critics argue that economic interests continue to take precedence over long-term environmental sustainability, and that existing regulatory frameworks are insufficiently robust to prevent further damage.

What the ratification means in practice

Under the terms of the Convention, Malta is now legally obliged to integrate landscape considerations into all relevant areas of policymaking, including urban development, agricultural practices, infrastructure projects, and cultural initiatives. This would require substantial reforms in planning law, land-use policy, and environmental governance.

Specifically, the Convention mandates the identification and assessment of all landscape types, the establishment of quality objectives for these landscapes, and the implementation of measures to conserve and enhance them. It also promotes public participation in landscape management and seeks to raise awareness of landscape issues across society.

Whether Malta will take the necessary steps to fulfill these obligations remains uncertain. There is currently no published action plan or legislative timetable outlining how the government will incorporate the Convention’s provisions into domestic law.

Government silence and lack of transparency

Another source of criticism is the government's failure to explain the prolonged delay in ratification. Since first signing the Convention in October 2000, successive administrations have refrained from taking the final step to ratify it. No official reasons have been provided for the quarter-century delay, and the latest announcement lacked any retrospective accountability.

Moreover, the government has not provided details about how it intends to monitor compliance with the Convention or what institutional changes might be required to implement it. The absence of a transparent framework raises concerns that the ratification could be a symbolic gesture rather than a catalyst for meaningful change.

Landscape loss: Too little, too late?

By the time of its ratification, many of the landscapes the Convention was designed to protect in Malta have already been irreversibly altered or lost. Large portions of open countryside have been developed or rezoned, coastal areas have been transformed by tourism infrastructure, and urban sprawl has blurred the once-clear distinction between rural and metropolitan environments.

This erosion of Malta’s unique landscape identity has not gone unnoticed. UNESCO and the European Environment Agency have both noted the environmental pressures facing the island. Some heritage experts argue that Malta is approaching a tipping point, beyond which restoration of traditional landscapes may no longer be feasible.

In this context, critics of the government’s environmental policies view the ratification as a case of too little, too late. Without urgent and enforceable measures, they warn that the Convention’s principles may remain aspirational rather than actionable.

International and domestic expectations

Malta's role as the current president of the Council of Europe has drawn heightened attention from the international community. There is an expectation that the country will lead by example, especially in promoting the Council’s values. Failure to implement the Convention meaningfully could undermine its credibility on environmental issues at a European level.

Domestically, public sentiment has grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of environmental leadership. Activists and community groups are likely to use the ratification as leverage to demand stronger regulatory action and to hold the government accountable to its international commitments.

Conclusion

Malta’s ratification of the Council of Europe Landscape Convention signals, at least on an official level, a pledge to enhance environmental oversight and promote sustainable management of its landscapes. However, the context in which this commitment has been made—after a 25-year delay, amid a legacy of overdevelopment and environmental degradation—renders the gesture suspect in the eyes of many observers.

The government must now demonstrate that this ratification is more than political theater. It must commit to concrete reforms, enhance public participation, and enforce planning policies that genuinely respect and protect Malta’s diverse landscapes.

Whether that transformation will occur remains to be seen.

FAQs

Why did Malta delay ratifying the Landscape Convention for 25 years?
The government has not provided a specific explanation for the delay. Critics suggest that political and economic priorities, including a pro-development stance, may have contributed to the hesitation.

What does the Landscape Convention require from Malta?
Malta must now integrate landscape considerations into policy sectors such as planning, agriculture, infrastructure, and cultural management, and promote public involvement in these areas.

Will this ratification lead to real environmental reform in Malta?
That remains unclear. While the Convention imposes obligations, Malta's history of weak enforcement and developer influence casts doubt on its implementation.

What changes might be seen if Malta properly implements the Convention?
If implemented faithfully, there could be stricter controls on development, more public consultation in planning, and better protection for rural and urban landscapes.

Is the ratification legally binding?
Yes, once ratified, the Convention becomes a binding international obligation that Malta is required to observe in its domestic legal and policy frameworks.

Has any landscape already been lost due to Malta’s development?
Yes, many previously undeveloped or culturally significant areas have been altered or built upon during the 25 years Malta delayed ratification.

Are there any penalties for non-compliance with the Convention?
The Convention does not carry direct enforcement penalties, but non-compliance may damage Malta's credibility in international forums and invite criticism from watchdogs.

How have NGOs reacted to the ratification?
While some welcomed the move, many NGOs remain skeptical, viewing it as a potentially symbolic act rather than a genuine commitment to change.

Can the ratification still have a positive impact?
Yes, if accompanied by legislative reform, public engagement, and proper enforcement, the ratification could improve landscape protection over time.

What role does the Council of Europe play in overseeing the Convention?
The Council monitors implementation and facilitates cooperation between member states but does not enforce compliance in a legal sense.