Environmental failure is a governance failure — and the next government must change the system | Prof. Marcelo Sternberg

News editions in Israel open, and rightly so, with war, security, and the uncertainty that accompanies our lives. But precisely in a country that has lived for years in a state of emergency, it is time to stop treating the environment as a luxury that can be postponed until the day when it is quiet here. The climate crisis, the loss of open spaces and biodiversity, soil degradation, air and water pollution, and the waste crisis are not waiting for the war to end. They are already here.

It seems that the wave of extremism sweeping Israel is also reflected in its climate: Israel is heating up and drying out, and extreme events are becoming a more tangible part of our lives. Heat waves, droughts, fires, and floods are not a forecast for 2050. The State Comptroller has already warned that the risks threaten the water and energy sectors, infrastructure, public health, agriculture, and food security.

At the same time, the official biodiversity index continues to point to deterioration, and between 2015 and 2023, almost 148,000 dunams of natural areas were lost in Israel. Israel also continues to grow rapidly. In a small and crowded country, rapid population growth means more apartments, roads, railways, energy, and infrastructure — and almost every such addition has an environmental price.

This is not just a story about "nature conservation." Ecosystems mitigate floods and heat, allow water infiltration, maintain fertile soil, and support agriculture. When they are damaged, the cost does not disappear. It is passed on to the public through flooding, more expensive water, damage to agriculture, and health expenses.

But the central problem is not just what we know about the risks. The problem is what the government is obligated to do with what has been known for years, and how it uses knowledge intended to prevent damage before it becomes irreversible.

For years, we have adopted a flawed paradigm: as if the "environment" is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and its role is to protect it from the rest of the government.

This paradigm has failed. The Ministry of Environmental Protection should be a strong regulator and a professional gatekeeper. In recent years, it has not stood up with the required strength against more powerful ministries and has failed to turn professional knowledge into a sufficient counterweight. But it would be too convenient — and wrong — to place the responsibility on it alone. A large part of the climate-ecological crisis is created precisely by decisions made in other ministries.

The Treasury determines what will be budgeted; the Ministry of Construction and the Israel Land Authority determine where and how land will be developed; the Ministry of Transport determines which roads and railways will be paved; the Ministry of Energy determines the structure of the energy sector; and agriculture affects soil, water, pollinators, and biodiversity.

Therefore, the Minister of Construction is responsible not only for the number of housing units, but also for the open space consumed to build them. The Minister of Transport is responsible not only for kilometers of roads, but also for habitat fragmentation, emissions, and pollution. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible not only for output, but also for soil, water, and pollinators. And the Ministry of Finance is not an environmentally neutral body: the decision of which damage to calculate and which to leave off the balance sheet is itself an environmental decision.

Moreover, pollution has no passport. What starts beyond the fence can reach our tap. Streams, aquifers, air, and the sea connect Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Sewage from Gaza can be swept north and endanger the quality of seawater and desalination plants in the south, and water pollution and waste in the West Bank do not stop at the Green Line.

And in the meantime, the Ministerial Committee on Climate Affairs has not held a single discussion; national preparedness remains far from what is required; natural areas have continued to disappear; and chronic problems of waste, pollution, and enforcement have not received a response commensurate with their severity.

The next government must change not only the priorities, but the rules of the game. A framework law on climate-ecological responsibility and natural capital is required, which will establish that every government ministry is also responsible for the environmental consequences of its decisions. No more vague duty to "take into account" the environment, but real responsibility for the result.

Before significant national decisions in housing, transport, energy, mining, agriculture, and land development, it is necessary to mandate an examination of environmental consequences and alternatives at a stage when it is still possible to choose between them — not after the political and budgetary decision has already been made.

Alongside this, an independent scientific body with legal status should operate. If it identifies a serious risk or irreversible damage, the decision must return for review. The government will be able to choose otherwise, but will be obligated to publish why, which alternatives it rejected, and what environmental price it is accepting.

This is not a veto by scientists over an elected government, but a simple principle: act according to the evidence — or explain to the public why not. For the mechanism to be politically feasible, it should not be built as an expansion of the power of the Ministry of Environmental Protection over the rest of the government, but embedded within the existing budget, planning, and impact assessment mechanisms.

But not everything can be priced. A rare habitat, a vital ecological corridor, a sensitive aquifer, or an endangered species are not assets for which one can simply buy the right to destroy. Part of Israel's natural capital must receive by law the status of national infrastructure, with boundaries that must not be crossed.

Agriculture must also be part of the change. A field is not just a place for food production. With proper management, it can conserve soil, slow runoff, support pollinators, and strengthen food security. The state should reward farmers for such public services and simultaneously demand a reduction in pollution, erosion, and damage to natural systems.

The reason to act now is not just that the situation is bad. Some of the decisions we make today narrow the range of choice for the government that will come after. Governments, fortunately, are not an irreversible asset. The current government can — and should — be replaced. But an aquifer that has been polluted, fertile soil that has been lost, an ecosystem that has collapsed, or a species that has gone extinct do not change with the government and do not get another term.

The next government does not need to promise that the environment will be "a top priority." It needs to create a structural change where no ministry is allowed to treat the environment as someone else's problem, and where it is impossible to ignore scientific knowledge about a significant risk without a legal, economic, and public price. Knowledge must continue to be expanded. But what we already know must finally be turned into binding policy.

Prof. Marcelo Sternberg is a climate change ecologist at the School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University.