We are accustomed to viewing the budget as a collection of financial/economic choices made by the government. There has been a shifting of emphasis throughout the years depending on the political leaning of the holder of office at the Ministry of Finance. Gone from the budget are announcements about the fixing of prices of essential items, thereby making the budget less of a grocery price list.

The budget plots the behaviour of the government and announces the behaviour it expects from lesser mortals! The budget presented last Monday has primarily focused on social and employment issues. These choices featured in the extensive consultations carried out during the past months. They clearly underline the government's beliefs on the linkage between economic and social progress. Notwithstanding what is being said, the Labour opposition's views are not much different: Differences are ones of emphasis and, in my view, primarily motivated by the identity of who is in the driving seat!

There is however another aspect which, in my view, is not sufficiently underlined. Notwithstanding the substantial environmental investments the budget once more announced, the environment is absent from the underlying philosophy forming the basis of mainstream politics in Malta.

Civil society together with the government has produced a very important document through the National Commission for Sustainable Development entitled A Sustainable Development Strategy For The Maltese Islands. 2007-2016. This strategy has been finalised after very long discussions, however, at the time of writing, it has not yet been endorsed by Cabinet. Regrettably, nor has it been endorsed by the budget statement.

The strategy plots a vision as a result of which it would be possible to integrate economic, social and environmental considerations in the government of these islands. In particular, the strategy aims to remove short-termism as the preferred political vision and substitute it by a long-term view, one which does not discount future generations to whom present generations are accountable for their behaviour. Though this is of extreme relevance to the budget process, it has once more been, in my view, ignored.

Future generations have no vote! As a result, their rights have been continuously eroded year in year out. They have been burdened by the consequences of our choices made to ensure a better quality of life today, thereby ensuring that their choices (if available) will be limited by the commitments made today by our generation.

Interestingly, the Maltese government had spoken on behalf of the rights of future generations on an international level. In February 1992, in the run-up to the 1992 Rio Summit, during preparatory meetings in New York the Maltese delegation had proposed that the world community should go beyond vague declarations of responsibilities towards future generations and actually institute an official guardian to represent posterity's interests. Unfortunately, this proposal was not taken up when the disadvantaged groups were identified in the Rio Declaration.

In Malta, the aspirations of future generations have been spelt out by the National Sustainability Commission. The government is ethically bound not only to implement this strategy the soonest but also to be consistent with its utterances made on an international level.

I will limit myself to three specific issues.

The first is that related to home ownership and the inertia on rent reform legislation.

The budget announced various measures of assistance to new home owners but not one new measure to encourage the renting out of property. Financial assistance in the form of reduced stamp duty and subsidised interest rates will continue to encourage more property development in the Lm50,000 bracket. Given the current available glut of thousands of vacant properties, it would have made more sense to encourage the development of a rental market thereby focusing on the real social need of a "residence" and detaching it from "property ownership" which is not a basic need. These are two separate and distinct issues which the building industry has successfully fused thereby directing financial incentives to their pockets through young couples. The end result is more pressure for development.

The further development of oncological services provided by the public health sector is welcome. It is however reasonable to point out that this is an emphasis on dealing with the effects. What about dealing with some of the causes of ill-health too? Among which the effects of pesticides on the food chain. This can be dealt with through the encouragement of organic farming and the gradual reduction of the use of pesticides. A committee dealing with the matter has been in existence for ages, yet policy decisions are nowhere in sight. We can look at achievements of other countries, notably Austria, 11 per cent of whose agriculture is organic. Within the EU, the average hovers around the four per cent mark. What about our targets? According to Eurostat, in 2005 Malta had just 14 hectares dedicated to organic farming, an insignificant fraction of land dedicated to organic agriculture placing us once more at the bottom of the list.

We also require a carbon budget, a detailed policy of how Malta will deliver on meeting its international obligations towards the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The need to plot the way forward as to how Malta will meet its emission targets is pressing not only due to the fines that will be payable (running into millions of euros) but, more importantly, as this is a unique opportunity to better our quality of life. The overall picture needs to be seen and discussed. Our small contribution to the reversal of climate change is as important as that of large countries. Public opinion needs to be sensitised on the issue.

In addition, it needs to be considered whether further expansion of the tourism industry is compatible with climate change policies. In particular, it needs to be seen whether aviation carbon emissions are too high a price to pay for the income and employment generated by tourism.

The above are just three of the many issues which, unfortunately, seem not to interest mainstream political parties on these islands. They interest only those whose views are long term. The government and the opposition are more interested in social and economic issues and, unfortunately, only pay lip service to environmental issues. In fact, the environment is primarily present in the budget statement through expenditure related to EU membership commitments.

Tackling social and economic issues is essential. However, it is about time that the social market economy makes way for a green economy, one which places environmental policy at par with social and economic policy. Only then will present generations honour their responsibilities towards future generations.

The author is an architect and civil engineer, specialising in sustainability and environmental management.

cacopardocarm@euroweb.net.mt