The result of the referendum was a close call. The difference is minuscule compared to the variance we had in the divorce and the EU membership referendums. It is also minuscule in comparison to the difference in the votes garnered by the two main political parties in the last general election. The last time a public vote was won with such a narrow margin was in the 2008 general election, when the difference was of some 1,800 votes.

Why is this of relevance? Are there any other conclusions worth drawing from this referendum? I think there are.

First of all, the Maltese have again demonstrated their willingness to participate with their vote in the democratic process.

The turnout of 75 per cent for the referendum and 68 per cent for local council elections clearly belies claims that the Maltese electorate is suffering from some election burn-out. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat used this card to try and postpone the local council elections. Fortunately for those who value democracy, this dangerous ploy was not successful.

I sincerely hope that the argument of voter fatigue will never surface again.

Contrary to what he promised, and contrary to the request by civil society that political parties steer clear of the spring hunting referendum debate, Muscat intervened a number of times in the run up to the vote.

Politically, he had a lot to lose if the No vote won. When polls started to show that the No vote was gaining the upper hand, he put his weight behind the Yes vote. He did it publicly in a measured way, but, on the ground, one could see the Labour Party machine working to get out the Yes vote.

It is no coincidence that the Yes vote won in the traditionally Labour-leaning electoral districts.

With the hunters’ gratitude freshly stowed away in his pockets, he turned his attention to the environmentalists once the close result was confirmed.

The Prime Minister knows what that the narrow margin between the Yes and No camp means. It means that environmental issues can no longer be treated as marginal. In a bid to reach out to the environmentalists, he said that this is the last chance for hunters. Quite honestly, I think it is the last chance for politicians to retain a level of credibility with environmentalists.

The voice of those who consider themselves to be pro-environment has just got stronger

Within minutes of being appointed minister for the environment in the previous administration I received a text message from Lino Spiteri telling me that I was handed a poisoned chalice. He was right.

It is perhaps one of the most difficult government posts, subject to constant pressures levied by opposing lobbies. During the time I spent holding that chalice, I tried to put the environment on a sounder footing by strengthening the structures, giving more voice to objectors and environmental lobbies, introducing measures to improve transparency and uniformity in the planning decision process and ensuring that that process was kept at arms’ length from the politician.

We introduced a national environmental policy, legislation aimed at streamlining the principles of sustainable development in all major policy decisions and a guardian for future generations, headed by Michael Zammit Cutajar.

Did we do enough? Were we bold enough? I am afraid not, even if the decisions taken came with a political price: a price we paid for the sake of trying to do what is right. We all know which party the pro-development lobby backed in the last general election.

This government is evidently not willing to pay the price, even though it enjoys a majority of 36,000 votes. Most of the steps that were taken back then are now being reversed. The environment has been marginalised at the policy and strategic level.

With the removal of the Environment Directorate from Mepa, the environment will be marginalised at the administrative level.

The Ministry of Environment has been rendered toothless, not least by the minister himself, who, regrettably, seems reluctant to raise a finger in favour of environmental considerations.

With the significant majority it enjoys, this government could have done and could be doing much more for the environment. Yet, this government repeatedly relegates environment considerations to the bottom of its priority list.

Parts of our countryside have a Damocles sword hanging over them, purportedly for ‘rural tourism’ purposes. Development boundaries are set to be revised, again. Sections of our coastline are being considered for massive scale development. The holistic approach to planning development has been all but scrapped. The government seems more interested in creating loopholes that favour illegalities.

Will this referendum result change all this? I would wish to believe so but I think not. I think that, as the general election approaches, this government will succumb to pressures and deal more blows to our environment.

Simone Mizzi yesterday said that Malta is an island of unfinished eyesores. I couldn’t agree more.

Successive governments have done a lot to carry this country forward economically, but we have unfortunately done this by sacrificing our environment. Too few people want to make the link between a healthy, protected environment and a strong, economically progressive society. Too many people see the environment as an obstacle to short-sighted economic gains. That needs to change and it needs to change now.

We need to protect our country from further degradation.

This country needs a coalition to give meaningful protection to the limited countryside that remains, to give ironclad protection to our built heritage and to raise the quality of life in our villages and cities through better planning.

The fight for those who consider themselves to be pro-environment is not over. If anything, their voice has just got stronger.