Many years back, there was a not so funny incident when Labour was still going through its unelectable mode that its manifesto had been so hurriedly put together that it had even failed to distribute it in time.
One of the standing jokes was that we would have done far worse had the people read it since it had been so vapid and uninspiring.
In this day and age where the media is supreme even though it does not always necessarily get it right, game changing transformations have taken place and the ‘No Comment’ syndrome has long been confined to the dustbins it deserves.
On electoral manifestos and programmes there are some who might still be cynical about how much they are really worth. A case in point is that in the UK when David Cameron had promised the greenest government ever only to have given it more than a stronger tinge of brown than it originally had.
I fully understand and am down to earth enough to realise that for many people the economy remains supreme, so much so that Cameron’s campaign guru is reported to have told ministers on the campaign trail that every day in which the robust economic figures were not mentioned was a campaign day lost.
But particularly in this year of summitry on sustainable development and climate change, we will be making a mockery of all the platitudes that are traditionally dished out by world leaders, if the same leaders, regardless of the regions and continents that they might hail from, will not rise to the occasion by literally leading by example.
When I recently said that an environment minister’s role is always a poisoned chalice, I was stating the obvious while quoting what Lino Spiteri is reported to have told Mario de Marco when he was appointed Environment Minister under the previous administration. This was confirmed in a recent article in Times of Malta by de Marco himself.
I have always been and will always remain open to and tolerant of criticism
The reasons are obvious. Some environmentalists are inclined to think that you are not doing enough for the environment, while others, especially the pro-development lobby, are far more inclined to consider you a hindrance and an obstacle to their objectives. No matter how much they might boast of being firm believers and born again converts to sustainability and its development.
There was a recent occasion where someone, as they have every right to do, claimed that I put party loyalty before my loyalty to the environment. This is not a question of loyalty but of responsibility.
As a minister, like all other members of any Cabinet in any other jurisdiction, my role is to defend the ground and turf of the areas that fall under my responsibility while ensuring that they are in conformity with the party’s manifesto too.
I have always tried to do this to the best of my ability. But ultimately the same way that the environment can only succeed if there is genuine political will right across the whole political spectrum and also at an inter- ministerial level, any minister, while defending his brief, has to realise and acknowledge the fact that government decisions are there to be honoured, respected and implemented too.
Anyone who does not understand this notion has no idea of what governance is all about. This reminds me of a well-intentioned woman well into trees and noise issues who still cannot accept the fact that having submitted proposals for amending a Legal Notice on tree protection, feels that once her proposals were made, government was duty bound to implement them to the letter.
The fact that the Mepa demerger did not happen yet and that our ministry has no regulatory function on tree protection did not seem to bother her or register with her in the least, simply because she argued that, since in her opinion, Mepa was ineffective, it was then my duty to do what others had, according to her, failed to do.
As most of my colleagues, friends and constituents know, I have always been and will always remain open to and tolerant of criticism but there might be cases when unjust and unfair criticism can still be regarded as both unfair and out of place. Worthy as it might sound or even be.
The challenges ahead are daunting ones.
We plan to further reinforce our commitment towards the greening of the economy when later this year we will publish our vision, strategy and action plan after it obtains the government’s seal of approval. The consultation has been intensive. The same can be said for the level of preparedness. The task was actually given to us by government itself.
As I had occasion to declare a few days ago during the first ever national conference on the green economy and green jobs that was organised by the Applied Sciences Faculty of Mcast, while our robust economic growth is undoubtedly impressive, we still need to think outside the box unless we intend to end up locked in, by offering yesterday’s solutions to tomorrow’s problems.
On our part, we shall continue to insist that the manifesto and government programme is implemented true to the spirit of the original pledges, and with the same strong sense of commitment that the President of the Republic is showing on environmental issues when she does not allow a single occasion to go by to use her moral support for green and sustainable initiatives, including those in favour of greener and more open spaces to enhance our well-being and quality of life.
One important electoral pledge many seem to have conveniently forgotten and ignored is that if we really want all projects to be sustainable, they should also be subjected to social impact assessments to gauge their true and beneficial effect or lack of it on the people in the area and surroundings. I am of the opinion that every single project should be subjected to such benchmarking too.
Leo Brincat is Minister for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change.