In the closing stages of the 2008 general election, the Nationalist Party, then under the leadership of Lawrence Gonzi, promised that, if re-elected, it would faithfully take steps to reduce what it termed “the environmental deficit”. This commitment is widely thought to have been instrumental in Dr Gonzi retaining power, albeit by the slimmest of majorities.

Today, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil again sees the environment as an electoral “game-changer” and having a green agenda as being the pathway to the PN winning back lost votes that could propel it into power at the next general election. Will history repeat itself?

Dr Busuttil was delivering the closing speech at the party’s convention, Idea Ambjent, which focused on the environment, an issue seen as one of the highest areas for national concern after immigration. The convention highlighted a number of key complaints castigating politicians of both parties for failing to give sufficient importance to the environment, which was not a priority for them.

Architect Simone Vella Lineker, who presided over the convention, summed up the outcome of workshop discussions by highlighting four main themes.

First, people expected politicians not to fear electoral backlash in defence of the “common good” of adopting a green agenda. Second, politicians were criticised for failing to have long-term strategies to deal with environmental issues. They were asked to “enter into a pact” with the people so that policy targets would be binding on future governments.

Third, the importance of basing decisions on proper scientific research was stressed. Politicians were prone to knee-jerk reactions and to take decisions without consulting expert knowledge. Fourth, the environment should not play second fiddle to the economy. PN members expected a “transparent and participative” planning process.

This summary outlined broad areas of concern and policymaking. There were also calls for detailed studies into Malta’s tourist-carrying capacity, the use of private cars and the link between environmental and health problems.

None of the issues raised in this convention were either new or revolutionary. Environmentalists have been beating this particular drum for decades. And, over the same period of time, politicians while in Opposition have responded by promising to do something about changing the balance between protecting the environment and construction development and land use – for this lies at the heart ofthe problem.

This is why the leader of the Opposition’s response at the end of the convention was noteworthy. While he talked up the convention as “a defining moment for the party and having a green agenda” was the right thing to do “for the good of the country”, he was cautious when speaking about land use, which he rightly described as “one of the biggest environmental challenges faced by the country”.

While promising to continue the fight against the development of a private university on “outside development zone” land – an easy target – his defence of the remaining, ever-diminishing natural landscape of Malta was qualified. “The PN is proposing that ODZ land should be left untouched and can only be used in exceptions,” he said. Still, he said this without defining those exceptions and, indeed, clearly fearful of alienating the powerful construction lobby by seeking to alleviate concerns that the party was now “against development”.

This is the crux of the issue. Unless the Nationalist leader can explain more precisely and positively where he will draw the line between safeguarding the natural environment and rampant construction development, his good intentions can only be taken with a dose of salt.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.