The leader of the Opposition is to be commended on his initiative in setting out his party’s proposals on what it would do about the environment if elected to power. It is commendable in that Simon Busuttil seems prepared to pin his green environmental and cultural heritage colours to the mast even though the election is not exactly round the corner. Such ‘advance notice’ risks giving the government the opportunity to not only take potshots at the proposals but also steal policy options it feels may curry electoral favour.

The document, ‘A better quality of life for you’, is comprehensive and wide-ranging, covering 16 “key focus” areas and 171 proposals. It places the environment as an overarching priority in all government decision-making. It promises good governance in the environment. “Sustainability will transcend political popularity,” it promises. Economic growth will be balanced with environmental concerns. The well-being of people will be placed at the centre of its policy.

A cynic would say that, in the environmental field, the much put-upon Maltese electorate has heard it all before – from both parties while in opposition. The difference in this document, however, lies in the fact that it contains some eye-catching proposals.

To take but three, the document immediately homes in on the issue that led to a major public backlash against this government: the infamous deal with the Sadeen Group to give away 18,000 square metres of virgin outside the development zone to build an ‘American University’ at Żonqor Point. The leader of the Opposition promises to renegotiate the government deal that granted this to the Jordanian developer. Although renegotiation will be difficult, Dr Busuttil as prime minister could be well-placed to do so, especially if he ties the renegotiation closely to the stringent financial conditions the National Commission for Further and Higher Education laid down when granting the university licence.

Second, the Nationalist Party’s promise to remove the unilateral discretion the government enjoys to authorise development on ODZ land is a welcome step in the right direction. The final decision would be given to Parliament, which would require a two-thirds majority before granting it.

Although not a perfect solution to ODZ abuse, it is undoubtedly an improvement. It sends the right message about PN’s determination to adopt a sterner approach to ODZ and is a belated mea culpa for the appalling decision in 2006 to expand the development zones.

Third, the demerger of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority – for better or worse – will be allowed to stand. The promise to ensure the Planning Authority is free of political influence is admirable but needs to be backed by  legislation.

The strengthening of the Environmental Resources Authority is a crucial component of bringing the toxic Planning Authority to heel. The document makes the right noises but proper environmental and land-use planning involves hard choices and some very difficult decisions.

Those who car about the environment are worried about its survival into the next century while politicians are mostly concerned with surviving until the next election. The exercise of political will is absolutely vital to any venture in government. When it comes to the environment and heritage, it is absolutely crucial.

The success of the PN’s worthy proposals will turn ultimately on Dr Busuttil’s ability to convince the electorate that he is prepared to exercise the necessary political will to implement what he is proposing. On this, the jury is still out.