The government is getting a lot of stick about moves intending to facilitate buildings of a certain type. One understands the concerns of NGOs. Too much building has taken place in Malta and Gozo over the past four decades and some areas are definitely over-built. There is a need to preserve remaining open spaces, both within villages and towns and in between them. That said, criticism has to be put into perspective and should not be based on hysterical accusations which do not stand up to scrutiny.

For instance, the charge is frequently made that the Maltese Islands have become a paradise for speculators. There was a time when the charge was true. But it has not been so for at least three years and certainly in the nine months’ life of the current government.

In this latter period, in fact, not a single big project has started. NGOs saw red when Mepa gave the go-ahead to plans to build over 700 apartments on Mistra ridge. Mepa’s protestations that its hands were tied by a binding outline permit issued under the previous administration were ignored completely. There can be no doubt that it is strange that the permit was issued, even if the project had been somewhat downsized at Mepa’s insistence.

But there is such a thing as binding decisions which cannot be rescinded because they are opposed by some sectors, no matter how genuine the reasons for the opposition.

And in Mistra’s case, genuine they are from every aspect, be it aesthetic, impact on traffic and on basic services. Updated regulations ensure that a similar project cannot be approved. But Mistra remains a threatening reality.

If there is the slightest opening for Mepa to further scale down the project, it should be tried out, though the public does not know what is going on behind the scenes. Meanwhile, it is a fact that limited development is being facilitated.

Hotels in specified areas can build an additional two storeys. Tower buildings, also in specified areas which exclude Gozo, will be approved, depending on the related conditions being met.

Perhaps more controversially, an attempt will be made to nudge agri-tourism into being by allowing farmers who carry out their work on at least 60 tumoli of land to build units of up to 10 rooms. This particular idea is not easy to understand. Malta is not suited to agri-tourism. If at all, farmers can be encouraged to try to let out one or two rooms.

Opening up the opportunity to intrude on agricultural land, by definition outside development zones, is likely to lead to failure, both in take-up as well as in the running of the units. To the extent that there might be some success, it will be at the clear cost of the existing environment.

At a minimum, the government should place its plans in an orderly context. So far, they have been announced piecemeal

All this lies in the future. New schemes that go outside the existing building footprint may be disagreed with and criticised. That should be done on purely environmental grounds, not on dreamt-up accusations of giving in to inexistent speculators and scratching the back of developers who allegedly scratched the back of the Labour Party before the elections.

Those who believe that Labour’s massive majority in the March election came from the votes of developers and building contractors go way beyond realistic political analysis. Such charges introduce a partisan political element into the discussion and dilute criticism made on environmental grounds.

There is a more straightforward, identifiable reason why the government is taking these building permits initiatives. It is economic and relates to the state of the construction industry. The industry, hitherto a main driver of the economy, has been slowing down quite drastically for years.

That is confirmed by short-term construction indicators for the September quarter, released by the National Office of Statistics during the week. Employment in construction activities declined by nine per cent over a year ago as a result of decreases in employment in the construction of buildings, civil engineering and in specialised construction activities.

Hours worked in the period under review declined by 6.6 per cent over the corresponding period in 2012. An overall downward trend (-2.7 per cent) was observed by the NSO for wages and salaries, when compared to last year. The most notable decline was registered in civil engineering (-19.7 per cent).

Wages and salaries contracted by 1.9 per cent in specialised construction activities. In contrast, gross wages and salaries paid in the construction of buildings increased by 1.8 per cent over last year.

Clearly, seen on its own merit, the building and construction industry requires a boost. Nevertheless, that does not justify just any measures by the government.

The wider picture has to be kept in view. The state of the industry is transitory. Buildings erected are permanent and carry externality costs through their impact on the environment.

At a minimum, the government should place its plans in an orderly context. So far, they have been announced piecemeal.

They should be packaged together and made subject to an impact assessment by a given date. Haste is dange-rous anywhere. In the area of the environment, it could be extremely harmful.

NGOs should be fairer in their criticism. The government should be more careful with its plans, even if they are intended to stimulate the economy.