Strategy comes first, implementation second. That’s what we are taught in management, not just in this country, but the world over. It is simple, logical and applies to almost everything.
In setting up a business, your strategy will provide you with insights and markets yet unexplored which can earn you a good return on investment. Or even running an election campaign.
It seems, however, that this is not so logical when it comes to planning and development, not for this government.
In giving direction to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the government has embarked on a process whereby present and new policies relating to various sectors are being revised or introduced afresh. It may be on outside development zones, tall buildings, shooting ranges, fireworks factories and solar energy.
So far, so good. Indeed, change happens and, likewise, policies must be updated to reflect new realities.
But the way to go about this is by first devising a strategy. In the planning world, this is better known as Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED). It provides for a holistic view of where we would like to position this country up to 2020.
This unprofessional and haphazard way of planning will come at a cost
In this logical process, the strategy comes first, policy revisions follow. This hierarchy is, in fact, also reflected within the Environment and Development Planning Act.
SPED promotes a shift in the way strategic planning is carried out, from traditional land use planning to a more holistic spatial planning. The approach being adopted now promotes the complete opposite. This country has gone from holistic spatial planning back to traditional planning. This government has resorted to old-fashioned planning, adopting policies here and there without any integration whatsoever.
What we have seen so far is planning in reverse. These are signs of a government intended to introduce piecemeal policies, assessed on their own merits and void of any overlying strategy. This unprofessional and haphazard way of planning will come at a cost, on us and on generations yet to come.
An appeal was made by NGO Din l-Art Ħelwa in a letter to the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Development to conclude SPED before revising any more planning policies. I have also made this argument within the Mepa board as the Opposition’s representative. My colleagues have also made similar appeals in Parliament.
All appeals have gone unheeded.
To the surprise of the environmental organisations gathered to discuss this issue within the parliamentary committee, we were informed that the government could not consult on such matters, even if it wished to. This seemed as if the parliamentary secretary responsible for planning was doing us all a favour, turning up for a meeting, specifically convened on the request of a number of environmental organisations to discuss the procedure being adopted by Mepa.
In any case, it begs the question as to the reason behind the government’s insistence in refusing to finalise the strategic plan prior to other policies.
Given that the work on the strategic plan has been ongoing for a number of months and in view of the fact that Mepa has forwarded its draft for the government’s consideration, is it so much to ask for?
Din l-Art Ħelwa and the Opposition’s request to suspend further policy revisions until the strategic plan is finalised is a sensible and logic appeal. This government, or any other, for that matter, is in duty bound to safeguard the future of this generation and others yet to come.
A suspension may place the government’s plan a week or two behind but it will go a long way towards ensuring a sustainable future for all.
Ryan Callus is a Nationalist MP.