So much has been written on the subject of Mepa in the recent past that the public might justifiably lose interest in the subject if no tangible suggestions start being disseminated soon for public consultation, discussion and eventual implementation. Most articles in the media and the recent electoral campaign have dwelt on the fact that the incumbent government somehow needs to rethink how Mepa goes about doing its business rather than how the whole organisation should be set up. To my mind, the two aspects are intrinsically linked and this is where the reform of the authority will be judged as not being just a cosmetic one but a truly needed transformational one, finely tuned to the government's vision for Malta 2015.

I believe there is a lot of talent within the organisation which needs to be tapped so that the reform is owned by the individual employee and not just by management and/or the government. Too many reports have been written which advocated change, most of which were top-down impositions. Especially before each general election accusations are exchanged both internally and externally, leaving by definition a negative collateral effect on the morale and job effectiveness of the staff.

To me, the process of the reform is perhaps more crucial than the actual content. Speak to all the staff. Let them come up with their own suggestions. Give them back their pride to be part of an important organisation. Motivating the staff will ease out those logical and, in most cases, simple suggestions that can make the whole difference. But this process of change must assume strong central leadership with the critical stakeholders on board, perhaps in the form of think-tank groups made up of both technical and non-technical experts.

One of the critical issues is whether the environment sector should continue to form an integral part of the planning process or not. Talk to the employees of both directorates first and they will express a resounding no. Their opinion stems from the very real problem of dealing on a daily basis with two, often conflicting, legislations - namely the Development Planning Act and the Environmental Act. It is pertinent to point to out that the previous Environment Protection Department and the Planning Authority empires have always been to a greater or lesser extent in continual turf wars with each other. This situation, that still persists within Mepa, is to me one of the great demotivators in sustaining healthy working relationships between the two directorates.

The decision to house the Environment Directorate away from the main Mepa building is the nail in the coffin, a conscious decision to split the two directorates without actually admitting that the two directorates have communication issues and cannot work together within the present set-up. This flies in the face of the notion of integrated planning, underpinning the so-called sustainable approach the authority should be looking at in its land use and environmental responsibilities. This decision should be critically reviewed and the possibility of expanding the current premises at St Francis Ravelin should be taken up again, not least because the nearby Park and Ride zones better serve these existing premises.

Tough decision times lie ahead, of course. However, the involvement of strategic stakeholders is, to my mind, the key to success in the transformation of Mepa if it is to remain relevant to today's political, social and economic realities.

Mr Farrugia is former director of planning at Mepa. He is running an architectural practice and reading for a Master's in environmental management at Imperial College, London.