The survey published by The Sunday Times six days ago highlights once more the very ambivalent attitude of the Maltese public towards the environment. I believe there is a very good reason for this. We do not as yet understand fully all the aspects related to the environment issue - and this has been evident for some time from the manner the eco-tax, the recycling plant, the engineered landfill, building permits, building design, construction, alternative sources of energy, hunting and other matters have been debated. I believe the word "environment" means different things to different people in different circumstances.

There is, however, one aspect of it that should serve to achieve a better and more common understanding of the issue - the aspect of sustainability. The aspect of sustainability is particularly relevant as it focuses on economic (including financial and industrial) matters as much as it does on quality of life matters (including health and safety, education and leisure). In fact the discussion on the environment issue gathered momentum recently following the conference on sustainability organised by the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the statement by the Prime Minister that Malta could be considering seriously alternative sources of energy, like wind energy.

Unfortunately, both these events became the subject of political controversy in the hope of someone scoring some political brownie points against the government, and hence the public at large was not allowed to appreciate fully their significance. This continues to strengthen the ambivalent attitude towards the environment and continues to impede a proper understanding of the aspects related to the environment issue.

The reality is that today the Maltese economy (and I stress the word economy) is at a crossroads on the environment issue. If we mishandle it, we are likely to be missing out on a number of opportunities.

This week the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment was quite emphatic on this point. He claimed that, "unless interested stakeholders project the strong linkages that exist between the environment and economic prosperity, there is some convincing to be done for society to attain the vision for sustainable development".

I would disagree with him on this statement only in its initial part. Because of the strong linkages between the environment and economic prosperity, the interested stakeholders are everyone because everyone's livelihood depends on the performance of the Maltese economy.

Let us take the example of tourism. We have definitely needed the construction of new hotels, especially in the superior category. We have definitely needed the construction of places of entertainment, especially of a nature that is different to those available at present. These may have seemed to have harmed the environment, but have been most certainly necessary for the development of our economy.

I would dare say that the benefits to the economy (and not to some individuals) have been greater than the costs to the environment. On the other hand, there has been other development that has been more harmful than beneficial to the economy.

We could also take the example of the developments in the service economy. These used to be criticised severely in the past because some could not perceive the possibility of economic development that is not solely dependent on manufacturing. On the other hand, the services sector is in several respects more environment-friendly than manufacturing.

We could also take into account the criticism levelled at the government for seeking higher value added activities in manufacturing and for claiming that mass production activities have no future in this country. However, higher value added manufacturing activities and non-mass production activities tend to be more environment friendly. This is what sustainability of both the environment and the economy is all about.

Economic growth today in a small island like ours requires an approach different to what we have been used to in the 1970s. People asking the government to go for growth policies - in other words, to intervene directly in the economy so as to create jobs - are living in a time warp. An economy that has grown consistently (albeit with some blips) ever since the country has achieved independence in 1964 through a mix of tourism, manufacturing and service activities, requires an approach that takes account of the environment. This does not mean that we need an environment plan. What it does mean is that we need an economic strategy that is sustainable from the environment perspective and environment-friendly policies that support economic growth.