Government?s plan to develop a sustainable development plan for the Island is a welcome move.

No one will doubt that the Island?s infrastructure is groaning under the weight of economic growth, changes in the Island?s economic structure and relatively dramatic changes in the Island?s demographics.

The problem is how to tackle the issue without creating unintended consequences that could cause more harm than good.

That?s because sustainable development means different things to different people. Defining and building a consensus over just what it means will be a major challenge for the framers of the policy.

Environmentalists could build a strong case for ending all building on undeveloped land, while housing advocates would have a very different idea. People who are worried about traffic congestion and the like might like to see further restrictions on who can own and drive cars.

The list goes on.

The last time there was any kind of meaningful debate on this issue was in the late 1980s when international business and tourism was still very strong. That debate ended quickly when the recession of the early 1990s started to bite. Then, growth, any growth, became desirable.

Today the risk of an economic crisis continues to hover. While the Island?s economy continues to perform remarkably well, the weak dollar, increasing inflation and the US budget deficit could all have affect the local economy.

At the same time, the Bermuda economy is increasingly dependent on international business and insurance. If it took a downturn, the whole Island would feel it, and very quickly.

However, if economic growth does continue on its current track, the Island will have to decide how to accommodate it, how much growth is appropriate and in what areas, and how Bermudians can best benefit.

That requires, as Premier Alex Scott envisions, a broad and far-reaching approach that considers all aspects of the economy and the Island?s infrastructure. At the same time, it is important that the plan has to be flexible; if not, it will run the risk of solving problems that may have ceased to exist.

And it will require deep analysis as well.

No one really can say with any true certainty how severe the housing crisis is and whether the current spate of building will solve it ? or if it will create a glut of housing which will cut the value of homes.

Even if Bermuda?s workforce remained the same size, there has been little analysis on how many non-Bermudians will be needed, given the fact that there are more Bermudians retiring from the workforce than there are entering it.

Again, the list goes on.

So far, Mr. Scott has outlined a programme for the development of this plan that seems to have no public input at all, at least until the virtually completed plan is debated in the House of Assembly.

That?s too bad. It is not at all clear how much consultation there will be with businesses, with charitable organisations like the Bermuda National Trust, with unions and so on, although one would assume that it will take place.

There is no mention at all of input from ?Joe Public?, either through submissions or through public meetings.

Given both the wide-reaching effects this plan could have and the deep pools of expertise that exist in the community, failure to genuinely consult could result in disaster, especially if no consensus is reached on just what sustainable development means.

Therefore, Mr. Scott should include a programme of public involvement in the plans for sustainable development as soon as possible.