Malta is just not Ibiza, period

I confess I sympathise somewhat with Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) chairman Sam Mifsud after having been berated by all and sundry for saying the MTA does not consider the environmental aspect when it comes to tourism-related projects.

His job is promoting tourism, and monitoring the effect of development on the environment is somebody else's job.

On the other hand, while I understand the thinking behind the statement made recently by Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism Mario de Marco that: "We cannot have a sustainable tourism industry if we do not maintain, conserve, and upgrade our environment", I am afraid that at face value such a statement smacks somewhat of being a utopian oxymoron.

Tourism development and the preservation of the environment are two opposing ends of the rope in a permanent tug-of-war. Any tourism development - even the increase of tourist arrivals by just one person - has a negative effect on the environment, whatever anybody says or wishes. Paradoxically, the same Maltese media that complain about environmental degradation also lament any setback in tourist arrival statistics.

The trick is a balancing act: to keep the tug-of-war rope in a permanent state of tension with both sides straining to remain sustainable. One cannot avoid using that much-abused magic word: sustainability.

The only legally binding policy guiding the country on this issue is determined by the Structure Plan that became law when it was approved by Parliament.

Our first and only Structure Plan was approved in 1992 and is based on statistics and circumstances that are now 20 years out of date.

Even so, looking at what it says about tourism is enlightening: "On the one hand, (tourism) is a major factor in the economic wellbeing of the country, and its maintenance and further development must be supported.

"On the other hand, both international and domestic tourism have been a major factor in the environmental degradation of the islands.

"This must now be vigorously countered, not only in the interests of the Maltese themselves, but because Malta has now reached the point (and some might say has passed it) at which tourist infrastructure is destroying the very features which attract international tourists in the first place."

The plan spells out its objectives in this sector: the encouragement of tourism while preventing further spread of tourist buildings and facilities outside areas already committed, except in specific areas where development is possible without unacceptable harm to the environment; concentration on the refurbishment and upgrading of existing facilities in built-up and developed areas; and attracting higher spending tourists rather than any major increases in tourist numbers.

I know for a fact that the input of the then Tourism Secretariat in the late 1980s regarding this section of the Structure Plan was substantial. I understand the same is happening within the context of the current structure plan review exercise.

A topic paper on tourism written as part of his exercise and available on the Mepa website "analyses changes that have taken place within this sector over the last decade and observes that Structure Plan policies may not reflect current needs."

It is Mepa's job - and legal obligation - to see that Structure Plan policies are followed and to propose revisions as necessary. Mepa has taken 17 years to produce half-baked outdated Local Plans that in many instances have ignored actual site-specific situations.

At this rate, it will probably take 30 years to produce a draft revision of the Structure Plan. Meanwhile, Mepa is busy hounding the common citizen to ensure that any minor proposal observes strictly all of its myriad policies, of which even the authority itself has lost track.

Applying principles to practice is not as easy as one might imagine. A report in this newspaper last Sunday about the 4 a.m. music curfew quotes a Paceville nightclub owner who said that "if we want to compete with other clubbing destinations we cannot afford to stop at 4 a.m."

Who on earth has decided that we want to compete with "other clubbing destinations"?

A cursory comparison of the population density of Malta with that of Ibiza and Mykonos - two Mediterranean islands that are clubbing destinations - should reveal the folly of Malta attempting to compete with them. Ibiza has an area of 571 sq. km and a population of 114,000 while Mykonos has an area of 105 sq. km and a population of 9,300. End of story.

Coincidentally, last Sunday this paper also carried a letter by a club owner in reaction to its alleged bad neighbourliness, in spite of the fact that the place is 2.5 kilometres from the nearest residential locality... that has a population equivalent to that of all Mykonos!

Promoting Malta as a clubbing Mecca cannot be seriously considered. Not with our population density - which is the most telling factor in our environmental problems and which everybody seems bent on ignoring consistently.

Unfortunately, the MTA's subsidising such events as the 'Isle of MTV' concert has sent the wrong message.

Like Mepa, the MTA is not a paragon of consistency.

micfal@maltanet.net