Gozo survives on tourism and agriculture. Its industrial base is extremely limited. By Maltese standards, unemployment is relatively high and job opportunities limited.
If it were more industrialised, the tiny island would probably lose the intrinsic elements of what differentiates it from Malta and makes it such a pleasure to visit, or live in. This has always been the Gozitan dilemma.
The long-standing debate on whether to link the two islands with a quicker and more reliable mode of transport than the sea ferry has been raging for decades. The argument advanced is that, in order to promote Gozo’s socio-economic development and improve investment there, it is essential to drastically reduce the travelling time entailed by the 25-minute ferry crossing, which, in reality, is considerably longer given waiting times at peak periods.
The alternative solutions, which have been much touted by those who believe the duration of the crossing is detrimental to Gozo’s prosperity and connectedness with the outside world, are either to construct a tunnel or a bridge. If these were in place, it is argued, journey time would be reduced to just a few quick minutes and, hey presto, Gozo’s economic and insularity problems would be solved.
The decision about what to do has rested essentially on arguments of cost effectiveness as well as relieving that nagging sense of isolation and neglect by their (relatively) larger, richer sister island felt by Gozitans.
We now have some facts on which to consider the cost-effectiveness arguments. According to the China Communications Construction Company (CCCC), a bridge linking Malta with Gozo would cost about €1 billion. It would take four years to construct and, thereafter, about €4 million a year would have to be spent to run and maintain.
On the very broad assumption that the Chinese firm’s assessment of costs are not wildly unrealistic, the judgement any government must make is whether the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of shaving time off the current journey are justified.
There can be no argument about the scale of the costs. Is a €1 billion investment in a bridge by a country whose basic roads and other infrastructure are still so backward justified? What guarantee is there that the commercial or economic gain to Gozitans will occur or will be worthwhile? How could the undoubted environmental and aesthetic penalties be justified?
Above all, the real imponderable factor, however, is what a bridge linking the two islands would do to Gozo’s special attraction today as an island that has not yet been spoilt. Is there a danger that opening up Gozo would succeed in maximising tourism income but at the cost of destroying its selling point as a slightly mysterious island and, ultimately, undermine the very tourism it is seeking to attract?
In deciding on the best way ahead for Gozo, a government must beware the law of unintended consequences. On balance, it is difficult not to feel that building a bridge would not be cost-effective. The same rationale applies to a tunnel but, at least, that would not have the same negative aesthetic consequences and would also be usable in inclement weather (unlike a bridge).
It is hard to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the present (slower) ferry is undermining Gozo’s tourism business. On the contrary, it could be argued it actually enhances it. This needs to be balanced, of course, against Gozitans’ needs but it would be foolish to conclude these requirements do not include tourism.