It is certainly not the best of times to define a strategy for any industry. This is more so for the hospitality industry, which has suffered the worst effects from COVID.
Malta’s tourism strategy had shown signs of distress long before the onset of the pandemic though. A discussion document has just been released on how tourism policymakers view the industry’s revamp over the next decade.
The Malta Tourism Authority strategy document, titled Recover, Rethink, Revitalise, has some significant merits. It carries out an objective assessment of the impact that COVID has had and could have on local tourism in the coming years.
It also identifies the serious flaws in the industry’s current business model that has for too long equated success with visitor numbers. The MTA has for too long celebrated the breaking of such records on social media.
However, it now appears to acknowledge that this business model is not sustainable as it ignores the social and economic impact of promoting growth at almost any cost.
Despite the smooth narrative that aims to make this document credible, tourism operators must be experiencing a sense of déjà vu when analysing the strategy recommendations.
There is no shortage of buzzwords, sound bites and attempts to include most current best practice about what should stimulate growth in the EU in the coming decade and beyond. References to climate change, green initiatives, maximising value-added and sustainability abound in this document.
The MTA strategy document lists various objectives that superficially define the industry’s direction in the next decade. But it lacks clear and quantifiable targets that need to be achieved for this strategy to be successful.
For too long, we have heard about the importance of embedding quality in all the processes that affect the visitors’ experience. So it is not surprising that this strategy document is still searching for the holy grail of quality tourism.
Putting old wine in new bottles is hardly going to help the industry achieve its challenges. The draft strategy has discarded the ‘Retrench’ option – that lower levels of tourism would be beneficial for both the local population and in terms of visitor satisfaction. It labels this approach as ‘simplistic’ and ‘escapist’.
An overpopulated island with ongoing construction projects that are now defacing even the few remaining old village cores must indeed consider retrenching from this obsession with overdevelopment.
Despite this strategy document’s textbook arguments of what a sustainable tourism strategy should be, the impression that one gets when reading it is that policymakers are not prepared to move out of their comfort zone. It takes political courage to take risks associated with doing the right thing in an industry that substantially affects the economy.
When one distils the narrative of this 58-page document, it becomes clear that the absence of clear benchmarks and milestones indicates a subtle ‘more-of-the-same’ approach to the management of this industry.
The most significant risk of failure in achieving quality in tourism is not the lack of understanding of what needs to be done.
The biggest risk is the lack of political will to define and implement clear and effective measures to embed quality in all the industry processes.
This strategy document for the tourism industry has some merits. But it fails to set challenging and quantifiable targets, thereby impacting its credibility.
One can only hope that the consultation period will help policymakers address the weaknesses in this draft document.