The term ‘sustainability’ can easily rank as one of the most abused terms by policymakers and decision-makers since its first coinage in the 1970s. Paying lip service to ‘sustainability’, whether it is environmental, economic or social sustainability, has become one of the must-tick boxes for any self-respecting public figure given the compelling nature of the philosophy this term represents.
After all, pledging to use currently available resources in a judicious manner so as not to compromise the access of future generations to the same resources wins plaudits and unanimity given its equitable nature. The entire cohort of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which address issues such as the eradication of global poverty, access for all to safe drinking water, the conservation of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change, hinges on the actuation of sustainability precepts.
How do we live out our sustainability pledges here in Malta, however? A couple of case studies will help elaborate. Take the recent brouhaha over the maximum number of tourists our islands can handle, which essentially amounts to a catch- 22 situation.
On the one hand, Tony Zahra, MHRA president which represents the industry’s lobby, peddled the results of the Deloitte study commissioned by the MHRA which estimated that a whopping 4.7 million tourists need to visit the islands annually simply for all approved hotel developments on the islands to reach the 80 per cent bed occupancy threshold.
On the other hand, the local tourism authorities, in response to Zahra’s statements, opined that the country could not handle such a staggering number of tourists and that sustainable tourism was their ultimate objective, although the government would not intervene to stymie the current hotel-development frenzy due to economic considerations.
No sooner had the dust settled on such an exchange that news transpired of Joseph Portelli’s plans for a gargantuan 14-storey hotel development in Xlendi as if to fly in the face of such sustainability pledges.
This is where the mind boggles... the MHRA represents the industry whose actors, presumably, lobby for hotel developments they propose to be approved. In the same breath, however, the MHRA is complaining that the Planning Authority is too permissive in granting new permits and that it is government’s remit to ensure that tourism remains sustainable on these islands.
So, what is the MHRA exactly proposing here? That the government puts a cap on new hotel developments? Doesn’t the industry itself bear some responsibility in the entire matter and shouldn’t it practice a degree of self-regulation, for example by advising its members that opting for new developments is a no-go?
One gets the impression all the major stakeholders in the entire matter – the PA, the tourism authorities, developers and the MHRA – are cognisant of the fact that there will eventually be a surfeit of tourism accommodation on the islands and are resigned or even complacent to the fact that some of the redundant tourist accommodation facilities will simply be converted for residential development.
Shouldn’t the MHRA practice a degree of self-regulation, for example by advising its members that opting for new developments is a no-go?- Alan Deidun
This despite the fact that the same facilities are positioned in prime real estate locations which have only been permitted since they were earmarked for tourism purposes. Allowing such a fait accompli, in the form of a surfeit supply of tourist accommodation, to materialise, with all actors involved passing the proverbial buck between themselves while pledging lip service to the elusive concept of sustainability, is not only diabolical but a sure guarantee of disaster in the years to come.
Some of the proposed hotel developments constitute extensions of existing ones but others represent a threat to remaining open spaces and even to ecological assets as they are slated for areas which have been recolonised by nature.
Take the proposed redevelopment of the Festaval Hotel within the Foresta 2000 site in Mellieħa, in close propinquity to St Agatha’s Tower, which currently lies in ruins, to make way for tourist accommodation. The previous hotel was constructed prior to the designation of the site as an area of ecological importance and prior to the planting of hundreds of indigenous trees by the public, as rightly pointed out by the Mellieħa local council in its objections to such a proposal.
Ironically, the argument that the footprint of a previous tourist accommodation site is simply being redeveloped does not even hold water given that the original hotel development was not even completed and never hosted any guests given the geological instability of the same site.
The Mellieħa local council should be commended for placing partisan considerations aside on this issue in objecting to this despicable development application, which complements the current approved expansion of the Mellieħa Bay Hotel on the other flank of the same bay.
The Xagħra local council similarly threw partisan considerations to the wind by recently appealing the permit for a gargantuan pool development within the flank of a valley lying beneath a block of apartments, submitted yet again by Portelli and associates.