The Tourist Effect - Petra Bianchi

Tourism is one of the biggest industries of the world. In Malta, it is the largest economic sector. So of course we promote it like there's no tomorrow, and hope to earn a lira or two. But do we also stop to think hard and often enough about the negative side of tourism?

Over the last century, tourism has grown so much that it can present a threat. Too much tourism - especially the wrong sort - threatens our environment. This applies to other countries too - just think of Venice, which is so swamped with tourists that it might soon sink under the weight of Japanese cameras.

Malta can't aim to grow tourist numbers over a maximum limit - its infrastructure is far too small to cope with excessive people. Our roads are too congested, for a start. Our water, expensively produced by reverse osmosis, and electricity supply are stretched during the peak summer months. Our beaches are so crowded and noisy that a summer afternoon by the sea can easily turn into a stressful experience. It is time to improve what we have, not develop or destroy more of it.

According to the State of the Environment Report 2005 issued by the Planning Authority, the number of incoming tourists in 2004 was 2.7 times the Maltese population and, "given that in general tourists use 1.5 times more resources in terms of land, water and energy, and produce more waste than locals, this represents a significant added pressure on the environment."

The Report also points out that in the Carrying Capacity Assessment for tourism "it is indicated that average daily numbers of tourists should not exceed 45,000 to be at a socially acceptable level." If you look at the graphs related to this, it is clear that during the summer months the amount of tourists is well over the stated 'socially acceptable level.'

This, to my mind, shows that we should not be aiming to further increase tourist numbers during the peak months. Ideally, the number of tourists visiting Malta should now only be encouraged to increase over the slow months. Easier said than done, I know.

The Ministry for Culture and Tourism's website states that in 2004, tourist arrivals reached 1,157,682 - as stated earlier, this is almost three tourists for every Maltese resident in a population of just over 400,000. A comparison is made with France that, with a population of 60 million, hosts 1.25 tourists for every French resident - around half the amount.

Still, we are told that the sustainable number of tourists that can be hosted in Malta is 1.5 million per year, so I suppose we must be prepared to squeeze in another few hundred thousand if we manage to attract them to come over.

The negative impacts that tourism can have on a host country - that is, on its environment and on its residents - are well researched and documented. Over the last decade and a half, many international organisations have repeatedly written and distributed charters, codes, lists and statements about how countries must urgently ensure that their tourism is 'sustainable'.

In 2001 the World Tourism Organisation drew up a 'Global Code of Ethics for Tourism', which is a set of principles for tourism development. It stresses the importance of minimising the negative impacts of tourism on the environment and on cultural heritage. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also talks about sustainable tourism, and the positive and negative impacts tourism can have on people's lives and the environment.

The National Geographic Center for Sustainable Destinations has drawn up a 'Geotourism Charter', that emphasises the need to "encourage businesses to sustain natural habitats, heritage sites, aesthetic appeal, and local culture" and to "prevent degradation by keeping volumes of tourists within maximum acceptable limits."

It also talks about land use, urging nations to "anticipate development pressures and apply techniques to prevent undesired overdevelopment and degradation" and to "contain resort and vacation-home sprawl, especially on coasts and islands, so as to retain a diversity of natural and scenic environments and ensure continued resident access to waterfronts."

The Geotourism Charter urges nations to "encourage major self-contained tourism attractions, such as large-scale theme parks and convention centers unrelated to character of place, to be sited in needier locations with no significant ecological, scenic or cultural assets."

Golf courses fall into this category of 'self-contained attractions', and we would all benefit if their supporters and potential developers might stop to think for a moment or two, and consider whether their proposals fit in with this very sensible and intelligent approach. I am not against new golf courses as such, but Xaghra l-Hamra and Ta' Cenc have significant ecological, scenic and cultural assets. So neither golf courses, nor anything else, should be built on those particular sites.

The fact that applications like the recent one to develop the unspoilt land at Ta' Cenc in Gozo to build villas and bungalows are even considered by our planning authority, shows that these good international principles have not been absorbed by everyone on this dear island. The UNEP's statement that "the negative impacts of tourism development can gradually destroy the environmental resources on which it depends" should be listened to.

The UNEP points out that many adverse environmental effects "are linked with the construction of general infrastructure such as roads and airports, and of tourism facilities, including resorts, hotels, restaurants, shops, golf courses and marinas."

This message is not difficult to understand. I trust that the developers and administrators of Malta and Gozo understand it too, and can see that it makes sense. I wish they would listen to it at all times. For example, do we really need an expensive terminal building in the Gozo harbour? Will the harbour be more or less picturesque when it is ready? Some people visit Gozo specifically because it is picturesque.

On the flip side of the coin, the UNEP also describes the positive effects that sustainable tourism can have - apart from the obvious economic benefits. Tourism can contribute to environmental protection and conservation. "It is a way to raise awareness of environmental values and it can serve as a tool to finance protection of natural areas and increase their economic importance."

"Tourism can significantly contribute to environmental protection, conservation and restoration of biological diversity and sustainable use of natural resources. Because of their attractiveness, pristine sites and natural areas are identified as valuable and the need to keep the attraction alive can lead to the creation of national parks and wildlife parks."

This is where we should be heading. The need to sustain our tourism, this supremely important pillar of our economy, should encourage us to conserve what we have, not over-develop and destroy it. The negative impacts of tourism must be controlled.

Irreversible harm to the nation's culture and environment must be resisted at all times, even when euros and liri glitter and beckon - making it tempting to throw the future of our countryside and environment into the wind. I know that many people in Malta and Gozo have understood this issue long ago. They feel frustrated and desperate to see rampant and greedy development continuing everywhere all the same, in spite of frequent appeals, pleas, letters and petitions from the concerned public. When will the line finally be drawn?

Petra Bianchi
9th April 2006 - Manic Magazine - The Malta Independent on Sunday