Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1479881
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 SEPTEMBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW Authority'; we have a 'Permitting Authority' point has already been reached in other tourism destinations: in Barcelona, for instance, or Ven- ice… Now: is this happening in Mal- ta? I wouldn't want to speculate; because when you speculate, you are no longer basing your decisions on empirical evidence; and at MHRA, we prefer a re- search-based approach. Nonetheless, the report does identify a number of key problem areas. For example, it talks about certain beaches, where we al- ready have a problem today – be- cause let's face it: Malta's beaches are the size they are; they can on- ly accommodate so many people, etc. But while the report points towards where these problems really lie: it stops short of telling government what to actually do about them. We could, for instance, try to create 'new beaches', to ensure that we have enough beach-space for all the projected 4.7 million tourists… or we could try anoth- er solution. Ultimately, however, it is the government that has to decide. Alternatively, we could also stop issuing so many permits, for hotels which will only attract more tourists than the country can sustain. You said it yourself: the 4.7 million estimate is part- ly based on the number of new hotels that have either 'already been approved', or are 'in the process of being approved'. So isn't the Planning Authority sim- ply approving too many tour- ism-related permits, in a market that is already over-saturated? Let me put it this way: we don't have a 'Planning Authority'. We have a 'Permitting Authority'. Be- cause it's never about 'planning'; it always just about issuing per- mits. The last place that was planned before it was built, in Malta, was Valletta. That is why, for in- stance, its streets are all straight: they were designed that way, for two reasons. One, for military purposes; and two, as a form of natural 'air-conditioning'… be- cause the sea-air could freely cir- culate among the streets, making them cooler. But the point is: the city was built to a plan; and the plan it- self was designed to address the problems that existed, at the time. Now: can we say the same thing about what we are building today? To give you an example: I was talking recently to someone at Enemalta – occupying quite a senior position - who told me: "You know something, Tony? Today, we have all these huge buildings going up… and after they are built, the developers come to us for power. We tell them: 'You need to build a sub- station'. They tell us: 'We don't have room for a substation'. We tell them: 'How can we power up your building, without a substa- tion?" And they answer: 'Well, that's your problem, not mine…'" Now: if things were done prop- erly, the Planning Authority would have factored in the build- ing's power-requirements before it actually issued the permit… … and even before that, these issues could easily be pre-empt- ed just by having a proper Ener- gy Policy in place… Exactly. And it's the same with waste-disposal, too. All large de- velopments are supposed to, by law, have an area where trucks can drive in collect garbage. In many cases, however, that area will have been turned into a ga- rage. As a result, the residents don't have anywhere to put their waste… so it all ends up on the street instead… All the same: while we can all agree on the need for better planning, it remains a fact that the tourism sector is one of the driving forces behind over-de- velopment – identified as a key concern, by the same report. Wouldn't you agree, then, that the tourism sector is also endan- gering its own future survival, by contributing to making Malta a less attractive destination for tourists? This is a 'chicken-and-egg' sit- uation, at the end of the day. Because you will only ever get the tourists, for the product that you have. And if you don't have a quality product… you're not go- ing to get 'quality tourists'. Sim- ple as that, really… Having said this, though: you cannot expect to get from level, to another, in a matter of a few days. It takes time; but above all, it takes vision. In other words: you have to first have an idea of your destination, before deciding on how to actually get there. And even then: once you've de- cided what your destination is… then every single decision that you ever take, from that point on, has to be measured by a very simple question: "does it take me closer, and farther away, from where I want to go?" Now: if it takes us closer, by all means let us do it. But if it takes us farther… then no, we shouldn't do it… I see your point: but surely, any such 'vision' cannot come on- ly from the government. What about the industry itself? Isn't it also sending out mixed mes- sages: by first claiming that it wants a 'quality tourism prod- uct'… but then, catering mostly for the 'conveyor-belt'/'buck- et-and-spade' type of tourism, that is measured only in 'quan- tity': and not in 'quality' at all? Well… if it's a national vision we are talking about, then it can only come from government, re- ally. It can only be government – and certainly not the MHRA – to ensure that the country has the infrastructure it needs, to cater for its requirements on a national level. But as for the industry itself… yes, the need for a quality prod- uct is certainly a concern for us. That is why we place so much emphasis on innovation; and try, wherever possible, to provide training, and educational cours- es. If someone is choosing to go into the tourist-accommodation business, for instance: the first question I would ask is… what's your competitive edge? What's your innovation? How can you do it better? And this, too is another rea- son why we commissioned that carrying-capacity report. It's not just the government that needs to know what the potential prob- lems are, before taking any deci- sions. If I were an investor, look- ing to invest in Malta's tourism sector right now: I would be look- ing VERY closely, at that report. Because if, for argument's sake, we don't get those 4.7 million tourists – let's say we get 2.7 million instead – on that basis, I would have only 40% occupancy. So the question becomes: does my business make money, at 40% occupancy? Is that the only question, though? What if, conversely, those 4.7 million tourists DO ma- terialise: only for us to belatedly discover that our infrastructure couldn't actually handle them, after all? Once again, that is why we com- missioned this report: to identify the problem-areas; and to pro- vide government with all the in- formation it needs, to come up with a vision for how to address those problems, before they arise. But it has to be the government to come up with that vision. Be- cause that is, after all, why we even have a government in the first place... PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY