06 September 2005

Suspicious offer

Stanley Farrugia Randon, Attard.

Environment Minister George Pullicino was reported to have suggested that environmental NGOs opposing the golf course at Xaghra l-Hamra be involved in the management of the area that remains untouched by development.

This sounds like blackmail to me. Is the government trying to buy the silence of NGOs who are opposing the golf course in this location and in return promise to leave them manage the surrounding areas and embellish them for the benefit of the same developers? We should not seek compromises when the good of the country is at stake.

07 September 2005

Golf course - the bottom line (1)

George G. Debono, Sliema.

Conrad Vella (August 27) quotes "experts in the tourist field" to support his argument that a golf course will boost the economy. The figures he quotes sound awfully like wishful thinking. Who precisely are these "experts"? Maybe Mr Vella can give us a more precise reference to this report?

Paul Abela (August 17) referred to Malta as a "tourism product" which should be subjected to "worthwhile development". He speaks as though the marketing of a new brand of soap was under discussion - not the country which we cherish. This kind of talk comes from those for whom short-term gain is paramount without regard to negative long-term costs.

The facts are these: 1) Malta is too small an island to sustain developments that require the destruction of large tracts of untouched countryside or agricultural land. This applies equally to Gozo. 2) Once "developed", every piece of untouched countryside is lost forever. 3) This island is our home and most people want to cherish and preserve what is left of our countryside so that coming generations can enjoy it. 4) Malta is a very unique destination for tourists. What makes it unique has been largely neglected or become degraded. It is this that should receive attention in the first place. 5) This applies to Gozo as well.

Therefore, profitable though such a golf course might be (and this is by no means a certainty), the benefit of such a project has to be weighed against the irreparable harm to agricultural land and a large area of rugged garigue countryside and its unique flora and fauna.

Improving product Malta for the purposes of tourism does not start with golf courses. This is putting the cart before the horse. Built-up areas and other developments already take up a huge part of Malta's surface. Second-rate architectural eyesores built by entrepreneurs and property developers in pursuit of the quick buck have degraded much of our countryside so that there is little of Malta left that is recognisable as "Malta". It is illogical to try to make up for this by destroying yet more untouched countryside and agricultural land; no amount of glowing predictions can justify the permanent loss of yet more of our precious unspoiled natural environment.

The time has come for reversing the harm that has been done to Malta over the years by gung-ho developers, dumping and littering. The aim should now be to preserve and enhance what makes Malta unique and distinguishes it from other countries. The waterfront development is a beautiful example of what can be done to enhance our country's unique character. There is also a lot of local cultural talent which is as yet untapped. For instance musical recitals in our numerous old chapels would provide a unique experience for our visitors. We are surrounded by beautiful blue sea. This is an asset which is still neglected, as demonstrated by our littered beaches and shabby approaches to most swimming areas.

Finally, Mr Abela and Mr Vella, please do not resort to insulting those who think differently from you. This smacks of the arrogance with which the whole project has been thrust on the Maltese public. Your critics are not armchair critics, weaklings, faint-hearted or fundamentalist just because they do not put money above all else. Behind them is the vast majority of Maltese citizens who are against the permanent loss of yet more precious unspoiled land which belongs to them.

The bottom line is this: Malta has too little untouched land left. Irreversible devastation of a large area of virgin land with its flora and fauna to make a golf course is just not on. Malta has much to offer that is unique. This has been seriously neglected and it is this that should receive attention in the first place.

07 September 2005

Golf course - the bottom line (2)

Fr Joe Inguanez, Ghaxaq.

I was listening to an interview which Francis Zammit Dimech, Minister of Tourism, gave to one of the local radio stations. When asked about the new golf course, the only way he could justify having a golf course was by arguing that "our Mediterranean competitors are equipped with good golf courses and if we want to compete we should have our own".

I want to put it on record that, in principle, I am not against golf courses in Malta. However, I find the minister's argument weak and, in a sense, counter-productive.

The Nationalist Party in opposition used to criticise Dom Mintoff's government for embarking on the development of a shipbuilding yard without doing any feasibility study beforehand. And they were right in this criticism! However, as regards the golf courses the Nationalist government merits the same criticism.

To my knowledge (subject to correction), I have not heard about any feasibility study about the economic advantages of new golf courses. How many tourists will such courses attract every year? How much will the presence of these tourists contribute to our balance of payments account? What is the number of locals and tourists who will be missing our very limited countryside because of the building of these courses? What is the amount of water these courses require for irrigation? Could this water be used to embellish other areas? Has there been any "cost benefit" (social, economic and ecological) analysis of the impact of golf courses? We are still waiting for the EIA... Are we putting the cart before the horse, or pre-empting the issue? Unless these questions are properly addressed, public conscience will remain upset.

In my view, what our country needs, for the benefit of the tourism industry, is to develop that which is specifically and characteristically Maltese and not developing what our competitors have already developed! What will be specific to our golf courses?

For comparison's sake, can any minister let us know how many of the yachts berthed in our marinas are foreign owned and how many locally owned (not only registered)? How many foreign patrons (compared to local ones) do our casinos have? What happened to the Cottonera development? What happened to the White Rocks development? What about Xropp l-Ghagin park suggestion to substitute the former DW site?

What's happening to our country's cleanliness? What is happening to overpricing (with the exception of accommodation) in every area where tourists are concerned? What are we doing so that Malta will not be chosen again as a substitute to war-torn Beirut by Stephen Spielberg? When is this building site called Malta going to be a closed chapter? What about our aesthetics in buildings? What is happening to our craftsmanship? Just take a look at the side walls which are being built along main roads leading to Valletta in preparation for CHOGM and you will see to what level our building craft has stooped! And why don't we introduce hedges rather than low walls?

The minister should look before he leaps!

• Up • Elephants • The Myth • Garigue in Malta • Not Viable • Golf Logic • The Debate • Med Flora • Sacrifice • Who Pays? • Broken Promises • Building Starts • Suspicious • Wide Angle Alternatives • Good for the syndicate • Constitutional right to enjoyment of environment • Talking Point • Asking the right questions • Golfcourse Blues • A sign of things to come • Protect our open spaces •