The future we pretend to plan for
Photo by Karl Paul Baldacchino
Alex Torpiano unpacks Malta Vision 2050, a document filled with promising ideals yet fraught with contradictions. From sustainability slogans to growth ambitions, Torpiano asks the real questions: Who is this vision for, and does it reflect the future we truly want, or just the one we dare not challenge?
The recently published document, "Malta Vision 2050", defines what we want the Malta of 2050 to be. It is emphasised in the document that what is proposed is a national vision and not a political one, so it should not be read (or used) as an electoral manifesto. The first part of the consultation document records the gestation process, which involved an assessment of global macro-trends relevant to Malta, insights from strategic vision documents of other countries, an evaluation of existing sectorial strategies, and the outcome of several workshops involving various stakeholders, and focus groups together within a degree of public polling.
It then outlines four strategic "pillars" around which our future would be built: "Sustainable Economic Growth," "Accessible Citizen-Centred services," "Resilient Country and Modern Education Systems," and "Smart Land and Sea Usage." I will only comment on a couple of these pillars.
Malta Vision 2050 has several positive features. Even the need to outline a holistic vision for Malta is a positive sign. The document acknowledges that adopting other progress metrics besides GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is necessary, and looking at different parameters is commendable. The UN Human Development Index considers life expectancy, mean and expected years of schooling, and the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita.
Photo by Levi Meir Clancy
The EU27 Mean Disposable Income represents income after taxation and social contributions and, therefore, represents the purchasing power per inhabitant. Eurostat's Overall Experience of Life gives a broader picture beyond "money". It considers somewhat subjective perceptions of one's satisfaction with the quality of life and wellbeing, such as leisure and social interactions, governance, and the natural environment. This is all good.
However, other metrics seem to have been ignored. The European Commission recently launched a "Beyond GDP Initiative" following the OECD study "The Economy of Wellbeing—Beyond the GDP." The OECD has proposed a Better Life Index to measure socio-economic growth better.
Iceland has recently adopted an economic model which includes 30 criteria that measure wellbeing. Scotland has recently launched a project to measure the worth of nature. Bhutan uses a Gross National Happiness Index based on nine quality-of-life variables. In the UK, the Thriving Places Index has been pioneered. Some states in the US are exploring Genuine Progress Indicators. Even China is exploring the use of a Green Gross Domestic Product index. The Netherlands has decried the "false goal of GDP growth". It embraces the Doughnut Economic model, which seeks to balance "social foundation parameters" and "ecological/environmental limits".
So, it is good that we are prospecting a time when the measure of our development is not just GDP. Of course, it is necessary to see whether the vision includes elements that, in addition to promoting economic growth, will also promote social and environmental wellbeing.
Of course, it is also laudable that the second core principle embraced by the vision is "Cultural and Heritage Preservation"; the theme of "wellbeing" permeates the whole document. The document acknowledges that citizens are primarily concerned about overdevelopment, housing affordability, and the cost of living; it also acknowledges "a clear public appetite for reform and improvement."
When outlining strategic priorities, it is essential not to use big terms such as "sustainable mobility," "innovative economic models," or "strong environmental reforms" without following through with these objectives in mind.
Photo by Tristan Dexter
Two essential topics seem to have been completely glossed over. The first and most fundamental absence is any discussion about demography. If we wish to define what kind of country we aspire to become, we should start with the number of people living here. When tourism is discussed, target numbers are mentioned, but nothing about population targets is mentioned.
The other theme is climate, not so much in the sense of political and international obligations; terms such as "climate neutrality", "climate goals", or even in the business opportunity sense, as in "climate action being an opportunity", pepper the document. However, the document does not address the potential impact of climate change on our socio-economic dynamics, which is a climate change occurring despite Malta achieving its carbon neutrality obligations. For example, how will climate change impact the growth of tourism that the document envisions, and what if climate change inhibits this growth? How will a sea level rise impact coastal areas (not to mention potential land reclamation sites)? Surely, a document mapping out what Malta will look like in 2050 should be grounded in the realities of climate change, which looks inevitable and faster than initially envisioned.
Despite the reality of climate change, it is envisaged that tourism will grow from 3.6 million annual visitors in 2024 to 4.5 million in 2035. How can this be reconciled with the desire to commit "to quality over quantity"? And if this growth were fuelled by "premium accommodation", "holiday-quality furnished premises", "(Luxe Airbnb)", and "with a particular focus on Gozo", how could it be reconciled with the issues of housing affordability, environmental wellbeing, and the overall quality of life? The impact of Airbnb on housing affordability in places like Barcelona, and indeed, most of Spain, is well documented.
The problem is that even if it were realistic - a recent report by the World Travel and Tourism Council suggests that it is not, and therefore, the document seems to have an element of wishful thinking - the envisioned growth in tourism numbers has not been challenged through the lens of societal impact. Did the vision document's drafters benefit from a capacity study which could support the promotion of such drastically increased numbers? Or is it just the ambition of the operators of the tourism industry?
The issue of population density and capacity is indirectly expressed under the pillar of Smart Land and Sea Usage by reference to the need to ensure that "growth respects the carrying capacity of the country while enhancing the quality of life". Fine. But I worry about terms such as "efficient spatial planning" - what exactly does it mean to be "efficient" in spatial planning? "reduced bureaucracy" as is often demanded by the industry? I also worry about slogans thrown in - "urban planning citizens-centred by emphasising a sustainable architecture" - which do not mean anything. And what does "vertical expansion" in strategic areas mean? (Is it just a euphemism for high-rise buildings?) And how will these strategic areas be selected? Will Malta prepare landscape plans to help assess construction proposals for the environment we wish to protect and look after? When will the studies on the "carrying capacity of the country" be carried out? Construction is not an agile economic activity; it inevitably needs a long lead time, and slowing down is even more difficult. It is not an economic activity which can be switched on and off at will.
Construction (sorry, "Smart" Construction) is envisaged to be one area that will continue to grow vigorously - surprise, surprise - except that we are now going to make sure that this growth will be regulated and that the relevant policies will be enforced - acknowledging, indirectly, that, at the moment, construction is not regulated, and policies not enforced. Allow me some scepticism at the proposal of real-time monitoring of construction sites to "minimise the impact of construction on the citizen's quality of life". What exactly does that mean? CCTV cameras over each of our construction sites?
Today, 2025, Malta still has no national building regulations or performance standards in place, and this is not for want of trying for the last 25 years! How will we reach this ideal, no-impact construction process by 2050? If it is by radically rethinking the planning paradigm, we must start this new approach yesterday to see a new Malta by 2050. If it is by re-training our operatives in the new skills required for these new construction processes, we should be starting immediately.
Surely, "smart" construction is not about real-time monitoring of building sites but, perhaps, about a radical rethink of construction processes (more off-site work? more automation?). It is certainly laudable to promote renovation (rather than demolition). Still, clear policies are required about new buildings, especially on the proposed "vertical expansion", since these cannot co-exist in the same urban space with renovated houses. The statement "enhancing citizen wellbeing through the built environment" is an essential objective in this part of the vision document. Sadly, it is contradicted by other parts of the vision document.
Under the pillar of "Smart Land and Sea Usage", we also find reference to land reclamation, which is envisioned to "improve the environment" and "to add value to the country" (- how I love the sophisms). "Cautious" land reclamation is suggested as a way to "address limited land space" - it is, of course, one thing to argue that land reclamation is required to allow the expansion of the Freeport terminal. It is, however, simplistic to assume that land reclamation would help Malta accommodate the tremendous increase in the number of tourists, plus an unspecified rise in permanent population - and at the same time, improve our natural and living environment.
Why does land reclamation regularly pop up to solve the congestion we perceive every day? Land reclamation has been used in Malta, particularly when the island had a considerable volume of war debris that needed to be disposed of. It has also been touted as one way to solve the waste problem of the construction industry, as it pursued a waste-intensive strategy of demolishing existing buildings and excavating vast underground car-parking volumes - none of which activities are particularly "zero carbon" or sustainable. Today, even when it is recognised that waste excavated material is an economic resource, such as reconstituted stone material, examples from countries like Singapore and Monaco are highlighted as models we should follow. The problem is that land reclamation is not simply a question of dumping demolition debris into the sea. Singapore has been doing land reclamation since the 19th century, aided by its 64 offshore islands, swamps and marshland, and sea depths rarely exceeding 7m. Singapore first flattened two hills to increase its land area, dredged a harbour for the sand it could obtain, and then started importing sand on a large scale. Monaco has used a different technique, investing heavily in reinforced concrete caissons and other reinforced concrete structures; the population density of Monaco is comparable to Malta's, except that most of its residents are millionaires! The question is whether this is the Malta we are envisioning.
The document suggests that the seven sectors on which a substantial part of the envisioned growth in GDP depends, at least for the next 10 years, are mostly the same ones that currently underpin our economy, namely tourism, construction, gaming, shipping and maritime activities, financial services, aviation, and manufacturing (pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors). However, there are subtle changes; for example, there is, concerning gaming, the implied awareness of the vast energy demands of data centres, and hence the greater difficulty of achieving carbon neutrality with the growth of this industry. Concerning the high-end manufacturing sector, the vision document envisages the adoption of Industry 4.0 standards, which means the integration of IoT (Internet of Things), AI (artificial intelligence), robotics and big data. The document also refers to preparation for Industry 5.0 standards, except that it is not clarified that Industry 5.0 aims to recover the centricity of humans in industrial manufacturing processes.
It is a good idea to envision where Malta should be going and clarify the sort of Malta we wish to live in. However, the document published for consultation does not offer a clear vision of where we want to be in 2050; there is the feeling of trying to put together ideas and suggestions from different actors, even if they may be in contrast. It feels as if we wish to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Do we want a green country, with many open green spaces in our urban spaces, or do we want to reclaim land around our coasts to transform this great natural asset of our coastline, both on the surface along the sea and below? Do we want urban areas comprising renovated housing, or do we want high-rise residential areas? Do we want quality tourism, or are we still chasing numbers?
Malta Vision 2050 must be widely and correctly discussed to clarify the vision that everyone subscribes to. The discussion should also include alternative scenarios to give weight to the choices embodied in the document. When approved, it must not become yet another document that has been adopted but remains on the shelves. It is noted that a document entitled "Malta's Sustainable Development Vision for 2050" was adopted in 2018. This document is not even referenced in the current vision for 2050, even though the executive summary highlights "sustainable development" as a key objective. Let us, therefore, be serious about our vision for the future.
Alliance is more than a real estate company—it's a leadership blueprint. MONEY speaks with the ten figures behind Malta's most people-driven property brand to uncover how strategy, culture, and sustainability are shaping their future and ours.