Jobs for Gozitans or not at Hondoq?

Published on the Malta Independent on Sunday 25th July, 2010 by Jane Carr.

Mepa has already gone through the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Hondoq project, and has made many valid comments, such as the one below:

“Furthermore, this section of the EIS does not make any reference to vehicular routes during the operational period of the project, though it may be dealt with in another section. This is a major impact on Qala residents who already have to cope with the second highest rate of air pollution on the island. Once construction is over, the project is estimated to generate the passage of approximately 2,000 tourist, employee and supplier vehicles per day passing through the quiet and narrow streets of the village. The EIS has consistently treated the Hondoq project as being the only touristic beneficiary in the area. This is fallacious, as the other existing touristic investments in the area stand to suffer due to the over-development of the bay and the increased traffic through the village which will destroy the peace for which it is so well known and sought after as a holiday destination.”

(Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement made by Mepa – Comment #160 (P251) referring to the Coordinated/Technical Report (CR) 1.2.5.1 (P102) )

Part of the response given by the developers, referring specifically to employee-generated traffic was:

“During the operational period of the project the hotel operators will be obliged to employ minibus transport to collect and return staff from Qala and other villages in Gozo.”

This fits in with the proposed economic objective:

CR:1.1.1.12.3 (P23) – “to secure long-term gainful employment for Gozitan indigenous labour in all aspects of the hospitality and catering trades relevant to the Project’s array of proposed activities.”

However, Table 10.1 (P130) in the Traffic Impact Assessment raises a couple of questions.

In the table, a shop employee is allocated 0.33 of a parking space (as per the low standard given by the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands P140). One would think that hotel and restaurant staff would be allocated the same?

Here it seems a bit more complicated in that employees are divided into “resident staff” and “non-resident staff”. Yes, the non-resident staff are allocated 0.33 of a parking space – but, the resident staff are allocated one parking space (reduced to 0.75 because these resident staff are also able to use transport provided by the management of the marina complex).

Why the term “resident” staff? Surely locally employed staff would use the transport provided to return home after their shift?

The table refers to 10 non-resident staff for the hotel, and 70 resident staff. For the restaurants/bars/clubs it talks of 20 non-resident staff and 80 resident staff. (For the shops it simply talks of 20 employees.)

What questions are raised?

Are they really considering such high numbers of residential staff – in which case what happened to the promise of jobs for local Gozitans? Resident staff implies people who cannot readily go home after finishing their day’s work.

Why consider parking space figures for “local” staff for whom it is envisaged that transport to and from the complex will be provided? Maybe to make parking requirements seem higher than they actually need be for the size of the development for which permits are presently being applied?

Finally, as mentioned by Mepa (Comment #101, P 220/1):-

“Employment in the Gozitan tourist industry is preponderantly seasonal and hoteliers are increasingly employing low-wage Eastern European staff.

“Given this situation, is the net gain for Gozo worth the sacrifice of yet more Gozitan landscape?”