As expected, the government’s announcement that a stretch of land in Ghajn Tuffieha has been earmarked for a golf course has brought about mixed reactions.

Environment groups have already aired their complaints about the idea, while entrepreneurs have welcomed it.

Last year, an application for a golf course at Verdala was turned down by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, largely following pressure by environmentalists. The government had then appointed Mepa to look for sites that could potentially be developed into a golf course.

Twelve sites were initially identified, but these were later brought down to just four. The area behind the Golden Sands Hotel in Ghajn Tuffieha, known as Xaghra l-Hamra and Tal-Qortin, is the one the government seems to be concentrating upon, mostly because it does not entail loss of good agricultural land as is the case with the other three areas shortlisted, which were the White Rocks/Madliena area, the Marsa golf course and the adjacent sports area and the Gawhar area in Zurrieq, limits of Safi.

This does not mean that the buck stops there and that development will start. The identification of a potential site was only the first step. The government has already announced that an environment impact assessment will be carried out in the area before a decision is eventually taken.

Added to this, it has already been announced that patches of ecologically sensitive areas in the space earmarked will not be included as part of the golf course. It was said that the golf course would need between 45 and 50 hectares of land when the whole area is more than double that. So, literally, there is enough space in which one can manoeuvre.

Naturally, environment groups are already up-in-arms against the project. One is inclined to think that this would have been their reaction whichever place was chosen as a potential golf course area. After all, their efforts to protect the environment are their cause and their efforts are much appreciated.

Yet, on the other hand, the overall picture must be seen. First of all, the government has already announced that an EIA will be carried out and that ecologically sensitive areas will be spared. So that, in itself, is already a good point. The developer, whoever that may be, will be obliged to fund the management of the adjacent

ecological sites too.

Secondly, the development of a golf course must be seen in the whole perspective. The government has realised that a golf course could be a boost to the tourism industry which, it must be said, needs a push to become more competitive.

It has been calculated that some 30,000 golfers would visit Malta if there are proper facilities for them. It is a known fact that golfers spend more than the average tourist, and therefore apart from potentially increasing the number of tourists to Malta, a golf course could potentially increase income from tourism too.

Without a golf course, Malta would continue to be less competitive than other neighbouring countries that are investing in golf courses as a means of attracting more, higher-spending tourists. With a golf course, Malta can aspire to attract a bigger share of those tourists who come to Mediterranean countries to play golf, practically all the year round. Malta stands to gain, from a tourism point of view, if it has an 18-hole golf course.

If the EIA establishes that a golf course is viable and sustainable, if the ecological areas within the sites earmarked will not be touched by the development and, if anything, taken care of properly by the developer, and if the golf course will enable Malta to attract more high quality tourists to make it more competitive, then it would be better to have a golf course rather than a barren piece of land.