Tourism has been an integral part of the Maltese economy for decades. However, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing - and there is a general consensus that this is the point that Malta has reached with this sector.

Around 4.5 million tourists are projected to be visiting Malta by the end of 2026 - a number which is so staggering that the government's own Vision 2050 which was published at the start of this year only predicted that it would be reached in 2025.

While the numbers have undeniably contributed to economic growth, they have also been detrimental to several facets of life in Malta.  There is significant pressure on the country's infrastructure due to increase in people in the country, but more so the sector has ended up being detrimental to the quality of life of residents who live in areas which are known to be tourist hot spots.

A lot has been said about making a shift from quantity to quality in many sectors, not least in tourism, and the Budget speech last week highlighted how the government is intending to start that transformation.

Finance Minister Clyde Caruana announced that the eco-contribution would be increased to €8 per person per night for people staying in a hotel and €10 per person per night for people staying in short-lets such as apartments or farmhouses.

It is a hefty increase: Malta's tourist eco-contribution tax initially sat at €1.50 per person per night, with no distinction made on whether the person is staying at a hotel or a short-let apartment.

An analysis by The Malta Independent on Sunday shows that the newly revised rates will be among the highest across the whole European Union once they are implemented, with only The Netherlands, and high standard accommodation in peak-season Greece, and the cities of Paris, Milan and Barcelona having higher tourist taxes.

This fact has been used as an argument by some - especially by those who operate short-let apartments - to argue that the increases are disproportionately high.

However, when one considers the negatives that the industry has brought - the noise, the partygoers, the detriment to residents' quality of life, the detriment to the environment - it is only fair that an increased tax is placed to make up for it.

The increase is significant, but at the same time, if a tourist does not wish to travel to Malta due to an additional expense of €6.50 or €8.50 per night (keeping in mind that they would have already paid €1.50 per night) then they are not the quality tourist that Malta should be aspiring to attract.

There will be those who complain, no doubt, but this is a shift that even the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association has in the past said must happen.

Those operating short-lets may feel the impact more, but at the same time the proliferation of short-let apartments in residential areas has been one of the biggest detriments to residents' peace and quality of life in many years - not to mention how it has contributed to the continuous rise in property prices which is locking more and more young couples out of the housing market.

The Chamber of Commerce President William Spiteri Bailey did make a good point on the money that is going to be generated though when speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday this weekend, saying that it is important that the increased income is invested into improving Malta's touristic product.

Increasing the levy alone will not magically transform Malta into a quality tourist destination: the experience and product that the country offers must improve along with it.

So, while the increases to this contribution can be welcomed, a plan as to how the money will be used and whether it will be re-invested in the tourism sector would be welcomed even more - otherwise this increase is an isolated measure which will only have, at best, a negligible impact in the direction that Malta wants to aspire to achieve.