WATCH | Silvio Schembri on Vision 2050: ‘I will do my best to ensure it is a nation’s vision’

Silvio Schembri wants to break the five-year electoral cycle that political parties are often bound with when planning the country’s future. 

The economy minister has just launched Vision 2050, a plan that charts the country’s course for the next 25 years. It’s an ambitious plan that seeks to make Maltese residents more prosperous while enjoying a better quality of life. 

“I will not be here when it comes to fruition,” he tells me jokingly at the tail end of an interview inside the boardroom of Palazzo Zondadari in Valletta, where his ministry is housed. 

He insists the vision document is not his and neither does it belong to the government. “I want this to be the nation’s vision by bringing everyone around to agree on the basic principles of where we want the country to go,” he says. 

The document proposes 90 overarching measures that cover different sectors, including the economy, health, the environment, social wellbeing, transport and education. The ultimate aim is to register improved wellbeing, better incomes and a higher standard of living. 

Schembri tells me a key point when the document will be finalised later this year will be the publication of key performance indicators (KPIs) for every ministry and sector. He acknowledges the cynicism that may accompany grand plans like this but insists the introduction of KPIs will ensure the plan is kept on track. 

“These KPIs will be published on a dedicated website so that progress can be tracked. The KPIs will cover all aspects listed in Vision 2050 and there is agreement about this with the stakeholders,” he says. 

Schembri also discusses land reclamation, a mass transport system, tourism and public-private partnerships in light of the bad name they got after the Vitals hospitals fiasco. 

Vision 2050 will be open for public consultation until September.

The following is an excerpt of the interview. 

Watch the full interview on maltatoday.com.mt and our social media pages.

If we were to travel back 25 years, the same period Vision 2050 is prospecting forward, we had a world that was worrying about the millennium bug, Malta was still negotiating its EU accession, internet was still in its infancy, and since then we experienced a pandemic and a war in Europe’s midst. 25 years is a long time. How can you lay down a vision for the next 25 years when there could be changes that are unimaginable to us, today? 

Just because in the past we did not plan at length should not be an excuse not to do things differently. You mentioned Malta’s EU accession; the EU has its own targets of where it wants to arrive by 2050. This is why we chose 2050 because it aligns with Malta’s EU targets such as carbon neutrality. 

[…] 

When the Labour Party came to government in 2013 it had a 10-year plan to grow the economy. We had a dead economy that was producing €7 billion in 2012 and which grew to €24 billion last year. The main focus was economic growth and the target was achieved. It is useless speaking about investing in the country’s infrastructure, the health system and social services, all of which cost money; if the country does not have the money to make certain investments it is useless talking about them. If the economy had not grown as it did, we would not have had the financial strength during the pandemic to pay the wages of so many people, or to finance the investment in health, or subsidies…

But it was also economic growth that came with its consequences. 

Exactly. But that was the first step. Everything has its consequences in life. Today, the country is in a financially strong position… people are now telling us that not everybody has advanced at the same rate as economic growth. Vision 2050 has three revolutionary aspects to it: The government is projecting over a period that will transcend the political cycle; the manner by which we will be measuring the country’s success not on GDP but on three indexes – the UN’s Human Development Index, Eurostat’s overall life experience and Eurostat’s median disposable income – whose main drivers are focussed on individuals and not GDP… [the third aspect is key performance indicators, mentioned below]

Vision 2050 is prospecting that Malta would have surpassed the EU average in median disposable income and will be on par with France within the next 10 years. It’s an ambitious target but how will it be achieved? 

This is not just an economic vision. It is a country vision that encompasses different elements, which will be working towards a common goal. Over the past 10 years, Malta has experienced strong growth in its median disposable income without this having been the focus of government’s actions... [Vision 2050] identifies the economic sectors where we want to see growth and improved productivity; this will lead to better wages. Attracting more high value-added activity will automatically lead to a higher standard of living in financial terms. Malta has already advanced from around 77% to 93% of the EU average in the past 10 years. Now, we are setting a target of 15 points more than the EU average over the next 10 years. It is very similar to the improvement we witnessed over the past decade; why shouldn’t we achieve it if we are going to have a more focussed approach that will direct resources towards that goal?

While in the economic sphere there are targets to be met, these are absent for the environment; the plan foresees more open spaces in urban areas but no target is set as to what land area will be committed. Do you agree with this? 

The vision is built on four pillars and the economy is only the first of these pillars. The other pillars target social development, education, open spaces, better land management… but for the first time ever, after the public consultation period is over, clear key performance indicators (KPIs) will be set and made public. They will outline what needs to be done and by when. 

[…] 

These KPIs will be published on a dedicated website so that progress can be tracked. The KPIs will cover all aspects listed in Vision 2050 and there is agreement about this with the stakeholders.

In tourism, you are setting a target of 4.5 million arrivals over the next 10 years. In a country that is already crowded, doesn’t this create more problems? 

A figure like this cannot be viewed on its own; there is an explanation behind it. I understand the criticism… but if we look at the current scenario, we experienced an increase of around three million tourists over the past six years. What we are saying in the document is that over a 10-year period, the numbers will go up by another million. The increase does not necessarily mean tourists will be spending more days in Malta. The international trend in tourism is for people to take more frequent holidays that are shorter in duration. 

[…] 

Another factor is where to direct this increase. The shoulder months (winter months) remain shoulder months despite the substantial improvement we have witnessed. Having tourists spread out over the whole year is part of the strategy… This is why we are targeting conference tourism. This sector generates a lot of income. One conference [SIGMA] alone leaves €100 million in the economy…

And it also leaves a lot of people swearing… 

Yes, and that is the point. Malta does not have a convention centre where such activities can be held. [SIGMA] had to move from Ta’ Qali to the Malta Mediterranean Hub (MMH) because it became too big for the Ta’ Qali centre… The long-term place is not MMH… a proper convention centre will be developed at Ta’ Qali. The vision speaks of this. Put SIGMA aside, which was started by a Maltese entrepreneur, who calls Malta his home; there are other conferences that require certain services and will not look at Malta as an option because they will not use a tent. We have a lot of potential in this regard… it’s not just about attracting one million more tourists but also focussing on a higher spend per night; from €144 today to almost double that. 

[…]

Land reclamation is every politician’s pipe dream but despite the pledges and studies nothing has ever materialised because the biggest issue remains financial feasibility of such a project unless it is tied to commercial development or real estate. Why is this proposal reappearing in Vision 2050? 

What was done in the past has not been discarded. Today’s proposal is based on the [2019] study that identified some six sites where it is commercially viable to reclaim land from the sea. The problem is that the seas around Malta are very deep, which makes such a venture very expensive. 

[…] 

Today, the situation is different… we have the political will. The majority of constituted bodies agree the country should go in that direction… the type of project is dependent on the area chosen. As we speak, there is a land reclamation project taking place at the Freeport. We are using this as an example of how such projects can happen. The squaring-off project [of Terminal 2] had long been on the table but there were concerns from residents about the impact this would have on them. I sat down with the residents and the operator to try and reach common ground. We agreed on a change in the concession agreement by which the Freeport would give up the option to develop quay cranes on the side closest to the community on Terminal 1 and government would fork out half the expense for the operator to reclaim the sea and square-off Terminal 2, which would enable it to increase its operations further away from residents. The process is underway and there is constant monitoring.

But the Freeport expansion is financially feasible because there is a clear commercial interest. The capital expenditure will be recouped through increased activity. 

One area identified in the [2019] study was next to the Freeport outside Marsaxlokk Bay. Why cannot we shift industrial or commercial activity that is currently taking place inside the Grand Harbour onto reclaimed land? This phenomenon of linking land reclamation only to real estate development should change. The fear has always been that land reclamation is only justified by real estate thus putting into question the public purpose of such a venture. We should not let fear stop us from striking up a conversation on land reclamation…

The vision also speaks of developing a mass transport system. The chosen transport mode will be unveiled when the vision document is finalised. Am I understanding well that government is committing itself to a mass transport system? 

[…] The metro study has not been abandoned. What is happening now is a study to determine which is the best mass transport method to have; whether to have a mixture of systems, or whether a particular project only makes sense… By the end of the public consultation on Vision 2050 we will have a clear indication of which is the most viable mode of mass transport.

So, you are committed to it. 

It is written down.

You can surely understand people’s cynicism because this had been promised and dropped. 

I understand it and it’s not just on this [mass transport system]. Governments have always planned for five-year periods. With what we are doing today, we have broken those rules. We are looking at planning that breaks the electoral cycle and I have sought conversion on this, including with the Nationalist Party… this is not one minister’s vision; this is not a government vision but I will do my best to ensure it is a nation’s vision by bringing everyone around to agree on the basic principles of where we want the country to go…