Greece’s tourism dilemma complicated by global warming

For centuries Greek tenant farmers struggled to support families on infertile land which produced famine and provoked emigration, rather than sustenance.

As in Ireland, a series of land laws transferred ownership from landlord to tenant. Owning the land where you were previously a tenant changes one’s attitude, yet still the land yields little hope.

Then, from the 1950s onwards, northerners – predominantly from Britain, Scandinavia and Germany – discovered sun holidays and paid these landowners to allow them to lie on their beaches, turn red in the blistering sun, and risk skin cancer. Suddenly, a barren and inhospitable landscape became a picturesque profit centre.

No one could blame the lucky owners for profiteering: it would take an environmentalist with a heart of stone to condemn a modest xenodoxeio (hotel) with a taverna providing work for the family, investment in the locality and a sense of self-esteem.

Two Afghan journalists beaten after being detained by Taliban

---

First flight with passengers leaves Kabul since US withdrawal

---

Mexico’s supreme court votes to decriminalise abortion

---

The environmental impact of these resorts is disastrous in policy terms

Today, however, the vast majority of Greek tourism developments are owned by multinational consortiums – often Russian or US based – creating massive self-contained resorts whose visitors spend little or nothing in the locality and whose profits are exported.

The environmental impact of these resorts is disastrous in policy terms. Tourism is an industry with a large carbon footprint. Conversely, tourists require a sense of security which cannot be guaranteed in the face of the challenges posed by climate change, the Covid pandemic and the refugee crisis, which threaten the traditional structures of tourism.

There is a conflict between a national policy for tourism, which could confront these challenges, and the need for “foreign investment”, which has become government-speak for “progress”, a symbol of the country’s modernisation for which it has striven since independence.

Scientists, economists and environmentalists are aware of the consequences for tourism, especially mass tourism. But not, it seems, politicians and those deriving profits from tourism.

Greece, which is heavily dependent on tourism, has boasted for many years of its intention to develop niche markets since mass tourism is globally in decline. But it has done little to make it happen. Greece is famous for vines and olives – because, like the people themselves, they are resilient – but agritourism is neglected as a niche market, as are music, film, literature, hillwalking, archaeology, gastronomy and golf, for example.

Confusion about Covid-19 continues to make the tourism industry a minefield of speculation and uncertainty. These anxieties have been exacerbated not only by the usual massive influx of tourists but by young locals congregating in parks and narrow streets with little apparent awareness of, or concern about, the danger of infection. As with similar situations in Ireland, the police have little or no power to intervene.

Close the country, and whole areas of the economy will go to the wall

So extensive is the disregard for the danger of infection that in Mykonos, the holiday place for the super-rich, the "coronaparty" became the norm. On national television we were treated to footage of a villa party in Mykonos attended by 80 people dancing and hugging, when music in public bars is forbidden. Curfews were introduced in several holiday centres including Mykonos and Crete.

A government minister pointed out that not only are such people “playing with their lives” but that they are “playing with the lives of others”. His warning applies equally to any country where tourism, or any other type of socialisation (such as bars and restaurants) depends on the lifting of Covid restrictions.

It points to the fiscal imperatives of facilitating social contact. Close the country, and whole areas of the economy will go to the wall. Open the country to tourists and a number of people will die.

But the major impact on tourism is not at all uncertain – a forum on climate change and tourism held recently in Crete raised the questions: how can tourism respond to the discomfort of the increasing temperatures; the lack of adequate water; and the dangers of wildfires, which not only destroy thousands of acres of virgin forest but also cause deaths; and how can tourism expand without further depleting the natural resources which are its chief attraction?

Heat waves (which will become the norm) exert increased pressure on electricity supply, while rising temperatures bring greater danger of wildfires and drought. Increasing numbers of tourists, especially in large complexes, create unmanageable amounts of waste.

Politicians are cracking under the pressure of having to make unpopular decisions

The Crete forum was told that Greek gross domestic product (of which tourism accounts for more than 20 per cent) will suffer if policies are not developed to adapt to imminent change in climate, infrastructure, erosion of coastlines and monuments, and sea pollution.

But policy change will upset vested tourism interests. And, as Athens journalist Maria Katsounaki pointed out, "politicians are cracking under the pressure of having to make unpopular decisions – something the political system was not prepared for".

The urge to be “modern” like everyone else can mean abandoning who you are, and why you fought originally to control those ancestral acres of bleak and unremitting landscape.