Cavo Sidero and the sustainable tourism debate

Stephanie Draper, 7th March 2008, Travel and tourism
files/crete-island_0.jpg

Sustainable tourism is a controversial subject. And I have been in the middle of controversy this week over the Cavo Sidero project in the North Eastern peninsula of Crete. It was featured in The Guardian this week as an ecological disaster! So why would Forum be working on a project like this?

To date, tourism has a pretty poor track record on sustainability, with a few exceptions. But we don’t think that's a good enough reason to steer clear of the sector. In fact, it's exactly why we want to get involved - to make sure we can all continue to enjoy holidays without causing damage to people or planet.

Cavo Sidero has the potential to showcase sustainable tourism - to show what sustainability looks and feels like and to make it aspirational. We want it to be a model for better holidays - and to use the learning from it to avoid the monstrosities that inhabit much of the Mediterranean coastline today. And let’s be clear here, sustainable tourism is not just about the environment (although that is a priority) it’s about human and social and financial aspects too.

The development is the brainchild of the Abbot of Moni Toplou, a bastion in the local community, who sees tourism as the best way to bring in income and jobs to the area and hence protect it from over-grazing, degradation and the slow death of depopulation (the young are currently leaving to find work elsewhere). He has commissioned The Minoan Group to develop the site. They came to us because they too want to achieve something remarkable that is sensitive to its environment and give something back to the local community.

Being a sustainable development charity we had many of the concerns that are being shared in the media this week. We wanted to know why you couldn’t leave the area as a wilderness; why you would want to build on a Natura 2000 site and what the alternatives were. We also wanted to know if the people who were going to do this were serious about sustainability. So, we thought long and hard and we asked a lot of questions. We read the environmental impact assessment (EIA) - which is extensive. We reviewed the sustainability management strategy. We went to the site and spoke to the Abbott and others about it. Our due diligence is not perfect but we wouldn’t have got involved if we didn’t think that it had real merit from a sustainability perspective.

From our explorations we were convinced that the alternatives were few and far between. The site needed investment to protect its ecological value - the old ‘use it or loose it philosophy’. In our view, having limited development that is controlled by one developer committed to protecting the ecological and archaeological features of the site is far preferable to the incremental development that we think would result otherwise. Uncontrolled building by a number of different players who lack a shared vision of sustainability would mean tourism as usual. We would lose a beautiful site and wouldn’t change anything in the process.

So we’ve engaged. This is clearly a risk for us, but we think that the challenge of sustainable development is so great that at some point you have to stop carping and to get your hands dirty. That’s what Forum for the Future is all about. With their support, we’re pushing the Minoan Group to be even better than their EIA (which is already best practice). To use rigorous sustainable design principles throughout, to have a comprehensive carbon strategy based on the carbon hierarchy (avoid first, then reduce, then replace with renewables, and finally offset as a last resort), to provide benefits to the local population and that’s just for starters.

It’s not easy. This is a challenging site that needs to be handled extremely carefully. But there’s something about Cavo Sidero that makes me think that these challenges will be overcome. Maybe it’s the Abbot’s track record - the wind farm, the renovated monastery, the organic olive oil. Or the Minoan Group’s desire to create something that is sustainable. It might be the beauty and potential of the site itself. What’s clear is that this project makes me optimistic that the clear conscience holiday for the many is more than just a pipe dream.

Find out more about our work with Cavo Sidero here.

Comments

Forum for the Future welcomes constructive comment and differing opinions. We reserve the right not to publish messages which we believe are commercial or designed to disrupt discussion. We moderate comments according to these guidelines.

Cavo Sidero

This has to be utter madness! Planning to bring tourists to play golf in a wild, rocky, arid, windswept (but incredibily beautful and unspoiled) region like Eastern Crete? There is alreay a shortage of water and regular power cuts, particularly during the summer.

Let the golf fraternity go to Marbella and Florida!

PS Just look at the shambles that is Dionysus Vilage, a few km away. This has the potential to be an even bigger disaster.

Cavo Sidero

1. Stephanie Draper’s argument amounts to little more than claiming that the Minoan Group development would protect the area from an even worse fate. That is not convincing: as far as we know the Toploú Peninsula is not threatened by anyone other than Minoan Group. As we have pointed out, the climate and topography make it impossible for conventional tourism.
2. There is no point in ‘bringing income and jobs’ to an uninhabited area where there are no people to do the jobs. Workers would have to be brought in. The municipality whose territory extends to include the site does not want the development.
3. Cavo Sidero will have to compete with many other golf developments around the Mediterranean. Several are proposed each year: there is a similar one contemplated near Dubrovnik, for example. This one is likely to be at the bottom of the competition pile because of its disastrous climate (wind and heat) and remoteness. The whole golf bubble may burst at any time when the game ceases to be fashionable.
4. The environmental impact assessment, however ‘extensive’, verbose, and costly, is useless because it deals in general principles and is short on the details relating to this particular site.
5. The Abbot may be ‘a bastion in the local community’ but he is the head of a monastery which is moribund because of failure to recruit new monks.
6. The ‘comprehensive carbon strategy’ is irrelevant to our objections. It would be part of any viable development scheme, wherever located. (It should, of course, also include the carbon costs of transporting guests and workers to and from the site.) It does not address the damage which the development would do to the ecology, archaeology, and amenities of the locality. Nor does it deal with the problem – which is partly itself a carbon problem - of a huge development in a place too dry to sustain it.
7. Minoan Group cannot promise to remain in control of the project or of the site, or even in existence, for more than a decade or two. The conditions of the project will not be enforceable against their successors. If the development succeeds it will be difficult to resist demands for incremental expansion, sustainable or otherwise. If it fails – and east Crete is a graveyard of failed developments – its ruins will clutter and uglify the landscape for centuries to come.
8. Draper ends ‘There’s something about Cavo Sidero that makes me think that these challenges will be overcome’. That casual indifference to the details of an unfamiliar environment – that ‘eternal optimism of half-informed outsiders’ [Christopher Smout] - is exactly what we are objecting to. Forum for the Future, which is a reputable environmental organization, should have nothing to do with this project.

Oliver Rackham OBE, FBA
Dr Jennifer Moody
Authors of The Making of the Cretan Landscape

Cavo Sidero

Rackham and Moody make some good points and some not so good.

1. The area IS under the protection of Minoan, the Abbot and FFF. There maybe no other parties involved but this is because the whole thing is sewn up for the foreseeable future. Therefore FFF's involvement is vital.

2. From talking to ordinary people in Sitia and surrounds there does not seem to be opposition on the scale suggested. Many have doubts but feel the economy of the area needs these jobs. There is probably the classic class divide in opinion on development at work here.

3. I certainly tend to think the climate and topography militate against golf courses - there are times you can barely drive a car across the top there let alone a golf ball! But then who am I to say they won't like it? I have as much interest in golf as I do in large hotels, i.e. none. My first thought on hearing of this plan was that it was pie in the sky and doomed to failure but I suppose it could be made to work and enough business people seem willing to go through these hurdles and invest vast sums to suggest financial viability.

5. I don't see how the viability of the monastery bears on the issue - this seems like a gratuitous kick at the Abbot.

7. Minoan could fail or lose control in the future but this does not mean that this project should not go ahead - unless, that is, all development in the area is banned for ever. It seems that this is highly unlikely and it is therefore imperative that groups such as FFF are involved. Maybe the intimate knowlege of the area which the authors feel is lacking from the impact report could be supplied by them? If the project does go ahead it would be in the best interest of everybody who loves this area that it be made to work properly. I couldn't agree more with the suggestion that the nightmare scenario would be an abandoned, half-finished project with more concrete skeletons littering the area.

Golf Resort Development in Greece

I would like to make it clear to the readers of this article that the developments of this and other golf courses in Greece by the same company - (or "real-estate-speculator") - are heavily opposed by local communities and local environmental groups and will continue to be so.

It is obvious to everyone that if FFF would like to help with sustainable development in the region, it would be more wise to involve itself with projects that benefit the basis of the community rather than just the pockets of a few individuals and wealthy tourists that can afford to go on golfing holidays. There is a lot that can be said about the environmental impact of high-class tourism developments, so please refrain from whitewashing.

Thanks, see you in Greece :)

There are many points to

There are many points to mention but I would love to know how 3 golf courses could be considered sustainable.

Wouldn't it be nice to leave just a little bit of a beautiful piece of Europe alone and not build on it for the enjoyment of those who have at the detriment to those who have not?