- The Special Spatial Plan for Tourism in Crete sparks debate (details in Greek).
- Local authorities and hoteliers express strong opposition.
- Categorization of areas as “red” indicates saturation or nearing it.
- Hersonissos, Malia, and Nea Kydonia are key areas under debate.
- New hotels are allowed but without state or European funding.
- The Environment Committee suggests a reevaluation to ease investment funding.
The Special Spatial Plan for Tourism for Crete was at the centre of a regional environmental committee meeting and has sparked significant debates. Various stakeholders argue it prioritizes luxury tourism developments, potentially leading to land conflicts and concentrating economic resources among a select few. The Autonomous Engineers of Eastern Crete have heavily criticized the strategy’s reliance on outdated models that neglect sustainable growth.
The need for a Special Spatial Plan for Tourism has become imperative to organize areas through adequate infrastructure and efficient destination management. The initial frameworks crafted in 2009 and 2013 were both annulled due to procedural missteps. After six years of studies, the current draft and its environmental impact strategy were open to consultation until late 2024 but suffered from transparency issues. Contributions submitted via email were largely inaccessible to public and institutional stakeholders, preventing a genuine dialogue.
According to the engineering group, the accompanying Environmental Impact Study offers no substantial measures for the responsible expansion of the tourism sector. The framework reportedly allows unchecked environmental strain without the required infrastructure. Critics claim this approach favours tourism over other activities, constraining small business growth and essentially transforming the local workforce into support staff for tourism enterprises.
Ongoing Issues and Future Outlook
The spatial plan remains controversial, as transparency during the consultation phase has been questioned. Inputs from the public and relevant authorities were not readily accessible, inhibiting a thorough exchange of ideas. Criticism from multiple sectors, including city planners and environmental groups, underlines a need to revise criteria and methodology for area categorization.
- Control Areas: Limited to 5 and 4-star hotels; at least 16 acres required for new sites.
- Developed Areas: Only 5 and 4-star accommodations are allowed on a minimum of 12 acres.
- Emerging Areas: Open to 5, 4, and 3-star hotel development.
- Growth Potential Areas: Permits 5, 4, and 3-star hotels, enhancing existing facilities.
- Undeveloped Areas: No restrictions on development.
In designated control zones, hospitality ventures can pursue only new luxury accommodations—specifically, 5- or 4-star hotels must occupy areas of at least 16 acres. Those wishing to expand existing facilities must align with these standards, effectively sidelining lesser-quality apartments. The regulatory scope emphasizes promoting upscale hotels, ensuring expansion involves upgrading to higher-star ratings and reinforcing an elite experience.
Similarly, designated developed areas permit new hotel constructions exclusively within the 5- and 4-star categories. These projects require a minimum spread of 12 acres. Like control areas, existing venues must undergo upgrades in line with the luxury standard to expand. This encourages a high-quality offering, securing a premium hospitality image.
For emerging areas, the management allows new hotels across the 5, 4, and 3-star spectrum. Any expansions in these zones mandate upgrades to meet these star ratings, ensuring quality service improvements.
Growth potential zones share similar guidelines—inviting the same star-rated hotels and requiring existing places to enhance standards when extending facilities. This policy aims to support tourism-related growth while maintaining competitive guest experiences.
In stark contrast, undeveloped areas currently face no development constraints, offering broader opportunities for diverse projects without the immediate pressure of upgrading to luxury or specific star levels. This open policy paves the way for varied tourism service innovations.
The framework’s role as a guideline is defined by statute and influences sub-level planning, necessitating careful alignment with regional plans. However, conflicts between different planning levels, particularly in places like Crete, highlight the necessity for revision without transitional guidelines. This prompts concerns about the clarity and practicality of strategic directions for relevant experts.
The framework touts enhancing visitor efficiency by encouraging tourism facilities to cater to luxury needs. Only high-end lodgings are endorsed in zones designated as Control Areas, sidelining smaller players and potentially causing economic strain by consolidating market power among larger entities. Such strategies often direct profits away from local economies, challenging the sustainability of tourism.
Despite highlighting various classifications for regional growth, from fully developed areas to those with development potential, the framework has been rebuked for ignoring other vital factors like biodiversity and infrastructure needs. The primary goal appears to be maximizing visitor expenditure efficiency, largely through upscale accommodations. This focus on high-end development has raised alarms about its impact on local communities and the negligible economic benefit for them.
