A coalition of Maltese environmental NGOs has condemned new proposals to carry out land reclamation for a lido in Sliema, branding the project “pure madness” and warning that it represents another assault on the country’s coastline, marine ecosystems, and public access to the sea. The groups argue that reclaiming land in the area would interfere with sensitive environmental processes, set a dangerous precedent for further coastal development, and reward a speculative model of growth that has already placed Malta’s shorelines under severe pressure. Critics say the plans prioritize private commercial interests over ecological resilience and quality of life, at a time when the island is grappling with overdevelopment, loss of natural beaches, and diminishing green and blue spaces for residents.
The objections echo broader concerns NGOs have raised about a pattern of legal notices and planning amendments that they claim dismantle existing safeguards, limit third-party appeals, and grant de facto amnesties to illegalities within the development zone and outside development zones. Activists stress that Sliema’s waterfront is already heavily built up, and further encroachment into the sea would worsen coastal erosion, disrupt marine habitats, and increase vulnerability to storms and sea-level rise. They point to past experiences in other countries where reclamation has led to long-term environmental damage, including the destruction of fishing grounds, degradation of water quality, and the creation of exclusive zones that local communities cannot afford to access.
For the NGOs, the lido reclamation is symptomatic of what they describe as a government approach that treats the sea as disposable land rather than a finite public resource. They argue that Malta should instead protect remaining natural coastline, restore degraded habitats, and invest in sustainable, non-reclamation alternatives for public bathing and recreation. The groups have called for the plans to be withdrawn, for full transparency in decision-making, and for planning policy to be aligned with climate adaptation and biodiversity commitments rather than short-term construction gains. The statement concludes that allowing such projects to proceed would be inviting nature’s wrath, with environmental costs that far outweigh any claimed economic benefit.
