Malta just tripled its tourist eco-tax. Did we go far enough?

Malta is set to triple its nightly eco-contribution for tourists from €0.50 to €1.50 per person. This is the first increase since the tax was introduced in 2016, when it was capped at €5 per stay and expected to raise about €6 million a year. 

With tourism now at record levels, government says the higher fee will fund infrastructure and environmental improvements in tourism hotspots. Is this too much? Or perhaps too little?

How much does it generate?

In 2024, Malta welcomed 3.56 million tourists who spent an average of 6.4 nights, accumulating in a total of 22.9 million nights on the islands. The old €0.50 rate would have generated roughly €11–12 million in eco-tax. At €1.50, the same volume of nights would bring in around €34 million. 

This assumes the tax continues to be charged per night and that the €5 per-stay cap is raised proportionally (government has not yet clarified this). Even if the €5 cap stays in place, it would hit after four nights.

Tourism is still growing. Officials forecast around 3.7 million inbound tourists in 2025, which would translate to roughly €36 million in eco-contribution revenue assuming similar lengths of stay. 

The eco-tax is becoming a serious revenue stream, rather than a symbolic contribution.

How €1.50 compares to other EU competitors

Malta’s new €1.50 per night eco-contribution is modest by regional standards. Many European destinations already levy tourist or sustainability taxes, often several euros per night.

• Spain: The Balearic Islands charge up to €4 per person per night in high season. In Catalonia, higher regional rates plus Barcelona’s city surcharge mean high-end guests can easily pay €10+ per night in combined taxes.

• Greece: The “stayover tax” has been €0.50–€4 per room per night, but from 2025 a 5-star hotel will charge €10–€15 per room in peak periods, with mid-range hotels at €5–€1.

• Italy: Major cities typically charge between €2 and €7 per night depending on location and hotel category, with Rome at the upper end and Venice considering a separate €5 day-trip fee.

• France: The taxe de séjour runs roughly from €0.20 up to €4 per person per night, but Paris now charges about €5–€8 for mid-range hotels.

• Croatia: Peak-season tax is about €1–€1.50 per person per night, roughly in line with Malta’s new rate.

• Portugal: Lisbon charges €4 and Porto €3 per night, both capped at seven nights.

Against this backdrop, Malta’s €1.50 sits on the lower end of what tourists already pay in Mediterranean Europe, but generally higher than most Eastern European destinations.

Could Malta have asked for more?

Given this international picture, Malta could arguably have gone beyond €1.50. Benchmarked against peers, Malta’s move is cautious rather than radical. So why stop at €1.50? Politically, tripling the fee is already a big step. A more aggressive hike might have triggered stronger pushback from hoteliers, language schools and tour operators worried about competitiveness. 

It also makes sense to observe the effects before moving again. In short, the authorities chose a middle path, at least for now.

Will €1.50 deter tourists?

Evidence from other countries suggests small tourism taxes rarely cause major drops in visitor numbers, especially when rival destinations also levy similar fees. Studies on tourism taxation show that very high fees can clearly deter visitors, but modest local taxes tend to have limited impact. Barcelona is a good example: hotel guest numbers rose from 7.1 million in 2013 to 9.5 million in 2019 despite the Catalan tax. Italian analysis for cities such as Rome, Florence and Padua likewise found no negative impact on demand after city taxes were introduced.

When Malta first introduced the eco-tax in 2016 there were similar worries, but arrivals have continued to set new records. Today industry leaders generally accepted the latest increase, provided the money is visibly reinvested in Malta’s touristic product. Government’s line is that the higher fee is essential to sustain quality without hitting residents.

Does a higher fee mean “quality” tourism?

The eco-contribution hike is being presented as part of a shift towards “quality tourism”. Simply charging more does not guarantee quality outcomes. It has to be a part of a more holistic tourism strategy. What matters is whether the revenue actually delivers a cleaner environment, better transport in tourist areas, well-kept heritage sites and less overcrowding.

Malta has already started curbing mass tourism in sensitive spots. On Comino, daily limits cut peak-day visitors to Blue Lagoon by 68% last summer, coupled with plans to upgrade facilities. The message is that Malta is not trying to be the cheapest sun-and-sea destination, but a place that values its natural and cultural assets.

The Tourism Minister has also flagged new direct flights from the US and a tighter rental framework to limit low-quality accommodation, all under a “quality over quantity” vision. The eco-contribution fits into this narrative.

In practice, a high-value tourist is unlikely to be put off by an extra €1 per night. Those deterred are more likely to be extremely budget-conscious segments that bring relatively low economic benefit. Some analysts argue that such modest taxes can help filter out the least profitable, most impact-heavy visitors while improving conditions for everyone else. That is broadly aligned with Malta’s goal of easing pressure from sheer numbers and focusing on satisfaction and yield.

The next step is to wait and observe. If this modest increase hints at a slight improvement in the balance between the quantity and quality of tourist, we could, and probably should, see additional hikes in future budgets.