“We still haven’t recovered”: local communities harmed by reclamation projects in the Maldives - Human Rights Watch

Summary:

The Maldives is one the most vulnerable countries on earth to the consequences of climate change. Its government has been a strong voice in international forums on climate-related issues. At the same time, its policies at home belie these calls for global action.

Dependent on income from international tourism and anxious to expand its islands through reclamation, recent Maldivian administrations have ignored or compromised on national environmental regulations, been unwilling to enact and implement environmental safeguards, and neglected the concerns of local communities while pursuing development projects. This has been harmful to residents already at risk from the effects of changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, and increased flooding.

Maldives government officials say that reclamation is necessary for a country with a growing population and limited land and assert that the planned purposes—harbors, airports, and artificial islands for tourist resorts and guesthouses—are crucial to the nation’s economic development. However, the government’s failure to enforce environmental protection laws has damaged—sometimes irrevocably—livelihoods from fishing, farming, and other work that is dependent on reefs and wetlands. Poorly regulated development has stripped islands of natural resources and deprived communities of access to fresh water, public land, and natural resources such as fruit trees.

This report describes how the Maldives government’s failure to consult local communities and to adequately mitigate the impact of reclamation and other development projects has harmed island residents. Our research is based on interviews with residents in the northern Maldives island of Kulhudhuffushi and Addu atoll in the south, and in Malé, the capital, and Hulhumale. They described damage to homes and businesses from worsening flooding, and the substantial loss of income from the destruction of natural resources as a result of development projects implemented without adequate regard for environmental protection.

On Kulhudhuffushi, the government overrode environmental regulators and buried 70 percent of the island’s mangroves to construct a new airport. The loss of the mangroves harmed already at-risk local communities, in many cases devastating livelihoods. Five years later the government has still not provided compensation and has pursued other development projects that have damaged the reef. One small business owner described the economic impact. “We used to grow bananas—the trees were torn up for development,” she said. “Now we have to import bananas. Development to us means imported fruits no one has the money for.”

Although the Maldives has adopted several laws to prevent such harm, there is lax enforcement. Crucially, the Environment Protection and Preservation Act mandates environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for all development proposals, but while the process seems good on paper, many projects are preapproved by the government, rendering any EIA irrelevant. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Maldives’ primary environmental regulatory authority, is not independent but operates under the minister of environment, technology and climate change. It lacks the resources to carry out monitoring to ensure that projects heed required mitigation recommendations.

Climate change is an immediate existential threat in the Maldives, with 80 percent of the islands less than a meter above sea level, and many experiencing acute shoreline erosion, saline intrusion, and other effects of climate change. The Maldives government has committed to action on climate change and has sought financial support for adaptation. Countries and institutions providing climate financing should continue to do so but also require the Maldives government to enforce its own environmental protection laws, ensure independent oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency, and consult affected island communities. International climate finance donors should require robust evaluation of reclamation and other development projects for potential harm, and press for implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

READ FULL REPORT FROM HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH