Challenge of Sustainable Tourism Development in the Maldives.pdf ...

Viewer
Transcript

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230300137

The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the Maldives: Understanding the social and political dimensions of sustainability Article in Asia Pacific Viewpoint · August 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01447.x

CITATIONS

READS

19

573

1 author: Regina Scheyvens Massey University 87 PUBLICATIONS 1,383 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Regina Scheyvens Retrieved on: 22 August 2016

Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint, Vol. 52, No. 2, August 2011 ISSN 1360-7456, pp148–164

The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the Maldives: Understanding the social and political dimensions of sustainability apv_1447

148..164

Regina Scheyvens Institute of Development Studies, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, PB11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Issues of power and politics are central to the development of the tourism sector and its prospects for contributing to sustainable development. This is demonstrated through a case study of the evolution of tourism in the Maldives, a luxury tourism destination where the government has followed a consistent policy of ‘quality tourism’ that has often been cited as a prime example of sustainable tourism. However, recently concerns have been raised about environmental degradation, human rights abuses, connections between the political and economic elite, and huge economic disparities associated with tourism here. Research on sustainable tourism needs to recognise the state’s pivotal role in directing tourism development and consider how states balance the competing interests of other powerful tourism stakeholders. Keywords:

Maldives, politics, social sustainability, sustainable development, tourism

Introduction Over the past two decades, tourist numbers in the Asia and Paciﬁc regions have soared. International arrivals have more than doubled from 82 million in 1995 to over 180 million in 2009, generating over US$200 billion (United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 2010: 5). Thus, Asia and the Paciﬁc have overtaken the Americas (North and South) as second only to Europe in terms of both international arrivals and revenue earned from tourism (UNWTO, 2010: 3). This growth in tourism has also led to job creation. Currently, tourism in the region accounts for 8.9% of employment, or 140 million jobs. Tourism is a particularly signiﬁcant economic sector in a number of the small island states in the region (McElroy, 2006). Rapid growth of tourism has been actively pursued by many governments, often while simultaneously espousing support for sustainable development of the tourism sector. Academics, however, are more wary about the prospects for achieving sustainable tourism, © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

bemoaning that the rhetoric of sustainability is often not followed through in practice or, at worst, is used to obscure rather unsustainable development practices (Mowforth and Munt, 2009): ‘Rarely have notions of “sustainability” been interpreted or employed in holistic terms. Rather, sustaining the tourism industry and the resources upon which it depends has appeared all too often to be the major priority’ (Hall and Brown, 2008: 1024). Some stress the need for a holistic approach that balances environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability (see, e.g. Butler, 1991; Sharpley, 2000). Overton (1999) argues that in particular, social elements of sustainability have not been given the prominence they deserve. His discussion of social sustainability encompasses issues of power such as the extent to which communities have control over development occurring in their local area. In order to gain deeper insights into why tourism in the region is so often not sustainable in practice, this paper argues that we need to pay greater attention to issues of power, including social and political dimensions of tourism development. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01447.x

Tourism development in the Maldives

A neglect of social and political issues is apparent in much of the sustainable tourism literature. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies (Briguglio et al., 1996), for example, all but one chapter focuses only on environmental and economic aspects of sustainability. Neto (2003) squarely criticises the sustainable tourism literature’s overemphasis on environmental issues because this can lead to partial ‘solutions’ that are unlikely to deal adequately with various development challenges. Thus, for example, Ghosh et al. (2003) writing with reference to islands in the Indian Ocean, argue that ecotourism is the answer because they believe the key issue in the region is environmental sustainability. Other critical concerns, such as the power of elites over the means of production for tourism and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, are not deemed worthy of attention. Social sustainability has achieved greater prominence, however, in the work of some advocates of pro-poor tourism (see, e.g. Mitchell and Ashley, 2010; Scheyvens, 2011). Thus, for example, German bilateral donor, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), has made social sustainability central to their concerns. In an attempt to improve working conditions in the tourism sector, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) has collaborated with the tourism industry, labour unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to discuss fair wages and the abolition of forced labour and sexual exploitation in the industry (Tampe and Lengefeld, 2007). While a number of tourism writers have devoted their attention to the politics of tourism (e.g. de Kadt, 1979; Richter, 1989; Hall, 1994; Coles and Church, 2007), few have explicitly examined how political factors inﬂuence the sustainability of tourism. Coles and Church thus complain that power is absent from much writing on sustainable tourism: ‘Nowhere perhaps is this perceptible paucity of theoretical and conceptual engagement with power discourses more emphatically exposed than in studies of so-called “sustainable tourism”; that is in, arguably, the most high-proﬁle topic within cross-disciplinary studies of tourism’ (2007: 7). Mowforth and Munt’s (2009) Tourism and Sustainability is perhaps the only book to scrutinise how power relations © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

among global, national and subnational actors are central to the sustainability of tourism. These authors emphasise the ‘inherently political nature of tourism development’ (2009: 296). There is a particular need for greater attention to the roles of the state and, speciﬁcally, governments in inﬂuencing tourism development: ‘. . . tourism studies still lack a full appreciation of the state’s current role in relation to tourism and hence its power’ (Church and Coles, 2007: 278). Soﬁeld (2003: 23) laments that so often tourism literature ‘glosses over the role of government’. He urges us to think beyond tourism as a private industry: ‘While tourism as an industry is generally regarded as a private sector activity where market forces predominate, in fact the embrace of the state is comprehensive’ (2003: 23–4). Governments have incredibly important roles, and responsibilities, when it comes to tourism development in the Third World, particularly if they are concerned about issues of sustainability (Brohman, 1996). It is generally agreed that the market is an inappropriate mechanism for providing the checks and balances needed to achieve sustainable tourism, even though in practice ‘. . . regulatory frameworks . . . increasingly reﬂect the imperatives of marketdriven growth’ (Bianchi, 2004: 498). Mowforth and Munt (2009: 293) agree, noting ‘It is governments that have a pivotal role and possess the potential power to control, plan and direct the growth and development of tourism’. Thus, it is up to governments to set the ground rules, or regulations, within which tourism takes place. And it is governments that have the power to establish policies that can determine whether a country follows a path of tourism development dictated primarily by overseas interests and capital, or one that seeks to achieve economic gains for a wide range local people and the state while preserving the integrity of social, cultural and environmental features of their country. In theory, governments can also set conditions through which power and associated resources can be assigned to communities (Soﬁeld, 2003: 340). Giving ‘voice’ and ‘ownership’ to communities through tourism development can be facilitated by departments and ministries in charge of tourism planning, for 149

R. Scheyvens

example. However, government interests and priorities often diverge greatly from those of local communities, and even where they want to ensure beneﬁts to communities there are often complex forces that inﬂuence them, be they external (e.g. foreign companies) or internal (elites, or industry associations) (Mowforth and Munt, 2009). As noted by Wall (1996: 41), ‘Planning is a political process that empowers some and disadvantages others, often strengthening the position of the powerful and further undermining the position of the weak’. This paper will use a detailed case study of the evolution of tourism in the Maldive Islands since the 1970s to demonstrate that social and political issues deserve greater attention in discussions over the prospects for achieving sustainable development of tourism. For three decades, uniquely, there was a single ruler in the Maldives (the longest serving leader in Asia at the time) and a consistent tourism policy was in place to promote ‘quality tourism’. However, a number of challenges to the sustainability of the quality tourism strategy have emerged. While a change of government in 2008 has delivered greater democracy and opportunities to spread the beneﬁts of tourism more widely, the new leader has also been constrained in his actions to deliver more sustainable forms of development. The Maldives therefore provide a pertinent case through which to examine the challenge of sustainable tourism development, and, in particular, whether social and political dimensions of sustainability are getting the attention they deserve. Paradox of sustainable tourism in the Maldives The Maldive Islands, described eloquently in promotional materials as ‘strings of pearls scattered across the Indian Ocean’, are a premium tourism destination. They comprise a series of 20 atoll groups with over 1000 tiny islands, only one ﬁfth of which are inhabited by the total population of approximately 400 000 Maldivians, leaving much scope for tourism development on the uninhabited isles. A combination of a tropical climate, beauty, isolation and strategic marketing have contributed to the growth of 150

the tourism sector such that it now dominates the economy, providing more jobs and far more foreign exchange than its closest rival, ﬁsheries. Tourism is projected to contribute almost 30% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, while ﬁsheries will contribute only 3% (Maldives Monetary Authority, 2010). However, the development of tourism was neither random nor automatic. It was carefully planned as part of a Quality Tourism Strategy from the 1970s onwards by a government that saw the economic beneﬁts that tourism could bring but, cautious of its potential negative impacts, planned for it to evolve carefully. This section begins with a discussion of the rapid growth of tourism development in the Maldives from the 1970s onwards. It discusses the Quality Tourism Strategy and how this has subsequently inﬂuenced the nature of tourism development as well as plans for more sustainable and equitable tourism development suggested in the 2007–2011 Tourism Master Plan. The main part of this paper then critiques the structure and impacts of the tourism industry, providing revelations about the politics of tourism and how environmental, social and economic sustainability have been undermined in various ways in this small island state. It notes, however, that after many years of elite control there has been a level of reform both in terms of a new government and a new tourism plan. Growth and signiﬁcance of tourism development in the Maldives Prior to the 1970s, there was only sporadic tourism in the Maldives, mainly resulting from boats calling into the islands while sailing around the Indian Ocean. Thus, the country’s tourism industry is not ofﬁcially considered as beginning until 1972 with the opening of the ﬁrst two resorts, offering 280 beds. By 1985, there were 55 resorts, growing to 97 resorts by 2009, with a total capacity of over 20 000 beds (Maldives Monetary Authority, 2010). In addition, another 51 islands have been allocated for hotel or resort development in future (Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoTCA), 2007b: 23). With this growth the industry diversiﬁed beyond adventure tourism and became more upmarket. In 2006, 53% of tourists came to the © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives

Maldives for leisure and relaxation, 30% for their honeymoon and 15% for diving (MoTCA, 2007b: 47). The growth in tourist arrivals has paralleled the rapid development of new facilities and has remained strong over a long period of time. From just 42 000 tourists in 1980, numbers grew to close to 800 000 in 2010. This is despite the government’s plan in the 1980s to cap tourist arrivals at 160 000 annually (Richter, 1989: 165). The major source markets have traditionally been Italy and the United Kingdom, followed by Germany, France and Japan. While China and India have been regarded as major emerging markets, in February 2010, the number of Chinese tourists surpassed all other nationalities and there was a doubling of Chinese tourists overall from 2009 to 2010, suggesting an important shift in source markets (Maldives Monetary Authority, 2010). Tourism has, overall, expanded very rapidly. Figure 1 shows small dips in arrivals in 2001 (in the face of a reduction in long haul travel after the 9/11 tragedy) and in 2009 (due to the global ﬁnancial crisis). While this ﬁgure also reveals the more dramatic drop in tourist arrivals in 2005, the year immediately following the Asian tsunami, which resulted in scores of deaths and put a number of resorts out of action, there was an impressive recovery in 2006 when arrival ﬁgures were up 52.3% over 2005 (MoTCA, 2007a). Another indicator of the success of the tourism sector in the Maldives is the occupancy rate for resorts, which increased from 65.6% in 2001 to 81.4% in 2006, again showing good

recovery in the face of the Asian tsunami (MoTCA, 2007b: 39). Meanwhile in February 2010, occupancy rates for resorts soared to over 95%. The projections are that there will be over 1 million tourists visiting the Maldives annually by 2012 (MoTCA, 2007b: 74). While the continued effects of the global economic crisis may undermine this prediction, the government seems set to pursue such growth. Thousands of hotel and resort beds will need to be added to make this a reality, and it is reasonable to question whether such rapid growth can be accommodated in a sustainable fashion. The Maldives is heavily reliant on international tourism revenue. The industry brings in around 70% of foreign exchange earnings (MoTCA, 2007a: 26) and provides half of all paid employment through a wide range of occupations including construction, transport, handicraft manufacture and sales, and employment in resorts (Abdulsamad, 2004). Tourism has contributed signiﬁcantly to the Maldives’ US$ 3756 GDP per capita ﬁgure, which is considerably higher than their South Asian neighbours (India – $1043; Sri Lanka – $2099) (IMF, 2008). In 2006, 35.3% of government revenue, over US$ 147 million, came directly from tourism due to the following: • the lease rent charged for each tourist resort island (the state owns all land, thus they nominate uninhabited islands for resort development that are then leased to the highest bidder),

Figure 1. Growth in tourist arrivals in the Maldives, 1996–2010 Source: Ministry of Tourism (2001); MoTCA (2007a); MoTAC (2010) © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

151

R. Scheyvens

• bed tax (US$8/person/night) for all foreign tourists staying in tourist accommodation and • departure tax paid by each passenger from Malé International Airport (MoTCA, 2007a: 25, 36). Indirect revenues from tourism also accrue to the government (MoTCA, 2007b: 36). In total, over 90% of tax revenue thus comes from tourism taxes and import duties (Haynes, 2004). A new tourism goods and services tax of 3.5%, introduced in 2011, will add to government revenues. Undoubtedly, the government has been able to improve services and infrastructure because of tourism earnings, thus, for example, most Maldivians have access to schooling and they have a high literacy rate of 97% (compared, for example, with 61% for India) (UNDP, 2009). Tourism revenues have also funded development of the public sector, providing jobs for many Maldivians. The case for sustainable tourism in the Maldives The rapid growth of the tourism sector noted above has been planned carefully in accordance with the Quality Tourism Strategy put in place in 1978 when President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom came into power. Gayoom stayed in power until he was defeated in the country’s ﬁrst democratic elections in 2008. The Quality Tourism Strategy was in part a response to the haphazard style of development of the sector prior to this time, which included independent tourists on extended holidays in India and Sri Lanka turning up on islands to ‘hang out’ for a while. Their behaviour including their standards of dress and their partying was seen as disrespectful of local customs and religion in this Islamic state. The Quality Tourism Strategy thus speciﬁed that in order to protect the human environment and avoid ‘cultural pollution’, resort islands are separate from islands inhabited by Maldivian people and should not be visible from inhabited islands, and tourists may only visit inhabited islands during daylight and under prescribed circumstances (Domroes, 2001). It also sought to protect the natural environment through regulations requiring, for example, that all new resorts prepare an environmental impact assessment, treat their own wastes and provide their own fresh water, that coastal development does 152

not unduly disturb coastal ecology, and that indigenous vegetation may not be removed (Domroes, 2001: 129–130; Ghina, 2003). Furthermore, when investors bid for speciﬁed uninhabited islands on which they wish to establish resorts, it is not just maximising rent which is considered: environmental impact and plans to cater for staff welfare are also supposed to be brought into account (Lyon, 2003). Such policies have impressed commentators, leading tourism academic Linda Richter to suggest that ‘the country has approached tourism development with considerable intelligence’ (Richter, 1989: 167). Similarly, the Maldives has been lauded by the World Tourism Organization as offering an excellent example of sustainable tourism (Lyon, 2003: 15). The Maldives’ selfpromotion has followed similar lines. For example, when the Deputy Director of Planning and Development from the Maldives Ministry of Tourism (Mr Ismail Firag) gave a presentation at a sustainable tourism conference in China in 2000, he titled it: ‘Presentation on Exemplary Island Destination in the World’ (Firag, 2001). This is supported by the Ministry’s vision: ‘The Vision of the Ministry of Tourism is for the Maldives to be the best example of sustainable tourism development – a nation with an economically proﬁtable tourism industry in harmony with its natural environment, cultural resources, and the values of its people’ (Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (MoTAC) 2011 – emphasis added). In addition, the Tourism Master Plan 2007– 2011, signalled that the Maldives had entered a new phase of tourism development. This Plan calls for more public consultations on matters concerning the industry, such as terms for lease agreements as well as input from NGOs and tourism sector employees (MoTCA, 2007b). A focus on spreading the beneﬁts of tourism is also clear in the new Tourism Master Plan, which states as its vision ‘. . . expanding and strengthening the Maldives tourism as an instrument of economic and social development in a manner that beneﬁts all Maldivians, in all parts of the country’ (MoTCA, 2007b: 19). Trouble in paradise On the surface, it certainly appears that the Quality Tourism Strategy enacted under the © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives

Gayoom government attempted to ensure that they did not sacriﬁce their environment or culture for the sake of a few tourist dollars. However, all has not been ideal in terms of the practice of sustainable tourism since then. This became apparent when, in 2004, United Kingdom tourism watchdog group Tourism Concern launched a campaign that highlighted problems with tourism in the Maldives (Haynes, 2004). Tourism Concern had responded to pleas from a group of Maldivian political exiles who wanted foreigners to understand that corruption and repression were realities in the supposed ‘paradise’ of their homeland. The campaign also highlighted the high levels of poverty in a country where tourism was bringing in enormous riches: luxury tourism brings millions of dollars into the economy every year, yet 42% of the population earns around US$1.50 per day (Tourism Concern, 2008a). A brieﬁng on the campaign, named ‘Lost in Paradise’, summarised these concerns: The income from the resorts rarely reaches those who need it and beneﬁts the select few, including the government in the form of taxes. State management of tourism protects these systems and ensures local communities are denied access to the beneﬁts of tourism. Local people are unable to speak out due to the repressive government and conditions where they are faced with imprisonment and possible torture for having a voice (Haynes, 2004: 1).

In a similar campaign, Friends of the Maldives, a UK-based organisation focusing on human rights, called for a boycott of the 21 resorts owned by members of the government, their families and friends (Henderson, 2008: 107). Another interesting source of critique of tourism in the Maldives is the 6th edition of Lonely Planet’s Maldives guide book (Masters, 2006) in which the author is highly critical of the politics and economics of tourism development here. While the book is still embellished with images of idyllic beaches and luxurious resorts, Masters raises strong concerns about human rights violations and the lack of good governance within the country. The discussion below will draw on some critiques from these campaigns and a range of secondary sources. It is also based on the author’s observations and analysis of the envi© 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

ronmental, social and economic sustainability of tourism development in the Maldives. During a two-week visit to the Maldives in 2005, I collected statistics on tourism, discussed with government ofﬁcials the impacts of the 2004 Asian tsunami on the industry, visited Thilafushi – the ‘rubbish island’, visited two resorts and interviewed the then Minister of Tourism, Dr Mahamood Shougee. Environmental concerns Undoubtedly, most tourists are stunned by the beauty of the ‘natural’ environment that greets them when they arrive at their Maldives’ resort. While lying by the pool, most will not feel racked with guilt over their carbon footprint, despite the fact that they have travelled on medium- to long- haul ﬂights to reach their destination. Tourists enjoy the long stretches of sandy beach, unaware that plants have been removed from these areas in order to make the beach appear more ‘pristine’. They may also be oblivious to the fact that much of the sand has been brought in from another island because reef blasting, to make channels for boats, changed the currents and led to erosion of some beach areas. As Lyon (2003: 59) explains further: ‘. . . that exuberant tropical vegetation requires careful cultivation, regular irrigation and sometimes soil imported from Sri Lanka’. Tourists sitting on the balcony of their over-the-water bungalow gazing at the lagoon are unlikely to consider the impact that driving poles into the coral has had on the marine environment. In essence, the natural environment of the tropical island has been ‘beautiﬁed’, ‘sanitised’ and built upon in ways that undermine local ecosystems (Domroes, 2001: 127). While the environmental guidelines noted earlier may seem comprehensive, resort managers are typically more focused on window dressing than serious environmental protection. Not all resorts compost organic waste or ask guests to minimise water use, and nor do they all have sewage treatment facilities (Buckley, 2003: 203). In order to provide most of the fresh water required, greenhouse gas-emitting diesel desalination plants are used, which is rather ironic as the Maldives, where most of the islands are no more than 1 metre above sea level, is one of the countries in the world most at risk of sea-level rise because of climate change. The ecosystems of many resort islands 153

R. Scheyvens

are overloaded with liquid and solid wastes: leaching of nutrients and chemicals leads to eutrophication and thus loss of marine species diversity and an increase in undesirable species such as sea grasses, which are now choking the coral colonies in some areas (Domroes, 2001; Firag, 2005). The carrying capacity of resort islands is being stretched as tourist demand leads to increasing levels of waste production (Brown et al., 1997: 320; Dowling, 2000: 253). Tourist resorts produce on average 2.5 kg of waste per person per day, as opposed to only 0.3–0.5kg of waste per person per day for Maldivians living on outer islands and 0.8–1 kg of waste per person per day for those living in the capital, Malé (United Nations Environment Program, 2005: 33). And despite the talk of resorts managing their own wastes, including owning their own incinerators and compactors, during the author’s visit to the Maldives there was ample evidence of resorts bringing boatloads of unsegregated ‘waste’ and dumping it on Thilafushi island, the dedicated solid waste management site, adjacent to Malé. When this point was raised with the Minister of Tourism in 2005, he stated that the resorts were within their rights and did not need to pay to dump rubbish on the island. There is clearly little incentive then for resorts to recycle or to minimise their wastes. Some of these problems may have been exacerbated by the government’s decision in recent years not to abide by recommendations in the First Tourism Master Plan (TMP) for greater control over resorts. Rather, they decided to allow resort owners the freedom to innovate, which often includes ‘hard engineering solutions’ such as land reclamation and construction of breakwaters (MoTCA, 2007b: 26, 56). The latest TMP covering 2007–2011 thus noted that the natural environment was being compromised because ‘some developers take advantage of weak monitoring on the part of MoTCA to deviate from the regulatory regime’ (MoTCA, 2007b: 56). One key strategy in this regard is to strengthen the regulatory regime regarding environmental issues; this includes tightening standards for sewage and waste water disposal (MoTCA, 2007b: 81). The new TMP notes that there has not been strict adherence to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements both during resort construction, and in the prac154

tices of resorts once they are in operation, because of lack of capacity of government agencies to follow up on this (MoTCA, 2007b: 55). A high proﬁle case of environmental damage as a result of resort construction hit the headlines in the Maldives in 2005, whereby the Dhivehi Observer (2005), a local independent newspaper, reported that fully-grown coconut palms, topsoil and sand had been removed from an inhabited island, Mandhoo, in order to beautify the exclusive Hilton Maldives Resort and Spa complex. Ironically, this removal of the island’s protective shield occurred just 2 months after the December 2004 tsunami struck, wiping out Mandhoo’s breadfruit trees. Now their ability to grow their own foods has been further limited by removal of top soil. On a more positive note, the new president elected in 2008, Mohamed Nasheed, has been outspoken at international forums on climate change since coming into power, leading to him being named by the United Nations as one of six ‘2010 Champions of the Earth’. He has also been involved in well-planned stunts, such as holding an underwater cabinet meeting to expose the threat of rising sea levels to low lying countries such as the Maldives. Nasheed has set the country a target of being carbon neutral by 2020, supported by a switch to renewable sources of energy, while admitting the difﬁculty of fully achieving this in the aviation industry, which is required to bring most tourists to the Maldives (Maldives Live, 2010). Meanwhile, the resort of Soneva Fushi is aiming to be world’s ﬁrst carbon neutral resort, and the president wants to use examples like this to contest the claim that luxury tourism is synonymous with environmental degradation (Nasheed, 2009). Economic concerns Economically, while some commentators focus myopically on the impressive growth in the sector and associated revenues earned from tourism, signiﬁcant concerns have arisen. In particular, while the rewards of growing the tourism sector have been signiﬁcant for the government and for both local elites and foreign investors in tourism, they have been spread very unevenly among the Maldivian population (Buckley, 2003: 203). While this section will focus on barriers to more widespread local ownership of tourism products and services, employment, the geographical © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives

concentration of tourism, and leakages, the following section on social concerns will look in more detail at inequalities related to tourism development. While there is quite high local ownership of the tourism product in the Maldives, with locals holding leases for 42 of the 97 resorts and another 20 being joint ventures (Maldives Monetary Authority, 2010), many local owners call in foreign companies to operate their resorts. There is also genuine bitterness among the general population that just a few Maldivian families and companies – many of which had direct connections to the Gayoom government – have successfully bid for resort islands. Most investors have needed a large amount of capital, extensive business experience and political connections, in order to be able to successfully compete for an uninhabited island. In the recent past, when new islands were released for lease, it was expected that existing resort owners would win most of the bids (Haynes, 2004). For example, in 2008, the Villa Group owned ﬁve resorts and controlled 12.4% of total bed capacity in the Maldives, in addition to owning associated travel and tour booking companies. Universal Enterprises, started by the two brothers who established the Maldives’ ﬁrst resort in 1972, own 10 resorts, as well as starting a new division in 2003, ‘Per Aquum Resorts and Spas’, which operates two new luxury resorts. The owners of these resort groups are among the richest people in the Maldives. This skewed ownership of tourism businesses and limited sharing of beneﬁts led the authors of the latest TMP to conclude that: . . . better formulae need to be worked out to deal with resulting social inequalities in the areas of the distribution of wealth and investment opportunities. If lease periods are extended without addressing the social inequalities, future generations may be prevented from becoming owners/operators of tourist resorts considering the fact that the number of islands available for tourism development is limited (MoTCA, 2007b: 65).

At present, there are major barriers preventing higher levels of involvement in tourism from Maldivian communities in general. First, the rule about developing tourist resorts on islands separate from local inhabitants is still largely in place. © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Over a decade ago Guthunz and von Krosigk (1996: 24) noted that, while certainly providing protection from negative cultural impacts, this could mean that ‘. . . the local population may also be segregated from participation in the enclave economies’. One minor concession has been to allow hotel development on a few inhabited islands that house airstrips that then feed tourists to nearby resorts. Second, because only the government, not individuals or communities, owns land in the Maldives, local communities could not use local land as equity if investing in tourism development. Outer island dwellers in the Maldives cannot simply set up the type of small-scale, home-grown tourism ventures that have proved to be both popular and sustainable in other island states such as Samoa (Scheyvens, 2008). Third, due to the fact that resort islands are set up as all-inclusives, there are limited possibilities for local people to run successful small tourism-related businesses such as restaurants, tour guiding or handicraft stalls: There are speciﬁc shops designated for tourists and local people have few opportunities to become small entrepreneurs and to beneﬁt from the local tourist trade. This contributes to the perception of widespread corruption and protectionism (Haynes, 2004: 3).

Tourists are often advised not to bring any local currency when they come into the country as they can charge everything – meals, drinks, ﬁshing or diving excursions and the like – to their resort account. However, suggested activities in the 2007– 2011 TMP could help to address these concerns somewhat. They include developing a community-based tourism action plan, tendering islands or plots of land for future hotel or resort development close to existing population centres and assisting communities to develop and promote cultural attractions and heritage sites (MoTCA, 2007b: 77). The latter would provide more opportunities for tourists to visit local communities. A further strategy aims to identify and initiate resort-community partnership programmes and projects that would increase usage of local produce by resorts (MoTCA, 2007b: 75). There has always been a strong geographical concentration of tourist services in just 2 of the 155

R. Scheyvens

20 administrative atoll groups (Kaafu and Alifu), those closest to Malé International Airport, which provided 75% of tourist beds in 2005. Until the mid-1990s, Kaafu and Alifu atolls constituted the only ‘tourism zones’ (Ministry of Tourism, 2005). Decentralisation promoted in the 1996–2005 TMP has led to the development of some outer atolls, and in 2003, just before election time, a new policy came in to allow at least one resort on every atoll. Ofﬁcials have delivered on their plan to expand tourism beyond the two dominant atolls: by 2009, Kaafu and Alifu atolls accounted for 69.1% of resort beds, a slight drop. This change is largely because of new resort developments in atolls which in 2005 had zero beds for tourists. Thus, by 2009, Noonu had 490 beds, Gaafu Alifu had 200 beds and Seenu had 830 beds (MoTAC, 2009: 2). Enhancing opportunities for Maldivians to invest in resorts, hotels and support services is a further way in which the government hopes to encourage wider ownership of the industry. The Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) was set up in 2006 in response to growing criticism of the lack of spread of the beneﬁts of tourism, and it has opened up opportunities for more widespread investment by Maldivians in the tourism sector. MTDC is 45% government owned and has 55% public-owned shares, and 15 new islands have been set aside for MTDC to develop as resorts (MoTCA, 2007b: 29). Development of nine of these resorts had been expedited by 2009 (MTDC, 2009: 5). MTDC aims to attract up to 30 000 share holders, and by the third quarter of 2009 had issued shares to 24 000 individuals (MTDC, 2009: 6). However, despite touting the notion of increases local involvement in tourism in the 2007–2011 TMP, the number of guesthouses (which tended to be locally owned) decreased from 28 in 2005 to 22 in 2009 (MoTAC, 2010). The existing skewed concentration of resorts and the wide geographical spread of the islands have severely restricted job opportunities for local people. Thus, while tourism provides around 14 000 jobs, 6000 of these positions are ﬁlled by foreigners. Most Maldivians who wish to work in tourism must migrate to work and live away from home for long periods of time. Employment in the tourism sector is therefore seen as inappropriate for young women in this 156

Islamic state: only 7% of resort employees are women and most are foreigners, with Maldivian women making up only 2% of the resort workforce (MoTCA, 2007b: 52). Tourism work is also regarded as undesirable for men: ‘Men are unlikely to take on menial work for low pay when there is a prospect that they can get a few days or weeks of relatively well-paid work on a ﬁshing dhoni’ (Lyon, 2003: 20). Thus, Westerners are often employed in managerial or specialist positions within resorts, while Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans ﬁll restaurant jobs (where their English language skills are desired) and cleaning or labouring positions. The lack of jobs created would be no surprise to Sathiendrakumar and Tisdell (1989), who, two decades ago, raised concerns about the extent to which the tourism industry could provide employment for local inhabitants in the Maldives. Tourist resort jobs are also not attractive to Maldivians because living and working conditions can be harsh (Robinson, 2001), and the rights of workers in the Maldives have not been adequately protected due to a lack of legislation in the past (MoTCA, 2007b: 63). Worker accommodation is typically cramped, with up to 15 people in one room, and there are reports that workers are often not paid for several months at a time if ‘business is slow’ (Haynes, 2004: 3). Maldivians are also paid less than other nationalities for doing the same types of work. In 2001, a foreign housekeeper was paid 165% compared with a Maldivian housekeeper, a tour guide 207% and a waiter 133% more than local counterparts (MOT, 2001, cited in Yahya et al., 2005: 40). Not surprisingly, Maldivians often choose to stay on their home islands where they may be able to earn a small income from ﬁshing rather than residing for 11 months of the year hundreds of kilometres away from their families on a resort island where they are required to work 12 hours a day, 61/2 days of the week (Maldivian waiter, pers. comm., August 2005). It is not good for the nation either socially, economically or politically to rely so heavily on foreign workers, particularly when there is signiﬁcant youth unemployment and a growing youth drug problem (Kun, 2007; MoTCA, 2007b). A further challenge to economic sustainability in the Maldives is the fact that there are heavy leakages from the tourism sector. This is © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives

due to a number of factors. Leakage occurs partly because resorts repatriate proﬁts and expatriate workers repatriate wages. In addition, the ‘bed rent’ system of tendering for islands on which to establish resorts, and the set rate for bed taxes, has pushed developers into targeting the higher end of the tourism market. Beds at resorts are leased at up to US$16 000 per annum. There is no way then that a backpacker establishment could earn sufﬁcient revenue to pay such a lease. When resorts cater largely for higher spending, luxury tourists, more imported goods are required (including construction material, furnishings, food and alcohol). This heavy reliance on imported goods is compounded by the lack of arable land and other natural resources in the Maldives: ‘As an island nation, the Maldives is almost exclusively a producer of ﬁsh and coconut products; everything else is imported’ (Lyon, 2003: 117). In 2000, the import content of tourist expenditures was estimated at 80%, but it reached as high as 98% for beverage sales (Firag, 2002: 133). Yahya et al. (2005: 36) argue that the government ‘has not made a concerted attempt to develop “diagonal integration” between local industry, small businesses and resort economies’. Another overarching issue that should be mentioned is that of the vulnerability of the industry to external shocks, especially in relation to the country’s heavy dependence on this one industry. Thus, following the Asian tsunami of 26 December 2004, 21 out of the 87 resorts had to suspend operations and tourism arrivals were down by over 50% for the ﬁrst half of 2005 (MoTCA, 2007a: 26). Socio-cultural concerns The poor spread of the beneﬁts of tourism raised above is reﬂected in high levels of inequality across the Maldives. This has not gone unnoticed by the general population. One sign of the emerging discontent with the concentration of tourism revenues in the hands of a few can be seen in a blog posted in response to an announcement on the Maldives Tourism website that the Maldives had won the 2007 World Travel Awards title for ‘World’s Most Romantic Destination’: As Maldives continue to receive awards, we would really appreciate if government of Maldives try to distribute this rich industry to people © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

of this nation, instead of giving this industry to 3 or 4 richest person of this country (http:// www.maldivestourism.net/blog/madlivesnamed-worlds-most-romantic-destination/ Accessed 5 June 2008).

In the same year, the Maldives was also awarded Best Island Destination by readers of Condé Nast magazine. Such awards are not new – the Maldives has received many accolades from the travel industry – but the response is illuminating in that it points to the growing public discontent with the huge disparities in wealth in the country. Henderson (2008: 107) thus refers to the noticeable ‘disquiet about the inequities and sustainability of an industry in which afﬂuent tourists are pampered in luxurious surroundings while impoverished Maldivians struggle to eke out an existence’. Superﬁcially, development levels seem quite high in the Maldives. The life expectancy rate is 72 years, over 97% of the population are literate (European Union, 2008), and they have the highest GDP per capita in South Asia, as mentioned earlier. Certainly, such achievements could not have been made without the growth of the tourism sector documented herein. However, because of inequities in the spread and ownership of resorts, the way tourists have been discouraged from visiting inhabited islands, and political decisions about how tourism revenue will be spent, tourism has exaggerated existing inequalities between Maldivians: 20% of those living in the outer islands lived on less than US$1.17 per day in 2005, which is three times the rate of poverty of Malé residents (Asian Development Bank, 2007: 2). Disturbingly, income disparities between Malé and the other atolls are increasing over time. The policy of developing enclave tourism on uninhabited islands means that most tourists learn little about Maldivian culture during their stay, and these arrangements also ‘insulate most village residents from tourism’ (Buckley, 2003: 199). This led Richter (1989: 165) to refer to the ‘quarantine’ of tourists on resort islands. Yahya et al. (2005: 37) emphasise the coreperiphery trend, whereby tourism has entrenched development of the centre and exaggerated inequalities, compounding the underdevelopment of the far spread outer atolls. Despite 157

R. Scheyvens

the millions of dollars tourism brings into the economy every year, service delivery to outer islands is poor, with 40% of the population living on islands without access to health care (UN, 2002). Around one quarter of atoll populations receive electricity for less than 6 hours a day, and 12% of the population do not have access to potable water (UN, 2002: 2; 8). Most Maldivians cannot grow fresh fruit and vegetables due to the lack of suitable soils. Thus, for example, while tourists feast on a wide range of largely imported fruits and vegetables at resort buffets, one quarter of Maldivian children under the age of 5 suffer stunted growth because of malnutrition (International Bureau for Children’s Rights, 2006: 4–5). This is the basis of the claim that ‘Maldives faces a nutritional situation more acute than that of sub-Saharan Africa’ (UN, 2002: 21). There are also concerns of a gender imbalance on some islands where the men have chosen to take on employment in the tourism industry. For the 11 months of the year they are away from home, their island might be threequarters female. This places a heavy work burden on family members left behind and disrupts normal family functioning. As Robinson (2001: 85) noted after conducting a World Tourism Organization (WTO) impact study on the Maldives, ‘the negative impacts were mainly felt in the Atolls with out-migration – people blamed absent fathers for the growth of drugs and alcohol-related problems’. If resorts were built close to inhabited islands, this would not be such an issue. The discussion above raised serious challenges to the sustainability of tourism in the Maldives, focusing on environmental, economic and socio-cultural concerns. It is now time to give speciﬁc consideration to the politics of tourism and how this has inﬂuenced the nature of tourism development in this country. Political concerns There has been a particular politics that has inﬂuenced the nature and structure of tourism in the Maldives, strongly associated with one-party rule by the Gayoom government from 1978 to 2008: Tourism in the Maldives has had a political dimension since its inception due to the tight control exercised by government and the ﬁnancial interest in resorts of its members and

158

their allies. A thriving tourism industry can be harnessed to hegemonic ambitions . . . success as a destination has been exploited to consolidate the power and standing of the regime (Henderson, 2008: 106).

Gayoom had the power to appoint all members of the Cabinet and judiciary (European Union, 2008), and he was seen by some ‘. . . as a dictator who would never relinquish his power’ (Alcantara, 2008). Such views of Gayoom, however, contrast sharply with those of people who saw him as the architect of one of the most prosperous countries in South Asia, largely because of development of the tourism sector. The economic development that occurred under Gayoom, while impressive in many ways, was based on tight social and political control at the expense of personal freedom. As noted by Henderson (2008: 103), ‘Questions of the extent of presidential power, independence of the judiciary, police brutality and other human rights violations are pressing . . .’. Public criticisms of the government led to the arrest and detainment of many people (particularly journalists and political activists), accusations of torture and suspicious deaths in custody. There were restrictions on individual freedoms including speech and press, religion, and freedom of assembly (European Union, 2008). As a Lonely Planet author surmised: . . . the [recent] history of the country has been deﬁned by the dictatorship of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, president for three decades and a man jokingly referred to as the CEO of the Maldives, because he runs it like a giant tourist corporation. It’s no joking matter though, as the police brutality and human rights abuses that have occurred under his rule are shocking . . . (Masters, 2006: 17).

In addition to human rights violations, a major concern has been the close connection between the political and economic elite, whereby Gayoom’s ‘. . . family and allies run all aspects of the economy, they own resorts and reap much of the ﬁnancial beneﬁts of this country’ (Masters, 2006: 16). As Members of the European Parliament noted when they voted to block aid to the Maldives in 2004, the tourism industry ‘remains in the hands of Gayoom’s supporters’. They added that ‘. . . it is our responsibility to help the © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives

developing world expand its tourist industry. We cannot, however, continue to support a dictatorship which creams off the proﬁts from tourism and hides them abroad’ (EU Business, 2004, cited in Abdulsamad, 2004: 12). Recently, the New York Times reported on efforts by the current government to reclaim up to US$400 million in funds which were misappropriated by Gayoom and his close friends during his rule (Saltmarsh, 2010). The control of elites over the tourism industry is further entrenched by the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI), a powerful association that lobbies government to serve the interests of major industry players and attempts to broker good deals for them. As the former Minister of Tourism acknowledged, ‘Tourism has a strong lobby; most of the wealthy people are in tourism’ (Dr Shougee, pers. comm., July 2005). The fact that the foreign consultants who prepared the 1996–2005 Maldives TMP give MATI such great recognition in their acknowledgements section is indicative of the hold MATI has on tourism planning and policy making within the country: The Consulting Team would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of individual members of the tourism industry in Maldives, and of their representative organization, the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI). Because of their efforts, the Tourism Master Plan has been prepared, in effect, in conjunction with the private sector; with their giving a very strong input into the general thinking which underpins the Master Plan (Nethconsult/Transtec, 1996: 2 – emphasis added).

Even the latest TMP, which was not so dependent on private sector input, recognises the power that key players within the industry exert: ‘The present decision making processes are substantially inﬂuenced by the leading entrepreneurs in the industry’ (MoTCA, 2007b: 67). Concern about the lack of legislation protecting the rights of workers was expressed earlier in this paper. Interestingly, in July 2008, an Employment Act came into effect in the Maldives but apparently because of an oversight on the part of government, tourism workers were excluded from being covered by the Act. The Act requires that all employees have rights to job descrip© 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

tions, employment contracts, a minimum wage, protection from unfair dismissal and a maximum working week of 48 hours – far less than the 70 hours per week with no overtime pay, which has been expected in the past. MATI was very concerned about the extension of the Employment Act to cover tourism employees, arguing that the economy would be ‘affected adversely’ by the new legislation (Tourism Concern, 2008b). As noted in a Tourism Concern news item, ‘Many of the MPs in charge of drafting the new bill have links with the tourism industry’ (Tourism Concern, 2008c). This led to industry employees coming together to form Tourism Employees Association of the Maldives (TEAM), which promptly organised a 5500 strong petition of tourism employees who were prepared to strike unless they too would be covered by the Act. In response to the petition, the Employment Act was amended in October 2008 to include tourism sector workers. This encouraged some workers to assert their right to protest about their labour rights – several strikes by resort employees took place, and in at least one case, where 13 employees had been ﬁred for engaging in a peaceful strike, a violent clash with police ensued. A new Labour Act was under consideration in 2011, and a MATI spokesperson claimed that they wanted to outlaw strike action on resort property (Merrett, 2011). Collusion between economic and political elites was then a strong characteristic inﬂuencing the development of tourism in the Maldives under the Gayoom government. As noted earlier, one of Tourism Concern’s key reasons for targeting a campaign against the Maldives was the lack of democracy and political freedom, and this was seen as directly linked to the failure of tourism to deliver beneﬁts to the majority of the Maldivian people. As one critic asserted, ‘Unless a transparent system is put in place with a more democratic system of government, the tourism industry in the Maldives will only help the authoritarian regime to stay in power’ (Abdulsamad, 2004: 12). Interestingly, a signiﬁcant change did occur in the politics of the Maldives because of public pressure. In 2004 and 2005, protests against the single party state gained momentum and received international attention, to the embarrassment of a country touting ‘get away from it all’ luxury vacations. Tourists do not expect 159

R. Scheyvens

holidays to the Maldives to be disrupted by political protests. Public protests were often banned during this period and the leader of the main opposition movement, a journalist by the name of Mohamed Nasheed, who advocated for human rights and criticised Gayoom’s government, was jailed. Feeling the weight of public concern, however, Gayoom’s government began a process of political reform, stating a commitment to transition to a multiparty democracy and a greater separation of the powers of the president. A Roadmap for Reform was established in 2006. This led to major changes in 2008, when a constitution was put in place and a presidential election was held, whereby the former political prisoner, Nasheed, gained the majority vote. He was sworn in as the Maldives’ ﬁrst democratically elected president in November 2008. While garnering much popular support and winning friends internationally through his strong stance on climate change, as noted earlier, Nasheed has battled to implement reforms he promised around issues such as curbing corruption and building economic prosperity. First, the global economic crisis reduced tourist numbers and thus led to a decrease in public ﬁnances, and second, there was a constitutional crisis in 2010 when it became clear that the powers of the executive were being undermined by the oppositioncontrolled parliament, which blocked any new initiatives put before it. This led to the cabinet deciding to resign en masse in June 2010. While they were later reappointed, the challenge of bringing about reforms continues. In the meantime, two opposition party members placed under house arrest for alleged treason, leading to concerns that Nasheed was using tactics that Gayoom had once used when ﬂouting his powers as president. A number of street marches were held in Malé in protest at the political situation in 2010 and some people were injured, after which Britain and the USA issuing travel warnings to their nationals (Bangkok Post, 2010). Democratic reforms in the past few years have nevertheless opened up more possibilities for the people to demand a better spread of the beneﬁts of tourism in future, and the new government is implementing strategies to support this. The national framework for development during 160

2009–2013 is known as the Aneh Dhivehi Raajje, and this pledges, among other things, to establish a nationwide transport system and to provide quality health care for all. These two things alone would make a signiﬁcant difference to the well-being of many outer islanders in the Maldives. Table 1 provides a summary of key points from the above discussion noting both challenges to the sustainability of tourism in the Maldives and some positive developments. Conclusion This paper has argued that social and political issues deserve greater attention in discussions over the prospects for achieving sustainable development of tourism. This is readily apparent in the case of the Maldives when examining the tourism sector: ‘the country’s political circumstances have determined key features of its tourism industry in the past and present and will continue to do so in the future’ (Henderson, 2008: 110). The Maldives introduced their Quality Tourism Strategy in 1978 in association with a ‘one island, one resort’ model whereby tourism is restricted to uninhabited islands, and since then they have been cited internationally as an exemplar of sustainable tourism. While this strategy combined with decades of political stability may have helped the tourism industry to expand at a rapid rate, the country’s image as a tranquil haven of luxury tourism has come somewhat unstuck in recent years, with political turmoil occurring in the capital, and campaigns emerging to expose both corruption and vast inequalities in development. It became untenable to growing numbers of the populace that a country with so rich a tourism booty should be structured in such a way that a narrow range of people beneﬁted. Public protests, strikes at resorts, high child malnutrition rates and a lack of basic services in many outer islands are issues that have come to mar the reputation of a country that earns around 70% of its foreign revenue from its tourism sector. It should be of considerable concern to advocates of sustainable development that governments can still hide behind rhetoric of ‘sustainability’ and ‘quality tourism’ while implementing strategies that, as Bianchi asserts © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives Table 1. Sustainability of tourism development in the Maldives Aspects of sustainability

Positive examples

Negative examples

Environmental

• 10-year carbon-neutral strategy • Active participation in international discussions on climate change • Investments in renewable energy • Using waste to reclaim land

Economic

• Local ownership of resorts (62/97 resorts are locally owned or joint ventures) is higher than in many other developing countries • Maldives Tourism Development Corporation formed in 2006 to develop new resorts with 55% public-owned shares – to enable more Maldivians to have a stake in ownership of the tourism product • Decentralisation plans are beginning to address the geographical concentration of tourism: since 2005, resorts developed for the ﬁrst time in three new atolls.

Social

• The 2007–2011 Tourism Master Plan sought strategies to spread the beneﬁts of tourism more widely: community-based tourism action plans, tendering islands or plots of land for future hotel or resort development close to existing population centres; and assisting communities to develop and promote cultural attractions and heritage sites • Tax revenue from tourism has enabled the government to invest well in some sectors, such as education • More opportunities for freedom of speech and the right to protest since the election of a new President in 2008 • The 2007–2011 Tourism Master Plan calls for more participation by the public and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in tourism planning • Tourism Employees Associations of the Maldives (TEAM) formed in 2008 to provide a voice for employees in the sector and advance their interests

Political

in the case of the Canary Islands ‘. . . gloss over questions of environmental and social justice and democratic access to decision-making over the tourism means of production’ (2004: 518). It could be argued that no country in the world so clearly demonstrates the clash between © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

• Luxury tourism makes heavy demands on fresh water and energy resources and creates high levels of wastes • Lack of environmental monitoring during and after resort construction. Regulations ﬂouted. • High carbon emissions: most tourists are on medium- to long- haul ﬂights • Lack of separation of wastes by resorts; little recycling; undesirable materials leaching into the marine environment • A small number of elites, along with foreigners, dominate ownership of resorts • Targeting of the luxury market and the ‘one island, one resort’ model has prevented most Maldivian people from being able to develop products or services for tourism • Over half of all jobs in the tourism sector go to foreigners • Lack of unionisation and issues with legislation have made the labour force in tourism vulnerable to exploitation • Proﬁts from foreign-owned and foreign-managed resorts are repatriated, along with wages from foreign employees in the sector • Very heavy dependence on tourism as an economic sector increases the economy’s vulnerability • Huge disparities in the spread of beneﬁts from tourism: basic infrastructure is still absent on many of the outer islands • Social disruption: because of separation of resort islands from those inhabited by Maldivians, those employed in the sector often spend 11 months away from home each year • Tourists are ‘quarantined’ on resort islands and learn little about Maldivian people and culture during their stay • Collusion between the political and economic elite • Allegations of corruption in the resort bidding process, entrenching the power of a few owners • Maldives Association of the Tourism Industry (MATI) has had a strong inﬂuence over tourism planning • Tourism workers initially not included under new minimum wage legislation in 2008 • Proposals to prevent strike action at the place of work by tourism employees in 2011

sustainable tourism rhetoric and reality on the ground as does the Maldives. While it would be easy to assume that a new, democratically elected government led by a president who is outspoken on climate change issues, combined with a more participatory 161

R. Scheyvens

TMP, will pave the way for more sustainable development of the tourism sector in future, the reality is more complex. Timothy and Tosun (2003) assert that sustainable tourism development is only possible where a wide range of voices, including those of destination residents, contribute to tourism policy and planning. While consulting all stakeholders when developing tourism plans is essential, the fact that the MATI had such strong inﬂuence over past tourism plans in the Maldives, as noted earlier, should be of concern. The new Maldives government is more diverse than in the past, but there are still strong links to resort owners and investors. The government also faces challenges ahead in terms of managing the democratic reform process in a peaceful way and dealing with the unsustainable practices of many tourism operators, while trying to implement effective mechanisms to share the riches of tourism among the majority of the country’s inhabitants. In particular, they must negotiate with the small group of elites who dominate the tourism sector and who have beneﬁted substantially from the status quo. While there are some good suggestions in the latest TMP, they mainly provide politically safe options that fail to challenge the established power of elites over the sector. This is a signiﬁcant barrier to promoting more sustainable and equitable development. What can proponents of sustainable development in small island states learn from this study of tourism in the Maldives? First, sustainable development of the tourism sector needs to be government-led. While industry bodies may propose voluntary codes of conduct and exceptional corporates might implement programmes that are both sustainable and socially responsible, a framework encouraging more broad-based change is required. Second, while strong relationships between the tourism industry and government are needed to ensure continued development of the sector, this does not mean that the interests of a few powerful players should come to supercede the interests of the majority of a country’s population that, directly or indirectly, could also stand to gain or lose from tourism development. Third, equity should be seen as complementary to sustainable development of tourism – thus the goal of any tourism plan should be to improve 162

the overall well-being of a country’s people, not just to ﬁll the pockets of a few while providing low-level jobs to a disempowered labour force. Governments should be called into account when they receive over half a million luxury tourists a year yet they cannot provide basic health services to all of their own population of less than 400 000. While the signiﬁcance of tourism as an economic sector continues to grow in Asia and the Paciﬁc, sustainable development of tourism still remains an elusive goal in most countries. This is due to the fact that tourism growth is still the major priority for most governments, and most seem unwilling to be strong advocates for sustainable tourism if that means compromising growth of the sector. These governments often have difﬁculty balancing their own interest in gaining revenue through tourism, with the desires of powerful stakeholders from the tourism sector, and the competing interests of diverse communities who seek to beneﬁt from tourism. It is of concern that governments across Asia and the Paciﬁc, not just the Maldives, continue to espouse ideals of equity, sustainability and improved quality of life for the people, even though their resources are diverted overwhelmingly into the promotion of economic growth. There is a clear need for more critical research on sustainable development options in Asia and the Paciﬁc, particularly with regard to key sectors ﬂagged for further growth such as tourism. Such research requires serious engagement with social and political issues. Research on sustainable tourism needs to recognise that genuine sustainability requires not just a commitment to reducing carbon emissions or protecting one’s people from negative tourist behaviours by building resorts on uninhabited islands; rather it must be based on broad participation in decision making and more equitable sharing of the beneﬁts of tourism. References Abdulsamad, A. (2004) Maldives, Just Change 1: 12. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2007) Maldives: Poverty assessment. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Alcantara, N. (2008) New era begins in Maldives amid challenges, but tourism is optimistic, World Tourism Directory News. Retrieved 11 November 2008, Website: http://www.worldtourismdirectory.com/news © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Tourism development in the Maldives Bangkok Post (2010) Maldives: Politics spark trouble in paradise, 24 July 2010, Retrieved 16 February 2011, from Bangkok Post Website: http://www.bangkokpost.com/ print/187685 Bianchi, R. (2004) Restructuring and the politics of sustainability: A critical view from the European periphery (The Canary Islands), Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(6): 495–529. Briguglio, L., B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall (1996) Sustainable tourism in Islands and small states: Issues and policies. London: Pinter. Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for the Third World, Annals of Tourism Research 23(1): 48–70. Brown, K., R.K. Turner, H. Hameed and I. Bateman (1997) Environmental carrying capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal, Environmental Conservation 24(4): 316–325. Buckley, R. (2003) Case studies in ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Butler, R. (1991) Tourism, environment, and sustainable development, Environmental Conservation 18(3): 201– 2019. Church, A. and T. Coles (2007) Tourism and the many faces of power. In A. Church and T. Coles (eds) Tourism, Power and Space, Routledge, London: 269– 283. Coles, T. and A. Church (2007) Tourism, politics and the forgotten entanglements of power, in A. Church and T. Coles (eds), Tourism, power and space, pp. 1–42. London: Routledge. De Kadt, E. (1979) Politics, planning and control, in E. de Kadt (ed.), Tourism: Passport to development?, pp. 18–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dhivehi Observer (2005) Hilton hits on Mandhoo: No room for ethics in Maldives resort. Dhivehi Observer, 6 November 2005. Retrieved 5 June 2008, from Dhivehi Observer Website: http://www.dhivehiobserver.com/ speicalreports/Mandhoo-Hilton/Hilton_Maldives_ Resort.htm Domroes, M. (2001) Conceptualising state-controlled resort islands for an environment-friendly development of tourism: The Maldivian experience, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 22(2): 122–137. Dowling, R. (2000) The Maldives, in C.M. Hall and S. Page (eds), Tourism in South and Southeast Asia: Issues and cases, pp. 248–255. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. European Union (2008) The EU’s relations with Maldives, Retrieved 5 June 2008, from European Union Website: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/maldives/intro/ index.htm Firag, I. (2001) Presentation on exemplary island destination in the world: Tourism industry in the Maldives, Island Tourism in Asia and the Paciﬁc, pp. 92–100. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Firag, I. (2002) Tourism development: An economic perspective, The economic impact of tourism in the Islands of Asia and the Paciﬁc, pp. 126–139. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Firag, I. (2005) Tourism and the environment: Current issues for management, Ministry of Tourism, Malé, Republic of Maldives. Retrieved 14 July 2005, Website: http:// www.fao.org/docrep/X5623E/x5623e0p.htm © 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Ghina, F. (2003) Sustainable development in small island developing states: The case of the Maldives, Environment, Development and Sustainability 5: 139–165. Ghosh, R., M. Siddique and R. Gabbay (eds) (2003) Tourism and economic development: Case studies from the Indian ocean region. Aldershot: Ashgate. Guthunz, U. and F. von Krosigk (1996) Tourism development in small island states: From MIRAB to TouRAB? in L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall (eds), Sustainable tourism in islands and small states: Issues and policies, pp. 18–35. London: Pinter. Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Hall, D. and F. Brown (2008) Finding a way forward: An agenda for research, Third World Quarterly 29(5): 1021–1032. Haynes, K. (2004) Brieﬁng on the Maldives: Lost in Paradise. 6 August 2004. London: Tourism Concern. Henderson, J.C. (2008) The politics of tourism: A perspective from the Maldives, Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism 3(1): 99–115. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2008) World Economic Outlook Database. October 2008. Retrieved 15 January 2009, from IMF Website: http://imf.org/ external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/index.aspx International Bureau for Children’s Rights (2006) Making children’s rights work: Country proﬁle on maldives. Retrieved 5 June 2008 from International Bureau for Children’s Rights Website: http://www.unicef.org/ Making_Child_Rights_work_in_the_Maldives.pdf Kun, L. (2007) Maldives launches ﬁrst ever national drug abuse prevention campaign. Retrieved 15 January 2009, Website: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ maldives_42327.html Lyon, J. (2003) Maldives, 5th edn, Melbourne: Lonely Planet. McElroy, J.L. (2006) Small island tourist economies across the life cycle, Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint 47(1): 61– 77. Maldives Live (2010) Blog. April 10 2010: Retrieved 30 September 2010, from Maldives Live Website: http:// maldiveslive.blogspot.com/2010/04/forty-two-yearold-president-mohamed.html Maldives Monetary Authority (2010) Monthly statistics: December 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2011, from Maldives Monetary Authority Website: http://www. mma.gov.mv/Monthly%20Statistics/dec10.pdf Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) (2009) Annual Report 2009. Male. Masters, T. (2006) Maldives, 6th edn, Melbourne: Lonely Planet. Merrett, N. (2011) Conrad resort claims resolution found to on-site strikes, Minivan News, 24 March 2011. Retrieved 5 April 2011, Website: http://minivannews.com/ politics/conrad-resort-claims-resolution-found-to-onsite-strikes-17699 Ministry of Tourism (2001) Tourism Statistics 2001. Malé, Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Tourism. Ministry of Tourism (2005) Statistics 2005. Male, Republic of Maldives. Retrieved 5 June 2008, from Ministry of Tourism Website: http://www.tourism.gov.mv/pubs/ stat2005/HTML/tourism.htm

163

R. Scheyvens Mitchell, J. and C. Ashley (2010) Tourism and poverty reduction: Pathways to prosperity. London: Earthscan. MoTAC (2009) Tourism yearbook 2009. Malé, Republic of Maldives. MoTAC (2010) Tourism Yearbook 2010. Malé, Republic of Maldives. MoTAC (2011) Mission, vision and purpose of Tourism Department. Retrieved 16 February 2011, from MoTAC Website: http://www.tourism.gov.mv/article. php?aId=3 MoTCA (2007a) Tourism Yearbook 2007. Malé, Republic of Maldives. MoTCA (2007b) Maldives third tourism master plan, 2007– 2011. Malé, Republic of Maldives. Mowforth, M. and I. Munt (2009) Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. Nasheed, M. (2009) Where survival is at stake. The Economist, November 13 2009. Retrieved 16 February 2011, Website: http://www.economist.com/node/14742559/ print Nethconsult/Transtec and Board Failte (1996) Maldives Tourism Master Plan 1996–2005. Volume 1 – Main Report. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Neto, F. (2003) A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond environmental protection, Natural Resources Forum 27(3): 212– 222. Overton, J. (1999) Sustainable development and the Paciﬁc Islands, in J. Overton and R. Scheyvens (eds), Strategies for sustainable development: Experiences from the Paciﬁc, pp. 1–15. London: Zed Books. Richter, L.K. (1989) The politics of tourism in Asia. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Robinson, J. (2001) The socio-cultural dimensions of sustainable tourism development, Island tourism in Asia and the Paciﬁc, pp. 78–86. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Saltmarsh, M. (2010) Going after government looters, New York Times June 11, 2010. Sathiendrakumar, R. and C. Tisdell (1989) Tourism and the economic development of the Maldives, Annals of Tourism Research 16: 254–269. Scheyvens, R. (2008) On the beach: Small scale tourism in Samoa, in J. Connell and B. Rugendyke (eds), Tourism at the grassroots, pp. 131–147. London: Routledge. Scheyvens, R. (2011) Tourism and Poverty. New York: Routledge. Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(1): 1–19.

164

Soﬁeld, T. (2003) Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford: Pergamon. Tampe, M. and K. Lengefeld (2007) Tourism as a ﬁeld of activity in German development cooperation: A basic overview, priority areas for action and strategic recommendations. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ. Timothy, D.J. and C. Tosun (2003) Appropriate planning for tourism in destination communities: Participation, incremental growth and collaboration, in S. Singh, D.J. Timothy and R.K. Dowling (eds), Tourism in Destination Communities, pp. 181–204. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Tourism Concern (2008a) New presidency in the Maldives: Can paradise be restored? 11 November 2008, Retrieved 30 September 2010, from Tourism Concern Website: http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index. php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=81 &cntnt01returnid=72 Tourism Concern (2008b) Maldives: New labour laws extended to tourism workers. 7 August 2008, Retrieved 30 September 2010, from Tourism Concern Website: http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.php? cntnt01articleid=57&cntnt01returnid=79&mact= News,cntnt01,detail,0 Tourism Concern (2008c) Tourism staff in Maldives petition Human Rights Commission. 10 July 2008, Retrieved 30 September 2010, from Tourism Concern Website: http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.php?mact+ News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01a United Nations (2002) United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Republic of Maldives 2003– 2007. 26 July 2002. Malé, Republic of Maldives. Retrieved 15 January 2009, Website: http:// www.dhivehiobserver.com/reports/UNDAF.pdf United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2009) Human Development Report 2009. Retrieved 10 January 2010, from UNDP Website: http://hdr.undp. org/en United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2005) Maldives: Post-tsunami environmental assessment. New York: UNEP. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2010) World tourism barometer: Interim update April 2010. Madrid: UNWTO. Wall, G. (1996) One name, two destinations, in L. Harrison and W. Husbands (eds), Practicing responsible tourism: International case studies in tourism planning, policy, and development, pp. 41–57. Chichester: Wiley. Yahya, F., A. Parameswaran, I. Ahmed and R. Sebastian (2005) The economic cost of tourism in Maldives, Tourism 53(1): 33–44.

© 2011 The Author Asia Paciﬁc Viewpoint © 2011 Victoria University of Wellington

Copyright of Asia Pacific Viewpoint is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.