For centuries, successive generations of Maldivian fishermen have practiced the traditional pole and line fishery, which has been hailed as an environment-friendly method. While the Maldivian fishermen abandoned sails on their boats in favour of mechanization, and while the size of the fishing boats has increased dramatically over the past two decades, pole and line fishery has remained the hallmark feature of a unique fishing culture.

The government’s plan to introduce long line fishing to the Maldives could grossly change the landscape of tuna fishery in the Maldives. Long line fishery is criticized worldwide for the merciless death of species such as sharks, turtles and seabirds, all caught unwanted as by-catch. It is ironic that this method of fishery, which could lead to the death of hundreds of sharks in the Maldivian waters, is to be introduced just as the Maldives is about to impose a ban of shark fishery in the country.

Pelagic long line fishery for tuna has its own environmental side-effects, especially in terms of unwanted catch of sharks and turtles.

“We are implementing a total ban and then starting something that is shark fishing by another name,” Ali Rilwan, the Executive Director of Bluepeace, told the local online newspaper Minivan News.

“And the larger problem is how we will be perceived; our fish export is marketed abroad as one that is caught through a dolphin and environmentally friendly method,” Rilwan said.

The environment-friendly label that the Maldivian exporters have so proudly displayed on their fish products would lose its status as the long line becomes a widespread fishing method in the country. The fears Bluepeace has on how long line fishery could destroy the reputation of Maldives seem to be shared by other environmental organisations. Bite Back, a marine conservation group from UK, has told Minivan News that there is a real possibility of a UK boycott of tuna products from the Maldives caught through long line.

Across Europe and in the developed countries, consumers are becoming more conscious about their spending habits, the food they eat and the ecological costs involved in the food production. Retailers and department stores are offering products that cater to this new trend.

“Marks & Spencer, a global retail giant, and one of the major buyers of Maldivian tuna, announced last year it would no longer buy tuna that is not caught by pole and line,” Minivan News reported.

The government of Maldives says it is introducing long line to compensate for the steady decline of fish catch during the past few years. It argues that the big fishing boats used in the Maldives are unfeasible for traditional pole and line fishing. Instead of keeping the boats idle and moored, it could take to the seas again through long line fishery, argues the government.

However, one of the reasons why the larger boats are unable to spend more days on the sea and catch large quantities of fish is the limited supply of ice. There are no adequate mechanisms available for fishermen to spend more days out on the sea without the fish getting decayed. Furthermore, a small catch is not economically feasible because the boat owners have to repay huge amounts to the commercial banks for the loans they obtained to build the boats. Without any development banks in the Maldives, the boat owners have to go for costly loans with high interest rates from the few commercial banks in the Maldives. A small fish catch is not attractive when they have to repay the huge loans.

The size of fishing boats has increased significantly over the past few decades. At first this was thought to be a positive trend, increasing the efficiency of the fishing industry. However, today most of the fishing boats are moored when the fish catch is low. In addition, people demand larger harbours to accommodate these larger fishing vessels. Constructing ‘cut and paste’ harbours in islands without doing proper Environmental Impact Assessments are one of the reasons why the Maldives is experiencing severe beach erosion.

Modifying the existing fishing vessels with sails, and frequent use of sails with engines could reduce operational costs and carbon footprint of fisheries. (Image digitally altered)

The government’s controversial plan to send the larger fishing boats back to the high seas with long line is flawed in many aspects. The plan has severe economic and social implications too. For centuries Maldivian fishermen have been owners of the industry. The fish catch or the income obtained from the catch was divided among the boat owners and fishermen. The fishermen were recognised as important stakeholders and the income from the fishery was distributed more equitably than any other profession in the country.

The government’s long line plan would make the fishermen employees in the fishing industry. Long line fishing would be dominated by a few wealthy and large companies. Even the large boats currently used for pole and line fishery would not be able to compete with much larger boats the big companies would use. If a transhipment port in Ihavandhippolhu could turn the fishermen into employees, the long line fishery could turn them into employees much easily. The fishery could also be dominated by foreign companies using their puppet or proxy Maldivian companies.

Long line fishery would ruin the reputation of the Maldives as a country practicing environment-friendly fishery and tarnish its image abroad. The publicity gained through the country’s cabinet having a meeting underwater last year could all be gone just like bubbles released by a scuba diver.

A local diver with 10 years experience of diving in the area told Bluepeace that whale sharks were spotted throughout the year at the site, but are hardly seen anymore because of the tagging.

The charity named ‘Maldives Whale Shark Research Programme’ (MWSRP) has been conducting research in the Maldives since 2006. According to the programme’s website the tagging project was launched in 2008.

MWSRP, on the other hand, has raised concerns about unregulated diving boats visiting the Marine Protected Area. In the programme’s website MWSRP wrote on 3 January 2010 that whale sharks are back in the South Ari Atoll but were facing threats from unregulated tourism.

“Unfortunately the reef is also busier than ever with the unregulated tourism that flocks to the whale shark ‘Hotspot’. Since the recent designation of the area as the largest MPA in the Maldives, nothing has changed, in fact it has inevitably become more busy, increasing habitat disturbance as a major threat to the animals. The tour industry have not been made aware of the rules or regulations within the MPA and boats (sometimes 10 at a time) consistently converge on any shark that is spotted. So the madness is set to continue until such times as the government makes the necessary communications with the stakeholders.”

The research team, which is receiving assistance from the tourist resort Conrad Maldives Rangali Island, also takes tourists staying at the resort to the whale shark aggregation site, according to Easier Travel.

“The Conrad Maldives Rangali Island will once again provide support by giving the team accommodation on a local island, supplies, as well as diving equipment and the use of their boats. Guests at the resort will also be able to take part in the research by accompanying the team on their excursions to study the whale sharks, taking samples and measurements and assisting the team with their conservation work.”

MWSRP’s website says it has been in touch with the government of the Maldives and the local community to develop the Marine Protected Area.

“The year 2009 has seen the successful development of South Ari Atoll’s MPA, which is on its way to becoming the first collaboratively managed and regulated, revenue generating MPA in the Maldives, ensuring the local community benefits from their natural resources whilst making tourism more sustainable. Resorts are already committing to sponsoring the initiative following consultations with the MWSRP.”

Local divers are having a different opinion. They believe the tagging of whale sharks is driving the sharks away. They also raise questions about the methodology used in tagging and claim the use of spear guns by the research team is harming the whale sharks. In addition, local divers raise their concern that the authorities are not regulating the research.

A number of divers working on liveaboards, which take foreign tourists to the whale shark aggregation site, are disappointed with the research team conducting the research at the site during the peak tourist season. They claim that it is detrimental to their business as most of their clients come to the Maldives with the hope of spotting whale sharks. The peak tourist season also coincides with the arrival of North-east monsoon which brings more plankton to the area and attracts whale sharks. However, divers claim the number of whale sharks spotted in the area is significantly less this season. One prominent diver told Bluepeace that divers were not opposed to research in general, but were not happy with the research being carried out inside the Marine Protected Area.

Divers Association of Maldives is planning to raise the concerns of Maldivian divers with the relevant government authorities. Zoona Naseem, the President of DAM, told Bluepeace that the organisation was not opposed to whale shark research but their main concerns were the methodology used in tagging; lack of government regulation and monitoring of the research; and the concerns being raised by the divers that the number of whale sharks frequenting the Marine Protected Area is decreasing.

Maldivian divers also question whether the communities in South Ari Atoll have received any benefits from the research programme. They say MWSRP has not consulted the divers in the area and does not involve Maldivians in the research.

A child stands near a water tap used for collecting water in a village in Nepal. The UN is marking 2005-2015 as Water for Life decade.

Bluepeace is concerned that, as we mark the Water Day, several islands of Maldives are plagued with a shortage of drinking water, as reported by Minivan News.

“I am very upset with the government because we need water,” said 42-year old Jameela Aboobakuru from Gaafaru. “We ran out of water, so we borrowed water from our brother. When he ran out of water we started buying bottled water imported from Male’.”

She said her 12-member family was spending US$22 a day to buy bottled water for drinking and cooking; their daily income, she added, was only US$26.

On another island, Gulhi, Ahmed Ibrahim, the island office assistant director, said islanders had been importing bottles water from the capital as well as in jerry cans.

“They are getting water somehow,” he said, “but the island needs a permanent solution to this problem like piped desalinated water.”

After the tsunami of December 2004, several aid organizations provided islands with plastic water tanks. In addition, UNICEF provided 23 desalination plants, each costing US $ 70,000 to islands affected by the tsunami. Despite community water tanks found in abundance in islands, there is no national mechanism to prepare for a dry spell or a shortage of drinking water. Some desalination plants donated to islands by aid agencies are not being used or are out of order. Bluepeace calls for a national policy and mechanism to deal with such a crisis and ensure that the people have access to safe drinking water throughout the year.

Bluepeace had in the past raised the issue of groundwater contamination, caused in most cases by untreated sewage seeping into the groundwater. This is a problem in the capital Male’ — where approximately one-third of the population lives — because of the poor design of the sewerage system. In Male’, contaminated groundwater is used by some households for washing dishes and clothes, while a few households use groundwater for bathing as piped desalinated water is too expensive. The use of septic tanks and primitive sewerage systems in other islands cause the effluent to sink into the ground, leading to contamination of the groundwater. Unlike Malé, in the other islands, majority of the households use groundwater for washing clothes, dishes and for bathing, as piped desalinated water is not available. When rainwater is depleted, during dry spells, the people drink groundwater in several islands. In fact, 25% of the people of the Maldives depend on groundwater for drinking according to State of the Environment Report 2002.

Mangroves suck up more carbon dioxide per unit area than sea phytoplankton, a key factor in global warming. Mangroves are not adequately protected in the Maldives.

On World Water Day, Bluepeace reiterates its call for preservation of freshwater ecosystems and mangroves in the Maldives. Such ecosystems are home to a number of species of plants and organisms and are important to preserve biodiversity. As Maldives embarks on a bold and ambitious plan to be carbon-neutral within 10 years, the role of mangroves in absorbing carbon dioxide should not be overlooked. Mangroves in the Maldives also protect the coastlines from erosion, and absorbed the lethal power of the tsunami in 2004, acting as a layer of protection. Atoll mangroves in the Maldives are threatened by development projects, reclamation plans, garbage disposal and introduction of alien species, among other issues.

On World Water Day, the government, media, civil society organisations, aid agencies, and other stakeholders should be thinking of ways to collaborate during the Water for Life Decade to make water a resource for poverty reduction, improving healthcare and preservation of our precious environment.

Hanifaru in Baa Atoll, is an uninhabited island with a natural underwater bay -locally known as ‘Vandhumaafaru Adi’- famous for whale sharks. The bay, known to divers as ‘Aquarium’ is home to a large numbers of whale sharks, grey sharks, manta rays and sting rays, is also a nursery for these species.

Hanifaru Bay, nursery for a large numbers of manta rays and sting rays.

It is believed to be ‘one of the very few places in the world where whale sharks congregate to mate.’ Divers might have known the bay very recently. However, the fisherfolks of Baa Dhonfanu and other nearby inhabited islands had known the place for centuries, not as a dive spot, but as a whale shark fishing point; whale sharks, caught for their liver oil and/or fins, used to be an important source of livelihood for them.

Hanifaru Bay, one of the very few places in the world where whale sharks aggregates for mating.

The Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, in June 1995 imposed a ban on all fishing, capturing or the taking of whale sharks under the Fisheries Law. Whale shark is also listed as ‘vulnerable’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

The Maldives is a party to the Biodiversity Convention, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Under these treaties the Maldives has obligations to ensure the conservation and protection of habitats and species in both national and international context.

It is a sad irony that the Fisheries Ministry, which is empowered by the Fisheries Law to establish special sanctuaries, has recently leased Hanifaru to a private party on a long term basis, to be developed for industrial purposes. Furthermore, the island was not put on tender, and no Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) was done.

Hanifaru Bay, home to a large numbers of sharks.

Any industrial activity on Hanifaru will upset the fragile ecosystem of Vandhumaafaru Adi. This ecosystem, vital for the aggregations of whale sharks for mating, is a unique natural habitat and one of the very few such places in the world. It is imperative that this bay is protected from human encroachment and declared as a whale shark sanctuary.

“UNEP’s field mission found that artisanal extraction of coral sand from lagoons (manually using sacks was evident at nearly all the islands visited. UNEP witnessed uncontrolled coral sand exploitation, and visual evidence indicates that coral sand extraction has increased since the tsunami.” (Maldives Post-Tsunami Environment Assessment Report)

India has over the years allowed the exports of these commodities to the Maldives under a special arrangement which has placed an exception on those commodities which are otherwise prohibited to be exported from India. Last year 300,000 MTs of river sand and 270,000 MTs of aggregates were allowed to be imported to Maldives from India. However, post tsunami reconstruction boom associated with developing more resorts have created a shortage of river sand. Thus the price of river sand rose from around RF490 (US$38) per ton to RF900 (US$70). Furthermore, the recent hike in prices of oil in the international market has increased the transportation costs of these commodities as well.

In 2008, India has increased the limit on export of construction materials – river sand by 30 per cent and stone aggregate by 95 per cent – to Maldives. However, the prices of river sand and aggregates have not come down.

Since most of the outer islands in the Maldives have no easy access to river sand and aggregates, the people have to get these commodities from Male’ region, and it’s too expensive to transport these commodities due to lack of a proper inter-island transport network. Poor islanders are left with no choice but mine coral sand from their own beaches even though it is prohibited.

In order to reduce the coral sand extraction from the local beaches and lagoons, it is imperative to make river sand and aggregates available nation-wide, of course, with subsidised prices, and also make available coral sand extracted during harbour dredging, in different sizes and qualities, that could be use for construction purposes.

What is ironic is that coral sand has been mined from some islands for the post tsunami reconstruction, further making these islands more vulnerable for erosion, sea level rise and storm surges. Even though sand extraction is prohibited from beaches of inhabited islands, it has been witnessed that the Government and internationals donors funded some projects involving extraction of coral sand.

Non-artisanal beach mining of Seenu Feydhoo’s southern side beach with the help of the Government earth moving vehicle to expand Feydhoo’s cemetry.
Photo: www.oursda.org

According to the “Maldives Post-Tsunami Environment Assessment Report” published by UNEP, ” A review of sand mining regulations from other countries that are less vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surges than the Maldives, France, UK, Japan, Netherlands and USA indicates sand mining in those countries is restricted to depths greater than 10m and at minimum distance from shore of 600 metres (See, e.g., www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seasand.htm). It is not known if the restrictions placed on beach sand mining in the Maldives have been assessed to determined their ability to protect islands from increased vulnerability.”

If coral sand mining along with other forms of coastal modification continues at the present rates, some of islands in the Maldives would be eroded due to these unwise activities. The coastal degradation caused by such undesirable activities have to be countered through protective measures that cost millions of dollars such as concrete coastal defence structures like the one around Male’. Uncontrolled sand mining has caused severe beach erosion in islands such as Fuvahmulah, and costly remedies in the form of coastal walls are in the pipeline.

“Although official statistics shows dramatic reductions in the total volumes of sand and coral extracted this may be due to the under-reporting of a now-illegal activity rather than a substantial reduction in demand.” (Maldives Post-Tsunami Environment Assessment Report)

It is pathetic that some of the islands might be erased from the map of Maldives because of our local actions much before forecast sea level rise due to global warming. If not for India’s river sand and aggregates, some of the islands might have already vanished through unreported illegal excessive mining of coral sand from the local beaches and lagoons. With the special arrangement, India is helping to save our islands from erosion by providing a substitute to coral sand and coral aggregates. One could argue that a part of India’s carbon emission could be traded off with this generous gesture to its low-lying neighbour, the Maldives.

Aerial view of Kaashidhoo island showing the proposed area for the artificial island.

These artificial islands, which will be developed as tourist resorts, are a growing concern for environmentalists and the public in general due to their potential damaging impact on coastal ecosystems as the country’s beach systems are highly dynamic.

The initial preparation to develop an artificial island for a resort in the natural lagoon of Kaafu Kaashidhoo is already in progress. Haa Dhaal Nolhivramfaru, Haa Alifu Kelaa, Alifu Alifu Thoddoo, Faafu Nilandhoo, Faafu Magoodhoo and Laamu Gaadhoo and Kaashidhoo are seven islands selected as locations to develop the artificial islands in their natural lagoons presently surrounded with quite healthy coral reef flats.

Laamu Gaadhoo beach is one of the most important nesting areas for marine turtles in the Maldives with over 100 turtles, an endangered species, nesting there annually. Laamu Gaadhoo’s beach is a protected area for marine turtles and egg harvesting has been banned in order to protect the dwindling turtle population. All five species of marine turtles seen in the Maldivian waters are on Appendix I (the most endangered species) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The development of an artificial island in the lagoon of Gaadhoo will endanger marine turtles and will come into direct conflict with the policy of conservation already in place.

Kaafu Atoll Kaashidhoo has a large natural lagoon almost the size of the island with quite a healthy reef flat. At the beginning of 20th century, there were two islets called Huraa and Fushi, in the lagoon of Kaashidhoo. However, those two small islets have eroded now (Changes in the Topography of the Maldives, 1990, page 32, Hassan Ahmed Maniku). This shows how dynamic Kaashidhoo’s beach is to erosion and accretion.

In early 20th Century Gulhi Falhu was an uninhabited island at times used to quarantine lepers.

Erosion of some islands and formation of new ones are, in fact, ongoing processes in the Maldives Archipelago. Many islands have been abandoned in the past due to beach erosion and the natives of these islands had been moved to better and bigger islands. It had been first documented by Arab geographers Abu Zayd of Siraf in 890 A.D and Al Biruni in 1030 A.D. In early 20th century Gulhi Falhu, to the west of Villingili in Male’ Atoll, was an uninhabited island at times used to quarantine lepers. By mid-20th century the island was completely eroded and turned into a lagoon (Dhivehi Thaareekhah Au Alikameh, 1958, page 34, Dhivehi Bahaai Thaareekhah Khidhmaiy Kuraa Gaumee Marukaz). In one of the ironies of modern times, Gulhi Falhu is to be reclaimed for making a commercial zone. Coastal modifications and reclamation of lagoons in such dynamic ecosystems often pose a threat to the survival of these fragile atoll islands.

Harbour dredging one of the common human-induced threat to reef ecosystem in the Maldives.

Coastal development is usually ecologically-destructive and leads to major changes to beach profiles of islands normally associated with changes in the flow of current and waves near the shore. Presently coastal development such as land reclamation and increased harbour dredging is the major and most common human-induced physical danger to coastal and coral reef ecosystems in the Maldives. Severe cases of beach erosion have been reported in inhabited islands and several resort islands in recent years. Recent beach erosion could be due to the man-made changes, such as construction of coastal infrastructures, channel blasting with dynamite, dredging and reclamation.

The Maldives is a coral nation and coral ecosystem add significantly to the national economy and specifically to the value of beach-based and diving-based tourism, supporting activities such as diving, snorkeling and glass-bottom boat operations. In addition to this, coral also provides to the creation of white sand beaches.

Coral worth thousands of dollars destroyed by dredging a harbour in a virgin reef in front of Royal Island in Baa Atoll. The harbor was made for mooring the vessels used by the resort, even though many harbours exist nearby.

A report published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in 2006 argues that protecting coral reefs and mangroves makes economic sense. The report, titled “In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection and other Ecosystem Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs“, argues that conserving coral reefs and mangroves ecosystems for the services they give — fisheries protection, mitigation of beach erosion and as a source for medicinal substances — is cost-effective than destroying them and replacing their function with artificial structures.

The UNEP report concludes that:

• The estimated value of coral reefs is between $100,000 to 600,000 per square kilometer a year.

• The cost of protecting them, through the management costs of a marine protected area, is just $775 per square kilometer per annum.

• The costs of erecting artificial breakwaters made of concrete tetrapods around the Male, Maldives, following the degradation of the natural reef, was $10 million per kilometer.

• In Indonesia, a hotel in West Lombok has spent an average of $125,000 per year over seven years restoring its 250 metre-long beach following erosion as a result of offshore coral mining.

• A typical coral reef can absorb up to 90 percent of the energy of wind-generated waves thus protecting coastal areas from damage. The report cites a study from Sri Lanka which shows that one square kilometer of coral reef stops 2,000 cubic meters of coastal erosion per year.

In the Maldives, a reef flat adjacent to the capital of Malé was filled using coral rubble and causing sedimentation of nearby reefs. Their degradation was partly responsible for reduced shore protection and extensive flooding in 1987, which resulted in 20-30 percent of the new infill being lost. Subsequently, artificial breakwaters of concrete tetrapods were installed at a cost of US$10,000 per metre (US$10 million per kilometer) (Brown, 1997). Not only was this expensive, but it did not prevent serious flooding during the tsunami. (In the Front Line, UNEP-WCMC/UNEP 2006).

In the light of the UNEP report, it is important to assign monetary values to ecosystems such as coral reefs in the Maldives. In order to better understand and recognize the value of nature’s services, it is also important to estimate economic cost of ecological damage that is going to be incurred from developing artificial islands in the lagoons of 10 inhabited islands, especially deposition of sediment on the adjacent reef flats of natural islands, following intense dredging and reclamation.

Beach erosion on the adjacent natural island could occur by developing artificial islands because of alteration of natural circulation of the water and wave. The cost of erecting artificial structures to replace the function of lost beach areas must also be taken in consideration. Loss of reef, ornamental and bait fishery must be also estimated in economic value, so that people can better value and conserve these natural assets.

Untouched Islands of Maldives: Ibn Battuta, the celebrated 14th-century Muslim geographer called the Islands of the Maldives “one of the wonders of the world,” and commented on their annular form and proximity to each other: “A hundred or so are arranged in a circle like a ring, with an opening at one point to form a passage; ships may reach the islands only through this passage…. They are so close together that when leaving one, the tops of the palm trees on the next are visible.”

The proposed plan to develop artificial islands by reclaiming lagoons will have negative impacts on the aesthetic beauty of Maldives, a country renowned for green islands, white beaches and spectacular reefs and lagoons. The plan will harm several species leading to the loss of biodiversity as reefs are affected by sedimentation. It has the potential to cause beach erosion leading to economic losses, and will increase the vulnerability of the islands and their population to disasters such as high swells, storm surges and tsunamis. Since coral reefs and mangroves are the first lines of defense against such disasters, the destruction of coral reefs through such a plan is in contradiction to the claims that the Maldives is at the forefront of the global fight against climate change.

Hudhufushi Island of Lhaviyani Atoll

The Maldives is a party to the Biodiversity Convention, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Under these treaties the Maldives has obligations to ensure the conservation and protection of habitats and species in both national and international context.

Of course, in order to meet these national and international obligations the Government has declared some protected marine areas and few terrestrial sites. These designated protected sites are poorly managed and monitored. These sites are declared protected on papers. Some argue these marine protected areas are protected for divers. Thousands of divers go diving in these designated marine areas annually; their impact on the fragile coral ecosystems still need to be assessed.

There are instances where islands with rich biodiversity and ecological significance are selected for industrial activities such as tourism. The use of such islands for industrial purposes causes negative environmental impacts on the islands and loss of rich natural biodiversity for the country. Such a classic example is Hudhufushi island of Lhaviyani Atoll, selected for development as a tourist resort. Hudhufushi, with a unique V-shape forming a natural bay, makes it one of the richest islands in marine biodiversity in the Maldives. Baby sharks and rays flourish in that area.

Hudhufushi and Dhiffushimaadhoo are located in the same lagoon. It is one of the richest natural heritage sites in the Maldives. In fact these islands are still evolving; in the case of Dhifushimaadhoo, it was originally four islands, namely, Dhiffushi, Maadhoo, Shalhlhifushi and Hiriyaadhoo.

Hudhufushi-Dhifushimaadhoo area should be left intact from human encroachment and preserved as natural heritage for benefit of present and future generation.

Bluepeace had raised concerns in the past about impacts on island biodiversity and ecosystems from the selection of uninhabited islands for tourism and other industrial activities.

http://www.bluepeacemaldives.org/news2007/coastal_vegetation.htm

http://travelvideo.tv/news/more.php?id=8952_0_1_0_M109