Maldives drops pretence of independent environment watchdog

A presidential directive renamed the Environmental Protection Agency as the Environmental Regulatory Authority, a new department under the Ministry of Tourism and Environment. The environmental impact assessment regulations were meanwhile amended to streamline EIA approval for “priority projects designated by the cabinet or a cabinet committee”.

The opposition cried foul. But many environmentalists echoed Ibrahim Naeem, the EPA’s long-serving director general, who called the changes “a rebrand” that merely formalises the watchdog’s toothless status.

"The EPA has always been run as directed by the minister. The EPA's director general reports to the permanent secretary (of the ministry) and the minister," Maeed Zahir from the NGO Ecocare observed. 

The agency’s governance board, which included representatives from private sector and civil society, always functioned as an advisory body with no power to dictate decisions, he noted. "The EPA governance structure was already very much under the minister's full control. They have actually gone ahead and officialised that minister's control, I cannot think of what (more) it will actually achieve,” Maeed said.

According to the President’s Office, the new Environmental Regulatory Authority will “move away” from oversight by the governance board. The restructuring was “designed to reflect the primary responsibilities of the institution more accurately while enhancing its capacity to regulate the environment effectively.”

The changes were made to “strengthen environmental governance,” the environment ministry – which was merged with the tourism ministry in February – said in a press release, adding that it was working with the Civil Service Commission on the transition process and administrative arrangements. 

The ministry defended the EIA changes as aimed at “enhancing the efficiency, responsiveness and effectiveness of environmental regulatory processes in the Maldives.”

Consolidating ministerial control over the regulator, the amendments further empower the tourism and environment minister to designate and fast-track projects with final say over approval. The minister could also determine the timeframe for the regulator to make a decision after it completes evaluation of environmental impact assessment reports and accompanying documents.

Under the old rules, the EPA was required to issue a decision statement within five to 15 days. The exact deadline depended on the amount paid as fees for “reviewers” – MVR 5,000 (US$ 324) for 15 days, MVR 10,000 for 10 days and MVR 20,000 for five days. The revised rules allow the minister to unilaterally set an ad hoc deadline.

Despite the changes, the ministry insisted that “all environmental safeguards will remain in place, with the minister empowered to direct measures for faster processing where possible.”

As the amendments include a sunset provision that expires in three years and six months, the streamlined approval process for the government’s priority projects would remain in place until the end of President Dr Mohamed Muizzu’s five-year term in November 2028. 

The EPA was formed in 2008 as a semi-autonomous regulatory body affiliated with the Ministry of Environment. The governance board serves in an advisory capacity with minimal oversight powers.

With the new Environmental Regulatory Authority as a department of a ministry whose main focus is now tourism, the minister could now find it easier push through his agenda, Maeed from Ecocare suggested. 

“It does not make sense at all to bring the EPA under this ministry as a department,” he said.

“It’s hard for me to fathom where the minister can draw the line between his tourism interests and environmental conscience. It will be hard for one person to draw that line of business, tourism interests and protection, conservation interests.”

Although the regulator could reject projects found to be environmentally destructive, the minister already had the discretion to override EPA’s decision following an appeal. 

The controversial Kulhudhuffushi airport project in 2017 was one such example where then-Environment Minister Thoriq Ibrahim – who returned to his old portfolio under the Muizzu administration – vetoed the EPA decision and approved the development, which destroyed part of the island’s mangrove. 

This practice continued during President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s administration. In 2020, then-minister Dr Hussain Rasheed Hassan exercised this power to override the EPA’s decision to reject the expansion of the airport runway in Noonu Maafaru.

President Solih came to power with a campaign pledge to make the EPA truly independent. It was among the targets of his first 100-day agenda. In December 2018, the pledge was marked as “complete” after the tourism law was amended to reverse changes made by the previous administration to allow the tourism ministry to evaluate EIAs for resort development projects. 

But the pledge was widely understood as making the EPA an independent entity free of ministerial control. In 2023, then-environment minister Aminath Shauna told parliament that the model of an independent EPA was unsuited to a small island developing state such as the Maldives.

In the wake of Tuesday’s announcement, both Solih and Shauna along with other leaders from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party condemned the EPA’s effective abolition. 

The changes have rendered the regulator “toothless,” said Solih, as Shauna called it “another sign of the Muizzu administration’s complete disregard for the rule of law.” 

Responding to criticism about the Solih administration’s U-turn, Shauna insisted that the MDP government “never directly intervened with the EPA’s functioning or abolished its board.” 

Shauna told the Maldives Independent that she did not believe the MDP government could have done anything to prevent the changes made this week.

"These are institutions set up under the constitution or under laws. We see how quickly that was changed. Whether we put it in a law, it would not have made a difference,” she said.

She acknowledged that the EPA's mandate was unclear, inconsistent and overlapped with other ministries. But changing the mandate of an institution during the final half of a presidential term had not been the right time, she suggested.

The EPA’s independence was not about legal choices, Shauna argued.

"During the two MDP administrations, I believe EPA functioned as it should. But it was the same structure, what does that say? It's about leadership and a willingness to give EPA the resources it needs to fulfill its responsibilities."