Abstract: | The purpose of this document is to fulfil the requirements to get necessary environmental
clearance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the proposed resort
and marina development project in Madivaafaru Island, Raa Atoll. Madivaafaru Island was
initially leased for tourism in 2011 in conjunction with the proposed airport development project
in Ifuru. Both these islands were awarded on the condition that Ifuru Island Airport be
operational before the resort opens. Ifuru airport is nearing completion and is scheduled to open
in mid-2014. The proponent of this project is Ifuru Investments Pvt Ltd. The project is a joint
venture between the Government of Maldives and Ifuru Investments to partly to ensure that the
Ifuru airport is operation and partly to ensure that more beds are operational in Raa Atoll.
The main rationale for the project is to develop tourism in the outer atolls of the Maldives to
increase the tourism bed capacity and their contribution to the local and national economic
growth. Tourism development lags behinds in Raa Atoll and this project is expected to increase
the speed of development in the atoll. The objective of this project is to develop and operate a
five star resort on Madivaafaru Island.
The project broadly involves development and operation a stand-alone 56 bed resort and a 24
berth marina. The proposed project covers nine main components: construction of island
transport infrastructure; construction of the back-of-the-house and administrative infrastructure;
construction of guest rooms; construction of guest facilities; construction of utilities – sewerage,
power and water infrastructure; construction of a 24 berth marina; Landscaping and; resort
operations. The project is estimated to take 24 months to complete.
All project designs are in conformance to the laws and regulations of the Maldives, and relevant
international conventions that Maldives is party to. The key laws and regulations applicable to
this project are: Environmental Protection and Preservation Act, Decentralization Act, Tourism
Act, tourism resort development regulations, Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation
2012, Waste Management Regulation, Regulation on Cutting Down and Uprooting Trees and
Dewatering Regulation. Approvals have been granted for the concept by the Ministry of
Tourism. Further approvals are required before construction and operations. An approval is
required for the proposed channel clearing activity under the Dredging and Reclamation
Regulation.
Madivaafaru Island is a small island approximately 300 m long and 90 m wide, and has a land
area of approximately 2.1 Ha within vegetation and 3 Ha within high tide line in March 2014.
The island is generally in pristine condition, apart from its terrestrial environment. Its vegetation
is very young comprising mainly of coastal littoral shrubs and a few introduced trees. The water quality is poor. It has deep lagoon and a natural reef entrance which is to be used for the marina
development. Its reef condition is good on the eastern side but poor on the western side.
One of the most important finding from this assessment is the volatility of the coastal
environment particularly during the last 5 years. Over the last two years the impacts have been
so dramatic that most of the structures initially planned on land based on 2012 studies are now
all in the water. The size of the island combined with the volatility of beach environment makes
it a very unsafe island to build land based structures closer to the beach. Given the limited land
area, not building closer to the beach is also not an option. This island is highly vulnerable to
climate change and potential sea level rise and could be among the first group islands that are
severely affected.
The negative impacts from this project are typical impacts associated with resort development in
Maldives. The most significant impact from this project during construction stage would be the
loss of live coral colonies due to reef entrance clearance, removal of limited vegetation,
excavation and dewatering, changes to coastal processes due to coastal developments,
degradation of the terrestrial and marine environment due to the worker activities, lost marine
life due to overwater construction and disposal of waste. Main social impacts include potential
conflicts with the atoll public if equal job opportunity is not available for construction stage or
operations stage of the resort.
Negative impacts during operations stage are the impacts on marine flora and fauna due to
potentially high number of vessels using the lagoon and marina, impacts on the beach due
significant erosion and accretion patterns and social impacts associated with foreign workers or
general lack of opportunities.
Apart from the impacts from this project on the environment, the coastal environment itself will
have a major impact on the project itself. Severe erosion is likely to continue and if left
unprotected, it will pose serious challenges and economic losses for the operation of the
property. If the coastal structures are erected, it will reduce the aesthetic beauty of the island and
will permanently later the coastal processes.
The project mainly has positive socio-economic benefits, including increased direct and indirect
job opportunities and tourism growth.
The key mitigation measures proposed for the construction stage include finding options to
mitigate severe erosion on the island. Uncontrolled erosion would have significant financial
costs on the investment and will face severe erosion issues during operation stage. A number of
mitigation measures have been proposed in this assessment to mitigate the most significant impacts associated with the development, including reef clearance, worker activities, vegetation
removal, marine construction, excavation works and utilities operation.
Alternatives options were evaluated for the activities that are identified to have significant
impacts on the project. The most important finding is that the environmental and financial costs
of going forward with this project on Madivaafaru Island is higher than considering an
alternative site. Alternative islands have been suggested for the project including Kottefaru,
Naainfaru and Faarufushi. Other alternatives considered, should the project goes ahead in
Madivaafaru, includes an extensive coastal protection system, alternative options for reef
entrance, alternative methods for dredging and changes to site plan. It has been recommended to
move this project to a more stable and slightly larger island.
Consultations were held with the island councils and public of Ugoofaaru, Dhuvaafaru and
Maakurathu. This project has strong support from the island communities and all site plans have
been seen by the Island Councils. There is a general dissatisfaction due to the slow pace of resort
development projects in the atoll.
The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this project is designed to produce a
framework for anticipated impacts, including practicable and achievable performance
requirements and systems for monitoring, reporting and implementing corrective actions. In
addition, provide evidence of compliance to legislation, policies, guidelines and requirements of
relevant authorities.
Monitoring plan is designed to assess any changes to the physical environment as well as
operational aspects of the resort. The total cost of mitigation and monitoring are estimated
between US$15,000 per year.
The main conclusion of this report is to relocate the proposed development to another
island on grounds of its small size, coastal instability and future vulnerability to erosion
hazards and climate change. It is also recommended to designate the island as a sensitive
coastal environment and to prevent any physical developments on the island for the next 10
years. However, given the financial implications and legal complications that may be associated
with such a drastic action, the final decision should rest on the outcome of a discussion between
the proponent and the Ministry of Tourism. Should the project go ahead, extensive shore
protection will be necessary and proponent should accept coastal adaptation may be an ongoing
expenditure during operation as well. |