Not Sustainable Development. Definitely NOT.

‎

Not Sustainable Development. Definitely NOT.

July 17, 2011

“1,658,266 cubic feet of marshy soil will be removed from the Maakilhi wetland area to build the Convention Center for the SAARC Summit, according to the EIA report.

And for backfilling the area, 4,145,665 cubic feet of sand had to be mined from Hithadhoo lagoon. A reliable source has confirmed that the sand is being extracted from an area already planned for future reclamation...”

And someone asked me today if this is sustainable development.

That question came from Ahmed Nizam—Maavahi NGO founding member and the current President of the Maldives NGO Federation—during a Facebook thread. That question brought back a lot of memories. I remember the night well—not because it was an ordinary public consultation, but because it revealed just how flawed the entire process was. What was meant to be a space for open dialogue ended up showing exactly why public participation in decision-making still has a long way to go. It wasn’t consultation; it was performance. It was a turning point in my civil society work—a moment that reinforced why we must demand transparency, accountability, and respect for public participation in decisions that affect our environment and our communities.

That “consultation” was called under direct orders from the President’s Office. But anyone who was there knows—it wasn’t a dialogue. It felt like a muzaahiraa staged inside a hall. A politically charged crowd of more than 70 people had been primed with misinformation and spun narratives, and they came in ready to shoot down anything that sounded like opposition to the project.

There were only seven of us in that room who spoke up—asking questions, demanding technical clarity, calling for the EIA report, a basic concept plan, or even a fair review. But none of that was provided. We were told to respond to a plan we weren’t allowed to see. The facilitators didn’t help. Instead of fostering discussion, they allowed things to escalate—emotionally and politically.

When logic and process failed, they fell back on a popular vote. In a consultation meeting. Unsurprisingly, we lost. By a wide margin. And the aftermath was even worse: we were harassed, verbally abused, and publicly vilified in the days that followed.

Eventually, we gave up.

And so, when Nizam asked his question, I gave him the only honest answer possible:

“Ahmed Nizam, we were openly against building the SAARC Convention Centre in the wetland area and made that very clear during the public consultation. We weren’t shown the EIA report, weren’t given any technical reviews, not even a concept plan. There were just 7 of us in a room of more than 70—people who had been given false information and politically incited. In the end, they held a popular vote, and we lost badly. After the meeting, we faced harassment and verbal abuse.

To answer your question—no, I do not believe this is sustainable development.”

Not then. Not now. Not ever.