Socio-economic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a policy process that can lead to more sustainable development by preventing or mitigating the negative impacts of development projects. Public participation in the EIA process, especially one based on the ideals of deliberative democracy, is essential to deliver on the goal of sustainable development that is arguably the primary objective of EIA. This article specifically focuses on a study of public participation in the EIA process of the Maldives. Using a qualitative research design involving an analysis of documents and interviews, it investigates four aspects of a deliberative participatory process: fairness, competence, willingness and capacity. The analysis suggests that the process for public participation in the Maldives cannot be characterized as fully fair or competent. It further identifies several socio-economic barriers that affect the capacity and willingness of the actors to participate including political influence, lack of human and financial capacity, gender gap, loss of community spirit and lack of environmental and procedural awareness.

Keywords:

• Environmental impact assessment
• deliberative democracy
• sustainable development
• public participation
• Maldives

1. Introduction

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a proactive policy tool to identify and mitigate negative environmental and social consequences of rapid economic development. First introduced through the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States in 1969, it is now an internationally accepted aspect of decision-making processes on issues affecting the environment. EIA was a major step in developing anticipatory policy to address socio-environmental impacts of economic development (Caldwell 1988; Bartlett 2005; Jay et al. 2007). For example, EIA seeks to identify and address the likely consequences of development on the natural environment and on the health and welfare of local communities through the decision-making process (Kurian 2000). In this regard, EIA has many similarities to the concept of sustainable development, which is most commonly defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment & Development 1987, p. 43. Although this definition has been criticized for being ambiguous and limited in its vision of what constitutes ecologically sound development (see, e.g. Redclift 2005; Ganesh 2007), there is broad agreement that the primary focus of sustainable development, as with EIA, is to ensure that economic development is undertaken without compromising social and environmental values (Dovers & Handmer 1992; Iyer-Raniga & Treloar 2000). Consequently, a number of scholars have identified sustainable development as a key objective of EIA (Sadler 1999; Murombo 2008; Sinclair et al. 2008; Saeed et al. 2012).¹

The extensive, parallel sets of scholarship on EIA and on sustainable development has demonstrated the importance of meaningful public participation both to ensure the integrity of the EIA process as well as to realize the potential for achieving sustainable development (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992; André et al. 2006; Sneddon et al. 2006; Murombo 2008). While there are many ways of achieving meaningful participation, one of the most robust forms of participation derives from a process based on the principles of deliberative democracy (Baber & Bartlett 2005). Deliberative democracy recognizes the significance of a strong public sphere, facilitated by meaningful public participation in decision-making, which in turn fosters rational and equitable policy decisions (Baber & Bartlett 2005). In deliberative forums, the validity of arguments is tested and decisions are made based on meta-consensus and understanding (Miller 1992; Baber & Bartlett 2005; Dryzek & Niemeyer 2006; Dryzek 2009). Such a system of decision-making has the potential to prioritize sustainable development, as rational arguments to protect the environment and social interests are likely to take precedence over any claims made based on economic self-interest (Baber & Bartlett 2005). Moreover, public participation based on the principles of deliberative democracy promotes social learning, as participants learn from each other through discourse and dialogue (Dryzek 2009; Stevenson & Dryzek 2012). Such learning can promote sustainable practices and thereby lead to sustainable development (Iyer-Raniga & Treloar 2000; Sinclair et al. 2008; O’Faircheallaigh 2010; Glucker et al. 2013).

This article focuses on evaluating public participation in the EIA system of the Maldives, a small island developing nation in the Indian Ocean. With a population of roughly 300,000, Maldives comprises 1190 coral islands, of which 358 are inhabited (Shaig 2006). It is an important case to study, as the country has a fragile environment and, with the average height of the islands being just 1.5 m above mean sea level, it is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Shaig 2006). Thus, to ensure the long-term survival of the islands, sustainable development and sound environmental practice, such as EIA, need to be accorded policy priority. Although it is true that EIA in many instances has been unsuccessful in reversing negative impacts on the environment (Jay et al. 2007), the Maldives is arguably a special case in the light of the climate change risks it faces. It is therefore important to evaluate EIA practice in the Maldives to examine whether a state’s awareness of its vulnerability to the threat of climate change helps ensure appropriate implementation of sound environmental policies that have the potential to lead to sustainable development.

Moreover, politically the country is in a state of flux, with the first democratic elections being held only in 2008 (Niyaz & Storey 2011), followed by a reversion to a form of authoritarian rule in 2014. Hence, it is worth examining whether the political changes occurring in the country have translated to the policy level in ensuring meaningful participation through mechanisms such as the EIA process.

Maldives introduced the requirements for EIA in 1993, and the guidelines for EIA have been reviewed most recently in 2012. Yet, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of the country’s EIA process, its effectiveness and its relevance in facilitating sustainable development. Given the significance of this issue both in terms of the theoretical insights that such a study of the EIA process in the context of an environmentally fragile developing country may offer as well as the practical relevance for implementing EIA, this article investigates the extent to which the Maldives EIA process facilitates meaningful public participation in democratic decision-making. In pursuing this, it identifies and evaluates the nature of participation currently practised in order to determine key barriers to effective deliberative participation and to suggest ways to improve the current practice.

We begin with a discussion of the regulatory requirements for public participation in the EIA process of the Maldives, before introducing the conceptual framework for the study grounded in Habermas’s notion of the theory of communicative action (TCA) and a discussion of the research methodology. We then turn to an analysis of primary documents and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the EIA process in the Maldives, and explore the implications of the key findings for sustainable development in the country.

2. EIA and public participation in the Maldives

2.1. Legal requirements for EIA

EIA is required by law in the Maldives through the Environment Protection and Preservation Act (EPPA) (4/93), which was enacted in 1993. Under article 5(1) of the Act, EIA is required for all development projects that might have significant impacts on the environment (Environment Protection and Preservation Act 1993). Guidelines to implement this legal requirement were developed first in 1994 and revised in 2004 (Annandale 2001; Niyaz & Storey 2011). The legal requirements for EIA under article 5(1) of EPPA (4/93) received regulatory backing when the first EIA regulations were devised in 2007. Revisions were made to the regulations and they were republished in 2012. Two amendments have been made to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012, the first in April 2013 and the second in August 2015. The regulatory agency responsible for implementation of the regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency² (EPA) of the Maldives, established under the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012).

2.2. Public participation under the EIA regulations of the Maldives

The EIA process in the Maldives, as in most other EIA systems, typically consists of six phases, namely screening, scoping, report preparation, review, appeal and monitoring (Figure 1). The primary actors involved in the EIA process of the Maldives are the EPA which implements the regulations, proponents who undertake development projects, registered consultants who undertake the EIA study on behalf of the proponents and the affected general public.

Figure 1. A simplified flow chart showing the EIA process practised in the Maldives, adapted from Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2012).

Public participation under the EIA regulations 2012, hereinafter referred to as the regulations, is required in two stages of the process, the report preparation phase and the review phase. For the report preparation phase, under schedule Baa³-1 of the regulations, the consultant is required to provide details of the participatory exercise, including the list of persons involved, the time and location of the meeting, methodology adopted and the main outcomes in the EIA report (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). For the review stage, article 13 (Raa⁴) of the regulations stipulates that EIA reports should be published for public commenting for the period of reviewing (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). According to article 7 of the regulations, the period of reviewing differs based on the amount of money paid by the proponent (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012⁵). In this respect, there are three categories: for the review to be completed in 5 days, the charge is MVR 20,000; for the review to be completed in 10 days, the charge is MVR 10,000; and for the review to be completed in 15 days,⁶ the charge is MVR 5000 (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). From a participatory point of view, such a process is in itself unfair, as during the review phase the amount of time the report is available for public scrutiny is controlled by the wealth of the proponent. Moreover, under Article 13 (Kaafu⁷), for complex and controversial projects, public hearings are to be held in the review stage of the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). However, what ‘complex and controversial’ entails is not defined under the regulations.

We turn next to the conceptual framework that was adopted in undertaking this study.

3. Conceptual framework

Different theoretical models have been described in the scholarly literature for deliberative democracy, of which the TCA described by Jurgen Habermas most closely connects with the objectives of public participation through the EIA process (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000; Baber & Bartlett 2005). We draw on the scholarship on TCA and deliberative democracy more broadly to develop the conceptual framework for this study.

TCA promotes building consensus through an ideal speech situation (ISS) (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). ISS promotes outcomes of deliberation to be decided based on best arguments, without any coercion (Calhoun 1992; Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). Communicative competence has been defined as a precondition for achieving ISS, elements of which include cognitive, linguistic and rule competence (Habermas 1970; Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). Of these, the requirements for linguistic and cognitive competence have been criticized by some scholars, as this can lead to the exclusion of vulnerable groups, such as non-native speakers and people with mental disabilities, from deliberation (Young 1990; Mouffe 1999; Palerm 2000). Other criticisms identified in the academic scholarship include unrealistic expectations to achieve full consensus through deliberation, and the complete focus of ISS on procedural aspects without adequate consideration of organized views within society, such as that of social groups and movements (Calhoun 1992; McCarthy 1992; Bohman 1998; Gutmann & Thompson 2004). Despite this, the ISS is a useful concept, providing a standard for assessment of public deliberation that is nominally open to all (Baber & Bartlett 2005).

In addition, a significant criticism of deliberative democracy is that it is a Western concept and of little significance to non-Western contexts. Indeed, most deliberative democratic theorists focus on Western societies and assume that their theories are relevant only in affluent, literate, Western contexts (Gupte & Bartlett 2007). Yet, some form of deliberation and public discussion are part of most cultures around the world (Sen 2005). As Gupte and Bartlett’s (2007) study of a rural, poor Indian village, demonstrates, for example, deliberative democracy ‘is feasible in small inclusive forums at the local level, even in the absence of conditions of modernity that deliberative theorists have long thought of as necessary’ (p. 105). They conclude that deliberation requires the creation of inclusive institutions ‘that promote equity, even in the face of poverty, inequality, and heterogeneity’ (p. 105). There is clearly a need for research that focuses on the meaning and enactment of deliberative democratic practices not only in Western/First World contexts (see, e.g. Munshi et al. 2014; Sass & Dryzek 2014), but also in the Third World. Our article offers some insights into this issue in the specific context of evaluating the nature of public participation in the EIA process in the Maldives.

Drawing on the scholarship on ISS, we identified the key characteristics required for effective deliberation. From a procedural perspective, the two main aspects are fairness and competence (Webler 1995; Petts 1999; Palerm 2000). Here, fairness means that equal opportunity should exist for all affected individuals and groups to participate and contribute to the discourse (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). A fair deliberation will ensure that all affected parties have equal opportunity to participate, propose and challenge validity claims and have a meaningful say in the final outcome (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). Competence means that equal opportunity should exist for all participants to acquire the required knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the decision-making process (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). A competent deliberation will ensure that no participant is excluded based on linguistic or cognitive competence, all participants have access to independent knowledge and that consensually agreed mechanisms are in place to verify claims and to decide on conflicting issues (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000).

In addition to the procedural aspects, Palerm (2000) argues that country-specific socio-economic ‘promoters’ and ‘demoters’ can influence the willingness and capacity of the actors to be involved. For example, socio-economic barriers or ‘demoters’ that can reduce the willingness and capacity of the affected public to participate include issues such as lack of accessibility, low procedural awareness and lack of trust in the decision-making process (Palerm 2000). Thus, despite a willingness to participate, an individual may lack the capacity in terms of accessibility or procedural awareness and vice versa.

Palerm (2000) uses the four characteristics for effective deliberation identified above, to propose a framework for evaluation of public participation in the EIA process. This framework, with some modifications, was used to define the conceptual framework for this research (Figure 2). Social learning is identified in the framework as an outcome of best practice democratic participation (Figure 2). Based on the scholarship, we have identified sustainable development in the conceptual framework as the main outcome of EIA public participation (Figure 2). As highlighted in the introduction, social learning can also promote sustainable development (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual framework adapted from Palerm (2000).

4. Methodology

A multi-method qualitative research design was adopted for this study, with documents and semi-structured interviews being the main data sources. A description of the data collection, sampling and analysis method used both for documents and interviews is described below.

4.1. Documents

4.1.1. Data collection and sampling method

EIA reports and EIA regulations are the main documents used for this study. These documents were accessed through the Maldives EPA website.⁸ The regulations provide details of the legal requirements, and the EIA reports contain a chapter that highlights the implemented procedure in undertaking public participation during report preparation phase. Investigating these two aspects is important as legal requirements may not be implemented and also because legal requirements are open to interpretation during implementation. These documents provided insights, especially regarding the aspects of procedural fairness and competence.

The sample included the 2012 EIA regulations and 12 EIA reports. Maximum variation or heterogeneous sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, was used to select the EIA reports. Heterogeneous sampling aims to capture a wide range of perspectives from a relatively small sample size (Patton 2002). As is common for heterogeneous sampling, cases were selected for this study based on the criterion of the type of project involved. There are six main categories of projects undertaken in the Maldives that require EIAs, i.e. coastal developments, water & sanitation, housing, tourism, airport development and fisheries (Environmental Protection Agency 2010). Two reports from each of these categories were selected for analysis.

4.1.2. Data analysis method

A three-step document analysis method, proposed by Glenn (2009), was adopted for this study. The three steps include, superficial reading, thorough reading and interpretation. Questions for the analysis were developed under each category identified in the conceptual framework (Figure 2), namely fairness, competence, willingness and capacity.

4.2. Interviews

4.2.1. Data collection and sampling method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals and organizations who had expert insights into how the EIA process works with respect to participation, including the consultants, proponents, regulatory agency and community groups, as per the ISS standard. Again analytical questions were developed for the four categories identified in the conceptual framework.

The participants for the interviews were selected, similar to the EIA reports, based on purposeful heterogeneous sampling. We defined the criteria for each stakeholder group for selecting participants. The final sample comprised 18 participants. Unique codes were given to each participant to ensure confidentiality. The criterion used to select participants under each stakeholder group is described below:

(1)	Consultants: The area of specialization was used as the criterion for selection of consultants for the interview. In this regard, a consultant was interviewed for each of the following specialist areas: marine biology, planning, water & sanitation and environmental science & management.
(2)	EPA: The position of the staff member in the agency was used as a selection criterion. In this respect, the sample included two policy formulators and two on-the-ground implementers.
(3)	Proponents: Proponents were selected on the basis of project type. We approached proponents from each of the six major types of projects that require EIA in the Maldives, namely tourism, fisheries, coastal developments, water & sewerage, housing and airport developments. As a proponent of an airport development was not available, the final sample size for this group was five.
(4)	Community groups: We aimed to get a diversity of community groups for interviews. Consequently, representatives from an environmental NGO, a community development NGO, a community development NGO with an environmental component and a women’s development NGO were interviewed. In addition, an island council representative was interviewed under this stakeholder group.

4.2.2. Data analysis method

Intentional analysis, an interpretive text analysis method, was used for the analysis of the interview data. With the primary aim to understand the intentions of the interviewee (Lacity & Janson 1994), the analysis involved four steps as summarized below:

(1)	Determining the ‘facts’ concurred by all participants with respect to the issue of concern.
(2)	Identifying the reasons for the different views expressed by the participants.
(3)	Extracting common themes.
(4)	Making inferences based on the different views expressed.

Similar to the document analysis, the four characteristics identified in the conceptual framework (Figure 2) were used as the basis for this analysis.

5. Discussion

5.1. Procedural fairness and competence

In order to investigate procedural fairness and competence, we analysed the regulatory requirements and the procedure implemented. The requirements for a fair and competent process under the regulations were investigated for both phases of the Maldives EIA process that require public participation – the report preparation phase and the review phase. However, in terms of the implemented procedure, these fairness and competence aspects were investigated only for the report preparation phase due to the limited availability of data for the review stage.⁹

‘Fairness’ is understood to mean that equal opportunity should exist for all of the affected public to participate and contribute to the deliberation on a proposed project. At the most rudimentary level, from a fairness perspective, it is essential that there is opportunity for the public to be involved in all the key phases of the EIA process (Doelle & Sinclair 2006). In addition, opportunity and fairness are only possible if enough time is allowed for meaningful participation and deliberation. In the context of the Maldives, this opportunity is not provided, as the right to appeal the final decision is not provided to the affected public. This opportunity, under the regulations, is only available to the project proponent.

Prior notification that reaches all of the affected public is also essential to enable them to participate in the consultation process (Smith & Wansem 1995; Palerm 2000). In the Maldives EIA process, there are no regulatory requirements to notify the affected public prior to the meeting, either for the report preparation phase or the review phase (Table 1). Moreover, the regulations do not require that the public be notified about the availability of the EIA reports for public commenting. Hence, it is left open to be determined by the meeting organizers, who are the consultants during report preparation phase, and the EPA during the review stage.

Table 1. Summary findings of the evaluation for procedural fairness.

Fairness aspect	Regulatory requirements		Implemented procedure
	Report preparation phase	Review phase	Report preparation phase
Notification	No	No	Yes
Involvement defining rules of facilitation or moderation	No	No	No
Involvement in agenda setting	No	No	Yes
Accessibility through location	No	No	No
Accessibility through time	No	No	No
Two-way communication of information	No	No	No
Special consideration of marginal views	No	No	No
Actively seeking out views of silent participants	No	No	Yes

In addition, under article 7 (Raa¹⁰) and Schedule Lhaviyani¹¹ of the regulations, the EIA reports are only required to be published on the website of EPA to receive public input (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012), with no regulatory requirements to notify publicly and widely the availability of the reports. Thus, the review period specified under the regulations for public input is likely to pass without people being aware that the reports are available for commenting. Moreover, the interview process highlighted that the necessity for people to have access to the Internet in order to access EIA reports from the agency website is a significant challenge for the affected public. In this regard, a community respondent commented:

It is very difficult for us to check via the internet, especially for the elderly it will be more difficult; some youth may be able to check via the internet … (COM2.COM-NGO.M)

This suggests that even though the Internet may appear to be an ideal mechanism to facilitate information exchange in the developed world, it is an inadequate medium for meaningful communication, and the situation is worse in most developing countries like the Maldives where only 12% of the population have access to the Internet (Freedomhouse 2013).

In terms of actual practice, for the meetings undertaken by the consultants during the report preparation phase, we found that a week’s notice was given to the island council of the affected island prior to a meeting (Table 1). However, emphasizing that NGOs and other community participants receive even shorter notice, a representative of a women’s development NGO said in an interview:

I was notified regarding the meeting just 2 hours prior to the meeting … I did not get any information regarding the meeting prior to that … (COM4.WOMNGO.F)

Therefore, despite the consultants providing notification (Table 1), such notification was insufficient both in terms of community reach and timeliness, and prevents effective preparation on the part of the participants.

Pre-agreeing on rules of moderation is an important condition that ensures that the decision-making is not coerced (Webler 1995). As highlighted in Table 1, the EIA regulations of the Maldives do not have any requirements to define and agree on the rules of moderation prior to the meeting. Not surprisingly, the analysis of the interviews and the EIA reports suggested that this was not practised by the consultants when undertaking community meetings during report preparation (Table 1).

Involvement of the participants in defining the agenda of the meeting is another important fairness criterion to inspire trust and confidence in the process (Webler 1995). Providing this opportunity ensures that all the participants can suggest topics for debate and hence address any concerns through the deliberative forum (Webler 1995). Again, no such requirements are defined under the regulations (Table 1). However, as highlighted in Table 1, it is noteworthy that interviews with the consultants revealed that the agenda for the meetings were left open, hence participants were able to suggest topics for discussion.

In order to ensure that the meeting is accessible to the affected public, a fair process demands that public participation exercises are held at an open location and at a convenient time, ideally outside official working hours (Palerm 2000; Nadeem & Fischer 2011). The cultural context of the country also dictates the timing of the meeting. In the Maldives, community respondents highlighted that meetings need to be held after 8 pm following the last prayer of the day, as this corresponds with the time when both men and women are relieved from professional, personal and family responsibilities. Despite these community preferences, no set guidelines are defined under the regulations for determining the ideal time and location for meetings (Table 1). Moreover, analysis of the practice suggests that the participatory meetings undertaken in the report preparation phase are not usually open to the entire affected public (Table 1). In this regard, only 1 consultant of the 4 interviewed and 1 report of the 12 analysed discussed meetings that were open to the entire affected public. Usually, the meetings involve only the elected councillors and other selected parties invited by the council. The meetings are usually held in the council building and also at a time convenient for the councillors, which is often during official working hours. Therefore, in terms of accessibility, a fair chance is not provided for the affected public to participate.

A deliberative participatory process should also ensure that there is a two-way flow of information (Webler 1995) between the affected public and the consultants, proponents or the EPA, depending on the stage of the EIA process. In the Maldives EIA regulations, there are no specific requirements to ensure two-way communication, either during the report preparation phase or the review phase (Table 1). An NGO representative suggested that even in practice detailed project information is not provided by the consultants:

They [the consultants] did not give much detail regarding the project, they asked us very general questions … they did not explain anything of that sort (potential environmental impacts). (COM4.WOM-NGO.F)

The analysis of the reports supports this claim as in only 3 projects of the 12 analysed, were there suggestions of detailed project information being provided by the consultants. In all other projects, the consultants only acquired information from the affected public, suggesting predominantly a unidirectional flow of information from the participants to the consultants. The reason for this, according to the interviewed consultants, was due to the stage at which the public is involved in the process. As highlighted, public participation is generally undertaken only when collecting baseline information to prepare EIA reports, even though under the regulations, it can be undertaken during the review phase as well. At this early stage, the existing environment is not studied and hence the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the alternatives are not determined. Thus, the consultants are not able to provide this information, and hence the potential of the process to lead to social learning is significantly reduced. The participants learn very little from the participatory process, which in turn means that the sustainable development potential of the process cannot be realized.

A fair public participation process will make a special effort to invite and involve marginal groups, as self-selection alone often attracts only strong partisans, who often are influential members within a community (Petts 1999; Goodin & Dryzek 2006). In the patriarchal context of Maldives, where traditionally all the important decisions are made by men in positions of power (Fulu 2007; Ministry of Planning and National Development 2007), women constitute a marginalized group even though there are significant differences amongst women, particularly based on socio-economic class. Even where such marginal groups are involved, they are most likely to be silent in the process, as meetings are often dominated by one or two privileged individuals. Therefore, from a fairness perspective, it is essential to acquire the views of silent participants in the meetings (Steinhauer & Dutch Centre for Public Participation 2012). The EIA regulations of the Maldives do not address either of these fairness aspects, as there is no specific reference in any part of the regulations to involve women or to ensure that the views of silent participants in meetings are sought (Table 1). In terms of the practised procedure, we found that only 4 of the 12 EIA reports analysed and 1 of the 4 consultants interviewed suggested that special attention should be paid to women (Table 1). Despite the lack of involvement of women, all of the interviewed consultants stated that they actively seek the views of silent participants in EIA public meetings (Table 1).

The second element of the analytical framework, competence, refers to the notion that all the participants should be able to acquire the required information to reach the best possible outcome (Webler 1995; Palerm 2000). In this regard, providing prior project information is important to ensure participants are familiar with the project prior to the meeting, thus, enhancing their ability to contribute to the discussion. Similarly, it is important that the participants are provided with process-related information, so that they have a realistic expectation of what can be achieved through the process. The EIA regulations of the Maldives do not specify any requirement to provide any prior information related to either the project or the process, during the report preparation phase (Table 2). However, for the review phase, as highlighted previously, under the regulations, the reports are to be published in the website of the Maldives EPA (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). Thus, even though due to poor Internet connectivity, it is not widely accessible, project information is at least nominally available to the affected public during the review phase (Table 2). As for the actual practice, the results of the analysis suggest that no such information was provided prior to the participatory meetings during the report preparation phase (Table 2). Suggesting that even the island councils experience this difficulty, a councillor noted:

[information] regarding projects are provided (to the council) very close to the date of implementation of the projects and there have been instances where work has started even without providing such information … (COM5.COUNS.M)

Table 2. Summary findings of the evaluation for procedural competence.

Competence aspect	EIA regulations, 2012		Implemented procedure
	Report preparation phase	Review phase	Report preparation phase
Provide prior information	No	Yes	No
Access to independent expert knowledge	No	No	No
Peer review of the information presented	No	Yes	No
Use of local knowledge	No	No	Yes
Site visits to improve understanding	No	No	No
Provide feedback information	No	No	No
Use of local language	No	Yes	Yes

Moreover, all the interviewees highlighted that the procedural awareness of the public with respect to the EIA regulations is very low. This demonstrates that appropriate process-related information is not being currently provided to the public.

Access to independent expert knowledge allows the affected public to verify claims and ensure the validity of the arguments presented. EIA systems worldwide have been criticized for the lack of access to independent expert knowledge for the affected public, while the proponents are provided this opportunity through the consultants (Wood 1995; Petts 1999). To address this gap, some EIA systems, for example, in Canada, provide funding to the affected public to acquire independent expertise (Petts 1999). However, as highlighted in Table 2, this opportunity is not provided via the Maldives EIA regulations during the report preparation phase and the review phase. The implemented process also suggests that access to independent expertise is not available to the affected public (Table 2). The only expertise available is that of the consultant who undertakes the public participatory exercise. As the consultants are hired by the proponents, the views presented can be biased.

Another mechanism that can be utilized to ensure validity is to undertake peer review of the information presented (Palerm 2000). This opportunity is presented through the review stage of the EIA regulations of the Maldives, as the EIA reports are reviewed by two independent reviewers (Table 2). If review outcomes are utilized in making decisions, it can go a long way to ensure sustainable development, as it can potentially ensure that environmentally sound decisions are made through the process. However, as detailed in the next section, political influence is rife in the EIA process of the Maldives preventing ecologically rational decision-making.

A competent process will also ensure that local knowledge is recognized as important and used appropriately in conjunction with technical expert knowledge to inform decision-making (Bawole 2013; Glucker et al. 2013). As shown in Table 2, the EIA regulations of the Maldives do not have any requirements to use local knowledge. However, in practice, it was found that consultants do attain local anecdotal knowledge through the participatory process (Table 2). In this regard, 11 of the 12 reports analysed used local knowledge in undertaking the assessment. Acknowledging the importance of such local knowledge, a consultant emphasized:

We need their input to understand historical changes that have taken place so that it can be compared to the current situation. For example, with regards to coastal erosion we do get information regarding when, how and where erosion occurs … (CONS3.ENVMNGT.M)

Local knowledge of the environment can also be attained through site visits. Visits to the project implementation site as part of the participatory procedure can help to trigger sharing of local knowledge by the participants, thus leading to more informed decisions (Petts 1999). The regulations do not specify any requirements for site visits for either of the two phases where the public are involved (Table 2). In relation to the practice, site visits were not undertaken by the majority of the consultants as part of the participatory process (Table 2). In this regard, only 1 of the 4 consultants interviewed and 2 of the 12 EIA reports analysed suggested that such site visits were undertaken.

Another aspect of a competent process is that it seeks to reduce the potential for misunderstanding and thereby increase confidence in the process by providing feedback to the issues raised by the public during the participatory process (Palerm 2000; Steinhauer & Dutch Centre for Public Participation 2012). The European EIA Directive, for instance, requires feedback to be given (Petts 1999). The EIA regulations of the Maldives do not define any such requirements to provide feedback (Table 2). In addition, as highlighted, the one-way flow of information means that no feedback is given to the issues raised by the public during the participatory meetings (Table 2). This, as stated previously, is mostly because there is no follow-up public meeting after the assessment. Our analysis of the EIA reports reveals that only 3 of the 12 analysed reports provided feedback information to the issues raised by the public.

Furthermore, in order to increase public understanding, it is important that all communication is undertaken in the local language (Nadeem & Fischer 2011). The Maldives is a relatively homogenous country in terms of language and culture, with Dhivehi being the common mother tongue. Thus, it should be a given that all the meetings are undertaken in Dhivehi unless a foreign party is involved. However, many documents in the country are produced in English. Although a majority of the public are able to understand English as the education system is in the English medium, it can lead to misunderstanding as English is not used in everyday communication. Traditionally, EIA reports were all in English. However, as highlighted in Table 2, the most recent regulations addressed this issue, as schedule Baa1¹² specifies that the executive summary of the EIA reports need to be in Dhivehi (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). In terms of the practised procedure, all public participation meetings were undertaken in the local Dhivehi language (Table 2).

Thus, overall, from the perspective of both competence and fairness, the practised procedure meets only a few of the conditions. One reason for this, as this analysis suggests, is that procedural guidance for these aspects is not provided through the regulations or guidelines. Therefore, procedurally, the process does not meet the conditions to ensure public participation based on the principles of deliberative democracy. This undermines the potential of the process to lead to sustainable development.

5.2. Socio-economic barriers for effective deliberation

As highlighted, in addition to procedural aspects, socio-economic barriers can affect the willingness and capacity of the actors to ensure a deliberative participatory process. These issues were identified through the analysis of the interviews, as socio-economic aspects can most easily be identified by talking to people and understanding different perspectives. The key barriers identified through the analysis include: political influence, lack of financial and human capacity, gender gap, lack of community spirit and lack of awareness. Each of these aspects is described in detail below.

5.2.1. Political influence

EIA has the potential to lead to a politically transformative decision-making process, enabling transparent and ecologically rational decisions (Bartlett 2005). However, as EIA is a political process, it can quite easily be misused for political window dressing and symbolic decision-making (Bartlett & Kurian 1999; Cashmore et al. 2004; Bartlett 2005). As Devlin and Yap (2008) point out, opportunities for public participation in EIA can allow people to mobilize against a project, although few succeed in actually stopping such projects in the face of support from political and economic elites. Political influence and vested interests can thus predominate EIA decisions if there are no mechanisms to ensure that EIA recommendations are implemented (Cashmore et al. 2004; Bartlett 2005). As the regulatory agency, the Maldives EPA, is established under the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the agency is prone to be subject to political influence. Moreover, the power to make decisions about appeals is granted to the politically appointed Minister for the Environment under Article 15 (Raa¹³) of the regulations (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012). A politically influenced decision-making process reduces the willingness of the public to participate and also reduces the capacity of the regulatory agency to make ecologically rational and just decisions. In fact, all the interview respondents from EPA identified political influence as the main hindrance for effective implementation of the EIA regulations. Identifying the type of projects for which political influence is rife, a representative of EPA noted:

For private sector projects, usually [political] influence does not come to EPA unless it (the project) is proposed by a very influential person. However, for government projects there are projects to which the pressure comes straight from the level of the President, there are projects to which pressure comes from our Minister … (EPA2.IMP.M)

Thus, this political influence means that almost all public sector projects are currently approved, even those that have significant environmental and/or socio-economic impacts. Moreover, from a public participation perspective, a representative of the EPA suggested:

We cannot hold [public hearings] because there is pressure from the government. For bigger projects, the pressure is even more, that’s why we have to release the decision statement of such projects faster. (EPA1.IMP.F)

Thus, political influence was identified as the biggest barrier for an effective EIA promoting deliberative decision-making. Politically influenced decisions mean the capacity of EIA to address social and environmental concerns through the decision-making process is greatly reduced and, hence, the potential of the process to lead to sustainable development is jeopardized.

5.2.2. Financial and human capacity

Financial and human capacity constraints can affect the capacity to involve the public (Bisset 2000) and the capacity of the public to be involved in the EIA process (Nadeem & Fischer 2011). Especially in resource-poor developing countries, such as the Maldives, this is a major challenge (Smith & Wansem 1995). Identifying the financial challenges that the EPA faces to hold public meetings, a representative noted:

For example, for a project undertaken in an outer island if we have to hold a public hearing we will have to go to that island, which is an additional cost, we do not have (finances to cover) all those costs … (EPA3.POL.M)

Lack of human capacity, in terms of trained personnel, is another barrier that the EPA faces for effective public participation. Appropriately trained staff is essential to ensure effective public participation and monitoring is undertaken through the EIA process. Explaining the dire human resource capacity of the Maldives EPA, a representative suggested:

… the second issue (in addition to the budget) is that we have very few staff that are able to go to the field. If you visit EPA you will see that there are about 30–40 staff working, however amongst these there are very few who can work in the field and who can be considered as field officers, in addition these field officers are also not trained … (EPA2.IMP.M)

Financial and human capacity constraints can have a negative impact on the ability of the public to be involved in the EIA process as well. Around the world, NGOs play a key role in facilitating public participation in appropriate participatory forums, advocate for regulatory changes and environmental protection, fill regulatory voids and increase environmental awareness of the public (Doyle & McEachern 2008). However, in the Maldives, NGOs cannot play this active role due to funding and human capacity constraints. Typical activities that NGOs might be involved in include releasing a statement on an issue, meeting with politicians (usually with little effect) or holding an awareness session for school children. Occasionally, NGOs get small grants through the global environment facility and through the United Nations to undertake community level activities. In addition, international NGOs, such as Greenpeace, do not have much of a presence in the Maldives.

All the NGOs interviewed identified funding as a key capacity constraint and it was also suggested that this funding difficulty is further exacerbated by the lack of any state benefits to the NGOs.

In addition to financial constraints, like the EPA, the NGOs also face human capacity constraints. Illustrating that this is even true for established environmental NGOs, a respondent noted:

… we are a small NGO and so we also do not have the capacity to go through all the EIAs and comment, then there are no other NGOs (involved in such policy issues) … (COM1.ENV-NGO.M)

Therefore, it was found that financial and human capacity constraints in the Maldives impact the capacity of the EPA to involve the affected public and the capacity of the public and the NGOs to be involved in the EIA public participation exercises.

5.2.3. Gender gap

Deliberative democracy requires everyone in society, including those traditionally marginalized, to have genuine opportunities to participate and have a say in decision-making processes (O’Flynn 2006). Thus, deliberation often involves the voicing of multiple views that are given a meaningful hearing, and decisions being arrived at through reciprocal understanding and recognition of plural perspectives (Gutmann & Thompson 2004; Dryzek & Niemeyer 2006). Moreover, solutions derived through representation of multiple views enhance the capacity of the process to lead to sustainable development. A gender analysis of EIA theories and practice has demonstrated not only that masculine norms and values predominate, but such a masculine bias results in deeply unsustainable and unjust outcomes (Kurian 2000). In the case of Maldives, as highlighted under the fairness criteria, marginalized groups, like women are often excluded from the EIA process. This may be due to a number of reasons, as discussed by a representative of an NGO:

… (the lack of involvement of women is due to) cultural reasons and also the way family structure is organized in the Maldives, women are supposed to look after children, so if the man goes to the meeting the women cannot go. (COM3.COMENV-NGO.M)

These findings have been supported in prior literature. See, for example, Fulu (2007), who identified similar socio-cultural reasons for the lack of involvement of women in the public sphere in the Maldives. In addition, the findings suggest that even where women are involved in the public sphere, the cultural context of the Maldives means they are usually involved in community activities that from traditional times have been undertaken by women, like cleaning the island, while the men take all the important decisions (COM4.WOM-NGO.F, personal communication, May 29, 2014).

Moreover, with respect to women, two things happened with modernity and the democratization of the country. While more women are now involved in positions of authority and decision-making, at the other extreme, some women have become more conservative under the influence of reactionary religious norms that have infiltrated society from the outside (Fulu 2014). And religious conservative beliefs within certain sections of the society mean that it is not acceptable for women to be seen in the same forum as men. The interview process highlighted this, as a face-to-face interview with one female interviewee was not possible due to such beliefs.

Thus, the analysis suggests that marginalization of women, due to social and cultural reasons, and the influence of foreign reactionary ideologies, means that women are often excluded from the EIA public participation exercises.

5.2.4. Loss of community spirit

A significant factor, identified by all interviewees, that diminished the potential of public participation to contribute to meaningful decision-making was the unwillingness or lack of interest of the affected public to participate. The two main reasons for this were the loss of community spirit due to political tensions and a lack of awareness. The political tensions within the Maldivian community are at such a level today that people of different parties refuse to work together on community initiatives, effectively eroding the public sphere. Explaining the effect of this tension on public participation exercises, a community representative stated:

… usually for meetings also people of the majority party on the council usually show up, others might show up to listen but will not say anything, but mostly it will be people from that particular party (majority party) who will show up … (COM2.COM-NGO.M)

The level of political tension is so extreme that cases of domestic violence as a result of political differences between spouses have made local media headlines (Ahmed 2014, March 25). In addition, NGO activities have also been disrupted by this loss of community spirit and political tensions. In this regard, loss of NGO membership and a lack of interest in NGO activities were highlighted by the interview participants as a direct effect of this loss of community spirit (COM4.WOM-NGO.F, personal communication, May 29, 2014, and COM2.COM-NGO.M, personal communication, May 21, 2014)

This loss of community spirit means deliberative participation is difficult in the current context of the Maldives and hence the potential of the EIA process to lead to sustainable development is also reduced.

5.2.5. Lack of awareness

Lack of awareness both in terms of general environmental awareness and awareness of the procedure was identified as the other aspect that reduced public willingness to participate in the EIA process. EIA scholarship suggests that the lack of environmental awareness is a key constraint for effective public participation in developing countries (Bisset 2000; Nadeem & Fischer 2011). Identifying this lack of environmental awareness as a challenge for Maldives as well, an interviewed community member suggested:

… from a global perspective, even though Maldives is considered as a champion in terms of raising environmental issues globally, that awareness is not there amongst the locals, most people in the Maldives do not know why these things are done ... (COM3.COMENV-NGO.M)

In addition to this, procedural awareness of the EIA process is essential to ensure that the public understands avenues through which contributions can be made to the decision-making process (Palerm 2000). The interview process revealed that except for the environmental NGO that was interviewed, all other community members interviewed were not aware of the opportunities available through the EIA process for public participation. Hence, ignorance about EIA participation procedures as well as poor environmental awareness constitutes a socio-economic barrier that hinders effective deliberation through the Maldives EIA process.

6. Conclusion

This article investigated the degree to which the Maldives EIA process facilitated a deliberative democratic participation. It was found that from a procedural perspective, the practice of EIA did not meet many of the investigated conditions for fairness and competence. Moreover, several socio-economic barriers were identified which have an impact on the willingness and capacity of the different actors to facilitate or participate in public meetings. Ultimately, this undermines the potential of the Maldives EIA process to lead to sustainable development. Since the opportunity does not exist for most of the affected public to participate, there is limited scope to derive socially and environmentally sound solutions through deliberation. In addition, very little information is exchanged through the participatory process, thus limiting the potential of the process to lead to sustainable development through social learning. The article thus shows that the current EIA system implemented in the Maldives does not facilitate effective deliberative democratic participation. In this regard, both procedural and socio-economic barriers to effective deliberation, and hence to the potential for sustainable development, were identified.

Despite dabbling sporadically with democracy in the last 7 years, Maldives is yet to demonstrate a firm commitment to a transparent, open and accountable political system. In addition, the imminent threat of climate change to the very survival of the country has not resulted in any commensurate attention to the goal of sustainable development. A fundamental lack of political will for sustainable development and the predominance of short-term, economically driven policy priorities tend to characterize political decision-making in the Maldives. It is therefore not surprising perhaps that environmental policy tools and systems, such as EIA, are currently not set up to facilitate a meaningful, deliberative public participation, as this article has demonstrated. The findings of this analysis echo Wood’s (2003) conclusions based on a comparative study of seven EIA systems from around the world which demonstrated that it is common for non-environmental and vested political interests to be prioritized over EIA findings. Changing such barriers to sound EIA processes in the Maldives will require political will and public pressure to ensure a central place for EIA in decision-making for sustainable development. Overall, this research demonstrates that the presumed EIA-sustainable development positive relationship does depend on the existence of an EIA process with robust provisions for allowing, encouraging and requiring participation. Both EIA and deliberative democracy have learning benefits if done right and well, which can help overcome both risk ignorance and the dominance of a short-term economic imperative.

Funding

This work was supported by the New Zealand Aid Programme.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgements

We thank Robert V. Bartlett, Eva Collins and anonymous reviewers for feedback and insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1. We assume a relationship between EIA and sustainable development, but exploring the meaning of sustainable development, establishing the conceptual link between the two, and operationalizing this link are all beyond the scope of this article. Hence, we leave this relationship as an assumption.

2. In 2015, article 15 of the Maldives Tourism Act (2/99) was amended to make the Ministry of Tourism the regulatory agency for tourism-related EIAs.

3. Baa () is the fifth letter of the alphabet of the Maldivian language, Dhivehi.

4. Raa () is the fourth letter of the Dhivehi alphabet.

5. This was a change that was brought about in 2015 through the second amendment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012. Previously after review, the decision had to be made within 28 working days and period for public commenting was fixed at 10 days.

6. The regulations do not specify whether these are calendar days or business days. In either case, this is a very short window for public input to be received, and reflects the political pressure on the agency to speed up the process.

7. Kaafu () is the seventh letter of the Dhivehi alphabet.

8. http://www.epa.gov.mv/.

9. At the time of writing, there were records of only two public participation exercises undertaken in the review stage of the Maldives EIA process with very limited data available on them, and hence they were not analysed.

10. Raa () is the fourth letter of the Dhivehi alphabet.

11. Lhaviyani () is the sixth letter of the Dhivehi alphabet.

12. Baa () is the fifth letter of the alphabet of Dhivehi.

13. Raa () is the fourth letter of the alphabet of Dhivehi.