Why the Maldives Must Stop Chasing Cheap Imports and Start Building Trade Power

By the end of March 2026, the Maldives saw a 13% surge in imports. The government, led by Economic Minister Mohamed Saeed, hailed this as progress — promising new trade partnerships with nations like India, China, Indonesia, and Thailand to “smooth imports of food and essential goods.”

A surge in imports means the country is bringing in more foreign goods than before. This trend is being framed by the Maldivian Government as “resilience” — but it’s actually a symptom of decades‑old structural weakness.

Short‑Term Imports is not Long‑Term Security!

On the surface, diversifying importing countries sounds smart — especially when geopolitical tensions (like wars or conflicts in other countries) disrupt supply chains. But the real failure is that the Maldives still relies heavily on others for something as basic as food security.

Food security is the condition in which people have reliable access to enough affordable, safe, and nutritious food. Nations that prosper don’t simply get bigger inflows of goods — they build the capacity to produce, trade intelligently, and withstand shocks. For instance:

Singapore, a maritime and trade hub, has built strategic reserves or stored stockpiles of essential goods, and invested heavily in food technology and vertical farming.

Japan imports more than 60% of its food, yet maintains stringent stockpiles and diversified suppliers to manage shocks.

Bhutan, despite limited resources, enshrined food sovereignty as national policy decades ago.

Compare that with the Maldives, where fishermen and local farmers have been squeezed between cheap imported products and expensive local production. Now we have to depend on imports even for bananas and coconuts! This isn’t globalization or development — it’s dependency.

Trade Strategy Should Not Be Reactive:

Economic Minister Saeed’s statements show a reactive mentality — “we need to talk to new partners because imports are squeezed from one region'".

That’s like trying to close a hole in a sinking ship by using wood cut from another part of the ship. 

A truly strategic trade policy, our economic plan that guides how we buy and sells goods internationally, would:

* Increase the skills of local producers such as the famous Zuvaan Dhandyveriya, with export capabilities, not just import permissions.

* Negotiate trade deals that secure value and quailty — not just volume.

* Build regional supply chains rooted in shared value creation between the Maldives and the supplying country, not building more dependency. 

For example, when the European Union negotiated its Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with African nations in the 2010s, it didn’t just lower tariffs or import taxes. Instead, these EPAs gave market access for the African countries to export to Europe while also importing from Europe. Europe also provided  funds for quality certification on goods produced in the African countries and also for technology transfer, and infrastructure development. That’s the kind of levelling up the Maldives needs.

The Inherent Danger of Import‑Driven Growth:

The 13% jump in imported goods isn’t growth — it’s national debt risk disguised as progress.

The Maldives imports over 90% of its consumed goods, mainly due to limited land and agricultural capacity.

Tourism revenue earns the bulk of foreign exchange, but it is volatile — often plunging with geopolitical crises or pandemics. A supply chain shock tomorrow could leave the nation scrambling, with little production cushion. Rather than celebrating import agility, the government should be asking hard questions:

* Are essential goods being sourced with fair trade terms? For example, are quality of food items such as eggs or building material from India value for money? 

* Are we marginalising SMEs who produce coconuts, watermelons, bananas, chillies by allowing businesses to flood the local market with cheap imported goods of the same items?

* Is there a national strategic reserve for staples -  basic foods such as rice, flour and sugar?

* Are transit costs at various ports being optimized to reduce prices for citizens?

Trade Talks Must Be About Value, Not Just Volume:

Maldives’ trade discussions with China or India should not be about getting, for example, more cheap rice or furniture. They should be about mutual economic transformation. The selling country should contribute to the development of Maldives through the transfer of knowhow and technology. Otherwise it becomes a one-way road of eternal dependency. 

For example, India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) deal with Maldives — implemented recently — is a step in that direction, encouraging online trade. That’s the kind of thinking the Maldives needs: trade must be a strategic tool, not a stop‑gap solution.

Reimagining Trade for the Maldives:

Trade is not a scoreboard where we measure our development with how high our imports are. If the Maldives continues to focus only on expanding the quantity of imports, it will remain at the mercy of external markets. But if it moves towards building local productive capacity, smart trade agreements, and value‑added exports (goods or services that a country exports after increasing their worth through processing, manufacturing, or enhancement, rather than just sending raw materials abroad). For example we are not doing enough to create value added products of tuna. Instead we are exporting a lot of raw fish abroad, where that is processed and sold without us getting the full benefit.  Only through the change of this kind of thinking can we stand to redefine our economic destiny. 

Countries don’t grow by importing what they need; but rather, they grow by learning to produce what they once imported. The Maldives must internalize this point if we truly want economic and food security — not just higher cargo statistics.