Many conferences have been held on the theme of sustainability, and a vast and rapidly increasing number of publications on the topic now exist (see, for example, Globe 90 (1990)). The World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, held in Lanzarote, was only one of a large number that produced recommendations on the application of sustainable development principles to tourism, in that case a "Charter on Principles and Objectives for Sustainable Tourism" (Martin 1995 in France 1997, p13). The term ‘sustainable tourism’, rightly or wrongly (Butler, 1993a), has become widely accepted as meaning tourism that is developed and operated in such a manner as to follow these principles. It has been sold at various levels as being appropriate and morally correct as well as being environmentally suitable, and thus has high appeal to tourists and to decision makers in the tourism industry, in both the public and private sectors (Wheeller, 1993)

The overwhelming appeal of sustainable concepts therefore lies in the generality of the concept and the fact that the true costs of institutionalisation, implementation and monitoring of the concept have never been spelt out. The government’s initiative on environmental protection provisioned in the Tourism Act, Law on Tourism and later presented in the Second Torusim Masterplan and National Development Plan, then, means what many authors such as (Butler 1993b; Ding and Pigram 1995; Goodall 1992) note as being a less environmentally impacting form of development than might have been developed given past experience. The current state of knowledge about impacts, and the reality of impact assessment, means that it is rarely known what the impacts of existing developments would be, let alone the consequences of projects under construction.

The early development of the Maldives tourism sector was essentially carried out in an unplanned laissez-faire manner. One thing that came into place rather soon was a resort contracting system, i.e as to how a resort can be issued on lease.

The system functioned around a tendering process, much known in the Maldives as 'bidding process' and in the academia as 'Compulsory Competitive Tendering or CCT'. The tendering guide lines used in the case for Maldives required a ten year bed rent proposal along with a number of other proposals namely redevelopment concept and built environment report; environmental aspects report; work plan; business plan; and staffing and human resource plan, from prospective bidders.

This tendering system included exhaustive evaluation criteria and contents provided by bidders under headings as given above were presumed relevant, correct and achievable and thus warrant no extra merit for comprehensiveness, benefits or methods, as they are only considered as procedural for the tender process.

More recently, this tendering process changed from a qualitative aspect to a quantitative aspect. Meaning, tourism bids no longer call for detailed proposals from potential investors. This enabled greater participation, reduction in cost of bid presentation, and above all offered simplicity. In the new process, the bed rent along with a couple of other elements as, the ratio of local to expatriate staff, and whether or not medical insurance will be offered, is asked.

These tourism projects enabled many business flourish and expand both locally and internationally and offered the local government a much required source of income in the form of tax and rent. Sadly tourism projects continue their atrocities through reducing social benefits to the indigenous citizens whilst also causing mega negative impacts to the country as a whole.

Is it then, time to re-think and re-invent better systems to increase benefits and positive impacts? What is then, the ideal system?

The Global Code of Ethics for Tourism (GCET) is a comprehensive set of principles whose purpose is to guide stakeholders in tourism development: central and local governments, local communities, the tourism industry and its professionals, as well as visitors, both international and domestic.

The Code was called for in a resolution of the UNWTO General Assembly meeting in Istanbul in 1997. Over the following two years, a special committee for the preparation of the Global Code of Ethics was formed and a draft document was prepared by the Secretary-General and the legal adviser to UNWTO in consultation with UNWTO Business Council, UNWTO's Regional Commissions, and the UNWTO Executive Council.

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development meeting in New York in April, 1999 endorsed the concept of the Code and requested UNWTO to seek further input from the private sector, non-governmental organizations and labour organizations. Written comments on the code were received from more than 70 UNWTO Member States and other entities. The resulting 10 point Global Code of Ethics for Tourism - the culmination of an extensive consultative process- was approved unanimously by the UNWTO General Assembly meeting in Santiago in October 1999.

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), in its substantive session of July 2001, adopted a draft resolution on the Code of Ethics and called on the UN General Assembly to give recognition to the Code. The official recognition by the UN General Assembly to the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism came on 21 December 2001, through its resolution A/RES/56/212, by which it further encouraged the World Tourism Organization to promote an effective follow-up of the Code.