Lelepa between tourism and heritage: Indigenous leaders in Vanuatu demand stricter scrutiny of Royal Caribbean’s project
The plan by the American cruise operator Royal Caribbean to build a private beach club on Lelepa Island in Vanuatu for cruise passengers has raised a new question that goes beyond a local dispute over a single tourism investment. At the center of the dispute are now the relationship to land and sea, the protection of cultural heritage, the right of local communities to genuine participation in decision-making, and the limits of development models in small island states that rely heavily on tourism. While the company presents the project as a new development opportunity for local residents and the South Pacific, some Indigenous leaders warn that the documentation so far has not provided sufficiently clear answers to a series of key questions.
According to available information, community leaders on Lelepa, in a letter sent to Royal Caribbean on 26 February, warned that the environmental impact assessment, or EIA, is incomplete and misleading and does not meet the standards prescribed by Vanuatu’s legislation. They particularly emphasize that the process did not sufficiently include local communities and customary landowners, and in a country such as Vanuatu, where customary rights over land and sea are extremely important, this is one of the most sensitive political and social issues. The warnings do not come only from an abstract concern for nature, but from fear that accelerated tourism development could permanently change a space that has both economic and spiritual value for the local population.
What Royal Caribbean is planning on Lelepa
Royal Caribbean has leased parts of Lelepa to develop Royal Beach Club Lelepa there, a destination intended primarily for passengers arriving by cruise ship from Australia. According to the company’s promotional materials and announcements from March 2026, this is a project that should open in 2027 and is presented as the company’s first exclusive cruise-destination beach club in the South Pacific. The plans mention two beaches, an adults-only area, a nature trail, water sports offerings, locally inspired gastronomy, as well as ten bars and multiple hospitality facilities.
The greatest attention is drawn by the figure that the complex could receive up to 5,000 visitors per day. For a small island about five kilometers long, with around 500 residents, such capacity is not merely a technical detail but a figure that directly determines the scale of pressure on the coastline, wastewater, the movement of people and vessels, fishing grounds, and the daily life of the community. In practice, this means that in a single day the number of visitors could greatly exceed the number of local residents, which in island environments almost always raises the question of who truly governs the space and who bears the consequences of change.
In its public materials, Royal Caribbean emphasizes that the project should celebrate Vanuatu’s culture, create economic opportunities, and at the same time protect the natural environment. The company says it is working with government authorities, chiefs, local residents, and other stakeholders to obtain the necessary permits and protect Lelepa’s natural ecosystems. After additional media inquiries, the company stated that it is still incorporating comments from the public consultation into the final version of the environmental impact assessment, including issues of environmental protection and waste management.
Why local leaders oppose the project in its current form
The loudest critics are not necessarily against every form of tourism, but against the way in which, according to their interpretation, the project is being pushed toward implementation. Paramount chief Ruben Natamatewia III, one of the signatories of the letter and the highest customary leader on Lelepa, said that much more consultation is needed so that all people on the island understand what is being planned and can give informed consent. This message is politically important because it shows that the dispute cannot be reduced merely to an investment issue, but concerns procedure, legitimacy, and the balance of power between a large international company and an island community.
The Lelepa Council of Chiefs, which represents several customary landowners, is demanding that work not begin until additional assessments and consultations acceptable to the chiefs and landowners are carried out. They are also requesting a separate cultural heritage assessment to determine whether the plans could endanger places of customary and historical importance. This moves the debate beyond the framework of a classic environmental procedure and into the question of how spaces that are important not only because of natural resources but also because of collective memory, rituals, and identity are valued at all.
In island communities such as those in Vanuatu, fishing grounds, the coastal zone, gathering places, and sacred sites are not viewed separately, as distinct administrative categories, but as part of a single cultural landscape. That is why the claim that the development is located at the other end from a protected site may not in itself be sufficient to dispel the community’s fears. For the local population, the issue is not only how far a point is on a map, but whether increased traffic, noise, construction, excavation, waste, or changes in the regime of spatial use will affect a wider area and change people’s relationship with land and sea.
Sensitive environment and proximity to UNESCO heritage
Additional weight to the whole case is given by the fact that Lelepa is linked to the Chief Roi Mata’s Domain site, Vanuatu’s first inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List. UNESCO states that this property consists of three sites on the islands of Efate, Lelepa, and Artok, associated with the life and death of the last great chief Roi Mata in the area of present-day central Vanuatu. Among them is Fels Cave on Lelepa, a place of exceptional cultural value that local leaders cite as one of the sites that could be sensitive to the consequences of more intensive tourism development.
In public statements, critics of the project also warn of possible consequences for fragile coastal ecosystems, spawning and nesting grounds, as well as for fishing areas on which the local population depends. In such environments, even relatively small disturbances can have a long-term effect: an increased number of vessels changes movement patterns in the coastal zone, a larger number of day visitors increases the amount of waste and water consumption, and pressure on infrastructure often grows faster than the local community’s capacity to manage those changes. That is precisely why the environmental impact assessment in Vanuatu, according to the official guidelines of the Department of Environmental Protection & Conservation, should not cover only the project’s natural effects, but also possible social and customary consequences.
The official EIA procedure in Vanuatu is intended for projects that could have a significant impact on the environment, society, or customary rights. The government guidelines explicitly point to the need to assess such effects as well, which is important in the case of Lelepa because the dispute shows that the boundary between environmental, social, and cultural issues cannot easily be drawn there. If local leaders claim that consultations were not adequate, this is not merely a procedural objection, but an argument that goes to the very heart of the project’s legality and social acceptability.
Tourism as an opportunity and as a risk
Vanuatu, like many Pacific island states, sees tourism as an important source of income, jobs, and international visibility. In such states, the cruise industry often promises a rapid influx of guests and money without the need for massive construction of classic hotel capacities. However, experiences from numerous island destinations show that the number of visitors in itself does not guarantee evenly distributed benefits for the local community. A large part of cruise passengers’ spending remains within prearranged packages, and local suppliers and small entrepreneurs do not necessarily receive space proportional to the scale of the investment.
In the case of private or semi-private destinations, the question of the distribution of benefits becomes even more sensitive. When a large company practically shapes its own tourist zone for its passengers, the local community can find itself in a paradoxical situation: tourists come to their island, but most of the experience, spending, and control takes place within a space overseen by the company. That is why some local leaders insist that the discussion should not be only about whether the project will bring jobs, but also what kind of jobs they will be, who will manage the revenue, how large the local share in decision-making will be, and whether the community will in the long term gain more than it loses.
At the same time, the broader Pacific context should also be kept in mind. Small island states are particularly exposed to climate change, sea-level rise, and pressure on coastal resources. In such circumstances, every large intervention on the coast becomes politically more sensitive than in continental states with greater spatial and infrastructural capacities. This does not mean that development is impossible, but it does mean that the criteria for its sustainability must be stricter, more transparent, and more socially legitimate.
What is currently clear, and what is not
According to the information currently available, construction has not yet begun. This leaves room for the dispute to be resolved through procedure, additional assessments, and possible project changes. It is not, however, publicly clear exactly what stage the final environmental impact assessment is at, whether all objections from local communities have been incorporated into the documentation, and what the final position of Vanuatu’s competent government authorities will be. It is also not fully clarified how, if the project is approved, the cumulative effects of a large number of daily visitors on the coast, cultural heritage, and everyday life on the island will be monitored.
In public statements, Royal Caribbean emphasizes that protection of the natural environment will be a priority and that the project is being developed in cooperation with local stakeholders. But it is precisely the content of the final documentation, the scope of any changes, and the level of public transparency that will show whether these messages are sufficiently convincing to calm the concerned part of the community. In disputes of this kind, what matters decisively is not only what the company promises, but what is precisely written in permits, assessments, waste management plans, the protection regime for sensitive zones, and monitoring mechanisms.
For Vanuatu, this is therefore much more than a local misunderstanding about one beach. The Lelepa case could become a test of the state’s ability to simultaneously open space for investment, respect customary rights, protect UNESCO heritage, and avoid reducing sustainable development to a promotional phrase. In small island states, it is precisely in such examples that one sees who truly determines the boundaries of acceptable development: the investor, the administration, or the community that has lived in that space for generations.
An outcome that other Pacific communities will also follow
The outcome of the dispute on Lelepa will likely be closely watched beyond Vanuatu as well. Many Pacific communities are facing a similar pattern: investments bring the promise of development, but at the same time intensify concerns about losing control over land, coastline, cultural landscape, and the resources on which people depend for their livelihoods. In that sense, the debate about Royal Beach Club Lelepa is not just a local tourism story, but a story about how, in 2026, the relationship between global capital, island vulnerability, and the rights of Indigenous communities is negotiated.
Whether the project will ultimately be carried out in its current form, modified, or postponed will depend on documents and decisions yet to come. But it is already clear that any decision that ignores warnings about the environment, heritage, and the quality of consultations will be difficult to accept as sustainable. On Lelepa, therefore, it is not only one tourist destination for cruise passengers that is being decided, but also under what conditions development can at all be considered legitimate in a space that has both economic and deeply rooted cultural value.
Sources:- The Guardian – report on the community leaders’ letter, allegations of an incomplete environmental impact assessment, and the company’s responses (link)- Royal Caribbean – official page of the Royal Beach Club Lelepa project with a description of the amenities and the planned opening in 2027 (link)- Royal Caribbean Group Press Center – announcement about the 2027/2028 Australian season and the debut of Royal Beach Club Lelepa (link)- UNESCO World Heritage Centre – official description of the Chief Roi Mata’s Domain site, which includes locations on Efate, Lelepa, and Artok (link)- Department of Environmental Protection & Conservation, Vanuatu – official overview of the EIA procedure and guidelines for environmental impact assessment (link)
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 3 hours ago