After the Privy Council's judgment on the Eco-Sud versus Minister of Environment case, confirming that Eco-Sud had the requisite standing to challenge the decision of the Minister of Environment who had issued an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) permit for the Pointe d'Esny Lakeside Company Limited project, we had been expecting some strong arguments/answers from the Minister as to why he chose to side with the promoter and maintain the very restrictive sections on citizens' rights.
(Our congratulations to the Environmental NGO “Eco-Sud” for challenging an environmental impact assessment licence granted by the Ministry of Environment for a major development in a sensitive wetland area. For this ruling marks a turning point in environmental jurisprudence in Mauritius, paving the way for greater citizen participation in environmental protection and greater responsibility on the part of promoters of projects with a high environmental impact).
Grilled by the PNQ , the Minister, his tail between his legs, took refuge behind the statement that “le jugement du Privy Council a apporté plus de clarté à notre loi” and tried to bluff his way through by arguing that the new Environment Act, which will take effect from August 1, has taken on board the concern for greater citizen participation in environmental protection.
It is pure bluff !
Both Platform Moris Lanvironnman(PML) and Rezistans ek Alternativ (ReA) have been criticising thoroughly the new Environment Act 2024.
In its comprehensive commentary on the Environment Act 2024, PML has pointed out “ the silo approach to governance and a top-down approach, marginalising local - especially deprived - communities and population groups..… with its highly narrow lens of what multi-stakeholder engagement means.” They have also argued that “ the Act is disturbingly silent on a bottom-up, citizen-centric approach. It betrays a reactive, authoritarian, opaque, closed government approach, so evident since the Covid pandemic crisis, then immediately followed by the Wakashio preventable catastrophe and more recent flash flood episodes.”
Stephen Gua of ReA in his comments on the recent budget measures has also criticised the new Environment Act 2024 as being hollow and empty. He argued that” ll n’y a pas de politique environnementale pour Maurice. Il y a simplement une politique pour « tick boxes » à l’international et de « business facilitation » pour les « corporate ».Nous avons effectué une Environmentally Sensitive Area Study pour Maurice depuis 2009 pour identifier les zones environnementales sensibles de Maurice afin de mieux les protéger avec une loi qui aurait dû suivre. À ce jour, le rapport n’a pas été rendu public. Donc, ne nous étonnons pas que ce qui est fait est défait à Maurice en matière de politique environnementale.”
We thought that with this ruling, the Ministry of the Environment, the Prime Minister and the whole government will rectify their course of action.
But to no avail !
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment has allowed the promoter to proceed with development without hindrance. (Please note that the appeal of the Supreme Court’s judgment to the Privy Council has cost some Rs 5 million, funded by taxpayer money.)
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) permits are being issued at breakneck pace. (Ki Political Financing Bill zot pé cosé ? Ala kot finance été ! ) Between February 8 and May 2, 17 EIA permits were granted, with major residential projects and clinics taking the lion's share.
And it's no wonder that some opposition MPs are demanding Ramano's resignation especially after the conflict of interest case between his role as Notary and Minister, questioning his judgment and integrity.
En tou kas, so dal fin fini cuit !
