Link to PDF document: https://tinyurl.com/3dk6mv88

PML appreciates that it has been invited to contribute comments to a Draft Master Plan for the Environment in the Republic of Mauritius for the next decade (DMP). For recall, we have participated substantively and comprehensively in the technical workshops across all the thematic areas of the Assises in late 2019 and January/February 2020. We have formulated many written and verbal comments and proposals across a range of areas.

We are pleased to note that several of our specific proposals have been included in the Draft Masterplan (DM) and that our contribution has been publicly acknowledged in the workshop to present the DMP in December 2020.
However, a few fundamental overarching principles and policy approaches as well as cross-cutting proposals have not been taken on board. The specific ones taken in isolation are then stripped of their relationship with other elements, which we believe are fundamental. As a result, the analysis and rationale contained in the DMP are at times at cross purposes with our own approach. We will address these in what follows.
We are submitting our comments which fall into 4 interdependent sections
The process
The guiding and overarching principles and standards
The methodology and analysis
The coherence, comprehensiveness and relevance of policies, strategies and actions.
The relevant points to the themes of the DMP are addressed within these sections.

The Process

We appreciate that the Ministry of Environment has been proactive in having a consultative approach and has benefited from the goodwill, capacities, skills and knowledge of a range of non-governmental stakeholders. Many of the participants are dedicated volunteers. We welcome the recognition of the policy-setting, policy review role of civil society, rather than enlisting us as service providers to implement top-down decisions.
However, when we look over the year since the Assises to this rather sudden consultation of a Draft Master Plan, this process seems narrow, applying to the DMP only.
When it is there, it is unevenly participatory and inclusive. It is at the same time open and opaque.
We are left with serious, persistent concerns about environmental governance and outcomes.
This is because the key messages of the Assises have not been incorporated in the document in a coherent whole. Nor is what has happened in the meantime over 2020, where the world has changed through COVID 19 and the Wakashio – the largest environmental disastrous event we have been living through – bring to the forefront these key messages and drive home that the process is fundamentally neither open nor participatory, intent on including all citizens as environmental stewards. The lessons learned of this catastrophic and avoidable event have not been learned to inform the DMP.

Unevenly participatory and inclusive

Despite the mention of Leaving no-one behind, not all participants at the Assises process have been invited to the workshop in December 2020.
At the same time, those convened, some at the last minute, have been given very little time to read the document and to contribute to any meaningful examination. This contrasts with the process of the Assises.
We are also concerned that in a rushed compressed period, there seems to have been a need to deal with various, separate project implementation issues, ticking boxes for inception phases, monitoring phases, rapid consultation process on the EPA, from the part of both the Government of Mauritius and the UNDP. The workshop was both about the EPA, the Master Plan, the NDC and the connections among them not thought through or what it seems to be at any rate, in a cursory presentation.
As a result, we propose to put our comments on specific areas we have been consulted on briefly (less than half- an hour on major pieces of policies, plans and legislation)

We are concerned that the timeline of deliverables presented at the December 2020 National Consultative Workshop[1] reflect political imperatives and administrative constraints (to be ready for the June 2021 budget so as to tap international funds, the dismantling of the stern of the Wakashio) rather than a thought-out process.
We are concerned that as with the Assises process during the months of December 2019 – mid-March 2020, the process is being rushed at the expense of a coherent and systematic and inclusive approach of policy framing and development, followed by strategies and actions, all of which would make up a coherent and actionable masterplan, as opposed to a series of actions, which could be financed through different funding channels and instruments.
The Assises instruments were framed as a great number of policies, strategies and actions, but there remained a lot of work to be done – not least in clearly delineating the logical frame of how they relate to each other. That is not reflected in the DMP. Even if there are consultants to streamline the final document, what we needed to be consulted on was the building blocks – the four areas we have outlined below.

2020 environmental governance.

The Assises had three overarching key messages for transformative environmental stewardship:
1/Move away from GDP as key performance indicator and goal of a High-Income Economy (will be considered in the policy section)
2/ Move away from a silo approach – at the institutional and policy level
3/ Move away from a top-down to a bottom-up, participatory approach to environmental governance
In terms of process, there has not been any concrete moves to engage and mobilise the energies and capacities of stakeholders of the Assises to rise up to the threat – inadequately even perceived and recognised – of an oil spill and then to react to the spill and its aftermath. The grounding of the Wakashio has been seen initially as a salvage situation and secondarily as a maritime security incident. When the spill happened, it has been explicitly claimed that there is no capacity and hence the call of outside experts – when it had already occurred. This goes totally against the grain of a rights-based approach, a precautionary approach and recognising the very real danger of an environmental emergency. The approach has closed the option of harnessing the population’s willingness to act. It has been top-down and authoritarian, using specific provisions of environmental legislation to keep away those who were directly impacted and unable to act as environmental stewards, except in defiance of authority.
There is opacity throughout and very little transparency about key monitoring processes. There is little open, robust data for social accountability, the very opposite of environment rights and the instruments for climate change monitoring, that the DMP is being rushed through for, in order to access climate finance.
The silo approach is preeminent still.
- Just having intersectoral committees merely reinforce this approach rather than break it down, if a cross-cutting effective leadership is not exerted proactively.
- Exercised in a top-down way, the process of reaching key decisions remain opaque, not open to scrutiny, especially when they seem unfounded on and guided by clear sustainable development principles.
The bottom-up approach to environmental stewardship and governance was done by NGO and civil society groups, building linkages with the local communities in anticipation and reaction to social, ecological, cultural and economic impacts. And this has been done in open conflict and in adversarial ways, given the abrupt top-down, authoritarian stance adopted. While it is true that some NGOs have been coopted into various mechanisms, they have been subject to the conditions described above. There has been very little meaningful, intelligible communication coming from Government, the UN System and development partners and the NGOs themselves, bound under the conditions of operations of these technical mechanisms.
- It has been clear from the outside that the NGOs operated under very restricted and no disclosure conditions.
We are therefore very sceptical that the stock taking of the Assises and the lessons learned and consigned in the comments, will really inform the finalisation and implementation of a DMP.
There is a profound disconnect between enlisting stakeholders in crafting papers and interaction and action on the ground.
We need to ensure accountability for outcomes over the policy cycle.

The issue of trust is fundamental to building the resilience needed and the stewardship to face up to the climate emergency. This all the more important that the DMP context from now looking forward, is one of intersecting and intensifying emergencies since the COVID era. This is particularly the case for Mauritius, whose development model has been actually shredded, despite claims to the contrary in policy circles. We do not seem to have a vision of how to deal with this unfolding environment and to which the DMP should be a coherent part.

The guiding and overarching principles, approaches and standards

The DM is thematic. it is not framed within a transformative vision.
It frames the status quo as a desirable situation – even at the policy level – which then just needs incremental actions, clustered in thematic areas and not departmental/ministerial areas.
For this reason, there are inconsistencies, incoherence – including policy incoherence – as well as gaps in the DMP as later sections highlight.
There is mention of Right to a clean environment (page 16). We are not clear what this means. We understand the concept of environmental rights and we can see how they are connected to the whole range of social, economic and cultural rights – existence of, availability, access to, quality of water, sanitation, energy, air, food, shelter, ecological assets and the effective functioning of ecosystem services- which underpin livelihoods, health and well-being. As rights are universal and interdependent, they underpin and are co-dependent with environmental rights. But these are not recognised in our Constitution, framed in 1968.
Thus, in the absence of formally stating that the DMP is framed by human rights instruments – conventions, protocols etc., – and of adopting a human rights-based methodological approach (mandatory for United Nations programming), such a statement is just rhetorical and a hollow aspiration.

The unfolding catastrophe of the Wakashio oil spill is a glaring testimony of the absence of environmental rights and the consequences for health, livelihoods and well-being and of not adopting a rights-based approach. This is despite palliative and compensating measures which stem from the notion of welfare and solidarity. It is not couched as reparation of environmental rights violations.
In our view, a transformative approach and shift in paradigm towards environmental rights, in principle, policy and practice and enshrined in law, is far reaching.
It entails making clear what is the environmental valuation underpinning the DMP: values such in use now as flows of resources, values for future generations, values about species’ existence value as well as amenity and cultural values. The latter set include aesthetic values of “pristine”-like landscapes and seascapes.
This approach would certainly require constitutional review and reform. We would certainly welcome these shifts and that the DMP shows a roadmap of how we can work towards that, in the current context. But if that is not the case, we would prefer that there is consistency between pronouncements and actual policies, strategies and actions.
Overarching development framework: The Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 Agenda and its guiding principles and approaches.
We strongly advocated in the Assises, that the national environmental policy should be underpinned and harmonized with the SDGs. Please refer to our original submissions. This is not reflected in the DMP. Even the NDCs under UNFCCC is explicitly linked to the SDGs. The cross- cutting elements and interdependence among the goals which are mutually supportive and interdependent, are lost.
There is no mention of a guiding principle of nature-based solutions, which can have considerable leverage across the DMP thematic areas.

Environmental legislative framework.

From our perspective, it is guiding principles, norms, standards and policy that should drive the law. The substantive elements couched in preambles and relevant articles should reflect and give legal and regulatory authority to effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The principle of environmental stewardship, notions of public interest, private interest.

The implications of what adopting a principle of environmental stewardship means and its implications for determining what is public and private interest, need also to be clarified and stated and made consistent throughout the DMP. It should be clearly stated in the legislation as well as the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and the Precautionary Principle underpinning environmental legislation and human rights legislation. Underpinning the PPP is the recognition that the pollutee has rights and can claim them. The broader implications should be drawn for the sake of clarity and coherence.

For instance, there has been much controversy and conflict generated by the principle of Locus Standi. There has not been much reflection on how this principle of mainstream legislation fits with environmental rights and the above-mentioned principles. Yet, the EPA in its preamble clearly endorses the principle of environmental stewardship. And our legislation does cater for public interest, and as applied to environmental issues; public interest is recognized in the EPA 2002 in Part V- Spill and Environment – Section 30.
It is our view therefore that Section 54 of the EPA Jurisdiction of the Tribunal needs to be amended so that appeals are not a matter of “personal” or “private” interest but a matter of public interest in as much as harm to the environment is harm to public interest. The legislation itself is entitled “Environment Protection Act”.
The SDG provide the framework for adopting mainstreaming approach with a clear set of inter-related goals and targets, as well as indicators.
Mainstreaming is a response to silo thinking and administrative practices.
- In the case of « Urbanisme et politique environnementale », – an SDG goal area- for example, there is a need to link to impacts of climate change – an SDG Goal- and disaster risk reduction (Sendai Framework). There is also scope to strengthen nature-based solutions (other SDG goal/s).
Mainstreaming climate change, for instance, is important, but by itself is not enough. Climate proofing involves ensuring that climate risks are reduced to acceptable levels, as per the standards and targets set.
The SDGs provide an overarching framework for how our use of environmental assets and resources for economic and social purposes are clearly related. They enable using appropriate tools and instruments
There are integrated economic and environmental accounting, natural capital accounting methodologies. Mauritius engaged in a pilot exercise of one such methodology and we learnt from the workshop that there is an ongoing experiment at local level. The DMP makes a passing mention to these instruments but does not clearly spell out whether and how that could be used in a transformative approach.
There is no consideration of other broader indices from an SDG framework. One such, the Genuine Progress Indicator, for instance would enable considering the complementarities and trade-offs among social, economic and environmental assets and flows of services, and move away from the GDP paradigm

The methodology and analysis

Besides the normative underpinnings and guiding principles to frame the DMP, it seems that there is also a step missing between the Assises process and outcomes and its couching in the DMP.
There are flaws and gaps in the basic design of the Master Plan. It does not stem from a thorough analysis of the existing situation, based on guiding principles, norms and standards, from which the policies, goals and targets are developed in a clear coherent logical framework backed by an evidence base (which can include identifying critical data and knowledge gaps). The risks and assumptions underlying the actions proposed are not set out, because of these analytical weaknesses. Policy drives actions.
As will be highlighted in the policy section, the analysis of the existing situation is flawed.
At its roots is the continuing weakness and failure in modelling economy environment and society interactions.
From an inadequate, at times shallow, if not biased, analysis of the situation, the policy responses and strategies end up being incoherent and inadequate. Using a problem, challenges and barriers tool is too superficial and not robust enough. A rights-based approach entails digging to the underlying causes, to analysing the roles and capacities of actors and to identifying and testing solutions based on this analysis, using human rights principles and standards.
If there is no data to building an adequate baseline, it is standard practice to include its development in the Master Plan and to steer towards the goal and targets in the light of the emerging rolling knowledge.
The National Master Plan should show a clear, credible narrative of how there can be transformation from the existing situation and how to steer towards what are desirable ends.
There is no stock-taking of existing policies (ex-post evaluation), no baseline and no indicators to monitor progress against a desirable and achievable end point. The targeted end-point is 10 years from now. Backcasting and setting milestones are essential to outcome-oriented strategic planning.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is absent. So the whole approach of steering towards results cannot be implemented. Coupled with the lack of transparency about data – timely, robust reported data -, we are left with the usual incremental piecemeal approaches and list of actions, which have been behind so many environmental failures. In effect, crucially, there is little accountability.

The coherence, comprehensiveness and relevance of policies strategies and actions

The National Consultative Workshop has brought to light an incoherence in the process. We therefore reiterate some of our overarching comments on the development of the master plan made at the end of January 2020 and sent to some Technical Working groups.[2]

The Economic model and COVID 19.

As mentioned, the externally-oriented economic model – agriculture, industry, tourism and financial services – has been severely shaken to its foundations with COVID 19. Face to face services in particular the more so.
COVID 19 has also exacerbated pre-existing problems – such as relating to the opacity and practices of our offshore financial jurisdiction. Some of these practices are rooted in our political economy, about the way we do business and how the preeminence of business facilitation over all else drives and overrides all policy decisions.
If we want to get to the roots of our environmental problems and challenges, we need to address its drivers.
It is incongruous and, in many ways, deeply grating to our environmental sensibilities to have a presentation on the HDR Report on the ANTHROPOCENE during the workshop, with a Draft Master Plan that does not seriously, coherently question or subject this phenomenon to scrutiny and evaluate how it plays out in our country over its history and more recently. Such a juxtaposition drains trust. It stretches credibility.
There is mention of changing the development model (page 40) and for moving away from the High Income Economy status that is measured by GDP growth. We do recognise our inputs as well as those of others in the Assises. But these are contradicted in the DMP.

Policy incoherence.

In the Background section of the DMP there is the statement that environmental protection and sustainable development have been ranked high on Government’s agenda since the early 90s. We do not think we can concur to that. The evidence is in the DMP itself.

The opening paragraph ends with indices which are quite unrelated and non-indicative.
We are then referred to Box 2 which clearly shows the trade-offs between economy and environment.
In the narrative, what are described as environmental challenges are seen to have their roots in the environment, and not in the conduct of the global and the national economy as well as its technologies of consumption, production and of logistics.
Further, in this analytical framework of problem- barriers- challenges (which, as mentioned already, we believe is limited as it does not adopt a more rigorous human-rights based methodology) – there is no mention that of the dominant economic model as a driving cause. There are mentions of deficiencies and flaws in institutional and planning processes- such as silos. These do exist and have been well identified.
However, when a decision is made, the dominant silo overrides all – as is the case with macroeconomic policy and practice and economic liberalisation. The latter has underpinned both business facilitation and the lower ranking of environmental priorities. For example, the last few years have seen many examples of environmental legislation provision being suspended for infrastructure projects adopted on economic/business grounds, which as well suffer from the very barriers to sound project management and thus environmental management.
- The listing of barriers are examples of problem areas and weak analyses of these. Some of them are very vague.
- Yet they form part of the intermediate causes that need to be addressed – the capacities to be built, the mindsets and cultures to change. And which need to be incorporated in the DMP.
We feel that “lack of engagement between institutions and the public” is influenced by the dominant economic and business model which has shaped so much of our economic, political and environmental landscape.
Nowhere is policy incoherence recognised as an issue related to silos in mindsets and organizational reach, nor is there a recognition that there is a hierarchy among silos, which is prejudicial to environmental management.

Policy mainstreaming and oversight is the role of an apex institutional body.
In the absence of an overarching central ministry for policy and planning, this role devolves to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) under its aegis. To have a transformative approach, the dominant silo referred to has to be addressed.
Environmental concerns are addressed too far downstream of the policy/investment decision processes and instances. They need to be taken on board at the highest and earliest level.
The policy and planning instruments and tools to be used at that level need to engage in double mainstreaming, of both environment and gender for coherence and relevance, such as in scoping exercises and Strategic Environmental Assessments.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEAs) SEA is not to be only area-wide, but also for policies, plans and programmes. For example, sectoral policies and plans as it enables comprehensive and forward-looking assessment of potential environmental implications of the activity.

Disaster risk and management. Failure to take into account, and mainstream disaster risk and management and relate it to climate change and economic policy and planning.
Proactive and strategic policy management is missing. It is dangerous and undermines resilience
A stronger and more thorough mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and management has been flagged by different stakeholders in the Assises.
The events unfolding over 2020 has again underscored how critical that is. Disaster risk is not just about natural disasters but also human-made and they interact.
The episode of the Wakashio shows a critical gap in thinking as regards disaster risk consistent with the Sendai Framework.
Yet the difficulty of grasping and identify disaster risk is shown in the lessons learned of the Benita wreck in late 2016, just after the drafting of the National Disaster Risk and Management Act of 2016 and the adoption of the Mauritius Declaration after the regional conference here. Disaster risk is still only seen as relating to cyclones and to flooding heightened by climate change events. (Nowhere are the water stresses associated with droughts addressed as it should, also). The National Oil Spill Contingency Plan of 2003 that was supposed to being updated when the Wakashio crashed, seems to be focused on an event in the port. It had not taken on board the clear risks that vastly increased maritime traffic present so near to our shores, despite Benita. The use of the Sendai Framework and the Act’s provisions have not been visible in the management of the Wakashio emergency. Nor are they adequately in the DMP.

Climate change is the overriding concern we, as a remote small island nation, are currently facing:
It is our contention that our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) should inform the National Environment Masterplan, which in turn would be used to conduct the review of the EPA: the policy guides the law.
What would then be the link with the review of the National Development Strategy 2003 (now extended to 2022)?