Adi Teelock
For Platform Moris Lanvironnman
Honourable Prime Minister,
Honourable Minister of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change,
First of all, may we thank you for introducing to the National Assembly, a new Environment Bill with a section on Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA), which is not present in the Environment Protection Act of 2002, as amended in 2008.
We are in the process of completing our review of the Environment Bill but wish, for now, to address one aspect of the Bill that deals with Strategic Environmental Assessment.
We welcome the inclusion of Strategic Environment Assessment (thereafter referred as SEA) in the Environment Bill.
It is recalled that the inclusion of SEA is among our proposals to the Assises de l’Environnement in 2020, and followed through in subsequent workshops as well as during earlier consultations on the review of EPA.
Indeed, since its creation in 2010, Platform Moris Lanvironnman has been relentlessly advocating for the reintroduction of SEA in our environmental legislation, after it had been removed in the EPA of 2002 through regulations (GN No. 142 of 2006) a couple of months after the promulgation of the Business Facilitation Act (2006).
SEA is the most important strategic tool at policy level for the protection of the environment and assisting the country in achieving sustainable development.
However, we are disappointed and seriously concerned by the contents of the section on SEA and the relevant schedule in the Environment Bill.
Indeed, Sub-Part F – Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Environment Bill treats SEAs as if they are like broader Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), but which consider cumulative aspects. However, EIAs – by definition and manner of assessment – apply to specific projects further down the policy and planning hierarchy. They focus at project level on doing no or less harm.
SEA, on the other hand, frames individual EIAs and determines what is most good, at higher governance levels. It is carried out at public policy and planning level. When carried out systematically, ex ante early in the formulation of proposals and initiatives, when major policy and planning alternatives and options are still open for higher level decision-making, SEA helps decision-makers achieve important environmental objectives and sustainable development goals: It is a process for identifying, analysing and addressing the implications of proposed public policy frameworks, policies, strategies, plans, and programmes or other strategic initiatives. SEAs entail identifying and evaluating a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed initiative – against the economic, social, environmental, technical and financial implications of each option and using a number of guiding and procedural principles.
Public consultations at large and not only of targeted stakeholders, for instance, are an essential part of the holistic SEA process where all stakeholders have an early and effective opportunity to express their diverse views – knowledge, insights and perspectives – on the formulation of the policy, plan or programme before their eventual adoption.
SEAs are initiated by supranational, national or regional authorities and not by the private sector – except for master plans. For instance,
a) the UN Economic Commission for Africa’s African Trade Policy Centre has commissioned a SEA for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). (1)
b) Rwanda is instituting SEA as a strategic tool to mainstream environment and climate change proofing across all sectors. Its SEA of the National Land Use and Development Master Plan 2020-2050 (2) is ongoing. It is part of a Green Climate Fund project on national adaptation planning and readiness support.
The Explanatory Memorandum of the Environment Bill stipulates that it is repealing the EPA and replacing it with modern legislation, encompassing national policy, strategy and planning level. Hence concerning SEA, we expect the Environment Bill to show its modernity when compared to the existing EPA 2002. Unfortunately, the Bill is left wanting for several reasons:
a) It is recalled that the EPA 2002 did have provision for Strategic EIA and it included a specific Schedule for undertakings that required a SEA. And the National Physical Development Plan (NPDP) was included in the list of scheduled undertakings requiring a SEA. (3)
In fact, before SEA was removed from EPA 2002, the following SEA studies were carried out:
(i) The Identification of Potential Sites for Marinas, Ski Lanes and Bathing Areas for Mauritius in 2005.
(ii) The Multi-annual Adaptation Strategy (MAAS) on the reform of the sugar sector (2006-2015) as required by European Union, the funding agency; it is noted that in EU jurisdiction, a SEA is mandatory for policies, plans and programmes (EU Directive 2001/42/EC). The EU Directive gives directives for the conduct of SEA within the European Union.
(iii) The National Development Strategy (2003) underwent a Strategic Environmental Appraisal “consistent with international norms and standards” to “ensure that it promotes the philosophy of environmentally sustainable development.”(4)
We have seen how the lack of Strategic Environmental Assessment has had severe impacts on policies and strategies for sectors such as Land Development, Solid Wastes, Energy, Land Transport, Aquaculture (the fate of the Growfish project is a case in point), to name a few.
Hence, we are appalled that despite the purported policy and planning scope of the Environment Bill, the list of undertakings requiring a SEA as per its proposed Sixth Schedule is highly selective and restrictive.
To name a few of the policies and strategies that should be tested under a SEA:
(a) The National Development Strategy, expired in 2020 and still under review, is not included, nor are the various hospitality and property development schemes of the Economic Development Board.
This apex SEA is critical to addressing the interlinked challenges posed by pollution, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and conservation of biodiversity. Without this linchpin, cascading sectoral and area-based SEAs involving land and sea use will be, at best, ineffective and at worst, incoherent with conflicting and perverse outcomes. In effect Strategic Environmental Assessment is absent in the very overarching sphere where it is meant to be located.
(b) Deep sea exploration and mining in our maritime zones with its vast EEZs is another excluded policy area with highly negative environmental and ecological impacts. An EIA, being project and site-specific cannot be used to assess an individual “deep sea exploration and mining” project if the full implications of the activity as a policy decision have not first been evaluated through a SEA.
On the other hand, we are at a loss to understand some of what is included. For instance, why does “Restoration of large and important ESAs” under the “Environmentally Sensitive Area” sector (sic) find itself in the proposed scheduled list of undertakings specifically requiring a SEA?
If what is proposed in a new environmental legislation is approved, these serious flaws will not only make SEAs ineffective and useless but may also result in more harm than good to the environment and its inevitable economic and social repercussions, detracting from its purported sustainable development objective.
Such a flawed understanding and consequent continuing legislative and institutional gaps – which the Environment Bill needs to minimise – also jeopardises the credibility of national efforts to develop capacities to independently access the range of climate finance funds – specially adaptation – and to mobilise the resources much needed for meeting the Nationally Determined Contributions of the UNfCC as well as the Sustainable Development Goals.
We contend, Sirs, that this is not the forward-looking, legislative legacy the present government wishes to leave through this new Environment Bill.
We have not been able to give our views on the Environment Bill earlier as PML was not invited to the validation consultative workshop on the review of the EPA 2002 held in February 2022. It is most regrettable that there has not been an inclusive validation process where our views could have been heard prior to the Bill being sent to the National Assembly.
We are in the process of completing further comments and concerns we have on this Bill. But we have chosen to write this open letter for all the reasons given above because of these fundamental flaws identified with the Strategic Environmental Assessment component of this Bill, and before it passes further steps in the National Assembly.
Yours truly,
* to The Prime Minister as Chairperson of the National Environment Commission and proposed Chairperson of the National Environment and Sustainable Development Commission
The Minister of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change
Copy to:
The UNDP Resident Coordinator Mauritius and Seychelles, Ms Lisa Simrique Singh
The Solicitor General,
Mr Rajeshsharma Ramloll
- https://www.ungm.org/Public/Notice/194203
- https://gggi.org/gcf-nap-project-strategic-environmental-assessment-sea-of-the-national-land-use-and-development-master-plan-2020-2050-nludmp/
- First Schedule (Section 15 (2)) PART 3: Housing Development Programme; Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Industrial estates, Land and transport management plan; National Physical Development Plan (NPDP); New town and satellite town; Port master plan; Sewage master plan; Solid waste management plan; Tourism development plans for Mauritius and Rodrigues.
- National Development Strategy, Volume 2, Appendix 2, 2003
20 April 2024