Henri Casella, Senior Environmental Economist Consultant

Jaime de Melo, Professor Emeritus, University of Geneva

Usually, countries take better care of their environment as they become richer, both because citizens put greater weight on environmental quality and because governments have more resources at their disposal.  For Mauritius, economic appraisals have often touted a “Mauritian miracle” by its high growth rates as reflected by the standard United Nations System of National Accounts (SNA) that ignores depreciation of natural capital. Yet for Mauritius, GDP growth was not accompanied by improvements of environmental indicators.

Indeed, Mauritius has fallen short of two important targets set on the global stage by Multinational Environmental Agreements (MEA). First, the country has missed the pledges made during Aichi Convention on Biological Diversity by a long shot[1]. On the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) targets for CO2 emissions, the per capita emissions for 2015 was already off-track in 2010, continuing to grow every year, reaching 5.3Tco2e per capita in 2018 – 38% above the 2030 target[2].

Mauritius’ overall lacklustre environmental performance at its per capita income level is evident in its below-average position in an Environmental Performance Index (EPI) where all African Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are singled out. Seychelles and Saõ Tomé are ‘first in class’ while Cabo Verde and Mauritius are below the average fit (though in the top third among all SIDS).

At the November 2021 COP26 assembly, Mauritius’ Prime minister laid out an ambitious plan for 2030, pledging a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 40% as well as a green energy push (60% of energy from renewables) while phasing out coal electricity. The pledge also included other commitments like protecting the island’s environment by moving towards a circular economy. [3]

It is widely accepted that the health of the environment and its ecosystems is particularly fragile in SIDS because of population pressures, biodiversity loss, and climate-change related pressures to which they are more vulnerable[4]. SIDS also depend strongly on international trade. If not accompanied by policies that protect their environment, as already noted by Pierre Poivre for the ongoing deforestation in Mauritius, international trade is likely to contribute to the degradation of their terrestrial and marine environments[5]. This note takes stock of Mauritius’ environmental performance by comparing it to that of three other African SIDS:  Seychelles, Cabo Verde and Saõ Tomé drawing on a recent study comparing environmental performance across the four African SIDS[6].

Lessons from an environmental dashboard for SIDS

An environmental dashboard with indices covering three dimensions helps focus on SIDS environment-related characteristics and performance:

• The first considers the health of the environment with two indices that capture the level of pollutants in the air and water and the health of the ecosystem’s biodiversity[7].
• The second captures vulnerability to environment-related shocks, first and foremost to the global climate change. Two vulnerability indices are selected: a Physical Vulnerability to Climate Change Index (PVCCI) (increase in aridity, sea level rising, higher occurrence of extreme events such as heavy rainfall, heatwaves and storms) and and an index to fisheries vulnerability to climate change (FVCCI).
• The third, Preparedness, is an outcome that captures policy measures taken to confront the selected environmental challenges: climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainable management of fisheries.

Diving into the specifics of the EPI score in columns 8-10 (Environmental Dashboard for African SIDS) shows a high vulnerability of Mauritius to climate change impact and high risks for the fisheries of Saõ Tomé and Principe and Seychelles.  The risk of extinction of native species is also relatively high for both Islands. Mauritius ranks well when it comes to air and water pollutants, while Cabo Verde has a better rank on the species extinction index. Except for Mauritius, the other listed African SIDS have relatively good scores on fisheries management.

Next steps

If composite indexes like the EPI are only approximately informative of a country’s sustainability path, countries taking seriously their transition towards green growth should at least commit to produce reviews of annually updated (and easily available) environmental indicators like those, in a suitably designed environmental dashboard.  The dashboard here designed for SIDS, provides indices countries can use to evaluate where they stand in the group, steering away from vague statements on the sustainability of their development paths [8]. The results could then be confronted with targeted policies to be reviewed and debated in national assemblies. Two examples illustrate steps to accelerate transition towards green growth.

For Seychelles, Laing (2020) proposes a blue economy valuation toolkit to modify the current system of national accounts to recognise the contribution of the blue economy to the sustainability of Seychelles’s development. The toolkit is to help towards a more accurate reporting of natural capital (e.g. artisanal fishery) while participation in the debt for nature initiative has led to designating 30% of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as marine protected area following a comprehensive EEZ-wide marine spatial plan.

For Mauritius, joining the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) launched in September 2019 would have been an opportunity to make commitments on removing barriers to trade on Environmental Services, establish concrete commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and develop voluntary guidelines for eco-labelling programmes. For Mauritius, Parry (2012) estimated that applying corrective taxes on energy prices to correct damages from energy prices that do not reflect environmental damages would increase the Mauritian government revenue by 0.8% of GDP while reducing energy-related CO2 emissions by 9.7%.

Such difficult-to-take political measures would have been easier to sell in the context of small-group negotiations with other countries.[9]

Main photo by Colin Frankland on Flickr

Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).

[1] Mauritius pledged to protect 17% of terrestrial and inland water as well as 10% of coastal habitat (Target 11) by 2025. As of now, only 4.725 % terrestrial area and 0.003% of marine and coastal area are protected (Voluntary national review report of Mauritius on SDG, 2019, Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

[2] Per capita GHG emissions  in Mauritius are comparable with France and Mexico. Mauritius has pledged on several occasion to reduce GHG emissions compared to a Business as usual trend of 6.9MtCO2e per year in 2030 and most recently by 40% at COP26.

[3] High level statement at the COP26 in Glasgow. https://unfccc.int/documents

[4] See Nurse et al (2014) for the expected effects of climate change on SIDS. Nurse, L.A., McLean, R.F., Agard, J., Briguglio, L.P., Duvat-Magnan, V., Pelesikoti, N., et al., 2014. Small Islands. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp.1613–1654.

[5] See Techera, E. (2021) “Deforestation, climate change and the emergence of legal responses: the international influence of Pierre Poivre’s environmental leadership”, forthcoming, Royal Society for Arts & Sciences of Mauritius/Académie des Sciences et des Belles Lettres of Lyon

[6] Low-income Comoros and Guinea Bissau have less policy space to take care of their environments so they are omitted from this article’s dashboard.

[7] Measured by the number of deaths and sick people due to air and water pollution and the number of species that are nearing extinction

[8] In its executive summary, UNEP (2015) p.1 states “Mauritius has been a beacon for other SIDS in terms of sustainable development. In the last decade, Mauritius has been investing in renewable energy, clean waste management technologies and in public transport technologies”. In Mauritius’ first voluntary national report on SDGs 0f 2019, the annex on the progress tracker states that for the environment -related SDGs( take urgen action against climate change (13), conserve and sustainably use the oceans (14), and preserve ecoystems (15), Mauritus was on track for 22 targets and had met 2 targets.

[9] Melo (2020) evaluates the prospects of the ACCTS to help put SIDS on track to adapt to climate change.

References 

Blasiak, R., Spijkers, J., Tokunaga, K., Pittman, J., Yagi, N., & Österblom, H. (2017). Climate change and marine fisheries: Least developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179632. 

Casella, H.  and J. de Melo 2021.Greening trade policies in African Small Islands Developing States (AFSIDS): suggestions for the Way Forward under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), https://ferdi.fr/en/publications/greening-trade-policies-in-african-small-islands-developing-states-afsids-suggestions-for-the-way-forward-under-the-african-continental-free-trade-area-afcfta 

Feindouno S., Guillaumont P., Simonet C. (2020) “The Physical Vulnerability to Climate Change Index: An Index to Be Used for International Policy”, Ecological Economics, vol. 176, October 2020. 

Government of Mauritius (2011) Mauritius Environment Outlook, 2011. 

IUCN 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on [02/02/2021] 

Laing, S. (2020) “Testing of a blue economy Valuation toolkit”, https://www.covid19platform.tradeeconomics.com/post/testing-of-a-blue-economy-valuation-toolkit 

Melo, J. de (2020) “Negotiations for an Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS): An Opportunity for Collective Actions”, https://www.tradeeconomics.com/iec_publication/trade-climate-change-negotiations-action/ 

Nurse, L.A., McLean, R.F., Agard, J., Briguglio, L.P., Duvat-Magnan, V., Pelesikoti, N., et al., 2014. Small Islands. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, M. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp.1613–1654.  

Parry. I. W. (2012) “). Reforming the tax system to promote environmental objectives: An application to Mauritius”. Ecological Economics, 77, 103-112. 

Techera, E. (2021) “Deforestation, climate change and the emergence of legal responses: the international influence of Pierre Poivre’s environmental leadership”, forthcoming, Royal Society for Arts & Sciences of Mauritius/Académie des Sciences et des Belles Lettres of Lyon 

UNEP (2015) Green Economy Assessment: Mauritius, https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/national-documents/green-economy-assessment-mauritius 

“Regenerative Agriculture describes farming and grazing practices that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity – resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle” (Regeneration International).

Nearly 50 Mauritian and foreign professionals gathered for a “virtual workshop” on November 24th to discuss the potential for regenerative agriculture in Mauritius, a joint initiative of the Charles Telfair Centre and Regeneration Mauritius.  

Food production systems in Mauritius urgently need to be rethought: with 70% of food products imported, overuse of phytosanitary products, impoverished soils, falling yields, dominance of intensive monoculture and lack of coordination between key stakeholders, the sector is ailing. Regenerative agriculture and its multiple solutions appear as an alternative of choice: its solutions propose simple and accessible technologies allowing soil regeneration, carbon storage, waste minimisation and thus a more sustainable and sovereign food system.

The Need for Change

The virtual workshop, organised for the second time this year by the Centre, allowed experts, economists, farmers, agronomists, academics, private and public companies, and NGOs to exchange and debate on the growing challenges faced by our food system. The workshop explored how we could rethink food systems in Mauritius in order to make them more sovereign and sustainable. Participants exchanged at length on the potential solutions offered by regenerative agriculture, their applicability to the Mauritian context and the opportunities made possible by technological developments.

The issue of food systems is intimately linked to the climate emergency, Nathalie Venis, Stewardship Manager at Regeneration Mauritius, pointed:

“Today, most agricultural practices are devastating for biodiversity: it is responsible for 2% of carbon emissions, is depleting our soil and has historically been the main source of deforestation. Regenerative agriculture is a way to reverse this trend and have a positive impact on the land and the planet while feeding us.”

Reacting to the presentation of the Mauritian context and its agricultural practices, Stellio Prefumo, Agricultural Management Consultant, summarised the situation as follows:

“Mauritius has moved from extensive agriculture to intensive agriculture focused on monoculture, which has had a considerable impact on our biodiversity: harmful chemicals have been overused, ecosystems have been disrupted and our soils, which take 500 years to build up, have been severely depleted by ploughing and the use of heavy machinery and equipment.”

The Mauritius context

The discussions during the workshop attempted to establish a mapping of the current context and practices in food production in Mauritius. Four main trends can be extracted form these exchanges:

1. Agricultural practices in Mauritius, for both large and small-scale farmers, remain largely dominated by unsustainable practices with excessive use of harmful chemicals, field burning and, for sugar cane, the use of heavy machinery. The ways in which food is produced, stored and distributed is also relatively inefficient, resulting in significant food waste.
2. Mauritius soil is of volcanic origin and is rocky to very rocky. The top soil is quite shallow, with an average depth of 20-25 cm, while in some regions the top soil can be as low as 10cm. MSRI research has shown that soil degradation is the main factor in yield loss in Mauritius, hence soil regeneration lies at the heart of the solution to improve agricultural yields.
3. There are a number of isolated and fragmented sustainable initiatives in Mauritius, but they tend to be small-scale with limited data on yields and practices. In general, there is a lack of coordination, information and cooperation between different stakeholders.
4. There is, however, an awareness of the urgency of the situation among key stakeholders: institutes and organisations such as FAREI, MSRI and the Chamber of Agriculture have been working for several years on more sustainable solutions for both the sugar and fruit and vegetable sectors. But the transition to truly regenerative food systems will require a more radical shift in consumer and producer behaviour towards local products and profoundly different agricultural practices.

Pathways for Regenerative Food systems in Mauritius

Building on the previous discussions, participants explored possible pathways for making regenerative practices a reality in the Mauritius context. They called, among other things, for a radical shift in behaviours across the value chain but also highlighted the need to better value the farming profession and attract a new generation of farmers.

1. In-depth transformation: Moving towards sustainable food systems requires some critical change, including in how we grow and consume food, how we use, conserve, process and transport natural resources, but also how we recycle, and how we finance and organise our key activities and actors.
2. Vision and Leadership: because it is a medium to long term process and because it involves profound changes in our practices and behaviours, the transition to regenerative agriculture will require strong leadership from public authorities and the private sector: consumers will only turn to local, seasonal and local products if the change is visible and if they are well informed.
3. Valorisation, Coordination and Regulation: The complexity of food systems calls for a coordinated and concerted approach to agricultural land planning, farmer training, financing, access to knowledge and technologies that actively promote transformation towards regenerative agricultural practices across the value chain. Valuing the profession of farming, the introduction of more binding regulations and the definition of clearly defined objectives and timeframes must be part of the solution.
4. Solutions exist: Many solutions and technologies are already being explored, used or being researched in Mauritius: mechanical weeding, crop rotation, use of predators to control pests, regenerative grazing of livestock, drone technologies, AI and precision farming, and reduced tillage are some examples. The tools and solutions are there: it is now up to Maurice to make choices, set targets and implement them.
5. There are fundamental questions that remain to be explored: Is regenerative agriculture possible on a large scale? In what form? Does it have the same production capacity as current conventional agriculture? And if so, how much does the transition cost? What funding is needed to make the transition? Is food from regenerative agriculture more nutritious than food from conventional agriculture?

Myriam Blin, Director of the Charles Telfair Centre, concluded the workshop by underlining that “the conclusion of today’s discussion is that we cannot afford not to change, we are called upon not only to change our behaviours as consumers and producers, but also to act as champions of regenerative practices”.   

Note : The main findings and the proposed avenues highlighted by the participants were presented at the Knowledge Exchange Event on National Food Systems in Mauritius and Seychelles organised by the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office for Mauritius and Seychelles (UNRCO) on 3 December 2021.

Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).

Thanjelie Aran, Editorial Assistant, Charles Telfair Centre

On the 10th of November, the Charles Telfair Centre in collaboration with the Prime Minister’s Office organised a lecture on the history of the decolonisation of the Chagos Archipelago. Entitled: A Short History of Colonialism, a Modern Crime against Humanity? – Chagos Archipelago: The Last British Colony in Africa, the lecture was delivered at the Charles Telfair Campus by the internationally renowned human rights lawyer Professor Philippe Sands, QC, GCSK who represented Mauritius during the Chagos Islands dispute hearings.

Reviewing the history of the Archipelago over the last 50 years, Professor Sands presented the circumstances under which the Chagos Archipelago was taken away from Mauritius and how its 2000 inhabitants were then forcibly deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles. The tragedy behind this deportation was poignantly evocated through the testimonial of Mrs Lyseby Elysé, a Chagosian who was uprooted from her home and who still yearns to go back to her native island. She recounted, with emotion, the day she was forced to leave her island:

“My heart is suffering, and my heart still belongs to the island where I was born. Nobody would like to be uprooted from the island where he was born, to be uprooted like animals. It’s heart-breaking, and I maintain justice must be done and I must return to my island where I was born,” Lyseby Elysé

Many attempts by Mauritius to regain sovereignty were left unsuccessful which prompted the then government, under the Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, to retain services of lawyers who became part of a legal team tasked with challenging Britain’s actions under international law.

During 50 years of various legal battles, Professor Sands stressed on four key milestone events:

1. The UN decision which granted Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960
2. The UN general assembly adopting a resolution seeking International Court’s advisory opinion on Pre-Independence Separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 2017.
3. The delivery of a landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in February 2019 in favour of Mauritius whereby it was concluded that “the process of decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed” and that “the United Kingdom was under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.
4. The International Court of Justice’s decision was confirmed by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 73/295) in May 2019, thereby summoning Britain to leave the Chagos within 6 months.

For him, the vote of the 22^nd May 2019 was “one of the most remarkable moments in my professional life.” With 116 countries voting in favour of the resolution and only 6 Against plus 56 Abstentions; the vote was a serious setback for Britain on the international scene.

“The general assembly’s membership board lit up green in favour, red against, yellow for abstention, black for absence. Resolution 73/295 passed with a big majority […] including many abstentions that were significant: China, Russia, and France. Only Croatia and Hungary of the EU supported Britain along with only three of the 54 members of the Commonwealth, and significantly, not a single country from Africa, Latin America, or Caribbean voted with Britain.” 

The ruling implies that the detachment of Chagos was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned:

“Britain’s occupation of Chagos is illegal and is a continuing international wrongful act. Britain must end its administration as rapidly as possible. Chagos is part of Mauritius […]” quoted Professor Philippe Sands.

By November 2019, the Chagosians were entitled to resettle as a matter of urgency. The UN, its members, the specialized agencies, and all other international organisations are now required to recognize Chagos as part of Mauritius.

The ruling has led to a powerful visual change: the UN has issued a new world map (Map No 4170 Revision 18.1 of 20 February 2020) whereby Chagos is marked as being Mauritian territory – a confirmation of Mauritius’ sovereignty on the Chagos Archipelago.

So far, the UK has chosen to ignore both the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. Yet, in terms of international diplomacy, the UK is now much weaker. Professor Philippe Sands is confident that the UK will one day change its position. Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, GCSK, in his closing statement, further added “sooner or later UK will have to come to some kind of an agreement” despite the fact that recent alliance between the USA, Australia, and the UK on submarine may suggest a united front to block progress when it comes to Chagos.

On the question of the compensations that had been paid to Mauritius, Professor Sands reminded the audience that the court gave an absolutely definitive view that the 1965 Lancaster House Agreement was reached under duress. He explained that the buyout construct had been illegal from day one and the issue of compensation was thus irrelevant:

“[…] The court is concerned only with the question of consent putting in another way, you can’t buy consent with a handful of pounds and shillings”.

Professor Sands closed his lecture by sharing how it had been an honour and privilege for him to work for Mauritius and its people and to be associated with the cause of the Chagosians:

“They will return to the outer islands of Mauritius’ Chagos Archipelago. It is not a question of if, it is a question only of when.”

Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).