Scott M. Weber, President of Interpeace, the International Organization for Peacebuilding

The 21st of September is a day devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace and building a world that is more equal, more just, and more inclusive. As we celebrate the International Day of Peace, Scott M. Weber, President of Interpeace reviews how Mauritius successfully maintained a remarkable level of peace and security and developed a dynamic economy that is the envy of many larger nations. Yet, Mauritius’ social contract and democratic political culture, both key to Mauritius’ sustainable peace, are sliding.  He discusses the imperative for Mauritians to focus on building resilience for peace by identifying peace risk factors and tools for resilience. 

Over its 53-year journey since independence, Mauritius has maintained a remarkable level of peace and security and developed a dynamic economy that is the envy of many larger nations. In a multi-ethnic society rife with social and economic inequalities, Mauritius has thus far weathered the winds of populism and xenophobia and found creative methods to protect its unique brand of democratic pluralism. But how long can this culture of unity last? Is this beacon of peace, stability, and democracy beginning to dim or flicker?

A global study of trends in democracy places Mauritius among the “Top-10 most autocratizing countries in the world”, together with the likes of Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and Brazil, to name a few. Sadly, a backsliding of democracy on the island is in keeping with a wider, global trend. The last decade has seen a precipitous increase – from 48% to 68% – of the world’s population living under autocratic regimes.

Indicators of the decline of the island’s social contract and its lauded democratic political culture are clearly visible: the rise of bald-faced identity politics, recent incidence in the parliament, calls for the abolition of the country’s Best Loser system that has preserved political pluralism for decades. As a peacebuilder working to strengthen peace and stability in countries further along the path of polarization and authoritarianism, I must caution readers to take these early warning signs very seriously and to act before it is too late. After all, apathy is the handmaiden of autocrats.

A social contract often erodes in small, relatively unspectacular ways. It begins with leaders exploiting loopholes in the law, showing blatant disrespect for precedence and procedure, especially within institutions tasked with enforcing anti-corruption practices. Emboldened by the inaction of the public, such leaders will proceed to sow doubt in the credibility of elections themselves, attacking the media, stoking tribalism, and spreading deliberate falsehoods for political gain. And when the challenges to this behavior do come, state security services are often instrumentalized to protect the State from the people, rather than the people themselves.

Beware of those who label such concerns as hyperbolic. The insurrection on the Capitol of the United States on January 6^th, 2021 came within a hair of leveling the world’s oldest continuous democracy. Donald Trump’s presidency represented an unprecedented assault on the institutions of democracy through a concerted policy of undermining its guardrails, or, as his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, put it, of “deconstructing the administrative state”. Two hundred and thirty-two years of democracy were nearly undone in just 48 months.

And yet, the conditions for a destructive political figure to emerge were long in the making. Social and political polarization and exclusion – especially on the basis of race – had been rising for years, aided by efforts to undermine electoral processes and voter rights. Pervasive apathy meant that these injustices and transgressions gathered silently below the surface, like sediment in a river, ultimately diverting the entire course of democracy and human rights in the United States.

The beauty of democracy is its ability to instill confidence in the wisdom of the people to self-correct, to ensure that the pendulum of politics will eventually swing back towards the center. But when the safeguards of democratic institutions are weakened, a society can cross a threshold beyond which it is unable to reform itself. Is Mauritius approaching that threshold? What would such a threshold be?

The management thinker, Peter F. Drucker, famously stated that “you cannot manage what you cannot measure”. If concerned Mauritians are committed to preserve, protect and enhance the social contract, they must begin to measure its contours and content in order to organize society’s energies towards those goals.

The international organization for peacebuilding, Interpeace, that I lead has developed methods to assess the evolution of societal resilience. The framework we employ of “Resilience for Peace” differs from the traditional of understanding resilience in that it goes beyond the simple ability to withstand or “bounce back” from shock. Rather, it focuses on those social and political relationships that form the fabric of society and that are instrumental in transforming challenges into progress. At the core of it all is an assessment of what we term horizontal trust (between citizens and groups in society) and vertical trust (between the people and the State). It also focuses attention on the endogenous assets, qualities, attributes, resources, and actions that communities possess and that can potentially be drawn upon to manage risks and prevent crises. It is thus both about consciously drawing on social and political experiences from the past that can serve as precedence, but also a deliberate effort to anticipate threats to unity and the social contract and to take preventative actions.

Whereas discussions of a country’s factors of fragility often closes doors to dialogue (after all, who would want to be labelled as “fragile”), a focus on resilience has an important convening power, even for those in positions of authority. The methodology behind this work brings all sectors of society together to define collectively the major risks (especially internal, but also external) that the country faces and may face in the future. Then those same stakeholders map out the factors of resilience (the guardrails of governance, the cultural practices, social bonds, and community leadership) upon which society will depend in order to meet those challenges. The act of discussing these risks and factors of resilience, of tracking them over time, and then designing tailored and collective strategies to minimize the risks and deliberately nurture resilience, not only brings people into a common cause but generates collective action. An annual barometer of risk and resilience can then keep this work at the forefront of the public’s attention.

Mauritius is an unquestionable success story and deserves its recognition in the top ranking among African nations in the UN Human Development Index. And yet, many of those gains are at risk. If Mauritians are concerned about recent trends, take action now before the country crosses a dangerous threshold. After all, you fix your roof while the sun is still shining, not once the rains have come.

This article was updated on the 28th September by the author to bring precision to the indicators of the decline of the island’s social contract.

Main Photo by Oosman Exptal. on Unsplash

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).

Jean-Luc Wilain, consultant en durabilité et directeur de WillChange

L’indépendance en 2068 – les défis d’aujourd’hui, a été publié le 12 mars 2021. Tout un symbole. Au moment où la menace climatique se fait de plus en plus pressante, ce livre montre ce qui nous attend à l’horizon d’une génération et identifie nos ressources pour nous y préparer. Entre-temps, la publication du GIEC (Groupe d’experts Intergouvernemental sur l’Evolution du Climat) du 9 août a encore plus réduit nos marges de manœuvre. Cet article est le coup d’envoi d’une réflexion qui vise à établir une feuille de route jusqu’au centenaire de notre indépendance[1], pour laquelle nous serons guidés par la recherche des souverainetés dans les domaines alimentaires, énergétique et économique.

Gouvernance climatique

Maurice n’a jamais autant parlé de résilience depuis la pandémie de 2020. Or, des remises en question bien plus profondes et menaçantes nous attendent à un horizon plus proche qu’il n’y paraît. Nous subissons déjà les premiers effets du réchauffement climatique. Une humanité globalement toujours plus nombreuse et gourmande accentue ses pressions sur les ressources et la biodiversité. L’économie mondiale cherche un second souffle depuis le début de ce siècle. L’indépendance, énergétique, alimentaire et financière, doit impérativement être la boussole nationale des 50 prochaines années. C’est notre défi individuel et collectif. Cela doit se traduire par une feuille de route agressive et exigeante qui nous donne comme objectif clair de ne plus être dépendant des autres pour des choses essentielles quand ces dangers vont se matérialiser.

Maurice est une petite coquille de noix posée sur l’océan en périphérie du monde. Nous représentons un peu plus de 1/10 000^e de la population mondiale, des émissions de gaz à effet de serre et de l’économie mondiale, 1% de 1%…  Nous produisons peu d’émissions et subissons beaucoup. Mais nous sommes un pays. Nous avons une voix à l’ONU. Comme les grands. Elle ne peut être crédible et entendue que si nous sommes exemplaires dans notre gouvernance climatique et notre gouvernance tout court. Chacun, quelle que soit sa taille, doit faire sa part, c’est le sens de l’Accord de Paris. C’est cela qui nous donnera du soft power. C’est pour cela que nous devons travailler pour améliorer nos institutions et leur fonctionnement. C’est le premier sujet de cette feuille de route.

Responsabilité Individuelle

Cette exigence se décline aussi sur nos pratiques individuelles. Chacun d’entre nous est responsable de ses émissions et de ses choix de vie au même titre qu’un Chinois ou un Américain de niveau de vie équivalent. Tous les êtres humains à niveaux de vie comparables partagent la même responsabilité. C’est le deuxième sujet de cette feuille de route.

Évidemment, ces sujets de souveraineté alimentaire et énergétique ont été identifiés et de nombreux individus et organisations ont commencé à y travailler. Mais la gravité et l’urgence de la situation, mises en perspective de l’inertie du système, ne ressortent pas dans les communications sur ce sujet. Or, il est indispensable d’insister sur deux éléments essentiels :

1. L’urgence du Réchauffement Climatique

La première concerne l’extrême gravité des conséquences du réchauffement climatique. Elle n’est pas encore intégrée par l’écrasante majorité de la population et des dirigeants, à Maurice comme ailleurs. Nous déréglons le climat depuis le début de l’ère industrielle, alors que sa stabilité a permis le développement socio-économique de notre espèce depuis sa sédentarisation. En ce moment même, les dirigeants mondiaux « négocient » pour savoir si la CoP 26 doit retenir comme objectif de maintenir l’augmentation de la température de la planète depuis l’ère préindustrielle en dessous de 2°C ou de viser à la limiter à 1,5°C. Ceci paraît un débat surréaliste quand on sait que nous nous dirigeons vers un réchauffement de la planète de + 5 degrés actuellement en dépit de leurs discussions précédentes, que les engagements de Paris (non respectés) nous emmèneraient vers un réchauffement de 3 degrés[2], et que nous serons déjà à +1,5 degré entre 2030 et 2040[3]. Ce dont ils devraient discuter est de prendre les mesures les plus radicales possibles le plus rapidement possible. Chaque dixième de degré gagné économisera un coût terrible pour l’humanité. Les dégâts augmentent de façon exponentielle avec la température. Si nous ne changeons pas radicalement de cap, le pire que craignent les scientifiques va se matérialiser. Dans ce scénario, les trois-quarts de l’humanité vivront dans des conditions de température et d’humidité pouvant entraîner la mort pendant plus de 20 jours par an[4]. Notre agriculture intensive et spécialisée sera bouleversée, ce qui se traduira par des famines massives et répétées. La montée des eaux repoussera progressivement plus de la moitié de l’humanité et de ses infrastructures vers l’intérieur des terres[5]. Elle érodera notamment une part importante du territoire mauricien déjà exigu. Des migrations non moins massives se produiront, car ce sera la seule façon d’échapper à ces fléaux, provoquant inévitablement des déstabilisations politiques et des conflits majeurs. Un monde « à 3 degrés » ou plus sera un monde extrêmement dangereux[6]. Le monde de demain sera le bûcher des vanités[7]. C’est surtout un monde dans lequel la lutte pour les ressources essentielles va devenir de plus en plus féroce. Et nous sommes un Petit Poucet. Tout petit.

2. Vers une dynamique économique et institutionnelle plus autonome

La seconde est l’impérieux besoin de construire une économie mauricienne dont la santé dépende moins de celle du reste du monde. Indépendamment de la crise du SARS-COV2 qui a mobilisé, voire occulté, les esprits, l’état de l’économie mondiale n’est pas celui que nous montre l’indicateur PIB[8]. En effet ce dernier est artificiellement gonflé par les Assouplissements Quantitatifs très à la mode depuis 2008. Clairement la crise du SARS-COV2 va être le bouc émissaire idéal. Cette erreur d’analyse conduit à penser que les problèmes disparaîtront avec lui et à trop attendre d’un rebond économique mondial qui ne se produira pas au-delà d’une reprise technique post-COVID [9]. Maurice doit apprendre à être prospère sur sa dynamique propre. Nous dépendons trop des bailleurs de fonds pour notre équilibre budgétaire, nous dépendons trop des autres pour le tourisme, nous dépendons trop des règlements internationaux pour notre global business : que des éléments que nous ne contrôlons pas, voire qui nous contrôlent. Maurice ne peut aller bien dans un monde qui va mal si elle en dépend pour tout, ce qui est le cas aujourd’hui. Maurice ne peut être un état souverain si les paramètres de son économie sont fixés par d’autres, ce qui est aussi le cas aujourd’hui. Évidemment cet appel ne remet pas en cause l’ouverture économique et les échanges dans le cadre d’un marché globalisé. Mais nous devons nous écarter des commoditisations et de leur corolaire les économies d’échelles afin de développer de la valeur ajoutée locale pour les besoins locaux.

Souveraineté alimentaire et énergétique

Dans l’histoire, les famines ont toujours été un facteur d’instabilité, voire de révoltes. Ventre affamé n’a pas d’oreille. Les risques que le réchauffement climatique fait peser sur les agricultures mondiales[10] doit nous inciter à organiser notre auto-suffisance à Maurice. C’est le troisième sujet de cette feuille de route.

Enfin l’énergie est à la base de toute notre vie moderne et notamment celui de notre économie. Une énergie locale et décarbonée doit répondre aux besoins légitimes de la population. La transition vers une économie bas carbone ne comprend pas que la production d’électricité, mais aussi la mobilité et le transport, la production industrielle, la construction, etc. Tout un tas de facteurs qui vont constituer le quatrième sujet de cette feuille de route.

Évidemment, nous avons d’autres dépendances : technologique, sanitaire, éducative, etc. Il ne s’agit pas de vivre en autarcie, mais au moins d’assurer ce qui pourrait à coup sûr détruire notre société et ce qui ne manquera pas de la mettre ponctuellement sous très grande tension. Il ne manque pas non plus d’autres défis propres à Maurice et à son fonctionnement. Mais il faut choisir ses combats. Nous choisissons ces deux thèmes en priorité car sans énergie, il n’y a pas d’économie et sans nourriture, il n’y a pas de société.

Vers des projets locaux alternatifs

Enfin, au-delà de ces aspects techniques, comment vivre avec une augmentation de température de 1,5 degré avant 2040 et très probablement supérieure à 2 degrés en 2100 ? Nous devons répondre dès maintenant avec des projets locaux alternatifs. Ils mettront du temps à se développer pour atteindre la masse nécessaire qui permettra de répondre efficacement à ce défi. Ils devront aborder tous les sujets ci-dessus exposés sans oublier le plus important : vivre ensemble en bonne intelligence. Et ce sera le cinquième sujet de cette feuille de route.

Redonner de la valeur à l’humain et aux écosystèmes

Notre éducation nous conduit à traiter les problèmes en silos^[11]. Nos entreprises sont organisées en départements, notre gouvernement en ministères. Tout est fait pour privilégier une seule dimension de problèmes complexes, pour ensuite les ramener au seul critère financier. Il va falloir apprendre à penser autrement. Si un monde bas carbone était moins cher, on serait déjà dedans. On ne doit pas continuer à voir l’avenir à travers des modèles qui ont prouvé leur inadéquation. Par ailleurs, Maurice a l’échelle d’une ville d’un million d’habitants, échelle de laboratoire pour tester toutes les innovations, mais trop petit pour toute économie d’échelle ou stratégie de mutualisation. C’est dans ce contexte, qu’il s’agira de définir notre plan. Ce facteur est transversal à toute approche, à toute solution. La Blue Economy[12] de Gunter Pauli nous enseigne une autre façon de voir. Elle nous invite à considérer les choses dans leur ensemble, les interactions vertueuses, les multiples cash-flows qui peuvent être produits par des portefeuilles d’opportunités. Et surtout, à redonner de la valeur à l’humain et aux écosystèmes dans nos équations.

Nourris de cette inspiration, nous nous emploierons à proposer une feuille de route qui aura pour ambition de répondre à ces défis avec des projets concrets pour notre île. Nous devrons certainement faire fi de nombreuses contraintes existantes liées à des conventions humaines actuelles, culturelles, juridiques ou réglementaires. Il ne faudra y voir aucun mépris de notre part, mais seulement le fait que les lois naturelles, biologie, physique, chimie, s’imposent à l’Homme et non le contraire. La nécessité devra éliminer les obstacles que nous avons nous-mêmes dressés. Tous ces sujets techniques prennent leurs sources dans l’humain.

Cet article est donc introductif d’une série d’articles suivants qui se positionneront en faveur d’une nouvelle donne économique et sociale par rapport au référentiel suivant :

• gouvernance,
• responsabilité individuelle,
• souveraineté énergétique,
• souveraineté alimentaire,
• vivre ensemble.

Des contributeurs se sont déjà manifestés afin d’avancer sur tous ces sujets. D’autres peuvent encore le faire. Le temps est compté, la planète entière parle du dernier rapport du GIEC et de l’urgence d’agir. Peut-être cela est-il enfin compris. C’est la première fois qu’une publication du GIEC suscite autant de commentaires. Peut-être sommes-nous dans ce que nous appelons ici un tipping point. C’est le moment de pousser, partager, écrire, agir, faire et faire savoir. Victor Hugo aurait certainement dit en ces circonstances :

Sonnez, sonnez toujours, clairons de la pensée.

Main Photo by Robert Bye on Unsplash

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] Wilain, J-L (2021) L’indépendance en 2068 – les défis d’aujourd’hui, voir appel page 289

[2] Indépendance en 2068. Page 64. EDGAR V3.4.2 FT2016 (OLIVIER ET AL., 2017)

[3] Rapport IPPC / GIEC AR6

[4] Mora, C., Dousset, B., Caldwell, I. et al. Global risk of deadly heat. Nature Clim Change 7, 501–506 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3322

[5] Au-delà de2100

[6] Jens Stoltenberg, secrétaire général de l’OTAN. Die Welt. 27 Septembre 2020.

[7] Tom Wolfe – 1987.

[8] Ibid 1, Page 179.

[9] L’indépendance en 2068. Page 171 et suivantes, notamment L’âge d’or de la monnaie de singe.

[10] L’indépendance en 2068. Page 158 et suivantes.

[11] À commencer par l’école qui nous enseigne des matières comme étant indépendantes les unes des autres.

[12] Rapport au Club de Rome. Publié en Juin 2010.

Dr Adam Moolna, Lecturer in Environment and Sustainability at Keele University, UK

Global society is attempting to reconcile economic development with social progress, environmental sustainability, biodiversity conservation, and climate change action. Within that context, ocean and coastal economic development approaches commonly called “Blue Economy” are typically presented as reconciled with sustainability. Yet, how the Blue Economy is conceptualised warrants critical scrutiny, notably in better understanding its interconnections with sustainable development, conservation, and climate action.  This article highlights some of the contradictions between Blue Economy approaches in Mauritius and sustainable development objectives and hence recommends some ways forward for a genuinely sustainable Blue Economy in Mauritius and the Western Indian Ocean.

Blue Economy means different things to different people

“Blue Economy” refers to a spectrum of ocean and coastal economic development approaches that, superficially at least, align with a prosperous, environmentally sustainable, and socially equitable future. Such a future is set out by Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Alongside is the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , through which SDG 13 Climate Action is addressed[i]. Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) addresses biodiversity conservation with an updated post-2020 global biodiversity framework due to be finalised in 2022.

With ocean and coastal resources core to their development, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) made “Blue Economy” a key term at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). This advocacy brought the preparatory document “Green Economy in a Blue World” (UNEP, 2012) alongside “Towards a Green Economy” (UNEP, 2011) – and led to the post-conference Blue Economy Concept Paper (United Nations, 2013). In line with these developments, Blue Economy approaches have been adopted around the world. For example, the European Union adopted a Blue Growth Strategy in 2012 and recently set out a vision for a “sustainable blue economy” (European Commission, 2021). Similarly, Mauritius has established a Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping, and adopted various World Bank recommendations in that area.

Blue Economy is largely presented in political rhetoric as essentially synonymous with sustainable development. Blue Economy, however, means different things to different actors and can be contradictory to key elements of sustainability. Treating it without critical analysis as “the solution” for a sustainable future is therefore problematic. Martínez-Vázquez et al. (2021) analyse the use of differing definitions of Blue Economy, Marine Economy, Blue Growth, and Ocean Economy. Voyer et al. (2018) draw out ambiguities and conflicts in different interpretations – identifying four categories treating the ocean as natural capital, livelihoods, good business, or a driver of innovation – and note, for example, consensus around economically valuing nature but conflict over what activities are legitimate components of the Blue Economy.

Connecting Blue Economy, sustainable development, conservation, and climate action

Blue Economy, as currently implemented and understood in general, has aspects contradictory to Agenda 2030, the UNFCCC, and the CBD. The assumed exploitation of hydrocarbons, such as the discussion on hydrocarbon prospects for Mauritius by the UN Economic Commission for Africa in 2014, is an example of a key contradiction. Whilst generally included with renewables under the euphemism of “blue energy” because ocean-based, pursuing fossil fuels directly conflicts with SDG 13 Climate Action and the spirit of the Paris Agreement. Hydrocarbons illustrate the primacy of “economy” and the disconnect between national interests and global cooperation. The concentrated economic gains a nation can make from hydrocarbon exploitation might from a national perspective greatly outweigh the costs of less effective climate action, as the burden of climate impacts is diffused around the world. Without bridging the economic disconnect between responsibility for fossil fuel exploitation and climate adaptation costs nations cannot justify foregoing the economic gains.

Discussion of Blue Economy links to Agenda 2030 has generally been dominated by SDG 14 Life Under Water (“Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”). The literature has linked Blue Economy to additional SDGs, but substantively only to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals, SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, and SDG 15 Life on Land. Biodiversity conservation, whilst often treated as synonymous with sustainable development by the public and policymakers, is distinct and risks being ineffectively delivered with a societal focus on the predominantly socioeconomic SDGs. Zeng et al. (2020) analyse “environment-related” indicators across the SDGs and argue they are actually socioeconomic, having little relationship to biodiversity conservation.

Blue Economy approaches typically fit aspects of biodiversity conservation around economic use and tend to focus on increasing Protected Area coverage in explicit link to Aichi Target 11 of the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Recognition of carbon capture by seagrass, mangroves and other “Blue Carbon” sinks is emerging as a useful argument for their protection and enhancement. Seychelles, for example, has included Blue Carbon in its updated Nationally Determined Contribution towards the Paris Agreement. Whilst positive in recognising one dimension of value, this, however, risks distorting biodiversity conservation objectives and being used to offset and excuse hydrocarbon use (for a critique of treating carbon as a commodity see Moolna, 2012).

Different understandings of “Blue Economy”, while easing consensus despite conflicting motivations, risk contradictory actions and failing to make a genuine transition to a sustainable ocean-focused future. Challenges of misunderstanding and resulting contradictory aims and activities also exist across sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. This “dialogue of the deaf”, due to lack of shared meaning in a common vocabulary, is discussed by Sauvé et al. (2016), who set out to clarify how differently understood concepts across environmental science, sustainable development and circular economy relate. Jefferey (2019) explores (mis)conceptions of sustainability in Mauritius, including environmentalist critiques of the Maurice Ile Durable (“Sustainable Mauritius”) programme and how a narrow government focus appears to have shaped an understanding in urban populations that sustainability is principally about energy efficiency and economy.  The need to reconcile Blue Economy approaches with Agenda 2030, the UNFCCC and the CBD is recognised in Seychelles’ Blue Economy Strategic Policy but shared understanding and effectively integrating approaches remains a challenge.

Ambiguous concepts, each with echo chambers of misunderstanding, makes progress cognitively, and politically, complex and challenging. Different actors have conflicting values and interests. Problems and solutions are differently perceived by those parties and the views of others are poorly understood. This makes connecting Blue Economy, sustainable development, conservation, and climate action a very wicked problem from a public policy perspective[ii].

Policy versus meaningful impact

Mauritius’ Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping states a vision to “double our blue GDP to 20 percent in the medium term, while realising social economic development and dynamic balance of resources and environment”. Beyond rhetoric, what mechanisms for delivery and tangible work packages are set out and how do they align Agenda 2030, UNFCCC and CBD action?

Mapping and thematic analysis of policy and related documents is an important step for a transparent evaluation. An initial examination is not promising. The Government of Mauritius programme 2020-24 proposes an Offshore Petroleum Bill which conflicts with climate action and a Seabed Mineral Bill which has questionable environmental prospects. The 2020-25 Industrial Policy and Strategic Plan includes the term “blue economy” just once while referencing fish exports.

Yet even if such a robust mapping of policies, laws and plans is done we must recognise gaps between what these state, what happens in practice, and what is reported. “Paper parks”, for example, refers to designated protected areas that are ineffective in practice. We need to consider implementation, rather than just policies, programmes and plans that may exist only on paper. The Wakashio oil spill was an illustration of the potential discrepancy. Mauritius was thought to be well prepared in oil spill contingency planning but the authorities failed to manage the wreck to prevent the oil spill and then to deal effectively with the spill when it happened.  The Wakashio incident, context, and key lessons for improving future real preparedness are discussed by Raghoo (2021).

How can we assess evidence of delivery? We can look at reports of government and non-governmental organisations, individual projects, and media reporting. For example, an overview of Marine Protected Areas, marine parks and fishing reserves in Mauritius is included in a recent regional outlook report. There are broader analyses such as the Africa SDG Index and Dashboards Report. Yet, these reports generally cannot escape the complex and various pressures of the institutional and political context and tend to steer clear of the more controversial issues. Independent analysis, accessing the actual experiences of Mauritians and allowing dissenting voices, is therefore crucial for a reliable picture (such as by Rambaree, 2020, on corporate social responsibility in coastal communities). We can, for example, look beyond rhetoric around promoting social equity and see evident marginalisation of Mauritians amidst coastal developments and the emergence of movements such as Aret Kokin Nu Laplaz (“stop stealing our beaches”).

A sustainable future through the Blue Economy?

How might Mauritius move forward translating rhetoric into reality? There are various well-argued Blue Economy recommendations in the literature, typically identifying improved governance, social equity, environmental considerations, and monitoring of implementation (see, for example, Bennett et al., 2019).

Drawing on a previous discussion paper, Mauritius should collaborate with other Western Indian Ocean states to: (1) embed Blue Economy within a regional framework of broader sustainability; (2) move from non-binding policies to legislation for long-term commitment; (3) coordinate sustainability actions considering externalities and trade-offs; (4) engage communities with local activities and benefits to mainstream sustainability; (5) reshape engagement with universities and independent perspectives; and (6) push for a global financial mechanism so states can afford to forego hydrocarbon exploitation.

Ocean and coastal development is key to a prosperous Mauritius. A Blue Economy approach could achieve prosperity in an equitable and environmentally beneficial way if it is aligned with sustainability, climate action and conservation. Mauritius can only do this, however, by turning rhetoric and projects into a meaningful society-wide transition.

[i] For a critique of the Paris Agreement see Gomez-Echeverri, 2018

[ii] For a conceptual framework see Alford & Head, 2017

Main Photo by Adam Moolna (waterfront development at Mahébourg, Mauritius)

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).

Professor Dale Pinto, PhD (Law) (Melb), MTax (Hons) (Syd), Chair of the Academic Board, Curtin University and Professor of Taxation Law, Curtin Law School, Curtin University

Academic boards represent a fundamental governance mechanism in the overall governance architecture of universities. This article examines the role and importance of academic boards in Australian universities. The article also makes observations about the future and continuing relevance of academic boards as part of the governance framework of Australian universities. Though the examination in this article is undertaken in the context of Australian universities, most of the commentary would be relevant to other higher education institutions, including those in the Indian Ocean region, as academic boards within universities generally exhibit common characteristics.

Introduction

In a 2007 thematic analysis of the role of academic boards in university governance, Dooley observed that:

Universities have evolved from medieval communities of scholars, through the ivory towers of the Oxbridge of yesteryear to today’s large-scale business model. The tension between their traditional character, where reasoned argument holds sway and issues are debated thoroughly until there is scholarly consensus, and the modern imperatives of efficiency and accountability for the bottom line of the budget are palpable in most modern campuses[1].

Dooley then argued that nowhere is this tension more keenly felt than at the level of the university academic board, variously referred to as the ‘academic senate’, ‘senate’ or ‘academic council’.  This body will be referred to in this article as the ‘academic board’ or ‘the board’ which represents the peak academic governance body in Australian universities.

All Australian universities have a form of academic board, which is usually enshrined and created by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament that establishes the university itself. For example, Swinburne University in Victoria is established by the Swinburne University of Technology Act 2010 (Vic), and section 20 mandates that the Council must establish an academic board. My university – Curtin University – is established under the Curtin University Act 1966 (WA) and the academic board is established under Statute 21 which was created by the University Council under the powers conferred on it to make statutes by section 34 of the Curtin University Act 1966.

This legislative underpinning demonstrates the significance of academic boards in Australian Universities.  However, despite academic governance being a crucial matter for all Australian universities, discussion of the role of academic boards is not widespread, as Baird observed:

Even though universities are heavily dependent on academic boards for quality assurance in the core areas of teaching and research—on paper, at least—discussion of the roles of academic boards is not widespread[2].

In addition to the significance of this legislative underpinning, it is both timely and relevant to examine the role and importance of academic boards in the governance framework of Australian universities as academic boards are central to the regulatory regime which governs universities. In Australia, this is overseen by the Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA)[3]. Other recent examples, including the Walker review which examined the  role of academic boards in promoting freedom of speech and  academic freedom,[4] demonstrate the timeliness of examining the role of such boards to ascertain if they are functioning as intended.

Role of Academic Boards

Traditionally, a tripartite governance structure operates at Australian universities in which the executive management of the university (led by the Vice-Chancellor) and the academic board contribute to academic decision-making within the context of the university council’s overall responsibility as the peak governance body in a university.

This is neatly depicted in the ‘governance triangle’ below, which derives from models presented by Clark (1983),[5] Dooley (2006)[6] and Shattock (2012)[7].

The governance of a university operating under this model involves:

1. Corporate governance: ultimately rests with council as the peak governance body. Council is assisted by its committees (of which an academic board is typically one such committee) in the effective discharge of its responsibilities.
2. Academic governance: academic boards typically function as the principal policy-making and advisory body on all academic matters pertaining to and affecting a university’s teaching and research. As such, an academic board is responsible for assuring academic standards and quality, and, in fulfilling this function, ensures academic integrity and high standards in teaching, research, assessment, and admissions[8]. It carries out these functions in partnership with, but independently of, the Vice-Chancellor’s executive management team referred to in the figure above as the ‘Executive Management’.
3. Executive management: Led by the Vice-Chancellor who allocates roles and responsibilities to university management. The Vice-Chancellor typically has several advisory committees to provide advice and assurance in decision making and to assist in meeting the requirements of external bodies including regulators.

An academic board is formally constituted and has a clearly defined role, normally enshrined in its Terms of Reference or Constitution which will specify, among other things, its functions and powers, membership, meeting protocols, powers to establish committees, review processes and reporting requirements.

University academic boards are presided over by a Chair, who is normally elected and supported by a Deputy, again normally an elected role.  It is desirable, and almost universal, that the Chair is an ex officio member of the university council. Frequent and full communication between the Chair, Deputy Chair, Secretariat which supports the board, the Vice-Chancellor and council is essential for the effective functioning of the university governance structure as described above.

Importance of Academic Boards: three key functions[9]

Maintenance of Academic Standards

The board and its standing committees shoulder an important responsibility for ensuring the quality and integrity of all academic endeavours is maintained, including learning and teaching, and research. The board has an established, accountable, and transparent framework for the implementation and review of policies as they relate to academic activities; for the development and review of academic quality assurance measures; for facilitating compliance with its policies and procedures; and for monitoring and ensuring remedial action is taken when it finds non-compliance.

The board has delegated authority from the university council for approval, accreditation[10] and review of new and existing academic programs, including those offered by commercial entities owned or partially owned by the university and those offered in partnership with other institutions. The board has the responsibility and authority to determine compliance of academic programs with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HESF) [11] which represents the basis for the regulation of higher education providers and courses by the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).  The board also must ensure compliance with individual institutional qualifications standards.

In short, the board has the responsibility for the ultimate academic oversight of all academic programs, onshore and offshore, and its approving and monitoring functions play a key role in ensuring comparability of standards, both internally and externally, and in the maintenance of standards in academic partnerships.

In terms of learning and teaching, the board has an important role in the assessment and evaluation of learning and teaching and in ensuring the quality of, and improvement in, teaching and learning practices as well as in approving new courses.  It also plays a key role in overseeing student experience and retention.

The board also has an important role in approving research policies, and in encouraging and supporting research.

Finally, academic boards themselves undergo periodic independent external reviews at least every seven years to align with the HESF in relation to Governance and Accountability (Standard 6.1 3(d)).  These reviews are important as they assess the effectiveness of the board and the academic governance processes of the university. Curtin most recently undertook such a review in 2018 and it resulted in a newly configured committee structure, changes in committee composition (e.g., to include more student representation) and a sharper definition of the role of the standing committees to better align their role to the board and to achieve a clearer line of sight to both faculties and Curtin’s global campuses.

Involving and communicating with Internal Stakeholders

As academic boards bring a whole of institution perspective to academic matters, it is important that it seeks wide input (including through its standing committees) before it makes decisions and communicates its decisions to maximise efficiency and quality and remove unnecessary duplication. Key stakeholders in this process include faculties, global campuses and council and it is important that academic boards maintain a clear line of sight to all these stakeholders.

Key communication channels for academic boards can be classified as vertical – between the Council, academic board, and broader academic community, and horizontal – between the academic board, faculties, global campuses and other academic units and support units. The Chair of the academic board, along with the Secretariat which supports the academic board, both play a key role in maintaining effective vertical and the horizontal communications.

Key mechanisms to ensure effective communication include:  timely preparation and distribution of agendas, meeting papers and minutes; summary reports of main outcomes – e.g., at Curtin the Chair and Secretariat prepare a high level summary of outcomes for communication across the university and to council; professional, respectful and robust meetings conducted in accordance with the university’s values; and clear and accessible information which should be available via a secure board portal for all members of the academic board.

The academic board ensures that its committee structure supports open and transparent communications within the institution and plays a key role in coordination and oversight of its committees.

Finally, the university’s staff induction processes educate staff about the academic board’s role within the university and is an important activity for members joining the board for the first time, particularly to assist some members (e.g. students).

Accountability to External Stakeholders

In addition to ensuring effective involvement of and liaison with internal stakeholders, academic boards have responsibilities to many external stakeholders.

First, academic boards have a central role in setting and monitoring university admission and policies to ensure standards, equity, and diversity.

Second, academic boards have oversight of academic policies that regulate academic credit transfer and articulation arrangements. Academic boards also need to have appropriate structures and quality assurance processes to foster and ensure high standards in community-engaged learning activities.

The board provides substantial input for external audits by TEQSA, and it is often involved with accreditation processes of external professional accrediting bodies.

TEQSA sees ‘academic leadership’ in higher education providers as a subset of the overall institutional or corporate leadership of the provider, differentiated mainly by its focus on ‘academic matters’ (including teaching, research and related matters).  It sees academic leadership as ‘the system of interdependent elements that together allow a provider to achieve (or at least support) and monitor its intended academic outcomes[12].’

The importance of academic leadership is reflected in its prominence throughout the HESF. TEQSA expects the provider to demonstrate that overarching leadership mechanisms are in place at the institutional level (corporate governance, academic governance, and quality assurance) to provide academic oversight and monitoring at that level, as required under the HESF.

As illustrated in Figure 2 below from TEQSA’s Guidance Note on Academic Leadership, the HESF aligns with the student experience or ‘student life cycle’[13]. The HESF is also grounded in the core characteristics of the provision of higher education and therefore, the Standards are intended to provide higher education providers with a framework for internal monitoring of the quality of their higher education activities which academic boards are responsible for overseeing[14].

More specifically, academic boards must oversee the two parts of the HESF:

Part A: Which prescribe standards for Higher Education.  These standards represent the minimum acceptable requirements for the provision of higher education in or from Australia, and

Part B: Which sets out the criteria for Higher Education Providers.  These criteria enable categorisation of different types of providers and whether a provider is responsible for self-accreditation of a course(s) of study it delivers.

These are significant responsibilities for universities to comply with and the role of academic boards in ensuring compliance with the HESF is therefore very important.

Constructive Confrontation [15]

In concluding, not everyone will agree with Professor Dooley’s view that academic boards should be the ‘engine room of the university’[16] but it can be seen from this brief article how important academic boards are in the overall governance architecture of Australian universities.

Perhaps as Shattock advocates, the focus should not be so much about effective governing bodies but more about effectively governed universities[17]. As he notes, universities remain ‘communities of scholars’ and will not be able to chart a future satisfactorily unless they encourage and nurture those communities to contribute to institutional decision-making. As part of that process the voice of the academic community, which is strongly represented via academic boards, must be a critical element of an effectively governed institution.

Robust, professional, and values-driven conversations should be encouraged within a governing body – referred to as ‘constructive confrontation’ by Shattock[18]– which is necessary and should be encouraged to produce well-reasoned and debated outcomes.

From my own experience, academic boards do engage in robust but professional and respectful debate on significant issues.  Recent examples at my university include strong debates on changes to the academic calendar, changing the university graduate attributes and policies relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom.  All of these issues involved a series of consultations and discussions with students, the academic staff association (staff union) as well as academics across not only our Perth-based campuses but also soliciting views from our global campuses.  These consultations were effective in refining proposals put to the board by management by hearing the voices of the academic community and also the student voice which is greatly valued as part of the academic board’s deliberations at my university.

On this basis, academic boards should continue to assert themselves to balance all voices in a university community and provide sound academic advice to executive management and university councils as part of the well-accepted tripartite governance model referred to at the start of this article.

Main photo by Kookyrabbit

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] Anthony H Dooley, The Role of Academic Boards in University Governance (AUQA occasional publications, No 12) 7.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).

[2] J Baird, ‘Taking it on board: quality audit findings for higher education governance’, Higher Education Research & Development (2007) Vol 26, No 1, 101–15.

[3] Though the analysis in this article is undertaken in the context of Australian universities, most of the commentary would be relevant to other jurisdictions as academic boards within universities generally exhibit common characteristics.

[4] Sally Walker, Review of the Adoption of the Mode Code on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, December 2020.

[5] B R Clark, The Higher Education System (Berkley, California University Press), 1983.

[6] Dooley, above n 1.

[7] M Shattock, ‘University governance: An issue for our time’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education (2012), DOI:10.1080/13603108.2011.645082.

[8] See, eg, University of Queensland Academic Board Policy, paragraph 2.1 (c) (i) and (ii), available at <https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/1.30.03-academic-board> (accessed 30 June 2021).

[9] A comprehensive explanation of these aspects is contained in the following paper presented at the National Conference of Chairs of Academic Boards/Senates in November 2013: ‘The Purpose and Function of Academic Boards and Senates in Australian Universities’.  What follows on this point is based on this source.

[10] Accreditation in this context refers the responsibilities universities have as self-accrediting institutions to ensure the learning outcomes of qualifications meet internal and external standards. Professional accreditation bodies also play a role in ensuring learning outcomes meet the needs for specific professions – eg CPA Australia and CA ANZ have their own accreditation requirements for accounting courses which are offered by universities.

[11] The Commonwealth Minister for Education and Training promulgated new national standards for higher education in Australia – the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HESF). The HESF took effect from 1 January 2017. From this date, all providers of higher education in or from Australia must meet and continue to meet the requirements of the HESF.

[12] TEQSA, Guidance Note: Academic Leadership (18 June 2019), 1-2.

[13] TEQSA, Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 – TEQSA Contextual Overview, Version 1.1, effective from 1 January 2017, 6.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Shattock, above n 6, 61

[16] Dooley, above n 1, 5.

[17] Shattock, above n 6, 61.  What follows here draws from this source.

[18] Ibid.