More
    Home Blog Page 14

    After “Doing Business”

    By
    Charles Telfair Centre
    -
    0
    Illustrate doing business

     

    Mauricio Cárdenas,  Visiting Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

     

    WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier this year, the World Bank commissioned me and five fellow academics to develop recommendations on how to improve the methodology behind its annual Doing Business report, which ranked countries on the quality of their business regulations and their overall business environment. The report had been a lightning rod for controversy since its inception in 2003. While it generated glowing coverage in the global business media, it was also subject to constant criticism for its perceived anti-regulation, anti-union, and anti-tax slant.

    On September 1, we submitted our final recommendations, calling for a major overhaul of Doing Business including ending the practice of ranking countries. Two weeks later, the World Bank announced that it was scrapping the report entirely after a separate investigation by an outside law firm concluded that data had been deliberately manipulated in order to alter some countries’ rankings, notably those of China and Saudi Arabia.

    Setting aside the debate over what really happened in the past, the end of Doing Business has important consequences. We have no doubt that the world needs a tool to measure countries’ conditions for business development and attractiveness for foreign direct investment, and that the data from such a project are highly relevant to both researchers and business and government leaders.

    The World Bank has already declared its intention to keep working on business-climate issues. But to re-establish itself in this domain, it will have to overcome a deep trust deficit and take drastic steps to restore public confidence in its data. Our ideas about how to fix Doing Business could now serve as minimum criteria that any new effort in this area should meet.

    First, the World Bank should not build a new index to rank countries, as Doing Business did. Such aggregate indices are inevitably arbitrary, and the rankings invoke normative judgments that go far beyond the available evidence. Even prior to the recent data manipulation scandal, it was clear that the methodology behind many of the individual Doing Business indicators needed to be overhauled.

    The core problem was that Doing Business did not actually survey businesses, or measure the real-world costs of doing business for a representative set of small and medium-size enterprises. Instead, it relied on subjective judgments from a small group of experts, who were invited to assess the costs of regulation for a hypothetical firm that was often quite unrepresentative in many of the countries the Bank evaluated. The emphasis on de jure assessments needs to be replaced with de facto conditions.

    As luck would have it, separate World Bank surveys have periodically asked actual firms’ managers some of the same questions posed by Doing Business: about the time required to register a business, get a construction permit, clear goods through customs, and so on. Firms’ own answers, it turned out, bore no relation to those of the Doing Business experts. If there is a successor to Doing Business, it has to start from real data, not hypotheticals.

    A second set of issues concerns assumptions about the right policies or regulations, which are implicit in any business-environment ranking. For some indicators, such as delays in registering a business, less is clearly better. But for others, like the corporate tax rate, the optimal policy is the subject of vigorous academic debate.

    The tax issue became increasingly awkward for the Doing Business report in recent years. As 130 countries finalized plans this year for a global minimum corporate tax rate, the index continued to encourage a race to the bottom in corporate taxation.

    Third, any serious attempt to measure a country’s business environment must consider government efforts to fix market failures and provide essential public goods. But the World Bank’s broad vision of how to promote a good business climate, as embodied in the Doing Business index, suffered from some severe blind spots. For the private sector to flourish, apparently, government mostly needed to get out of the way.

    This view made no allowance for public investments in basic infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications networks, and power grids, all of which are fundamental to doing business but were entirely absent from the report. Absent, too, was any reference to crime prevention and public order, a skilled workforce, or investments in research and development.

    Finally, there is the question of data credibility. Greater transparency would be a good start. The raw data underlying the Doing Business report were never publicly available, so the analysis could not be independently replicated. Excessive focus on rankings and lack of access to the data resulted in a product that was vulnerable to political pressures and data haggling.

    But transparency rules can never ensure against deliberate manipulation. Ultimately, the World Bank will have to convince data users that it has built a functional firewall between its analytical work and its lending operations. To that end, the Bank should abandon the practice of selling advisory services on how to improve outcomes in the statistics it directly measures.

    The demise of Doing Business presents the World Bank with an opportunity to reclaim its intellectual leadership in global development through a renewed commitment to collecting and analyzing credible data. Arguing that the scandal was unfortunate but that the methodology was right won’t cut it. The Doing Business rankings – that result from the aggregation of indexes – were always dubious, because they did not provide an accurate picture of conditions on the ground and left no place for crucial public investments, sensible taxes, or necessary regulations. Any future effort to assess the business environment in member countries must address these shortcomings.

     

    This commentary is also signed by the other members of the External Review Panel for Doing Business: Laura Alfaro, Alan J. Auerbach, Takatoshi Ito, Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan, and Justin Sandefur.

    Main Photo by Stephen Dawson 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).

    Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2021.
    www.project-syndicate.org

    Pour une éthique de la mer

    By
    Anouchka Sooriamoorthy
    -
    0

     

    Anouchka Sooriamoorthy, Docteur ès lettres de la Sorbonne

     

    Les hommes entretiennent un rapport paradoxal, voire schizophrène à la mer. Elle est vénérée, adulée, crainte, en même temps qu’elle est salie, dénigrée, pillée. Depuis aussi longtemps que les productions artistiques nous permettent de le constater, la puissance de la mer, son immensité, sa part inconnue, la diversité de son écosystème fascinent : la mythologie grecque, peut-être la première, a décrit la force incommensurable de l’élément marin[1], de nombreux écrivains et poètes[2] ont en fait leur muse, les peintres et les réalisateurs[3] ont voulu saisir son esthétique. La mer n’est pas uniquement l’apanage des artistes ; pour de nombreux hommes, elle est un lieu de ressources, de divertissement ou de recueillement. Il semble ardu de comprendre comment cette admiration mêlée de dévotion n’a pu empêcher la grande violence des actions humaines envers la mer : pollution massive, surexploitation des ressources marine, destruction irréversible de l’écosystème[4].

    Le constat n’est pas nouveau, il est même redondant : scientifiques et activistes écologiques prennent régulièrement la parole pour interpeller les dirigeants politiques, les industriels et les citoyens, mais cette parole est réduite à un cri inaudible au milieu de l’océan. Nous tenterons d’une part d’expliquer cette dichotomie schizophrène dans notre rapport à la mer, pour ensuite proposer une éthique de la mer ainsi que les modalités possibles de son application.

     

    Comprendre la violence humaine envers l’élément marin

    L’homme maître et possesseur de la nature

    Notre rapport à la nature est indissociable de notre lien à la connaissance. Pendant longtemps, l’homme se trouvait dans une position de soumission et d’acceptation des éléments naturels : l’ordre du monde était ainsi, il fallait le respecter et le perpétuer. Au XVIIème siècle, la fin du Moyen-âge et de l’obscurantisme a suscité une soif de connaissances. René Descartes est, en Europe, l’un des philosophes qui illustre le mieux l’esprit de l’époque. Toute son œuvre est animée par la volonté d’établir une voie sûre afin d’atteindre la vérité et de proposer des fondements solides aux sciences. En prouvant que l’homme est le seul être doté de la faculté de la conscience, faculté qui lui permet non seulement de penser le monde, mais aussi de se penser, Descartes prouve en même temps que l’homme est supérieur aux autres êtres vivants, ces derniers étant dépourvus de conscience[5]. Dans le Discours de la méthode, Descartes décrit la voie pour atteindre la vérité dans les sciences : les connaissances acquises permettent de vaincre la superstition et les croyances pour fonder des bases scientifiques sûres. Grâce à une telle entreprise, l’homme est désormais « maître et possesseur de la nature[6] ». Cette maîtrise et cette possession permettraient, selon Descartes, le contrôle des productions de la terre et donc de notre alimentation, ainsi que la « conservation de la santé[7] » grâce au déploiement de la médecine.

     

    L’homme maître abusif et possesseur égoïste de la nature

    Cependant, les conséquences d’une telle affirmation ont probablement dépassé ce que Descartes aurait pu envisager : l’homme s’est transformé en maître abusif et possesseur égoïste de la nature. « Cette phrase est devenue le manifeste de la démesure humaine […], alors que pour Descartes, elle exprimait un rêve de libération de l’homme de l’emprise d’explications magiques de la nature, de voir enfin arriver le règne de l’homme qui allait pouvoir avoir une maîtrise de son environnement[8] »  L’accumulation des connaissances et le développement de la technologie ont généré une idolâtrie irrationnelle du progrès : il faut conquérir tous les territoires, laisser la trace de l’homme partout. Aveuglé par des innovations scientifiques et technologiques sans précédent, l’homme du XXIème siècle a oublié qu’il vient de la nature et qu’une exploitation sans limite de cette dernière engendrerait une disparition certaine de la nature, mais aussi de la nature humaine. Le désir de connaissances s’est transformé en arrogance de tout savoir. Au XVIIIème siècle, le philosophe Jean-Jacques Rousseau mettait en garde contre le demi-savant ou celui qui détient l’illusion de la connaissance :

    « Il est de la demi-science en fait d’esprit comme de l’hypocrisie en fait de mœurs. Le demi-savant n’a que le masque de la science, comme l’hypocrite a le masque de la vertu. Ils jouent l’un et l’autre, l’un la vertu, l’autre la science. Et comme l’hypocrite va au vice par le chemin de la vertu, le faux savant, le demi-savant, car c’est le même homme, va à l’ignorance par le chemin de la science. Il n’est pas nouveau de dire que la demi-science est pire que l’ignorance.[9] »

    L’homme s’est paré d’arrogance, oubliant les limites de sa conscience qui ne peuvent lui permettre de tout savoir, de toujours anticiper et de prévoir sur un long terme les conséquences de ces actions. Faisant fi des limitations, armé des outils de la technologie, l’homme s’est pris pour la puissance divine voulant tout contrôler, tout soumettre. C’est ainsi que nous sommes passés du statut d’adorateur à celui de destructeur de la nature.

     

    Poser un cadre éthique

    « La thèse liminaire de ce livre est que la promesse de la technique moderne s’est inversée en menace, ou bien que celle-ci s’est indissolublement alliée à celle-là. Elle va au-delà du constat d’une menace physique. La soumission de la nature destinée au bonheur humain a entraîné par la démesure de son succès, (…), le plus grand défi pour l’être humain(..).[10] »

    Ces phrases sont tirées de la préface de Pour une éthique de la responsabilité de Hans Jonas, ouvrage publié en 1979 qui peut être considéré comme le premier à aborder la notion d’éthique écologiste. Plus de quarante ans après sa publication, les propos de Jonas sont d’une édifiante actualité. La glorification de la technologie et de la modernité a été remplacée par le règne de la peur : marées noires, déversements de produits dangereux dans les eaux, destruction massive des fonds marins par les filets de pêche industrielle, surexploitation de la pêche et déséquilibre de l’environnement due aux grands complexes industriels.

    Là où, il y a quelques années encore, ces propos catastrophistes pouvaient être balayés d’un revers de main au nom d’une indifférence envers la nature et d’un égoïsme assumé, les multiples études et rapports[11] ne permettent plus une telle attitude, car parmi les victimes, se trouve l’homme : maladies environnementales, appauvrissement des familles de pêcheurs, migration économique forcée, détérioration de la quantité et de la qualité des ressources marines.  Si l’homme est un être égoïste, son égoïsme devrait créer un réveil de la conscience afin qu’il se protège des dangers qu’il a lui-même orchestrés. L’argument de l’ignorance (on ne savait pas) ou celui du relativisme (libre à chacun d’agir comme bon lui semble) ne sont plus, devant l’urgence de la situation, recevables.  Devant un constat aussi désespérant, si rien n’est mis en œuvre, le risque est de sombrer vers une lente et réelle misanthropie, jusqu’à souhaiter la disparition de la nature humaine pour permettre une réappropriation de ses droits par la nature, réappropriation à laquelle l’homme ne pourrait assister, car son absence en serait justement la possibilité.

     

    Une éthique de la responsabilité

    Jonas analyse que, devant l’ampleur de la menace, une éthique traditionnelle serait inefficace, il faudrait penser une éthique qui ne repose pas uniquement sur l’intention, mais sur les actes. C’est ainsi que Jonas propose de fonder une éthique de la responsabilité qui reposerait sur le principe suivant :

    « Agis de façon que les effets de ton action soient compatibles avec la permanence d’une vie authentiquement humaine sur Terre.[12] »

    A la violence de l’agir humain est opposé la responsabilité de la conscience : il y a une obligation d’agir pour pérenniser la vie humaine sur terre. Un rapide survol des études sur le sujet indique que cette pérennisation ne présente aucune garantie : 90% des gros poissons ont disparu depuis la pratique de la pêche industrielle et d’ici 2050 les mers pourraient être intégralement vidées de poissons[13]. A la peur alimentaire, se rajoute l’incertitude devant un tel dérèglement initié par l’homme, dérèglement d’une ampleur sans précédent dans l’histoire humaine. La maxime proposée par Jonas doit être appliquée par tous sans exception, condition sine qua non pour qu’elle puisse permettre une certaine efficacité. Cependant, l’égoïsme naturel de l’homme, son ignorance, son penchant à une forme d’aveuglement volontaire sont autant de travers qui peuvent faire douter de la mise en pratique universelle et sans condition de cette maxime. Une éthique sans modalité d’application demeure une coquille théorique vide.

     

    De l’éthique au juridique

    C’est au domaine juridique d’incarner l’application pratique du principe éthique. Dès les années soixante, surgit l’idée d’accorder des droits à la nature. En 2007, la constitution équatorienne est la première en son genre à reconnaître les droits de la nature. Cependant, une telle démarche ne parvient à s’écarter d’une perspective anthropocentrée : ce sont en effet les hommes qui décident du type de droits à accorder aux éléments naturels et des modalités de la mise en place de ces droits. Pour le philosophe et juriste François Ost, la protection juridique de la nature doit être mise en œuvre par l’attribution de devoirs imposés aux hommes. : « Des devoirs asymétriques de responsabilité, justifiés à la fois par la vulnérabilité des bénéficiaires et par la nécessité de respecter les symbioses biologiques dans l’intérêt de l’humanité entière.[14] » L’asymétrie des devoirs décrite par Ost n’est en rien injustice : celui qui détient une conscience plus élaborée détient en même temps l’obligation de l’utiliser de façon morale face à ceux qui en sont dépourvus (le monde animal, la mer, la nature). En adoptant une telle visée, la conscience ne peut plus légitimiser la violence ; au contraire, elle oblige une responsabilité en acte.

    Cependant, tant qu’un droit écologique international ne sera pas pensé, l’application stricte d’une telle éthique de la responsabilité avec les devoirs juridiques qui en découlent peut sembler relever d’une utopie. Devant la complexité d’harmoniser les pratiques juridiques dans les domaines commerciaux ou familiaux par exemple, nous pourrions afficher un certain scepticisme quant à la possibilité de la mise en pratique d’un tel projet juridique. Si l’instauration d’une telle éthique de la responsabilité ne peut être réduite à un niveau national (comment penser dans le cadre de frontières ce qui n’a pas de frontières ?), son application à l’échelle planétaire semble un doux rêve. Une telle mise en œuvre serait d’abord de la responsabilité des pays de la mer : les îles et les pays avec un littoral. Si la problématique marine concerne tout le monde, la mise en application d’une éthique de la responsabilité devrait débuter par ceux qui ont la plus grande proximité géographique avec la mer. Cette mise en pratique pourrait prendre au moins deux formes. Premièrement, celle de l’exemplarité : dans les comportements, dans les habitudes, dans les principes pédagogiques transmis, dans les visions politiques adoptées. Si ceux qui voisinent l’élément marin ne manifestent pas un souci constant de protection, il sera difficile d’exiger une telle attitude de la part des pays sans littoral. En se posant, non avec prétention, mais avec un souci d’universalité et de pérennisation, en exemple à suivre, les pays de la mer dessineront, il faut en faire le pari, les contours d’une posture nouvelle à adopter. Deuxièmement, une constitution marine commune aux 150 pays de la mer devra être pensée. Le fondement d’un tel texte juridique ne serait pas économique ou géopolitique comme l’est la plupart des regroupements actuels de pays (G20, OTAN, MERCOSUR etc.), mais reposerait sur le respect et la permanence de la mer. Interdisciplinaire et transversale, cette constitution se nourrirait de savoirs philosophiques, juridiques, scientifiques, mais aussi de l’imaginaire des artistes et du vécu des hommes de la mer. Une telle constitution marine illustrerait ainsi l’esprit de la phrase du poète caribéen Edward Kamau Brathwaite : « The unity is sub-marine[15]. »

     

    Main Photo by Jeremy Wermeille 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] Si L’Odyssée d’Homère fait partie des premiers écrits sur la mer, le mythe de l’Atlantide illustre peut-être le mieux cette force marine contre laquelle on ne peut rien : l’île d’Atlantide est engloutie par les eaux le jour où ses habitants devinrent corrompus : « En l’espace d’un seul jour et d’une nuit terrible, tout ce que vous aviez de combattants rassemblés fut englouti dans la terre, et l’île Atlantide de même fut engloutie dans la mer et disparut. » Platon, Timée, 25d, Editions Flammarion, 2017.

    [2] Il serait peut-être impossible d’effectuer une liste exhaustive des productions littéraires ayant pour thème la mer tellement elles sont nombreuses. Le Vieil homme et la mer d’Ernest Hemingway (1952) et le poème L’Homme et la mer de Charles Baudelaire (in Les Fleurs du mal, 1857) dont le premier vers, « Homme libre, toujours tu chériras la mer ! », est un hommage exalté, demeurent parmi les plus connus.

    [3] L’immense succès rencontré par le film Les Dents de la mer, réalisé par Steven Spielberg, à sa sortie en 1975 en fera par la suite un classique du cinéma.

    [4] Le documentaire à charge Seaspiracy réalisé en 2021 par Ali Tabizi dénonce les conséquences des actions humaines sur l’élément marin. Malgré certaines critiques concernant la validité de certains faits énoncés, le documentaire a rencontré un important succès.

    [5] Il s’agit de la théorie du « Cogito ergo sum » traduite par « je pense donc je suis », exposée dans le livre 1 des Méditations métaphysiques.

    [6] René Descartes, Discours de la méthode, tome I, sixième partie, Editions Flammarion, coll. GF philo, 2020.

    [7] Ibid.

    [8] Marie-Frédérique Pellegrin dans l’émission « Les Chemins de la philosophie » du 24 février 2021, sur France culture

    [9] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lettres philosophiques, « Lettre XL », in Œuvres complètes, tome 32, 1796

    [10] Hans Jonas, Le Principe de responsabilité, Editions du Cerf, 1979

    [11] Le dernier rapport du GIEC (Groupe d’Experts Intergouvernemental sur l’Evolution du Climat), publié le 9 août 2021, indique une diminution du pH moyen des océans en raison de la dissolution du C02 dans l’eau, la conséquence étant une acidification des océans qui menace de nombreuses espèces de plantons, base de la chaîne alimentaire océanique.

    [12] Ce principe prend modèle sur les impératifs catégoriques du philosophe Emmanuel Kant qui visent à penser une morale universelle et irréfutable.

    [13] “Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities”, par Ransom Myers et Boris Worm, revue Nature N°423

    [15] L’unité est sous-marine.

    How to ensure global debates about inequality are informed by views from developing countries

    By
    Charles Telfair Centre
    -
    0
    Portraying inequality

     

    Imraan Valodia, Dean of the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, and Head of the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

     

    In the last decade inequality has been placed at the centre of the agenda for global social and economic policy. This has been driven in large part by the pioneering work of the British economist Sir Tony Atkinson, French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and the work of sociologists like Goran Therborn.

    All of the key United Nations development targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals are informed by, and have as their key targets, the need to address growing levels of inequality across the globe.

    Global attention on inequality is also informed by a set of issues that have given rise to more virulent right-wing politics in the US, the UK and much of Europe. This is the outcome of growing levels of inequality and high levels of discontent among so-called “blue-collar” workers, and the consequent rise of identity politics.

    But, in our view, debates about inequality have not been sufficiently informed by perspectives from the global South.

    If we are to address inequality across the globe the issue of inequality between countries – and the historical and political factors giving rise to this – cannot be ignored.

    Given this reality, we have identified four main issues that we believe should drive the research agenda in the global South. Notwithstanding the focus across the globe on the issue of inequality, in reality, very little has been achieved to fix the problem. This is most starkly shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exposed massive inequalities across the globe.

    Part of the reason for this is that the realities of inequality in the global South, and the forces driving these patterns, aren’t sufficiently understood. For example, according to the International Labour Organisation in Africa around 85.8% of employment is informal. These workers do not form part of how labour markets are traditionally understood.

    Another big difference is that in much of the global North, fiscal transfers are able to improve inequality outcomes. The global South has limited fiscal scope because it lacks the ability to raise large tax revenues.

    Focus areas

    Based on our insights from setting up the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, and our first four years of research, we have identified four areas that we believe should be at the forefront of the research agenda of academics in the global South.

    We set them out below.

    Technical solutions: These include fiscal transfers. While important, they are not by themselves sufficient to address inequality. What is needed is a fuller understanding of the political, social and economic factors driving the growth in inequality. This includes how these forces may be different in the global South. Inequality is a global problem, but this does not mean its causes are universal. Inequality is in essence an issue of power, which is socially constructed. For this reason, context matters. While inequality is a global problem, its growth is most pronounced and the political, social and economic challenges it poses are most complex and pronounced in the global South.

    Money-metric assessments: One example of these assessments is the Gini coefficient, which measures levels of inequality. These assessments have been useful for measuring inequality but don’t offer useful solutions. Inequality studies and policies need to move away from a preoccupation with these measures. This is important if we are to understand inequality as a violation of human dignity. Here, a multidisciplinary approach is called for if we are to solve the inequality challenge. History, sociology, gender studies, anthropology, philosophy, the natural sciences, and health sciences have as much to contribute as economics.

    It is for this reason for example that UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima will present the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies’ annual Inequality Lecture. Ms Byanyima was previously Executive Director of Oxfam International and director of Gender and Development at the UNDP.

    Differences in capacity: It’s important to understand the differences in the fiscal capacities of countries in the global North and the global South to address inequality. High-income countries can ameliorate somewhat the high levels of inequality because they have high levels of taxation and significant state capacity. But this isn’t possible in much of the global South – at least not to the same extent. This generates complex social and economic challenges which require policy attention.

    Joined at the hip: This points to the need to understand that inequality within countries is inextricably linked with the forces shaping inequality between countries. The problem can’t be solved simply in one geography. Inequality between countries needs to be tackled simultaneously.

    What next

    The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp relief how very differently countries are experiencing the burden of the pandemic.

    The heaviest tolls have been exacted on the most economically marginalised countries. In South Africa, for example, job and income losses have been most pronounced. Low-paid workers, the young and workers in the informal economy and in service sectors have borne a disproportionate burden of job and income losses. Women, who make up a substantial portion of workers in the services economy, have been the hardest hit.

    Countries in the global North have been able to protect their economies from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic through a stimulus package of unprecedented levels. The US stimulus package has been estimated at US$1.9 trillion. Developing and emerging economies, on the other hand, have been thrown into a deep-seated economic crisis due to the pandemic.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted inequality between countries. This is most starkly evident in the way in which access to vaccines has been determined. This is undermining the recovery in both developing and developed countries and points to the need for inequality to be tackled as a global issue, between countries and within countries.

    For all of the excellent academic research on inequality, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that very little has been achieved at the policy level to actually address the challenge and to move to a more equal world. If we are to do that, global policies have to address the realities of how unequal economic and social patterns are across the globe.

    Moreover, the realities of inequality from the perspective of the global South need to inform these policy changes. If we don’t pursue such an ambitious policy agenda, the COVID-19 pandemic will be yet another shock, like the 2008 global financial crisis, that exposes the fragility and inequalities in our economic and social systems, but that we quickly forget about – that is, until the next global shock.

     

    Main Photo by World Bank Photo Collection 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).

    This article is part of a media partnership between the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies’s and The Conversation Africa for its 2021 annual Inequality Lecture, which was presented on Thursday, 30 September. You can watch the full lecture here.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The Scourge of Pesticides Overuse in Mauritius – How Far are we in the Ongoing Ecological Disaster?

    By
    Nitin C. Rughoonauth
    -
    0
    Illustrates pesticides overuse

     

    Nitin Rughoonauth, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Mauritius

     

    Mauritius is the biggest user of pesticides per area of cropland in the world. Given the scarcity of research on the impact of continued overuse of pesticides on the environment and people’s health on the island, it is urgent to raise awareness about the possible implications of this issue so we can find ways to avert a major ecological disaster.  In this article, Nitin Rughoonauth enquires about the environmental and health impact of pesticides overuse in Mauritius and proposes some possible ways forward.  

    The latest report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on global trends in pesticide use puts Mauritius at the top of the list of countries that used the most pesticides in 2018 (see Figure 1), with 2795 kg of pesticides used per kmsq of cropland (the latest 2020 statistics gives a record figure of 3418 kg /sqkm, which is a 22.3% increase over the past 3 years).

    Top 10 countries for pesticides use per area of cropland in 2018.

    Figure 1: Top 10 countries for pesticides use per area of cropland in 2018

    A priori, most of us may not make sense of those figures, but once we realise that this is over 10 times the amount of pesticides utilised per area in France, and that the use of pesticides in Mauritius has increased fivefold[1] over the past half century (see Figure 2), we may begin to understand the extent of the abuse of pesticides in the agricultural sector on the island.

    Agricultural use of pesticides in Mauritius (1971-2020) in kg /  of cropland.

    Figure 2: Agricultural use of pesticides in Mauritius (1971-2020) in kg /kmsq of cropland.

    The Overuse of Pesticides in Agriculture

    Pesticides (which include insecticides, fungicides and herbicides) are agrochemicals that have proved to be extremely useful in fighting pests and diseases. Given the atmospheric and soil conditions in Mauritius as well as the decline in natural defences (itself mainly caused by pesticides), these would have otherwise proliferated and affected our crops, thus putting our food security and economy at risk. The promotion and expansion agricultural practice in Mauritius, together with an almost complete absence of integrated pest management, have meant that pesticides have been used in often unregulated and disproportionate quantities. The first legislative measures to control the use of pesticides in Mauritius were taken in the 1970s with the passing of the Pesticides Control Act . A Pesticide Control Board was set up to regulate the importation, manufacture, sale and distribution of pesticides, as well as to promote safe pest-control practices. However, extensive surveys[2] carried out among local vegetable and fruit producers and reports by local and international authorities[3] have revealed the extent of a misuse and abuse of pesticides over the years.

    Declining Soil Fertility

    The potential economic, environmental and public health impacts of high levels of agrochemical use are well known. Soil fertility may be reduced through the adverse effects of excessive pesticide use on beneficial soil microorganisms as well as by extreme leaching of nutrients. Over the years, planters have tried to remedy this situation by using large amounts of chemical fertilisers to maximise food crop yields (amount of food crops per cultivated area) (see Figure 3) while the soil was being depleted of its natural nutrients.

    Use of fertilisers and food crops yield in Mauritius (1982-2020) in tonnes /.

    Figure 3: Use of fertilisers and food crops yield in Mauritius (1982-2020) in tonnes /kmsq.

    Large increases in use of fertilisers would only contribute to relatively modest increases in food crops yield, which may indicate that cropland has been rendered significantly barren over years due to overuse of pesticides. According to available information, there is, to this day, no facility at the Food and Agricultural Research & Extension Institute for chemical and microbiological analysis of soil to monitor the state of agricultural strata. Over the period 2009-2020, a 49.8% decrease in fertiliser use would in large part account for the 21.3% decline in food crops yield, but the 23.5% increase in pesticide use (see Figure 1) over the same period is intriguing and raises questions about the continued increasing use of pesticides when food crops yield has been decreasing.

    Water and Air Contamination

    Runoffs of pesticides and fertilisers from treated plantations during heavy rains can contaminate our surface and ground water with toxic chemicals. A 2-year monitoring study funded by the Mauritius Research Council found residues of herbicides washed from cropland in ground and surface water, with traces present almost a year after application. It is known that degradation products of such herbicides could be more important contaminants in soil and water environments[4]. This type of study indicates that no fresh water source in Mauritius is sheltered from pollution by pesticides used on cropland[5]. Pesticide sprays can drift or volatilise from treated areas and contaminate the air. A study investigating the presence of 27 pesticides in air samples collected around cropland areas in the region of Réduit between 2010 and 2018 showed the presence of 12 pesticides, some of which are not legally allowed in Mauritius since 2004. It is known that drift can account for substantial loss in the amount of applied chemical, which can spread over a distance of a few metres to several hundred kilometres, and as much as 80-90% of an applied pesticide can be volatilised within a few days of application. The transportation of pesticides in water and air poses a serious environmental risk since it can lead to spread of contamination and loss of biodiversity in Mauritius [6] .

    Inadequate Legislations

    Reports from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agro-Industry had, by 2018, revealed an undeniable overuse of pesticides, which prompted the introduction of the Use of Pesticides Act (UoPA) to regulate levels of pesticide residues in agricultural produce. However, frustratingly, the legislation remains insufficient to effectively address the problem of residues in agricultural produce. In 2019, 20% of the 500 agricultural produce samples collected from farm gates, supermarkets and importers contained residues of pesticides (many of them illegal) in excess of legally allowed maximum residue levels (MRLs). The lists of regulated pesticides are not exhaustive (L’express, 2018a) and the MRLs for these pesticides do not cover all fruits and vegetables, e.g. nearly 40% of imported fruits (apples, pears, kiwifruits, peaches and apricots) are not concerned (L’express, 2018b).

    At present, three legislative acts – the Food Act (FA)  (including the Food Regulations), the Dangerous Chemicals Control Act (DCCA), and the UoPA – are together meant to regulate the importation, processing, production, distribution and use of pesticides. However, the FA and UoPA were passed by different ministries (the Ministry of Health and Wellness (MoHW), and the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security, respectively), and both happen to regulate separate (but not mutually exclusive) lists of pesticides. This may lead to institutional encroachment between the Pesticides Regulatory Office (PRO) (set up under the UoPA) and the MoHW. More worryingly, of the 54 pesticides allowed by the UoPA for use on fresh fruits and vegetables, only 31 are overseen by the DCCA. As such, there is a priori no control on the importation and distribution of the other 23 pesticides, half of which are classified as hazardous), while 17 (of which half are hazardous) are not even inventoried in the FAO Codex Alimentarius[7].

    The DCCA restricts 112 pesticides, but the MRLs of only 54 (about 50%) of those are provided in the UoPA, which is a serious inconsistency.  Even more confusing is the fact that, of the 84 pesticides regulated by the FA, 20 of them are outright prohibited by the DCCA, while 37 are not listed in the Codex. Furthermore, the Guide Agricole, which is published for the benefit of producers, recommends the use of 48 pesticides, of which only 29 are regulated by the UoPA while 11 are neither listed as prohibited/restricted under the DCCA nor regulated by the UoPA. Finally, penalties for similar types of offences under those acts differ. The incongruencies and fragmentation in the regulatory framework need to be addressed urgently if we are to effectively regulate pesticide use in Mauritius.

    There is a real concern about the number of pesticides that are used on certain agricultural produce. This directly and worryingly links with the common practice, by a significant number of producers, of mixing pesticides because they find such “cocktails” more effective in fighting certain pests. The UoPA provides MRLs for a number of pesticides that could be used on a number of fruits and vegetables, but this could easily be construed by planters as encouraging mixing of pesticides. For example, no less than 42 pesticides can be used on tomatoes, 38 on potatoes, 30 on green beans, and 25 on onions, to name a few. The multiplicity of pesticides, together with the widespread tendency of producers to apply pesticides to their crops several times a year and not respect dosages, can lead to serious toxicity risks, to pests developing resistance against pesticides, and the pests’ predators being eliminated, which lead to a greater use of more pesticides. This may explain why the use of pesticides has increased to such an extent over the years (Figure 2).

    Overuse of pesticides and health

    That the indiscriminate use of pesticides is a health hazard is well documented[8]. The accumulated amount of pesticides used in Mauritius over the past half century or more is cause for serious concern for the population[9], given the largely undocumented but prolonged exposure to the cumulative effects of pesticides and their residues, derivatives, and metabolites. The causal link between exposure to certain pesticides and incidence of some forms of cancer is still being studied since it is difficult to control for other possible causes. However, it is possible to establish fairly robust correlations between increase in use of pesticides and the development of some cancers, particularly those of the brain, breast, colon rectum, kidney, prostate, as well as leukemia.

    Correlation coefficients between use of pesticides and age-standardised rates (ASR) of incidence of certain forms of cancer in males and females in Mauritius (Pat et al., 2019) were found (see Figures 4 & 5) for the period 1991 – 2015 (with data for 2020 included). Statistically significant (p<0.05) correlations (see coefficients in parentheses in the chart legends – a coefficient of 1 means perfect correlation) can be seen between use of pesticides and cancers of colon rectum, pancreas, brain, prostate, kidney, and leukemia in males, while in females, these cancer forms are lung, breast, corpus uteri, colon rectum, and leukemia. These suggest connections that seem to corroborate findings from studies and systematic literature reviews on the link between the development of some cancer types and pesticides. The Government acknowledged that the wide use of pesticides needed better monitoring and control as part of a National Cancer Control Programme Action Plan[10] . The latest data shows that Mauritius ranks in the top three in the African region in incidence of cancers of the breast, corpus uteri, colon rectum, and leukaemia. It is urgent that extensive research studies be carried out to explore the possibility of causal relations.

    Cancer incidence (ASR (per 100,000)) & use of pesticides (kg / ) – MALE.

     Figure 4: Cancer incidence (ASR (per 100,000)) & use of pesticides (kg /kmsq) – MALE

    Cancer incidence (ASR (per 100,000)) & use of pesticides (kg / ) - FEMALE.

    Figure 5: Cancer incidence (ASR (per 100,000)) & use of pesticides (kg /kmsq) – FEMALE

     

    A Threat to Food Security

    For decades, pesticide overuse in Mauritius has been the norm. The recent FAO report sets the alarm bells ringing with food safety as a national priority under threat. Here are three proposed ways forward:

    • A review and harmonisation of existing legislations are needed to rationalise and strengthen the judicial and institutional framework that regulates the importation, production, distribution, and use of pesticides in agriculture.
    • Authorities concerned should invest more in training planters in sound agricultural practices and systematically monitor the presence of pesticide residues in agricultural produce.
    • Three years after the promulgation of the UoPA, no Pesticides Code of Practice has been put in place by the PRO, and there seems to be no indication that Mauritian authorities follow guidelines of the FAO and WHO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management[11]. Despite being the signatory of a number of conventions and protocols[12], Mauritius has not respected its engagements. Mauritian authorities need to better honour their commitments and work towards ensuring the systematic implementation, compliance, and effective monitoring of these commitments.

    Ultimately, unless we are able to truly understand what is being used on the food we eat and what goes into the water and air that we drink and breathe, we will not feel safe.

    I dedicate this article to Didine, who so lovingly taught me to be mindful of and care deeply for the environment of this precious island, and the one on which she was born, Rodrigues. 

    Main Photo by Arjun MJ 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] Statistics Mauritius (SM) (1982 – 2020). Digest of Agricultural Statistics. URL: https://bit.ly/3xML7oR

    Statistics Mauritius (SM) (2021). Environment Statistics 2020. URL: https://bit.ly/2VGo6Gz

    [2] Fagoonee, I. (1984). Pertinent aspects of pesticide usage in Mauritius. Insect Science and Its Application, 5(3), 203 – 212. URL: https://bit.ly/3gbFD0X

    Fagoonee, I. (1987). Pesticides practice among vegetable growers in Mauritius. In Management of Pests and Pesticides (pp 175 – 181). CRC Press. URL: https://bit.ly/3iAhPVN

    Le Bellec, F., Scorbiac, M. & Sauzier, J. (2017). Les pratiques phytosanitaires des producteurs de légumes de l’île Maurice: impacts et perspectives de changement. Cahiers Agricultures, 26, 55001. URL: https://bit.ly/3Aydbhu

    [3] World Bank (WB) (1988). Economic development with environmental management strategies for Mauritius. Report no. 7264-MAS. URL: https://bit.ly/3iBUrr5

    Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MoESD) (2011). Mauritius Environment Outlook Report 2011. Government of Mauritius. URL: https://bit.ly/3CCmzSO

    Ministry of Health and Quality of Life (MoHQL) (2014). National chemicals profile of the Republic of Mauritius. URL: https://bit.ly/3yLcfpu

    [4] e.g. see Baluch et al. (1993)

    [5] See Li (2016) for a comparative analysis of the worryingly high maximum allowed concentration levels of pesticides in drinking water in Mauritius

    [6] Safford, R.J. & Jones, C.G. (1997). Did organochlorine pesticide use cause declines in Mauritian forest birds? Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 1445 – 1451. URL: https://bit.ly/3yGiDxZ

    [7] The Codex is an internationally recognised benchmark for food safety standards.

    [8] Sarkar, S., Gil, J.D.B., Keeley, J. & Jansen, K. (2021). The use of pesticides in developing countries and their impact on health and the right to food. European Union. URL: https://bit.ly/3AKMbvb

    [9] Laniece, I. (1995). Pesticide usage and associated health hazards in Mauritius – Descriptive report. URL: https://bit.ly/3AES2SI

    Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MoESD) (2011). Mauritius Environment Outlook Report 2011. Government of Mauritius. URL: https://bit.ly/3CCmzSO

    [10] See also Ministry of Health and Quality of Life (MoHQL). (2009). National Plan of Action for Nutrition (2009 – 2010). URL: https://bit.ly/3D78gpN

    [11] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2021). Codex Alimentarius International Food Standards – Pesticides Index. URL: https://bit.ly/37GuoZq

    Food and Agricultural Organization & World Health Organization (FAO & WHO) (2014). The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. URL: https://bit.ly/3gw5kcq

    [12] e.g. the Rotterdam Convention (since 2005, to multilaterally promote shared responsibilities in relation to importation of hazardous chemicals); the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (since 2001, although Mauritius still consents to import the banned DDT); the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (since 1992); and the Basel Convention (since 2004, to prevent transfer of hazardous waste from developed to less developed countries).

    CALL FOR PAPER SERIES 2022 : Building Back Towards a Resilient and Sustainable Recovery

    By
    Charles Telfair Centre
    -
    0

     

    CALL FOR PAPERS 2022 – DEADLINE 17TH DECEMBER 2021

    Building Back Towards a Resilient and Sustainable Recovery      

    The COVID-19 crisis has been a wake-up call for the planet with a rising consensus on building a post-crisis world that is durable, resilient, and fair. A return to ‘business as usual’ with environmentally destructive and socially divisive economic activities is put into question as the planet is getting closer to a point of no-return. Within that context, Mauritius finds itself in arguably one of the biggest economic crises since the 1980s, with the triple challenge of building back an economy that is sustainable, fair, and innovative within a rapidly evolving regional and global context. The potential is real. Arguably, Mauritius has many assets that could position the country at the forefront of innovative and sustainable recovery solutions aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a parliamentary democracy with an educated multicultural workforce, quality infrastructure, and institutions, an economic history that combined openness, resilience and adaptability and strong international ties with Europe, China, and India. Yet, the challenges are also many: declining governance, stagnating productivity, poor sustainability performance, increased inequality exacerbated by the current crisis, stagnating innovation, rising public debt, and declining institutions.

    The latter is set in a context where global environmental crises could cause social and economic damages far beyond those caused by COVID-19. As such, recovery will require more than getting economies and livelihoods back to previous levels. Recovery policies will need to encompass innovative investments, behavioural changes, and human-centered development models more likely to reduce future shocks and increase resilience.

    Call for Papers

    To address Mauritius and the region’s challenge in their recovery effort our paper series for 2022 accepts articles within our four core themes. The suggested sub-themes below are not prescriptive, and we welcome submissions in any topics related to our four main themes provided they are pertinent to Mauritius and the region (Indian Ocean).

    We support inquiry using diverse kinds of evidence, relying on a variety of methodological approaches (including comparative case studies) and cutting across academic disciplines, as well as practitioners’ projects insofar as they are in line with our editorial guidelines. Articles are in a blog-like format and can be written in French or English.

    Abstract/Pitch submissions will need to reach us by 17th December 2021.  You will need to submit:  

    • An up-to-date CV
    • An abstract/pitch not exceeding 300 words summarising the research questions and key findings.

    The publication of articles will be spread over 12 months in 2022. We invite contributors to read our editorial guidelines, for more information.

    Proposals and enquiries should be sent to ctcentre@telfair.ac.mu

    Background

    The Centre publishes data and evidence on topics relevant to Mauritius and the region’s development prospects. Our articles are in a blog format and we welcome contributions from both researchers and practitioners (private sector, NGO, and government).

    Mauritius and the imperative to safeguard resilience for peace

    By
    Scott M. Weber
    -
    0
    Illustrates peace

     

    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 6th, 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).

    Et maintenant … ? Feuille de route pour une économie mauricienne robuste et autonome

    By
    Jean-Luc Wilain
    -
    0

     

    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 000e 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.

     

    The diet of invasive toads in Mauritius has some rare species on the menu

    By
    Charles Telfair Centre
    -
    0
    Toads

     

    James Baxter-Gilbert, Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for Invasion Biology (C·I·B), Department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University

    The guttural toad (Sclerophrys gutturalis) is a common amphibian found in much of sub-Saharan Africa, from Angola to Kenya and down to eastern South Africa. With such a wide geographic range, and a liking for living in human-disturbed areas, it’s often seen in people’s backyards. Around gardens it can be thought of as a helpful neighbour, as it is a keen predator of insects and other invertebrates that may try to eat plants. Yet it also has the potential to be ecologically hazardous outside its native range – and this toad is an accomplished invader.

    In the Mascarene Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, far from mainland Africa, these toads have been an established invasive species for almost 100 years. In 1922, the director of dock management in Port Louis, Mauritius, deliberately released guttural toads in an attempt to control cane beetles – a pest of the country’s major crop, sugar cane. This attempt at biocontrol failed, but the toads appeared to thrive and rapidly spread across the island.

    Mauritius had no native amphibian species for it to compete with, and no native predators with a recent evolutionary history with toads. In mainland Africa these toads would have to divide resources, like food, with a host of native amphibians and deal with an array of native birds, mammals and snakes that evolved feeding on them. But without these challenges on Mauritius, the toads colonised the entire island rapidly.

    Most toads are generalist predators and hunt a wide variety of prey, more or less eating whatever they can fit in their mouth. So as the guttural toad’s population numbers grew through the decades, so too did the concerns from Mauritian ecologists about the impact on native fauna. Anecdotal accounts as early as the 1930s suggest that the toads were having a negative impact on endemic invertebrate populations. In fact it has been suggested that the toads may have been a driver in the decline, and possible extinction, of endemic carabid beetles and snails.

    But it’s only recently that the toad’s diet in Mauritius has been examined closely. In our new study we examined the stomach contents of 361 toads collected in some of the last remaining native forests of Mauritius.

    By knowing more about what species the toads are eating, and which groups they favour, our research may help inform toad control actions to protect areas with known sensitive species.

    In the belly of the beast

    Through our research we were able to identify almost 3,000 individual prey items, encompassing a wide variety of invertebrates like insects, woodlice, snails, spiders, millipedes and earthworms.

    This research also went one step further to examine the prey preference of the toads. In general, they seemed to favour, some of the more abundant and common prey species. These included ants and woodlice, which made up about two-thirds of their overall diet.

    These findings may suggest that the toads were able to identify a readily available food source, and this may have fuelled their invasive population growth. Yet they are also eating prey that represents a more serious conservation concern.

    Inside the toads we found 13 different species of native snail, most of which were island endemics. Four species are listed as being vulnerable to extinction and one, Omphalotropis plicosa, being critically endangered – having been presumed extinct until it was rediscovered in 2002. Understandably, we found it very troubling to find a “Lazarus species” within the stomach of an invasive predator.

    Unanswered questions

    These early insights into the native species now being hunted by a widespread and voracious predator raise new research questions. To understand the greater impact the toads are having on native species much more work is required to understand their prey’s population dynamics so we can determine if the toad’s invertebrate “harvest” is contributing to declines.

    Furthermore, how does the toad’s invasive diet in Mauritius compare with that of other invasive populations, like those in Réunion or Cape Town – is their invasive success linked to a common prey type? And how does it compare with their diet in their own native species range?

    Our study could only examine what they are eating currently, but Mauritius has seen numerous species decline over the past 100 years. What role did the toad play in these losses? Perhaps they historically fed more readily on creatures that were more abundant in the past, but had to switch their favour to ants and woodlice when the populations of other species dropped. We may never know.

    What is clear is that there is much to learn about the habits of this far-from-home amphibian and its impact on the ecosystems it has invaded.The Conversation

    Main Photo by Christa R. 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).

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    How to put women at the centre of Africa’s food systems

    By
    Charles Telfair Centre
    -
    0
    food systems

     

    Elizabeth Mkandawire, Network and Research Manager: ARUA – UKRI GCRF FSNet Africa, University of Pretoria 

    Melody Mentz-Coetzee, Senior Researcher FSNet-Africa, University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria

    The number of hungry people in the world grew by a staggering 161 million people in 2020 to 811 million. More than one third of these people live in Africa. One of the main reasons for this increase is the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the cost of healthy diets and high levels of income inequality.

    More concerted efforts are needed to address the problem of food security. Empowering women is often said to be the key. In the past, researchers have looked to their specific disciplines to suggest how women could be empowered to improve food security.

    Some have focused on increasing women’s income because women spend more of their income on household nutrition. Others have focused on providing women with nutrition education because women carry the primary responsibility for preparing food.

    While these studies are valuable for improving food security and nutrition, we also need to consider what shapes women’s participation in different aspects of the food system.

    Globally, experts are beginning to recognise that focusing on one aspect of food overlooks the trade-offs or sacrifices people make. For example, women’s economic empowerment may mean that they spend more time on economic activities, and less time preparing food.

    Studies have shown that as a result, many women rely on convenient fast foods to feed their families. This food is typically low in nutritional value.

    The need to look at food in its entirety has put more attention on the concept of food systems. That includes the inputs used to produce food, its production, how it is transported and consumed, and the type of food that people choose to eat.

    While some frameworks exist to describe food systems, we could not find one that considered these issues from a gender perspective. We aimed to develop a framework that could help show how to improve women’s participation in and benefit from all areas of the food system.

    Our study

    Our study enhanced an existing food systems framework by integrating a gender perspective. A food systems framework is a set of things you need to think about when looking for ways to make better food available to more people.

    It helps us understand how things interact – making it easier to see how one intervention might negatively or positively influence another aspect or activity in the system. We chose to work on the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (Glopan) framework because it was user-friendly. Glopan is a global panel of experts on food security and nutrition.

    This framework looks at agricultural production, market and trade systems, people’s ability to buy food, how to transform food, the types of food people are likely to consume and healthy diets. The framework does not integrate gender issues.

    We studied 18 global and pan-African commitments – such as the Sustainable Development Goals and Africa Agenda 2063 – to identify gender policy actions that could be taken in each of the areas of the Glopan food systems.

    We found that generally, there is a consensus in the documents on specific actions that can be taken to advance gender equality in the food system. Our study brings together these policy actions to provide a way of understanding how they fit together and interact.

    We also found that governance and social systems constraints – that are not necessarily part of the food system, but affect men’s and women’s capacity to participate in the food system – need to be addressed.

    For example, maternity leave policies are important to ensure that women can work without experiencing discrimination or pay cuts. Paternity leave is also important to challenge the idea that only women are responsible for child care.

    We developed an enhanced framework that helps policy makers identify how gender can be integrated into parts of the food system.

    An enhanced framework

    The framework we developed is an initial step to understanding the interactions between existing policies and the potential trade-offs. For example, improving women’s access to markets might have implications for the amount of time they can spend at home. Limited time spent at home may reduce breastfeeding – which is critically important for children’s health. Policy makers might consider building daycare facilities close to markets to support women to breastfeed.

    Many of the policy options proposed in our study are consistent with study findings across African agriculture and nutrition research. These show that women face constraints in access to land, services and markets.

    Our framework proposes several priority actions for policymakers:

    • Improving women’s access to markets and trade systems. An example would be daycare facilities near markets.
    • Improving women’s social protection. Social grants or food parcels are examples.
    • Improving women’s access to nutritious food. This makes an important difference to maternal and child health, particularly during pregnancy.

    Unlocking food security

    One challenge our study identified was that globally, policies still overemphasise the role of women in agricultural production and diets. Their role in markets, consumer demand and consumer purchasing power is not as highly prioritised.

    Women’s access to resources and services is also overemphasised, overlooking issues of control. For example, policies may promote women’s access to agricultural technologies. But cultural restrictions prevent women from using these technologies.

    Eliminating hunger will require that research and policies empower women to participate effectively in the food system. Research or policies that focus on one discipline will not suffice to achieve this goal. It’s also essential to understand what gender policy actions can be taken.

    Main photo by EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid 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).The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    A Blue Economy Sustainable Future for Mauritius?

    By
    Adam Moolna
    -
    0

     

    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).

    1...131415...21Page 14 of 21